Is Star Trek Dead?

Deslok · 10-02-2003, 05:33 PM

Is STAR TREK dead? I say no. Look at the chatter still going on about it, even now that the production values have improved. I can't see the point of getting so worked up about it one way or the other anymore. I enjoy it, and that's good enough for me. Why, because I'm a Trekkie, that's why. Some shows within the franchise have had a better track record than others, but they have all suffered from bad writing and direction from time to time, just like any other show. And if anyone thinks that the rest of television is perfect, they're sadly deluded.

What I think the problem is, is that the audience is simply too sophisticated and intelligent for B&B to keep up with. We are consumers, B&B are on the production end, and the big problem there is that they're not hungry neophytes anymore. They've made more than enough cash to retire on. There can be no spark of vision when there's nothing to drive you to find vision, I mean real vision, not imaginary vision. Real vision is what inspired Gene Roddenberry to create STAR TREK in the first place. Rick Berman didn't have to peddle a vastly different idea to network executives, and I doubt he could. For it's time STAR TREK was revolutionary. Of course, B&B both not having been fans of STAR TREK, how could they ever relate to the phenomenon like we do? Clearly they don't.

So, ENTERPRISE is what it is. I'm going to have to be a Beanist on this point. I enjoy the show for what it is, and if they ever do better, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I simply cannot invest too much emotion into whether it's going to live up to my perfect ideal of what it should be, I know that it could never measure up.

STAR TREK lives, despite the glee in the tone of those who continue to bash it for things that are really more of a matter of preference than a real critique of style. Yes, I agree that I think that there is room for a TON of improvements, but I really don't care to the extent that I'm willling to develop an ulcer over a fucking TV show! It's too bad that things are the way they are, but really... things could be much worse.

Arik · 10-03-2003, 01:18 AM

No, it's not dead. Cheers isn't dead. All in the Family isn't dead. M*A*S*H isn't dead. Star Trek won't die soon either.

Quote:

STAR TREK lives, despite the glee in the tone of those who continue to bash it for things that are really more of a matter of preference than a real critique of style.

Is this aimed at me? I continue to dislike this show because they still haven't fixed what was wrong with the first two seasons. If you think they have, then apparently we both thought different things were wrong with the first couple of seasons. It's not the show's style, it's the show's mechanics that I think is still bad.

Deslok · 10-03-2003, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arik Peterson@Oct 2 2003, 09:18 PM
Is this aimed at me? I continue to dislike this show because they still haven't fixed what was wrong with the first two seasons. If you think they have, then apparently we both thought different things were wrong with the first couple of seasons. It's not the show's style, it's the show's mechanics that I think is still bad.

Wow, I don't know where you're getting the impression that I'm aiming anything at you. Now I see a little more clearly what prompted you to reply to me as you did on TW, but it still remains a mystery to me how you think I'm aiming any of my comments at you. It's a general commentary and I wasn't thinking of anyone from the AB whatsoever.

If I have an issue with you, I will identify it as such. To date, I have never had an issue with you that I'm aware of.

What the hell is it about my comments that has you thinking that I'm directing any of what I've said above at you?

Arik · 10-03-2003, 06:12 AM

I'm a paranoid narcicist.

No, I was just wondering, because it seemed to continue a line of conversation from TW. Nothing more.

Cujo · 10-03-2003, 02:50 PM

Nope... "Star Trek" isn't dead, but Enterprise was just put on life support by Smallville.

OK, an overstatement? Maybe and we really won't know how big of an advantage Smallville has over Enterprise until Smallville's third episode. (you typically get larger audiences for premieres)

While I actually enjoy Enterprise 3.0 more than the first two seasons, I still choose to watch Smallville instead. I can't bring myself to actually care what happens to the crew of this series. Nor do I care to watch the same plots over & over. Whether it be rehashed stories from the previous incarnations or watch Archer & Trip get captured every two weeks. In comparision, Smallville & Angel for that matter have interesting characters that I care about and plots/storylines that are most of the time fresh & interesting.

If it wasn't for digital cable or the internet, I'd never watch an episode of Enterprise.

Bean · 10-04-2003, 04:36 AM

I think this is pitiful. The same people that moaned and complained that ENT was crap and the producers don't listen to the fans, are now completley ignoring the blatantly obvious changes that they;ve made for US!

Let's face it guys, they actually had to sit down and listen to what the bashers and whiners (and yes I include myself in that category) wanted. And guess what.. for the first time in history, B&B gave the fans what they wanted. We wanted a death onboard, we got it. We wanted Archer with balls, we got him. We wanted serialization, we got it in spades.

What is the problem? I don't mean to say that it's surpassed my hopes and become the best Trek ever, and I don't mean to say that you guys are being jerks, but c'mon..

Even the T'pol/Trip thing.. It may be "sensual" but at least it's giving us some character development.

I have to say, I've been one of the biggest ENT and B&B bashers at the bar, but I will give credit where credit is due. ENT is starting to make a turnaround, and what I've seen so far is worthy of ackowledgment. After all, they're ackowledging us by making the changes they've made, should we not at least give it a chance?

The Lensman · 10-04-2003, 07:43 AM

Have to agree with you there Bean. The show is far from perfect, but for the first time ever, I'm actually trying to be in front of a t.v. watching Ent on Wed's. The show has developed some scope to it. The only nit's I have with Expanse so far, is:

1. Space in the expanse doesn't sound as exotic or as alien as they made it out to be. Of course it's still early, and the Vulcan ep next week may make me rethink this a bit.

2. Things seem to be going just a little too quickly. We already know how to protect the ship, and we already know what's causing the anomolies in the Expanse. Sadly, it's safe to say that the sphere's will probably be destroyed, eliminating anything anomolous about the Expanse. But hopefully, any explanations behind the originators of the sphere's will tie into "Star Trek" continuity. Like maybe the Preservers created the spheres.

(Getting up on a soapbox and a tangent here.....)

One thing that really pisses me off is how simple it is to tie Trek into the original, but often ignored. For example, there was an Ent some time ago that had a ship getting attacked by pirates. Originally, these pirates were going to be called "Orion", but they were changed to something else. Why? IRCC, the aliens were never even shown, mayber their ships, but I think they were just mentioned. So they had a cool moment where they could've tied Ent into "Star Trek", but didnt'.

DS9 actually a couple of obscure planets names a couple of times. Sometimes I didnt' recognize it, until I read the Encyclopedia later.

Often in DS9 or Voy, you'd see Bashir and O'Brien, or Paris and Kim, recently out of a holodeck. Sometimes, you'd see certain outfits for awhile before they tried a new program. I wish one of the shows would've had the characters in the original Star Trek outfits, and just have one of them comment on the holo-adventure, which would've been something from an ep of "Star Trek".

Sure, I know each show tried to establish an identity. But by the time Voyager came around, we were all, like, "We get it." We understand that each show is separate, but the longer something goes, the more important it is to tie it all together. TNG rarely referenced ST. DS9 did more to tie it together. Voy had a few references, but they were the usual Enterprise cast one, not the more subtle ones.

Would people probably have been screaming for a ST holodeck adventure? Sure. On board the Enterprise? Oh yeah. But they could've ignored those folks, and presented us something like....Arena, with Paris as Kirk. Frankly, I got tired that everyone's holodeck prgrams seemed to be the 20th century or earlier. You'd think that most people in the 24th century would be more familiar with relatively recent events and prefer to go only so far back.

Anyhow, just showing a couple of guys in old uniforms talking about an original ep wouldn've been cool as shit.

Arik · 10-06-2003, 12:23 AM

The changes they've made are visceral. Archer may have balls, but he's still a one-dimensional character. The stories are so poorly thought out that it's not even funny. The Trip-T'Pol thing isn't sensual, it's forced and it's uninteresting.

Bean · 10-06-2003, 12:40 AM

Like I said, I'm no tryying to paint it as the best thing ever, ut there are changes that I think are more than visceral.

I mean, take the serialization for example. That's the one singlemost thing that B&B have been opposed to since VOY. And they've finally given up on fighting it. You can't honestly tell me that it doesn't deserve some ackowledgement. Even if they still can't do it right, at least they're trying to.

Arik · 10-06-2003, 01:02 AM

The serialization is just visceral, too. In the next episode, when they do their "remember when we got this information last week, well let's do this with it" moment, imagine Forest telling Archer to go do it.

Once again, they're paying lip service to what people want rather than actually doing it.

10-02-2003, 05:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
Deslok regruntled and reemployed Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: in front of the computer Posts: 1,221	Is STAR TREK dead? I say no. Look at the chatter still going on about it, even now that the production values have improved. I can't see the point of getting so worked up about it one way or the other anymore. I enjoy it, and that's good enough for me. Why, because I'm a Trekkie, that's why. Some shows within the franchise have had a better track record than others, but they have all suffered from bad writing and direction from time to time, just like any other show. And if anyone thinks that the rest of television is perfect, they're sadly deluded. What I think the problem is, is that the audience is simply too sophisticated and intelligent for B&B to keep up with. We are consumers, B&B are on the production end, and the big problem there is that they're not hungry neophytes anymore. They've made more than enough cash to retire on. There can be no spark of vision when there's nothing to drive you to find vision, I mean real vision, not imaginary vision. Real vision is what inspired Gene Roddenberry to create STAR TREK in the first place. Rick Berman didn't have to peddle a vastly different idea to network executives, and I doubt he could. For it's time STAR TREK was revolutionary. Of course, B&B both not having been fans of STAR TREK, how could they ever relate to the phenomenon like we do? Clearly they don't. So, ENTERPRISE is what it is. I'm going to have to be a Beanist on this point. I enjoy the show for what it is, and if they ever do better, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I simply cannot invest too much emotion into whether it's going to live up to my perfect ideal of what it should be, I know that it could never measure up. STAR TREK lives, despite the glee in the tone of those who continue to bash it for things that are really more of a matter of preference than a real critique of style. Yes, I agree that I think that there is room for a TON of improvements, but I really don't care to the extent that I'm willling to develop an ulcer over a fucking TV show! It's too bad that things are the way they are, but really... things could be much worse. __________________

10-03-2003, 06:12 AM	#4 (permalink)
Arik Astro-Monkey Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Here, dumbfuck! Posts: 2,304	I'm a paranoid narcicist. No, I was just wondering, because it seemed to continue a line of conversation from TW. Nothing more. __________________ The writers of this post apologize for you being too stupid to understand it.

10-03-2003, 02:50 PM	#5 (permalink)
Cujo Lover AND a Fighter Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: Canada eh! Posts: 758	Nope... "Star Trek" isn't dead, but Enterprise was just put on life support by Smallville. OK, an overstatement? Maybe and we really won't know how big of an advantage Smallville has over Enterprise until Smallville's third episode. (you typically get larger audiences for premieres) While I actually enjoy Enterprise 3.0 more than the first two seasons, I still choose to watch Smallville instead. I can't bring myself to actually care what happens to the crew of this series. Nor do I care to watch the same plots over & over. Whether it be rehashed stories from the previous incarnations or watch Archer & Trip get captured every two weeks. In comparision, Smallville & Angel for that matter have interesting characters that I care about and plots/storylines that are most of the time fresh & interesting. If it wasn't for digital cable or the internet, I'd never watch an episode of Enterprise. __________________

10-04-2003, 04:36 AM	#6 (permalink)
Bean The Awesome One Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: Canada eh! Posts: 5,055	I think this is pitiful. The same people that moaned and complained that ENT was crap and the producers don't listen to the fans, are now completley ignoring the blatantly obvious changes that they;ve made for US! Let's face it guys, they actually had to sit down and listen to what the bashers and whiners (and yes I include myself in that category) wanted. And guess what.. for the first time in history, B&B gave the fans what they wanted. We wanted a death onboard, we got it. We wanted Archer with balls, we got him. We wanted serialization, we got it in spades. What is the problem? I don't mean to say that it's surpassed my hopes and become the best Trek ever, and I don't mean to say that you guys are being jerks, but c'mon.. Even the T'pol/Trip thing.. It may be "sensual" but at least it's giving us some character development. I have to say, I've been one of the biggest ENT and B&B bashers at the bar, but I will give credit where credit is due. ENT is starting to make a turnaround, and what I've seen so far is worthy of ackowledgment. After all, they're ackowledging us by making the changes they've made, should we not at least give it a chance? __________________ "I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I've tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing." --James T. Kirk

10-04-2003, 07:43 AM	#7 (permalink)
The Lensman The Original Patron Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: Earth, Sol, Milky Way Posts: 269	Have to agree with you there Bean. The show is far from perfect, but for the first time ever, I'm actually trying to be in front of a t.v. watching Ent on Wed's. The show has developed some scope to it. The only nit's I have with Expanse so far, is: 1. Space in the expanse doesn't sound as exotic or as alien as they made it out to be. Of course it's still early, and the Vulcan ep next week may make me rethink this a bit. 2. Things seem to be going just a little too quickly. We already know how to protect the ship, and we already know what's causing the anomolies in the Expanse. Sadly, it's safe to say that the sphere's will probably be destroyed, eliminating anything anomolous about the Expanse. But hopefully, any explanations behind the originators of the sphere's will tie into "Star Trek" continuity. Like maybe the Preservers created the spheres. (Getting up on a soapbox and a tangent here.....) One thing that really pisses me off is how simple it is to tie Trek into the original, but often ignored. For example, there was an Ent some time ago that had a ship getting attacked by pirates. Originally, these pirates were going to be called "Orion", but they were changed to something else. Why? IRCC, the aliens were never even shown, mayber their ships, but I think they were just mentioned. So they had a cool moment where they could've tied Ent into "Star Trek", but didnt'. DS9 actually a couple of obscure planets names a couple of times. Sometimes I didnt' recognize it, until I read the Encyclopedia later. Often in DS9 or Voy, you'd see Bashir and O'Brien, or Paris and Kim, recently out of a holodeck. Sometimes, you'd see certain outfits for awhile before they tried a new program. I wish one of the shows would've had the characters in the original Star Trek outfits, and just have one of them comment on the holo-adventure, which would've been something from an ep of "Star Trek". Sure, I know each show tried to establish an identity. But by the time Voyager came around, we were all, like, "We get it." We understand that each show is separate, but the longer something goes, the more important it is to tie it all together. TNG rarely referenced ST. DS9 did more to tie it together. Voy had a few references, but they were the usual Enterprise cast one, not the more subtle ones. Would people probably have been screaming for a ST holodeck adventure? Sure. On board the Enterprise? Oh yeah. But they could've ignored those folks, and presented us something like....Arena, with Paris as Kirk. Frankly, I got tired that everyone's holodeck prgrams seemed to be the 20th century or earlier. You'd think that most people in the 24th century would be more familiar with relatively recent events and prefer to go only so far back. Anyhow, just showing a couple of guys in old uniforms talking about an original ep wouldn've been cool as shit. __________________ Everyone Booze Up And Riot!!! Milk and Cheese

10-06-2003, 12:23 AM	#8 (permalink)
Arik Astro-Monkey Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Here, dumbfuck! Posts: 2,304	The changes they've made are visceral. Archer may have balls, but he's still a one-dimensional character. The stories are so poorly thought out that it's not even funny. The Trip-T'Pol thing isn't sensual, it's forced and it's uninteresting. __________________ The writers of this post apologize for you being too stupid to understand it.

10-06-2003, 12:40 AM	#9 (permalink)
Bean The Awesome One Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: Canada eh! Posts: 5,055	Like I said, I'm no tryying to paint it as the best thing ever, ut there are changes that I think are more than visceral. I mean, take the serialization for example. That's the one singlemost thing that B&B have been opposed to since VOY. And they've finally given up on fighting it. You can't honestly tell me that it doesn't deserve some ackowledgement. Even if they still can't do it right, at least they're trying to. __________________ "I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I've tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing." --James T. Kirk

10-06-2003, 01:02 AM	#10 (permalink)
Arik Astro-Monkey Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Here, dumbfuck! Posts: 2,304	The serialization is just visceral, too. In the next episode, when they do their "remember when we got this information last week, well let's do this with it" moment, imagine Forest telling Archer to go do it. Once again, they're paying lip service to what people want rather than actually doing it. __________________ The writers of this post apologize for you being too stupid to understand it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode