UPN Cancels Enterprise!
Thunder, Agent '005
"UPN Cancels Enterprise
UPN and Paramount Network Television jointly announced Feb. 2 that its
low-rated Star Trek: Enterprise has been canceled after five seasons.
"This will be the final season of Star Trek: Enterprise on UPN," the
companies said. The series finale will air on May 13. When Star Trek:
Enterprise ends its run, it will mark the first time since 1987 that no
new Trek series will appear on the air.
Enterprise becomes the first Trek series to end prematurely since the
original Star Trek aired on NBC in the 1960s. All previous Trek spinoff
series, including The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager, have
completed seven-season runs.
This year, new executive producer Manny Coto re-energized Enterprise's
storylines with episodes that hearkened back to the original series.
Last year, the series attempted an ambitious season-long story arc
centering on the hunt for the Xindi.
UPN said that the prequel series will have produced a total of 98
episodes. The early cancellation announcement presumably allows
producers to write and produce a series finale. "
--
This sucks! I actually liked the series this year... they let crap like
Voyager go on for seven painfully long and dull seasons but axe this
show when it starts to get good! Maybe Berman held on to it just long
enough to drive the audience away and then tossed it to Coto when he
realized his job was safe...
t.k.
Methuselah Jones
Thunder, Agent '005 of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
> From Sci-Fi Wire...
>
> "UPN Cancels Enterprise
So they milked the teat for all it was worth and it finally ran dry. The
Great Bird can finally rest in peace as they stop trampling on his grave.
--
Methuselah
"Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than
looking."
-- Goethe
Laura Appelbaum
able to generate for itself in years.
No loss to anyone, really, except perhaps Scott Bakula, but then his
performances in the series pretty much warrented the death of his career.
LMA
Den
news:Q4bMd.253001$8l.244778@pd7tw1no:
> UPN said that the prequel series will have produced a total of 98
> episodes. The early cancellation announcement presumably allows
> producers to write and produce a series finale. "
>
Im curious if a replacement is in the works. If the stories are good
they could make a series set much further into the future. They already
set up one with the big conflict with the ones were that were
manipulating the Xindi. Its going to be a bit familiar but its a good
set up for a long story that might climax in that battle that
whathisname said was the largest ever fought, or maybe a bit later. If
such a show was written by good writers, it would be worth seeing.
Also... if I were them... I would rather go out with a bang than a
wimper.
Thunder, Agent '005
>
> Im curious if a replacement is in the works.
According to a follow-up by Berman, they currently have no plans to do
another ST show.
I'm disappointed Enterprise is done. I'm *not* saying it was anywhere
near as good as Babylon 5 but it did go from "putrid and predictable" to
"watchable and almost good" in my book.
If Enterprise is indeed finished then I hope they let ST die for a few
years. (Its inevitable that someone will come along and want to make a
new show sooner or later but at least give it a rest for a while).
t.k.
Methuselah Jones
Thunder, Agent '005 of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
> Den wrote:
>
>> Im curious if a replacement is in the works.
>
> If Enterprise is indeed finished then I hope they let ST die for a few
> years. (Its inevitable that someone will come along and want to make a
> new show sooner or later but at least give it a rest for a while).
My thoughts exactly. If there's going to be another Trek show, step back,
take a breather and let it rest for a few years. Like, after Berman and
Braga are dead.
--
Methuselah
"Life is good for only two things, discovering mathematics and teaching
mathematics."
-- Siméon Poisson
Thunder, Agent '005
let Berman/Braga anywhere near it. Get somebody competent! :)
t.k.
Vorlonagent
"Methuselah Jones" <methu...@altgeek.org> wrote in message
news:Xns95F2537AE5F9Eme...@216.196.97.131...
> Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of
> Thunder, Agent '005 of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>
> > From Sci-Fi Wire...
> >
> > "UPN Cancels Enterprise
>
> So they milked the teat for all it was worth and it finally ran dry. The
> Great Bird can finally rest in peace as they stop trampling on his grave.
Go back and watch the first season of Next Generation sometime. You'll find
a disturbing similarity to Enterprise.
What happened is that the Franchise never matured beyond Season 3 of TNG.
Episodes in Later seasons of TNG did show improvement and DS9's
Shad...Dominion War was very well-done, but the characters always remained
shallow and their relationships "adolescent" in nature, with the captain
always as the parental figure. Their experiences never really changed them.
Events past (including Classic Trek) was merely a plot-point to be
forgotten, recalled or changed according to current convienence.
Roddenberry *inflicted* this Trek on us. Like George Lucas, he warped his
own creation according to some agenda we here can only guess at. Rick
Berman's role was to lock Trek into Roddenberry's warped vision as a
"Formula" that blocked any meaningful, lasting change or growth.
Finally--FINALLY, time has caught up with Trek.
On reflection, I might have been more sorry if Trek had died earlier. I
would hate for the Suits to conclude that "sci-fi just doesn't sell
anymore". But with the New Battlestar Galactica doing well, along with
Stargate SG-1 and a few others, they can only *fool* themselves into
thinking that. Other SF shows are making plenty of money. Why isn't Trek?
Heck, with the popularity of net-based indie-Trek efforts out there, it's
hard to even fool yourself into thinking that "people just didn't like Trek
anymore". They do. Just not the crap being passed off as "Trek" by Berman
and Braga.
No, Trek died exactly when it should have...when it was as clear as it ever
could be that its death was self-afflicted. (grammar note: I am using
"afflicted" intentionally)
Farewell Trek. Sorry your actors and crew will soon be out of work.
May your next incarnation have someone who loves you in command.
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to
fit their views
....which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
needs altering."
-The Doctor
Robert
> low-rated Star Trek: Enterprise has been canceled after five seasons.
If this had occured during season 2 or 3, I wouldn't have cared. But with
the hiring of Manny Cotto, the show has finally found its footing. This
season has been excellent; it has been everything that was originally
promised. Manny was full of great ideas, and led the writing crew to new
heights. In fact, this season was much better than half of ST:Voyager, and
half of ST:DS9. Cancelling it now, just as it began to glow brightly, is a
real shame.
Shalom,
Robert
Chris Kocher
> I'm disappointed Enterprise is done. I'm *not* saying it was anywhere
> near as good as Babylon 5 but it did go from "putrid and predictable" to
> "watchable and almost good" in my book.
This season really is the best one... finally the series figured out
what it wanted to do. A shame it took so long, after so many people have
already given it up for dead.
What worries me more is how this will affect future sci-fi series. Now
it'll be an easy "out" for TV execs to say, "If a big name like 'Star
Trek' can't make sci-fi viable, why should we bother with your series?"
Chris
Gregory Weston
"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> From Sci-Fi Wire...
>
>
> "UPN Cancels Enterprise
>
> UPN and Paramount Network Television jointly announced Feb. 2 that its
> low-rated Star Trek: Enterprise has been canceled after five seasons.
But...this is season 4.
Pity. Enterprise started weak, but had gotten progressively better IMO.
Possibly one of the biggest problems it had finding an audience was that
while it was (again IMO) a good show it's wasn't necessarily "good
Trek." I know a lot of people seemed to decide early on that it had
violated canon - such as it is in the Trek universe - and thus had no
business existing.
G
--
Change account to gw when responding by mail.
Wesley Struebing
<j...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>"Methuselah Jones" <methu...@altgeek.org> wrote in message
>news:Xns95F2537AE5F9Eme...@216.196.97.131...
>> Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of
>> Thunder, Agent '005 of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>>
>> > From Sci-Fi Wire...
>> >
>> > "UPN Cancels Enterprise
>>
>> So they milked the teat for all it was worth and it finally ran dry. The
>> Great Bird can finally rest in peace as they stop trampling on his grave.
>
>Go back and watch the first season of Next Generation sometime. You'll find
>a disturbing similarity to Enterprise.
>
>What happened is that the Franchise never matured beyond Season 3 of TNG.
>Episodes in Later seasons of TNG did show improvement and DS9's
>Shad...Dominion War was very well-done, but the characters always remained
>shallow and their relationships "adolescent" in nature, with the captain
>always as the parental figure. Their experiences never really changed them.
>Events past (including Classic Trek) was merely a plot-point to be
>forgotten, recalled or changed according to current convienence.
>
>Roddenberry *inflicted* this Trek on us. Like George Lucas, he warped his
>own creation according to some agenda we here can only guess at. Rick
>Berman's role was to lock Trek into Roddenberry's warped vision as a
>"Formula" that blocked any meaningful, lasting change or growth.
>
>Finally--FINALLY, time has caught up with Trek.
And I wish it would FINALLY catch up with "Herc in SP...." err,
"Andromeda"...
>
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Vorlonagent
"Wesley Struebing" <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote in message
news:sol5019i7c1d9aiog...@4ax.com...
> And I wish it would FINALLY catch up with "Herc in SP...." err,
> "Andromeda"...
Don't worry, Wes.
It will.
To be honest, I didn't know it was still in production. I wrote it off as
the usual, shallow Hollywood sf fare years ago.
krueg...@hotmail.com
really showed promise. It's too bad the show couldn't have started out
like it was this season.
Too little, too late, I guess. It's a shame. Just like Voyager, it
really was a premise with promise. Then, something happened. ???
Mac Breck
news:Q4bMd.253001$8l.244778@pd7tw1no...
> From Sci-Fi Wire...
>
>
> "UPN Cancels Enterprise
> UPN said that the prequel series will have produced a total of 98
> episodes.
Don't they need 100 episodes for syndication?
> This sucks! I actually liked the series this year... they let crap
like
> Voyager go on for seven painfully long and dull seasons but axe this
> show when it starts to get good!
An almost FOX-like (the network, not the studio) tease.
> Maybe Berman
Any connection to Gail Berman?
> held on to it just long
> enough to drive the audience away
Don't forget the other "B" ...Braga.
> and then tossed it to Coto when he
> realized his job was safe...
Or so Coto gets remembered as the one on whose watch ST failed?
--
Mac Breck (KoshN) - from the desktop PC
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Gideon: I thought you said you don't hold a grudge.
Galen: I don't. I have no surviving enemies... at all.
Mac Breck
news:-cGdnUjtXol...@sti.net...
>
> "Wesley Struebing" <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote in message
> news:sol5019i7c1d9aiog...@4ax.com...
>
> > And I wish it would FINALLY catch up with "Herc in SP...." err,
> > "Andromeda"...
>
> Don't worry, Wes.
>
> It will.
It has.
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/cgi/gofuton.cgi?action=showatch&network=all&status=1
status: canceled series (2004-2005 season)
andromeda (sci_fi)
...
--
Mac Breck (KoshN) - from the desktop PC
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Gideon: I thought you said you don't hold a grudge.
Galen: I don't. I have no surviving enemies... at all.
"Brimstone" (1998)
The Devil: Nobody beats the Devil. Are you listening? Did you hear what
I said, Mr. Stone? Nobody beats the Devil.
Ezekiel Stone: So you keep telling me. <enjoying his Reggie Bar> Go to
Hell...<smiles and pushes the Down button on the elevator> ...please.
Pelzo63
<< Don't they need 100 episodes for syndication?>>
i'm pretty sure that 100 is just the generally accepted "milestone #" for best
chance sale of the reruns. i doubt that a lack of 2 episodes is going to
seriously hamper any rerun sales(if they make the finale a 2 hour episode, then
they WOULD have 100 episodes for reruns, IIRC the opener was 2 hours, so that's
2 more "episodes" for reruns).
but none of that matters anyways, again IIRC, Spike TV bought the reruns rights
to the entire franchise a few years ago, with a planned rollout of each set.
with all that said....
Viacom(UPN, Spike, MTV*, CBS et al) is undergoing major changes in programming
philosophy. they recently(last week) put the guy who was in charge of comedy
central(one of their channels) in charge of the company's general programming.
this very may well have been the straw that broke enterprises back. supposedly
they want UPN to be a more "adult" channel(not adult-oriented), more along the
lines of the old-3 networks. as opposed to the "hip young" crowd that fox, wb
and themselves have previously tried to court. they also are saying the same
about spike tv, based on the success of the CSI reruns in ratings. how this
effects the trek franchise reruns, i do not know, but i have rarely seen any
trek reruns in recent months on spike tv.
*they're also re-branding MTV2 and claiming to go back to "mostly videos"
moral of the post, if you like something on a viacom channel(other than CC),
and it's NOT doing stellar ratings, look out. for example, despite wwe
smackdown and wwe raw being the highest rated shows on UPN and spike tv
respectively, Moonves(CBS exec of some import) is playing hardball in
negotiating their next broadcasting contract.
...Chris
People like you make me want to access your brain, and type rm -r -f /
Matt Ion
>>UPN said that the prequel series will have produced a total of 98
>>episodes.
>
> --
>
> Don't they need 100 episodes for syndication?
ST:TOS didn't...
Thunder, Agent '005
but now they're talking about the series finale ep to wrap it up. So, is
there going to be one final one produced to wrap it, are they scrapping
the last ep and redoing it as a finale (I don't see how) or is the final
ep shot just going to unceremoniously be the last one?
t.k.
Thunder, Agent '005
t.k.
Wendy of NJ
<j...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>"Methuselah Jones" <methu...@altgeek.org> wrote in message
>news:Xns95F2537AE5F9Eme...@216.196.97.131...
>> Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of
>> Thunder, Agent '005 of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>>
>> > From Sci-Fi Wire...
>> >
>> > "UPN Cancels Enterprise
>>
>> So they milked the teat for all it was worth and it finally ran dry. The
>> Great Bird can finally rest in peace as they stop trampling on his grave.
>
>Go back and watch the first season of Next Generation sometime. You'll find
>a disturbing similarity to Enterprise.
>
>What happened is that the Franchise never matured beyond Season 3 of TNG.
>Episodes in Later seasons of TNG did show improvement and DS9's
>Shad...Dominion War was very well-done, but the characters always remained
>shallow and their relationships "adolescent" in nature, with the captain
>always as the parental figure. Their experiences never really changed them.
>Events past (including Classic Trek) was merely a plot-point to be
>forgotten, recalled or changed according to current convienence.
That's not exactly true. Some of the characters in TNG did carry over
experiences - off the top of my head, Picard changed after he
experienced that "lifetime" from the space probe of the deceased
people/planet (where he learned to play the pennywhistle, and learned
to love children - if you recall, he really didn't care for them at
the beginning of the show).
Maj Kira changes significantly (in her views of Cardassians) over the
course of DS9.
Even so, I can't work myself up over the cancellation of this series.
Although I've been enjoying Jeffrey Combs as the Andorian captian.
-Wendy
Methuselah Jones
> "Methuselah Jones" <methu...@altgeek.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns95F2537AE5F9Eme...@216.196.97.131...
>> Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of
>> Thunder, Agent '005 of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>>
>> > From Sci-Fi Wire...
>> >
>> > "UPN Cancels Enterprise
>>
>> So they milked the teat for all it was worth and it finally ran dry.
>> The Great Bird can finally rest in peace as they stop trampling on
>> his grave.
>
> Go back and watch the first season of Next Generation sometime.
> You'll find a disturbing similarity to Enterprise.
>
> What happened is that the Franchise never matured beyond Season 3 of
> TNG. Episodes in Later seasons of TNG did show improvement and DS9's
> Shad...Dominion War was very well-done, but the characters always
> remained shallow and their relationships "adolescent" in nature, with
> the captain always as the parental figure. Their experiences never
> really changed them. Events past (including Classic Trek) was merely a
> plot-point to be forgotten, recalled or changed according to current
> convienence.
>
> Roddenberry *inflicted* this Trek on us. Like George Lucas, he warped
> his own creation according to some agenda we here can only guess at.
> Rick Berman's role was to lock Trek into Roddenberry's warped vision
> as a "Formula" that blocked any meaningful, lasting change or growth.
Well, this isn't entirely fair. TNG and DS9 characters did develop, for
one thing. Granted, no Trek has had the continuity of B5, but then no
American show ever has (apart from soaps, of course). I honestly used to
wonder if it was forbidden in the TV Writer's Code or something. TNG was
the first American show I can think of to use any real continuity, and I
remember being particularly delighted with that aspect.
I'm not saying Trek canon is a flawless, consistent piece of work. There
are many inconsistencies, some quite substantial. Watch "The Cage" and
you'll see Spock laughing, and not under the influence of any demigod or
alien spore. Any TV show that's ever been made has had its quirks and
jumps at first. B5 had the advantage of having its canon worked out in
advance, but even then there are some plot holes, minor though they be.
Yes, Rodenberry himself introduced many of the inconsistencies, by
continuing to tweak and develop the show as it went along. And yes, some
of that even continued through TNG and DS9*, but there was at least
sincere effort to develop and adhere to canon, something which was
virtually unheard of in TV shows before Trek (yes, I know about writers'
bibles for shows, but that's not quite the same thing).
* I don't count Voyager or Enterprise; starting with VOY they decided to
forget canon and just go for the cheap thrill and quick buck. I don't
consider Voyager and Enterprise as Star Trek shows.
> Heck, with the popularity of net-based indie-Trek efforts out there,
> it's hard to even fool yourself into thinking that "people just didn't
> like Trek anymore". They do. Just not the crap being passed off as
> "Trek" by Berman and Braga.
Agreed.
--
Methuselah
When it comes to thought, some people stop at nothing.
Tom
you said this show suffered from the Hercules in space syndrome.
Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing Sorbo as an actor, but like every
other action hero figure he does not seem to be able (or willing) to
break the light hearted comedic beefcake roll. I assume that he has a
great deal of influence on this show so the fact that he is so central
to every epsiode and storyline may be the monster of his own making.
Its a shame because his almost omniprescense in every storyline and
show stifles any chance of developing other characters, to the point
that thay seem to be little more than Dylan's cheerleaders.
I felt this show had potential, but needed a stronger production or
writing presence to make the show more about the crew than just about
Sorbo.
Laura Appelbaum
> news:sol5019i7c1d9aiog...@4ax.com...
>
> > And I wish it would FINALLY catch up with "Herc in SP...." err,
> > "Andromeda"...
>
> Don't worry, Wes.
>
> It will.
>
> To be honest, I didn't know it was still in production. I wrote it off as
> the usual, shallow Hollywood sf fare years ago.
>
after less than fifteen minutes I was suddenly struck with violent uh,
physical symptoms, and wasn't able to leave the bathroom until after it
ended. Now, I'm not *necessarily* saying there was a cause and effect
between seeing "Andromeda" and my case of "Winter Vomiting Syndrome" as they
call it in the press, but I wouldn't rule it out either. ;)
LMA
David E. Powell
benchmark then, and it saved the universe.... literally! There were
also a lot more indie stations around then to syndicate it then than
you have now.
Also, I do not believe Enterprise "killed" Star trek, some of their
more recent (last 2 years or so) shows were quite, quite good. Voyager,
IMO, did a lot of the damage.
Andrea B. Novin
1. Stories, were none. At least none that made the slightest bit of
sense. Some series have plot holes, Enterprise had plot voids.
2. Characters, none I cared about. Not one of the major character (dog
included) held the slightest interest for me. Compare what you saw on
the screen to Londo and the cast on B5.
3. Acting, none
The show sucked from the pilot. I gave up after three eps and only Brent
Spinner made me watch it this season and even he couldn't save it.
I am so glad this series is gone. Maybe they will take a nice long rest
and bring back trek with new idea, stories that hold up, and a series
premise that is interesting. i.e. after B&B are long gone.
Gregory Weston
"Andrea B. Novin" <prof...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Pity. Enterprise started weak, but had gotten progressively better IMO.
> > Possibly one of the biggest problems it had finding an audience was that
> > while it was (again IMO) a good show it's wasn't necessarily "good
> > Trek." I know a lot of people seemed to decide early on that it had
> > violated canon - such as it is in the Trek universe - and thus had no
> > business existing.
>
> No the problem with the series was IMHO:
>
> 1. Stories, were none. At least none that made the slightest bit of
> sense. Some series have plot holes, Enterprise had plot voids.
>
> 2. Characters, none I cared about. Not one of the major character (dog
> included) held the slightest interest for me. Compare what you saw on
> the screen to Londo and the cast on B5.
>
> 3. Acting, none
>
> The show sucked from the pilot. I gave up after three eps and only Brent
> Spinner made me watch it this season and even he couldn't save it.
So you're judging from 4-6 episodes out of 3.5 years? As I said, it
started weak. The last season and a half, overall, have been quite
engaging.
Den
news:W7AMd.27422$ZD1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
I hope not.
Maybe if/when they do another it should be moved away from UPN and go
back to pure syndication. Perhaps its just in my area, but UPN isnt even
offered here anymore as it was dropped by the only station that carried
it. Or is access around the country basically on par with most other
networks? Also, I dont watch TV much on Friday nights, but whats the
competition at 8pm? What was it like on Wednesdays at 8? Early prime time
competition can be a killer when a particular show dominates. All the
reality shows come to mind.
John W. Kennedy
> What worries me more is how this will affect future sci-fi series. Now
> it'll be an easy "out" for TV execs to say, "If a big name like 'Star
> Trek' can't make sci-fi viable, why should we bother with your series?"
That's a trivial concern. The real problem is that the lesson the
Monkeys in Suits will take from this is that Quality Doesn't Help.
---
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Dan Dassow
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Chris Kocher wrote:
> > What worries me more is how this will affect future sci-fi series.
Now
> > it'll be an easy "out" for TV execs to say, "If a big name like
'Star
> > Trek' can't make sci-fi viable, why should we bother with your
series?"
>
> That's a trivial concern. The real problem is that the lesson the
> Monkeys in Suits will take from this is that Quality Doesn't Help.
>
More so, programming executives would
likely come to the false conclusion
that Quality actually hurts ratings.
Dan Dassow
Reverend Vader
Are they planning on giving it one more season then; or did Sci-Fi wire
just get their wires crossed?
RV
Kerr
news:W7AMd.27422$ZD1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Thunder, Agent '005 wrote:
> This season really is the best one... finally the series figured out what
> it wanted to do. A shame it took so long, after so many people have
> already given it up for dead.
Yeah, because people really should learn to give a show up to 4 years of
their life before they make a judgement call about it.
Sorry, one year is about all I'll give. I'm not going to keep waiting and
hoping a show improves itself to the point of being watchable.
grace
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107553040.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
every day of the week). They (who ever is syndicating it) could only run it
once a week, like A&E is doing with CSI:MIAMI.
Grace
Thunder, Agent '005
on Enterprise. Later on, I was watching it because the whole Xindi arc
(and, to be honest, because I had nothing better to do the night it
aired here. :) I do think the show was improving but I agree that many
people likely had given up already. They needed to wow us out of the
gate and they didn't so many didn't care to watch.
t.k.
Matt Ion
different control, has been excellent, IMHO. Last night's episode, part
two of an ongoing mini-arc involving the Romulans, is actually showing
what looks like the beginnings of the formation of the Federation, and
doing it in an intelligent manner. It's getting very intense and very
well-done.
Aubrey W. Adkins
NYPD BLUE and HILL STREET BLUES. BY your assessment all would have been
gone; however, one must make his own choices. Not everyone likes bananas.
Aubrey
Andrea B. Novin
was bad then.
Gregory Weston
"Andrea B. Novin" <prof...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>Pity. Enterprise started weak, but had gotten progressively better IMO.
> >>>Possibly one of the biggest problems it had finding an audience was that
> >>>while it was (again IMO) a good show it's wasn't necessarily "good
> >>>Trek." I know a lot of people seemed to decide early on that it had
> >>>violated canon - such as it is in the Trek universe - and thus had no
> >>>business existing.
> >>
> >>No the problem with the series was IMHO:
> >>
> >>1. Stories, were none. At least none that made the slightest bit of
> >>sense. Some series have plot holes, Enterprise had plot voids.
> >>
> >>2. Characters, none I cared about. Not one of the major character (dog
> >>included) held the slightest interest for me. Compare what you saw on
> >>the screen to Londo and the cast on B5.
> >>
> >>3. Acting, none
> >>
> >>The show sucked from the pilot. I gave up after three eps and only Brent
> >>Spinner made me watch it this season and even he couldn't save it.
> >
> >
> > So you're judging from 4-6 episodes out of 3.5 years? As I said, it
> > started weak. The last season and a half, overall, have been quite
> > engaging.
> >
>
> Keep reading I said I watched this years for the Brent Spinner arc. It
> was bad then.
I kept reading. You said you watched the first three episodes and then
you tried again for Brent Spiner's appearance. That's "4-6 episodes"
depending on whether you made it through the whole Spiner arc. I agree.
The Spiner story was weak. You're still making some pretty broad claims
about something you've seen very little of. With the same exposure,
people could (and did) make the same claims about B5.
Den
news:1107449913.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
they got it wrong.
Brad Barton
> Maybe if/when they do another it should be moved away from UPN and go
> back to pure syndication. Perhaps its just in my area, but UPN isnt even
> offered here anymore as it was dropped by the only station that carried
> it. Or is access around the country basically on par with most other
> networks? Also, I dont watch TV much on Friday nights, but whats the
> competition at 8pm? What was it like on Wednesdays at 8? Early prime time
> competition can be a killer when a particular show dominates. All the
> reality shows come to mind.
As I recall, its chief competition on Wednesday nights was The
Left...err.. West Wing and later American Idol... not many shows
survived against those.
As for UPNs around the country, it does seem like it doesn't reach many
households to me. And I don't know about other markets from Dallas/Fort
Worth, but it also seemed to me that whenever there was a "major"
sweeps-time episode, it got pre-empted here for a basketball game....
hard to get good ratings if you don't actually friggin' air the show.
Brad Barton
Geez, if that were true for me, I would never have watched Next
Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, or even Babylon 5. With the
exception of a couple episodes, the first seasons of all of those shows
SUCKED.
But I watched them.. in the case of the first three, because they were
Star Trek, and in the case of all four, because they were science
fiction. I'll watch most bad science fiction shows before bothering with
the melodramatic drivel they try to pass off on the other shows... hell,
I'd rather watch Enterprise's first season than Desperate Housewives...
and I'd watch Andromeda from start to finish before dedicating one
moment to The Left..err..West Wing.
But I'm an exception, I love almost all science fiction.. movies, TV,
books.. and very little of everything else.
Do love Lost, though. :)
Thunder, Agent '005
t.k.
Andre Lieven
> Laura Appelbaum wrote:
>> And by doing so, they've garnered more attention for the show than it's been
>> able to generate for itself in years.
>>
>> No loss to anyone, really, except perhaps Scott Bakula, but then his
>> performances in the series pretty much warrented the death of his career.
>
> Dunno about you, but I bought Bakula as Archer hook line and sinker.
> There was no Sam Beckett there. But as with anything in show biz I think
> the actors' performances are only as good as the writing and directing
> allow it.
>
> Really, we should see this in a positive light. Five years is a *good
> run* for any series, wouldn't we all agree? ;-)
Sure. Enterprise, however, will end with four.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Den
news:110bd58...@corp.supernews.com:
When it actually was on here, it was Sundays at 6... actually a great
time right before 60 minutes. But, because it was Sunday, it got
preempted for weeks due to various sports events.
I forgot about West Wing and especially Americal Idol. Putting shows
against such hits are often viewed as ways for networks to kill off the
ones they dont want anymore. IIRC FOX did that to X-files around season
4, or was it 5, and the ratings suffered accordingly... I think. Not to
kill it off, to be fair, but to substitute great ratings on Fridays to
try and get Sunday instead.
One point that I was wrong about. When UPN left Enterprise was actually
available on the local FOX station for awhile. So I guess syndication was
available if UPN wasnt. But this was actually worse here. It was on the
one channel where it was constantly preemted by football games, racing,
and all their other sports stuff. So was Voyager (no boos please, just an
observation) and I missed alot of them... but many here would say thats a
good thing. ;o)
Mac Breck
news:110bder...@corp.supernews.com...
> Kerr wrote:
> > "Chris Kocher" <cko...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:W7AMd.27422$ZD1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> >>Thunder, Agent '005 wrote:
> >>This season really is the best one... finally the series figured out
what
> >>it wanted to do. A shame it took so long, after so many people have
> >>already given it up for dead.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, because people really should learn to give a show up to 4
years of
> > their life before they make a judgement call about it.
> >
> > Sorry, one year is about all I'll give. I'm not going to keep
waiting and
> > hoping a show improves itself to the point of being watchable.
>
> Geez, if that were true for me, I would never have watched Next
> Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, or even Babylon 5. With the
> exception of a couple episodes, the first seasons of all of those
shows
> SUCKED.
In your opinion. In my opinion, that's a fairly large exaggeration.
Season 1 of:
Next Generation - not very good, had a few stinkers, some very good
episodes, and most of the rest were passable. Nowhere near as bad as
Voyager.
Deep Space Nine - At the time, I didn't care for it. Found it
uninspiring. Now, I can barely remember it.
Voyager - Let's face it, all but maybe a half-dozen episodes in the
entire seven year span, sucked.
Babylon 5 - had a couple of episodes that I didn't care for at all. The
rest were good, some excellent.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN) - from the desktop PC
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Gideon: I thought you said you don't hold a grudge.
Galen: I don't. I have no surviving enemies... at all.
"Brimstone" (1998)
The Devil: Nobody beats the Devil. Are you listening? Did you hear what
I said, Mr. Stone? Nobody beats the Devil.
Ezekiel Stone: So you keep telling me. <enjoying his Reggie Bar> Go to
Hell...<smiles and pushes the Down button on the elevator> ...please.
Mac Breck
news:YOSdnZdJvPB...@comcast.com...
> "Chris Kocher" <cko...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:W7AMd.27422$ZD1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > Thunder, Agent '005 wrote:
> > This season really is the best one... finally the series figured out
what
> > it wanted to do. A shame it took so long, after so many people have
> > already given it up for dead.
>
> Yeah, because people really should learn to give a show up to 4 years
of
> their life before they make a judgement call about it.
Enterprise gets 4 years. Wonderfalls gets 4 episodes. Too bad the
latter didn't air on UPN.
Vorlonagent
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107553040.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> more recent (last 2 years or so) shows were quite, quite good. Voyager,
> IMO, did a lot of the damage.
There's a "yes" and there's a "no" to that.
Enterprise didn't "kill" the Franchise by being worse than Voyager or any
other show, so in that sense you're right.
Enterprise's sin was not sufficiently distinguishing themselves from
Voyager, et al.
All Franchise shows were made in a shallow, bland style of TNG's first three
seasons, including at-best adolescent interprsonal relationships (Partial
exception for DS9 during the Dominion War--There was enough wartime drama to
make up for the style, but the ubiquitous "Franchise" shallow quality always
returned when not at battle-stations).
Enterprise wasn't the first to shoot for clearing such a low bar, but it
*did* shoot for that same low bar. That's where Enterprise *did* kill the
Franchise, by participating in the failtures of the past. Enterprise was
cancelled because it did not distinguish itself from the same ol' crap B+B
had been serving up since TNG. It's a testament to the fanbase that it took
this long for the Franchise to drive them away, but through great
single-minded effort Rick Berman succeeded in running the most successful SF
TV property into the ground.
No fair read of Manny Cotto's influence can be anything besides "too little,
too late."
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to
fit their views
....which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
needs altering."
-The Doctor
Vorlonagent
"Wendy of NJ" <voxw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cus6015gn6mue9mfl...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 21:31:09 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
> <j...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
> >What happened is that the Franchise never matured beyond Season 3 of TNG.
> >Episodes in Later seasons of TNG did show improvement and DS9's
> >Shad...Dominion War was very well-done, but the characters always
remained
> >shallow and their relationships "adolescent" in nature, with the captain
> >always as the parental figure. Their experiences never really changed
them.
> >Events past (including Classic Trek) was merely a plot-point to be
> >forgotten, recalled or changed according to current convienence.
>
> experiences - off the top of my head, Picard changed after he
> experienced that "lifetime" from the space probe of the deceased
> people/planet (where he learned to play the pennywhistle, and learned
> to love children - if you recall, he really didn't care for them at
> the beginning of the show).
An excellent character-driven episode. It's what got me to reconsider the
franchise at all.
Do we really see much evidence of it later in the show? Not really. The
guy lived out a lifetime--thirty, fourty years and next week he's back in
the captain's chair as if nothing happened. This is the sort of experience
that should be life-changing and all he comes out with is the ending of a
minor character point?
Nothing could more eloquently illustrate my point.
> Maj Kira changes significantly (in her views of Cardassians) over the
> course of DS9.
The show quickly decided out to "rehabilitate" the Cardassians the way TNG
rehabilitated the Klingons. I could tell that from season 1 or 2. Anyone
can chenge their attitude if its in the script for them to do so. The
question is whether the change id done well or badly. From what I remember
of the early stages, the answer was "badly".
> Even so, I can't work myself up over the cancellation of this series.
> Although I've been enjoying Jeffrey Combs as the Andorian captian.
It's been years for me. My exposure to Andorians was the first go 'round
when the vulcans were using one of their own temples as a clandestine
surveillence post. That's part of the reason *why* it's been years.
Aubrey W. Adkins
series started, I made the following evaluation; poorly written, acted,
and it had muppets, and really cheap production values.
I started watching a few episodes late in season three because a
friend said it was quite good and the special effects were done on Amiga
computers. Being an Amiga owner and user, I said, "Ok.".
I now own the DVDs, series and movies and really appreciate what we
were given by JMS.
Sometimes, it takes a while, and a new show runner to get the job
done. Unfortunately, in the case of Enterprise, it's too late. Nothing
short of a miracle could have saved it at this late date, maybe not even
that. And, I was liking the Trip/T'Pol storyline.
Aubrey
Vorlonagent
"Methuselah Jones" <methu...@altgeek.org> wrote in message
news:Xns95F35A350EE84me...@216.196.97.131...
>
> > Roddenberry *inflicted* this Trek on us. Like George Lucas, he warped
> > his own creation according to some agenda we here can only guess at.
> > Rick Berman's role was to lock Trek into Roddenberry's warped vision
> > as a "Formula" that blocked any meaningful, lasting change or growth.
>
> Well, this isn't entirely fair. TNG and DS9 characters did develop, for
> one thing. Granted, no Trek has had the continuity of B5, but then no
> American show ever has (apart from soaps, of course). I honestly used to
> wonder if it was forbidden in the TV Writer's Code or something. TNG was
> the first American show I can think of to use any real continuity, and I
> remember being particularly delighted with that aspect.
When characters go to holodeck programs for romantic advice--and get better
advice than from other characters...
What real development did we see in any charcters. They added facets to
charcters but did they deepen?
Did anybody go through anything like Londo, G'Kar or Garibaldi? Even close?
No.
> I'm not saying Trek canon is a flawless, consistent piece of work. There
> are many inconsistencies, some quite substantial. Watch "The Cage" and
> you'll see Spock laughing, and not under the influence of any demigod or
> alien spore. Any TV show that's ever been made has had its quirks and
> jumps at first. B5 had the advantage of having its canon worked out in
> advance, but even then there are some plot holes, minor though they be.
That was also the original pilot. Vulcans got retooled a bit after that.
In "Encounter at Farpoint" we see the entireprise shoot phasers from the
saucer bottom, not the black grooves as was stanardized later.
I allow for changes as a show settles into its rhythm. B5 had enough of
those too.
> Yes, Rodenberry himself introduced many of the inconsistencies, by
> continuing to tweak and develop the show as it went along. And yes, some
> of that even continued through TNG and DS9*, but there was at least
> sincere effort to develop and adhere to canon, something which was
> virtually unheard of in TV shows before Trek (yes, I know about writers'
> bibles for shows, but that's not quite the same thing).
"Adhere"? The Franchise never adhered to anything remotely like canon in
its life.
Everything took a back seat to needs assciated with making the current
episode.
> * I don't count Voyager or Enterprise; starting with VOY they decided to
> forget canon and just go for the cheap thrill and quick buck. I don't
> consider Voyager and Enterprise as Star Trek shows.
But they are. Personally, I don't see much difference, save for the second
half of DS9 and selected individual TNG episodes. Voyager was simply the
first *wall-to-wall* wasteland. Both TNG and DS9 had some seasons that
could be described as "good".
Vorlonagent
"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36n5jfF...@individual.net...
>
> Season 1 of:
>
> Next Generation - not very good, had a few stinkers, some very good
> episodes, and most of the rest were passable. Nowhere near as bad as
> Voyager.
I'm a little more critical. I'll allow "Measure of Man" to be "good" but
by and large everything was more at the level of "Naked Now" or worse.
> Deep Space Nine - At the time, I didn't care for it. Found it
> uninspiring. Now, I can barely remember it.
I'm not surprised.
The first four or so episodes were truly inspired, as was the premire movie.
Then Quark helped Odo out of a jam, uttering the fateful words, "I'm the
closest thing to a freind he has", which threw them into "fighting like an
old married couple" for the next 2-3 seasons. Dreadful stuff. Not to
mention continuing to prosecute their "holo-creations are alive" assertion
with the "holo-village" episode.
> Voyager - Let's face it, all but maybe a half-dozen episodes in the
> entire seven year span, sucked.
Voyager almost lost me with the "Class-M ring system" and did lose me with
the cult of humans worshiping the suspend-animated forms of Amillia Earhart
and company, with the Voyager deploying--erg--landing gear.
> Babylon 5 - had a couple of episodes that I didn't care for at all. The
> rest were good, some excellent.
B5 had a couple of eps that were outright dogs, such as "Infection" or just
a very canine "A" storyline such as "TKO".
Vorlonagent
"Aubrey W. Adkins" <xazq...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Ju9Nd.52$53.44@lakeread07...
>
> MASH was well into its second season before it found its legs, as was
> NYPD BLUE and HILL STREET BLUES. BY your assessment all would have been
> gone; however, one must make his own choices. Not everyone likes bananas.
> Aubrey
None of these shows went from "unwatchable" to "wow!" I remember enjoying
Hill Street Blues' season #1, for example.
MASH was the same way.
Neither show started out "bad", just not as good as they got.
Unlike Mac, I have a much lower opinion of both TNG's and B5's first season.
I was completely turned off by "The Gathering" and the first few B5 episodes
I saw. My now-former best friend spent the next year trying to get me to
give B5 a second chance. I did so just before the second season during
reruns of the first. I was iffy until B5 got into the second season. Then
I was hooked.
B5 is one of the rare shows who had a bad start and actually mange to go
anywhere I'd care to follow. More common is Space: Above and Beyond or
"Seaquest DSV".
Mac Breck
news:7cKdnTqN-_9...@sti.net...
>
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:36n5jfF...@individual.net...
> >
> > Season 1 of:
> >
> > Next Generation - not very good, had a few stinkers, some very good
> > episodes, and most of the rest were passable. Nowhere near as bad
as
> > Voyager.
>
> I'm a little more critical. I'll allow "Measure of Man" to be "good"
but
> by and large everything was more at the level of "Naked Now" or worse.
Re. "Naked Now," in which Dr. Crusher does the equivalent of Dodger in
B5's "Day of the Dead" (well sort of)....
Dodger, "It's some guys fantasy. A love hungry red head, who will
disappear in the morning, never to be seen again."
... I kinda liked "Naked Now" for the comedic aspects, plus I have a
weakness for redheads (Dr. Crusher, Lyta Alexander, Dodger, etc.).
<shrug>
Looking at TNG Season 1 on
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episodes/index.html
...I'm finding myself agreeing with you. Mostly stinkers. Also, after
B5 & Crusade, it seems I just don't have a taste for TNG anymore.
> > Deep Space Nine - At the time, I didn't care for it. Found it
> > uninspiring. Now, I can barely remember it.
>
> I'm not surprised.
It also partly because I haven't seen the episodes since they first
aired.
> > Babylon 5 - had a couple of episodes that I didn't care for at all.
The
> > rest were good, some excellent.
>
> B5 had a couple of eps that were outright dogs, such as "Infection" or
just
> a very canine "A" storyline such as "TKO".
Looking at the first season, there's actually only one that I really
dislike ("Believers"). It's too Trek-like. Yes, I know Trek wouldn't
have done *that* ending, but overall, it's too much like something we'd
see in TNG. <blech>
Vorlonagent
>
> Re. "Naked Now," in which Dr. Crusher does the equivalent of Dodger in
> B5's "Day of the Dead" (well sort of)....
>
> Dodger, "It's some guys fantasy. A love hungry red head, who will
> disappear in the morning, never to be seen again."
>
> ... I kinda liked "Naked Now" for the comedic aspects, plus I have a
> weakness for redheads (Dr. Crusher, Lyta Alexander, Dodger, etc.).
> <shrug>
To be honest, I haven't seen it in a while, perhaps since its first showing.
The episode went out of its way to snub Classic Trek and I didn't take well
to that.
> Looking at TNG Season 1 on
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episodes/index.html
> ...I'm finding myself agreeing with you. Mostly stinkers. Also, after
> B5 & Crusade, it seems I just don't have a taste for TNG anymore.
Riker's Beard Rule:
If Riker's clean-shaven and it's not "Measure of a Man", just pass it by.
You don't want to watch it.
> > > Babylon 5 - had a couple of episodes that I didn't care for at all.
> The
> > > rest were good, some excellent.
> >
> > B5 had a couple of eps that were outright dogs, such as "Infection" or
> just
> > a very canine "A" storyline such as "TKO".
>
> Looking at the first season, there's actually only one that I really
> dislike ("Believers"). It's too Trek-like. Yes, I know Trek wouldn't
> have done *that* ending, but overall, it's too much like something we'd
> see in TNG. <blech>
Well, yeah. That one too...
Brad Barton
> Riker's Beard Rule:
>
> If Riker's clean-shaven and it's not "Measure of a Man", just pass it by.
>
> You don't want to watch it.
Oh, c'mon.. there are a few good ones in first season.. like... uhhh...
Ok, second season.. Measure of a Man, yes.. oh wait, Riker had a beard
in second season.
>>>>Babylon 5 - had a couple of episodes that I didn't care for at all.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>>rest were good, some excellent.
>>>
>>>B5 had a couple of eps that were outright dogs, such as "Infection" or
>>
>>just
>>
>>>a very canine "A" storyline such as "TKO".
>>
>>Looking at the first season, there's actually only one that I really
>>dislike ("Believers"). It's too Trek-like. Yes, I know Trek wouldn't
>>have done *that* ending, but overall, it's too much like something we'd
>>see in TNG. <blech>
>
>
> Well, yeah. That one too...
Believers has my favorite Kosh line of all, though... "The avalanche has
already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
First season B5.. I like Deathwalker a lot and Signs and Portents of
course.. but it wasn't until the last few episodes that it got its real
legs and seemed like the "5 year vision" was more than a gimmick to
me... and I still didn't fully believe the in the "5 year vision" until
about halfway through season 2.
Mac Breck
>
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:36o13aF...@individual.net...
> >
> > Re. "Naked Now," in which Dr. Crusher does the equivalent of Dodger
in
> > B5's "Day of the Dead" (well sort of)....
> >
> > Dodger, "It's some guys fantasy. A love hungry red head, who will
> > disappear in the morning, never to be seen again."
> >
> > ... I kinda liked "Naked Now" for the comedic aspects, plus I have a
> > weakness for redheads (Dr. Crusher, Lyta Alexander, Dodger, etc.).
> > <shrug>
>
> To be honest, I haven't seen it in a while, perhaps since its first
showing.
>
> The episode went out of its way to snub Classic Trek and I didn't take
well
> to that.
How did you see that as a snub? I didn't perceive any negativity
directed from TNG to TOS. To me it was just the TNG cast more or less
redoing the Classic Trek episode. No harm, no foul.
I might have that episode on tape, somewhere, but right now, without
searching my entire collection (incl. ~500 Beta tapes), I'd probably not
be able to find it. So, I'm going from memory of the 1987 airing in my
comments above.
Thunder, Agent '005
your assessment.
t.k.
Thunder, Agent '005
t.k.
Thunder, Agent '005
titled "Star Trek: Wonderfalls" or "Buffy: Wonderfalls").
t.k.
Thunder, Agent '005
and treated it respectfully (there are some religions--the Jehovah's
Witnesses come to mind--that are against blood transfusions. Not quite
the same thing but a RL example). It didn't do the whole condescending
ST thing--"this belief is stupid because we say so. We're the Federation
and we're always right. Doctor, I order you to save him." It looked at
both sides--Franklyn's "life above all else, screw their beliefs" point
of view and the aliens' "our beliefs are the most important thing,
period. Even more so then our lives" side. This episode demonstrates
JMS' thought provoking style of writing (it's not arc-based, but a good
stand alone ep, imo).
Another excellent stand-alone is "Passing Through Gethsemane" in season
three.
t.k.
Methuselah Jones
this message, go to the thread list, look to see what message you're
replying to, open that and read it.
Behold, the power of quoting!
--
Methuselah
No shampoo for me -- I only want *real* poo.
Wendy of NJ
<j...@otfresno.com> wrote:
Um not exactly. There's a show (don't remember exactly when) where
Picard is taking 3 elementary school age kids (who won a science fair)
on a tour of enterprise and things get messed up (they're trapped in a
turbo lift, and Troi is in command on the bridge).
Picard is shown playing that flute a few times later on.
Wendy of NJ
<macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Vorlonagent" <j...@otfresno.com> wrote in message
>news:d92dnVaR0cb...@sti.net...
>>
>> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:36o13aF...@individual.net...
>> >
>> > Re. "Naked Now," in which Dr. Crusher does the equivalent of Dodger
>in
>> > B5's "Day of the Dead" (well sort of)....
>> >
>> > Dodger, "It's some guys fantasy. A love hungry red head, who will
>> > disappear in the morning, never to be seen again."
>> >
>> > ... I kinda liked "Naked Now" for the comedic aspects, plus I have a
>> > weakness for redheads (Dr. Crusher, Lyta Alexander, Dodger, etc.).
>> > <shrug>
>>
>> To be honest, I haven't seen it in a while, perhaps since its first
>showing.
>>
>> The episode went out of its way to snub Classic Trek and I didn't take
>well
>> to that.
>
>How did you see that as a snub? I didn't perceive any negativity
>directed from TNG to TOS. To me it was just the TNG cast more or less
>redoing the Classic Trek episode. No harm, no foul.
>
I took it as doing the TOS episode the way Roddenberry actually wanted
to and not the way the network censors made him do it. I think it was
the only season 1 episode that I cared for (or even remember). Which
was "measure of a man", anyway.
As far as TNG seasons go, there is a reason why my collection of them
starts at Seaosn 4. (and even then, I am not re-watching them anymore,
either. I look at the synopses, and say, "nah. Not today")
Thunder, Agent '005
> But of course, no one knows what you're talking about, unless they close
> this message, go to the thread list, look to see what message you're
> replying to, open that and read it.
>
> Behold, the power of quoting!
>
Fine.
VorlonAgent wrote:
> There's a "yes" and there's a "no" to that.
>
> Enterprise didn't "kill" the Franchise by being worse than Voyager or any
> other show, so in that sense you're right.
>
> Enterprise's sin was not sufficiently distinguishing themselves from
> Voyager, et al.
>
> All Franchise shows were made in a shallow, bland style of TNG's first three
> seasons, including at-best adolescent interprsonal relationships (Partial
> exception for DS9 during the Dominion War--There was enough wartime drama to
> make up for the style, but the ubiquitous "Franchise" shallow quality always
> returned when not at battle-stations).
>
> Enterprise wasn't the first to shoot for clearing such a low bar, but it
> *did* shoot for that same low bar. That's where Enterprise *did* kill the
> Franchise, by participating in the failtures of the past. Enterprise was
> cancelled because it did not distinguish itself from the same ol' crap B+B
> had been serving up since TNG. It's a testament to the fanbase that it took
> this long for the Franchise to drive them away, but through great
> single-minded effort Rick Berman succeeded in running the most successful SF
> TV property into the ground.
>
> No fair read of Manny Cotto's influence can be anything besides "too little,
> too late."
>
>
> -- John Trauger, Vorlonagent "Methane martini. Shaken, not stirred." "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ....which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." -The Doctor
Then Thunder replied:
> I read this and another earlier post you made and I would tend to agree with your assessment.
>
>
> t.k.
Vorlonagent
> Vorlonagent wrote:
> > Riker's Beard Rule:
> >
> > If Riker's clean-shaven and it's not "Measure of a Man", just pass it
by.
> >
> > You don't want to watch it.
>
> Oh, c'mon.. there are a few good ones in first season.. like... uhhh...
>
> Ok, second season.. Measure of a Man, yes.. oh wait, Riker had a beard
> in second season.
About 1/2-way through he picked up the beard, IIRC.
There's still plenty of crapola after that, but it eliminates some of the
worst offenders.
Season 1 was when Roddenberry had the most control too.
It's a terrible thing when the touch of the creator so massively warps the
creation.
> >>Looking at the first season, there's actually only one that I really
> >>dislike ("Believers"). It's too Trek-like. Yes, I know Trek wouldn't
> >>have done *that* ending, but overall, it's too much like something we'd
> >>see in TNG. <blech>
> >
> >
> > Well, yeah. That one too...
>
> Believers has my favorite Kosh line of all, though... "The avalanche has
> already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
>
> First season B5.. I like Deathwalker a lot and Signs and Portents of
> course.. but it wasn't until the last few episodes that it got its real
> legs and seemed like the "5 year vision" was more than a gimmick to
> me... and I still didn't fully believe the in the "5 year vision" until
> about halfway through season 2.
Voice in the Wilderness 1 and 2 was pretty good stuff too.
For a while, the eary going was "G'Kar Gets Foiled Again" and that got a
little old. If you have the later seasons as background, the First season
isn't nearly as bad as it comes across with no reference points.
Vorlonagent
>
> > The episode went out of its way to snub Classic Trek and I didn't take
> well
> > to that.
>
> How did you see that as a snub? I didn't perceive any negativity
> directed from TNG to TOS. To me it was just the TNG cast more or less
> redoing the Classic Trek episode. No harm, no foul.
THAT's no harm, no foul.
It's the part where the TNG crew squints back through history toward a
barely-remembered Classic Trek brush with the same phenomenon.
I mean, I don't expect them to be lighting incense to the original
Enterprise, but the episode very much seemed to say that the Classic Trek
crew wasn't particularly memorable.
That part is what ticked me off. The writer (Roddenberry, IIRC) took a shot
at the past that wasn't at all required.
> I might have that episode on tape, somewhere, but right now, without
> searching my entire collection (incl. ~500 Beta tapes), I'd probably not
> be able to find it. So, I'm going from memory of the 1987 airing in my
> comments above.
That's OK. That's what I'm going on as well.
I should add that I missed "Encounter at Farpoint" so this was my first
exposure to TNG. Let's just say the first impression was not favorable.
Vorlonagent
>
> >Do we really see much evidence of it later in the show? Not really. The
> >guy lived out a lifetime--thirty, fourty years and next week he's back in
> >the captain's chair as if nothing happened. This is the sort of
experience
> >that should be life-changing and all he comes out with is the ending of a
> >minor character point?
>
> Um not exactly. There's a show (don't remember exactly when) where
> Picard is taking 3 elementary school age kids (who won a science fair)
> on a tour of enterprise and things get messed up (they're trapped in a
> turbo lift, and Troi is in command on the bridge).
Saw that ep.
Picard was Picard, as he always was, as he always will be. Maybe absent his
previous uncomfort, but that's it.
> Picard is shown playing that flute a few times later on.
I saw one of those times.
It still seems small potatoes compared to likely impact of the experience.
It's like Picard's definition was locked down and nothing changes him, which
is true of the entire cast, which is part of why the characters are shallow.
Mac Breck
>
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:36o52oF...@individual.net...
> >
> > > The episode went out of its way to snub Classic Trek and I didn't
take
> > well
> > > to that.
> >
> > How did you see that as a snub? I didn't perceive any negativity
> > directed from TNG to TOS. To me it was just the TNG cast more or
less
> > redoing the Classic Trek episode. No harm, no foul.
>
> THAT's no harm, no foul.
>
> It's the part where the TNG crew squints back through history toward a
> barely-remembered Classic Trek brush with the same phenomenon.
> I mean, I don't expect them to be lighting incense to the original
> Enterprise, but the episode very much seemed to say that the Classic
Trek
> crew wasn't particularly memorable.
OK, it's coming back to me now. I see what you mean. Still, it is
likely that the Enterprise crew in the 24th century might think
themselves superior to their ancient predecessors. Remember how Geordi
got annoyed with Scotty in "Relics" ? Then, Picard stepped in (in a
slightly patronizing fashion toward Scotty, IIRC.) and Geordi changed
his official attitude. After Scotty turned out not to be totally
obsolete, Geordi's attitude genuinely changed.
> That part is what ticked me off. The writer (Roddenberry, IIRC) took
a shot
> at the past that wasn't at all required.
Arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of them
(the TNG crew).
> > I might have that episode on tape, somewhere, but right now, without
> > searching my entire collection (incl. ~500 Beta tapes), I'd probably
not
> > be able to find it. So, I'm going from memory of the 1987 airing in
my
> > comments above.
>
> That's OK. That's what I'm going on as well.
I just needed some descriptive words (which you supplied above) to help
me visually recall the scene in question.
> I should add that I missed "Encounter at Farpoint" so this was my
first
> exposure to TNG. Let's just say the first impression was not
favorable.
Personally, I didn't like "Encounter at Farpoint," but it does have
stuff that's necessary to the series (the scenes with Q, which neatly
tie up with "All Good Things.").
--
Mac Breck (KoshN) - from the desktop PC
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Gideon: I thought you said you don't hold a grudge.
Galen: I don't. I have no surviving enemies... at all.
"Brimstone" (1998)
Matt Ion
>>>>Events past (including Classic Trek) was merely a plot-point to be
>>>>forgotten, recalled or changed according to current convienence.
>>>
>>>That's not exactly true. Some of the characters in TNG did carry over
>>>experiences - off the top of my head, Picard changed after he
>>>experienced that "lifetime" from the space probe of the deceased
>>>people/planet (where he learned to play the pennywhistle, and learned
>>>to love children - if you recall, he really didn't care for them at
>>>the beginning of the show).
>>
>>An excellent character-driven episode. It's what got me to reconsider the
>>franchise at all.
>>
>>Do we really see much evidence of it later in the show? Not really. The
>>guy lived out a lifetime--thirty, fourty years and next week he's back in
>>the captain's chair as if nothing happened. This is the sort of experience
>>that should be life-changing and all he comes out with is the ending of a
>>minor character point?
>
>
> Um not exactly. There's a show (don't remember exactly when) where
> Picard is taking 3 elementary school age kids (who won a science fair)
> on a tour of enterprise and things get messed up (they're trapped in a
> turbo lift, and Troi is in command on the bridge).
Nice theory, except for one problem: "Disaster" (season 5, episode 5),
the episode you refer to, happened months BEFORE "The Inner Light" (s5,e25).
Not that linear time isn't regularly discarded in Trek...
> Picard is shown playing that flute a few times later on.
True.
Matt Ion
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:36o52oF...@individual.net...
>
>>>The episode went out of its way to snub Classic Trek and I didn't take
>>
>>well
>>
>>>to that.
>>
>>How did you see that as a snub? I didn't perceive any negativity
>>directed from TNG to TOS. To me it was just the TNG cast more or less
>>redoing the Classic Trek episode. No harm, no foul.
>
>
> THAT's no harm, no foul.
>
> It's the part where the TNG crew squints back through history toward a
> barely-remembered Classic Trek brush with the same phenomenon.
>
> I mean, I don't expect them to be lighting incense to the original
> Enterprise, but the episode very much seemed to say that the Classic Trek
> crew wasn't particularly memorable.
Horsehockey. *I* recognized it pretty readily as a rehash of "The Naked
Time". Maybe the TNG crew never had the advantage of watching the old
TOS episodes? I'm sure not EVERY mission the original Enterprise was on
has become required learning in the 24th century. "Damn, I shoulda
figured this one out sooner, after all, there was a whole semester on
Jim Kirk at Starfleet Academy."
Wendy of NJ
Muppets?
Do you mean Kosh and N'Grath?
I suppose you never liked Farscape either, then (that had Henson
creature shop puppets)
Andrea B. Novin
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, swims like a duck...its a
duck. It sucked when I saw it in the first season. I tried waching a
copule of eps of Archer save the universe series last year and it sucked
then. I watch the Brent spiner arc this year and it sucked...so the
series sucks.
Vorlonagent
>
> > It's the part where the TNG crew squints back through history toward a
> > barely-remembered Classic Trek brush with the same phenomenon.
> > I mean, I don't expect them to be lighting incense to the original
> > Enterprise, but the episode very much seemed to say that the Classic
> Trek
> > crew wasn't particularly memorable.
>
> OK, it's coming back to me now. I see what you mean. Still, it is
> likely that the Enterprise crew in the 24th century might think
> themselves superior to their ancient predecessors. Remember how Geordi
> got annoyed with Scotty in "Relics" ? Then, Picard stepped in (in a
> slightly patronizing fashion toward Scotty, IIRC.) and Geordi changed
> his official attitude. After Scotty turned out not to be totally
> obsolete, Geordi's attitude genuinely changed.
Sure they can think they're better. Thing is, the way the ep was scripted,
they were looking at a report from doctor (McCoy) whose name Dr. Crusher had
never heard of before.
That didn't sit well.
> > That part is what ticked me off. The writer (Roddenberry, IIRC) took
> a shot
> > at the past that wasn't at all required.
>
> Arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of them
> (the TNG crew).
Roddenberry.
When a creator becomes toxic to his/her own creation, my personal name for
is is "Gene Roddenberry's Syndrome"
Lucas has a bad case. Poster child.
> > I should add that I missed "Encounter at Farpoint" so this was my
> first
> > exposure to TNG. Let's just say the first impression was not
> favorable.
>
> Personally, I didn't like "Encounter at Farpoint," but it does have
> stuff that's necessary to the series (the scenes with Q, which neatly
> tie up with "All Good Things.").
It was one Deanna Troi's most effective moments as an empath. One of the
few where she isn't stating the very, very obvious.
Vorlonagent
"Matt Ion" <sou...@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
news:5aVNd.316518$8l.57788@pd7tw1no...
> > THAT's no harm, no foul.
> >
> > It's the part where the TNG crew squints back through history toward a
> > barely-remembered Classic Trek brush with the same phenomenon.
> >
> > I mean, I don't expect them to be lighting incense to the original
> > Enterprise, but the episode very much seemed to say that the Classic
Trek
> > crew wasn't particularly memorable.
>
> Horsehockey. *I* recognized it pretty readily as a rehash of "The Naked
> Time". Maybe the TNG crew never had the advantage of watching the old
> TOS episodes? I'm sure not EVERY mission the original Enterprise was on
> has become required learning in the 24th century. "Damn, I shoulda
> figured this one out sooner, after all, there was a whole semester on
> Jim Kirk at Starfleet Academy."
I recognized it as a rehash too. I don't see how that changes things.
The way the TNG version presented McCoy's findings such that it was obvious
that nobody on the bridge had heard of him before.
It would follow that Jim Kirk--at THAT POINT in the Franchise's life, Kirk
would be be at best a footnote in a single class. The Franchise got a
little more polite later.
Naken Now reflects Roddenberry's contempt for Classic Trek's "militarism"
which in turn opened the way for a Classic Trek-Franchise fan-feud that took
years to resolve.
Matt Ion
> "Matt Ion" <sou...@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
> news:5aVNd.316518$8l.57788@pd7tw1no...
>
>
>>>THAT's no harm, no foul.
>>>
>>>It's the part where the TNG crew squints back through history toward a
>>>barely-remembered Classic Trek brush with the same phenomenon.
>>>
>>>I mean, I don't expect them to be lighting incense to the original
>>>Enterprise, but the episode very much seemed to say that the Classic
>
> Trek
>
>>>crew wasn't particularly memorable.
>>
>>Horsehockey. *I* recognized it pretty readily as a rehash of "The Naked
>>Time". Maybe the TNG crew never had the advantage of watching the old
>>TOS episodes? I'm sure not EVERY mission the original Enterprise was on
>>has become required learning in the 24th century. "Damn, I shoulda
>>figured this one out sooner, after all, there was a whole semester on
>>Jim Kirk at Starfleet Academy."
>
>
> I recognized it as a rehash too. I don't see how that changes things.
The point is that just because WE recognize that is no reason the
characters should automatically recognize the same thing some 80 years
later.
> The way the TNG version presented McCoy's findings such that it was obvious
> that nobody on the bridge had heard of him before.
And why should they have? Picard was big on history, but wasn't
necessarily a Kirk groupie. It may not be the greatest example, but
look at the Generations movie - Picard knows who Kirk is, largely by
reputation, but isn't intimate with the details of his life or career.
Why should he be? By the time of "Unification" Spock is STILL having an
active role in current affairs, but Picard isn't significantly more
familiar with his career either, except for what he specifically bones
up on before that mission.
So if the resident archaeology hobbiest Captain isn't that "up" on those
two characters, why should the rest of the crew, including Crusher, be
any more familiar with McCoy, and in particular, with one specific case
from one mission, of a condition that as far as we know hasn't
reappeared in over 80 years?
> It would follow that Jim Kirk--at THAT POINT in the Franchise's life, Kirk
> would be be at best a footnote in a single class. The Franchise got a
> little more polite later.
I'd expect he'd be included in a section on the more influential
starship captains of the time, possibly touching on certain career
highlights... I wouldn't think the happenings of "The Naked Time" would
be one.
Thunder, Agent '005
>>Personally, I didn't like "Encounter at Farpoint," but it does have
>>stuff that's necessary to the series (the scenes with Q, which neatly
>>tie up with "All Good Things.").
>
>
> It was one Deanna Troi's most effective moments as an empath. One of the
> few where she isn't stating the very, very obvious.
Are you f$*king kidding me? In Encounter at Farpoint, every time she
senses an emotion she emulates it on her face. Every. Single. Time. It
gets annoying very fast...granted, in later eps she states the obvious
as you say, but the first pilot isn't any better acting-wise.
t.k.
Thunder, Agent '005
> So if the resident archaeology hobbiest Captain isn't that "up" on those
> two characters, why should the rest of the crew, including Crusher, be
> any more familiar with McCoy, and in particular, with one specific case
> from one mission, of a condition that as far as we know hasn't
> reappeared in over 80 years?
>
Given how many times Kirk and co. saved the Earth and/or galaxy I would
think that they would be recognized and/or required reading in
Starfleet. I personally think it would be absurd that every crew had the
same level of success Kirk's did (I even recall that many of the
Constitution-class ships never came back from their five year missions).
Just my two cents, though...
t.k.
Wendy of NJ
But it's better than repeating what the computer says, isn't it?
Wendy of NJ
Or that airing orders have never been mucked with by the studios..
Matt Ion
Depends... if it's Sigourney Weaver in her "Gwen" getup, she can repeat
the damn computer all day long... ;)
Vorlonagent
"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:aOZNd.322077$Xk.267428@pd7tw3no...
I didn't say "entertaining" or "well-acted".
The character's gift was put to reasonably good use in resolving the problem
at hand. Considering the seven years ahead of her, it was one of Troi's
most useful moments.
Vorlonagent
> > I recognized it as a rehash too. I don't see how that changes things.
>
> The point is that just because WE recognize that is no reason the
> characters should automatically recognize the same thing some 80 years
> later.
Automatically? No.
But here in the real world, given that Classic Trek was the reason why TNG
existed (and/or survived its own crappy first season to have a second one) a
little acknowledgement seems in order if you pull write a show whose
plotline crosses Classic Trek's path.
> > The way the TNG version presented McCoy's findings such that it was
obvious
> > that nobody on the bridge had heard of him before.
>
> And why should they have? Picard was big on history, but wasn't
> necessarily a Kirk groupie. It may not be the greatest example, but
> look at the Generations movie - Picard knows who Kirk is, largely by
> reputation, but isn't intimate with the details of his life or career.
> Why should he be? By the time of "Unification" Spock is STILL having an
> active role in current affairs, but Picard isn't significantly more
> familiar with his career either, except for what he specifically bones
> up on before that mission.
General knowledge by repulation is all I'd want. Again, I wasn't/aren't
looking for TNG to build any shrines to Classic Trek. No hero-worship need
apply.
What I remember (and it's been 20 years now) was an attempt to minimize. To
assert that there was no reputation to know the Classic Trek characters by.
IIRC, McCoy had a cameo in "Encounter at Farpoint" walking a hall with Data
somewhere. McCoy was still around in TNG's timeframe as well and associated
with Starfleet in some capacity.
Crusher should have known him by reputation and the script left a definite
sense of "McCoy who?"
> So if the resident archaeology hobbiest Captain isn't that "up" on those
> two characters, why should the rest of the crew, including Crusher, be
> any more familiar with McCoy, and in particular, with one specific case
> from one mission, of a condition that as far as we know hasn't
> reappeared in over 80 years?
>
> > It would follow that Jim Kirk--at THAT POINT in the Franchise's life,
Kirk
> > would be be at best a footnote in a single class. The Franchise got a
> > little more polite later.
>
> I'd expect he'd be included in a section on the more influential
> starship captains of the time, possibly touching on certain career
> highlights... I wouldn't think the happenings of "The Naked Time" would
> be one.
Agreed, but when you have a bizarre problem in front of you and review the
records to see if it's happened before and see that it was dealt with by
some of the best the past had to offer, it's usually worth a brief comment.
None was offerred. Quite the opposite.
Richard
@individual.net:
> "Brad Barton" <br...@jti.net> wrote in message
> news:110bder...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Kerr wrote:
>> > "Chris Kocher" <cko...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:W7AMd.27422$ZD1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> >
>> >>Thunder, Agent '005 wrote:
>> >>This season really is the best one... finally the series figured out
>> >>what it wanted to do. A shame it took so long, after so many people
>> >>have already given it up for dead.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, because people really should learn to give a show up to 4
>> > years of their life before they make a judgement call about it.
>> >
>> > Sorry, one year is about all I'll give. I'm not going to keep
>> > waiting and hoping a show improves itself to the point of being
>> > watchable.
>>
>> Geez, if that were true for me, I would never have watched Next
>> Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, or even Babylon 5. With the
>> exception of a couple episodes, the first seasons of all of those
>> shows SUCKED.
>
> In your opinion. In my opinion, that's a fairly large exaggeration.
>
> Season 1 of:
>
> Next Generation - not very good, had a few stinkers, some very good
> episodes, and most of the rest were passable. Nowhere near as bad as
> Voyager.
Sucked to high heaven, drove me away from watching the show until about
season 3 or so. Every episode I watched seemed to be some sort of rehash
of an original Star Trek episode.
>
> Deep Space Nine - At the time, I didn't care for it. Found it
> uninspiring. Now, I can barely remember it.
Skipped most of season 1. It had some decent episodes at times though.
>
> Voyager - Let's face it, all but maybe a half-dozen episodes in the
> entire seven year span, sucked.
Can't disagree here.
>
> Babylon 5 - had a couple of episodes that I didn't care for at all.
The
> rest were good, some excellent.
>
I was hooked from the get go on B5.
--
Richard
Mac Breck
news:Xns95F7923C61FABri...@130.133.1.4...
I gave that sucker quite a few years before giving up on it and going to
Voyager, which it turns out was worse. Then, a friend, who knew I found
Voyager to be putrid, showed me B5. I've been with B5 (and Crusade)
ever since. Until Enterprise came along, I didn't watch Trek. Watched
a good bit of SG-1, and almost all of Farscape, though. <g>
> > Babylon 5 - had a couple of episodes that I didn't care for at all.
> The
> > rest were good, some excellent.
> >
>
> I was hooked from the get go on B5.
I was hooked by the very first episode I saw (which turns out to have
been "Shadow Dancing," not "Walkabout" as I'd originally thought. I was
getting the Franklin episodes mixed up a bit.).
Carl
directly...something along the lines of how he was a space cowboy way back
then and he'd never be in Star Fleet now...but it was a wild galaxy back
then and people like Kirk were needed.
Also in DS9 they had an episode intermixed with the Tribbles episode, and
Sisko made reference to Kirk being a hero of his. He even went for an
autograph.
Voyager even had some episode referencing with Capt. Sulu, didn't it?
It seems only the TNG crew never heard of Kirk (until the movies) and McCoy.
"Vorlonagent" <j...@otfresno.com> wrote in message
news:zLmdncaET57...@sti.net...
Vorlonagent
"Carl" <ceng...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:J-qdnVzlaYY...@comcast.com...
> I seem to recall that Voyager had Janeway making a reference to Kirk
> directly...something along the lines of how he was a space cowboy way back
> then and he'd never be in Star Fleet now...but it was a wild galaxy back
> then and people like Kirk were needed.
....And still are.
It's beuraucrats and desk admirals like Janeway who had messed the
Federation up by the 24th century. People like Kirk disturb their
bean-counting regularity.
Janeway-grade recognition was more than Roddenberry himself could handle as
evidence by "Naked Now". As I said, the Franchise got more polite as time
went on.
> Also in DS9 they had an episode intermixed with the Tribbles episode, and
> Sisko made reference to Kirk being a hero of his. He even went for an
> autograph.
True, but DS9 also introduced an insanely silly 1/2 second reset phase into
the Classic Trek Enterprise's sensor systems to allow them to beam around as
needed. I suppose K-7's sensors were in synch? And Koloth's D7?
> Voyager even had some episode referencing with Capt. Sulu, didn't it?
I didn't watch that. It looked darn silly from the previews.
But that was Voyager for you. I was long gone from Voyager by then.
> It seems only the TNG crew never heard of Kirk (until the movies) and
McCoy.
That was redressed in the movies.
TNG's tendecy to look down its nose at Classic Trek came from the legitimate
need to establish itself as its own thing and Roddenberry's resentment of
Classic Trek. To be honest, it was not Roddenberry that made Classic Trek
work. It was Gene Coon, it was the fact that Trek attracted some of the big
Science Fiction authors of its day, generating some darn good scripts.
Classic Trek succeeded because it outgrew Roddenberry.
Jon Schild
>Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of
>Thunder, Agent '005 of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>
>
>> From Sci-Fi Wire...
>>
>>"UPN Cancels Enterprise
>>
>>
>
>So they milked the teat for all it was worth and it finally ran dry. The
>Great Bird can finally rest in peace as they stop trampling on his grave.
>
>
It seems that if they could carry that worse than horrible "Voyager" for
7 years, they could have given Enterprise another season.
Rob Perkins
> B5 is one of the rare shows who had a bad start and actually mange to go
> anywhere I'd care to follow. More common is Space: Above and Beyond or
> "Seaquest DSV".
Oh, that last one took a nosedive for its second (third?) season, didn't
it?
Rob, who never took an interest in S:AAB
Thunder, Agent '005
or something) is killed during the ST VI story time that the ep covered
but that he was there at the end of ST VI. So, whoever wrote the ep was
lazy and didn't bother rewatching ST VI... :)
t.k.
Thunder, Agent '005
>
> I was hooked from the get go on B5.
>
Same here... I thought it had potential even as far back as The
Gathering and wanted to see more. As time went on, it seldom
disappointed me--if anything, it far exceeded my expectations.
t.k.
Vorlonagent
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to
fit their views
....which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
needs altering."
-The Doctor
"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:fUjOd.338403$6l.139638@pd7tw2no...
Vorlonagent
I guess I'm more cynical.
But then, the Gathering put me seriously off.
Lots of shows have potential. Give a lousy show to a good writer with a
free hand you can turn it into some good stuff.
That doesn't often happen with sci-fi. Usually what starts bad ends bad.
I respect disagreement on this point, but for me B5 started pretty bad.
Carl
>> directly...something along the lines of how he was a space cowboy way
>> back
>> then and he'd never be in Star Fleet now...but it was a wild galaxy back
>> then and people like Kirk were needed.
.....And still are.
Agreed. Apparently humanity has not outgrown exaggerated egos and
condescension in Janeway's time.
> TNG's tendecy to look down its nose at Classic Trek came from the
> legitimate
> need to establish itself as its own thing and Roddenberry's resentment of
> Classic Trek.
More the latter I would think. The only way you really can have a good
show about a space ship & crew flying about getting into trouble and
spreading their morality through the galaxy is through the characters. That
doesn't mean you can't acknowledge what went before.
If I recall correctly, in the end Roddenberry started introducing things
like the IDIC simply so that he could try to market them. He punted and
tried to milk it for what he could get out if it.
> To be honest, it was not Roddenberry that made Classic Trek
> work. It was Gene Coon, it was the fact that Trek attracted some of the
> big
> Science Fiction authors of its day, generating some darn good scripts.
> Classic Trek succeeded because it outgrew Roddenberry.
Absolutely.
Vorlonagent
"Rob Perkins" <rper...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:36nt8cF...@individual.net...
> Vorlonagent wrote:
>
> > B5 is one of the rare shows who had a bad start and actually mange to go
> > anywhere I'd care to follow. More common is Space: Above and Beyond or
> > "Seaquest DSV".
>
> Oh, that last one took a nosedive for its second (third?) season, didn't
> it?
As did DSV in point of fact.
Neither went anywhere I cared to follow.
Neither were particularly well-done on the average (I have heard that S:AAB
had some good episodes and I have watched at least one good DSV. I can only
assume that they were...pardon the pun...flukes)
I am especially sorry that DSV wasted two year's worth of Roy Scheider's
valuable time.
Wesley Struebing
<j...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:yWjOd.337313$8l.148450@pd7tw1no...
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I was hooked from the get go on B5.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Same here... I thought it had potential even as far back as The
>> Gathering and wanted to see more. As time went on, it seldom
>> disappointed me--if anything, it far exceeded my expectations.
>
>
>I guess I'm more cynical.
>
>But then, the Gathering put me seriously off.
>
>Lots of shows have potential. Give a lousy show to a good writer with a
>free hand you can turn it into some good stuff.
>
>That doesn't often happen with sci-fi. Usually what starts bad ends bad.
>
>I respect disagreement on this point, but for me B5 started pretty bad.
Glad you decided to give it another try.
(first ep I saw was somewhere in first season. My reaction was "oh -
jeez. Star Trek with bad costuming..". Boy, was *I* wrong!)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Brad Barton
>
> Do you mean Kosh and N'Grath?
Well, in the original airing of The Gathering, there was that whole,
painful, unnecessary "alien sector" tour full of muppets in their
cages...err.. quarters. If I recall, JMS later said he was never happy
with the zoo like feeling, so it was redone when The Gathering was later
re-issued... (With the painful, "Entil-zha" comment Kosh makes when he
greats Sinclair that was added in as well... if that had been there
originally, much of the suspense of the first couple seasons and all of
the suspense of War Without End would have been lost.)
We're all die-hard B5 fans here, and we tend to look back on The
Gathering and Season 1 with the rose colored glasses of our love for
what it became... and many Star Trek fans look at all of Star Trek that
way, both the good and bad episodes. They can ignore the Naked Nows
because they remember The Inner Lights and the Yesterday's Enterprises.
I'm one of those Star Trek fans.. and I've watched Enterprise, at times
like the train wreck its been.. but like most Star Trek fans, I can
ignore Enterprise's Season 1 and 2 in exchange for 3 and 4... I can
still enjoy it while rolling my eyes at its sometimes lame attempts at
continuity and time travel paradoxes. Remember, Star Trek has been
around for almost 40 years... only Soap Operas can compare longevity...
and we won't even try to figure out their continuity (with kids that
were born when I was watching as a teenager in the early 80s now are 40
somethings with teenagers of their own).
Vorlonagent
"Wesley Struebing" <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote in message
news:m9fl01lfduat6399h...@4ax.com...
>
> >I respect disagreement on this point, but for me B5 started pretty bad.
>
> Glad you decided to give it another try.
Me too.
> (first ep I saw was somewhere in first season. My reaction was "oh -
> jeez. Star Trek with bad costuming..". Boy, was *I* wrong!)
I can relate. (:
Vorlonagent
> >> I seem to recall that Voyager had Janeway making a reference to Kirk
> >> directly...something along the lines of how he was a space cowboy way
> >> back
> >> then and he'd never be in Star Fleet now...but it was a wild galaxy
back
> >> then and people like Kirk were needed.
>
> .....And still are.
>
> Agreed. Apparently humanity has not outgrown exaggerated egos and
> condescension in Janeway's time.
If anything, they grew into them.
Arguably, Starfleet built on the "easy" victories won by the cowboys,
becoming conformist, elitist, arrogant and self-righteous.
> > TNG's tendecy to look down its nose at Classic Trek came from the
> > legitimate
> > need to establish itself as its own thing and Roddenberry's resentment
of
> > Classic Trek.
>
> More the latter I would think. The only way you really can have a good
> show about a space ship & crew flying about getting into trouble and
> spreading their morality through the galaxy is through the characters.
That
> doesn't mean you can't acknowledge what went before.
I tend to agree.
But there is also a need to differentiate, to stake out some unique
territory that makes you different from those other guys, whether they
function under the same banner or a different one.
"We're not some deep-space Franchise! This station is supposed to mean
something!" --Ivonava
> If I recall correctly, in the end Roddenberry started introducing things
> like the IDIC simply so that he could try to market them. He punted and
> tried to milk it for what he could get out if it.
>
> > To be honest, it was not Roddenberry that made Classic Trek
> > work. It was Gene Coon, it was the fact that Trek attracted some of the
> > big
> > Science Fiction authors of its day, generating some darn good scripts.
> > Classic Trek succeeded because it outgrew Roddenberry.
>
> Absolutely.
Sometimes I consider the possibility that Roddenberry resented Classic Trek
for becoming such a massive phenomenon that he could not control.
Thunder, Agent '005
> Lots of shows have potential. Give a lousy show to a good writer with a
> free hand you can turn it into some good stuff.
I can name off a lot of shows that had excellent pilots and went into
the toilet not long after (Roswell would be one as would Sliders).
> That doesn't often happen with sci-fi. Usually what starts bad ends bad.
>
True... I try to give shows some time to improve but its often just a
waste of time because the writers/producers don't have the first clue.
t.k.
Wesley Struebing
IIRC, "Seaquest DSV"(the original) was dying with Roy Scheider, and he
opted out. It was brought back as "Seaquest 2032"(?) with Michael
Inronside, and *really* sucked. It died - as it should have...
8-)