[NEWS] - The Bell Tolls for Enterprise?

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Stan Jensen

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 3:55:16 PM12/9/03
to
from DarkHorizons.com

The talk of ratings and critical disappointment has been pervasive for
some time now on the latest Trek spin-off. Despite its relaunch this
year with a new storyline and purpose which has yielded a better
quality show, ratings sadly haven't reflected it - whilst holding
steady this year they're still far from ideal.

Then the other day this scoop came in, whilst the news is reasonable
sounding I held off on it to see if I could find out anything
corroborating or would deny its content. So far nothing either way but
I'd thought I'd share it before it pops up somewhere else as 'fact'
when its simply rumour for now:

"On the Paramount lot this week, a memo was circulated to the
production staff advising them that the current season would be reduced
to 24 shows from 26. This marks the first time in nearly 20 years that
this has occurred for a Trek show; all non-first seasons of all the
existing and previous series have always consisted of 26 shows (except
TNG: Season 2 due to a writers strike).

Lot talk behind the memo is that next year will be the last season of
"Enterprise". A fourth and final season of 24 shows, which with the
first two seasons total episode count of 52, would fulfill the magic
syndication requirement of 100 total episodes. No word on the future
of the Franchise".

Thanks to 'Thanksalotrick'.

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 4:19:08 PM12/9/03
to
Stan Jensen wrote:

Hmmmmmm.

I wouldn't be especially sad to see Enterprise go. I would
be sad that they probably wouldn't want to make another
series if this one flops. Not for quite a long while anyway.

--
Graham Kennedy

Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org

Snake

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 4:33:30 PM12/9/03
to
Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:10710045...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...

> Hmmmmmm.
>
> I wouldn't be especially sad to see Enterprise go. I would
> be sad that they probably wouldn't want to make another
> series if this one flops. Not for quite a long while anyway.

And the mental image of Berman flopping about like a stranded fish now comes
to mind...


Elvis Gump

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 4:33:52 PM12/9/03
to
in article 10710045...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 3:19 PM:

Maybe it might pave the way for someone like Harv Bennett, Shatner, Nimoy or
Nicolas Meyer to come in take the helm. B&B have got to see the writing on
the wall that their reign could be near and end and already be looking for
something to land their golden parachutes on when this series goes belly up
anyway.

I think the Trek franchise will go into cold storage though myself. Maybe
another movie in a few years, but where else can they go with a TV series?
--
"I sold my memoirs of my love life to Parker Brothers --
they're going to make a game out of it."
-- Woody Allen

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 4:45:56 PM12/9/03
to
Elvis Gump wrote:

Thing is, you're average TV executive doesn't think in terms
of "it failed, so we must try again with better writers and
producers."

It's very likely that they will read the message as "it failed,
so the public must be fed up with Star Trek."

z

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 4:59:23 PM12/9/03
to
Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in news:1071004575.6058.0
@eunomia.uk.clara.net:


>
> I wouldn't be especially sad to see Enterprise go. I would
> be sad that they probably wouldn't want to make another
> series if this one flops. Not for quite a long while anyway.
>

I"d miss it. The one thing going for making another series is that the
special effects costs are going down all the time so maybe as time goes by
they won't need to spend so much on production -- and so could afford to
make a less popular show.

Elvis Gump

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 4:58:39 PM12/9/03
to
in article 10710061...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 3:45 PM:

> Elvis Gump wrote:

>> Maybe it might pave the way for someone like Harv Bennett, Shatner, Nimoy or
>> Nicolas Meyer to come in take the helm. B&B have got to see the writing on
>> the wall that their reign could be near and end and already be looking for
>> something to land their golden parachutes on when this series goes belly up
>> anyway.
>>
>> I think the Trek franchise will go into cold storage though myself. Maybe
>> another movie in a few years, but where else can they go with a TV series?
>>
> Thing is, you're average TV executive doesn't think in terms of "it failed, so
> we must try again with better writers and producers."
>
> It's very likely that they will read the message as "it failed, so the public
> must be fed up with Star Trek."

That may well be but Trek has probably been a nice steady money maker for
Paramount. They'd have to be exceptionally dumb not to have thought of
trying to retool everything from the exec producers down to keep the money
rolling in. Their imagination might only extend to promoting someone else
from past glory of TNG like offering the exec producer slot to Ron Moore or
Michael Pillar or other that have gone on to other things.

I'd be amazed if they weren't at least considering something like that even
if they ultimately don't act on it.
--
"Just remember, wherever you go, there you are."
-- Buckaroo Bonzai

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 5:21:40 PM12/9/03
to
Elvis Gump wrote:

> in article 10710061...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
> gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 3:45 PM:
>
>
>>Elvis Gump wrote:
>
>
>>>Maybe it might pave the way for someone like Harv Bennett, Shatner, Nimoy or
>>>Nicolas Meyer to come in take the helm. B&B have got to see the writing on
>>>the wall that their reign could be near and end and already be looking for
>>>something to land their golden parachutes on when this series goes belly up
>>>anyway.
>>>
>>>I think the Trek franchise will go into cold storage though myself. Maybe
>>>another movie in a few years, but where else can they go with a TV series?
>>>
>>
>>Thing is, you're average TV executive doesn't think in terms of "it failed, so
>>we must try again with better writers and producers."
>>
>>It's very likely that they will read the message as "it failed, so the public
>>must be fed up with Star Trek."
>
>
> That may well be but Trek has probably been a nice steady money maker for
> Paramount. They'd have to be exceptionally dumb not to have thought of
> trying to retool everything from the exec producers down to keep the money
> rolling in. Their imagination might only extend to promoting someone else
> from past glory of TNG like offering the exec producer slot to Ron Moore or
> Michael Pillar or other that have gone on to other things.

I wonder to what extent they might just decide that most
of that money will keep rolling in anyway; are people
going to stop buying Voyager on DVD because Enterprise
isn't on?

> I'd be amazed if they weren't at least considering something like that even
> if they ultimately don't act on it.

I hope so. No more B&B, some new fresh ideas for a
new series... pardon the pun, but it sounds like
the best of both worlds.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 5:19:07 PM12/9/03
to
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:33:52 -0600, Elvis Gump
<elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:

>>
>> I wouldn't be especially sad to see Enterprise go. I would
>> be sad that they probably wouldn't want to make another
>> series if this one flops. Not for quite a long while anyway.
>
>Maybe it might pave the way for someone like Harv Bennett, Shatner, Nimoy or
>Nicolas Meyer to come in take the helm.

It wouldn't. It would just close the book on space science fiction
for the foreseeable future, much as the book has been closed
on space exploration in real life.

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 5:24:49 PM12/9/03
to
z wrote:

Is that really true though? What does an episode
of Enterprise cost compared to Voyager, DS9,
TNG?

My impression is that the budgets stay the same
or grow; they just throw more and better FX into
the shows. Remember they're in competition with
other sci-fi, if they are still using 2003 level
FX five years from now they will end up with a
show that looks cheap and dated.

Not that that is fatal; B5 never had Trek's
budget and did very nicely indeed without it.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 5:24:39 PM12/9/03
to
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:45:56 +0000, Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org>
wrote:


>
>Thing is, you're average TV executive doesn't think in terms
>of "it failed, so we must try again with better writers and
>producers."
>
>It's very likely that they will read the message as "it failed,
>so the public must be fed up with Star Trek."

Nor are they going to be particularly wrong. Stories
that would have been quite satisfactory 40 or even ten
years ago are exciting nothing but hostility and ennui
now. There is a distinct lack of willingness to give
Enterprise the kind of leeway that, say, TNG was
accorded.

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 5:42:34 PM12/9/03
to
David Johnston wrote:

That's not really the way I see it. I was around for
TNG the first time it ran, and it was treated with a
LOT of hostility by the fans. People endlessley compared
it to TOS, and usually found it wanting.

It wasn't until Season 3 began to take off that this
changed; Best of Both Worlds was the point at which it
really shook off the TOS legacy.

Enterprise just isn't doing that, because it isn't
living up to it's own premise. It's like the people
who are making it don't care about it, so why should we?

Jarod_24

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 5:35:53 PM12/9/03
to

"Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:10710085...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...

That depends on how you view it.
I didn't actually help the quality that the clips that they used were the
same for all the 5 seasons.
You see it more clearly when you watch lots of episodes in a short period of
time.

You got the feeling that this show is clearly made on a sound-stage.

Elvis Gump

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 5:58:40 PM12/9/03
to
in article 10710083...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 4:21 PM:

Maybe they'll just settle for the syndication and DVD sales money. Who
knows? One day a tell-all book should be interesting on this whole 2nd era
of the behind the scenes stories of 20-something years of movies and tv
series.

>> I'd be amazed if they weren't at least considering something like that even
>> if they ultimately don't act on it.

> I hope so. No more B&B, some new fresh ideas for a new series... pardon the
> pun, but it sounds like the best of both worlds.

Considering how old Shatner and Nimoy are I don't think the studio would
gamble much on their prolonged involvement. Even Harv Bennett is on up
there. Maybe Meyer or someone from the TNG on era could do it. Or they could
bring in some other unknown but supposedly hot shot like Berman was low
those many years ago.

From all the behind the scenes stuff I've read of Trek's long production
history a lot of it seems to have been done on a whim at times so one never
can guess what the guys in the front office might do. IT seems like another
season of Enterprise is assured just for the syndication deal but after that
it's probably anyone's guess.
--
"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so."
-- Douglas Adams

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 6:08:59 PM12/9/03
to
Elvis Gump wrote:

I'm not usually into behind the scenes stuff much,
but I'd love to know what went on with Voyager.
I'd especially like to hear from Beltran now he
has nothing to lose.

>>>I'd be amazed if they weren't at least considering something like that even
>>>if they ultimately don't act on it.
>
>
>>I hope so. No more B&B, some new fresh ideas for a new series... pardon the
>>pun, but it sounds like the best of both worlds.
>
>
> Considering how old Shatner and Nimoy are I don't think the studio would
> gamble much on their prolonged involvement. Even Harv Bennett is on up
> there. Maybe Meyer or someone from the TNG on era could do it. Or they could
> bring in some other unknown but supposedly hot shot like Berman was low
> those many years ago.

Personally I'd be begging Ron Moore or maybe Robert Wolfe
to come and do a series.

> From all the behind the scenes stuff I've read of Trek's long production
> history a lot of it seems to have been done on a whim at times so one never
> can guess what the guys in the front office might do. IT seems like another
> season of Enterprise is assured just for the syndication deal but after that
> it's probably anyone's guess.

Agreed.

Elvis Gump

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 6:28:45 PM12/9/03
to
in article 107101117...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 5:08 PM:

> Elvis Gump wrote:
>
>> in article 10710083...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
>> gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 4:21 PM:

>> Maybe they'll just settle for the syndication and DVD sales money. Who knows?


>> One day a tell-all book should be interesting on this whole 2nd era of the
>> behind the scenes stories of 20-something years of movies and tv series.

> I'm not usually into behind the scenes stuff much, but I'd love to know what
> went on with Voyager. I'd especially like to hear from Beltran now he has
> nothing to lose.

I enjoyed "Inside Trek" a lot which was written by Solow and Justman
primarily about the TOS years but touched on some of the insanity of the
movies and TNG where Justman came back and exited from quickly. Of course
you never get the unvarnished truth from such stuff but the stories where
quite entertaining. It's amazing to me to no end that TOS stuck around for
as long as it did after reading that book.

>> Considering how old Shatner and Nimoy are I don't think the studio would
>> gamble much on their prolonged involvement. Even Harv Bennett is on up there.
>> Maybe Meyer or someone from the TNG on era could do it. Or they could bring
>> in some other unknown but supposedly hot shot like Berman was low those many
>> years ago.
>>
> Personally I'd be begging Ron Moore or maybe Robert Wolfe to come and do a
> series.

Rom Moore seemed to have had a hand in the episodes I liked the most in the
TNG era, at least from just reading the credits. But after reading a lot
about how the business works or rather often doesn't a good writer or even
someone with a lot of common sense might not be able to hack being at the
helm with all the machinations that go on.

Show-bizness attracts more than it's share of people looking to make a buck
if by no other means than gumming up the works and ratfucking everyone.
Often times putting out something worth watching is the absolute LAST item
on their agenda which explains a lot...
--
"Aloha means hello and good-by. They say that in Hawaii. Which proves if you
spend enough time out in the sun you don't know whether you're coming or
going."
-- George Carlin

Dale

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 6:33:59 PM12/9/03
to
Fearing nothing Elvis Gump proclaimed this bit of great wisdom:

> in article 10710045...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
> gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 3:19 PM:
>
>> Stan Jensen wrote:
>>
>>> from DarkHorizons.com
>>>
>>> The talk of ratings and critical disappointment has been pervasive
>>> for some time now on the latest Trek spin-off. Despite its relaunch
>>> this year with a new storyline and purpose which has yielded a
>>> better
>>> quality show, ratings sadly haven't reflected it - whilst holding
>>> steady this year they're still far from ideal.
>>>
>>> Then the other day this scoop came in, whilst the news is reasonable
>>> sounding I held off on it to see if I could find out anything
>>> corroborating or would deny its content. So far nothing either way
>>> but I'd thought I'd share it before it pops up somewhere else as
>>> 'fact'
>>> when its simply rumor for now:

Hopefully B&B will left out in the Hollywood cold for a long time.

--

Have Fun

Dale

Spring was never waiting,
For us girl,
It ran one step ahead,
Has we followed in the dance,

Website:http://www.home.earthlink.net/~hipdale/Riverton_Common.HTML
Home: Ellenwood Ga.
Camera: HP Photosmart 320
Software: Photoshop 7.0


David Johnston

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 6:46:24 PM12/9/03
to
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:59:23 -0600, z <z...@yada.yada.com> wrote:

>Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in news:1071004575.6058.0
>@eunomia.uk.clara.net:
>
>
>>
>> I wouldn't be especially sad to see Enterprise go. I would
>> be sad that they probably wouldn't want to make another
>> series if this one flops. Not for quite a long while anyway.
>>
>
>I"d miss it. The one thing going for making another series is that the
>special effects costs are going down all the time

They aren't, you know. You just get better effects for a given
investment, but since the audience is constantly getting more
demanding (I still can't believe that people were actually bitching
about the the CGI in the Hulk movie. Man, they'd have a heart attack
if they ever saw a Harryhausen movie), it always costs the same
or more to do a new series.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 6:47:39 PM12/9/03
to
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:42:34 +0000, Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org>
wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:45:56 +0000, Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thing is, you're average TV executive doesn't think in terms
>>>of "it failed, so we must try again with better writers and
>>>producers."
>>>
>>>It's very likely that they will read the message as "it failed,
>>>so the public must be fed up with Star Trek."
>>
>>
>> Nor are they going to be particularly wrong. Stories
>> that would have been quite satisfactory 40 or even ten
>> years ago are exciting nothing but hostility and ennui
>> now. There is a distinct lack of willingness to give
>> Enterprise the kind of leeway that, say, TNG was
>> accorded.
>
>That's not really the way I see it. I was around for
>TNG the first time it ran, and it was treated with a
>LOT of hostility by the fans. People endlessley compared
>it to TOS, and usually found it wanting.

But they still _watched_ it. They aren't doing that any more.

Captain Freaky Pants

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 6:50:27 PM12/9/03
to
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:46:24 GMT, bl...@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>(I still can't believe that people were actually bitching
>about the the CGI in the Hulk movie. Man, they'd have a heart attack
>if they ever saw a Harryhausen movie),

I've seen pretty much every Harryhausen movie, even the shorts. And
the Hulk was pretty bad, especially compared to something like the
Medusa from CLASH OF THE TITANS (RH's masterpiece).
===================================================
http://www.rocketshipvideo.com
http://www.classicfilmimages.com
===================================================

Elvis Gump

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 7:14:26 PM12/9/03
to
in article 3fd652dd...@news.telusplanet.net, David Johnston at
bl...@telusplanet.net wrote on 12/9/03 5:46 PM:

I thought the quality of the Hulk animation was top-flight but I think a lot
of people were complaining because it was so unbelievably done. It was one
thing to imagine a guy could become the Hulk in the comics, maybe a stretch
to see Bill Bixby become the size of Lou Ferrigno but to see the Hulk become
15ft tall photo-realistically pushed it way too far to me.

As to "Enterprise" I've never heard what the per-episode cost of it is. I
remember there was a big deal made of the $1 million per episode that TNG
supposedly cost. Not all the episodes are obviously the same and they are
probably always trading budget from episode to episode to cover production
overages, such as maybe "Carpenter Street" having less FX than "Twilight",
but has there ever been talk about what the average episode costs?

Even if it's up to $2 million per for Enterprise, that's 26 hours for $52
million which is still cheaper than most one-off feature films.
--
"Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance."
-- Sam Brown

Eric Furniss

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 7:20:27 PM12/9/03
to
Gee, was it just 10 years ago that I would tune in every Saturday night from
6-8 to watch the latest DS9 and TNG episodes? Those it seems now were the
glory days. Who would have thought then that our beloved franchise would
sink to this low point? It's quite likely next year could be the last bit of
Trek we get for sometime. The movie franchise is toast. TV is a disaster.
Someone please explain to me how B & B have managed to stay employed? How
many flops do they need to produce before someone at Paramount wises up? At
this point, I blame Paramount more than I do B & B. The studio allowed them
to produce this mess. The studio set the release date for Nemesis. They
figured we'd keep tuning in or buying tickets for whatever crap they put
out.

I would love to see someone like Ron Moore or Ira Steven Behr look after the
franchise but I don't see it happening. The time to go for fresh blood and
new ideas was after Voyager went off the air. If we're not looking at the
death of Trek, it's at least on Medicare, collecting social security, and
living out it's final days in an assisted living care facility in Florida.
Short of us raising the cash to buy Paramount to run Trek ourselves, I sure
as hell don't know what we can do to bring it back.

Eric
"Jarod_24" <jaro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e0212f355600a06...@news.teranews.com...

Dale

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 8:05:14 PM12/9/03
to
Fearing nothing Eric Furniss proclaimed this bit of great wisdom:

I've heard the death of Star Trek proclaimed since Tos was first cancelled
yet here we are in 2003 still talking about it. Trek will live on as long
as they are people like us that see in it a brighter future. NBC couldn't
kill it and neither will B&B for in our hearts beats the words "Space the
final frontier, These are the Voyages of the Star Ship Enterprise. It
mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life, new
civilizations. To boldly go where no man as gone before!

Numan

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 8:08:41 PM12/9/03
to

"Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message
news:rjdctvgc483h892k3...@4ax.com...

I hope it is true, but only if a decent show takes its place. I like having
new Trek.


Joe62

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 8:40:22 PM12/9/03
to
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:24:39 GMT, bl...@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>now. There is a distinct lack of willingness to give
>Enterprise the kind of leeway that, say, TNG was
>accorded.

To put this another way, people have a lot more entertainment choices
now than when TNG was on. Maybe some of you are too young to remember
the early nineties <g> but it was much more limited. The Internet was
barely registering, video games were primitive, your home
entertainment was basically 30 channels and rented videos.

So it's probably not realistic to expect any TV show to gain that kind
of foothold in the popular imagination. Even smash hits like CSI are
based on specific, niche audiences. In the 90s if there was a hit
(Simpsons, Seinfeld, X-Files) then *everyone* watched it.

Elvis Gump

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 9:48:54 PM12/9/03
to
in article fFtBb.817$5t3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Eric Furniss at
e.furn...@verizon.net wrote on 12/9/03 6:20 PM:

> If we're not looking at the death of Trek, it's at least on Medicare,
> collecting social security, and living out it's final days in an assisted
> living care facility in Florida. Short of us raising the cash to buy Paramount
> to run Trek ourselves, I sure as hell don't know what we can do to bring it
> back.
>
> Eric

If Trek is on Medicare, why do I as a fan feel like I'm in the leper ward of
Tijuana charity hospital eating questionable looking refried beans and
feelin' leery of drinking the water?
--
"All generalizations are bad, including this one."
-- Mark Twain

David B.

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 11:07:55 PM12/9/03
to

If Enterprise gets cancelled you can say goodbye to Star Trek for at
least a decade.

Vetteguy

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 11:58:26 PM12/9/03
to

"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BBFBE5B6.27269%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...
Actually, the irony is that it's not PARAMOUNT's fault. Lots of money was
sunk into Star Trek by Paramount,
which made paramount very attractive to Viacom. you want to point a finger,
look to Viacom
even though it was Star Trek that got paramount through the early 80's,
Viacom is the company
turning the cold shoulder to the franchise. it doesn't help that Enterprise
is being totally out FXed by
Andromeda and outclassed by Stargate SG-1


VG
--
Your Mileage May Vary


Vetteguy

unread,
Dec 9, 2003, 11:51:18 PM12/9/03
to

"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BBFBB6CD.271F7%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...
I could see Levar Burton and Jonathan Frakes champing at the bit to produce
a Star Trek series
I think Frakes did a respectable job as a direcor on the siver screen and
Burton has a lot of production experience both as a director
and as a producer from Reading Rainbow

James Evans

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 12:08:40 AM12/10/03
to


It's the law of diminishing returns. I don't mean to sound like
a defender of B&B, but realistically. . .could *anyone* have sustained
the magic thru series after series after series? Perhaps there should
have been just one last great ST series (with different producers and
a new approach) after TNG. Maybe DS9 should have been the last one.

Elvis Gump

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 12:16:37 AM12/10/03
to
in article fKxBb.9564$hv2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net, Vetteguy at
Vett...@Driving.Corvette.nz wrote on 12/9/03 10:51 PM:

>
> "Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:BBFBB6CD.271F7%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...
>> in article 107101117...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
>> gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 5:08 PM:

>>>> Considering how old Shatner and Nimoy are I don't think the studio would


>>>> gamble much on their prolonged involvement. Even Harv Bennett is on up
>>>> there. Maybe Meyer or someone from the TNG on era could do it. Or they
>>>> could bring in some other unknown but supposedly hot shot like Berman was
>>>> low those many years ago.
>>>>
>>> Personally I'd be begging Ron Moore or maybe Robert Wolfe to come and do a
>>> series.
>>>
>> Rom Moore seemed to have had a hand in the episodes I liked the most in the
>> TNG era, at least from just reading the credits. But after reading a lot
>> about how the business works or rather often doesn't a good writer or even
>> someone with a lot of common sense might not be able to hack being at the
>> helm with all the machinations that go on.
>>
>> Show-bizness attracts more than it's share of people looking to make a buck
>> if by no other means than gumming up the works and ratfucking everyone. Often
>> times putting out something worth watching is the absolute LAST item on their
>> agenda which explains a lot... -- "Aloha means hello and good-by. They say
>> that in Hawaii. Which proves if you spend enough time out in the sun you
>> don't know whether you're coming or going." -- George Carlin
>>
> I could see Levar Burton and Jonathan Frakes champing at the bit to produce a
> Star Trek series I think Frakes did a respectable job as a direcor on the
> siver screen and Burton has a lot of production experience both as a director
> and as a producer from Reading Rainbow
>
> VG

I didn't think of Frakes because he's already got a bit of a directing
career away from Trek. Burton might make a good choice.

I wouldn't mind them bringing back TNG weekly with Riker or LaForge as
Captain with a new crew and the occasional guest shot with say Picard as an
Admiral along with the rest of the old crew occasionally. Had they gone that
route instead of movies the way some series like "Law and Order" or "ER"
have with their ensemble casts rotate out they might have had a better shot
at longevity.

Hey, at this point I say bring Wil Wheaton back!

Can you say Cap'n Crusher?
--
"Whenever someone asks me to define love, I usually think for a minute, then
I spin around and pin the guy's arm behind his back. NOW who's asking the
questions?"
-- "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey

normdoering

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 1:58:00 AM12/10/03
to
Stan Jensen <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message news:<rjdctvgc483h892k3...@4ax.com>...
> from DarkHorizons.com
>
> ....A fourth and final season of 24 shows, which with the
> first two seasons total episode count of 52, would fulfill the magic
> syndication requirement of 100 total episodes. No word on the future
> of the Franchise".
>

I hate to see Star Trek go. But the series has been getting stagnate
in the idea department. It's no longer as inventive and original as it
once was.

They need some new creative blood.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 4:07:06 AM12/10/03
to
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:08:41 GMT, "Numan" <tbrd...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>>
>> Thanks to 'Thanksalotrick'.
>
>I hope it is true, but only if a decent show takes its place. I

Then I hope you like reality shows.

Snake

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 9:14:17 AM12/10/03
to
Elvis Gump <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BBFC0855.272DD%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...

> Can you say Cap'n Crusher?

:-) Too 'young', but 'Science Officer Lt. (or Lt. Cmndr.) Crusher sounds
very, very likely. He has proven himself, /more/ than adept, at science to
hold a fine rank in that position.


Snake

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 9:16:52 AM12/10/03
to
Joe62 <jmcgin...@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:t4uctvci1se4n7ap4...@4ax.com...

> So it's probably not realistic to expect any TV show to gain that kind
> of foothold in the popular imagination. Even smash hits like CSI are
> based on specific, niche audiences. In the 90s if there was a hit
> (Simpsons, Seinfeld, X-Files) then *everyone* watched it.

I'm still astounded how people watch CSI in the first place; I've 'seen' 1 &
1/2 episodes and to say it sucks - that to give the appellation of 'wooden
acting' - is being too kind.


James Lysaght

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 9:21:32 AM12/10/03
to
I would tune in for a series that picks up after Voyager bringing TNG and
Voyager together. LaForge as captain of the Enterprise as seen in Timeless
(though the ship was the Chanlllenger in that one) and maybe both Picard and
Janeway with occasional parts as Admirals.

I could od without the return of Wesley Crusher though!

James Lysaght


"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message

news:BBFC0855.272DD%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...

Snake

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 9:22:18 AM12/10/03
to
Jarod_24 <jaro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e0212f355600a06...@news.teranews.com...
>
> "Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
> news:10710085...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> > Not that that is fatal; B5 never had Trek's
> > budget and did very nicely indeed without it.
> >
>
> That depends on how you view it.
> I didn't actually help the quality that the clips that they used were the
> same for all the 5 seasons.
> You see it more clearly when you watch lots of episodes in a short period
of
> time.
>
> You got the feeling that this show is clearly made on a sound-stage.

Very true, especially during scenes in the (very) large public areas that
tried to show the curve of the station's rotating sections; it was very
apparent then.

But B5 lasted (barely) - I (only) watched it first run, when it was
originally broadcast, and it seemed almost no one was watching it and it
barely hung on (see history of 3rd / 4th season) and haven't seen it since -
it _exploded_ on reruns because it had the same attraction as TOS -
**incredible, awesome characters** (OK, Londo and G'Kar. Not that Susan and
Michael were chopped liver.). Voyager and ENT? Snore...


Snake

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 9:31:03 AM12/10/03
to
Eric Furniss <e.furn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fFtBb.817$5t3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> Gee, was it just 10 years ago that I would tune in every Saturday night
from
> 6-8 to watch the latest DS9 and TNG episodes? Those it seems now were the
> glory days. Who would have thought then that our beloved franchise would
> sink to this low point? It's quite likely next year could be the last bit
of
> Trek we get for sometime. The movie franchise is toast. TV is a disaster.
> Someone please explain to me how B & B have managed to stay employed? How
> many flops do they need to produce before someone at Paramount wises up?

:applause: Not that I want to see Berman or Braga in personal difficulties
financially, but in any other business a performance history like they've
shown would have ended them up on the sidewalk a long time ago. So what's
up??


Cadet Nog

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 9:34:37 AM12/10/03
to
"normdoering" <norm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e6433dc7.03120...@posting.google.com...

Yup. . .it's all that and everything else everyone has been saying :o( TPTB
are clueless when it comes to succeeding in this industry.

They managed to alienate many of it's core audience with some awful antics
during it's heyday (a cardinal sin!). Other shows flooded the market which
drew away potential viewers, for which TPTB simply ignored (about as dumb as
Rumsfeld's policy to ignore the looting in Iraq). To top it all off a slew
of sci-fi shows hit the airwaves, raising the bar in terms of excellence and
Trek's response is to just muddle along?! We were the trend-setters for
crying out loud!!!

I don't think Trek (in it's current form) will ever appeal to mainstream
audiences. What is disconcerting is that sci-fi fans aren't exactly doing
cartwheels over this latest carnation of Trek :o(

As for me, I've resigned myself to playing games now. . .Knights of the Old
Republic was just a blast :o) Enterprise for me - well, it looks like Trek.
. .but it's very essence is missing. All form, no substance. Every once in
a while I see a review that intrigues me and I'll download the episode - but
otherwise it's something I can go without. Sad really. . .


Cadet


Mirror Spock

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 9:43:24 AM12/10/03
to
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:08:40 GMT, wave...@mindspring.com (James
Evans) went upon the mount and spoke thus:

Either that or stop having each series chasing the heels of the
previous one. Take some time to really develop your ideas and all
that. DS9 started while TNG was still on and IIRC, Voyager started
while DS9 was still on. Enterprise started the season after Voyager
ended. I don't understand why they didn't do some serious rethinking
after Voyager as I recall many of the same complaints being made of
Voyager that are made of Enterprise.

* Robinson

J R Laredo

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 9:56:24 AM12/10/03
to
Could have been spared all this and been nearly guaranteed a full 7 year run
if only they had hired me to give final approval of the scripts.

"Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message

news:rjdctvgc483h892k3...@4ax.com...
> from DarkHorizons.com
>
> The talk of ratings and critical disappointment has been pervasive for
> some time now on the latest Trek spin-off. Despite its relaunch this
> year with a new storyline and purpose which has yielded a better
> quality show, ratings sadly haven't reflected it - whilst holding
> steady this year they're still far from ideal.
>
> Then the other day this scoop came in, whilst the news is reasonable
> sounding I held off on it to see if I could find out anything
> corroborating or would deny its content. So far nothing either way but
> I'd thought I'd share it before it pops up somewhere else as 'fact'
> when its simply rumour for now:
>
> "On the Paramount lot this week, a memo was circulated to the
> production staff advising them that the current season would be reduced
> to 24 shows from 26. This marks the first time in nearly 20 years that
> this has occurred for a Trek show; all non-first seasons of all the
> existing and previous series have always consisted of 26 shows (except
> TNG: Season 2 due to a writers strike).
>
> Lot talk behind the memo is that next year will be the last season of

> "Enterprise". A fourth and final season of 24 shows, which with the


> first two seasons total episode count of 52, would fulfill the magic
> syndication requirement of 100 total episodes. No word on the future
> of the Franchise".
>

> Thanks to 'Thanksalotrick'.
>


Tim Benner

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 11:51:45 AM12/10/03
to

"David Johnston" <bl...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3fd63ea5...@news.telusplanet.net...

> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:33:52 -0600, Elvis Gump
> <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I wouldn't be especially sad to see Enterprise go. I would
> >> be sad that they probably wouldn't want to make another
> >> series if this one flops. Not for quite a long while anyway.
> >
> >Maybe it might pave the way for someone like Harv Bennett, Shatner, Nimoy
or
> >Nicolas Meyer to come in take the helm.
>
> It wouldn't. It would just close the book on space science fiction
> for the foreseeable future, much as the book has been closed
> on space exploration in real life.

No, there would still be a couple sci-fi shows. I've recently heard
Babylon 5 may be coming back with another series. I would like to see
Enterprise go for seven seasons though. What I would then like to see is a
Star Trek series in the same vein as Babylon 5. What I mean is have a plot
which is laid out before the first show is made. This gave B5 great
continuity. I'd like to see a similar thing with an Trek show. Perhaps
something along the lines of the forming of the Federation.

[Tim]


Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 12:16:31 PM12/10/03
to
Elvis Gump wrote:

> in article 107101117...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
> gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 5:08 PM:
>
>

>>Elvis Gump wrote:
>>
>>
>>>in article 10710083...@eunomia.uk.clara.net, Graham Kennedy at
>>>gra...@ditl.org wrote on 12/9/03 4:21 PM:
>
>
>>>Maybe they'll just settle for the syndication and DVD sales money. Who knows?
>>>One day a tell-all book should be interesting on this whole 2nd era of the
>>>behind the scenes stories of 20-something years of movies and tv series.
>
>
>>I'm not usually into behind the scenes stuff much, but I'd love to know what
>>went on with Voyager. I'd especially like to hear from Beltran now he has
>>nothing to lose.
>
>
> I enjoyed "Inside Trek" a lot which was written by Solow and Justman
> primarily about the TOS years but touched on some of the insanity of the
> movies and TNG where Justman came back and exited from quickly. Of course
> you never get the unvarnished truth from such stuff but the stories where
> quite entertaining. It's amazing to me to no end that TOS stuck around for
> as long as it did after reading that book.
>
>

>>>Considering how old Shatner and Nimoy are I don't think the studio would
>>>gamble much on their prolonged involvement. Even Harv Bennett is on up there.
>>>Maybe Meyer or someone from the TNG on era could do it. Or they could bring
>>>in some other unknown but supposedly hot shot like Berman was low those many
>>>years ago.
>>>
>>
>>Personally I'd be begging Ron Moore or maybe Robert Wolfe to come and do a
>>series.
>
>
> Rom Moore seemed to have had a hand in the episodes I liked the most in the
> TNG era, at least from just reading the credits. But after reading a lot
> about how the business works or rather often doesn't a good writer or even
> someone with a lot of common sense might not be able to hack being at the
> helm with all the machinations that go on.

Moore was in charge of the Battlestar Galactica project I think
but I gather he left the production before it aired, so maybe
he didn't find helming a series something he wanted to do.

But Wolfe was boss guy on Andromeda, and made it pretty
interesting until Sorbo decided he wanted it dumbed down
and got him canned.

> Show-bizness attracts more than it's share of people looking to make a buck
> if by no other means than gumming up the works and ratfucking everyone.
> Often times putting out something worth watching is the absolute LAST item
> on their agenda which explains a lot...

Yup.

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 12:20:26 PM12/10/03
to
David Johnston wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:59:23 -0600, z <z...@yada.yada.com> wrote:
>
>

>>Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in news:1071004575.6058.0
>>@eunomia.uk.clara.net:


>>
>>
>>
>>>I wouldn't be especially sad to see Enterprise go. I would
>>>be sad that they probably wouldn't want to make another
>>>series if this one flops. Not for quite a long while anyway.
>>>
>>

>>I"d miss it. The one thing going for making another series is that the
>>special effects costs are going down all the time
>
>

> They aren't, you know. You just get better effects for a given
> investment, but since the audience is constantly getting more
> demanding (I still can't believe that people were actually bitching
> about the the CGI in the Hulk movie. Man, they'd have a heart attack
> if they ever saw a Harryhausen movie), it always costs the same
> or more to do a new series.

God, remember how we all ooohed and aaaahed at those big
rubber stop-motion dinosaurs eating cavemen? Remember
when Clash of the Titans was a spectacular special
effects movie? The good old days...

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 12:24:01 PM12/10/03
to
Elvis Gump wrote:
>
> As to "Enterprise" I've never heard what the per-episode cost of it is. I
> remember there was a big deal made of the $1 million per episode that TNG
> supposedly cost. Not all the episodes are obviously the same and they are
> probably always trading budget from episode to episode to cover production
> overages, such as maybe "Carpenter Street" having less FX than "Twilight",
> but has there ever been talk about what the average episode costs?
>
> Even if it's up to $2 million per for Enterprise, that's 26 hours for $52
> million which is still cheaper than most one-off feature films.

But you also need to know what their ad revenues are.
Can they charge two thousand bucks a *second* for ads
during Enterprise? That's what it would take to cover
a $2 million production budget with 16 minutes of ads.

You can offset some of that through merchandising of
course, but how many people are running out to buy
Enterprise novels, T-shirts, mugs, etc? How many people
here will but the DVDs when they come out?

Tim Benner

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 12:44:45 PM12/10/03
to

"David Johnston" <bl...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3fd652dd...@news.telusplanet.net...

> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:59:23 -0600, z <z...@yada.yada.com> wrote:
>
> >Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in news:1071004575.6058.0
> >@eunomia.uk.clara.net:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I wouldn't be especially sad to see Enterprise go. I would
> >> be sad that they probably wouldn't want to make another
> >> series if this one flops. Not for quite a long while anyway.
> >>
> >
> >I"d miss it. The one thing going for making another series is that the
> >special effects costs are going down all the time
>
> They aren't, you know. You just get better effects for a given
> investment, but since the audience is constantly getting more
> demanding (I still can't believe that people were actually bitching
> about the the CGI in the Hulk movie. Man, they'd have a heart attack
> if they ever saw a Harryhausen movie), it always costs the same
> or more to do a new series.
>
I don't know. I believe there will be a point of demising returns here.
You can only simulate reality so much. After that about the only people who
can tell the difference in quality will be the people who do CGI work. Even
today I think they are doing a very good job; look at LOTR. As processing
power keeps increasing and hardware prices keep decreasing, or at least you
can buy more bang for the same buck, CGI production costs will begin to go
down in time. Especially once they have better automated software tools.
This may take another 10 to 20 years, but it will happen, I believe. You
will know this when CGI starts creeping into more and more non sci-fi shows.

[Tim]


David Johnston

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 1:36:38 PM12/10/03
to
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:51:45 -0500, "Tim Benner" <f...@psu.edu> wrote:

>
>"David Johnston" <bl...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:3fd63ea5...@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:33:52 -0600, Elvis Gump
>> <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> I wouldn't be especially sad to see Enterprise go. I would
>> >> be sad that they probably wouldn't want to make another
>> >> series if this one flops. Not for quite a long while anyway.
>> >
>> >Maybe it might pave the way for someone like Harv Bennett, Shatner, Nimoy
>or
>> >Nicolas Meyer to come in take the helm.
>>
>> It wouldn't. It would just close the book on space science fiction
>> for the foreseeable future, much as the book has been closed
>> on space exploration in real life.
>
> No, there would still be a couple sci-fi shows. I've recently heard
>Babylon 5 may be coming back with another series.

With whom?

Snake

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 10:58:40 PM12/10/03
to
Cadet Nog wrote:
> Yup. . .it's all that and everything else everyone has been saying :o( TPTB
> are clueless when it comes to succeeding in this industry.
>
> They managed to alienate many of it's core audience with some awful antics
> during it's heyday (a cardinal sin!). Other shows flooded the market which
> drew away potential viewers, for which TPTB simply ignored (about as dumb as
> Rumsfeld's policy to ignore the looting in Iraq). To top it all off a slew
> of sci-fi shows hit the airwaves, raising the bar in terms of excellence and
> Trek's response is to just muddle along?! We were the trend-setters for
> crying out loud!!!
>
> I don't think Trek (in it's current form) will ever appeal to mainstream
> audiences. What is disconcerting is that sci-fi fans aren't exactly doing
> cartwheels over this latest carnation of Trek :o(
>
> As for me, I've resigned myself to playing games now. . .Knights of the Old
> Republic was just a blast :o) Enterprise for me - well, it looks like Trek.
> . .but it's very essence is missing. All form, no substance. Every once in
> a while I see a review that intrigues me and I'll download the episode - but
> otherwise it's something I can go without. Sad really. . .

Good to see you again, Nog :-)

Yup, I'm totally with you on all of the above. :nod nod:

Snake

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 11:03:17 PM12/10/03
to

It sounds like a terrible idea. B5's 'fifth' year was as bad, or even
worse, than ENT because JMS had a finite story which he wrapped up at
the end of the fourth season. Unless he creates a new, **complete**
storyline like he had for B5 previously I can't see how a new series
would compete in quality, characterizations or interest.

Snake

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 11:06:04 PM12/10/03
to
Graham Kennedy wrote:
> God, remember how we all ooohed and aaaahed at those big
> rubber stop-motion dinosaurs eating cavemen? Remember
> when Clash of the Titans was a spectacular special
> effects movie? The good old days...

"Clash" still isn't that bad.

Snake

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 11:05:11 PM12/10/03
to

I once hear a really good line about Hollywood:

"Create *one* good idea and you'll keep half the people in Hollywood in
business for the next 5 years" (referring to everyone just copying
everyone else ad infinitum)

Snake

unread,
Dec 10, 2003, 11:07:02 PM12/10/03
to
Graham Kennedy wrote:
> But you also need to know what their ad revenues are.
> Can they charge two thousand bucks a *second* for ads
> during Enterprise? That's what it would take to cover
> a $2 million production budget with 16 minutes of ads.
>
> You can offset some of that through merchandising of
> course, but how many people are running out to buy
> Enterprise novels, T-shirts, mugs, etc? How many people
> here will but the DVDs when they come out?

...coaster sets...

Tim Benner

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 8:57:12 AM12/11/03
to

"David Johnston" <bl...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3fd75bfc...@news.telusplanet.net...

Check the old messages in this group. It was only a couple of days ago
someone posted this.

[Tim]


Tim Benner

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 8:59:02 AM12/11/03
to

"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM...@mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:3FD7EC...@mindspring.com...

No, I'm sure it won't. Most sequels like this never do good. I think
they should just let it go.

[Tim]


Tim Benner

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 9:04:09 AM12/11/03
to

"Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:107107684...@dyke.uk.clara.net...

I'll probably buy the DVDs when then come out, especially if there are
some neat extra on them. Also would buy a blow-up TPol doll. :-)

[Tim]


John Dough

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 9:33:21 AM12/11/03
to

"Tim Benner" <f...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:br9tgp$1llk$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...

> I'll probably buy the DVDs when then come out, especially if there are
> some neat extra on them. Also would buy a blow-up TPol doll. :-)

Does this mean you prefer Ginger over Mary Ann? I always had a thing for
Mary Ann, myself.


Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 11:48:10 AM12/11/03
to

Dollies... sorry, "action figures"...

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 11:48:58 AM12/11/03
to
Snake wrote:

As a movie It's fine, but as a special effects
showpiece it's dated as hell.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 12:06:36 PM12/11/03
to

And even if they didn't, I can't think of anyone who is likely to be
in the market for another B5 series. Scifi? Not likely. UPN is out
of the question. I think JMS has burned his bridges with the WB,
and whoever else provided him with an outlet.

Tim Benner

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 2:21:52 PM12/11/03
to

"John Dough" <johns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Re%Bb.501382$HS4.3869998@attbi_s01...

Not sure what Gilligan's Island has to to with Enterprise. However if I
had to pick Ginger or Mary Ann, I'd also probably go with MA. She has the
girl-next-door sort of appearance.

[Tim]


Eric Furniss

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 2:55:43 PM12/11/03
to
> As a movie It's fine, but as a special effects
> showpiece it's dated as hell.
>

The best effect of all was Harry Hamlin's hair....good god y'all!

Eric
"Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071161137.4812.1@lotis...

John Dough

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 3:22:44 PM12/11/03
to

"Tim Benner" <f...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:brag4g$oqa$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...

> Not sure what Gilligan's Island has to to with Enterprise. However if
I
> had to pick Ginger or Mary Ann, I'd also probably go with MA. She has the
> girl-next-door sort of appearance.

I really didn't think I'd have to spell this out for anyone, but here goes.
T'Pol and Hoshi are, to me, the Enterprise equivalents of Ginger and Mary
Ann, respectively. Some guys prefer one, some the other. I think Linda
Park as Hoshi Sato is more desirable then Jolene Blalock as T'Pol, just as I
thought Mary Ann was more desirable then Ginger on Gilligan's Island.


Numan

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 6:05:32 PM12/11/03