[NEWS] - The Bell Tolls for Enterprise?
Stan Jensen
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
> 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
<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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
> 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'
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
>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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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.
If Enterprise gets cancelled you can say goodbye to Star Trek for at
least a decade.
Vetteguy
"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BBFBE5B6.27269%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...
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
"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
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
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
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
> from DarkHorizons.com
>
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
> > 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
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
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
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
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
"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.
> >
or
> >Nicolas Meyer to come in take the helm.
>
> 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
> 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
> 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
>
> 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
> 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.
>
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
>
>"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
> 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
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
> 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
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
> 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
Check the old messages in this group. It was only a couple of days ago
someone posted this.
[Tim]
Tim Benner
"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
"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
"Tim Benner" <f...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:br9tgp$1llk$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
> I'll probably buy the DVDs when then come out, especially if there are
> some neat extra on them. Also would buy a blow-up TPol doll. :-)
Does this mean you prefer Ginger over Mary Ann? I always had a thing for
Mary Ann, myself.
Graham Kennedy
Dollies... sorry, "action figures"...
Graham Kennedy
As a movie It's fine, but as a special effects
showpiece it's dated as hell.
David Johnston
And even if they didn't, I can't think of anyone who is likely to be
in the market for another B5 series. Scifi? Not likely. UPN is out
of the question. I think JMS has burned his bridges with the WB,
and whoever else provided him with an outlet.
Tim Benner
"John Dough" <johns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Re%Bb.501382$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
> 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
> 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
"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
> 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?
I can honestly say I never even thought of a show with Geordi
as the captain but I like that idea. He is the youngest of the group
anyway isn't he? Would that be on the Enterprise or would you give
him his own ship?
I still want to see the Titan and Will as the captain, even if in small
doses.
Would we accept him as captain with a whole new crew?
Hmmm.
Numan
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM...@mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:ZSFBb.6458$mF2....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Elvis Gump <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
> > Can you say Cap'n Crusher?
>
> very, very likely. He has proven himself, /more/ than adept, at science
to
> hold a fine rank in that position.
I agree. I think he would be better in the acting department now as an
adult anyway. He was not directed very well as a child actor.
Numan
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM...@mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:oVFBb.6476$mF2....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> 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.
I like CSI but hate the zingers. The acting is just ok but the figuring it
out is the attraction for me.
Elvis Gump
tbrd...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 12/11/03 5:05 PM:
>
> "Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>
>> 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?
>
> I can honestly say I never even thought of a show with Geordi
> as the captain but I like that idea. He is the youngest of the group
> anyway isn't he? Would that be on the Enterprise or would you give
> him his own ship?
Am I crazy or wasn't he in a guest shot on VOY as the captain of USS
Challenger, a Galaxy class ship in a alternate future episode? I'm still
waiting for VOY to come to some sort of syndication near me so I can see the
bulk of that series.
> I still want to see the Titan and Will as the captain, even if in small
> doses.
>
> Would we accept him as captain with a whole new crew?
>
> Hmmm.
Well we keep being fed new crews all the time with DS9, VOY or ENT. I think
they would have done better with a little more continuity. If they brought
E-E back from the movies to TV with someone like Geordi as Captain, maybe
Wheaton and a new cast and rotated old TNG cast members through occasionally
they'd have a better shot in the ratings. Stewart could come by occasionally
as Admiral Picard, they could meet up with Riker's Titan on occasion too.
It's always a bit of rolling the dice though. The wider audience probably
feels burned by the later lackluster TNG movie outings or VOY or ENT so all
Paramount can count on is the core audience to come back.
They may have some sort of magic formula of accounting that tells them it's
not worth the financial gamble.
--
"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are,
ipso facto, are those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of
getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the
job."
-- Douglas Adams
Eric Furniss
> >
> > :-) 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.
>
> I agree. I think he would be better in the acting department now as an
> adult anyway. He was not directed very well as a child actor.
>
Has it come to this? We would actually like to see the return of Will
Wheaton over Enterprise? If this is the best we can do it's time to give
Trek a rest. I'd have no problem following Riker and the adventures of the
Titan but I always hated Wesley Crusher and I've never seen anything from
Will Wheaton that would lead me to believe he could carry a show.
How do you feel about a show featuring cast members from TNG, DS9 and
Voyager with a few new bloods thrown in? Riker could be captain, have a new
alien first officer ( anything but a vulcan), have Bashir or the Doctor from
Voyager (the real Zimmerman this time), Chief O'Brien, Geordi, Ezri Dax and
maybe Paris or Kim. Kim would be easier as you wouldn't have to write in a
part for his Klingon love interest. One or two of the new characters could
be fresh out of the academy assigned to the Titan, the cream of Starfleet's
crop (other than the decommissioned Enterprise). This young Ensign would be
like John Carter in the early days of ER. Learning what it's like to be a
Starfleet Officer.
There..that's my idea...have at it kids and tear my idea apart.
Eric
"Numan" <tbrd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6M6Cb.694$cy4...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Elvis Gump
e.furn...@verizon.net wrote on 12/11/03 7:09 PM:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I agree. I think he would be better in the acting department now as an adult
>> anyway. He was not directed very well as a child actor.
>>
>
> Has it come to this? We would actually like to see the return of Will Wheaton
> over Enterprise? If this is the best we can do it's time to give Trek a rest.
> I'd have no problem following Riker and the adventures of the Titan but I
> always hated Wesley Crusher and I've never seen anything from Will Wheaton
> that would lead me to believe he could carry a show.
I might have felt that way about Wheaton had I not seen him on TV or read
his online blog these past few years.
What you're responding to was a really egregiously bad act of writing for
his character rather than Wheaton himself. I know I used to 'hate' him too,
and still don't enjoy very many episodes with him in them, but it's the
writing, not him. He's convinced me he's a really cool dude as his own
person.
We owe Wil Wheaton the actor a big break because any of us trust into that
situation of bad writing like he was wouldn't have done much better.
> How do you feel about a show featuring cast members from TNG, DS9 and Voyager
> with a few new bloods thrown in? Riker could be captain, have a new alien
> first officer ( anything but a vulcan), have Bashir or the Doctor from Voyager
> (the real Zimmerman this time), Chief O'Brien, Geordi, Ezri Dax and maybe
> Paris or Kim. Kim would be easier as you wouldn't have to write in a part for
> his Klingon love interest.
Right, that's sort of what I was suggesting. I can't really speak to who is
good from other series because all I know is TNG and a little Voyager. I'd
like to see Colm Meany as Chief Engineer O'Brien but I don't know what
happened to him at the end of DS9 or even that he'd want to do more Trek as
may be the case of many of the wished for actors we'd want.
> One or two of the new characters could be fresh out of the academy assigned to
> the Titan, the cream of Starfleet's crop (other than the decommissioned
> Enterprise). This young Ensign would be like John Carter in the early days of
> ER. Learning what it's like to be a Starfleet Officer.
>
> There..that's my idea...have at it kids and tear my idea apart.
>
> Eric
That's somewhat the idea I had. I don't know how much I like the "just outta
the Academy" idea I like. I hated the cadet thing in TWOK for instance which
was silly. OTOH say finding great actors like the then young Ashley Judd as
Lefler was great and more of that kind of stuff could and should happen.
ENT almost managed that once with the wonderful actress whose name I forget
that just recently died which was a great shame. She was a real standout.
There are things I would miss if ENT goes like the guy who plays Trip. I
think he's better in his part than anyone on ENT but it's somewhat still a
letdown like the writing for him and Blalock.
The cast of ENT isn't really that bad but the writing is pure crap and the
concept hasn't really lived up to the billing. They have basically dumbed
down the entire concept of TNG and not really told the story from a more
limited technology or frontier kind of view.
What is really need is a lot of pink slip for the current writer/producer
team to see what can be salvaged of ENT and then when that has run it's
course take us back to the future of the TNG era I think.
--
"There is such a fine line between genius and stupidity."
-- David St. Hubbins, "Spinal Tap"
Numan
> 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!
>
Very well said.
ToolPackinMama
>
> > I've heard the death of Star Trek proclaimed since Tos was first cancelled
> > yet here we are in 2003 still talking about it.
> Very well said.
I agree.
Eric Furniss
> team to see what can be salvaged of ENT and then when that has run it's
> course take us back to the future of the TNG era I think.
Agreed. I had no problem with the prequel. Just didn't think this was the
way to do it. It seems to me that the biggest problem with ENT and VOY was
that the shows are all about the premise...the ship's lost in space, the
temporal war...instead of being character driven the shows are premise
driven. What made TNG, TOS and DS9 so damn good was that the characters
became larger than the premise. Trek already has a built in premise...to
boldly go where no one has gone before. I didn't like or care about any
character in VOY or ENT and the premise wasn't enough to bring me back every
week.
> What you're responding to was a really egregiously bad act of writing for
> his character rather than Wheaton himself. I know I used to 'hate' him
too,
> and still don't enjoy very many episodes with him in them, but it's the
> writing, not him. He's convinced me he's a really cool dude as his own
> person.
I don't hate Wheaton, he's probably a nice enough bloke. I always hated the
character and I never want to see him again. Plus he owes me 12 bucks. We
agree to disagree on this one.
> I'd like to see Colm Meany as Chief Engineer O'Brien but I don't know
what
> happened to him at the end of DS9
Went to teach at the academy.
>I don't know how much I like the "just outta
> the Academy" idea I like. I hated the cadet thing in TWOK for instance
which
> was silly.
The cadets in TWOK weren't characters but extras. My idea is that this
character is assigned to his first posting. Over the course of the show he
learns what it means to be a Starfleet officer. He's human, he has failings
and insecurities...a little bit like Sisko in the pilot of DS9. Like John
Carter on ER just because you're a hotshot in everything you do your whole
life, it doesn't mean squat when you're working with people just as talented
or more talented than you.
Eric
"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BBFE80A4.27941%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...
> in article gz8Cb.1934$rr4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net, Eric Furniss at
> e.furn...@verizon.net wrote on 12/11/03 7:09 PM:
>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >> I agree. I think he would be better in the acting department now as an
adult
> >> anyway. He was not directed very well as a child actor.
> >>
> >
> > Has it come to this? We would actually like to see the return of Will
Wheaton
> > over Enterprise? If this is the best we can do it's time to give Trek a
rest.
> > I'd have no problem following Riker and the adventures of the Titan but
I
> > always hated Wesley Crusher and I've never seen anything from Will
Wheaton
> > that would lead me to believe he could carry a show.
>
> I might have felt that way about Wheaton had I not seen him on TV or read
> his online blog these past few years.
>
>
Tim Benner
Never correlated the two. You must be a real fan of *old* TV shows.
[Tim]
John Dough
You must be a real fan of *old* TV shows.
Some of them. Like that one where a bunch of people fly around the galaxy
in a big spaceship, seeking out new life and new civilizations. What was
that one that called again?
KazamaSmokers
WITH "JAKE"???
KazamaSmokers
I think it's more of a Jennifer Marlowe/Bailey Quarters comparison, frankly.
KazamaSmokers
> 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.
Seems it could be made cheaper. For a look at what zero money can
accomplish, FX-wise, check out "Starhunter". Not bad, considering.
John Dough
"KazamaSmokers" <hunt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> I think it's more of a Jennifer Marlowe/Bailey Quarters comparison,
frankly.
You may have a point there. Incidentally, I always did prefer Bailey.
Tim Benner
How about Lost In Space? :-)
[Tim]
VernonT
> >
> > Some of them. Like that one where a bunch of people fly around the
galaxy
> > in a big spaceship, seeking out new life and new civilizations. What
was
> > that one that called again?
>
> How about Lost In Space? :-)
Galaxy Quest??
Numan
"Eric Furniss" <e.furn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> My idea is that this
> character is assigned to his first posting. Over the course of the show he
> learns what it means to be a Starfleet officer. He's human, he has
failings
> and insecurities...a little bit like Sisko in the pilot of DS9. Like John
> Carter on ER just because you're a hotshot in everything you do your whole
> life, it doesn't mean squat when you're working with people just as
talented
> or more talented than you.
>
> Eric
That is a great idea. Private moments of self doubt and anxiety.
More humanity and characters moving forward. But, you have
to have good actors doing it or else it would be flat and boring.
Numan
I think the WKRP in Cincinnati reference was probably lost on some of
the youngsters.
John Dough
> > Some of them. Like that one where a bunch of people fly around the
galaxy
> > in a big spaceship, seeking out new life and new civilizations. What
was
> > that one that called again?
>
> How about Lost In Space? :-)
No, that one had a very small group of people flying around the galaxy in a
very small spaceship seeking out the same old life and civilizations, namely
Earth. There's a story I heard once that Lost in Space was created by
network execs that had viewed the first Trek pilot, turned it down, and then
gone off and made their own little outer-space show based on what they could
recall from it. I think it was in Shatner's "Star Trek Memories" book.
Anyone else ever hear this tale?
John Dough
<Star...@beammeup.conn> wrote in message
news:n62ktv49fotmcjc8m...@4ax.com...
> Enterprise is like that, just modified a bit.
> It's mission is to seek out new life and new civilizations and to kill
them.
> It StarTrek, NeoCon style.
> Politically correct for the new America.
You know what? You're absolutely right. The Xindi story arc is the
ultimate Trek perversion. It's even worse than slash. And that's really
saying something.
John Dough
> I think the WKRP in Cincinnati reference was probably lost on some of
> the youngsters.
Yeah, but it sure wasn't lost on us oldsters. I wonder if there is a WKRP
newsgroup. And if so, I wonder if it has an F/F (Fever/Flytrap) slash
troll...
Numan
Yes, and I am sure they are talking about Herb being gay.
John Dough
Herb wasn't gay. He was neutered.
Elvis Gump
tbrd...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 12/12/03 9:32 PM:
>
> "John Dough" <johns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unvCb.531497$Fm2.510520@attbi_s04...
>>
>> "Numan" <tbrd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:DdvCb.834$Aj2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>> I think the WKRP in Cincinnati reference was probably lost on some of
>>> the youngsters.
>>
>> Yeah, but it sure wasn't lost on us oldsters. I wonder if there is a WKRP
>> newsgroup. And if so, I wonder if it has an F/F (Fever/Flytrap) slash
>> troll...
Fever and Flytrap would be too busy getting baked to get it on with each
other.
Hey, do I hear animals?
> Yes, and I am sure they are talking about Herb being gay.
Herb's not gay! Now Les, well who knows...
--
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
-- Phillip K. Dick
Eric Furniss
> > Politically correct for the new America.
>
> You know what? You're absolutely right. The Xindi story arc is the
> ultimate Trek perversion. It's even worse than slash. And that's really
> saying something.
>
You're exactly right. Maybe George Bush should get a producer's credit or
something. After all, it was the events of 9/11 and the subsequent war on
terror that led to the Xindi arc. Maybe Trek is going the Law and Order
route "Torn from today's headlines comes a war against an unseen
enemy......."
Eric
"John Dough" <johns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AkvCb.522027$HS4.4020839@attbi_s01...
Eric Furniss
> frankly.
>
> I think the WKRP in Cincinnati reference was probably lost on some of
> the youngsters.
>
when WKRP was in first run. One of the few things we all agreed on...Bailey
was the one. What was the actresses name and whatever happened to her? Never
saw her again.
Eric
"Numan" <tbrd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:DdvCb.834$Aj2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
>
Eric Furniss
>
> Herb's not gay! Now Les, well who knows...
Herb was nailing Les....but fantasized about Venus.
"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BBFFE9F0.27C9F%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...
John Dough
> Actually, my brother, my Dad and I used to have the Bailey/Jennifer debate
> when WKRP was in first run. One of the few things we all agreed
on...Bailey
> was the one. What was the actresses name and whatever happened to her?
Never
> saw her again.
Her name is Jan Smithers. I heard she dropped out of show biz to have
babies.
Eric Furniss
http://www.clothmonkey.com/smithers.htm
"John Dough" <johns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZYvCb.527383$Tr4.1454670@attbi_s03...
Jak
"Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:10710085...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> z 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 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.
>
> 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.
I'm going to disagree with that. Granted, I just started renting B5 discs
from Netflix recently (I'm in the middle of season 3), but so far I have two
problems with the show: the acting, and the truly crappy production values,
both in effects and in things like costumes and scenery. The principals in
the show are decent for the most part, but the guests every week are
uniformly abysmal, with few exceptions (Michael Ansara, Paul Winfield, Majel
Barret and a few others).
It was clear to me that B5 didn't have ST money to work with from the first
episode, and in fact, I made the same comment to my partner when he said the
show looked cheesy. The saving grace for me was/is the writing, which I find
to be of good quality. The story is solid and moves along very nicely, but
the show just doesn't look good. St always had the ability to make me
forget I was looking at effects shots, but I never get that from B5. Every
time I see exterior shots, I can't help thinking how fake that looks.
hp
--
"You get on my nerves, and I don't like your hat!"
Cmdr. Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks), Star Trek: DS9
Jak
"Eric Furniss" <e.furn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fFtBb.817$5t3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Gee, was it just 10 years ago that I would tune in every Saturday night
from
> 6-8 to watch the latest DS9 and TNG episodes? Those it seems now were the
> glory days. Who would have thought then that our beloved franchise would
> sink to this low point? It's quite likely next year could be the last bit
of
> Trek we get for sometime. The movie franchise is toast. TV is a disaster.
> Someone please explain to me how B & B have managed to stay employed? How
> many flops do they need to produce before someone at Paramount wises up?
At
> this point, I blame Paramount more than I do B & B. The studio allowed
them
> to produce this mess. The studio set the release date for Nemesis. They
> figured we'd keep tuning in or buying tickets for whatever crap they put
> out.
Thank you, thank you. I thought immediately that nemesis was going to have
problems making any money because of the release date, no matter what the
quality of the film was. Can someone please explain what the hell Paramount
was thinking? They could have released in November, or waited until January
when there is typically much less competition. Did they really think that
Nemesis would be able to make headway against Bond and a juggernaut like
LOTR?
David Johnston
<johns...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><Star...@beammeup.conn> wrote in message
>news:n62ktv49fotmcjc8m...@4ax.com...
>
>> Enterprise is like that, just modified a bit.
>> It's mission is to seek out new life and new civilizations and to kill
>them.
>> It StarTrek, NeoCon style.
>> Politically correct for the new America.
>
>You know what? You're absolutely right. The Xindi story arc is the
>ultimate Trek perversion.
Oh get a grip. They aren't going to wipe out the Xindi. They aren't
even going to fight a war with them. Hysteria much?
KazamaSmokers
> tbrd...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 12/12/03 9:32 PM:
>
> >
> > "John Dough" <johns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:unvCb.531497$Fm2.510520@attbi_s04...
> >>
> >> "Numan" <tbrd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:DdvCb.834$Aj2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >>> I think the WKRP in Cincinnati reference was probably lost on some of
> >>> the youngsters.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but it sure wasn't lost on us oldsters. I wonder if there is a WKRP
> >> newsgroup. And if so, I wonder if it has an F/F (Fever/Flytrap) slash
> >> troll...
>
> Fever and Flytrap would be too busy getting baked to get it on with each
> other.
>
> Hey, do I hear animals?
>
> > Yes, and I am sure they are talking about Herb being gay.
>
> Herb's not gay! Now Les, well who knows...
Les, that "queer little fellow"...
VernonT
> > It StarTrek, NeoCon style.
> > > Politically correct for the new America.
> >
> > You know what? You're absolutely right. The Xindi story arc is the
> > ultimate Trek perversion. It's even worse than slash. And that's
really
> > saying something.
> >
>
> You're exactly right. Maybe George Bush should get a producer's credit or
> something. After all, it was the events of 9/11 and the subsequent war on
> terror that led to the Xindi arc. Maybe Trek is going the Law and Order
> route "Torn from today's headlines comes a war against an unseen
> enemy......."
You should have a little more respect for our men and women in combat.
If you think they are fighting an unseen enemy, you obviously aren't keeping
in
touch with the war. I assure you that the ones shooting at them are very
real for them.
Numan
> > > Yes, and I am sure they are talking about Herb being gay.
> >
> > Herb's not gay! Now Les, well who knows...
>
> Herb was nailing Les....but fantasized about Venus.
LOL!
David Johnston
wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>I think it's more of a Jennifer Marlowe/Bailey Quarters comparison, frankly.
Hoshi lacks Bailey's forceful personality and driving ambition though.
John Dough
"David Johnston" <bl...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3fdb5bcb....@news.telusplanet.net...
That's not the point. I think it was pretty tacky of TPTB to turn
Enterprise, mid-stream, into some kind of quasi-9/11 drama.