Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi

TrekUnited Reports Mission Successful at Trek Rallies 413

Posted by Zonk
from the vulcans-on-parade dept.
Lord Prox writes "TrekUnited.com has the scoop on the LA/Paramount, Tel Aviv, and New York rallies. Surprises include a group of donors pledging a resounding $3mil and the appearances of cast and crew members. Reuters and Wired have details on the rallies and I took a few snapshots as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TrekUnited Reports Mission Successful at Trek Rallies

Comments Filter:
  • God no. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WormholeFiend (674934)
    c'mon people...

    we need a 20 year break from teh Trek.
    • Re:God no. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bsharitt (580506) * <brandon@@@sharitt...com> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:48PM (#11798155) Homepage Journal
      Then don't watch it dumbass, and let those of us who want to, to continue to watch.
      • don't watch it dumbass, and let those of us who want to, to continue to watch.

        What about those of us who want to watch it, but only if it doesn't suck? We're getting screwed!
    • Re:God no. (Score:2, Funny)

      by w3weasel (656289)
      Blasphemer!

      by Landru, Thou art forsaken
  • A Few Notes: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bsharitt (580506) * <brandon@@@sharitt...com> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:46PM (#11798135) Homepage Journal
    Okay before things get out of hand let me make a few points on behalf of myself and fellow Star Trek fans.

    1 - To BSG fans, while it may be a good show, it's still not Star Trek. It's not set in the familiar setting and universe that Star trek fans like and know.

    2 - Why is having only one good sci-fi show on good enough

    3 - To all of you who watched the first couple of seasons, it's a gotten a lot better and is hardly the same show. I stopped watching midway though the second, but came back in the fourth and it's much better. If it continues the way it has gone in this past season it should easily pass Voyager in quality and could potentially reach TNG standards

    I also watch BSG and the two Stargate shows, but I also like Enterprise, and would like as many options as i can get.

    • Re:A Few Notes: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1 - To BSG fans, while it may be a good show, it's still not Star Trek. It's not set in the familiar setting and universe that Star trek fans like and know.

      Unfamiliar universes are great for TV shows and uncouple you from the constraints that familiar settings build up over time.

      2 - Why is having only one good sci-fi show on good enough

      It's less likely to get cancelled.

      3 - To all of you who watched the first couple of seasons, it's a gotten a lot better and is hardly the same show. I stopped w
    • by PhoenixFlare (319467) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:07PM (#11798295) Journal
      If it continues the way it has gone in this past season it should easily pass Voyager in quality and could potentially reach TNG standards

      Let me get this straight - After 4 years (or however long it's been running) you're saying it's not even better than Voyager yet, and not up to the standards of TNG?

      You're only reinforcing the reason i'm not watching it...I'll just stick to my slow acquisition of the DS9 box sets instead.
      • Re:A Few Notes: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Wasn't DS9 on for like 6 years before it got even remotely as good as TNG?
        • Re:A Few Notes: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by PhoenixFlare (319467)
          Personally, I think the series hit its stride somewhere in the 3rd season....By the 6th and 7th, I can't say that it was incredible, but by no means was it as unwatchable as some of the Voyager episodes.
      • Re:A Few Notes: (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bsharitt (580506) * <brandon@@@sharitt...com> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:13PM (#11798335) Homepage Journal
        I'd say Season 4 was better than any Voyager season, and up to the quality of a TNG season. If you look at the series as a whole, right now it stands about with Voyager due to the first two seasons, but if it were allowed to continue for 3 more years with the remaining seasons the same quality or better than season 4, I'd say it could reach TNG overall quality, and could easily pass Voyager overall with only on more good season.
        • You have to move out of your mom's house. TNG sucked. Voyager was way better. The "run the ship by committee" that TNG had was lame. Characters were lame.

          Voyager, though it had some lame episodes, was 10 times more watchable.

          • Yes, Gilligan's Island was also very watchable, but I wouldn't rate it as a better drama than TNG, and it had the same premise as Voyager.

            Plus the Skipper was a far less nasal and annoying leader.

            • by flyingsquid (813711) on Monday February 28, 2005 @02:25AM (#11800738)
              Yes, Gilligan's Island was also very watchable, but I wouldn't rate it as a better drama than TNG, and it had the same premise as Voyager.

              My favorite Voyager was the episode where they make a warp drive out of coconuts.

      • My take (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hummassa (157160) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:37PM (#11798550) Homepage Journal
        1. DS9 > TOS > TNG > VOY > ENTs3 > ENTs1 > ENTs2
        2. ENTs4 > DS9
        3. ENTs4 =~ BSGs1

        I just watched the last episode today, and I'm loving it. All 15 episodes are great.
        • by michaeldot (751590) on Monday February 28, 2005 @01:09AM (#11800426)
          1. DS9 > TOS > TNG > VOY > ENTs3 > ENTs1 > ENTs2

          I'll see your chain of US Sci-fi and raise you British Sci-fi:

          Doctor Who > Blake's 7 > Red Dwarf > all the takes-itself-too-seriously-American crap

          (Am actually a fan of the TITSAC so don't burn me too badly. Also haven't seen the new Doctor Who yet, which may suck relative to Tom Baker, so will have to wait and see.)

          • Why Tom Baker? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by benhocking (724439)
            Why relative to Tom Baker? Was he your favorite Doctor? Personally, I preferred Jon Pertwee, but I think I would rank Tom 2nd in the pantheon of Doctors Who. (Peter Davison would come a close 3rd.)
    • Trek universe is old and has a lot of constraints in it.

      I think you have Voyager and TNG mixed up. The TNG was terrible, and Voyager was 10 times better.

    • Re:A Few Notes: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by istewart (463887)
      1 - To Enterprise fans, while it may be slowly turning into a good show, it's still not Star Trek. It's not set in the familiar setting and universe that Star trek fans like and know. They seem to have ripped off token aliens such as the Klingons, Romulans, and even the Borg (!!!), but half the time they mess up the characterizations, such as the suddenly dictatorial emo Vulcans. An upside-down Akira-class is kinda cute, to those who get the reference, but it doesn't make much sense 100 years before Kirk. H
      • Re:A Few Notes: (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JabberWokky (19442) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Monday February 28, 2005 @01:28AM (#11800525) Homepage Journal
        You haven't seen season 4. They turned over creative control to someone who got the hell rid of the temporal war and has brought back in Orion Slave Girls, real emotionless Vulcans (reintroduced Kohlinar) and has made the Klingons look like TOS Klingons (i.e., no ridges).

        Note how everybody here who is defending it is solely defending Season 4? That's because Season 4 is *good*. More than that, it addresses all the problems you had with it.

        --
        Evan

    • The trouble (Score:3, Informative)

      by ucblockhead (63650)
      Money that is spent another tired Star Trek crapfest could be getting spent on a new show.

      It's dead, Jim.
    • Not good (Score:3, Funny)

      by Nice2Cats (557310)
      To all of you who watched the first couple of seasons, it's a gotten a lot better and is hardly the same show.

      Spoiler warning.

      Better? You call this better? Because I live in a TV-backwater, I just got to see the last episode of season three, which I had been led to believe was one of the good ones. What I got was a cliff hanger with time travel and Nazis. Please. All we're missing now is that they introduce a little kid...

      I'm sorry, they screwed around with the background story too much in the firs

  • by Lisandro (799651) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:51PM (#11798172)
    ... to see nerds of different ethnicities [western-alliance.net] fighting for a common goal [western-alliance.net]. *wipes tear*
  • by shrewd (830067) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:51PM (#11798181)
    nuff said
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Don't get me wrong, Enterprise is an okay show but there are many others out there that are so much better that don't even get to see the light of day. In an era where Battlestar Galactica and Babylon 5 are superior in almost every conceivable way is there really any room left for Star Trek?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    TrekUnited campaign speeds up on an energizing Friday
    Rallies draw attention on fan efforts / TrekUnited fund passes 50,000$

    Posted by: Chris R. - 02.25.05

    As fan rallies in Tel Aviv, New York City and Los Angeles to protest the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise have come to an end, first reports indicate a "Mission successful!"

    On Thursday, Israel-based Star Trek fans met inside Tel Aviv University for an information lecture and Star Trek screening, as a first of several global rallies voicing support f
  • by H_Fisher (808597) <hvfisher.hotmail@com> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:53PM (#11798192)
    IANA Enterprise fan - the show lost me about a year ago because of Bermaga and their silly milking of the franchise and diluting of what "Classic" Trek stood for.

    But I tell you, this outpouring of support is amazing. Say what you will about the quality of the show, or the usage of the money - and I know the flood of comments about what a pitiful waste of capital this is will be starting soon. Hell, I'd like to have $3 mil to blow on [name of pet project] - who doesn't?

    But here on Slashdot we love to piss and moan about the state of the entertainment industry and how people ought to vote with their money. I, for one, see this is a perfect example of some devoted fans doing just that. Too bad we didn't get this for Firefly - but we've got a film [serenitymovie.com] coming, so...

    Bravo, fans!

  • Is this another Star Trek series? I keep losing track. That's like, what, seventy or so now, right?

    • That's like, what, seventy or so now, right?
      1. The Original Series
      2. The Next Generation
      3. Voyager
      4. Deep Space Nine
      5. Enterprise

      To paraphrase Blackadder, the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered counting higher than 5.

      Unless of course you're an agent of the Temporal Cold War and know something about the next 65 seasons that we don't!

  • by wintermute1000 (731750) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:54PM (#11798205)
    I'm just asking for clarification, because it seems like the different sites linked are displaying very different numbers for the amount of capital these protestors have amassed. Wired seemed to think that someone was claiming they'd give $3mil, but had not actually handed it over yet. Reuters said they had $48,000 or so. I'm just wondering whether the $3 million is in the hands of the fans right now or if there's just someone out there claiming to have a few million to spend on Enterprise. I mean, it certainly helps the cause get attention. I'm just wondering whether this money has actually been ponied up or not. Anyone have more details? Is there something I'm not seeing?
  • I think when you see this level of support for a show like Star Trek it shows it has passed the point of being a mere "TV show" and has become a full-fledged cultural phenomenon like jazz or abstract art or classical music.

    I have a friend who is a grant writer. She does work for charties applying to government agencies and private foundations for to get money.

    I think there is a good chance of supporting Star Trek through the use of grants from the government and from charitable foundations, the way PBS
    • by Anonymous Coward
      God, the stupidity never ends around here.
    • by EEBaum (520514)
      People still make fantastic, high-quality jazz, abstract art, and classical music. The last good thing to come out of Star Trek was First Contact, and even that was sketchy what with the ruining of the borg concept.
    • I think when you see this level of support for a show like Star Trek it shows it has passed the point of being a mere "TV show" and has become a full-fledged cultural phenomenon like jazz or abstract art or classical music.

      [Captain Tanneal]Well, YOU'RE WRONG! Star Trek is just a TV show based on fantasy escapism embraced by misanthropes who self-medicate with daily feasts of snack foods and justify their existence with baseless arrogance! Let's get it on![/Captain Tanneal]

      (To avoid flamebait mods,

  • Nooooo (Score:4, Funny)

    by NerdConspiracy (858939) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:59PM (#11798242)
    a few snapshots

    Please, I'm eating. Oh good, the server is dead...
  • R.I.P. (Score:3, Funny)

    by serutan (259622) <(moc.nozakeeg) (ta) (guodpoons)> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:00PM (#11798245) Homepage
    Not the series, the poor guy's server.
    http://www.western-alliance.net/lordprox/trek/ [western-alliance.net]
    /sniff
  • If they fail... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BoneFlower (107640) <george...worroll@@@gmail...com> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:03PM (#11798270) Journal
    What happens to the money?

    Theres a good chance they won't raise enough money, and a chance that even if they do the studio won't be interested or they won't find anyone to air it.

    If such a thing comes to pass, what happens then?
    • Re:If they fail... (Score:2, Informative)

      by LiquidCoooled (634315)
      It says in one of the articles that most of the money will be returned.

      If the Trekkies' efforts fail, all the money will be refunded to donors, minus the PayPal transaction costs and minor legal fees, Brazeal said.
    • Re:If they fail... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is addressed in the trekunited FAQ. The FAQ explains that if each person in the show's estimated 3 million person audience contributed 12 bucks the show could be saved. You can find it at http://trekunited.com/faq.php

      If the campaign fails the money will be returned to those who donated. If the campaign succeeds overwhelmingly, the excess raised (over the cost of producing another season) will be donated to the Tsunami Relief Fund. So if the campaign fails, you get your loot back. If you succeed
    • What happens to the money?

      The obvious answer is "strippers." But, since we're talking about Trek fans, I'm going to guess "strippers with funny ears."
  • Why (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why spend so much money to save an unpopular show? Think how many people could be fed with all that money. Or, they could give the money to an improvished school so that they could enough money for a desent computer lab. Or, they could donate it to the tsunami disaster releif fund.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big trek fan. I've probably seen every episode of TNG. I at the very least found all of the movies to be entertaining, even if they weren't that great. I actually liked Voyager a lot. But, Enterprise j

    • So what if Gene wanted it?
      He's dead, and I want a quality Sci-Fi show (which in Season 4, ENT definately is) to stay on screen.
    • Re:Why (Score:5, Funny)

      by kuzb (724081) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:30PM (#11798488)

      Or, they could give the money to an improvished school so that they could enough money for a desent computer lab.

      Or, they could have given the money to an impoverished school so that they could have enough money for a decent spelling and grammar class.

    • Why spend so much money to save an unpopular show?

      Or more to the point, can you really save a show by subsidizing its production? If it doesn't draw advertisers, they're still not going to show it...

    • Re:Why (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647)
      "Why spend so much money to save an unpopular show?"

      Because it's not unpopular at all. The *lowest* ratings that ST:ENT has ever recieved amounted to 5 million viewers. That may be poor for network TV, but it's great for cable. Even BS:G averages around 3-4 million.
  • Scotty !! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dolphinzilla (199489) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:06PM (#11798283) Journal
    More power to the server - we are being slashdotted !!
  • Mistake (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:09PM (#11798315)
    The mistake here is that these dedicated fans are essentially casting their cash into the coffers of a company who has it out for their TV show. This shouldn't be viewed as a project that requires their donations to make it happen. This should be an investment, something with a potential return on their capital.

  • by Digital Pizza (855175) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:11PM (#11798327)
    I'm generally pessimistic about such grassroots efforts to save a show - they never seem to work. However, I'm pretty impressed by what this group has accomplished - maybe I should be more optimistic in this case?

    I agree with everyone who said that the first couple of seasons sucked, although it had its moments; season three was sometimes pretty cool, definately an improvement. The lack of other good shows on TV (I hate reality TV) kept me watching.

    Now that Coto's in charge, season four kicks ass! Too bad so many people already wrote the show off. I just saw an episide that explains beautifully why Klingons looked different in the original series, and even fits in with Worf's comment in the DS9 "tribbles" episode ("We don't talk about it"). That's the kind of thing they should have done from the get-go, rather than screwing around with that "tempral cold-war" crap.

    Here's hoping the show can continue!


  • Transmission from planet Vulcan to Lord Prox... thousands of nerd-like beings are trying to access your data... *bzzt, crackle*... Malfunction! Malfunction!
  • by Belial6 (794905) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:23PM (#11798407)
    Enterprise has the same problem that Firefly had. For some reason, they want to run directly against Stargate. That simply will not work. If Stargate was new, or sucked, then maybe they would have a chance, but neigther of these are the case. Just becasue you cans say "Sci-Friday" doesn't mean that every Sci-Fi show must run on Friday. I loved Firefly. It was a great show, that broke new ground. It tried something new, and it worked. Unfortuanatly, I didn't get to see it until it came out on DVD. I certainly wasn't going to miss a show that I KNOW I like, and have been watching for several years, in the hopes that maybe this new show might also be good. If it would have run on Tuesday or Saturday, I would have been a faithful view.
  • Oh Jesus, another Star Trek post ... OK, I should be able to suppress the display of these on my SlashDot home page. Lessee, this story was posted under the topic "Sci-Fi" -- sure, I'll be happy to suppress those. Hmmm, how do I do that? There is no "Sci-Fi" or even "Entertainment" section listed on the preferences page [slashdot.org] where I would expect to set this. Even if it's just that the Entertainment section is missing from that code, I wouldn't want to suppress all Entertainment stories, just the Start Trek o
  • Serenity all the way baby! Check out the pic [serenitymovie.com].
  • by Ender77 (551980) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:39PM (#11798567)
    I would be all for saving Enterprise if it wasn't for the fact that every episode is a propaganda machine for the Iraq war. Ever since 911 most of the episodes have something that sounds like it came off the news channel, "We must stop terrorism", "A stable empire is good for us", "our enemies don't want your people to have peace, the only way to stop them is too stand up to them"..etc..etc

    There is no creativity to this, it is simply hearing whats on the news and putting it in a Star Trek Universe. If they go back to exploring then it might be worth saving.
    • by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @09:20PM (#11798900) Homepage
      Star Trek has *always* been a mirror of US politics... even TOS had it (klingons/federation = russians/americans). TNG (ooh look we made peace with the rus..err..klingons). The films (the last one was about a terrorist leader with a big WMD).

      Enterprise got a bit blatant with the unprovoked attack on earth that wiped out half of the US and the subsequent hunt for the cuplrits, but it's just following a pattern that's always been there.
  • "F" Enterprise (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mrshowtime (562809)
    They need to do a Next "next" generation. Put Star Trek 500 years in the future.
    • God no! That's too close to the Temporal Wars that completely turned me off Enterprise in the first place. Can you imagine what the show would be like when *every* episode involved time travel, even without B&B at the helm? There are only two things that'll get me to watch another Trek series:
      1. JMS gets to have a crack at his proposal since he's free(er) now that the B5 movie has fallen through.
      2. Manny Coto gets free reign *without* *any* B&B input *what-so-ever*.

      Failing those options, or a comb

  • Give It Up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iCharles (242580) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @09:09PM (#11798833) Homepage
    I'm the last person to criticize why someone would want to tell someone what to watch, or how they spend their time or money relative to it. In general, I question the value these days of viewer campaigns (the Internet has increased their frequency, which, in turn, has diluted their value).

    In the case of "Enterprise," I have to wonder. People are talking about funding an additional season on a network, in a serious fashion. And I do believe it is only a matter of time before a series is, at least in a significant part, funded by fans. I hope it is a quality gem that is given a truly raw deal by a major network.

    However, I don't think "Enterprise" is it. It was given numerous renewals on the strength of shaky ratings. It's storytelling and acting are relatively weak. It has had some strong moments, but overall, I always found it lacking.

    It's main redeeming quality has been that it is "Star Trek." Even that has almost been a detriment. When it tries to close a continuity loop with the other series, it does so with too much of a wink, and too much hype. It never felt much like "Star Trek," from the types of stories to the sets and costumes.

    But it is this "Star Trek" connection that probably has given this campaign series traction. There is likely a noteworthy percentage of people who are rallying, raising funds, etc, for this simply so that Star Trek stays on the air, not "Enterprise." To them I say, "is this the Trek you really want to put your money into?"

    Suppose it works. There might be one more season. But, unless you can truly identify and resolve the reasons for the poor ratings, you'll either have delayed the cancellation, or have to pass the hat one more time.

    The only upside is that you'll prove the viability of a fan-supported show. And, one day, there will be a not-even-one-season wonder that benefits from fans funding the balance of a season/a second season. With luck, this provides the show a better audience, both by the simple fact it is still on, as well as because it gets a lot of publicity by being fan funded. A third season may become self-sustaining, perhaps even providing some dividend to the fan investors.

    So to the people who want to fund "Enterprise" only to keep "Star Trek" on the air, I ask that you save your money, and get behind a new Trek show (already rumored to be in development (think 2006 or 2007)), or one of the new SciFi shows that demonstrates quality worthy of your devotion.
  • Meanwhile in Los Angeles, hundreds of fans gathered at the gates of Paramount studios for the main rally of the day, led by Tim Brazeal, founder of the SaveEnterprise and TrekUnited campaigns.

    It's funny/sad just how inflated that number is.

    I was there on Friday morning for about ten minutes as a photographer [blogging.la], and there were only about a hundred fans. Hell, StarTrek.com [startrek.com] puts the number at about 120-150 fans.

    A friend of mine stayed and documented the Enterprise rally with his videocamera, taping several
  • Really, in the end, all that is needed to save Enterprise is to make it worthwhile for someone to pick up the production and broadcasting of season 5 and on. It's basic economics.

    How would the rights and revenues of a totally fan supported series work out? As far as I can remember from when I first saw the $32M number, it was supposed to cover production, but it isn't offset by whatever revenues would come from the advertiments aired during the shows, syndication, DVD revenues, sponsorships, etc. (Tang
  • Starship Exeter (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mrsam (12205)
    Just today I finally got around to watching that fanfilm.

    I can't help but think that the dudes who put together "Starship Exeter" could probably get a lot more bang for the buck with that $3 million that anything Paramount could ever come up with.

    Sure, the acting was obviously amature. Those guys are no professional actors. Strangely enough, it wasn't really that much worse than the average Shatneresque episode, and you had to give them credit for putting their heart and soul into those 35 minutes. And
  • I'm curious how they gather these viewer statistics? Is it only based on viewers in the US? I find it hard to believe that there are less than 3 million people watching theses shows across the globe.

    I'll voice my support for Enterprise as well.. This season, is by far the best one i've seen yet.. The reason I like it, is because the episodes are more closly intertwined. Last season there were a couple of shows that deviated slightly from the main storyline but the overall theme seemed to be better han

  • Star Wreck (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @02:39AM (#11800775)
    I feel sorry for the actors who signed aborad Enterprise. I'm sure they were expecting a nice 7-year ride and some chances to do some challenging acting once in a while. Instead, they got Breman and Braga'd into a 4 year soap-opera.

    If you take a look at the history of the Star Trek franchise, the show's quality started out remarkably good (considering it was a campy 1960's wagon train in space). They got a good diverse set of writers to write about topics of the day and tried to both produce fluffy entertainment AND slip a few social messages through the censors.

    When TNG was created, Gene Roddenberry had the chance to tell the kinds of stories he wanted to tell back in the 60's, but without the overwhelming concerns of money and the delicate ears of the country. The success of the original show in syndication(!) and the movies gave him all the clout he needed, and so he made a show that revived ST and fired it up for years to come.

    Expanding the franchise, he came up with the ideas for DS9 and Andromeda. DS9 would be a story about the invasion and corruption of the Federation, possibly culminating in its fall. The show that is now Andromeda was originally to have been the story of what happened after the fall of the Federation.

    All well and good. Unfortunatly, he had Beavis and Butthead -- errr... Breman and Braga as assistants from TNG days. As his health started to decline, he was forced to hand over more and more of the day-to-day operations of the show to them. When the network balked at the idea of the Federation collapsing, they rethought the whole dominion wars aspect of DS9 and came up with Voyager as a way to explore a galaxy without the Federation.

    By that time, B&B had taken the helm and thrown the idea of social commentary out the window. They believed in old-schoold demographics. Ratings slipping? Ok, Hire 7 of 9 and put her in a illogically tight jumpsuit.

    Just as DS9 was supposed to be about a seedy and corrupt corner of the Federation, and Voyager was supposed to be a dark Federation-less corner of the universe, Enterprise now took on the challenge of being the 'Really-Dark-This-Time' Trek. Pre-Federation, we wouldn't have to worry about Prime Directives, or about fleets of starships showing up to save them. Transporters were supposed to be flaky and unreliable. Phasers were supposed to be little more than laser guns. Communication would be limited to launched probes.

    Instead, we got a captain who (through no fault of the actor!) has a split personality -- swinging back and forth between concerned pacifist and vengeful hitman. We got a hot vulcan chick who could have developed into a really interesting character -- if she were allowed to do more than change uniforms every season. And we get to encounter most of the familiar alien races which act much the way they acted towards us in the future... even though it should have been first contact.

    I'll say what I said with Voyager. If Paramont wants to save the franchise, they must fire Breman and Braga and hire people who care about the show, not just the ratings. I can't remember which one (does it matter?) but one of them actually bragged about having never seen the original series.
  • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Monday February 28, 2005 @05:39AM (#11801200)
    1. Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are stopped from having any involvement in Star Trek. Sure, Gene Roddenberry had his faults but at least he kept the shows as cohesive as possible and kept stupid paradoxes (like "Enterprise") from appearing.


    2. They get some decent writers. Far too much of Trek in the past few years has been about moralising rather than just telling a good story. I definitely vote for Michael J Straczynski doing some of the writing for the shows.


    3. They stop dicking about with the movies. Stop doing Trek movies "for the masses", keep them within the Roddenberry guidelines and for the fans. For example, I do not want to see our favourite bald captain spending 15 years or so following the Prime Directive only to tear around the surface of a planet like a lunatic in a sand buggy (as in "Nemesis")! Definitely not in Picard's character...


    4. Go forward rather than back. Why wasn't Enterprise just set after Voyager rather than before TOS? Prequels always introduce plot discrepancies which are going to be picked up by a fan-base as involved as Trek fans are. This seemed the ultimate stupidity with "Enterprise", IMHO.


    5. Look at entertaining the fans first, then worry about the money-making. If the fans like it, they'll by the merchandise and go to the conventions.


    I'm a middle-aged geek who's followed the shows since childhood - TNG was great, DS9 was good, Voyager had about half-a-season's worth of good episodes, Enterprise was rubbish. Now I've about given up on Trek completely and won't be coming back until I feel I am being entertained rather than just ripped off by Paramount for as much money as possible.

    • by vidarh (309115) <vidar@hokstad.com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:05AM (#11801584) Homepage Journal
      2. They get some decent writers. Far too much of Trek in the past few years has been about moralising rather than just telling a good story. I definitely vote for Michael J Straczynski doing some of the writing for the shows.

      This complaint always cracks me up. Roddenberry's purpose with Star Trek was to find a setting for social commentary that would let him present his moral agenda without incurring the ire of the studio censors... When fans don't see that in the older series, that's likely more because much of the original moralising was over issues that are now reasonably dated.

      For instance, it's hard to see the episode where Kirk and Uhura kiss as having any purpose as social commentary unless you're aware of just how controversial interracial relationships used to be, and that is perhaps one of the most blantant ones.

      I can hardly think of ANY episode of any Star Trek series that hasn't been dripping of moralising about at least one issue.

      Even the structure of the Star Trek universe is so blatant in it's use of entire species as plot devices to set the scene for morality plays where the individuals involved doesn't need to be well known to the viewer because he or she can either distinguish the role of the people involved from their species, or the very point of the story is why or how a particular individual deviates from the species standard behaviour, and what consequences it has.

      Star Trek is about moralising. Deal with it. It's been part of what made it a success, but it's also part of what sometimes makes it extremely obnoxious whenever it gets too in your face and you either completely agree or completely disagree. It's at it's best whenever it hits you with issues you haven't really considered or haven't made your mind up about, where it is what creates a great story because it keeps you thinking.

      Getting that balance right might quite possibly require someone other than Berman, though, even if I've never quite understood the raw hatred he is sometimes met with from some people.

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud

Working...