# Casting a Pike era film or series...



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Okay, I know this has been mentioned before, but lets try again and maybe stretch it a bit. Assuming such a project were a go who might you consider in terms of casting the Pike era _Enterprise_ crew? And yes, I know practically everyone mentions Ray Liotta as Pike, but there must be other ideas, hmmm?

Pike: In his mid 30s to 40s. Atheletic build. Has somewhat of a militiary bearing. Dark haired and clear blue eyed. Acting chops (as with all casting) more important than actual physical resemblance.

Number One: Number One is her position designation--her actual name could as yet be determined. Other than perhaps dark haired a little more leeway here perhaps in appearance. Since she's supposedly the ship's most experienced officer besides Pike then she should convey some maturity of character and be perhaps no younger than her late 20s to early 30s.

Spock: Unusual looking and/or somewhat hawkish features. Aged somewhere around mid to latter 20s. Can convey a range of expression and emotion yet mostly a leaning towards equanimity. This is a younger unfamiliar Spock trying to find his own way.

Boyce: A middle-aged male no younger than his mid 40s. Calls them as he sees them (but admittedly it would a challenge not to create just another McCoy clone).

I really wouldn't bother casting for a regular Navigator (Tyler) or Yeoman (Colt), but rather simply have an alternating cast of semi-regulars in these roles unless something distinctively interesting could be shown to be done with these characters. Instead I'd rather play these easily replaced ciphers with new more distinct characters, perhaps even another alien besides Spock.

Perhaps someone could suggest a new type of character and who might play them. For myself I'd be tempted to parallel some of the ideas found in Marvel Comics' _Early Voyages_ title as well as D.C. Fontana's _Vulcan's Glory._ 

Thoughts anyone?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I'll be Pike!!!! 

Huzz


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Interesting idea, Pike's era series/movie...

Pike: Yes, Ray Liotta is physically a good match to Jeffrey Hunter in both appearance and acting ability, but as Warped9 said, appearance/resemblance isn't particularly important if he can bring the character to life believably. Aside from Ray, I can think of three actors I think would be good for this part: Hugh Jackman has definitely proven his acting chops, not just the action/adventure, but also the comic, dramatic and musical types, too. He's got the rugged good looks, strength and presence to play a starship captain. Jonathon LaPaglia (Anthony's younger brother), formerly of the series "Seven Days" and now on "The District"...very good-looking, rough-and-tumble type, not afraid to try anything, including taking his shirt off in every episode!  Seriously, though, in spite of the more action-oriented bent of "Seven Days", he had a few decent episodes that showed a surprising amount of range as an actor. The other actor I'm thinking of is Dermot Mulroney, who's starred in "My Best Friend's Wedding" and "Copycat" and in the new movie coming out "The Wedding Date" with Debra Messing...again, very attractive, perhaps older than the original mold (I think he's in his early- to mid-40's), but a very talented actor, nonetheless.

Number One: There is only actress that I can think of for this role: Stockard Channing. Her work speaks for itself. Again, perhaps a bit old compared to Majel, at that time, but I still think she'd be fantastic.

Spock: This is an interesting position to be in for any actor: recreating a role that has become so ingrained in the American psyche...kind of like doing "The Wizard of Oz"...everybody's going to compare you with the original, unless you do something to make it completely your own, without ruining the reputation and established manner of the original actor and character. Not only does he have to reasonably resemble Leonard Nimoy, he also has to be able to portray the character honestly and true to the original, without being a carbon copy. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one actor who MIGHT fit this, although he's a bit shorter than Leonard: Alan Cumming, Nightcrawler from "X2".

Dr. Boyce: I see this character as older than middle-aged, almost approaching retirement age: Philip Baker Hall, Ian McKellan, Rene Auberjonios, and the like.

The other two roles, Yeoman and Navigator, could be rotating. In fact, in a real military (I know Roddenberry said Star Trek wasn't a military show, but it was, case closed!), the bridge crew would be transfering on and off frequently. It almost never happens that the same group of officers and crewmen stay together as long as Kirk & Co., Picard & Co., etc. If these two WERE to remain, however, there are thousands of young actors and actresses in Hollywood that could fill these roles.

As far as new aliens, eh...I can't think of any, except perhaps Lt. M'ress (cat-woman) and Ens. Arex (the guy with three arms and three legs and the head of E.T.) from the Animated Series. Those two would be interesting to see done live-action, particularly Arex.

Anyway...thats my two-cents worth...maybe more like six cents...whatever!


----------



## ken072359 (Aug 1, 2003)

1701ALover said:


> Number One: There is only actress that I can think of for this role: Stockard Channing. Her work speaks for itself. Again, perhaps a bit old compared to Majel, at that time, but I still think she'd be fantastic.


Yes, Stockard at 60+ years old is a bit of a stretch, but still a good choice. Kate Mulgrew would make a good Number 1, but she's probably too identifiable as Janeway. But she's also pushing the age limit. Angelina Jolie? Too exotic looking? That leaves only Tina Fey.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Holy crap...you're right...I guess I didn't realize she was that old...I thought she was only maybe 40's, but IMDB supports that she is indeed 60. WOW!! She still looks fantastic! I've always loved her!

Okay...hmm...OH!! Here's an interesting idea that just came to me: Teri Hatcher as Number One...give her more of a quirky side, while still retaining the sensuality and maturity. She's also a fine actress.

TINA FEY?!! Oy!!


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

If Tina Fey were on board, all the episodes would take a sudden dive into being just not very good anymore (almost immediately after she assumes the position of head writer) despite plenty of more qualified and much better talent on board.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Not to be trendy, but Jennifer Garner has a vaguely similar look to young Majel.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

See, Although I'm posting, I will take the high road.


----------



## alpha-8 (Oct 31, 1999)

How about Halle Berry as Number One?

Sean Connery as Adm. April

Harvey Korman as Dr. Boyce (LOL)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Who is that chick who does the T mobile commercials?
She'd make a nice #1 for any Captain!


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

That's Kirk's daughter-in-law.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My first choice to audition for Pike would be Paul Gross.
http://www.pgsnapshots.com/gallery/pg/grey.jpg

And in keeping with great starship captains...he's Canadian!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Now here'e something we can agree on!! The dude was excellent in _Due South_!!

Huzz :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Another guy that doesn't quite have the look, but there is somethiing about him that might still work as Pike is Eric Close _(Dark Skies, Now And Again)._ 

For Number One I might suggest Julie Caitlan Brown (Na'toth in _Babylon 5),_ Susan Gibney (Leah Brahms in _TNG)_ or Patricia Tallman (Lyta Alexander in _B5)._ 

And I think John Mahoney (Frasier's dad) would make a good Dr. Boyce.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Paul Gross as Captain Christopher Pike...
 

I tidied his hair and gave him blue eyes instead of his own brown.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Captain Pike: Verne Troyer.

Spock: Rip Torn.

Number one: Ricki Lake.

Hey warped, how bout whipping that one up.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Funny about great minds thinking alike.

Yes, Ray Liotta WOULD have made a great Pike about 15 years ago.
Especially in his 'Stormy Modays' days.

Today, sorry to say, hes getting a little up there to play pike.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Liotta, at least to me, also looks just a little wasted or debauched or something.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John Mahoney as Dr. Boyce...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That's EXACTLY who I was thinking of!


----------



## alpha-8 (Oct 31, 1999)

I don't think that Ray Liotta is too old. Edward James Olmos plays a kick ass Adama. Patrick Stewart is still awesome. Alec Baldwin wouldn't be a bad choice for Pike either.

Dave


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

One thing I'd consider. If doing a Pike era movie then all well and good since it's effectively a one-shot or two. Now if doing a series then I'd plan differently. I'd introduce the characters as we know them, but down the road I'd rotate some out. After a couple of seasons Boyce would retire and/or transfer off wherein I'd introduce a new replacement (no, not McCoy). And likewise I'd do the same with Number One at some point, promoting her to her own command and bring in a fresh replacement character (it'd be far too soon to promote Spock to First Officer and giving Number One her own command wuld finally lay to rest the silly assumption that women cannot command in TOS' era).

How's this? Paul Gross, Lara Flynn Boyle and John Mahoney...


----------



## JonD (Apr 18, 2002)

Nice choices so far, especially Paul Gross and John Mahoney...

How about James Marsters as Spock? He's got the Vulcan look and the acting ability...


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Marsters as a young Spock - I like the idea. It would, however, add a significant increase to the casting budget...


----------



## JonD (Apr 18, 2002)

Not really so young! He's remarkably well-preserved but in his early to mid forties, I believe! And as for price, if we're already casting John Mahoney...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've never heard of Marsters, but Mahoney, while a good actor, he isn't an A-list actor in terms of price.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Marsters = Cyclops from the two X-Men movies. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You know, what would really be appreciated here for such a project would be a solid science fiction adventure story with some honest drama in it. I envision something that would have the visual feast of _TMP_, but with the energy of TWoK (yet without the plot holes and logic flaws). Perhaps something along the lines of an adapted David Weber novel or something akin to that.

I'm reminded of _Master And Commander._ The story there was not an epic tale in itself--it was actually nothing but a skirmish among the tapestry of a larger conflict--but the story had an epic feel to its execution. That is the kind of story this project could use. A story of genuine adventure with some real sense of wonder yet put some real meat in it for the actors to have something juicy to sink their teeth into.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

_Master and Commander_ is the best Star Trek I've seen in more than a decade. It's what the original series was all about.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> Marsters = Cyclops from the two X-Men movies.
> 
> - - - - - -
> 
> ...


I think you're mixing up two actors: James MARSTERS was Spike in the TV series "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer". James MARSDEN was Cyclops in X-Men. The picture above of "young Spock" is, indeed, James Marsters.


JonD said:


> Not really so young! He's remarkably well-preserved but in his early to mid forties, I believe!


According to IMDb.com, James Marsters was born in August 1962, making him 42. James Marsden was born in September 1973, making him 31. Either would actually look right, appearance-wise, but if you're going for a younger Spock than seen in TOS, James Marsden would be the better choice, because he looks younger than his years. James Marsters definitely looks older than Leonard did in TOS.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Something a little different. Marg Helgenberger as Number One...


And our younger Spock (still working on that) should look around mid 20's or so.


----------



## JonD (Apr 18, 2002)

Griffworks said:


> Marsters = Cyclops from the two X-Men movies.


Nope. That's James Marsden. James Marsters is Spike from 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.  (Sorry - posted without seeing the previous response!  )


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Yes, I was wrong and you're both right. Buffy not X-Men.... 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Six lashes with a wet noodle.


----------



## tripdeer (Mar 7, 2004)

Only six? My, you're feeling lenient today!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

No! NOT the wet noodle!


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Something a little different. Marg Helgenberger as Number One...
> 
> 
> And our younger Spock (still working on that) should look around mid 20's or so.


Nice insignia !!! :tongue:


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Hey...I just thought of another addition to this cast: If Yeoman Colt were to be included, how about Hilary Swank to play her? She's young, she's clearly got the acting chops (multiple awards!), she can obviously do the rough-and-tumble action work AND she's unconventionally pretty, almost gawky, for her age, which I see as perfect for the young Yeoman.

And (speaking of Marg Helgenberger) another thought occured to me while watching a rerun of CSI (the original) last night...George Eads would be awesome as Pike! He's got the ruggen good looks, the physical presence, etc. And a lot of women find him irresistable!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

My wife thinks Eads is funny looking. Thank god she prefers ugly men. :lol:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This thread has got me thinking. The last few days I've been wracking my brain trying to conjure up a satisfactory Pike era story that could work suitably on the big screen.

_*Sigh*_ Even if I come up with with one I don't see how could ever have the chance to get the idea pitched for serious consideration. Yes, I'm biased, but I can't help but feel that such a project done right could really get fans juiced again as well as interest a more general audience.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Well, maybe not _serious_ consideration.

The film could be done with amateurs and models. Now where could we find a group who has props, sets, and models or would be interested in making such things, then putting together another decent fanfilm?


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

"And our younger Spock (still working on that) should look around mid 20's or so."

You mean mid 70's. He was in his 80s in TOS.


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

I think my wife would be VERY happy if they cast this guy Viggio Somebody (He can be seen in LOTR and G.I. JANE) Anyhoo the MRS. Gets a Strange Stirring in her Utility Belt for this guy and I think he'd make a Decent "Pike" Whaddaya Think?

JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

terryr said:


> "And our younger Spock (still working on that) should look around mid 20's or so."
> 
> You mean mid 70's. He was in his 80s in TOS.


That would make his mother over a hundred years old during the original series. And even older when we see her in STAR TREK IV. Even allowing for the extended lifespan in the STAR TREK universe, I think this is a stretch.

If I remember correctly, the animated episode YESTERYEAR established that Spock was in this thirties. I know it isn't considered canon, but it was written by D.C. Fontana, and it has been referenced in (I think) TNG.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

lonfan said:


> I think my wife would be VERY happy if they cast this guy Viggio Somebody (He can be seen in LOTR and G.I. JANE) Anyhoo the MRS. Gets a Strange Stirring in her Utility Belt for this guy and I think he'd make a Decent "Pike" Whaddaya Think?
> 
> JOHN/LONFAN


Viggo Mortenson...yes, he would be excellent, too! I've been a bit of a fan of some of his work for a long time. He's done some very interesting films...a few of them independents...and each time I see him, I see something new and different. He's not one of these actors who plays every character the same...he owns each character!

I don't know why I hadn't thought of him before! Good thinking, John!


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

Thanks, 1701AL, I trie lol I wouldn't have A CLUE who to get as the Others BUT I'd Like to find SOMETHING for that Actor Who is Now on "Nip/Tuck" to Play in this "Pike Series" I'm refering to the Guy who's gonna be "Dr. Doom" in the Upcoming Fantastic Four Film. (IIRC it's Somebody McMahon) This guy would have made a Dynamite TOS Klingon (IMHO) a'la William Campbell in the Original. lol

JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

I think you're refering to Julian McMahon. I haven't watched "Nip/Tuck" (but the fact that it's garnered a lot of critical and fan acclaim and has been nominated for (won?) awards has to say something), so I'm not familiar with his work, but I have heard of him.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Ah...but here's another question: Speaking of TOS-era Klingons (mentioned above by JOHN/LONFAN), since this would be a new movie/series, made today, would the Klingons look as they do on all the other series and films, or as they did in TOS? I know there's supposed to be an episode of Enterprise to explain this disparity, but what do all of you think? Or does anyone even care?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I couldn't care less what ENT may come up--it doesn't matter because ENT is a revisionist restart anyway and has nothing to do with TOS. My explanation would be the simplest: there are simply different kinds of Klingons just as there are different kinds of humans.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Warped, that idea works fine, until you hit DS9. Then, we see Kor, Kang, and Koloth, all TOS Klingons (and played by the same actors), in TMP-onward Klingon makeup. Since they were the same characters (if the names and actors didn't clinch it, dialogue references did), having appeared as both types of Klingons, something HAD to have happened.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well since those are adaptations/revisions of TOS as well then it really doesn't matter what they did either. Besides which we wouldn't be seeing the three original Klingons because its long before their time.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Well since those are adaptations/revisions of TOS as well then it really doesn't matter what they did either. Besides which we wouldn't be seeing the three original Klingons because its long before their time.


Not necessarily...we know that the incident with the Talosians happened 13 years prior to the first season of the original series. And in none of the episodes dealing with Kang, Kor or Koloth was their ages mentioned...for all we know, they COULD have been around during Pike's time...perhaps not captains, yet, but they could have been around.

Just some more food for thought...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

But what would be the point of rehashing those characters. Part of what has makes ENT stink so much is its incestuous rehashing of previous ideas. Lets be bold and do something new and different.

How often did TOS dredge up previous characters and elements? Story ideas, yes, addressed with new perspectives, but they always endeavoured to do new things. TOS treated the galaxy as it was a incredibly vast place full of new and unknown things...

_And THAT is one of the things Star Trek has to get back to instead of rehashing same old same old._


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

1701ALover - I believe the dialogue in "The Menagrie" indicates that the events of "The Cage" occurred about 11 years apart, so "The Cage" was 9-11 years before Kirk took command of the Enterprise. (I'm giving some leeway there in the date Kirk took over from Pike, as the command crew seemed fairly well-meshed by the time the first season started - if they weren't a perfect team yet, at least everyone knew each other.)

Warped, I tend to agree with you, but at the same time, a lot of the TOS plots were simply rehashed stories from other media...and the writers only had three years to not do the same thing again, rather than the 27+ seasons the Trek franchise is at right now (not counting the movies). Some things are going to happen over again. Are there problems? Of course. There are canon violations in every series. This past year, Enterprise is finally trying to correct some of the major continuity blunders of the first three seasons - next week's "Babel One" should be interesting, and I'm really looking forward to "In a Mirror, Darkly." This year, they seem to have finally realized that Enterprise is supposed to occur before TOS, rather than off on some random tangent of its own.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Familiar or similar storylines can be used again aslong as you explore new aspects--_Law & Order_ does that often enough and it works rather well when done right.

But I'm talking about something else. Take the Klingons--in TOS they were mentioned perhaps six times and were actually pivotal to the story no more than about three times. But come the movies and TNG and DS9 and then ENT Klingons were all over the freaking place, and they became tired cliches of themselves. Klingons can be cool...when they're done well and used sparingly, but if you keep going back to that well it gets tiresome and stale and ever harder to do something refreshing with them. Ditto the Borg, or Q, or Ferengi, or Cardassians, or the holodeck or whatever you can name.

Take ENT for instance. Here they had an incredible chance to fashion a truly never before seen version of the Trek universe, a time before everything we have become familiar with. And what did they choose to do? They chose to do TNG/DS9/VOY redux--they simply renamed (barely) some things and kept a lot of other things that we've seen seemingly forever.

And the disheartening thing is it didn't have to be that way. If they'd had real vision and some balls then they could have done something different. People like novelty. But they've gone out of their way to cater to fanboy expectations and what has it gotten them?--audiences have been drifting evermore away because people are bored and have other things they'd rather see and do. Don't let the diehard vocals on sites like the TrekBBS fool you--ENT is failing to engage people, fans and general audience alike and the ratings keep shrinking. The whole exercise has been yet another boken promise. They promised that they'd show us a Trek never seen before...and yet it is everything we've seen before but with a slightly different coat of paint.

But rehashed elements aren't the only flaw. These burnt out hacks have no concept of genuine drama and adventure. They do not know how to tell real edge-of-your-seat stories. And it isn't like they have a shoddy cast--in fact every Trek series has had at least competent actors, but sadly they're rarely if ever given good materiel and good direction to work with.

If nothing else TOS had one quality: whether good or bad it was always trying and it was never boring. Very little of contemporary Trek since the '80s can make the same claim.

A Pike era series or film would certainly have some familiar elements to it, but it would also allow pushing the envelope to explore ideas in storytelling.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

spe130 said:


> There are canon violations in every series. This past year, Enterprise is finally trying to correct some of the major continuity blunders of the first three seasons - next week's "Babel One" should be interesting, and I'm really looking forward to "In a Mirror, Darkly." This year, they seem to have finally realized that Enterprise is supposed to occur before TOS, rather than off on some random tangent of its own.


And none of this is making any difference whatsoever because viewers are still drifting away and ratings still plunging. All Coto is doing is catering to fanboy expectations. He's not doing anything clever or refreshingly creative.



> a lot of the TOS plots were simply rehashed stories from other media...


Yes, they went outside of their own little world and sought ideas and inspiration from other sources and brought them back and placed them into a sf context. But contemporary Trek has just rehashed its own work for ages--VOY rehashed TNG and now ENT is rehashing them both.

I'm reminded of a TNG episode called "Cause And Effect" I believe where the ship was caught in a causality loop and keep reliving the same few hours over and over. Upon first viewing when it first aired I thought, "not bad." Too bad it didn't hold up subsequent viewings. Now sometime later I saw an _X-Files_ episode and then even later also a _Stargate_ episode that played with the same idea, and in both cases they each did a far superior job of exploring the idea. Sometimes it's not just what story you have, but also _how_ you play with it.

But contemporary Trek has been doing its stories over and over again in near exactly the same way since 1987. I'd say it's long due for a change in direction and new ideas.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I guess I must be a "fanboy" then, 'cause I like what Manny Coto has done so far. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me...?  

Manny Coto has taken a series that was floundering and has been attempting to get it turned around. I think he's done a good job thus far and the ratings have actually done alright, from all I've seen. They've not continued a steep, steady decline overall, tho from what I just read that last Friday's "Observer Effect" didn't do at all well. 

Anyhow, it amazes me that you're refusing to give him even a modicum of credit for the work that Manny Coto' has done. Every time you bag on him - and the fans who he's apparently catering too...  - you're insulting him and those same fans. You also fail to acknolwdge that he's kept a lot of fans who'd have otherwise not watched a single episode this season from leaving, such as myself. He's trying to take a show that has - from my perspective - suffered from poor management and writing from the Dastardly Duo of B & B and trying to do something positive with it that will make the majority of fans enjoy it, as well as bring in a few folks who've left. 

Not that you'd notice from your sandbox, slinging mud pies at everyone who actually enjoys the "fanboy expectations" that you like to dump on every chance the subject of ENT comes up.  When was the last time you watched an episode, anyhow...? 

It's because of folks like you, who have to _constantly_ spew forth such vitriolic gunk and won't even acknowledge the fan-related work that Coto is trying to put in to ENT that really ends up pissing me off. I've been trying to ignore your constant, indirect insulting of fans who _like_ the show for the last couple weeks, but I've finally had all I can take of it with the above posting. *I* _like_ the show. It ain't perfect, but it's also far from the horrible, cancerous, gangerous, rotting crap you insistantly lable it as, either. There's a bevy of craporific shows on the wasteland that is television these days. "Star Trek: Enterprise" is far from being one of them that needs to be put out of its misery. You and people like you who can't acknowledge anything positive, however, are doing your best to ruin what makes others happy.

I ain't sayin' you don't have the right to dislike ENT or any other show on television. However, it would be nice if you could give it a frikkin' rest for a day or two. I think everyone who posts here or at least reads these forums knows that you think ENT - and apparently modern Star Trek in general - is a big, steaming pile of bantha poodoo. You've certainly left no doubt in anybody's mind, that's for sure.... 

Here's an idea - why don't you write a bunch of scripts and send them to Paramount so you can have the Star Trek that you'll actually be happy with...? You seem to have all the answers, so should have no problems giving the "non-fanboy" contingent what they want. 

- - - - - - 


Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The last ENT episode I saw was the Brent Spiner hour called "Augments" or something. Yaaaaawwn! An episode about nothing of interest but trying to play off a TOS story and its ideas.

Why should I give Coto credit when he hasn't done a thing innovative, refreshing or interesting? All he's doing is playing off things that came before and were done much better. He's perpetuating the already widely accepted notion that sequals/followups never live up to the original.

Would you care to see some of the stories I've written in the Trek universe? Send me an email and I'll forward some to you.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Nope. Not even mildly interested, me being a fanboy and all. I prolly wouldn't get your high-brow writings.... 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

They're not "high-brow." They're _Star Trek_ done with a sense of adventure and fun. But no problem.


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

Well Gents, Here's the thing I LOVE the ORIGINAL Trek,I Actually Like "Enterprise" (Well Most of em') My ONLY Problem (and it's a Pretty BIG Problem) with the "Archer" Series is that although it takes place However Many Years before Kirk's Enterprise, How Come the Technology looks as Advanced as the Stuff seen in the Trek Films OR STNG I have trouble with that (I've mentioned this before) I mean It looks as though they use Toggle Switches on TOS Knobs,Dials,etc YET on "Enterprise" They seem to have that Touchpad Technology seen in the Films and Later in ALL the other Spinoffs. That's my biggest Beef. Oh and of course I've NEVER understood the Evolution of the Klingons (Starting with STTMP) I realize that in REAL LIFE They needed to do something to give the Klingons More Pizazz for the Big Screen, Fine but at least TRY to Explain WHY this Is with some sort of Story! Ah well Still enjoyable but this "Klingon" Thing has Bugged me ever since 1979! lol and I've yet to hear a Satisfying Answer (Besides Worf saying something in Trials & Tribbleations) Something to the effect of "It Is A Long Story..." Sorry that just doesn't quite cover it For me. lol
JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

John...if you have been, keep watching Enterprise. If you haven't, start. You may be lost for a couple of episodes until you get into it, but trust me, in February, your Klingon question will be addressed! Apparently, they're doing a 2-3 episode story arc which finally gives a CANON explanation as to why the Klingons look different. Doubtful they'll touch on why the specific characters of Kang, Kor and Koloth looked different when they showed up on DS9, but the species change, as seen on screen, will be explained, I think starting mid-February, if I remember correctly from the article I read somewhere online...probably at startrek.com.

Oh, and Warped...enough!! You hate Enterprise...we all get that, and we're tired of hearing about it.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I just want to chime in here and say that in my humble opinion, Enterprise is really excellent stuff this season with some fabulous episodes still to come. I highly recommend that people watch it.

And look - I made my point clearly in less that 10,000 words.

Huzz


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

1701-OH Yeah I watch it,and what's more I Actually ENJOY most of em' lol Wow That Answer to the Klingon Evoultion sounds Cool I for one will have a Blank Tape Ready!

LONFAN/JOHN


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

1701ALover said:


> Oh, and Warped...enough!! You hate Enterprise...we all get that, and we're tired of hearing about it.


Oh, I see. So it is unacceptable for me to respond to an opinion with an opinion. It's only acceptable to wax positively about something and yet not offer a dissenting view _with_ explanation supporting that view. And in a thread I began no less and in response to questions and points raised. Nice little setup.

Is this not a free speech medium? If there is the freedom to wax positive about perceived vurtues then it must be equally allowed to proffer a dissenting viewpoint.

You're tired of hearing it? Well I'm equally tired of hearing opinions about how a tv equivalent of road kill supposedly smells like roses. It cuts both ways.

I didn't go into an "ENT love in" thread and start arguing it there. But someone raised questions and points in a thread I began and I responded. If you don't like the response then that is not my problem. There are plenty of subjects I don't get into because my participation would be pointless and potentially disruptive. But by your rights I'm not supposed to disagree or argue points raised in a thread I began.

Well then the moderator might as well close this one down if it isn't appropriate for me to respond and participate in my own thread unless I'm willing to kiss Paramount's backside.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

Yikes!

Being UK based and without use of subscription TV, I've only seen up to the end of Season 2 - the one where they the aliens made a mess of Florida. I've watched all Trek that I can and I thought I'd put my two cents worth forward.

TOS was futuristic for the late 60's. However, what was futuristic then looks dated now. In 40 years time, ENT will probably look more dated than TOS does now. Compare the controls for the Phoenix in First Contact to the Enterprise in TOS. The Phoenix looks like updated early 21st Century controls which look more modern than the 60's Jelly Bean buttons.

I'll admit, I can't understand why the warp nacelles couldn't look like an older version of the TOS E rather than go blue lighting as per B, C, D et al. The damn ship should have been a Daedulus class anyway!

All the series have plus and minus points. DS9's war was good. The last ep of Voyager was a cop out. Everyone will argue for their favourites and enthusiastically discuss what they don't like. As long as it doesn't turn into mud slinging, we'll all be happy.

Rob


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Happy happy happy... :jest: Joy joy joy !!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Feh. The only thing wrong with Enterprise is that it was made.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

And the last episode you watched was....?  

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This sort of discussion inevitably becomes an impasse. Succinctly when you like something no measure of articulated criticism is going to dissuade you. Also you're likely to get very defensive about it and rationalize some way to dismiss or discredit the criticism and/or the one proffering the criticism.

Conversely once you've taken a dislike to something, after giving it more than a fair chance, then no degree of pleading to give it another chance or no amount of flowery praise is going to change your mind.

What becomes tiresome is the dismissive attitude: "Oh, you don't like it anyway so your opinion is irrelevant." It's one thing to dismiss someone who just rants "this sucks!" with no further explanation, but if someone is articulating a reasoned appraisal then you cannot simply dismiss that as irrelevant even if you don't agree with it.

I've given every incarnation of Trek a fair chance. I also make no apologies for the standards of expectation I bring to each viewing. Even after being initially disappointed I've still periodically revisted the shows to see what or if anything has changed. Thats called being fair, and you don't have to be watching regularly week after week to make an honest assessment. But after all that I still am not convinced of significant change or improvement then it's unfair to indict me for not liking the show. Also I and others have been more than fair because those presently in charge have been at it since 1987 and if after all the chances we've given them and they're still not getting it right after all this time then you cannot just summarily dismiss our viewpoint as unfairly biased.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

This is totally rediculous. You say, "they're still not getting it right after all this time". That statement is completely incorrect. The latest episodes of Enterprise this season ARE getting it right yet you absolutely refuse to recognize that. Consequently, it is perfectly fair and reasonable to dismiss all your statements, which are getting quite tiresome by the way, as completely unfounded and without merit of any kind.

Enterprise these days is good stuff. If you are too bloody bull-headed to sit down and enjoy it, then its your loss dude.

Huzz


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> This is totally rediculous. You say, "they're still not getting it right after all this time". That statement is completely incorrect. The latest episodes of Enterprise this season ARE getting it right yet you absolutely refuse to recognize that. Consequently, it is perfectly fair and reasonable to dismiss all your statements, which are getting quite tiresome by the way, as completely unfounded and without merit of any kind.
> 
> Enterprise these days is good stuff. If you are too bloody bull-headed to sit down and enjoy it, then its your loss dude.
> 
> Huzz


And you've just proven my point. For you it works, but you cannot accept that it doesn't work for someone else. If you don't happen to like tomato soup, even after trying it numerous tries, then it would be unfair for me to berate you for not sticking to it and enjoying tomato soup. And yet that is exactly what you're doing to people who don't happen to like the show you like.

There are shows that I like and yet others don't. Still, I don't berate them or dismiss them for not liking the same thing. I just shrug it off, particularly if the give me fair reasons for not liking the same thing I happen to like. Their dissent takes nothing from my enjoyment. Yes, I made some disparaging remarks regarding ENT, yet I qualified those remarks by offering an articulate explanation of why I feel that way. Nonetheless the result is my being villified for it.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

The problem that Dave (apparently) and I have is that you make the same disparaging remarks over, and over, and over, ad naseum.... 

It seems to me that, more than anything, _you_ are the one who has the problem with the fact that _others_ have differing opinions from yours. More often then not, you tend to chime in with just how horribly bad you think that ENT has become _each and every time the show is so much as mentioned_ - whether the discussion requires it or not. I can't think of any time it's been mentioned here that the discussion even hinted at a need for "it sux" type statements from anyone. 

And then there's the subtle, insulting tone to those who do like the show in each and every one of your anti-ENT rants. "Fanboy" this, "stinks" that, "its incestuous rehashing" and the like statements you make pointing out that anyone who likes the show must be inferior to you. The majority of the folks in various threads here who, up to this point, chime in with positive responses don't generally go out of their way to say "if you don't like ENT you're stoo-ped" in the tone of their posts, whereas you almost always do towards those who do like the show. 

Why? 

If you don't like something, it's all good. Really, I don't have a problem if you don't like ENT and I doubt most of the rest of us do, either. Seriously. Some folks have different tastes then others and that's kewel. However, there's _zero_ need to be insulting in both words and tones to those who have different tastes. You can get your point across without being condescending. I have respect for those folks who hate ENT and are not only relatively dispassionate in their take on things and don't get insulting and belittling, no matter how poorly they think of the show. I have zero for those who can't make their case with out stirring the pot. *That* is why you're being "villified" (sic), at least by me. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey "The Star Trek FanBoy" Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The use of the word "fanboy" is unfortunate, but it is a convenient shorthand way of conveying what I think is "catering to the lowest and most simplistic common denominator."

Now in regards to my always chiming in with disparaging remarks. This is erroneous perception because if I were doing any such thing then I'd be haunting every thread that even breathes a mention of ENT, which is something I most certainly do not do, and moderators here and on the TBBS can attest to that fact.

You may object to my choice of words to get my point across, but that doesn't alter that I also explain my opinion. Nor does it alter any validity my reasoning may have. I call 'em as I see 'em, and if I'm at liberty to express my opinion on a given issue that is raised in a subject that I am participating in then I have nothing to apologize for.

Also, any critical remark directed at a show will, regrettably, affect those who may like that show. I understand that, but the direct target of my remarks is the show and those who produce it. They have put their work out into the public forum and so they are open to fair criticism even if it involves disparaging commentary.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Alrighty, then. Points made on both sides. Don't agree w/your incessant need to bag on ENT and continually insult those who watch it, tho. Sure as crap doesn't help to make your point when you sling poo at me, certainly. Kind of hard to sway someone to your case, or at least illicit a modicum of respect and understanding for their views, when you gotta constantly belittle something they hold in esteem. 



Warped9 said:


> *>SNIP<*
> Also, any critical remark directed at a show will, regrettably, affect those who may like that show. I understand that, but the direct target of my remarks is the show and those who produce it. They have put their work out into the public forum and so they are _open to fair criticism even if it involves disparaging commentary._


Then you need to remember the same is true of your commentary. Otherwise, all you're doing is showing a double-standard.........

Regardless, you've got your right to be as insulting and demeaning of those who like Trek as you feel the need to be. I, however, am done not only with this thread, but pretty much reading anything you have to say. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey "The Lowest Common Denominator" Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

AW COME ON DUDES, Listen I REALLY HATE The Lord Of The Rings Films, WAIT before you Blast me from this Circle of Friends, Please understand I Just don't get into LOTR type Films. No matter weather or not this is THE BEST "Sword And Sorcery" Series EVER Put on Film,It just Ain't my Cup of Tea.(Hey I never really got into the Matrix series either) But I Discovered this "Lost World" Show (The one with that Hottie Racheal Blakely! lol) And I love it! I Enjoy that New Galactica Series as well,BUT I'm sure there's some of you that can tell me Just why both of these Series Suck big time! lol Still I like em'...That's really all that matters right? as long as YOU or YOU or ME are happy I still respect the LOTR's Peter Jackson for his BEAUTIFULLY done Films (Specialy that Giant Spider! Wow) But I just don't care for that kind of Subject (Hey I also Ain't that crazy about Westerns (Some Eastwood's or okay) BUT If you say you ABSOLUTELY DISPISE the Original Planet Of The Apes (My ALL TIME Favorite Film) Well I can't Fault ya' for that. So basicly "Can't we all just...Get Along?" lol
JOHN/LONFAN
Friend To All


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Read LoTR trilogy years and years ago. Good, but really long winded. I cannot get into the films either, but thats only because if the subject matter. I could never really get into the fantasy genre. That said I'm really impressed with the films as a work. Jackson took an incrediby complex literary work and translated it beautifully to screen. In some ways it's better than the books and certainly more accessible for contemporary audiences.

The first _Matrix_ was good, but I certainly didn't find it mind blowing or particularly "deep" in any phylosophical or metaphysical or whatever way. I think people were reading way too much into it. The 2nd movie was twice longer than it needed to be and wasn't half as good as the original. I didn't bother with the third outing.

The original _Planet Of The Apes_ rocks. The remake was slick looking, but otherwise a pale imatator.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> And the last episode you watched was....?


 Yesterday, taped from Friday night. 
Getting better, but too little too late.
But my comment was directed at the whole prequel idea, which I think was a big mistake.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Warped - in reference to your comment, which I'll quote here for easy reference:

"For you it works, but you cannot accept that it doesn't work for someone else. If you don't happen to like tomato soup, even after trying it numerous tries, then it would be unfair for me to berate you for not sticking to it and enjoying tomato soup. And yet that is exactly what you're doing to people who don't happen to like the show you like."

Again, that is simply not correct. First, I fully acknowledge that you and others do not like Enterprise. That's your subjective judgement and its cool with me. What I take issue with is your comments about the show's quality this season; comments which in my view are incorrect. 

That's it.

Huzz


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> Yesterday, taped from Friday night.
> Getting better, but too little too late.
> But my comment was directed at the whole prequel idea, which I think was a big mistake.


Honestly, I think the prequel idea in itself was a very viable concept with a lot of potential for really interesting storytelling. I simply feel, though, that the execution has been rather disappointing.


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

BTW- I don't like Green Eggs And Ham either. LOL

Sorry I could'nt resist

LONFAN


----------

