# Star Trek Enterprise has been cancelled...



## jay_barnes (Apr 11, 2002)

Apologies if it was improper to post this here but just thought everyone would like to know... http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/9469.html


----------



## soloboy5 (Jun 18, 2003)

Finally.


----------



## JamesDFarrow (Sep 18, 1999)

To bad. I liked it.

James


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

Too bad, they have some really great sounding episodes coming up.

John


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

Big surprise. But it is a shame, really.

John O.


----------



## JamesDFarrow (Sep 18, 1999)

I just hope it doesn't affect RC2's decision on whether or not to keep the licence going.

James


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

That is a shame. And just as they were getting to the Romulan war. One more season would have been great if the writers would do another Xindi-style season long arc dealing with the Romulans and the founding of the Federation.

Many people have said this, but it bears reiterating: once Enterprise goes off the air, the Star Trek franchise needs to take a break - at least three years. A great many of those in the creative department should be sacked. Those that are left should immediately start planning a new series but keep it hush-hush during the three year hiatus. The hiring of a new non-Trek-background writing staff and a long pre-production period would seem to be the right ingredients for Trek's next step. Not to mention, not having a first-run series on might create demand. Let's just hope that Trek doesn't die a pathetic death.


----------



## JamesDFarrow (Sep 18, 1999)

On another board someone pointed out that the article indicates 98 episodes.

Don't you have to have 100 episodes to qualify for sindication?

James


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Did anyone *not* see this coming? If Bervis & Braghead had gotten off their damn high horses at the beginning and made the show what it should have been, maybe the fanbase wouldn't have dismissed it as "Voyager Redux" and the ratings would be there now. 


Roddenberry was the Great Bird of the Galaxy. Berman is the Great Vulture.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

They got good (better?), but just not fast enough.

One too many seasons of gee-whiz, look-where-we-are starry-eyed languishing, when they should have been making us go "Wow!." Like they finally are NOW!

Eh. What can ya do? B & B thought they knew it all.

On the other hand, Ron Moore is kicking ass with Battlestar right out of the gate. It's a show that leaves me salivating for the next episode, like 24 and a host of others.

Standard disclaimer: My humble opinion...


----------



## origAurora buyer (Jan 12, 1999)

JamesDFarrow said:


> On another board someone pointed out that the article indicates 98 episodes.
> 
> Don't you have to have 100 episodes to qualify for sindication?
> 
> James


65 is the magic number.

OAB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Four seasons? Made it one more season than the original Trek but managed to do it while being absolute crap for the most part.


----------



## JamesDFarrow (Sep 18, 1999)

Lucas will be pleased. They have the next movie coming out.
And rumor has it that they have plans for a TV series for next year. 
And now, less competition.

James


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

TrekFX said:


> On the other hand, Ron Moore is kicking ass with Battlestar right out of the gate. It's a show that leaves me salivating for the next episode, like 24 and a host of others.


 Two things:

1) I think BSG proves that this "three season to find their legs" crap is just that. As I pointed out before, these Trek idiots should have had experience enough by th time they got on the air to have hit the ground running ...But No!

2) 3 episodes into BSG, with each one getting higher ratings than the last, and Enterprise gets cancelled. I really wonder if Ron Moore's old bosses' bosses (above B&B) at Paramount have seen BSG and realized how much Enterprise and the Trek franchise have been boned by poor managment, checked the numbers again, and pulled the plug. Nice thought anyway that those responsible for screwing the pooch will stop collecting a check.

John O.


----------



## ArthurPendragon (Jan 4, 2004)

I´ve never liked Enterprise... but I think it´s a tragedy for the Star Trek fan...

It may be the beggining of another 20 years without a Trek TV series, just like what happened in 1969... 

and YES... it WILL affect RC2´s decisions about ANY new Trek model...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Ziz said:


> ...Bervis & Braghead...


I like that even better than "The Killer B's"... :tongue: 

BTW, my sympathy goes out to the cast and crew. They were certainly trying their best; and given better material to work with and surer hands at the tiller they could have been a great success. The fault lies with management. What a waste of good resources. 

Either way -- _Bermatrek_ is dead. Long live _STAR TREK!_

Mark

P.S.: Forbidden Planet is still closer to my idea of the early days of the federation.


----------



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

JamesDFarrow said:


> I just hope it doesn't affect RC2's decision on whether or not to keep the licence going.
> 
> James


Well they still have to keep paying Paramount $100,000 dollars per year for the rest of Polar Lights' 10 year contract.

Now perhaps they will do what they *SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!*

*Namely, make the most wanted, popular subjects first!*

*Like a 1/350th scale TOS E. Wooden-headed PL marketing guys outsmarted themselves!*

*PL wasted too much time dancing around doing what will(if it's every made) be the best selling kit - the TOS Enterprise(which I suspect will be closely followed by the Refit in sales, if both are eventually produced).*


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Bummer 
Oh boy , wait till Mr. Warped9 finds out about this :freak:


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I've tried getting on the Startrek.com and saveenterprise sites, but no luck. Does the show stop airing immediately? 
Finally got in. As long as they show the TOS Defiant episodes I'm good.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Series final eps. will be May 13, 2005


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ziz said:


> Did anyone *not* see this coming? If Bervis & Braghead had gotten off their damn high horses at the beginning and made the show what it should have been, maybe the fanbase wouldn't have dismissed it as "Voyager Redux" and the ratings would be there now.
> 
> 
> Roddenberry was the Great Bird of the Galaxy. Berman is the Great Vulture.


Agreed.

Although in all fairness GR made some questionable choices himself yet they never had such far reaching effects. And Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer also made some dumb-ass moves.


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

"David Stapf, President of Paramount Network Television, said, "The creators, stars and crew of Star Trek: Enterprise ambitiously and proudly upheld the fine traditions of the Star Trek franchise." :freak: 

This is kinda like those TOS cast interviews for ST-V. "Gr-r-r-eat job. Bill really came to the director's chair with his homework done." Blah dee blah blah blah blah. I got my paycheck, but I seem to have misplaced my dignity. :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Now is a good time to fire the idiots that killed ST!


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

jay_barnes said:


> Apologies if it was improper to post this here but just thought everyone would like to know... http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/9469.html


Sheesh! and I thought you ment the PL Refit, oh man what a scary moment that was after chopping up my 22" one.


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

Hopefully, this will make RC2 realise that yet another NX-01 is pointless. The most popular ships are:

1) The TMP Refit Enterprise

2) The TOS Enterprise

3) The Enterprise E

4) The TMP K'tinga

5) The NX-01

6) The Galileo Shuttle

The NX-01 has always been down the list in popularity IMO. And I tried to be vary fair there. I want a 1/350 K'tinga more than any of the others. But I admit the TOS Enterprise and Enterprise E are more popular.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

When they launched DS9, ratings went down for seven years.

When they launched Voyager, ratings went down for seven years.

When "Enterprise" did episodes that fans on the internet complained about, ratings went down.

When "Enterprise" did episodes that fans on the internet applauded, ratings went down.

Bottom line is that ratings went steadily down from 1994 onward, no matter what anyone did. It never bottomed out, and even if you burn fuel slowly eventually the tank runs dry.

The vituperation of a few online "fans" toward the last five or six years of "Star Trek" and the people who worked on it has been so vile and extreme that in some cases it constitutes a kind of obsessive mental illness.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Well, I'm kinda sorry to see it go. I thought it was getting better. While this season hasn't been perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I was enjoying it. I know that not everyone likes the work of the Reeves-Stevens, but they brought a lot to the table, and seem to have a fair bit to do with the improvements I'v seen this season.

Brad.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

I liked the show as long as I kept in mind it wasn't Star Trek. Even though it wasn't as "canon" as TAS it was getting better. Oh well the arrival of BSG couldn't have come at a better time.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Crap. This season FINALLY got it right. I've been raving to everyone I know about it, and go figure, JUST WHEN THEY GET IT RIGHT...

...yep.

I'll pop in with BSG is some good Friday night T.V., but the story is limited. Enterprise had the opportunity (and finally getting to it) to tell a GREAT story about the history of the Federation.

I'm also going to agree with holding off for a few years, coming back with something fresh, and SACKING THOSE TWO IDIOTS who have tried their hardest to alienate every fan out there.


----------



## alpha-8 (Oct 31, 1999)

I wonder how far along RC/PL has come in the planning of the 1/1000 NX-01. Now that the show has been cancelled, I wonder if they'll decide to drop that model in favor of a more popular one.


Dave


----------



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

^^^Agreed. With all the research Thomas did for the 1/1000th version TOS Enterprise, he could whip up a 1/350th version in relatively little time.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

Dr. Brad said:


> Well, I'm kinda sorry to see it go. I thought it was getting better. While this season hasn't been perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I was enjoying it. I know that not everyone likes the work of the Reeves-Stevens, but they brought a lot to the table, and seem to have a fair bit to do with the improvements I'v seen this season.
> 
> Brad.


Good assessment of the situation. No offense to the new Galactica fans, but given a choice between Enterprise and the new Galactica show, I preferred Enterprise. Same thing with the "Stargate" shows on Sci-Fi. 

Paramount and B & B could have started the show as a true prequel series, but only now, 4 years later, finally came to the realization that their attempt to draw in a new audience by ignoring Trek history and adding in more naked females running around the ship wasn't working (and never had a chance of working in the first place). Gene Roddenberry Jr. was right - Paramount really did "do it" to themselves.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

spacecraft guy said:


> Paramount and B & B could have started the show as a true prequel series, but only now, 4 years later, finally came to the realization that their attempt to draw in a new audience by ignoring Trek history and adding in more naked females running around the ship wasn't working (and never had a chance of working in the first place). Gene Roddenberry Jr. was right - Paramount really did "do it" to themselves.


Yeah. I can't really claim to know Berman et al's minds, but it just seemed as though they wanted to do something that, while claiming to be a prequel, wasn't. To be honest, though, I can even forgive the lack of continuity (well, some of it anyhow). But it was just the sheer stupidity of some of what went on with the show. The decontamination chamber, the seemingly gratuitous T&A, the attempts to shock for the sake of shock value which was -- to my eye -- at least, intended to substitute for, or augment good storytelling. 

Archer was, on occasion, written as an inept fool with less sense in some first contact situations than most any one would have. "What? These people are ticked off that my dog peed on their sacred tree? How dare they be offended?"

People tuned in, many thought it was silly, and tuned out. Some of us tuned in every week, were occasionally rewarded with a half decent show, and hoped for improvement. This season, we were rewarded with better stories (note I said "better"), but I guess it wasn't enough. Oh well. I like Trek, and I may miss it more than I miss the NHL - but then, that's not saying much.

Cheers,

Brad.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

What saddens me is that now Star Trek is dead.I don't care the the show is over ,I watched it and sometimes even kinda liked .With the failure of the last 2 Trek movies and the failure of this show ,it means no more Star Trek .I remember when Nemisis failed the stars blamed the fans for not going to go see it.First off the movie wasn't that good and what where they thinking putting it out against the Lord of the Rings?It was doomed to fail!I never understood why they chose Enterprise to be the new Trek show ,when they leaked rumors of Star Trek Excelsior and Star Trek Titian ,both show that I would have watched and would have made alot of fans happy.Instead they gave us Enterprise ,what do you mean it is the first starship named Enterprise ?I have been looking at that wall ....you know the one with all the model ships?I haven't seen it there .....oh you mean it is the first starship in Starfleet ...and it still did not make the wall ?It seemed to me they just wanted to forget that the Original Star Trek ever happened .At first being a good fan I tuned in to support Enterprise but I just did not like it.Well now Paramount will think that we fans no longer like Star Trek ,when what the real problem is that they did not care to put out quality product!Ok I will now take my Meds and go to sleep .....the fit has passed!


----------



## JonD (Apr 18, 2002)

Steven Coffey said:


> What saddens me is that now Star Trek is dead.


With respect, no it's not.

I'm steadily working my way through the whole of TOS on DVD. It's still as wonderful as it ever was - great stories, well-told and extraordinary character interaction between the leads. Even the tech doesn't seem nearly as dated as it might be given the show is nearly 40 years old. That's not dead.

Weekdays afternoons I can watch TNG episodes from the fourth season currently. The odd clunker, but mostly wonderful, thoughtful stuff. Great stories, well-told...etc. That's not dead.

'DS9' and 'Voyager' and, yes, even 'Enterprise' can all still be seen at various other times and channels. That's not dead.

I've just finished re-watching the Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan - started out as a quick check of the blink patterns of the Enterprise's running and strobe lights, but you know how it is...two and a half hours later I'm sitting there, tears running down my face, watching Spock's funeral... I've lost count of how many times I've seen these films, but I can still be moved by them to that extent. That's not dead.

The 'New Voyages' and 'Starship Exeter' teams are still making 'new' old Trek for heaven's sake! That's not dead.

Star Trek isn't dead. It's merely that one of its incarnations has come to an end before the seven-season run that we have been latterly seduced into believing was a 'right'.

Believe me, people like us will still be obsessing over, and discussing, and building models from, and watching episodes and movies of, Star Trek in another forty years. Believe it. That's not dead.

Just have faith. Remember. To slightly paraphrase the words of a wise and gentle man - "It's really not dead. As long as we remember it."

And take heart from what happened after those words were spoken. When and if the time is right, it will return. There's always hope.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

As a supporter of Enterprise this season here are my comments!


Cancellation just when they are "getting it right" is truly frustrating.
In view of the failure of Enterprise and Nemesis, I too fear that the Trek Franchise is completely and utterly dead. Fan Trek is okay, but I want to tune it in on my TV each week, not down load it dude.
Berman and Bragga. It seems certain that these two will be remembered as the people who killed Star Trek. Its *high time* to fire Berman and Bragga, unceremoniously too I might add.
Kudos to Manny Coto, the writers and actors who gave a great effort this season. I really look forward to the remaining episodes.
In view of the ratings though, I could see this coming a mile away.
Be sure to watch the upcoming mirror universe episodes. Here is a link to some spoilers (http://www.trektoday.com/news/020205_01.shtml and http://www.trektoday.com/news/280105_01.shtml). Those will give you an idea of where Enterprise was going with Manny Coto at the helm and what those two complete blithering idiots Berman and Bragga have royally screwed us out of.
Huzz


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

As for RC2 cancelling the model line - well, we're still not sure they weren't going to anyway. But if they're paying attention to us here and on the PL board (which I doubt), they'll see that the most-asked-for kits have _nothing _to do with _Enterprise_. It's the classics we want. Ships that have been around for 15 to 40 years. And cancelling the latest show that only a few liked wouldn't affect that.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

I know we will always have what came before ,But we still will wish for what might have been .It is frustrating that 2 shows that would have been hits got passed up for Enterprise.It is also frustrating that the level of quality in the stories that have been put out in the latest movie and shows has been so low .I know that the planed Enterprise shows are going to be of better quality due to the hiring of excelent writers ,which makes it even worse that it ends now .I was always willing to forgive the shows continuity issues even though they bugged.I think that the powers that be at Paramount became so smug that they thought if it is named Star Trek or has the name Enterprise then it will get watched forgetting that the heart of all SciFi is the stories it tell ,Not the special effects or the name of the show .But at least we now have BSG wich has damned good stories and effects.Trek is Dea.....well in reruns, long live Battle Star Galactica!Now if some one would just start producing BSG kits!


----------



## sbaxter at home (Feb 15, 2004)

"There are always ... possibilities."

Trek isn't dead. Like the maniac in a profitable slasher film, it will rise again. It never seemed more dead than in, say, 1970, and it returned. First, of course, it never totally went away, as books kept the faith for a while. It returned because of those who watched it in its original run and never quite forgot what it had to offer and still wanted to see more. It returned because of those (as with myself) who were a little too young to have watched it originally, but saw it on weekdays after school or on Saturday afternoons. It came to theaters and stayed there awhile, making something of a "family reunion" every few years before it finally did what few of us ever expected it would do -- it came back to television, where it truly belongs. It stayed there becaause it still offered some things to those who enjoyed it -- some drawn from the original, some new ideas. It has stayed around on TV in various incarnations for an unprecendented number of years. 

In addition to those of us who were either there for the original series or who are, as I am, at least old enough to remember a time when the original series was all that existed, now there are others. There are those who grew up on the films, or on TNG, or on DS9 -- and though they are a minority of those who call themselves fans, _Voyager_ had its loyalists and so has _Enterprise_. And _all_ of them have fans being formed right now, who are _today_ watching their first episode. Each has "fans in waiting" who have never seen an episode ... yet. And all of us, fans today and those to come, have one thing those of us in the '70s did not -- _precedent_. Largely thanks to _Star Trek_ and the precedent it set with its own return, today's viewers do _not_ automatically presume that a show is dead just because it goes off the air. Today, we know better -- and in some measure, we helped create that reality.

We may never see the NX-01 on the screen in a new adventure after this season (though somehow I doubt it will go away completely -- who would have thought we'd see a _Constitution_-class ship in a new episode in 2005?). But whether we do or do not, even when I try to be as pessimistic about the idea as possible, I simply cannot believe the show will not return in some form. When it has been gone long enough that it begins to be missed, when those newer fans who come to enjoy any or all of the episodes already in existence begin to wonder what else might be going on in that universe -- it will come back where it belongs.

There are those here, of course, who hated _Enterprise_ and are doing a gleeful dance at the news it is ending -- and for the record, you guys look _ridiculous_ and no woman will ever let you get within arm's length as long as you live  -- but for the most part, even though I strongly disagree with the opinion, I try to cut you guys some slack. All of us who are long-standing fans, especially those of us who remember the old TOS-or-nothing days, hold our beliefs passionately because it _means something_ to us. So whether we love or hate a given incarnation of it, I know we are all ultimately motivated by the same thing -- a love for what it represents to us. 

That spark that is the living core of the idea will not be extinguished. It may be hard to see at times, but when the time is right, fuel will be added and it will ignite and spread again. And when it does, some of us will love it and some will despise it and call for the public execution of those responsible. Either way, it will live.

So say we all,

Make it so,

Live long and prosper,

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

sbaxter at home said:


> There are those here, of course, who hated _Enterprise_ and are doing a gleeful dance at the news it is ending


No, I never wanted to hate it. I still don't hate it, its just indifference. Hate is reserved for people who directly screw with me. For what it was, it was just like every other TV show I don't watch: uninteresting. I gave it a try and it just didn't grab ...and was often enough embarrassing to watch for how poorly put together it was (I liked the sets, though). I'm genuinly sad that they couldn't get their deal together sooner. I think they were given _way_ more time and lattitude than most shows that actually have to compete to stay on the air. But I'm satisfied to know that those who mismanaged an entertainment property which has given me great enjoyment in my life won't be drawing a paycheck anymore.

John O.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I also tried to like the show but grew to hate it for what it has done to Star Trek.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Steven Coffey said:


> What saddens me is that now Star Trek is dead.


I don't believe in this statement myself. I think Trek may need a break but it will never be dead. Even if there are no future shows or movies, the series will survive in books and other material. I grew up when the original series was the only thing in syndication. It was 10 years before STTMP was relased after the original series. I remember what it was like before all of the new series came out, and the fans kept it alive then. 

Star Trek is not dead, just now it may be on a much needed break.

Even Star Wars stirred up much support after almost 20 years since the last movie was released.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I also tried to like the show but grew to hate it for what it has done to Star Trek.


I felt the same on Voyager, so can sympathize. I didn't care for Voyager from the beginning. I felt it was a bad idea. However, it did produce some good quality stories as Enteprise is doing this season.


----------



## sbaxter at home (Feb 15, 2004)

John O said:


> No, I never wanted to hate it. I still don't hate it, its just indifference.


I understand. I didn't mean to suggest there weren't levels in between. I'm disappointed the show won't continue, but in overall importance to my life, it ain't _that_ big a deal. It really bugged me yesterday mainly because it was sort of the cherry atop the hot fudge sundae of suckdom that was my day. This morning, I was able to look at it a little differently.

And hey, if I am wrong, there are a couple of titles that seem appropriate --

"All Good Things ..."

but on the other hand --

"What You Leave Behind"



Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I read a news story over at SCI-FI WIRE, that Rick Berman said ST has been over exposed. In his mind I think he really believes that it is our fault. We had ST overload. He will never think the problem is himself. He was in charge of keeping ST alive. I think he lost interest in the ST universe, and was trying to make a SCI-FI show, but was tied to ST that he only had IT to work with. The only way Paramount will ever get ST up again, is to find some one who is really into ST, and will want to see it go on. I think Gene Roddenberry Jr, would be the one to perk up ST. But Paramount will have to be told by US that ST is still alive.

If ST is off the air for too long, then it will be reinvented, and then it will be dead. When it came to Battlestar Galactica's new version, I watched the behind the scene show before the Mini-Series came on. I did not like the reinventing, so I don't watch. If it was a new idea, I would watch it. 

With STNG, I was looking forward to the show. It was the Enterprise in the future, with new crew. Gene did not try to reinvent the original series, he took it into the future. 

Now I read through all the comments above, and they are right. I could have given Enterprise a chance, if it was treated more primitive to what was in the original series. But they had to go to the WOW factor and forget about history of ST.


----------



## JonD (Apr 18, 2002)

John O said:


> No, I never wanted to hate it. I still don't hate it, its just indifference. Hate is reserved for people who directly screw with me. For what it was, it was just like every other TV show I don't watch: uninteresting. I gave it a try and it just didn't grab ...and was often enough embarrassing to watch for how poorly put together it was (I liked the sets, though).


Yep. That exactly sums up my feelings about it too, every time I've attempted to sit through an episode (never managed it by the way). Total indifference, tinged with disappointment.


John O said:


> I'm genuinly sad that they couldn't get their deal together sooner. I think they were given _way_ more time and lattitude than most shows that actually have to compete to stay on the air.


Ditto


John O said:


> But I'm satisfied to know that those who mismanaged an entertainment property which has given me great enjoyment in my life won't be drawing a paycheck anymore.


Sadly, though, the likelihood is that they _will_. And a very hefty one too. Just not for this particular programme.


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

Lloyd Collins said:


> If ST is off the air for too long, then it will be reinvented, and then it will be dead. When it came to Battlestar Galactica's new version, I watched the behind the scene show before the Mini-Series came on. I did not like the reinventing, so I don't watch. If it was a new idea, I would watch it.


 Lloyd,

If you haven't seen the new BSG, you should really give it a try. (I can recall that line being thrown back in my face by quite a few _Enterpise_ lovers). Everything that is wrong with Trek as currently envisioned is right with the new BSG. You can tell they _love what they are doing_, it comes right off the screen. I think it's been argued pretty successfully around here that the new BSG is everything BSG-TOS was but more so. Loving re-invention is EXACTLY what Trek has needed for a while now and time-wasting re-tread is what we've been offered. Seriuosly, give the new BSG a go and try to imagine it as how _Enterprise_ could have been if someone had cared enough to look at the source material with a fresh eye. If you watch it and don't dig it, well then you can do what I did with _Enterprise_: stop watching.

John O.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

John O, I will take your advice. I know that I sometimes get to set in my ways and do not give new ideas a try. But I will try.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I've been watching BSG since the mini series aired last year and have been tuning in the new episodes each week. Its definitely gritty and realistic. 

In comparing it to Babylon 5, I am drawn back to the relationship between Londo and G'Kar who were the central characters of that show in my view. Londo started off as fun loving, devil may care with a deadly ambition that would alter his life whereas G'Kar had a pathological hatred for Londo's people. Those two characters were immensely entertaining both in terms of their humor and the intensity of their views towards each other. And in light of their relationship which eventually developed almost into drinking buddies. I fondly recall the episode where Londo and G'Kar share a drink while G'Kar's robotic eye is strategically placed in the honeymoon suite of the station commander.

In contrast, there is not much humor in BSG, at least not yet. The tone of BSG is deadly serious, almost oppressive in my view. I suppose that is understandable since it depicts people just after most of the human race has been obliterated. I'll keep watching but if it continues that way, I'll just tune in the news from the mid-East if I want to be depressed.

Huzz


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I think that's reflective of a lot of fans who want these shows "light" but in my opinion that's been one of the most damaging effects on many of these franchises. People want cozy, comforting television and they're drawn to characters they like--but when that's emphasized over everything else it really leads to hardening of the arteries and a crippling fear of doing anything interesting on these shows. The later Trek series all suffered from the "cast of pals" effect--from the opening episodes the emphasis was to show how much everyone got along and loved each other (as opposed to the time-honored but effective technique of drawing out a character that initially seems cold, crusty or distant--i.e., Spock). The Trek universe was TOO friendly to the point that both Voyager and Enterprise--shows built around the idea of an unknown, threatening universe--became boring.

Check out the scene on last week's Galactica where Starbuck has to tell Adama something she's been hiding about his dead son Zack. I can't remember the last time I've seen such a blistering, dramatic moment on Star Trek. You need that kind of conflict and punch to make the lighter moments mean something. Galactica is a water cooler show, something you can discuss and argue about, whereas Enterprise I watched out of a sense of duty. I loved many of the things Manny Coto has been trying to do this season and I'm very much looking forward to some of the upcoming episodes. It's a better show, but Coto still inherited a bunch of undeveloped characters played by largely uninteresting actors. It's going to take an entirely new vision to make Trek into something that can work for contemporary audiences and not just 2 million Trekkies.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

But that's just the point - there haven't been any "lighter" moments that I can recall in BSG. They need some. And you can still have humor in situations involving people who desperately want to kill each other; just look at Londo and G'Kar in the early seasons of B5.

So far that humor / fun element has been missing from BSG. I'll give it time to develop, but if its just going to be all this intensity, drama, depression and no fun and humor anywhere, than I just won't be watching.

Huzz


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

Dave Hussey said:


> But that's just the point - there haven't been any "lighter" moments that I can recall in BSG.


How 'bout when Starbuck is reading Lee the book about being CAG and then neither can keep a straight face? Light, executed like it happens between _real people_. Did you miss the scene where Baltar kicks Starbucks butt at the card table - _that_ was great fun! and it was honest too. I was grinning ear to ear! There are some wonderful _subtle_ light moments between all of the characters, like you'll find on any TV drama, you just can't expect to be beat over the head with them.

John O.


----------



## alpha-8 (Oct 31, 1999)

It is really too bad. We all seem to have known what the show needed and/or didn't need...as well as a lot of other people. Unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears. As a prequel goes, this flopped. I mean a prequel is supposed to set the foundation for the other chapters...isn't it? Nothing dramatic has been done to shape the Federation or Starfleet. The Klingon/Human first contact was supposed to explain the years of conflict in the later series. It never did. The Vulcan story arc should have been in the first season as well as a hell of a lot more TOS aliens and events.
Imagine what the Sci-Fi Channel could do if they got their hands on Enterprise. One word: WOW.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I didn't find that scene funny. Perhaps I could see it coming as soon as Baltar sat down. 

Huzz


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

I didn't say _funny_, I said _light_. To be fair to BSG, compare it to other adult dramas like _Law & Order_ or _NYPD Blue_. You're getting about the same percentage heaviness to lightness with BSG. If you want (funny) sense of humor with your sci-fi, then of course you'll be wanting some SG-1.:thumbsup:

John O.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

jbond said:


> I think that's reflective of a lot of fans who want these shows "light" but in my opinion that's been one of the most damaging effects on many of these franchises. People want cozy, comforting television and they're drawn to characters they like--but when that's emphasized over everything else it really leads to hardening of the arteries and a crippling fear of doing anything interesting on these shows. The later Trek series all suffered from the "cast of pals" effect--from the opening episodes the emphasis was to show how much everyone got along and loved each other (as opposed to the time-honored but effective technique of drawing out a character that initially seems cold, crusty or distant--i.e., Spock). The Trek universe was TOO friendly to the point that both Voyager and Enterprise--shows built around the idea of an unknown, threatening universe--became boring.
> 
> Check out the scene on last week's Galactica where Starbuck has to tell Adama something she's been hiding about his dead son Zack. I can't remember the last time I've seen such a blistering, dramatic moment on Star Trek. You need that kind of conflict and punch to make the lighter moments mean something. Galactica is a water cooler show, something you can discuss and argue about, whereas Enterprise I watched out of a sense of duty. I loved many of the things Manny Coto has been trying to do this season and I'm very much looking forward to some of the upcoming episodes. It's a better show, but Coto still inherited a bunch of undeveloped characters played by largely uninteresting actors. It's going to take an entirely new vision to make Trek into something that can work for contemporary audiences and not just 2 million Trekkies.



:thumbsup: What he said! I've about thrown up from the group-hug mentality of most of the later Trek incarnations.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Dave Hussey said:


> But that's just the point - there haven't been any "lighter" moments that I can recall in BSG. They need some. And you can still have humor in situations involving people who desperately want to kill each other; just look at Londo and G'Kar in the early seasons of B5.
> 
> So far that humor / fun element has been missing from BSG. I'll give it time to develop, but if its just going to be all this intensity, drama, depression and no fun and humor anywhere, than I just won't be watching.
> 
> Huzz


Why do you have to have humor *and* drama in every show you watch? Can't you watch one show for one element and another show for the other? I've always looked at shows the same way I pick the equipment I watch them on...I'd rather have 4 boxes that each do one thing well than one box that does 4 things half ass.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well, I'm sorry to see it go when the show was finally starting to get interesting. I was just getting into it. Oh well.

Keep in mind that, as a series, _Enterprise_ lasted longer than our beloved _Star Trek: TOS_ 

At least we still have _BSG_ and _Stargate SG-1!_ I love those shows.

I don't think that Star Trek is dead, but we do need to give it a long break until some truly talented visionary can pick it up and do it right. I wouldn't mind seeing it removed from Paramount's irresponsible control, but I don't really see that happening. Enough with the damn constant space battles with the alien of the week. Enough with the oversexed women in catsuits--we want REAL PEOPLE! Someone, someday will get it right.

Star Trek is more than a show, its an institution, a hope for our future, it represents the best of what we hope for ourselves. What B&B did, turning it into one long term Star Wars-ish battle sequence with a lot of adolescent sexual tension really cheapened it. It was like sticking a big ugly wing and some spinner rims on a classic sports car. You just don't mess with a good thing :thumbsup:

Good Riddance B&B you retards!!! :wave:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Enterprise was a non-starter from the first episode. That's because First Contact royally dropped the ball. (Can you say Bermatrek?)

Because of First Contact, the early days of Star Fleet were destined to be about the human "johnny come latelies." Everyone else in the stellar neighborhood has had Warp technology for ages. No matter where we go, the Vulcans and everyone else has already "been there, done that."

This is *not* the back story for Kirk and company. Humans would never come to dominate the Federation in the way we see later if they had started at such a disadvantage. Picture instead heroic humans pressing into the truely unknown...and finding strange new life forms -- some of which would become allies and some which would become enemies. See them forge alliances and give birth to the Federation. See their first disastrous contact with the Romulans and the ensuing war. Above all, see that wonderous galaxy we know from TOS gradually take shape.

This is a setting very unlike most of the rest of modern trek. Leaving home far behind and pressing out beyond a real frontier. Relying on new and unproven technology with no one out there that you can count on to bail you out if it fails. Finding your way without convenient Vulcan star maps. 

And yet, because of First Contact, this could never be. That's the corner the Killer B's painted themselves (and the franchise) into. Even over and above all their other myopic decisions, this was the fatal flaw. And even if B&B had devoted themselves to getting all the little details right that are so annoying when they get them wrong, it still wouldn't have made much of a difference. The ugly implications of First Contact would still be there, floating like a dog-log in the punch bowl.

And that's a shame.

Mark


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

I certainly hope they don't try to make a struggle for survival into a light hearted comedy.


----------



## sbaxter at home (Feb 15, 2004)

MGagen said:


> Humans would never come to dominate the Federation in the way we see later if they had started at such a disadvantage.


I don't think humans come to "dominate" the Federation because of a technology edge. They do it because of the human spirit ("that sense of enterprise"), something that Roddenberry took pains in both TOS and in TNG to portray as unique to the human race.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Ziz - you asked "Why do you have to have humor *and* drama in every show you watch". Well, that would be because there is both humor and drama in real life, even in its most intensely emotional periods. Indeed, the humor gets us through the rough spots.

Tonight at supper, I asked my wife what she thought of the new BSG. Her reply: "its terribly depressing. To be honest I hate to watch it with you". 

But I will give it a chance.

Huzz


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

sbaxter at home said:


> There are those here, of course, who hated _Enterprise_ and are doing a gleeful dance at the news it is ending -- and for the record, you guys look _ridiculous_ and no woman will ever let you get within arm's length as long as you live


Not only am I dancing with pure and utter joy, my wife's dancing with me  :tongue: :jest:



sbaxter at home said:


> but for the most part, even though I strongly disagree with the opinion, I try to cut you guys some slack. All of us who are long-standing fans, especially those of us who remember the old TOS-or-nothing days, hold our beliefs passionately because it _means something_ to us. So whether we love or hate a given incarnation of it, I know we are all ultimately motivated by the same thing -- a love for what it represents to us.


Agreed: "We are all patriots, commander"

José


----------



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

MGagen said:


> Enterprise was a non-starter from the first episode. That's because First Contact royally dropped the ball. (Can you say Bermatrek?)
> 
> Because of First Contact, the early days of Star Fleet were destined to be about the human "johnny come latelies." Everyone else in the stellar neighborhood has had Warp technology for ages. No matter where we go, the Vulcans and everyone else has already "been there, done that."
> 
> ...


I think First Contact could have been overcome, had Starfleet been painted as an organization more like TOS and less like the politically-correct nose in the air federation of the later series.

Once we really got into space, we would be copying and stealing technology left and right!!!

If not out in the open, then in secret.

In TOS Kirk had no qualms about stealing an enemy's cloaking device.

In Enterprise, Trip, an engineer helps out an alien ship with some advanced holographic and other technologies. Even though *the female alien engineer impregnated him,* he not only didn't ask for a copy of the specs and technology, but Archer offered it up to the Klingons!

What wusses!!!

Scotty would have walked away with schematics to everything in the ship!!!

They could have built it around the history of Starfleet's secret division(forget what it was called in DS9) and showed an entire series within a series focused around a couple of Starfleet secret agents assimilating info and avoiding detection, even by their own crewmates, as they came into contact with these other races.

But instead of something daring and pioneering, something that showed a grey area of human endeavors that is sometimes necessary to advance and survive as a culture, the punted and resorted to time-hopping gimmicks so they could constantly trot out and show us the politically correct, boring, staid, bureacratic, goodie-two-shoes federation of the future that B & B have created.

Even worse, it told us that the first Starfleet pioneers *weren't really pioneers!* They had the Big Brother Federation of the Future holding their hands the whole time!

At least during the first 3 years and some of this one, they cheapened and harmed, rather then fleshed out, the history of TOS Federation.

*The series spent tons of time rehashing and jumping to the federation that B&B created, not* in setting the groundwork for TOS. The alleged pre-quel, for 3 solid years, was not about a history of Starfleet, it was about whether or not B&B's boring Federation of the Future would survive. 

*They found a way to make it not be about Roddenberry's vision of Trek, *

*but instead all about whether their own boring future Federation survived! *


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

GREAT POINTS, Chuck & Mark!


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Well, At least the DVD collection won't be as so big! :tongue:


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Reading about the successful "reinvention" of "Battlestar Galactica" leads me to think that it is finally time to do the same thing with Star Trek. By that I mean, begin at the begining again, TOS. A new Kirk, Spock, et al. 

Take all that was good about the original show and give it the updated environment it so desparately needs. Don't change the characters, the basic exterior of the ship or basic texture of the interior sets. Simply upgrade the technological "look" and perhaps give it more emphasis on drama than TOS had, then launch the ship and explore a truly unknown galaxy, one that draws nothing from any so-called "Star Trek" that came after TOS.

Also, not one single "time travel" story and when someone dies, they STAY DEAD.

Previous follow-on "Trek" production staff need not apply.

Phil


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> Reading about the successful "reinvention" of "Battlestar Galactica" leads me to think that it is finally time to do the same thing with Star Trek. By that I mean, begin at the begining again, TOS. A new Kirk, Spock, et al.
> 
> Take all that was good about the original show and give it the updated environment it so desparately needs. Don't change the characters, the basic exterior of the ship or basic texture of the interior sets. Simply upgrade the technological "look" and perhaps give it more emphasis on drama than TOS had, then launch the ship and explore a truly unknown galaxy, one that draws nothing from any so-called "Star Trek" that came after TOS.


Well, if they did that with TOS they'd toss out everything but the proper nouns and the fact that they were on a 5 year mission. Anyone for a sexy sexy 40-something cantankerous woman Bones?

You say BSG is "successful", and then ask for exactly what the true fans asked for and were instead given the finger by Ron Moore. You need to watch the original again if you think it met that criteria

This post does validate my theory that if the same methodology were applied to TOS people would be up in arms, and only because BSG is considered cheesy can people freely screw with it and get away with it.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Yes, maybe 1.5 million people who currently watch Enterprise would be up in arms, but you might also have a shot at a much larger audience. Trying to listen to all the different crazy fan points of view has been one of Trek's biggest problems in some ways. If you pay attention to a lot of the voices on the Trek boards you'll see their are whole contingents whose favorite aspect of Enterprise is the horrendous, manufactured "romance" between Tucker and T'Pol, a cheap marketing gimmick if ever there was one. I would be all for dropping the "vision" of the BB regime that has made the entire franchise overly convoluted and boring. The continuity on the original show was definitely one of the great aspects that allowed a franchise to be made out of it in the first place, but the original show was also happy to violate continuity for the sake of a good story. I've said before I wouldn't care how much Enterprise had gone against established Trek lore if it had just had compelling characters and stories.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The impession I get from Berman, is that it is the fan's fault. They improved this season, and not many fans came to see it. What did he expect? When the fans have been turned off from the beginning, why would they take his word that it got better.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Thats a good point and one I've made often as well. TPTB have broken promises so often that many folks just stopped listening to what they justifiably judged to be just more hot air.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

*Star Trek may have had its run*

Hi,I just heard about Enterprises cancellation.All the series starting with the Next Generation have made the full 7 years except this one.Another indication that Star Trek is losing steam was the poor box office take of Star Trek Nemesis.Star Trek has had a good run and it truly was a great show but they have beat it to death.I love Trek but with anything,too much is no good.I also have heard the production of the current shows could have been handled better,maybe that would have helped too.I'll still build Star Trek kits from time to time though,Guy Schlicter


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

I myself think that they should take a break from it. I sometimes think that they get wrapped up in the money aspect of the show and not the way it should be, to make it the classic that all the others have become. I know it is a corporate world, but yet it should be for the fans. Know what I mean?
They should take a break, think a bit, learn form the mistakes, and listen to the fans and suggestions. Then you may see a great show like the others.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

If only they would learn from there mistakes. Just think, maybe a year or two from now they release a new series, and Rick Berman is still doing it. All ST fans say we don't want to watch it. They will not have a clue it is because of Berman.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Well, look on the bright side. With Star Trek not being such a "hot" commodity any longer, it may become cheaper for toy, prop and model kit manufacturers to obtain licenses to make products, or even reduce the fees for current license holders.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Sword of Whedon,

You didn't read my post very carefully. I wasn't suggesting that everything be changed, quite the opposite. The show can however stand some updating. New actors can play the characters (the same characters seen in the original show, not changed in gender or anyother way).

If instead you are refering to what would likely happen to such a show in the "real world" then that is a different matter. I was only interested in exploring the idea in a theoretical way. Paramount, being what it is, would undoubtedly screw it up if it were ever tried in real life. We can probably all agree with that.

I would particularlly like to see all the post-TOS garbage thrown out but that is just my personal desire. True, there are continuity issues within TOS itself but nowhere near the magnitude that is involved when all the post-TOS shows are included.

BTW, I have watched the original BSG again, it was extremely painful. The show was awful. Just horrible (and I watched some of it being made too)! It is no wonder at all that it only lasted one season! BUT, it was a GREAT concept however poorly executed. Further, as with "Star Trek", there is no such thing as "The Fans", only a vast group of individuals, each with his or her own unique opinion about how the given show "should be done" or "what makes it good". Just reading these various fan BBs should be enough to demonstrate that fact.

Star Trek however was a "great concept" which was also "well executed" and therefore would not require much in the way of changes to bring it back to the small screen today, at least in my view. Even Paramount thought so when they began production on Phase II, it was only slightly changed from the original series and probably would have been a huge success if only the studio hadn't gotten greedy.

As you say though, Paramount would never be capable of pulling it off successfully today.

That is unless they totally changed the production staff (which was my last comment in the previous post).

In the final analysis, it seems to be up to "The Fans" themselves to provide the kind of show that they really want to see, as is being bravely done by several groups right now.

My hat is off to them!

Phil


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

The main thing that they are going to have to learn is that Star Trek is alive in the hearts of it's fans. They have to come to us and not the other way around. I personally don't care if the studio ever makes another foot of new Star Trek footage, Star Trek's caretakers are the fans, not the studio.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I watched my second episode of Enterprise tonight. The show is a good SCI-FI show, but not ST. This show if named differently and did not mention anything relating to ST, would be a good show. But pre-TOS it is not. To modern to fit in the history.


----------



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

Does anyone actually know why B&B stayed in charge of Trek so long?

I'm serious when I ask this.

Doesn't the studio know what their influence to the storylines and writers did?

They aren't kings. They don't have life time job security I don't believe.
So why did Paramount keep them in charge for so long?

Even after Activision sued Paramount for not being diligent in properly developing Trek they keep two guys for years on end without trying anyone new at the helm.

Why? 

Some special contract?

Anyone have a clue about this? I'm not talking conjecturally but real inside info.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

BTW, The episode tonight was really good. Way better than when Kirk had the midget riding him! AND I love TOS!


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Why?


Momentum. I'm not kidding.


----------



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

^^^ That's really sad, John O.

Perhaps this "momentum" you talk about had something to do with the timing of the merger?

Often when a company is bought out divisions that seem to be hot commodities but aren't really understood by the parent company are just left to rot because the new owners don't have a clue as to what makes that division work. 

As a result they just leave the misunderstood property/employees alone and simply hope it keeps performing as it once did. Often not knowing how to fix any problems that come up even if they wanted to.

If you don't understand a property, it is hard to fix things when it goes south...

Anti-Trust laws aside, that's another reason that big media companies shouldn't be allowed to buy too many properties. When media companies try to own and do everything, everything they do just gets worse and worse. Look at USA Today - the pie chart newspaper. Turn on regular broadcast radio and you get the same 20 freakin' songs whether you are in New Orleans, New York or California. We end up with mediocre crap all across the board when it all becomes homogenized, even if the owners of the properties have the best intentions.

When Paramount was an independant company, Trek was a bigger deal to the owners and probably watched much much more closely. A lot of the eggs in their profit basket came from Trek. Now Trek is just another niche' property that's controlled by a subsidiary in a huge huge media parent company.


----------



## RogueJ (Oct 29, 2000)

Thank you UPN and Paramount...you've made my viewing choices much easier. By dropping Enterprise I no longer have ANY reason to even turn to UPN. That's one network off my checklist.

Rogue


----------



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

RogueJ said:


> Thank you UPN and Paramount...you've made my viewing choices much easier. By dropping Enterprise I no longer have ANY reason to even turn to UPN. That's one network off my checklist.
> 
> Rogue


You do have a point. I kept hoping they would eventually pull Enterprise out of the nose dive it was in, though there is little that could be done to repair the damage they've done to Trek continuity even if they did. 

But other then Trek I see little reason anyone with a decent education of any background would watch anything currently on UPN. If I were a member of their codeword "urban" target audience I would be insulted by what they are offering as an idea of what appeals to that demographic. Just another example of a big media conglomerate that dumbs down everything they get involved in.

It's bad enough that the FCC allows companies like Viacom to own so many different types of media just in that these companies now control media coverage in vastly different and countless local communities(causing few associate companies to be able to express independant viewpoints in coverage). But that vast monopolistic control also causes them to pander to the lowest common denominator in everything they do.


----------



## JamesDFarrow (Sep 18, 1999)

Attention! Whoever was resposible for cancelling Enterprise.

Pucker up and kiss my 










James


----------



## kahless72 (Jan 6, 2004)

I do agree with ending Star Trek and then bringing it back in about 5 to 10 years. But PLEASE don't stop making Trek models. I would really love to see a 1/350 scale of the Klingon Bird of Prey and or 1/1000 scale of either the Vortcha class or the Nach'Var class ship.


----------



## MHaz (Aug 18, 1999)

*How True, How True...*

I don't know how many of you guys read "UserFriendly," but today's was particularly accurate...

Userfriendly 02/06/2005 


Mike


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

John O said:


> I didn't say _funny_, I said _light_. To be fair to BSG, compare it to other adult dramas like _Law & Order_ or _NYPD Blue_. You're getting about the same percentage heaviness to lightness with BSG. If you want (funny) sense of humor with your sci-fi, then of course you'll be wanting some SG-1.:thumbsup:
> 
> John O.


That is the best way I have ever heard this put.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

*Its too bad about Enterprise going off the air*

Hi,I watched last Fridays episode of Enterprise and guess what,I enjoyed it.Even though Star trek isn't as popular as it once was,Enterprise has some quality too it.It had hope,Whoever decided to cancell it,Bad Move.Theres a lot more crap on the air that should be cancelled rather than Enterprise,Guy Schlicter


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

I had not watch Enterprise since the first episode. I watched Friday night's
episode primarily to get a feel of what the NX-01 should look like (bought one
of the huge 1/350 kits recently). Second impression in a nutshell:

1. Special effects: Pretty good.
2. NX-01 design: As mentioned numerous times, looks too advance to be the TOS Enterprise predecessor. Pretty cool design though, I like it.
3. Story: Haven't been watching up till now, of course, but it seemed OK.
4. Characters and acting: Just like the first time I saw it, they just seem dull. Couldn't get into the interaction between the characters. Just didn't care. 

Deep Space 9 didn't hit me on the first episode either. But after checking the series out after a few seasons had past, the characters and stories were excellent and I watched it till the last episode. That is not the case with Enterprise for me anyway. I will say that I would rather watch any episode of Enterprise over either of the two last Next Generation movies. It is painful to see decent a decent Trek franchise reduce to such a pitiful state.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Sparky said:


> 2. NX-01 design: As mentioned numerous times, looks too advance to be the TOS Enterprise predecessor. Pretty cool design though, I like it. .


Have to Agree with that. Once someone said that the old TOS Enterprise had that flare because it looked like the old Battleships. Painted gray, and looked smooth. The newer “older” one looked to plated. You could here that the excuse was you couldn’t see the TOS “E” because of the 60’s film, which may have left out details. But that was a bit of Bull.



Sparky said:


> 3. Story: Haven't been watching up till now, of course, but it seemed OK.


I haven’t had much chance to watch myself. But I did hear about the story where the Alternate Universe finds the Defiant. But haven’t kept up to know if it aired yet, or is going to.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The Defiant episode is the only one I'm really interested in seeing. I tried to watch Friday's episode but lost interest.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I also watched Friday's episode. It is not ST, but not bad Sci-Fi. I will watch the Defiant episode. 

Did anyone know that in the fan film series ST: Hidden Frontier, that they have an episode with TOS Defiant? That is my favorite episode. Can you figure why?


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I also watched Friday's episode. It is not ST, but not bad Sci-Fi. I will watch the Defiant episode.
> 
> Did anyone know that in the fan film series ST: Hidden Frontier, that they have an episode with TOS Defiant? That is my favorite episode. Can you figure why?


Is there a URL to this Fan Film?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

http://www.hiddenfrontier.org/

It's not "A" film, it's a series with five seasons of episodes!


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

If you like fan made Trek, take a look here.  
http://fanfilms.net/


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Tholian, it is episode 308, Voyage of the Defiant. Just click on the link John gave.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks for the link, Stimpson J. Cat!


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

No problem. Since I got DSL I've been watching the heck out of fan movies and I ran across that site. There's lots of other neat fan movies on that site besides Trek. Anyone else here like "Stone Trek"?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

STONE TREK! That is a really funny show. I like the musical! 

I have been over at www.theforce.net/fanfilms getting SW films, and for SW audio go to www.starwarsfanworks.com


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

My Wife always looks at me weird when I play "Star Wars Gangster Rap". :tongue:


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

My two favorite SW fan films are Troops and Pink Five.


----------



## DinoMike (Jan 1, 1970)

Ziz said:


> My two favorite SW fan films are Troops and Pink Five.


 YOU GO, ZIZ! Two of the greatest fan films of all time!  (By "Pink Five" I hope ya meant both "Pink Five" and "Pink Five Strikes Back.")

Hope they finish "Return of Pink Five" REAL soon...


----------



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

Stimpson J. Cat said:


> My Wife always looks at me weird when I play "Star Wars Gangster Rap". :tongue:


 
I hear there was a rap version of "It's a Hard Knock Life".
Ripping off that poor little Irish orphan girl's song!
They always be stealin' my people's culture!!!


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

DinoMike said:


> YOU GO, ZIZ! Two of the greatest fan films of all time!  (By "Pink Five" I hope ya meant both "Pink Five" and "Pink Five Strikes Back.")
> 
> Hope they finish "Return of Pink Five" REAL soon...


Yes. Maybe I should say "The Pink Five Trilogy".  I do think she looked better with the longer hair in P5 though than with the short cut in P5SB.


----------



## DinoMike (Jan 1, 1970)

Ziz said:


> Yes. Maybe I should say "The Pink Five Trilogy".  I do think she looked better with the longer hair in P5 though than with the short cut in P5SB.


 Yeah, but "no more helmet hair!"


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John - concerning the Hidden Frontier stuff, I've got some questions!


do you just watch it on your PC? 
Can you download it and burn it on a DVD and watch it on the television? 
If so, are there any tricks for that?
Huzz


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Huzz, you can download them, I have all five seasons on my hard drive. The quality is low, so burning to DVD would look like crap. The question about having higher quality downloads have been discussed at there forum, and they said no.

Sorry, John!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Thanks for the reply Lloyd!!

Huzz


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Re: video quality - I think it's a given that video quality would be less than stellar considering the source material, so burning to DVD to watch on TV is more a matter of convenience than quality.


----------



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

^^^You would be surprised with what a simple digital handheld videocamera is capable of, with the proper mounting, lighting etc.

Blair Witch and that new shark movie(can't remember what the name of it is ) were both filmed with consumer level cameras...

You can easily get a picture as good as can be displayed on non-HD TV's with even a $500 Sony with a Zeiss lens. Though for the big screen I'm sure those two movies were probably somehow enhanced after the fact.

The problem they probably had with doing it in higher res was their bandwidth. That's just a guess. I don't really know. Can't imagine how much bigger those files would be though, and bandwidth cost money. 

Not to mention that you don't have to worry about getting every little detail criticized the way we guys like to do here if it can't be seen that closely.

Maybe in the future they'll consider doing a DVD for sale only version and just downgrade that for the net.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Chuck, they CAN'T sell DVDs. As long as it's free over the net and not-for-profit Paramount leaves them alone. The minute they charge a penny to show an episode, they'll get a C&D or a lawsuit. They've managed to go 5 years without pissing anybody off so far, let's keep it that way, eh? 

And the video quality question has nothing to do with how its shot, it's how it's made available online - _very _small. I think it's a 320-wide window.

I had them all on my drive as quicktime files for a while, but I realized I could DL them any time I wanted to watch and they were taking up a _lot _of space. I put them on CD and passed them on to a friend


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

John P said:


> Chuck, they CAN'T sell DVDs. As long as it's free over the net and not-for-profit Paramount leaves them alone. The minute they charge a penny to show an episode, they'll get a C&D or a lawsuit. They've managed to go 5 years without pissing anybody off so far, let's keep it that way, eh?
> 
> And the video quality question has nothing to do with how its shot, it's how it's made available online - _very _small. I think it's a 320-wide window.
> 
> I had them all on my drive as quicktime files for a while, but I realized I could DL them any time I wanted to watch and they were taking up a _lot _of space. I put them on CD and passed them on to a friend


I have always wondered how you can download them and save them. I know they download to your computer anyway, but how do you find them, and then save them so you can view at your own discretion?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Just right-click on the link and select "save as" or "save target as" and pick a spot on your hard drive.

Huzz


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

*The days are counting down till the end of Enterprise*

Hi,Well tonights episode of Enterprise says that these are the last episodes of Enterprise.Did the show really do that bad in the ratings.Also has anyone yet picked up the Nemesis Scorpion kit,if so is it a good model?Thanks,Guy Schlicter


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

Guys please, instead of starting new threads every friday night on the cancellation of this series, please post in this thread instead. When it gets up to 10 pages, someone will start another thread, or we'll split this one.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> Hi,Well tonights episode of Enterprise says that these are the last episodes of Enterprise.Did the show really do that bad in the ratings


Yes. While a 2.0 is gangbusters on cable, anything on broadcast under a 5 puts you on the fence, and anything under a 4 for new episodes is death. Enterprise has reguarly been scoring in the 1.7/.8 range.

For another perspective, about 2 million people are watching every week. 12 million people watched the pilot 4 years ago. Althought the slide has stabilized (also known as "hit rock bottom") considering the last 2 movies bombed, the suits finally agree with the majority of the fans, Trek needs a rest till B&B's contracts expire.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Just our luck, they'd be like Twinkies and NEVER "expire."


----------

