HELP SAVE ENTERPRISE
POSTED BY: ZiggyKarlos
UPDATED: Sunday, April 4, 2004 20:48
VIEWED: 18690
PAGE 8 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
It pisses me off that people don't talk about these things on site where such nuance is of PRIMARY importance.
I'm a big Star Trek fan from way back. But I'm not the kind of rabid fan who'll stick with the show long after it's lost what made it great in the first place. If one REALLY is a fan, one needs to speak up when the show seriously falters and become a pale shadow of itself. Otherwise, no changes will be made and people will just keep watching out of habit... like going to the drive-thru restaurant long after the food has lost its flavor.
One of the things that works against Star Trek is its own success. Once it became a "franchise" it stopped being a creative gem, and had to start serving too many masters in order to maintain the "franchise". Star Trek is weighted down like a corporation that has too many presidents and vice presidents, and hasn't invested anything in 'R&D'. Star Trek lost the spark of its early creative vision and keeps producing the same product over and over with a different label.
Firefly is alive, and full of new ideas and experiments... this is what Star Trek USED to be. Firefly is not Star Trek in design, but is its inheritor in spirit. Perhaps this is because a show which is unique and daring requires one, or two, people at the helm guiding the show without having to go through a 'committee'... the "too many cooks" analogy. With Star Trek: TOS it was Gene Roddenberry, and of course with Firefly it is Joss Whedon.
The future of Star Trek may depend on finding a strong, visionary leader, in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry, to take the helm and get the show back on course.
11thHour
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny, shortdozen, you should mention some the the recognized classics of science fiction with apparent sarcasm. Odd how personal opinions, however wrong, are sometimes presented as fact.
2001: A Space Odessey, both film and book, are commonly and rightly used to teach folks how to perceive and produce science fiction.
Star Wars was such a huge success, some people fail to consider the huge benchmarks it set for cinema in general and science fiction movies in particular.
And good old Buck Rogers has been with us for something like 50 years...just the name conjures up rayguns and spaceships. Sneer at success as you will, it's simply sour grapes. Hambone acting isn't new; there's ham aplenty in Firefly.
You kids have no idea how good you have it. Imagination was something near impossible to bring to film or television until the last two decades. Science fiction was widely regarded as silly and incomprehensible. Philip Dick, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clark among many others wrote the stories we are FINALLY seeing in cinema, stories decades old now.
Kids. Oh well.
Take my love
Take my land
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kill them all except the doctor. yes, even the friggen dog, the biggest four-legged waste of time on television. then maybe, MAYBE, i'll keep watching.
it's like a train wreck, i find myself watching when i really don't want to be and i'm disgusted with myself afterwards.
on firefly i loved every character (ok i only liked the doctor and the spaz, but they were growing on me), but on enterprise i love the doctor's character and that's it. i don't even like any of the rest. and the freaking uniforms of seven and now t'pal are THE MOST RIDICULOUS AND EMBARASSING CRAP ON SCI-FI TELEVISION TODAY!!!!!
"She ain't movin"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I occassionally watch Enterprise. When I do see the show, it looks like they made improvements in the writing department lately. The acting is so-so. Capt. Archer is a worse Captain than Janeway. The "space hooker"/science officer, is no Jeri Ryan. All the other cast members are NOT memorable! I can't really get into the show or feel attached to it. I feel that the franchise has gone on too long. Maybe they should give it a rest for a while or just retire Star Trek altogether. If this incarnation of Trek bites the dust, I won't miss it. I wish they had started the series with more impressive writing and maybe a different perspective on a show instead of the Starship Enterprise boldly going where nobody has gone before. Hasn't this been done to death already? Does anyone do anything else in the future except ride on starships? Starfleet is so anally retentive and squeaky clean. I can't believe they don't have skeletons in their closets! Explore this kind of stuff. New and different aspects of Star Trek. I'm sorry if this offends Trek fans, but honestly, doesn't it seem like you've been kind of watching the same old stuff for 25 years?
Please bring back Firefly, these other shows SUCK! Oh, burn in Hell fox execs!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gotta agree with a lot thats been said on here, trainwreck is definately a good description for Enterprise. The real shame of it is, they had a good idea, going backwards was a bit of a surprise to many people, werent too sure, pilot was good, linking it to Zeph Cockrane and all that, and so I was pleased, but then...nothing. Its even more disappointing as some of the actors are obviously talented, they just have nothing to work with. Ok, Scott Bakula, the man is an talented actors and was awesome in Q Leap, but not in this, he is quite terrible. He is stiff and boorish, and then to perk him up, they made him, Mr On The Edge, Grrrr. Didnt work then either. Big problem is people pulling the strings, they think they can just turn the handle on their cash cow, bring in another episode that echoes so many others, and make more money for the franchise. Its lazy TV, purely that. X-file suffered from it at the end, when they too started copying themselves, shame again as good actors, could have been good, same old same old.
Yes we do have it good nowadays in response to another comment in terms of effects and the visualisation of science fiction no longer has to reside just on the page and in the imagination, but that isnt the point of the discussion here, i believe its about bad tv, bad story telling, and people putting out recycled rubbish on the TV. What's worse is, its happening over and over again, did anyone see new star wars films? Or last two Matrix films?? Awesome special effects in all, but that and twenty minutes in each film does not make a good film. Ugh, gonna stop now before I vent my entire spleen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Funny, shortdozen, you should mention some the the recognized classics of science fiction with apparent sarcasm. Odd how personal opinions, however wrong, are sometimes presented as fact.
Oh the sarcasm wasn't apparent, it just wasn't aimed at the classic Sci-Fi works I listed.
For the genre of Sci-Fi stay healthy, and maintain some degree of respect, it needs to be kept alive with new ideas and true creativity. This is especially true of Sci-Fi because it's supposed to encompass the expansiveness and imagaination of human beings.
My disappointment with the latest incarnations of Star Trek is that they've fallen down on the job. Original Star Trek is an iconic classic... the latest versions, not so much.
11thHour
__________________________________________________________
"Doing the impossible makes us mighty." - Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:Quote:
Try to remember, folks, that the original Star Trek was pitched as a kind of 'space western', building the very road Firefly travels today. Without Star Trek and the rabid fans who wouldn't let it die, Firefly would NEVER have happened . . .or B5, or any of the wonderful science fiction that's graced television, for that matter.
Which is no reason why Trek should be produced today. You'll find no argument from me that without TOS you likely wouldn't have half or more of the SF shows around. You'll find no argument from me that the Trek movies have all been pretty good, and some have been excellent. Same goes for TNG and DS9, by why does that qualify Enterprise and the Trek industry for a free pass?
If they manage to re-capture the quality of what the show used to be, I'll gladly watch again.
"I threw up on your bed"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME