XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   From: cheneysheartis@nospam.deathsdoor.com   
      
   "=/\= STAR TREK RPG =/\="  wrote in message   
   news:bh39qf$7h3$1@bob.news.rcn.net...   
   > Well, as always what I'm saying is opinion and some speculation I suppose   
   > but here goes:   
   >   
   > Enterprise was a pre-quel.  It was designed to be "before" Star Trek and   
   the   
   > way I understand it is that taking the "Star Trek" out of it wasn't meant   
   to   
   > be insulting as everyone associates Enterprise (just the name alone makes   
   > one think of Star Trek).  It was designed to give the impression of being   
   > "before" Star Trek.   
   >   
      
   The show is meant to be the beginning of Star Trek.  But it isn't Star Trek.   
   Huh?   
      
   The Next Generation is Star Trek.  The previous generation is not?   
      
   Not buying this argument.   
      
   > The idea of the different intro was for the same purpose.  I personally   
   like   
   > the new intro and the "message" that is in the intro.  Certainly, they   
   could   
   > have done the same intro with a more Star Trek themed music.   
      
   Sure, I agree with this.  I have come to like the new intro, and in any   
   event I don't judge a show by the intro.  Otherwise I would have actually   
   liked the first couple of seasons of DS9 after the pilot.   
      
   >   
   > I like the new show.  I think it was added to the Trek family too quickly   
   > after the ending of the 24th century series shows.  The fans had gotten   
   used   
   > to the fancy big ships and gadgets.  Now they have to get  used to no   
   > transporters and bulky phase guns.   
      
   Or we had gotten used to actual science fiction stories and away from the   
   soap-opera dramas that plagued early DS9 and the villain-of-the-week formula   
   that permeated Voyager.  Enterprise combines the least-succesful elements of   
   both shows.   
      
   >   
   > To me, the idea of forging through space with out all of the fancy gadgets   
   > is much more exciting.  I like to watch as the series unfolds and the   
   > characters are forced to use their brains vs. their brawn.   
   >   
      
   To me, those fancy gadgets represented a lot of interesting thinking and   
   backstory by the writers, and the presence of hard sci-fi at the heart of   
   the show.   
      
   Now you could build the same up with less advanced technology.  Space 1999   
   managed to do it, to name one show.   
      
   But the powers that be haven't.  They try to avoid technology and really   
   science-fiction premises.  Look at the numerous episodes in Trek involving   
   time travel, that's real sci-fi.  Look at times and places where they had   
   aliens who were really alien, or were just very interesting and unique   
   (TNG's "Darmok").  Totally unrealistic.   
      
   I'd like to see some science in my science fiction.  Some technology more   
   advanced than guns that shoot colored light instead of bullets.   
   Enterprise's "Minefield" episode had some of this, but it was all   
   subservient to a soap opera "let's get to know each other" plot that was   
   predictable to anyone over the age of 10.   
      
   > I also feel the actors have done a wonderful job.  Now this is going to be   
   a   
   > stretch but I hope people don't treat the actors like they treated the   
   > returning Vietnam vets.  Just because we don't support the "war" doesn't   
   > mean we can't recognize the true talents and entertainment of those   
   > conducting the show and fighting the battles.   
      
   I have been very impressed with Bakula, who I was never a fan of before.   
   Billingsley has a fun character and does a terrific job.  The rest range   
   from bland to worse, with Blalock occupying the "what the heck were they   
   thinking" spot.  I haven't seen anyone this bland since they cast the latest   
   blond assistant d.a. on Law and Order.   
      
   >   
   > I feel this is probably the best cast of Star Trek in the history of the   
   > franchise.   
      
   You're joking, right?   
      
   >They have so much less to work with and a preconception to win   
   > over.  When the Original Series was produced, this was virgin territory.   
   > This cast has to go back and try to pretend to be "before" TOS and create   
   > the history of Trek after its already been written.  That is never an easy   
   > thing to do.   
      
   It's a lot easier if you ignore everything established in later series.   
   Which violates the very consistency that fuelled so much of the mania for   
   Trek.  TOS took itself very seriously, unlike science fiction shows up until   
   then.   
      
   That Enterprise doesn't take TOS and later canon seriously says a lot, none   
   of it good.   
      
   >It works much better in Star Wars because the entire concept   
   > was written out that way.  The history in the prequel didn't change.  In   
   > Star Trek, there was never intended to be a prequel series.  So, now   
   > everyone has to dance around the inconsistencies of TOS and then TNG era   
   > series - which I might add, always HAD inconsistencies among themselves.   
      
   I would have sympathy if they danced around it.  They stomp on it.   
   Needlessly.  Did they need to make the villains Ferengi and violate canon?   
   No, they could have made them something else.  Heck, they could have made   
   tehm the dumb guys who "look for things to make them go".  They chose to   
   stomp on canon, and I don't give them a pat on the back for it.   
      
   >   
   > Poor poor actors!  They have their job cut out for them.  Writers too!   
   >   
      
   If the writers made the characters three-dimensional, I suspect the actors   
   would be doing a much better job.  There are no real relationships between   
   them, except maybe the captain and Trip.   
      
   Contrast that to Spock-McCoy, Kirk-McCoy, Kirk-Spock, Data-La Forge,   
   Picard-Crusher, Janeway-7, Paris-Kim, Bashir-O'Brien, etc.   
      
   > Being Trek franchise fans means supporting the concept of the show,   
   > regardless of some of the bumps in the road.  We shouldn't become shot gun   
   > passengers who bail out when the road becomes unpaved.   
   >   
      
   Being Trek franchise fans means being more than fans of a t.v. show.  You   
   are advocates for progressive, issues-oriented television.  You are fans of   
   a tradition of exploring the human condition, that questions what it means   
   to be a person.  You are proponents of a hopeful future for humanity.  You   
   are keepers of a flame, the flame that burned brightest in the history of   
   television.   
      
   If you sit back and settle for some meaningless "Melrose Space" drama that   
   doesn't speak to adults, doesn't have sharply drawn characters, doesn't   
   explore interesting ideas in science fiction or social dynamics, then you   
   might be a fan of the show.  But you aren't a true trekker, in my book.   
      
   > I'll support Trek in whatever format they serve it.  I didn't specifically   
   > like the TNG era series but I watched it.  I always felt it was riddled   
   with   
   > errors and unrealistic situations.  But, in the end, it is a fantasy show   
   > meant to entertain.  :)   
   >   
   > Thanks.  Thoughts?  Comments?  Bashings?  :)   
   >   
      
   I hate fantasy shows.  I didn't watch Buffy, despite it starring one of the   
   most beautiful, talented, and did I mention beautiful, women on the planet.   
      
   I like science fiction.  Shows that raise interesting social and   
   philosophical questions by extrapolating on known science.  The odd prison   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)