XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.tv   
   From: BounceDave2702@yahoo.com   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:1117308107.115553.178890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   > Would we really have wanted to watch a speech that even if it went on a   
   >   
   > shortwhile probably would have lasted for at least five minutes and to   
   > be   
   > honest couldn't have lived up to the fame of the speech (why would such   
   > a   
   > writer be writing for Enterprise when business would pay far more)?   
   >   
   > Yes.   
   >   
   > And when you ask about the quality of a writer for such a speech, are   
   > you speaking of (1) Archer's fictional speechwriter or (2) the   
   > screenwriters for "Enterprise"?  Actually, the answer's the same in   
   > either context. The fictional speechwriter would care little about   
   > his/her fee because the words themselves would live forever. Similarly,   
   > a really terrific speech written by a screenwriter would have lived in   
   > viewer's memories as long the memory of Star Trek itself.   
   >   
      
   As one of those casual viewers I'd have switched off about 60 seconds into   
   some soliloquy from Archer, and I did mean the real life speech writer, have   
   you seen any indication that any of Enterprise's writers were capable of   
   writing such a speech. Personally I'm quite happy to have had no speech   
   which couldn't have lived upto its reputed fame, though Barry's idea would   
   have been good to have the first few lines of the speech (which I'm sure   
   even an Enterprise write might have made to sound impressive) before going   
   to credits   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)