From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   "Zeb Carter"  wrote in message   
   news:yhpPo.11343$lL1.574@newsfe21.iad...   
   > Your Name wrote:   
   > > "RT"  wrote in message   
   > > news:4D0DA189.D13819CC@hotmMOVEail.com...   
   > >> Your Name wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>> "AC"  wrote in message   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference   
   > >>>> between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy   
   > >>>> about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who   
   > >>> couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the   
   > > Star   
   > >>> Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing   
   > > silly   
   > >>> games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space   
   > > Nine   
   > >>> when the station is sitting on THE most strategic point during a war!   
   > >>   
   > >> What playing in the holodeck? The ST shows frmo TNG on (except of   
   course   
   > > for   
   > >> Enterprise) used it here and there, but making up the bulk of the   
   series?   
   > > Did   
   > >> you really watch at all?   
   > >   
   > > When did I say the holod(r)eck episodes made "up the bulk of the   
   series"??   
   > > Al I said was they were used by lazy writers because they couldn't think   
   of   
   > > any real stories. There were far to many holod(r)eck, time travel, and   
   "big   
   > > red reset button" episodes, especially as the shows got into the later   
   > > seasons.   
   > >   
   > > And as above, having the ENTIRE command staff playing silly games in the   
   > > holodeck when the space station is situated at THE most important place   
   > > during a war is plain idiotic and senseless.  :-(   
   >   
   > A quick question here - we know the quite a few folks did not like   
   > enterprise - fair enough. Why can't it exist in a different continuity   
   > than TOS? Maybe it's a better fit with J.J. Abrams' Star Trek movie.   
      
   You mean an silly "remake" that lazily re-uses the same name, but includes   
   lots of idiotic, ill-fitting changes because the makers are too lazy to   
   actually create their own work, so simply steal and destroy someone else's   
   work instead. Writing off the idiocy as a "parallel universe" or something   
   does not "fix" the problem either. :-(   
      
   Enterprise was meant to be a "non-Trek Trek show" (obviously an idiotic idea   
   from day one) and JJ Abrams movie is a silly "reboot". If these people want   
   to make their own franchise, then they should make their OWN franchise. The   
   reality is that most of Hollyweird these days are just talentless hacks   
   and/or controlled by brainless management suits.  :-(   
      
      
      
   > Getting back on topic, SyFy Channel is run by a bunch of idiots who   
   > don't like science fiction like Caprica or Stargate Universe. I feel   
   > they would have cancelled Star Trek:TOS in its first season if it had   
   > aired now. They want horror and wrestling and stupid reality shows like   
   > Fear Factor and Scare Tactics and the various paranormal shows.   
   >   
   > SyFy is a cable show. It's not an over the air station and Nielsen   
   > ratings should not apply.   
      
   Neilsen ratings should never apply ... they're inaccurate guesswork (at   
   best). Yet again it the brainless management suits who can't make a real   
   decision, so have to rely on a crutch that everyone with a brain knows is   
   meaningless (including no doubt Neilsen themselves!).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)