XPost: alt.tv.star-trek.next-gen, rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.startrek.misc   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   On 2025-07-23 23:45:01 +0000, Melissa Hollingsworth said:   
      
   > Verily, in article <105p0cr$kmua$1@dont-email.me>, did   
   > YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:   
   >>   
   >> And yet it's still far far far better than "Enterprise" and the   
   >> horrible reboot movies.  :-(   
   >   
   > Enterprise wasn't a terrible show, IMO. It just didn't feel like Star   
   > Trek.   
   >   
   > "Is it a good show?" and "Is it good SF?" and "Is it good Star Trek?"   
   > are three different questions. I aim for two out of three.   
      
   The problem is it *was* meant to be part of the Star Trek franchise   
   (depsite not including "Star Trek" in the show's title) and it simply   
   did not even remotely fit.   
      
   If they had called the show and characters by new names and not had it   
   as part of the Star Trek franchise, then it may or may not have been   
   any good as a sci-fi TV show - that wouldbe personal opinion and the   
   idiotic "oil me 'up Scotty" scenes would still have stopped me   
   bothering to watch it.   
      
   "The Orville" was better "Star Trek" than any of the newer stuff, and   
   that is not part of Star Trek franchise.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)