XPost: rec.arts.sf.movies, rec.arts.movies.current-films   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   On 2025-11-19 19:32:38 +0000, The True Melissa said:   
   > In article <10fg874$1684g$1@dont-email.me>,   
   > YourName@YourISP.com says...   
   >> On 2025-11-17 11:46:33 +0000, The True Melissa said:   
   >>>   
   >>> You know, I'd be fine with this approach if they featured a different   
   >>> ship. It could be interesting to see a ship in some role other than   
   >>> exploration and first contact. There are other parts of the history   
   >>> which could be filled in, as opposed to rewriting existing history.   
   >>   
   >> That's what "Enterprise" tried to do .. and failed miserably.   
   >>   
   >> Deep Space Nine and Voyager also tried at and were more successful.   
   >>   
   >> The problems occur when some new idiot in charge starts making up their   
   >> own silly ideas that don't fit with what has already been established.   
   >   
   > I had a weird relationship with Enterprise. I didn't look forward to   
   > it, but when I did watch it, I generally enjoyed it. I eventually   
   > concluded that it was a good show but not good Star Trek.   
      
   I stopped watching Enterprise after about ten minutes (or whenever it   
   was the first idiotic soft-porn "Oil Me Up Scotty" so-called   
   'decontamination' scene started. It was patently obvious they were   
   simply going to sink to the gutter-level to boost viewer numbers.   
      
      
      
   > I dropped out, though, so I missed the ending everyone  hated.   
      
   Most real Star Trek fans loved the ending (even if like me they never   
   saw it), because it made the entire show a complete load of nonsense   
   that can easily be ignored.  :-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)