XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.movies.current-films
From: thetruemelissa@gmail.com
In article ,
ted@loft.tnolan.com says...
>
> In article <10fldsb$2htdb$1@dont-email.me>,
> Your Name wrote:
> >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.
> >
>
> Right. Unlike the orion slave girls, mini-skirts & braless yeomen of TOS...
Interesting point! Everyone hated the decontamination
scene, but it wasn't anything new. Our tastes had
changed, I guess. A prequel may attract those who take
the world more seriously.
Melissa
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
