Enterprise a sinking ship?

[JB0]

Whos Idea was it to make a Tv show based on the beginning of the star trek universe? What were they thinking? I mean the Enterprise looks ugly, the crew sucks and they expect us to go from seeing nice ships and battles , like in Ds9 and voyager, to the crap in enterprise? Its good that this show is going down and hopefully Paramount will come to there senses and do better. Whatever they do I hope it takes place in the future and not the crappy and basic past!

Odd. I thought the NX-01 was a very nice-looking ship. Integrating the saucer section like they did gives it a really nice profile.

I've never liked the "neck" on the other ship designs, and the Defiant was just too squat for my tastes. The NX-01 is a very nice balance between utilitarian practicality and aesthetics.

And the battles were a heck of a lot more interesting than most of the crap in Voyager, in my opinion.

Really, what does it matter when it takes place? Be it a classic like "City on the Edge of Forever", or a more modern holodeck romp, some of Star Trek's best stories have taken place in the past.

And a phaser beam is the same regardless of when you are.

...

And your post borders on illegible. Learn to capitalize and punctuate properly.

[Boxer]

Personally I prefer the Tos-Movie era of history, and I hope the next 'trek' stays out of the 'TNG and beyond' continuity. Enterprise was a nice move, but Braga burned the ship and left it to sink while Reeves-stevens were going places with it.

I dunno where this is first hand, but it looks like fans won't have their cake and eat it either: Berman's looking to get money to make a movie. It's second hand so I don't know if it's fact or not, But I do know that Berman is going to be writing the last episode and this supposed new movie (not Reeves-stevens, who are doing a fantastic jobs with the episodes this season IMO).

I thought the Enterprise model was a way to save on expenses- they just altered the existing Akira model from 'First Contact' to make it look 'origional.' I chalk it up to the effort made in paramount- which is the reason trek has lost it's edge since (and during) TNG. Even so I could live with it if they continued Enterprise to another season.

I'm for Enterprise's continueation- if only to see the new writers actually doing some good. It's nice to have a change for once from the boring dribble left over from Voyager.

[USMCBebop]

WHY OH WHY is it that the prequels of the most popular science fiction franchises aren't fairing so well?

I personally enjoyed the Star Wars prequels (and can't wait for the final one). As you know, a lot of SW fandom don't share my optimism or take it at face value like I do.

I'm a big Trek fan too. But the writers are what is killing ( or should I say have killed) the "Big E."

Either someone's run out of ideas, the fans expect more or both!

Edited February 7, 2005 by USMCBebop

[Boxer]

Chalk it up to the 'modern spin on things'. Lucas is trying to appease his children while Berman was using the 'seven of nine' effect to draw in veiwers. Unfortunately this means that the only thing that really makes Voyager and Enterprise really different is the title and the cast.

Once again, Berman burns the ship

[USMCBebop]

. . .while Berman was using the 'seven of nine' effect to draw in veiwers. Unfortunately this means that the only thing that really makes Voyager and Enterprise really different is the title and the cast.

Once again, Berman burns the ship 

Like I posted earlier, that "Seven of Nine" effect don't do you anygood if you have a poorly written story.

It's sad what's happening to Trek. Again, maybe it's time for another hiatus.

Edited February 7, 2005 by USMCBebop

[Zentrandude]

wonder what will replace this star wreck of a show, but then again it might suffer the same thing. Space shows only have so many elements you can go. explore, space war, time travel for some odd reason, lost somewhere and try to find home (voy, battlestar galactica if I remember it correctly, lost in space), ect...

[mechaninac]

What I'd really like to see Paramount do with Star Trek for the next few years is stay away from the episodic television and big screen motion pictures. They have proven through their lack of advertising for the current series and the general lack of imagination that's plagued the whole franchise since TNG, and the dwindling fan base, that there isn't a market for them anymore. Let it rest. Instead, I think that if they released a movie of the week once a year or a short mini-series every few years, with innovative plot elements, fresh ideas and viewpoints, and peripheral stories framed within the context of any of the time frames that have been seen thus far, and some that haven't (ENTERPRISE-C era) there would be enough interest to make it a profitable and satisfying endeavor.

[JB0]

What I'd really like to see Paramount do with Star Trek for the next few years is stay away from the episodic television and big screen motion pictures. They have proven through their lack of advertising for the current series and the general lack of imagination that's plagued the whole franchise since TNG, and the dwindling fan base, that there isn't a market for them anymore. Let it rest. Instead, I think that if they released a movie of the week once a year or a short mini-series every few years, with innovative plot elements, fresh ideas and viewpoints, and peripheral stories framed within the context of any of the time frames that have been seen thus far, and some that haven't (ENTERPRISE-C era) there would be enough interest to make it a profitable and satisfying endeavor.

It's not that there's no market, it's that Viacom has no clue how to exploit it and has run it into the ground with bad production and poor marketing.

Hell, they got sued over it a while back by Activision(who felt that Viacom had screwed them by driving the liecnse into the ground after they bought game rights).

[mechaninac]

The piss poor ratings of the outgoing series and the pathetic box office returns of the last theatrical foray indicates very forcefully that the market for a Star Trek series or movie has shriveled to the point of atrophy. That is not to say that if Paramount/Viacom had a really innovative concept backed by consistent marketing and positioned in a time slot, in a station other that UPN, where this type of show could thrive, that it could not be successful--going against Smallville and later Sci-Fi's Friday block was at best a bone-headed scheduling decision, and at worst, a push into purgatory to set the show up for failure, regardless of it's quality or lack thereof. However, even with the most satisfactory conditions, Star Trek has become a stale franchise in a market that is much more interested in "reality shows" and "lowest common denominator" comedies.

That's why I think that a long hiatus interspersed with a TV movie (think some of the B5's TV movies) or a short mini-series every other year could be healthy for the brand; this would have the effect of wetting the appetites of the fans, but would not add to the over-saturation that is part of Star Trek's current state of affairs.

Edited February 8, 2005 by mechaninac

[chrono]

What I'd really like to see Paramount do with Star Trek for the next few years is stay away from the episodic television and big screen motion pictures.  They have proven through their lack of advertising for the current series and the general lack of imagination that's plagued the whole franchise since TNG, and the dwindling fan base, that there isn't a market for them anymore.  Let it rest.  Instead, I think that if they released a movie of the week once a year or a short mini-series every few years, with innovative plot elements, fresh ideas and viewpoints, and peripheral stories framed within the context of any of the time frames that have been seen thus far, and some that haven't (ENTERPRISE-C era) there would be enough interest to make it a profitable and satisfying endeavor.

It's not that there's no market, it's that Viacom has no clue how to exploit it and has run it into the ground with bad production and poor marketing.

Hell, they got sued over it a while back by Activision(who felt that Viacom had screwed them by driving the liecnse into the ground after they bought game rights).

There is no market within the US. Everybody else doesn't count according to H-wood.

Frankly it was boring from the very beginning with flat actors and flat characters. It failed because it was a space opera that had no opera to it what so ever.

Remember when Archer had to choice whether he was going to steal that techno-babble warp thingie from those aliens? That was a character turning point if there ever was one! Nothing happened. It had no life!

[Mr March]

WHY OH WHY is it that the prequels of the most popular science fiction franchises aren't fairing so well?

I personally enjoyed the Star Wars prequels (and can't wait for the final one). As you know, a lot of SW fandom don't share my optimism or take it at face value like I do.

I'm a big Trek fan too. But the writers are what is killing ( or should I say have killed) the "Big E."

Either someone's run out of ideas, the fans expect more or both!

I can't speak for individual tastes or popular opinion. However, I can certainly inform you that regardless of the actual quality in either the Star Wars or Star Trek prequels, the earnings of the particular product are the ultimate measure of success. If a given film or television series doesn't sell, the movie or show is cancelled. It's all about the money...always has been.

The last Star Trek film cost $93 million to make and market, but earned a sad $67 million total world wide sales. The last Star Wars prequel cost $140 million to make and market, but in comparison made $650 million world wide. Whether you personally prefer one over the other doesn't matter. If Star trek isn't making money, but Star Wars is pulling it's weight, I'm hoping it's obvious what the result will be.

Also look at things from the flip side. How many long years has Star Trek been a consistant money maker? Numerous science fiction films/franchises have come and gone, but Star Trek survived. Regardless of whether Star Trek was actually a better sci-fi product than Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Farscape, et cetera, Trek made money and the others did not.

It's bling, bling, bling

[JB0]

The piss poor ratings of the outgoing series and the pathetic box office returns of the last theatrical foray indicates very forcefully that the market for a Star Trek series or movie has shriveled to the point of atrophy.

Nemesis wasn't marketed well at all. And was launched one week before The Two Towers, AKA the single most highly anticipated film of the year.

Only way it could've been worse was if it opened the same weekend.

Of course, Nemesis also reeked of poor production.

And finding Data's "brother" was a fundamentally flawed subplot, given they totally ignored the fact that they already knew Data had a brother, and that he was a royal pain in the ass. They also found Data's dismembered head at one point too(damn time travel stories), so even just digging up familiar android skulls wasn't exactly a new concept and they should have NOT been shocked and amazed.

...

Of course, if the 'bot had actually BEEN Lore, like everyone in the audience was hoping, we'd've had a FAR more interesting movie.

All things considered, it was HARDLY the worst Trek movie. It was actually one of the better ones, in my opinion.

That is not to say that if Paramount/Viacom had a really innovative concept backed by consistent  marketing and positioned in a time slot, in a station other that UPN, where this type of show could thrive, that it could not be successful--

Innovative is required to succeed in the market?

Anyways, Voyager was innovative. That just made it all the more bitter. They had a totally new area of space, the entire damn series was a blank slate. And then totally crapped out on us. There were a few gems, but the series as a whole was just ... crap.

going against Smallville and later Sci-Fi's Friday block was at best a bone-headed scheduling decision, and at worst, a push into purgatory to set the show up for failure, regardless of it's quality or lack thereof. 

Hmmm... as I recall, the original Trek was killed in a smiliar way. Bumped season 3 to infomercial time, guaranteeing no one would watch it.

However, even with the most satisfactory conditions, Star Trek has become a stale franchise in a market that is much more interested in "reality shows" and "lowest common denominator" comedies.

*barfs*

Sadly, this is true. Bad sitcoms and the single worst genre in history is all that anyone seems to care about.

...

Heck, the sitcom is mostly dead too.

That's why I think that a long hiatus interspersed with a TV movie (think some of the B5's TV movies) or a short mini-series every other year could be healthy for the brand; this would have the effect of wetting the appetites of the fans, but would not add to the over-saturation that is part of Star Trek's current state of affairs.

That'd be nice, actually.

I thought the mini-series feel of Enterprise earlier this season was a nice change of pace. Left them enough room to tell a story, without getting forced like the previous season-long arc.

I find over-saturation a funny label, though. The entire run of DS9 was 2 series at once. As was most of Next Gen, to the best of my recollection.

Next Gen + original series reruns(at least on my local network).

DS9 premiers, can Kirk.

Stop Next Gen, Voyager starts.

End DS9... hey, where's our new series? Ah well, if Voyager is an indication of quality we're better off with just one.

Voyager is where things really whiplashed around into crap.

DS9, amazingly, remained more or less immune. There were a lot of really good episodes, right through the last season. It's like all the good writers stayed on DS9, and left when it was over.

[mechaninac]

We could split hairs forever and it still would not change the fact that Enterprise was cancelled due to poor ratings, which translates to reduced advertising revenue, which leads to loss of profit for the network airing the show; it's as simple as that. However many reasons for that lack of viewers, be it the ones you mentioned, the ones I mentioned, all of the above, or something else entirely, audiences have decided that this latest incarnation was one-too-many Star Treks; Paramount saw the writing on the wall and canned it ...end of story.