RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,147
Posts: 5,343,568
Members: 24,591
Currently online: 602
Newest member: Ryq

TrekToday headlines

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

Giacchino Tour Arrives In North America
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

IDW Publishing October Star Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16

Cho As Romantic Lead
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Enterprise

Enterprise The final frontier has a new beginning in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 2 2013, 04:29 AM   #16
Dale Sams
Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

Tosk wrote: View Post
I don't get why "fanwank" is supposed to be bad. Isn't it their job to entertain us? And don't we sometimes hate it when they make it "not just for the fans, but for everyone"? So why hate it when they make it with us specifically in mind?
It certainly doesn't have to be. I consider Geoff Johns the greatest fanwank writer ever, Jim Shooter in second.
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2 2013, 04:37 AM   #17
Dale Sams
Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

teacake wrote: View Post
Yeah I like the idea of it being peripheral. As I said Kahless would have ruined the forehead arc which was excellent. And I do feel Surak blighted the Vulcan arc (that tosser).

My favorite ENT ep is a huge fanwank I think because it reads like something out of florid fanfic, E2.

Is there an actual definition to the term? Usually I love being catered to and taken individually the Season 4 arcs are all great stuff. It's that they are all in one season that raises it to suspiciously fanwanky levels
My def of fanwank has been "Taking a conversation you might had when you were 14 and running with it"

EX: "Man if Molecule Man fought the Avengers that would be epic!!"

"No it wouldn't. He'd ROFLstomp the Avengers. Everything is made out of molecules. He'd dissolve Mjolenir, Iron Man's armor, Caps shield...hell, you can throw in the Silver Surfer too. He'd dissolve his surfboard, then drop a giant boot on them. The fight would last 10 seconds"

Now this doesn't mean fanwank is a bad thing at all. But I prefer it done by experts.
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2 2013, 04:58 AM   #18
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

Dale Sams wrote: View Post
My def of fanwank has been "Taking a conversation you might had when you were 14 and running with it"
You're describing my posting style perfectly.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 2 2013, 10:42 AM   #19
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
SonicRanger wrote: View Post
Season 4 was too much too late, and it became the TOS-tie-in show rather than the show's original premise. It felt like a gimmick, and that's why so many people consider it "fanwank" rather than "continuity." Other episodes, like Daedalus, even blatantly ignored ENT continuity and illustrate that the show basically became TNG-lite, just like VOY did.
How did "Daedalus" ignore ENT continuity?
The Enterprise is sent to the distant "The Barrens" where there are no stars for 100 light years. It turns out, well before the first Warp-5 ship, the Ericksons knew of this distant area and travelled there to do transporter tests. Then some plain ol' ship comes and picks them up at the end.

Remember back in "Broken Bow" and then "First Flight" when it was clear that the Warp 5 engine was a hundred times faster than was possible with the previous generation of warp engines, which were limited by the Warp 2 barrier? That the Enterprise could do in days or weeks what previously took years and years? How Travis said that they'd be doing runs that took his family's ship years to do? That Warp 5 engines would put other ships out of business?

Did the Ericksons take a ship that took years to get to the Barrens? Will that ship that picks them up take years to get back?

The NX-01 is supposed to be the fastest vessel by far. Now the Barrens are just a hop, skip, and jump for every Tom, Dick, and Harry starship. And if it is really so close, why send the super-fast NX-01?

In Season 5, the NX-01 just hung around the neighbourhood like any ol' ship, just like the E-D did after the first season or two of TNG. There was virtually nothing about this episode that couldn't have turned into a TNG episode simply by changing the charter's names.
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek
SonicRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2 2013, 11:42 AM   #20
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

Ah, okay. Yeah, that doesn't quite fit.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2 2013, 11:47 PM   #21
BruntFCA
Commander
 
BruntFCA's Avatar
 
Location: A Mile High
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

SonicRanger wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
SonicRanger wrote: View Post
Season 4 was too much too late, and it became the TOS-tie-in show rather than the show's original premise. It felt like a gimmick, and that's why so many people consider it "fanwank" rather than "continuity." Other episodes, like Daedalus, even blatantly ignored ENT continuity and illustrate that the show basically became TNG-lite, just like VOY did.
How did "Daedalus" ignore ENT continuity?
The Enterprise is sent to the distant "The Barrens" where there are no stars for 100 light years. It turns out, well before the first Warp-5 ship, the Ericksons knew of this distant area and travelled there to do transporter tests. Then some plain ol' ship comes and picks them up at the end.

Remember back in "Broken Bow" and then "First Flight" when it was clear that the Warp 5 engine was a hundred times faster than was possible with the previous generation of warp engines, which were limited by the Warp 2 barrier? That the Enterprise could do in days or weeks what previously took years and years? How Travis said that they'd be doing runs that took his family's ship years to do? That Warp 5 engines would put other ships out of business?

Did the Ericksons take a ship that took years to get to the Barrens? Will that ship that picks them up take years to get back?

The NX-01 is supposed to be the fastest vessel by far. Now the Barrens are just a hop, skip, and jump for every Tom, Dick, and Harry starship. And if it is really so close, why send the super-fast NX-01?

In Season 5, the NX-01 just hung around the neighbourhood like any ol' ship, just like the E-D did after the first season or two of TNG. There was virtually nothing about this episode that couldn't have turned into a TNG episode simply by changing the charter's names.
They got a ride with the Vulcans.
__________________
"Well, I come from a long, long line of smartasses. Smartass is allergic to dumbass. It’s actually a physical allergy, as in you’re repulsed by dumbasses."
Josh Homme
BruntFCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2013, 04:31 AM   #22
FFunctionalData
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

I liked season 4.

I don't know if they wanked me though.
FFunctionalData is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2013, 08:38 AM   #23
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

BruntFCA wrote: View Post
SonicRanger wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post

How did "Daedalus" ignore ENT continuity?
The Enterprise is sent to the distant "The Barrens" where there are no stars for 100 light years. It turns out, well before the first Warp-5 ship, the Ericksons knew of this distant area and travelled there to do transporter tests. Then some plain ol' ship comes and picks them up at the end.

Remember back in "Broken Bow" and then "First Flight" when it was clear that the Warp 5 engine was a hundred times faster than was possible with the previous generation of warp engines, which were limited by the Warp 2 barrier? That the Enterprise could do in days or weeks what previously took years and years? How Travis said that they'd be doing runs that took his family's ship years to do? That Warp 5 engines would put other ships out of business?

Did the Ericksons take a ship that took years to get to the Barrens? Will that ship that picks them up take years to get back?

The NX-01 is supposed to be the fastest vessel by far. Now the Barrens are just a hop, skip, and jump for every Tom, Dick, and Harry starship. And if it is really so close, why send the super-fast NX-01?

In Season 5, the NX-01 just hung around the neighbourhood like any ol' ship, just like the E-D did after the first season or two of TNG. There was virtually nothing about this episode that couldn't have turned into a TNG episode simply by changing the charter's names.
They got a ride with the Vulcans.
Does helping humans to invent light-year-range transporters sound like something the Vulcans would do?

At the end of the episode, the Sarajevo isn't a known Vulcan design, and Archer says that it "will be returning Emory and Danica to Earth." Are they ready for a years-long trip?
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek

Last edited by SonicRanger; January 3 2013 at 08:57 AM.
SonicRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2013, 10:36 PM   #24
gblews
Rear Admiral
 
gblews's Avatar
 
Location: So. Cal.
View gblews's Twitter Profile
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

Ent writers were assailed by fans when they dared present any navigational routes, alien races, tech, (omg!) time and distances between star systems and planets, etc that had never been seen or at least hinted at in TOS. Ent was supposed to be a prequal after all.

Then when the writers gave us origins and references to stuff we had seen in TOS, they were assailed by other fans for presenting "fanwank" or "continuity porn".

As fans, we didn't, and still don't know what the hell it is we want. J.J. Abrams has my undying respect (and gratitude) for being willing to step into this quagmire.
__________________
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!
gblews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2013, 07:18 AM   #25
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

^

Bryan Singer and Matthew Vaughn wrote:
They want a good story with interesting characters, sharp dialogue, and a real sense of danger and discovery!
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2013, 03:06 PM   #26
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

^Works for me. Or how about this quote from SG-1

"Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 12:18 AM   #27
gblews
Rear Admiral
 
gblews's Avatar
 
Location: So. Cal.
View gblews's Twitter Profile
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

Gaith wrote: View Post
^

Bryan Singer and Matthew Vaughn wrote:
They want a good story with interesting characters, sharp dialogue, and a real sense of danger and discovery!
MacLeod wrote: View Post
^Works for me. Or how about this quote from SG-1

"Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."
Yeah, that's what Trek fans say they want too -- generally followed by a very large "BUT..... step one inch outside of "canon" and we don't care how interesting the characters, sharp the dialogue, and real the sense of danger, we're gonna hate it".
__________________
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!
gblews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 12:13 PM   #28
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

I've gone into every bit of new Trek with a will to love it.

And you know it's like being handed your smushed up goo covered baby.. I'VE LOVED IT WITH ALL MY HEART. I've a will to love it. If I ever don't love it it might be time to die.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 8 2013, 10:15 PM   #29
Sindatur
Rear Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

teacake wrote: View Post
I've gone into every bit of new Trek with a will to love it.

And you know it's like being handed your smushed up goo covered baby.. I'VE LOVED IT WITH ALL MY HEART. I've a will to love it. If I ever don't love it it might be time to die.
Yea, it took me years and distance, but, my recent rewatch of Voyager and Enterprise, was much more enjoyable then watching of it in first run, when I hd my preconceived notions. TNG, I saw most (if not all) of it in first run, and my recent rewatch wasn't quite as enjoyable (though there were some episodes I did really enjoy).

Speaking of Babies, looks like Katherine finally remembered the Borg Baby, eh
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2013, 02:07 PM   #30
Anna Yolei
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Season 4: Just how much of it can be called Fanwank?

SonicRanger wrote: View Post
Season 4 was too much too late, and it became the TOS-tie-in show rather than the show's original premise. It felt like a gimmick, and that's why so many people consider it "fanwank" rather than "continuity." Other episodes, like Daedalus, even blatantly ignored ENT continuity and illustrate that the show basically became TNG-lite, just like VOY did.
I admit that I grokked this the first time around. Compared to the first season that gave us the most unlikable protagonist I would ever see until I watched Secret Life of the American Teenage and season two which gave up episodes about T'Pol's Ponn Farr and motherfuckin' Porthos, then hell yeah season four's an improvement. Coto and company also started to not completely ignore Mayweather and Sato, so kudos for that.

But after a second viewing? Meh. It was one of Trek's most consistently decent seasons, but there wasn't a single break-out episode in the bunch.

This analogy I got from another site pretty much says it best:

Season Four was like a football team behind 0-56 going into the 4th Quarter, the team getting their ass kicked then scores three touchdowns after all their fans have left the stadium anyway and not even the refs and coaches are watching anymore.
Anna Yolei is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.