Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

[USS Intrepid]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Even if the theft was true, and that's a mighty big if, there's no evidence whatsoever that there is any correlation between the timing of any such alleged theft and the decline in ratings of DS9. Its decline in ratings has been discussed elsewhere in TrekBBS, for example in the thread of this post. The decline appears indicative and entirely typical of a trend that encompasses DS9, VOY, and ENT together.

It's also little more than speculation. Indeed, a number of the supposed 'thefts' appeared on DS9 long before Babylon 5.

Besides, enjoyment is a purely subjective thing. I can't stand anything B5 after the first 2 seasons. Then again, I also don't expend pointless energy complaining about it. I simply choose not to watch and leave those who do enjoy it to do so.

[Potemkin_Prod]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

The decline appears indicative and entirely typical of a trend that encompasses DS9, VOY, and ENT together.

And to an extent true of B5, yes? Did its ratings not decline over its run as well? I think that's true of most modern TV series.

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

A Captain Sulu show would have been no more successful than any other random crew on a random ship. The core fans are not the people that need to be watching week in, week out. It's Joe and Jane Public, who are unlikely to be any more interested interested in a show about Sulu than they are about anything else.

I suspect it would've been a "what other Classic Trek actor will be the guess star this week?" sort of thing with Shatner and Nimoy making appearances during sweeps.

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

Could a show about Sulu have worked? Sure, but it's no more or less likely to be successful than any other concept.

Honestly, I'm not sure George could have carried the series. His acting at times is just not very good.

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

The new movie was successful because it catered to non fans and casual viewers. It's no more complex than that.

It was successful simply because it was entertaining, something that ENT and VOY rarely were.

[Captain Robert April]

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

The new movie was successful because it catered to non fans and casual viewers. It's no more complex than that.

In other words, they played to the general public's preconceptions of what Star Trek was all about, so not a lot of foreknowledge was necessary.

If anything, actually knowing something about Star Trek was likely to be more of a detriment than a help.

[Barbreader]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

In other words, they played to the general public's preconceptions of what Star Trek was all about, so not a lot of foreknowledge was necessary.

If anything, actually knowing something about Star Trek was likely to be more of a detriment than a help.

I disagree with this analysis. Star Wars was more financially successful and has more followers. This remade Star Trek as Star Wars.

[scifib5st]

Joseph Cambell said that Star Wars was about the "Journey of the Hero"

Roddenberry said Star Trek was about the commom man and woman.

Looking back at the Greek Fables, Aesop's Fables, and Thurber's Fables I see the value of story telling.

The last Star Trek film had to tell a lot of stories to tell to get the ball rolling again. So many they did not finish a few, (like why Cadet Kirk changed the programimg on the "Kobayashi Maru Test" the no win scenario and defending not giving up).

Less lens flair, more story.

Check out the play or movie, 12 Angry Men. Conflict, Cammer angles, counting raised hands. Special effects, one thunder storm.

[middyseafort]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

In other words, they played to the general public's preconceptions of what Star Trek was all about, so not a lot of foreknowledge was necessary.

If anything, actually knowing something about Star Trek was likely to be more of a detriment than a help.

Abrams and his team focused mainly on the aspects of Star Trek (the original) that were always there — i.e. fun, adventurous and colorful — and focused less on the pretentious sophistry.

In other words, Abrams chose to focus his interpretation of Trek on NBC's demand for "action, adventure or else."

While Abrams may have been a Trek novice, he certainly surrounded himself with people who loved the series, particularly his two screenwriters.

The movie also made the characters once again into people like they were in the first season and not the heroic types they became in the later seasons and into the majority of the TOS movies.

scifib5st wrote:

---

Joseph Cambell said that Star Wars was about the "Journey of the Hero"

Roddenberry said Star Trek was about the commom man and woman.

Perhaps in the early first season of TOS, but that quickly faded in the latter seasons when the characters became heroic tropes. By TNG, the characters were far less the common man and "more evolved" humans with no interpersonal conflicts what so ever.

The common man seemed to be shoved out the airlock in favor of Roddenberry's notion of perfected humanism, which bled away any sense of conflict and internal character struggle in Trek.

The last Star Trek film had to tell a lot of stories to tell to get the ball rolling again. So many they did not finish a few, (like why Cadet Kirk changed the programimg on the "Kobayashi Maru Test" the no win scenario and defending not giving up).

Kirk disagreed with the test fundamentally and sought to prove his point by cheating. That was made clear by Kirk's flippant attitude during the test and in the wonderfully scripted Academy board hearing on his "changing the conditions of the test so it was possible to rescue the ship.'

[lennier1]

middyseafort wrote:

---

Perhaps in the early first season of TOS, but that quickly faded in the latter seasons when the characters became heroic tropes. By TNG, the characters were far less the common man and "more evolved" humans with no interpersonal conflicts what so ever.

The common man seemed to be shoved out the airlock in favor of Roddenberry's notion of perfected humanism, which bled away any sense of conflict and internal character struggle in Trek.

And by the late 90's they sacrificed pretty much the last of that, upping the ratings with the "space battle of the week" instead, sprinkled with some stuff from the soap opera rejects box.

[USS Intrepid]

Potemkin_Prod wrote:

---

It was successful simply because it was entertaining, something that ENT and VOY rarely were.

That's a completely subjective opinion though. Personally I found enjoyment in all three. Of course, I don't consider my personal tastes to be the final word on what is or isn't entertaining. Neither are ratings for that matter. Or box office. They may be an indication of financial success, but neither can be held up as an accurate marker of entertainment. Plenty of bad movies and TV shows have done well. Plenty of good ones have sunk without a trace.

For whatever reasons, people like what they like. Some movies and shows are successful. Some aren't.

The original point I was making, however, was that the movie was successful because it didn't tie itself down in wave after wave of fan service. And yes, it was entertaining, which certainly didn't hurt.

I'll still take First Contact over it any day. But again, that's a completely personal preference.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Voyager's published ratings were comparable to those available for DS9, and since the syndication GAA ratings were calculated differently than those for UPN and the WB it's reasonable to assume that Voyager did as well as DS9 throughout the portions of their runs which overlapped. Personally I found Enterprise a good deal more entertaining and a bit less creatively inbred than most of the rest of what followed TNG.

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

If anything, actually knowing something about Star Trek was likely to be more of a detriment than a help.

Only if one is really anal and narrowminded about what "knowing something" means. I liked the film and I know as about Star Trek and TOS in particular as any of the people I've read complaining about the Abrams film and more than most of them.

[Captain Robert April]

middyseafort wrote:

---

The movie also made the characters once again into people like they were in the first season and not the heroic types they became in the later seasons and into the majority of the TOS movies.

Y'see, it's statements like this that make me wonder just what in the hell you've been watching to come to this conclusion. Pine's Kirk bears no resemblance whatsoever to Shatner's Kirk, regardless of which season or movie, but especially in the first season. The same applies to every other character in varying degrees.

[middyseafort]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

Y'see, it's statements like this that make me wonder just what in the hell you've been watching to come to this conclusion. Pine's Kirk bears no resemblance whatsoever to Shatner's Kirk, regardless of which season or movie, but especially in the first season. The same applies to every other character in varying degrees.

The same show you've been watching but without the rose-colored-Roddenberry lenses you wear. Nor do I treat canon as dogma or let it dictate what can be considered an "entertaining story."

You're right ... Pine's Kirk doesn't resemble Shatner's Kirk in the first season. But that's not the point I was making. The point I was making was that the characters were written as people, not generic heroes who could do no wrong. People who make mistakes, have bad judgments, get angry and sometimes use arrogance to mask self-doubt. Just like how they were treated by the writers in the first season.

Wait, come to think of it, Pine's Kirk does resemble Shatner's first-season Kirk. Both have an underlying self-doubt that is masked by bravado and both use women as a means to an end.

In "Conscience of the King," Kirk uses Lenore to get to Kodos. In the Abrams movie, Kirk uses Gaila to "cheat" on the Kobayashi Maru test (and, yes, I know it was cut, but the point remains).

In "Balance of Terror," we get a sense of the self-doubt that tortures Kirk underneath his sterling captain's image. Same again in "The Enemy Within."

In the new movie, Kirk scoffs at Pike's offer to join Starfleet and the context clues of the scene — i.e. Pine's acting — suggests that this Jim Kirk is also filled with self-doubt. Then later in the movie, Uhura tells Kirk, "I hope you know what you're doing." And Kirk responds, "So do I."

It's subtle but it's there, carried by the actor.

QED

[Therin of Andor]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

Y'see, it's statements like this that make me wonder just what in the hell you've been watching to come to this conclusion.

Right back atcha!

Amazingly, I don't recall too many ST novel readers complaining about the novel tie-ins' approaches to brash young Jimmy Kirk. Diane Carey's Young Kirk novels inspired the 2009 movie team when they wrote the script. Even Shatner's own novels, when doing flashback scenes, show us a pre-Academy Kirk who is sullen, smart-mouthed and hiding his self-doubt. If Shatner doesn't know Young Kirk, who does?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

middyseafort wrote:

---

Abrams and his team focused mainly on the aspects of Star Trek (the original) that were always there — i.e. fun, adventurous and colorful — and focused less on the pretentious sophistry...
.
.
.
The movie also made the characters once again into people like they were in the first season and not the heroic types they became in the later seasons and into the majority of the TOS movies.

Absolutely Right(TM).

I've missed this version of Star Trek for...well, longer than a lot of folks have been watching Trek. Abrams's take on this pleases me no end.

[bob reed]

And this all deals with Exeter how?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Ah, it's all about TOS and recreating TOS.

One aspect of working on Exeter was trying to recreate some aspects of the original series that a lot of us liked but which are not really part of modern Trek to the same extent that they were in TOS.

A show like "The Doomsday Machine' has a "moral" or social message to about the same degree as a "don't shave the cat" episode of He-Man And The Masters Of The Universe - what it really is, though, is an hour of action melodrama built around a guest character portrayed in broad strokes, executed as excellently as anything of the kind that network TV ever presented in the 1960s.