BERMAN WAS RIGHT

[RobertScorpio]

Okay..back off with you're knifes and spears, and what ever weapons you may have. I know the title of this thread may have caused your head to explode, but hear me out...

I believe Berman was right about one aspect of Trek. The further Trek is set in the future, the more 'unrealistc' it becomes.

The beauty of TOS, and Enterprise for the matter, was that they are not really that far ahead of us in terms of time. Regular people (meaning, potential new fans) could almost put their hands around it. The people on TOS, and early parts of Enterprise, were more like us.

By the time you get to TNG, the ships and people are starting to become less tangible. ENT-D was pretty much cruise ship in space. And new show placed further in the future, 25th-26th or beyond centuries, would continue going down the wrong path, IMO.

Enterprise had a GREAT concept. That crew should have been raw for the length of the series. Toward the end they should have been 'getting' it. Watching mankind's first footsteps into an unfriendly universe, via a star ship. was a great idea.

Where they went wrong, I believe, was 'educating' them too fast. By the end of the fourth season you could have inter-changed Trip with Obrien, Malcom with Tasha Yar, and they would have fittted right in by a couple days...Meaning, after a few episodes, ENTERPRISE lost that innocence. They were 'just another' Star Trek crew, just closer to us in time...

I would even try it again. I even have an idea how my 'raw' trek would go..and most of you probably won't like it because it would take Trek's continuity and...well...nuke it.

Look for it in a later post...

 

[nx1701g]

Shouldn't this be in Enterprise or General Trek?

 

[Good Will Riker]

RobertScorpio said:
Enterprise had a GREAT concept. That crew should have been raw for the length of the series. Toward the end they should have been 'getting' it. Watching mankind's first footsteps into an unfriendly universe, via a star ship. was a great idea.

Where they went wrong, I believe, was 'educating' them too fast. By the end of the fourth season you could have inter-changed Trip with Obrien, Malcom with Tasha Yar, and they would have fittted right in by a couple days...Meaning, after a few episodes, ENTERPRISE lost that innocence. They were 'just another' Star Trek crew, just closer to us in time...

Where they went wrong is in putting Rick Berman and Brannon Braga in charge of coming up with original concepts for Star Trek.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I must disagree. The concept was a good one. The ratings for the pilot were very good. The mistake was letting them control that concept with their tired story telling formula...Manny Cota proved that

 

[Good Will Riker]

^^^

Same difference, because bottomline is that they should not have been in control of Series V of Star Trek.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Let's see what his idea is first.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The characters on DS9 were the most accessible and interesting. So that blows your thesis out of the water right away.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Umm, The ratings for DS9 went down year to year. It is my favorite show, but facts are facts. So I think my theory still holds

 

[BalokINACTIVE]

Good Will Riker said:
Where they went wrong is in putting Rick Berman and Brannon Braga in charge of coming up with original concepts for Star Trek.

I too think the concepts weren't the problem. I think all three shows Berman co-created were solid ideas for Trek series, the failure was in the execution.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

RobertScorpio said:
I believe Berman was right about one aspect of Trek. The further Trek is set in the future, the more 'unrealistc' it becomes.

That is most certainly true - because when they go further into "the future" they don't go further into our possible future - they just build on to the established "Trek" future.

There's no set period of time when TOS itself had to take place - they could have called it a century from now or six centuries from now.

 

[Tomalak]

Starship Polaris said:

There's no set period of time when TOS itself had to take place - they could have called it a century from now or six centuries from now.

As indeed, they did! It's variously set two hundred, three hundred and even eight hundred years in the future. It doesn't matter.

 

[Broccoli]

Tomalak said:

Starship Polaris said:

There's no set period of time when TOS itself had to take place - they could have called it a century from now or six centuries from now.

As indeed, they did! It's variously set two hundred, three hundred and even eight hundred years in the future. It doesn't matter.

Unless you talk to "can(+n)on fanatics".

 

[Jack Bauer]

Broccoli said:

Tomalak said:

Starship Polaris said:

There's no set period of time when TOS itself had to take place - they could have called it a century from now or six centuries from now.

As indeed, they did! It's variously set two hundred, three hundred and even eight hundred years in the future. It doesn't matter.

Unless you talk to "can(+n)on fanatics".

I'd love to see them explain away the above discrepancies.

 

[James Bond]

Jack Bauer said:

Broccoli said:

Tomalak said:

Starship Polaris said:

There's no set period of time when TOS itself had to take place - they could have called it a century from now or six centuries from now.

As indeed, they did! It's variously set two hundred, three hundred and even eight hundred years in the future. It doesn't matter.

Unless you talk to "can(+n)on fanatics".

I'd love to see them explain away the above discrepancies.

They'd probably change the subject to Romulan cloaks in Enterprise or the Borg appearance, followed by "They raped my childhood!!!1!"

 

[Saul]

Jack Bauer said:

Broccoli said:

Tomalak said:

Starship Polaris said:

There's no set period of time when TOS itself had to take place - they could have called it a century from now or six centuries from now.

As indeed, they did! It's variously set two hundred, three hundred and even eight hundred years in the future. It doesn't matter.

Unless you talk to "can(+n)on fanatics".

I'd love to see them explain away the above discrepancies.

Oh really, well then this is right down your street.
http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Chronology-History-Future/dp/0671536109

 

[diankra]

I'd agree with the OP that the Enterprise concept of a ship closer to our reality was a strong one, But I'd argue that they undermine that concept right from day one.
There's little half-and-half compromises like calling the guns phase pistols, but the biggest one was using the transporter in Broken Bow. Far more interesting to have had it as a new piece of equipment which the crew don't trust, and refuse to use themselves however dire the circumstances. Then you could have had this 'loaded gun' of the audience knowing that it will, one day, be in general use, but for the moment wondering week after week if this will be the episode where the situation's so dire Archer says 'We've got to risk using that thing ourselves.'

 

[Son_of_Soong]

I thought TNG was just as good as TOS... until Roddenberry passed away anyway, then someone else took over its been a different type of show ever since.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Roddenberry was only in charge for TNG's first two seasons which I and many other fans consider to be the worst of TNG.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

They were different thats for sure. Less action and more... more something else anyway. I still like the whole series.

 

[Guy Gardener]

What's all this bunk about "technology"? I though Star Trek was a Human adventure?