Are NuTrek fans more likely to like Enterprise?
- Thread starter eyeresist
- Start date
I love Phlox.
IrishNero
Commodore
True. I was an ENT fan, but no more so than any of the other series. The other series laid some pretty rotten eggs too. I think that if you weren't an ENT fan, you're going to focus on the shows that weren't as spectacular, but I think anyone could have appreciated shows like 'Shuttlepod 1' or 'Cogenitor.' But you know, if someone hated the series enough, they're not going to be interested in the characters and they're not going to enjoy the show, no matter how well-written.
Last edited:
M
marlboro
Guest
I thought Enterprise was ok. I don't really care for any of the movies after The Undiscovered Country; they just seem shallow popcorn flicks. I saw ST 2009 and I would class it with Transformers, Twilight, or any of the countless comic book movies that have been released in the last decade.
I can definitely see what the OP is talking about. Enterprise fell back on action sequences instead of interesting plots far too often.
Which is a long, snobby, way of my saying that I like Enterprise, but don't care for NuTrek.
I can definitely see what the OP is talking about. Enterprise fell back on action sequences instead of interesting plots far too often.
Which is a long, snobby, way of my saying that I like Enterprise, but don't care for NuTrek.
IrishNero
Commodore
That doesn't sound snobby. If anything, I think your assessment is pretty spot-on. I like nuTrek for what it is, but what it isn't is a cerebral event. -Not to say that Trek films and shows before it always were. It's just tailored to today's audience, which has the attention span of a gnat.
I don't have the attention span of a gnat and enjoy the new films just fine. People keep trying to spark an "us vs. them" war, when these movies are just as "thought provoking" as what came before. Probably more so, as Star Trek Into Darkness openly criticizes the actions of the United States in executing criminals without trials and drone warfare.
No insult specifically tailored to you, Sir! That comment meant for today's general audience, which largely prefers a faster pace . Us trekkies/trekkers are more willing to wait for good moments.
I actually enjoy the faster pace, to be honest. The films are exciting to watch. I like the fact that they don't linger and draw out scenes.
One of the things I disliked about the Berman years was the fact that many episodes were tediously slow, even with the A/B plot structure. For many episodes, forty-five minutes seemed like an eternity.
I shouldn't have to wait for good moments when watching entertainment. I should be entertained throughout.
With the Blu-ray, you can pause it and enjoy it in all its 1080p glory. For however long you need it!
Except First Contact has NOT been "erased", so the rest of your premise does not hold.
Still amazed at the amount of people that can't wrap their heads around this concept.
Not really seeing the relevance. Unless you're going for the tired old "but ur dvds havint ben ersad!!1" line. If so, then yes I'm clear on that, thanks. Hence "from continuity".
Not sure what the issue is here. The whole point of the reboot movies was to ditch the excess baggage of continuity and make Star Trek accessible to normal people. Are we now claiming that they didn't do that?
No. And the obtuseness of your position isn't helpful.
The new films are doing nothing different from the episode Parallels from TNG, with two exceptions. One, "prime" Spock, unlike "prime" Worf, makes no attempt to "return home" (largely, I suspect, because he has no mechanism with which to do so--unlike Worf, though, if memory serves, was helped from "home"). Two, the camera (our perspective) stays in the parallel universe rather than returning to the "prime" one--which continues on its merry path, unfolding as you remember it. The events of First Contact still happen--we're simply being carried down a separate path by the camera, so going forward from the new movies, we won't see the exact same events. That does NOT constitute "erased from continuity" any more than NYC no longer exists because I choose to drive from Montreal to Florida along a road that does not bring me in sight of NYC.
IrishNero
Commodore
There is no reason to assume that, because the events of Abrams' new timeline happened, they necessarily eradicate or heavily influence the old timeline post-Kirk. To use an old analogy, if I go back in time and shoot your father before you were born or when you were 3, then I probably have either negated your existence or profoundly changed who you will become. However, If I go back in time to when you were six and simply hand you a pack of gum, it's not likely that I have provided enough impetus for a major change. There is really no way of knowing if the actions of Kirk within the new timeline would necessarily change the Federation or keep Picard from becoming Captain, for example. Some things may happen either way. -Unless you're a strong proponent of the butterfly effect, of course.
Then again, Picard's grandmother could have been on the Farragut before ever marrying into the family and died during the Vulcan rescue mission.
Nah, the Picards are a bunch of farmers. A Picard hasn't left LaBarre since the founding of the Martian Colonies.
I like the new movies. Enterprise, not so much.
IrishNero
Commodore
Nah, the Picards are a bunch of farmers. A Picard hasn't left LaBarre since the founding of the Martian Colonies.
With Q, everything go'n bee ahree!