Posted by blockaderunner:
You are letting your bias and and your rage cloud your judgement towards this series. And you are so wrong on several accounts regarding those other shows. For one thing, Ron Moore did not create Carnivale. David Knauff did. And he didn't "bail" on it because of the show's quality (which is miles above ENT). He had to leave to work on BSG which is the best example of hard sci-fi on television since B5. Your ignorance towards those shows is astounding. IDIC shouldn't end with Trek. Just by your hatred towards those other shows, you show how much you and so many other Trek fans only pay lip sevice to IDIC and just whip it out to feel superior. But this isn't about fan mentality. This is about your lemming like devotion to a sad franchise. Tell me, would you even give a damn if ENT wasn't Trek? There are great sci fi and fantasy shows out there. Trek has done little to compete with it, and now is paying the ultimate price. Take off the rubber Vulcan ears, and the dilithim tinted blinders and experience that great SFF with and open (remember IDIC) mind. You might surprise yourself.
I find it interesting myself that if one likd
Enterprise it's because of a 'lemming-like devotion'. From what I recall Ron Moore was one of the creators of Carnivale; but the opening episode didn't grab me - sue me.
As for BSG2004 being 'hard' Sci Fi, please. It's still as 'fanciful' as Trek ever was. Televeision has never produced 'hard' Sci Fi; and the closest film has ever come to it was
2001 - A Space Oddessey.
Perhaps if you widened your own viewing range, you'd come to realize that BSG2004 is doing nothing (and I've only seen ther mini and first four episodes) that hasn't been DNE to DEATH in films like
The Bridges at Toko Ri;
Strategic Air Command; or hell,
Top Gun to name a few. The series is couched with a Science Fiction backdrop and context, but it'scertainly not 'grounbreaking' or 'original'; unless you never happened to catch either
Space Above and Beyond or the film
Alens.
As for
Babylon 5 - personally I'll take Peter Jackson's tranlation of
Lord of the Rings over JMS attempt to translate it to a science fiction contyext. Also, if you consider
B5 'hard' Sci Fi, I think you need to read a little motre actual literary science fiction. There's more required of hard Sci Fi than to make sure the CGI models obey the laws of physics, which JMS thought was one of the shows 'crowning achievements'. In fact, if there was anyone who had Trek envey, it was JMS. Hell, if you want to see how
Crusade ould have turned out, go rent the Japanese Anime series
Space Cruiser Yamato (aka
Starblazers) which is what JMS ripped off (right down to the Excalibar's 'Wave Motion Gun' like main weapon, with the exact same issue - that it drains all power for a minute...)
In fact, that's what gets me - ENT is considered 'unoriginal' yet, when the current 'hot alternative' (be it B5 or BSG2004) is called on the same issue, with examples, the sudden defense is: "You're not intelligent to grap the 'deeper meaning' of it; and if you were you'd understand what he's going for".
When and if BSG2004 ever manages to do sonmething either 'groundbreaking' or 'original', I'll be there congratulate Ron Moore along with the rest of the BSG2004 gushers; but at this point, I'm calling a spade a spade. It's a decent and entertaining show, which id why I watch it. But it's crtainly NOTHING NEW to TV science fiction, unless all tyou've watched over the last 39 years IS Star Trek.
The honest fact about me is that I never cared abiout 'Star Trek' philosophy; so droppin the 'IDIC' in as something I should 'aspire' to being a Star Trek fan is a bad assumption. I really like TOS best because I grew to like the characters, the general setting, and the grist of the stories (some more than others). It's the same with me for ENT. I LIKE the charactyers (yes, god forbid, I think the character interactions and chemestry on ENT was god and reminiscient of what I liked on TOS). And I liked the stories for the most part and what the characters did in them. I found it entertaining and fun to watch. I wasn't looking for any 'deep philosophical' meaning from Trek, just a good, fun, enjoyabl time.
In fact, I'm sick of fans (like yoiurself) coming here with the attitude that 'I'm smarter thn your average viewer because I've found the deeper meaning that <Insert current sci fi demigod p0roducer here> is going for. The reasonn more people don't watch the show is because subtext is too complex for them to grasp, and they don't want to think about it."
One of the things I hate about Science Fiction fandon is the need to find 'deeper meaning'. Hell, if you talk to a writer about some 'deeper subtext' you picked up, and how that changed your life; the response will often be "Really, nice that you were able to read all that into the scene, but in all honesty, I was on deadline and hopped up on caffine for the coffee and I needed three more lines and those are what worked for me at the time."
So, in the end Sorry that I'm not allowed to dislike shows you find 'meaningful and deep'. You of course are far superior in taste and knowledge when it comes to 'hard' science ficttion because you KNOW
Enterprise was terrible and unoriginal; and anyone who fails to share this view and further fails to enjoy 'true and meaningful science fiction' MUST be just a stupid, ignorant lemming.
