David, glad to see your face here again, and that you've braved the "interactive process" of Trek fandom. Let me just say that most of us really do appreciate the opportunity to have a dialog with someone in the loop, especially someone who obviously has a sense of humor along with a fearless demeanor (who else would beard the lion in its den, especially after the poor welcome you received on your first visit?).
I think you'll find on closer inspection that most people didn't 'hate' PC, but then most didn't 'love' it, either. The 'grade' threads seem to indicate a pretty even distribution, with only a small percentage of votes at either end of the scale and the greatest percentage squarely at "C," or average. Needless to say, "average" isn't really the place that most of us are accustomed to seeing Star Trek, except for these last two series. The reason we're here on this board, and particularly this forum, is because we constantly hope for "above average" entertainment from Star Trek, and many of us who berate the series still tune in in the hopes we'll see that; many of us also end up disappointed yet again, and grousing here on the ENT forum. Some of us actually try to be constructive in our grousing, as well, always hoping that someone like yourself, either anonymously or bravely identified, will stop in and see what the reactions were, and maybe even clandestinely pick the brains of the assembled throng.
I, too, saw the post that identified the writer as a "12 year old," and while I certainly wouldn't accuse you of such, I have to agree that the storyline of PC was as predictable and derivative as what one might see from a bright 6th grader. It just didn't attempt to do anything unique, and especially nothing that took advantage of the unique opportunities of ENT's premise (not that most of the episodes thus far have, from anyone). As many have noted, not only were elements of it very familiar from episodes like "The Perfect Mate" from TNG, but those that were could have been Xeroxed from those episodes' scripts! "Kamala"="Kaitaama" (sp?), "Krios"="Krios", stasis=stasis, spots=spots (not that I expect the makeup designers to know all the minutiae of the episodes of Trek, but when so many things were identical or nearly so, it's either an odd coincidence, or it means that someone thought just enough of that episode to make it intentional, but failed to do anything worthwhile in the story with the connection). Like so much "continuity" between ENT and the other series, it was name-dropping (and now spot-dropping), without a good narrative reason for using that race. I can't say that I like the idea of ENT being a never-ending "Behind the Scenes of Star Trek," but if that's what it's going to be, then it ought to do something significant with it, to add to the legacy rather than merely parroting it; the stories should mean something in and of themselves, and not just be clever "pre-introductions" of everything they think we're either familiar with, or somehow married to in a fanboy fashion. That's the sort of "12-yr-old" storytelling we're concerned about (and in this case, it could also refer to the fact that the stories being rehashed are roughly 12 years old, as well
).
You may have seen the clever "Spot the cliché" thread, so I won't repeat all of them, but PC really was topheavy with them, and that's another problem with it, and the series. "Clever" is taking the clichés and turning them on their heads, introducing an unexpected or diametrically opposite element to them (check out last week's Firefly episode; it did that with about half a dozen clichés, and very well); ENT simply cuts and pastes them from The Online Reference for Clichés without ever changing them.
When we did see something unexpected, it was because it seemingly ran out of someone's a- ... hat and landed there. The interrogation scene, while cute (I suppose) and apparently a favorite of many of those who saw the show, had nothing to do with the series at all. There was no set up in the episode, and there is no precedent anywhere in the series for Archer and T'Pol to conspire in such a fashion in order to get information. It just ... happened, and worst of all, it delivered no payoff; Goon #2 (I didn't even bother to remember their names, I'm afraid) simply quaked a bit, and the next thing we know, Archer is quipping about Trip's state of dishabille. The "good cop-bad cop" routine is one of the oldest ones in fiction, so if it's going to get used, someone had better have both a darn good reason to (which they really didn't), and they better have some way of making it fresh (which they really didn't). And why did it require T'Pol? Since apparently Goon #2 wasn't familiar with Vulcans (or he'd never have bought their little play), what effect would it have had who he used? Phlox could have been a much more effective threat to him; his delivery is often tinged with a dangerous edge, even of the most innocuous subjects, and he certainly seems to have the sort of humor that would both delight in the chance, but also could really frighten someone with a combination of his tone and that smile
. Like so many others, this was a missed opportunity in ENT, one that could have separated it from the average fluff (but it still would have required better integration than we got; that is to say, "None!").
I agree with you that Connor did a pretty good job; he usually does, given the chance. Bakula and Blalock were as wooden and uninteresting as always, though, and Scott's barely-restrained mirth, fairly evident onscreen, didn't help sell that interrogation, either. ENT has some very good actors, particularly the supporting cast; it's unfortunate that they aren't given much that is worth their talents, and it's a shame that the two least impressive ones are the leads of the series. At this point, the actors are the only things saving this show (unfortunately, TPTB seem to think that it's what's on the outside of them that's doing the saving, rather than tapping into what's inside them; of course, we yet again saw Trip with his clothes half off, and even managed to get our guest star into a reasonable facsimile of the Victoria's Secret catalog). The characters are for the most part wildly inconsistent, so they may be interesting on an episode-by-episode basis, but it never adds up to anything; each new story creates nearly-new characters who just happen to look and sound very much like the ones who were there the previous week. The stories need to depend upon the characters, rather than vice-versa.
I'm glad you're hanging out here, and I certainly don't envy you your job. I realize there are all sorts of constraints and expectations in a position such as yours, and that ultimately you have to answer to TPTB, but it would be great to see something happen at the top where a decision is reached to try to make ENT stand out as quality, intelligent entertainment, and to take risks and try new things, along with viewing the franchise's history as something important, to be embraced, not looted, and not ignored or rewritten whenever it gets inconvenient for someone's pet story. With that kind of mindset, folks like you would be allowed and encouraged to spread your wings, to challenge the audience and not just deliver the same old things over and over and over ... What the writers need to be able to do is inspire 12-yr-olds, not be compared to them.
------------------
"The reader will suspend disbelief -- he won't suspend common sense." -- David Gerrold - Worlds of Wonder (How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy)
Endeavour - An Enterprise Relaunch - in the Fan Fiction forum and also at the Subspace Relay BBS
[This message has been edited by Ptrope (edited December 12, 2002).]
I think you'll find on closer inspection that most people didn't 'hate' PC, but then most didn't 'love' it, either. The 'grade' threads seem to indicate a pretty even distribution, with only a small percentage of votes at either end of the scale and the greatest percentage squarely at "C," or average. Needless to say, "average" isn't really the place that most of us are accustomed to seeing Star Trek, except for these last two series. The reason we're here on this board, and particularly this forum, is because we constantly hope for "above average" entertainment from Star Trek, and many of us who berate the series still tune in in the hopes we'll see that; many of us also end up disappointed yet again, and grousing here on the ENT forum. Some of us actually try to be constructive in our grousing, as well, always hoping that someone like yourself, either anonymously or bravely identified, will stop in and see what the reactions were, and maybe even clandestinely pick the brains of the assembled throng.
I, too, saw the post that identified the writer as a "12 year old," and while I certainly wouldn't accuse you of such, I have to agree that the storyline of PC was as predictable and derivative as what one might see from a bright 6th grader. It just didn't attempt to do anything unique, and especially nothing that took advantage of the unique opportunities of ENT's premise (not that most of the episodes thus far have, from anyone). As many have noted, not only were elements of it very familiar from episodes like "The Perfect Mate" from TNG, but those that were could have been Xeroxed from those episodes' scripts! "Kamala"="Kaitaama" (sp?), "Krios"="Krios", stasis=stasis, spots=spots (not that I expect the makeup designers to know all the minutiae of the episodes of Trek, but when so many things were identical or nearly so, it's either an odd coincidence, or it means that someone thought just enough of that episode to make it intentional, but failed to do anything worthwhile in the story with the connection). Like so much "continuity" between ENT and the other series, it was name-dropping (and now spot-dropping), without a good narrative reason for using that race. I can't say that I like the idea of ENT being a never-ending "Behind the Scenes of Star Trek," but if that's what it's going to be, then it ought to do something significant with it, to add to the legacy rather than merely parroting it; the stories should mean something in and of themselves, and not just be clever "pre-introductions" of everything they think we're either familiar with, or somehow married to in a fanboy fashion. That's the sort of "12-yr-old" storytelling we're concerned about (and in this case, it could also refer to the fact that the stories being rehashed are roughly 12 years old, as well
You may have seen the clever "Spot the cliché" thread, so I won't repeat all of them, but PC really was topheavy with them, and that's another problem with it, and the series. "Clever" is taking the clichés and turning them on their heads, introducing an unexpected or diametrically opposite element to them (check out last week's Firefly episode; it did that with about half a dozen clichés, and very well); ENT simply cuts and pastes them from The Online Reference for Clichés without ever changing them.
When we did see something unexpected, it was because it seemingly ran out of someone's a- ... hat and landed there. The interrogation scene, while cute (I suppose) and apparently a favorite of many of those who saw the show, had nothing to do with the series at all. There was no set up in the episode, and there is no precedent anywhere in the series for Archer and T'Pol to conspire in such a fashion in order to get information. It just ... happened, and worst of all, it delivered no payoff; Goon #2 (I didn't even bother to remember their names, I'm afraid) simply quaked a bit, and the next thing we know, Archer is quipping about Trip's state of dishabille. The "good cop-bad cop" routine is one of the oldest ones in fiction, so if it's going to get used, someone had better have both a darn good reason to (which they really didn't), and they better have some way of making it fresh (which they really didn't). And why did it require T'Pol? Since apparently Goon #2 wasn't familiar with Vulcans (or he'd never have bought their little play), what effect would it have had who he used? Phlox could have been a much more effective threat to him; his delivery is often tinged with a dangerous edge, even of the most innocuous subjects, and he certainly seems to have the sort of humor that would both delight in the chance, but also could really frighten someone with a combination of his tone and that smile
I agree with you that Connor did a pretty good job; he usually does, given the chance. Bakula and Blalock were as wooden and uninteresting as always, though, and Scott's barely-restrained mirth, fairly evident onscreen, didn't help sell that interrogation, either. ENT has some very good actors, particularly the supporting cast; it's unfortunate that they aren't given much that is worth their talents, and it's a shame that the two least impressive ones are the leads of the series. At this point, the actors are the only things saving this show (unfortunately, TPTB seem to think that it's what's on the outside of them that's doing the saving, rather than tapping into what's inside them; of course, we yet again saw Trip with his clothes half off, and even managed to get our guest star into a reasonable facsimile of the Victoria's Secret catalog). The characters are for the most part wildly inconsistent, so they may be interesting on an episode-by-episode basis, but it never adds up to anything; each new story creates nearly-new characters who just happen to look and sound very much like the ones who were there the previous week. The stories need to depend upon the characters, rather than vice-versa.
I'm glad you're hanging out here, and I certainly don't envy you your job. I realize there are all sorts of constraints and expectations in a position such as yours, and that ultimately you have to answer to TPTB, but it would be great to see something happen at the top where a decision is reached to try to make ENT stand out as quality, intelligent entertainment, and to take risks and try new things, along with viewing the franchise's history as something important, to be embraced, not looted, and not ignored or rewritten whenever it gets inconvenient for someone's pet story. With that kind of mindset, folks like you would be allowed and encouraged to spread your wings, to challenge the audience and not just deliver the same old things over and over and over ... What the writers need to be able to do is inspire 12-yr-olds, not be compared to them.
------------------
"The reader will suspend disbelief -- he won't suspend common sense." -- David Gerrold - Worlds of Wonder (How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy)
Endeavour - An Enterprise Relaunch - in the Fan Fiction forum and also at the Subspace Relay BBS
[This message has been edited by Ptrope (edited December 12, 2002).]
