Root of all the ENT bashing/hating?
- Thread starter Trekwatcher
- Start date
A lot of the bashing (and I agree with Vulcanian - it's really called criticism) of ENT I believe is grounded in truth. Since the beginning, people "bashed"
* there aren't enough ties to TOS
* the plots aren't interesting
* the characters aren't given the love they deserve
I think all of those are fair. And although season 4 covered the first complaint more than adequately (which creates new complaints - like "why was there so much TOS!"), the others were really never addressed.
* there aren't enough ties to TOS
* the plots aren't interesting
* the characters aren't given the love they deserve
I think all of those are fair. And although season 4 covered the first complaint more than adequately (which creates new complaints - like "why was there so much TOS!"), the others were really never addressed.
You assume that a "morality tale" cant be good drama. Almost every episode of TOS was a morality tale and many were good drama. TOS was created to explore the moral problems of humanity, the SF setting was a way around the limits placed on contempory set dramas. It was never about the "Awesome SF Concept" of the episode.
The Planet killer is not essential to the story. Its a MCGugffin. The thing that sets in motion the key situations of the plot: Decker's Madness and Kirk's being off the Enterprise. Both could be achieved any number of ways without there being a Planet Killer. It also provides a threat for our heroes to battle. But again that threat could have been any number of things.
The human sides of the story were Decker dealing with the loss of his crew, his obsession with the thing that killed them (probably cribbed from Moby Dick) and the Enterprise crew dealing with the possible loss of Kirk.
The Rogue Planet is just a setting. Any thing can happem there. All it does in provide a unique place for those things to happen. The episode may have been bad drama and it may have been a bad morality tale, but being a morality tale does not make it bad drama.
i had a nice long post that this stupid board at this morning.
:P
it is a lot that nerys addressed,
things like the supposed doomsday machine(for all we know it was built to mine outer planets of a solar system and went wacky) the giant amobae in immunity syndomre and the space vampire in obsession just acts as objects to set the story in motion.
in each of the above the real story revolved around the characters.
and for that matter i am not to impressed by trying to base an arguement on rouge planet.
sorta like trying to comment on tos and using the children shall lead/
:P
it is a lot that nerys addressed,
things like the supposed doomsday machine(for all we know it was built to mine outer planets of a solar system and went wacky) the giant amobae in immunity syndomre and the space vampire in obsession just acts as objects to set the story in motion.
in each of the above the real story revolved around the characters.
and for that matter i am not to impressed by trying to base an arguement on rouge planet.
sorta like trying to comment on tos and using the children shall lead/
3D Master
Rear Admiral
:sighs:
NO! Take a god damn course in comprehensive reading. The point of the above is not the morality tale, it's the squandering and not using of the setting, on something that could have been done anywhare else.
You're wrong. Very little episodes in TOS were morality tales. It's the later Treks that did morality tale after morality tale. And if you were right about it never being about the awesome SF concept, then you'd still be wrong, because then it SHOULD have been about the SF concept.
And all of those number of things, would have been used in the same way: as the main event of the story that presented human (or should I say, sentient) drama. Not squandered away as a side issue.
Exactly. The Rogue Planet is just a setting, and it should NOT BE JUST a setting. It should be the main event of the story. Whatever sentient drama - or action piece, or whatever - you want to do on a Rogue Planet, the Rogue Planet has to be an intricate part of that story. It wasn't, it was barely even a set piece. It was squandered away.
I've been reading the dvd reviews at dvdverdict.com, and I've come to the conclusion that there are two types of viewers--those who find continuity necessary for their enjoyment of a Star Trek series, and those who don't. I'd watched all of TOS as a kid in reruns in the 70s, and TNG started it's run while I was in graduate school and finished the year I got my advanced degree. I tried watching Voyager and DS9, but they just never caught hold of my imagination (I would have stayed with V for Star Fleet vs. Marquis fun, and DS9's Middle East allegories turned me off). Still, I saw some of both. So it's not like Enterprise was my first Star Trek series--yet I loved it. As for recycled stories--if you've read as much sci fi as I have over the years, the stories of TOS weren't really all that original either. Enterprise has actually leaped over TNG in my lists of favorites--it seems better fleshed out, and I liked the crew interaction better.
Enterprise existed in its own universe for me, and I never thought about whether or not it matched up with the other series while I watched. But most Star Trek fans did, apparently.
To answer the question: I think that lack of continuity was at the heart of it all.
Enterprise existed in its own universe for me, and I never thought about whether or not it matched up with the other series while I watched. But most Star Trek fans did, apparently.
To answer the question: I think that lack of continuity was at the heart of it all.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
gblews said:
Nerys apparently isn't the only one who needs "a god damn course in comprehensive reading", because your statement above appears to make a clear distinction between a "morality tale" and "good drama". Maybe thats not what you meant, but thats what you typed.
:sighs:
Comprehensive reading is being able to discern the most important aspect out of paragraphs and pieces of text. Something you should have been taught in Highschool. You are obviously not capable of doing that. The important aspect that I've constantly been hammering on - is the squandered SF concept. THAT is the important aspect, not a few side issues that have come up as well.
I've scored quite high in every reading comprehension test I've taken. So it's probably not my problem. You might want to take a course or two in civility though.
Pretty sure I'm right. They all had very strong moral statements, just as Gene Roddenberry intended. Some were quite heavy handed like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" others less to like "A Private Little War". To be blunt any one who missed the morals and morality of TOS is being willfully or woefully ignorant of every thing TOS stood for and against. Star Trel was about the human condition and how even aliens are "human". At the core of every TOS episode are the characters and the situations not the SF Concept of the week.
The "main event" is Decker taking over the Enterprise to hunt his "White Whale" even if it mean sacrificing Kirk. That is the crux of the drama, not the Cornicopia of Doom.
Not it should be what ever the writers need it to be. It provided some mood and atmosphere for the story. it got our heroes where they needed to be for the story to be told. Thats all a good setting needs to be. The story is about the people not travelog or science documentary on where it takes place.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Maybe you want to go take it again.
Gene Roddenberry intended no such thing in TOS, he intended it with TNG, but not TOS. And a good human core does not equal morality tales - it equals good drama. Like I've said multiple times over.
The main event is a doomsday machine about to lay waste to the countless living beings after already having done so to Decker's crew, and Decker obsessed with taking out that doomsday machine.
Not the two little pips on the top of the doomsday machine that turn out to be old people sent to a retirement home, that happens to be built upon the doomsday machine. The episode entitled "The Doomsday Machine", oh, shocker, "the doomsday machine" is actually the main subject!
In the episode titled "Rogue Planet" the rogue planet was barely featured, and some alien that is being hunted is the thingy, an alien that could have been anywhere else. "Rogue Planet", is actually about those two pips on the hull of the Doomsday Machine being old people getting to their retirement home.
That makes them bad writers if they need a Rogue Planet just so they can have the story be about the two pips on the hull of the Doomsday Machine that turn out to be old people getting to their retirement home. When you write a story, an episode, with something as compelling as a Rogue Planet/Doomsday Machine, and you actually entitle the episodethat, you better well make sure the Rogue Planet/Doomsday Machine is the main subject of the episode; not just the transportation for the two pips on top of it.
They did NOT need to be there. Those two pips on the hull of the Doomsday Machine could have been on a planet someplace else getting to their retirement home. You do not waste a Doomsday Machine on nothing but the transportation method for old folks going to a retirement home.
My god, here with the incapable of reading again. Maybe you should try rereading the last paragraph I wrote of my former post again - after the new comprehensive reading - a hell, just reading. Let me repeat it to you capitalized so you hopefully grasp the point: A ROGUE PLANET SHOULD NOT BE JUST A SETTING!
No need to. How about you learning some civilty?
Here are some quotes from the Making of Star Trek (published in 1968):"
Roddenberry was determined tp breakthrough television's censorship barrier and do tales about important and meaningful things. He was certain that televisions audience was not the collection of nitwits that networks believed it to be. By using science fiction yarns on far-off planets, he was certain he could disquise the fact he was actually talking about politics, sex, economics, the stupidity of war and half a hundred other vital subjects prohibited on television.
From Genes Star Trek Outline:
Star Trek keeps all of Science Fictions variety and excitement, but still stays with in the mass audience fram of mind...
By avoiding "way-out" fantasy and cerebral science theorem and instead concentrates on problem and peril met by our very human and very identifiable continuing characters.
Fully on third of the most succesful of all Science Fiction is in this "practical" catagory. Tales of exotic "methane atmosphere worlds with six headed mosnters" are rare among Science Fiction classics. The best and most popular feature highly dramatic variations on recognizable things and themes .
A lot of things equal good drama. Star Trek used many of them. Stories with a solid moral, compelling characters, well written dialog and interesting situations. A morality tale can equal good drama as I've said multiple times over. Its your dismisal of this that I find objectional and your refusal to see that TOS was full of "morality tales" and those were more common the "Awesome Science Fiction Concept. .
Thats your take. In my opinion the main event is focused on Decker and his actions on his ship and later on the Enterprise.
No idea what you're prattling on about in that first sentence. Attempting to be clever, but failing is my guess. No the episode is not about the "Doomsday Machine." Its about Decker. Hell it could have been called "Obsession". Then you probably think "Moby Dick" is about the whale.
It describes the setting for the story. Not all that unusual when naming a story.
They very well might be bad writers. But they thought that setting their story on a rogue planet was interesting. They are under no obligation to make the story about the planet rather than about the people our heroes find there.
Nope but the rogue planet is what brought into contact withthe aliens using it as a hunting ground. NO rogue planet, no meeting with the aliens. No story. It serves as a catalyst for the story as well as the setting.
Read it the first time. No need to capitalize. Understood your point. My reaction is still: Why not? So they used it as a the setting for a Hunting story. Big deal. It's not like they were ever going to use it for some special "lets explore the wonderful world of a Rogue Planet" episode. It would have just been used for the setting for some other "morality tale" anyway. It's that I lack comprehension of your point, but rather the history of Star Trek, starting with TOS, shows that "Awesome SF Concepts" have always taken a back seat to "morality tales."
Then there's the fact you're a dick.
I saw a show on TV recently about the auction of Star Trek props.
Nichelle Nichols was interviewed for it and she said one day she went to Gene Rodenberry and said something like "I know what you're doing here, Gene. You're telling morality tales." (She said morality tales, or stories, or plays, or something like that.)
Gene's response was to put a finger to his lips and say
"Shh!, Don't tell anybody."
Nichelle Nichols was interviewed for it and she said one day she went to Gene Rodenberry and said something like "I know what you're doing here, Gene. You're telling morality tales." (She said morality tales, or stories, or plays, or something like that.)
Gene's response was to put a finger to his lips and say
"Shh!, Don't tell anybody."
3D Master, if someone disagrees with you, that doesn't make it OK for you to cast aspersions on that person's intelligence. You have a warning for trolling.
Nerys Myk, you've earned a warning for flaming for this comment.
Comments on the above warnings should be made via PM.
People are going to disagree with your opinions. It would be an extraordinary event to find every single person you encounter agrees completely with your opinion on a particular topic. We all have different ideas and approach things in a different way. IDIC.
You can debate with someone who holds a wildly different opinion to your own without resorting to petty snipes and insults. Many people do it here everyday. I would really like to see us move forward in this thread and be courteous and respectful to our fellow posters, even if we do disagree.
number6
Vice Admiral
I tend to take Nichols comments with a bag of salt. Her Martin Luther King story changes everytime she tells it. The Making of Star Trek written at the end of season two. A third season was still up in the air. Any comments about Star Trek using sci-fi as a setting for morality tales would be au current with how GR saw the show at that time and would certainly prove the claims made about it. GR's own words in that book would certainly disprove most of 3D's assertions.
Similar threads
