Star Trek:EXCELSIOR ....a lost series?
- Thread starter Galileo7
- Start date
I think you are onto something here about my wanting a STAR TREK:EXCELSIOR television series , because besides Star Trek, SPACE:1999 is my favorite too.
One was a waste of film and the other would have been a waste of digital storage.
Most rants about Berman are tiresome and ignorant, but McDowell had a very specific issue with Paramount and the producers.
Expo67
Captain
I think you are onto something here about my wanting a STAR TREK:EXCELSIOR television series , because besides Star Trek, SPACE:1999 is my favorite too.
One was a waste of film and the other would have been a waste of digital storage.
Most rants about Berman are tiresome and ignorant, but McDowell had a very specific issue with Paramount and the producers.
Malcolm McDowell had a justifiable issue with Paramount, and it is one that I can understand and sympathize with. Let alone relate to. It has something to do with 'keeping ones word', and the fact that McDowell was going to be attending a funeral for his friend and mentor the late Lindsay Anderson(who directed McDowell in the 1968 anti-establishment film 'If'....).
The case being, when Malcolm McDowell was doing the PR rounds for Star Trek-Generations(a film that was not all that hot), Anderson had passed away, and McDowell told the PTB at Paramount that he couldn't continue the promotional junkets. He had to go to England to pay his respects. The suits, and obviously Berman, offered to have McDowell flown to England on Paramount's tab, if he finished his PR tour in New York, by being a guest on Good Morning America. For some foolish reason or another, Paramount went back on their word. As a result, McDowell told Berman and the Paramount executives that he would not finish the Press Junket tour because of that. He did not appear on Good Morning America, and proceeded to his friend's funeral.
Frankly, I don't blame McDowell for doing that. I would have done the same thing. When a person gives their word, they should keep it. And if a person can't, then they cannot be trusted.
A man's word is his bond.
Loosely translated: a person who breaks his word is as low as the animal he, or she, truly is. It shows their true colors in a very bad way.
Expo67
Captain
I think you are onto something here about my wanting a STAR TREK:EXCELSIOR television series , because besides Star Trek, SPACE:1999 is my favorite too.
One was a waste of film and the other would have been a waste of digital storage.
QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Space:1999 had better production values and special effects than some sci-fi shows. The people who worked on 2001: A Space Odyssey also worked with Gerry Anderson's production crew on the 1975-1977 series. And what they pulled off for the small screen in the series was spectacular.
I would hardly qualify that as a waste of film.
Star Trek: Excelsior a waste of digital storage? Not really.
Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise. Definately a waste of digital storage.
The same can be said for South Park.
What does South Park have to do with anything other than taking a jab at Dennis?
Expo67
Captain
South Park is an animated program that is not only offensive in its content, but it is also crude in its sense of humor.
Particularly crude and offensive is the character of Cartman, Hartman, or whatever his name is. Especially when he dressed up as Adolf Hitler and gave one of the other main characters a hard time, just because he was of the Jewish faith.
Not only is it offensive, but it is also very crude, offensive, sophomoric, inept, fatous, inane, distasteful, and just downright dispicable.
And that, is why this mediocre cartoon is a waste of both film and digital storage space.
Particularly crude and offensive is the character of Cartman, Hartman, or whatever his name is. Especially when he dressed up as Adolf Hitler and gave one of the other main characters a hard time, just because he was of the Jewish faith.
Not only is it offensive, but it is also very crude, offensive, sophomoric, inept, fatous, inane, distasteful, and just downright dispicable.
And that, is why this mediocre cartoon is a waste of both film and digital storage space.
Which is a value judgment, but you didn't answer the question. What does South Park have to do with this particular debate?
Expo67
Captain
Which is a value judgment, but you didn't answer the question. What does South Park have to do with this particular debate?
I believe I did answer the question. Obviously, it is not an answer that is found to be satisfactory in your point of view.
Last edited:
IIRC, UPN was never entirely sold on the TOS prequel idea, so they wanted something that could tie ENT with the post-TOS shows. B&B came up with the TCW, but it wasn't something they truly ever planned out and ultimately ditched at the first opportunity, IMO.
But networks having a list of things they want to see isn't something unique to ENT. It's actually standard procedure.
After the first TOS pilot was rejected, NBC gave Gene Roddenberry a list of things they wanted to see for the second pilot--more action, and the elimination of the female first officer and the weird pointy-eared guy...
And yet they were just fine with leaving "Star Trek" out of the title.
...I don't think I'll ever understand the mind of a television executive.
And they greenlit a TOS prequel 4 years later.
That was Berman's idea, IIRC, and one that eventually reversed.
4 years later the only thing UPN did was cancel ENT. It was Paramount's movie division that wanted to do their own TOS prequel, and they waited until they officially split from CBS (and the dead man walking UPN) a year later to really go after that.JarodRussell said:
For my taste, Enterprise was a good idea for a prequel, but it was ruinned by things out of the canon and cause the missed opportunity in showing, for example, the war with romulus, the gorns and the Tholians. In addition, the series changed what we know about the vulcans (now they are almost enemies?) and the andorians. I must say those Xindi were really annoying too... they came from nowhere and to there they gone when the series finished. I can´t say, of course, that Enterprise don´t have good moments, but I can say that are just a few of them. About Sulu, I believe that Takei wasn´t an actor strong enough to lead the show, but Checov could be. Already saw Bester, from Babylon 5? 
Anyway I believe this discussion won´t lead to anywhere. All that time is over. Let´s see what will come from the franchise in the next years. 
Anyway I believe this discussion won´t lead to anywhere. All that time is over. Let´s see what will come from the franchise in the next years.
Last edited:
That's not the point, though. The point was that they accepted it at all. I mean, try and imagine the conversation going something like this:
BERMAN: So, are you good with this idea of a Star Trek prequel set in the 22nd Century?
EXECUTIVE: Hmm, it sounds okay, but we don't really like the idea of you completely cutting ties with the fourteen years of programming that you've already done. Can you add in some weird time-travelly thing to tie this prequel series into the rest of Star Trek? We feel it's very very important.
BERMAN: Um, okay, we can come up with something. And what do you think of us leaving "Star Trek" out of the series' title?
EXECUTIVE: Oh, sure, no problem.
See what I mean?
LOL, a totally made up conversation is supposed to back up your point? Who says that they didn't discuss this for weeks?
Actually, it is the point. The studio brought ENT back under the "Star Trek" banner as soon as they could.
No they didn't, the show wasn't renamed until season 3. Plus I agree with the reasoning for leaving Star Trek out of the title.
Yes, they did. They renamed the show as soon as they felt something had to be done (if only a change of marketing) to help it in the ratings department, which was a couple of episodes into the third season.
Wait, uh, err, are you guys disagreeing or agreeing?
