Top Ten Reasons I Hate Enterprise

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Enterprise' started by where'sSaavik?, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. where'sSaavik?

    where'sSaavik? Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2000
    Location:
    Springfield, Just Another State, USA
    It's come to my attention that there may be some confusion out there as to my feelings about the show. So, just for the record, ENT is a crappy television show. Why? Here's my Top Ten List:

    10. It Makes Me Feel Guilty Watching Smallville.
    This Year with WB moving "Smallville" opposite ENT it's not much of a contest for me. "Smallville" is much more consistant and entertaining. I'll catch ENT on its Saturday re-run, if at all. And it makes me feel guilty. Not about my Mod duties, but because over the years I've gotten so much enjoyment out of Trek. Particularly the TOS films and TNG series. I feel like I owe the franchize something. Consciously, I understand that it's the other way around and tptb owe me something for expecting me to be loyal. But there's still an irrational part of my heart that will feel guilty on Wednesday nights when I'm actually enjoying what I'm watching rather than sitting through ENT.

    9. The Premise.
    BOTF (Birth of the Federation) was the Series V concept I lobbied hardest against. Hell, a Starfleet Academy series about a bunch of 90210 rejects sounds more interesting than this. We know that the Fed will be formed. We know that the Vulcans will ally with the humans and become logical and not as paranoid of mind melds. We know all this. There's no real suspense to anything that happens. The Temporal Cold War was inserted methinks to cast some doubt as to the outcome of the series because it supposedly raises the possibility that history won't turn out the way we've learned it. But it's not a real possibility. I'm not saying that it's not theoretically possible to set ENT on an alternate timeline from the rest of the Trek Continuity Universe, I'm just saying that Berman and Braga lack the balls to actually do that. And so they try to have they play-it-safe BOTF cake and eat it too. :mad: Why did we get a BOTF series? Because tptb were under the mistaken impression that by setting the show in this era they could recapture the magic of TOS. TOS's magic had to do with chemistry and daring writing and a truly ground breaking fun spirit. Things that tptb have time and time again demonstrated no talent at recreating. It's not about the time setting boys, it's about your crappy writing.

    8. The fact that after they picked this crappy premise, they refuse to even exploit it.
    WTF is up with that? We have a perfect opportunity to do the kind of morally ambiguous political episodes that DS9 was great at. Looking at the workings of the Vulcan gov't and the Earth gov't and the Andorians and how they relate to each other and how the Fed will eventually be formed. But that's not what we're getting. We're getting planet-of-the-week episodes that have nothing to do with the BOTF concept. Almost all of them, you can change the names, and do it in a TNG setting. :mad: What's the point? And season 3 with the pre-occupation with the Xindi looks no better. But more on that later.

    7. Listening to Berman and Braga Bullshit.
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!! I swear I'm going to start tearing my hair out if I have to listen to them try to spin the disaster that is this show into something positive. It's not that they're idiots, because I know these are smart guys. It's not that they're untalented because back during TNG Braga had some great writing credits and Berman did a terrific job behind the scenes. But obviously, they're not capable of recapturing their former glory. I don't know if its the Paramount suits, or that they're just tired, or if Brannon just can't get his mind off of Jeri's body (not that I can blame him), but whatever it is the work is suffering. It's been suffering since the dawn of the VOY era and it's only been getting worse. Listening to them try to cover up their lack of ideas by saying they're going to sex up the series is just so frustrating. And the whole "spasms of exctasy" comment will haunt Braga for years to come.

    6. The poor acting.
    What happened to Scott Bakula? I had real hope when he was named to the cast. With a few notable exceptions he's mostly dialed it in. His take on Archer is simplistic and two dimensional. Granted, he's not given much to work with, and maybe this is the best anyone can do with it. But still. As for Blalock, I just don't like her character or the choices she makes. She's a pretty face. But she's annoying as all hell and I've yet to really feel like actually rooting for her character in two whole years. For one of the principle heroes of the series that's not a good sign. Not all the actors are bad, Park and Keating and Billingsly have been diamonds in the rough. But they're criminally underused.

    5. The Obsessions with Cheap Stunts and Sex.
    And this relates to my B&B ranting, but if there was actually a worthy product under there, then we wouldn't need to sex anything up with pointless and gratiutous decon scenes. And ridiculous stunt episodes like meeting the Ferengi or the Borg, but more on them later.

    4. The Lack of Good Character Development.
    Season 3 might turn it around with the expected darkening of Archer and Trip's characters and the possible romance between Trip and T'Pol. But I've had my hopes up before. And I will wait to be convinced. Thus far we know very little more about our characters and what makes them tick than we did at the beginning of the series. The stories are not character driven by and large, I mean how many hostage/escape-from-prison episodes can you do? And Hoshi and Mayweather still feel like occasional contributors.

    3. The Overall Lack of Originality.
    The BOTF concept itself evidences B&B's inability to truly come up with an original idea of their own. But once they committed to doing a pre-TOS series, they still wanted to pull in the Borg and the Ferengi and all that 24th Century crap. Now you can make good arguments for and against whether showing these species was technically a continuity violation. For me it's beside the point, because once we're there we've already lost the battle. If B&B need these cheap excuses for ideas in order to make their show float, why put it in the 22nd Century in the first place? And why insult our intellignec by putting those shows out there? Yeah, it's nice they can demonstrate how clever they are by writing around continuity errors, but what I want to see is originality, not the continuous recycling of ideas. I got more than enough ferengi in DS9 and more than enough borg in VOY. Why the hell did we need more? Are there no other stories to tell? And if not, why are we even here?

    2. The Death of the Franchise.
    This becomes more and more of a possibility with the same lack of luster in the film series that's being exhibited in the tv show. As costs rise for ENT production (sallary and other expenses necessarily goes up as the years pass) the likelihood of cancellation grow higher. Once Paramount has got its magic 100 episodes (in year 4 or 5) when the sydnication comes into play, I will not be surprised if ENT gets the ax. The ratings are awful. The critical response is worse. If ENT goes out before finishing 7 years it'll be perceived as going out with a wimper. The Trek films can't go on with TNG and there's no other feasible vehicle. And I doubt Paramount will want to invest the money in a series VI unless there's a compelling business reason to expect some success. A business is in business to make money, not lose it. And without a film or television franchise out there, Trek will eventually shrink. Fewer fiction novels. Fewer video games. And eventually the whole market will be in collectables at conventions. I see a very sad day coming. Brought closer and closer by ENT's current course.

    And my #1 Reason for Hating Enterprise:
    The Effect it has on this Forum and the BBS.
    I love the BBS. It's why I'm an Admin. I've made friends here and had a lot of fun. To give back to that is why I agreed to be a Mod and then an Admin. But neither of those volunteer activities are as fun as they used to be. Why? Berman and Braga and their handling of ENT. By assaulting Trek fandom with ENT they divide us and discourage us and that has a negative impact on all the forums here, and really, all Sci-Fi fans everywhere. And by providing such a crappy product, they force us in this forum to go over and over their piece of crap. There's lots of smart people in this forum. Lots of people of good character. But you can't make a Filet Minot out of rotting beef chuck. No matter how smart and dedicated our members are, ENT is simply not capable of inspiring (on a consistent basis) the type of interesting and compelling and fun discussion that our members deserve. It's like letting a bunch of Shakespeare scholars loose on Roger Coreman movies. For a while they can stretch and have good discussions, but after awhile the material simply won't support intelligent discussion. And so we're left with a forum divided, a public disgruntled, and a bad situation for everybody. And there's nothing we can do about it.

    :(
     
    SolarisOne likes this.
  2. guyute03

    guyute03 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Okie Dokey. Thanks for sharing!
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Man, if this isn't a flame and bait topic, I don't know what is.
     
  4. Dorian Thompson

    Dorian Thompson Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    You wanted a Starfleet Academy 90210 series instead of a prequel? :confused: Oh joy, half of the cadets could be Wesley Crushers and the others could be a mix of the Dawson's Creek and Smallville teens. That doesn't sound at all appealing. A prequel was the best idea. The journey is what should be compelling and exciting. Starfleet Academy? Noooooo.......I will never lay eyes on a Starfleet academy series. Never. :mad:

    Are you in a bad mood because that guy was whining in MA that you're a gusher, WS? :( I know you don't like ENT much, but to say that you'd rather watch that insipid Clark and the so perky and pretty that she makes Mary Poppins seem like a bitch Lana.....shudder shudder Lex, maybe, but Lana??? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Bummer. One less person watching my show.
     
  6. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    This is something that I quite like about "Enterprise": whether it succeeds or fails, it brings the devolution of Trek since 1993 to an end.

    The truth is that DS9 and "Voyager" marginalized Trek -- neither were good enough to hold onto their audiences, the Trek audience shrank year after year despite "course corrections" introduced into both, and both were thus abandoned by Viacom as viable futures for the Franchise by the middle of their respective production runs -- there won't be new "Voyager" or DS9 movies or tv shows because the studio is glad to be quit of both of them. A small core of dedicated Trek fans hung onto both shows until their ends, but that was it.

    Frankly, I was glad to see the end of that somnabulent 24th century continuity and the dated, stultifying creative cul-de-sac into which it manuevered "Star Trek" .

    The thing is, if "Enterprise" succeeds that whole 24th century edifice is dead as a doornail. Future Trek productions by new producers and writers (I don't see Berman going on beyond "Enterprise") will be based on the 22nd century continuity and characters introduced by "Enterprise". The tiresome legacy of "Voyager" and DS9 will be kaput.

    That doesn't seem very likely, this year. ;)

    So, let's say it fails -- well, all that where'sSaavik says about studio perceptions is true. The old "Star Trek" -- the one that deteriorated into DS9 and "Voyager" -- will be dead forever. I don't doubt that Viacom will then resurrect Trek in some form but it's an iron-clad certainty that no new creative people who are willing to take a shot at reviving a property which is then perceived as having failed will do it by going back and treating the minutae of its previous incarnation as holy writ. Quite the contrary -- they'll slice and dice the thing with some abandon. They'll cherry-pick what they consider to be the good parts, in order to create something fresh that all the people who tired of "Star Trek" after TNG might be curious enough to take a look at. Again, no love for those pseudo-Treks of the last decade.

    Since TOS is the creative foundation of the Franchise, the post-"Enterprise" revival of Trek -- however long it might take -- will very likely be a "re-imagined" version of TOS, oriented toward more modern aesthetics, storytelling style and mores.

    So, from my POV it's a win-win for "Star Trek". My favored resolution, of course, is for "Enterprise" to succeed because I like it...but if it fails, Trek's still better off for it.
     
  7. Lady Conqueror

    Lady Conqueror Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    tsk. tsk. tsk. :p There goes all my hard work to convince everyone you're a gusher :p

    *picks up swords*

    Onto the debate:

    10. It Makes Me Feel Guilty Watching Smallville.

    If you're catching it anyway and you don't have a Neilson box then what does it matter? It's basically irrelevant. The fact that you watch it all despite your non-enjoyment probably shows more about your loyalty to the Franchise.

    9. The Premise

    The Premise has a lot of possibility not because we know how it ends (because i agree that we do) but in seeing how we get there. What events led up to what we've come to know. And of course - you're watching Smallville which also has a "we know what's coming" attitude. We've had little to no information on the years preceding the formation of the Federation - a few lines about a war with the Romulans is the most detailed.

    Are their plenty of interesting stories to be told within the framework - Yep, but more on that later.

    8. The fact that after they picked this crappy premise, they refuse to even exploit it.

    Probably the biggest contention on the board and the one most will agree with. But they have utilized some of the elements they will need for later. The Behaviour of the Vulcans, the Vulcan/Andorian conflict. Even Archer becoming more aware of the need to be showing that humans can step up to the plate and be involved in the community (rather than just proving to the Vulcans that they can be out there).

    they don't dwell on it a hell of a lot - but then a large part of Star Trek, IMO, is in essence "trekking to the stars". Getting bogged down in to many setting up for Future and the whole political side of things can be overkill in that direction as well.

    The trick is to find the balance - they haven't always got it right but they have time (hopefully)

    7. Listening to Berman and Braga Bullshit.

    Agreed - they don't always help themselves with their interviews. OTOH, people tend to dissect their interviews with too critical an eye sometimes. Not every word out of their mouths is deadly serious or should be taken as such.

    6. The poor acting.

    I tend to enjoy both Scott and Jolene's performances. Jolene especially has improved a great deal as time has gone on and I find that she's mastering the showing how she feels without emoting to be very effective. Archer's a bit harder to pin down since I think Scott may have had a slightly different take than the producers had on his character which led to a dichotomy between the writing and the acting. Of course personal one-on-one scenes between Archer and a single other character - be it Trip/T'Pol/Malcolm/Hoshi/Travis/Phlox have all played out wonderfully. But esp. towards the end of the season he and the writers are finding that middle ground between his compassionate off-duty side and the needs for a tougher more in-control Captain.

    5. The Obsessions with Cheap Stunts and Sex.

    This has been blown out of propotion to some degree IMO - Of the 50-odd episodes aired so far, 12 have used some sort of Cheap stunt or sex (and that's being generous). On the other hand B&B tend to talk a lot more about such things than actually doing it.


    4. The Lack of Good Character Development

    I disagree that we know little more of our characters than when the show started and I'd even go so far as to say the plots are more character driven than plot driven - "Minefield" used the plot device of the planet surrounded by mines not to drive a story about how to get out of the minefield, or what the planet was hiding or even introduce the Romulan threat in a big way but as a character study of Malcolm and to a smaller degree Archer. ANIS looked at how Archer handles stress. There are plenty of other examples IMO

    3. The Overall Lack of Originality.

    They've done one Borg episode and one Ferengi episode - that's hardly going overboard in the Cheap stunts department. In fact with the TCW it could have been so much worse. But occasionally throwing these types of episodes out to give the fans of the other series a giggle (in the case of the Ferengi) or perhaps some new way of looking at older eps in other series ( :borg: ) Doesn't always work but it's hardly a sign of creative malaise either.

    As I said above I find the plots much more character-driven than you so the fact that they often decide to do episodes in the same vein as episodes on other series (and not to mention the fact that their are only so many plots in the world - 7 I think - overlap is understandable after such a long time of Trek), means little to me because I'm watching these characters go through it.


    2. The Death of the Franchise.

    This may be inevitable anyway with the Trek series losing viewers fairly consistently from the end of TNG and the fact that the TNG movies failed to capture the spirit of the old show in the same way.

    Even if ENT magically became better in every single person on this forum's eyes and every critic elsewhere too it likely wouldn't lead to a major ratings increase or a new invigoration in the series.

    1. The Effect it has on this Forum and the BBS.

    Well i wasn't around when the ENT forum first started up or even before it was around at all but I've heard the VOY forum was pretty bad at one stage and that all the other shows have had their detractors around when they have begun in a general sense.

    Seems the fanbase has never been a united whole since TNG first started gracing the airwaves.

    That's sad and it's sadder that we can't always discuss things as civily as we should but I think their are plenty of good topics to be discussed in relation to ENT and it's episodes/characters.
     

  8. No need to be terse about your reasoning.
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    No offense, but if watching one TV show makes you guilty about not watching another, well, that's just pretty messed up.

    Oh, and I wound't generalize the population of the TrekBBS, just because you think you know it all by being an Admin.
     
  10. DaveyNY

    DaveyNY Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Location:
    Skin-Neck-Ta-Dee (Schenectady)
    I'm wondering:

    If the Internet had been around back during the time of Classic Trek, would it have been as villified as ENTERPRISE has been lately?

    Can you imagine what the postings would have been like after "Turnabout Intruder" or "SPOCK'S BRAIN" for gosh sakes!?

    Or even what the "Fan-ti-nuity" espousers would have been screaming what with all the "Official" names of STARFLEET (UESPA...etc...); just which century are they in (22nd, 23rd) and how come the shuttlecraft couldn't go get a freezing Sulu & Co., just to name a few!?

    And lastly,
    If Roddenberry had been lambasted as much as Brannon & Braga are, would he even have bothered to continue on?
    If it had been me, I think I would have given up in disgust and gone back to Westerns.

    I give B&B a lot of credit, for all the dislike (& that's putting it mildly) that's directed toward them by a rather vocal group fans, they still manage to put out a quality show (IMHO).

    Even if one doesn't factor in that aspect of the Fandom, it's still amazing that they are able to put out a Trek show at all. With all the restrictions that today's television requirements also put on them, we are lucky to have ANY Star Trek show on the air. Though I know that many would rather see it that way, I'm not one of them.

    I would have to guess that the very high up's at Paramount and Viacom still have rationalized in their heads, that Star Trek will always be profitable in some way, shape or form.
    It's got to be the only reason they keep putting money into it and letting B&B continue. Because they aren't paying attention to what's being said around here and taking it to heart!


    I've kinda always thought of myself as a Neutral fan, neither a "Basher" nor "GUSHER."
    I'm from the old school I guess, willing to take what's given and make the best of it, that seems to now have put me into the "GUSHER" catagory.
    I can live with that.
    Being one of the multitude of fans back in the late sixty's who managed to change TV history just a little, gave me, as well as many others, a great feeling of accomplishment, but I realized a long time ago that my humble opinion is only worth the cost of the electronic media/paper that it's expressed on and todays Powers-That-Be, will never fall for that kind of out-pouring again (case in point "Firefly".)
    Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say here is that to a certain extent, our combined opinions on an electronic BBS are only valuable to ourselves.
    The Powers-That-Be are only going to be looking at how often we open our wallets and purses and whip out that credit card!

    So, one should remember that if one continually throws stones at a thing one loves, trying to dislodge a wart, the odds are that eventually one will to destroy it all!
    It's not always logical, but it's usually the truth.


    :(
     
    SolarisOne likes this.
  11. dex

    dex Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    According to some people, the clashes between TNG lovers and TNG bashers at the beginning of TNG was especially brutal.
     
  12. Ancient One

    Ancient One Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2003
    Location:
    Probably a So. Cal Freeway
    I might stop watching this season but I don't care for Smallville. I noticed in a TV guide that Spike TV (the station formally known as the new TNN) has the Next Generation on at the same time as Enterprise. That is probably where I will be when I get cable TV pretty soon and it seems that Enterprise is no longer watchable (I don't want to see the death throes).
     
  13. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.
    Great post, where'sSaavik?.

    I think your focus in this forum is primarily on your administrative duties, and your true opinions of the show only come across in what seem like frustrated slips of the tongue. I suspect that this has led to the confusion about how you feel about the show.

    You should contribute your ideas more often. No one expects the moderators to be "Enterprise" cheerleaders, and a variety of opinions is infinitely more interesting than a pep rally mentality.
     
  14. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.
    You were doing fine, Dennis, until this part. ;)

    I think Viacom's best bet at this point is maximizing any future syndication value that "Enterprise" might have, and then forgetting that the show ever existed.

    I can't see anyone basing any future project on "Enterprise," its "continuity," or its "characters." There's precious little there to work with, and the audience just isn't there to support any extension of the mess.

    In a similar vein, can we expect that all future Galactica projects will be based on Galactica 1980? ;)
     
  15. firehawk12

    firehawk12 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    EXILE + ATTON = GUUUUUUSH!!!! (pic by aimo)
    Wow, these are most of the reasons why I don't like Enterprise. :)

    It also fails to exploit it's premise of "everything is unknown to us". Hoshi's function is pretty much pointless, nothing breaks down, etc. If space flight was this easy, we'd be on Pluto by now.
     
  16. Revdkathy

    Revdkathy No PPE was wasted in the making of this avatar Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2000
    Location:
    being sad
    I suspect this may be my first post in this forum :o and I must admit to having little credibility in here. I watched season one faithfully, but when season two aired, I was working Monday nights, and had to set the video... and found after the first few weeks that I wasn't 'getting around to' watching Ent. In other words, I didn't care. I've caught the odd ep since, if I was in, but somewhere along the way I lost interest.

    Have to say that I think wS?'s reasons are pretty well what I have felt myself. Especially about Bakula in the first season - he was so damned good in other things.

    The other thing is the wasted opportunity. Stroll around the lit forum or even the fanfic forum, and you'll find people writing this Trek universe in just about every century and from every angle. BOTF was just about the worst possible option.

    I hope wS? is wrong about the total death of the franchise. I console myself that old TV shows never die, as long as we have reruns. And also that sequels, prequels and remakes are the order of the day. What I rather hope is that Ent goes out with enough of a whimper to persuade the suits to give the whole Trek thing a rest... a long rest. Long enough to B and B to have moved on to other things. And then hopefully new people with fresh ideas will come in and mine the Trek universe for something to create.

    As for Ent - it's AU. It always was AU. Those vulcans are not Spock and Sarek's forbears... and you won't convince me otherwise! It could be really, really good AU. For me, it isn't. Not at the moment. :(
     
  17. firehawk12

    firehawk12 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    EXILE + ATTON = GUUUUUUSH!!!! (pic by aimo)
    ^^^ I lost interest after the first season as well. I even taped over my first season episodes. It's the first time I've just stopped watching... and I sat through Voyager twice. :eek:
     
  18. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Well, now, Sam, you have to read that in context. I wrote that if "Enterprise" were successful that would have been -- perhaps may still be, as unlikely as that appears -- the result. It wasn't offered as a prediction of what will happen if the current trend continues.

    Right now, it's clearly more likely that option "B" is what will happen -- a reboot of "Star Trek" from the beginning, discarding everything that the new creative heads consider problematic dramatically and conceptually.

    A few years ago, trying to recreate "Trek" as some variation on its strongest performing series, TNG, might have seemed reasonable. "Insurrection" made that less likely and "Nemesis" drove the last nail into it.


    Anyone who thinks that new people will look at a property that has declined for the last ten of seventeen years on television (counting from 1987) and conclude that the answer to saving it is to be "truer" to the continuity and details of the thing is just counting the trees.

    Frankly, I'm pretty happy about this despite my frustration with the poor ratings performance of "Enterprise" -- this is a choice that had to be made, and the sooner the better -- I never want to see another Trek like DS9/Voy.

    Your "Galactica 1980" analogy is a useful one -- I think we can expect that all future "Star Trek" productions will be based on past "Star Trek" productions in pretty much the same fashion that the upcoming SciFi Channel version of "Battlestar Galactica" is based on the 1978 original. ;)
     
  19. reno floyd

    reno floyd Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Location:
    They'll never keep me down.
    I think you're reaching Dennis, by quite a long way. It's more likely this is a troll at Ent haters, but leaving that to one side...

    Trek V was said to be the nail in the coffin of Trek yet TNG was out at the same time.

    There's nothing to stop a total reinvention of Trek from happening set a hundred or even 200 years after TNG. So long as it is a true reinvention with all new tech etc.

    Why anyone would want to reinvent the wheel the way you suggest is beyond me. Strikes me as an absurd waste of time and ultimately more trouble than it's worth.
     
  20. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Of course you do, but the examples you can give to counter it are little more than wishful thinking. No one at Paramount considered Trek V to be the "nail in the coffin" of Trek because they were making money hand-over-fist on TNG (then finishing up its lackluster but very profitable second year). It was considered just about the last hurrah for the creatively exhausted TOS-based movies, and coming up with sufficient financing to make "Star Trek VI" to take advantage of the 25th anniversary cross-promotion opportunity was a near thing; that film was a rush-job that had its budget cut substantially in preproduction.

    Except that there's no virtue to that, either -- it simply distances the product further from the few core trademarks and recognizable components of the property that may still have value. Still, I'm not saying that it couldn't happen -- it would enable the new producers and writers to throw away and effectively ignore everything that was done on the last several series as easily as anything else.

    I'm surprised by that, considering your supposed familiarity with the business -- remakes and "re-imaginings" and minings of old pop-culture product are a ridiculously common practice (it's not at all difficult to understand -- partly because "perfect pitch" consists in a lot of people's minds of sitting down at the meeting and saying "Tom Cruise, 'Mission Impossible'" or "Will Smith, 'Wild Wild West'" because what they're selling is the deal with the star and they don't have to explain the vehicle).

    Still, you may be right about this, too -- Viacom may choose the low-risk, low-investment path of exploiting the property through animated offerings, "special editions" of existing product and so forth instead of creating any new Trek series or films; live-action "Star Trek" may be done with altogether for decades. Given that either way it has put a definite end to more 24th century tedium, I'm fine with that. :)