Discussion in 'Star Trek: Enterprise' started by where'sSaavik?, Aug 29, 2003.
Amen. I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment right to silence, and I demand to see my lawyer!!!!!!!
I always seem to have a 'supposed' familiarity when I don't agree with you
I'm all for a re-imagining, don't get me wrong. I actually have no objection to someone else - gasp - playing Kirk.
A re-imagining always happens at a distance. A significant period of time passes from the original before it's re-worked. Usually people's memories have faded a little and they remember the essence of the thing rather than the thing itself.
The trouble with Trek is, it hasn't gone off the air since 1966. Especially not TOS. And although these are spin-offs we're talking about, so much money is tied up in what has already been presented to the public you tamper with that at your peril.
BSG 1980 is a prime example of this. IMO it changed too many things from the original and came out far too close to the original for it to seem plausable to the audience. Seaquest made the same mistake.
If they did this with Trek, I'm pretty sure it would have the same effect. You and I both know - it's all fiction and you shouldn't take it too seriously. But then we're used to re-writes , but for the average viewer it has the effect of making them feel like they're being lied to.
Your idea would work, but I think Trek would have to be off the air 10 years and/or a few more of the old cast passed away before they could get away with it. But Paramount has never been one to take this kind of risk, ENT should tell you that
No, "Enterprise" was/is their attempt to have their cake and eat it too -- it reflects on the one hand a recognition that a break from the last three series is now an absolute necessity, but a conservative unwillingness to move very far from them. Problem is, just moving the series in time and restyling it visually, loosening up the character types a little bit...hasn't halted the decline of the Franchise (and look at the ratings, guys -- it hasn't accelerated it either. Abandonment of "Trek" simply continues apace since 1994).
They thought they had something to lose by "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" and something to gain by trying to evolve the property and bring the core viewership with them. If that's failed, there's absolutely no risk now in major surgery on the Franchise -- because no one is going to greenlight one more variation on TNG/DS9/VOY or probably "Enterprise" when the ratings have declined point-by-point, relentlessly for ten years.
You know that's so. In fact, the only reason I launched into this is because where'sSaavik articulated so clearly and unequivocally how bleak the future of "Star Trek" as the fandom has come to think of it now is -- It's Dead, Jim.
No, ENT was just a calculated attempt to jump on the Star Wars prequel bandwagon, nothing more
Even if true -- and yes, I know you're joking -- it's a difference which makes no difference now.
Gotcha. I had to go back and re-read the quote several times to see where I missed the boat.
Here's the original quote:
I took the first sentence to mean that the end of the 24th century would be the extent of the effect if "Enterprise" were successful, and the second sentence to be a prediction of what would occur regardless of "Enterprise's" success.
I can't tell if my reading comprehension skills are too finely tuned or too poorly tuned.
I think many could argue that this is what TPTB have already tried to do with "Enterprise," and with limited success.
They kept the elements they liked, and jettisoned and/or ignored the elements of Star Trek history that they didn't want to bother with.
"Enterprise" is a reboot, even if not an overt one.
I believe that Star Trek can and will be rebooted from scratch one day -- but not by these guys. They've had their chance -- many chances, in fact -- and their version just doesn't fly.
As a huge QL fan, I have to say Scott has been the biggest disappointment for me on the show. Strangely, the two times he's come off the most interesting and relaxed (note-- I'm only refering to his performance) were in "Acquisition" and "Canamar", both times when he was playing Archer not being himself.
I find it really disheartening that a show lasting "only" four or five years would somehow be perceived as a failure. Given the number of shows that barely make it out of the gate, I would think a four or five year run would be considered respectable. But, you're right, given the seven-year track record of the other Treks, that is how it would be seen.
Yeah, WS, you're dead on. The show is awful and gutless. Bakula, who should be able to carry the whole show is pretty much a sissy and a waste of pixels.
Of course, now is the perfect time to try the desperate move of making one of the show's characters a homosexual to see if that will improve the ratings.
Probably the former. Lots of times I don't write no good.
if this board had existed back when tng was first being developed and during the first couple of yeatrs it would have been insane.
even before they saw him many fans just hated the concept of data and even after it started airing there were continued heated debates about him and many other aspects of tng.
the thing of it is tng was also very up and down in its level of quality during it first two years.
one thing i am not happy about with the new story line is that it is happening just when they had a string of very interesting episodes to close out the season..
Thank you Where's Saavik for an well put together list of grivences that I, and I believe many others share.
The "prequel" premise could have been beautiful, playing off the advantage that Trek has over the likes of Star Wars, Babylon 5, and Farscape: a 35 year, largely consistant continuity that the general public has more-or-less and basic understanding of (Kirk came before Picard, and all). but, no, Berman and Braga don't have the acumen to pull it off brilliantly. and if it can't be done brilliantly, the downside of this premise, then it is doublely cursed. given TPTB's talents and interests, i, too, am believing that an Academy 90210 might have been the route to go. Will the basic idea sounds horrifying to me still, it could have been chinsy and fun in a low kind of way, and would work "lowballing" it, unlike the "Prequel" premise.
just my thoughts
Yes. As I said in another thread this morning, "Enterprise" was the attempt to keep a foot on each side of the divide. How the producers and studio came to that would probably be an interesting thing to know; you can look back at the record of statements out of studio sources in the two years prior to its announcement and get a sense of the push-and-pull that apparently went on over this one.
I don't think that the studio is willing to forego the potential revenue stream from Trek for a minute longer than they can help. How long the interregnum between Old Trek and New Trek will be won't have much to do with any constituency for "letting the Franchise lie fallow to build interest" at Viacom, but just by how much wheel-spinning the studio people have to do before someone can impose direction on the whole thing. If one looks at Warner Bros attempts to restart their Superman and Batman film franchises, one can see that it could be quite a messy and lengthy process. But that's a different culture, and who knows?
I think the most obvious (if overly simplistic) routes would be to have a) a high-level executive who's in a postion to green-light such a thing who has -- most importantly -- fond memories of Star Trek (in any of its incarnations) and a belief that its former shine can yet be restored, and/or b) some hotshot (and/or high profile) young writer(s) and/or producer(s) with some wild and -- most importantly -- relatively inexpensive ideas on how to reinvent the wheel.
These projects seem to move along faster when some of the parties involved have some fire in their hearts and a horse or two in the race.
I think much of the problem with the franchise right now is that you have a bunch of executives / producers / writers looking at "Enterprise" like it's a car that keeps breaking down, and they have no idea how to fix it. Most importantly, they seem to have lost any love that they once had for their baby, and this sense of detachment translates to a lackluster show which feels like its simply trying to drag its tired ass across the syndication finish line.
TPTB are willing to tweak the engine here and there in hopes of restarting the engine, but there seems to be little ryhme or reason to the repair attempts. Coupled with this is a conservative restraint which prevents them from making any repairs that would be too drastic. (Hey, they still need the car to get to work. They can't afford to destroy it. It still runs, just not very well.) I would even go so far as to say that their former love of the franchise seems at times to have turned to animosity, as if TPTB are angry at their junker for constantly breaking down, and are simply biding their time with a car they hate until they can find a new one which will actually run. The outrage of many of the fans is one of the many noises coming out from under the hood of the franchise, and TPTB's anger/frustration/condescension toward those fans is also symptomatic of both hating us and needing us at the same time.
Oh my gosh that is funny. What kind of self-glorifying nerd has to post his top ten reasons of hating a show at length on an ENT fan forum? Dude, go outside and get some fresh air.
I agree with most of what you say, but this in particular deserves emphasis -- because this is where you get into questions about the decision-making culture at the studio and how "Star Trek" is viewed not only by the people who make it now but more importantly by their bosses and their bosses' bosses. We can only guess at such things based on scant information, but I don't think that there's much encouragement to be found there. When the Killer Bs are gone, Paramount will still be Paramount. Hopefully, Paramount at least is not Warner Bros.
Well, one big difference with those, as well as the Bonds (and to a lesser extent, the Jack Ryans), is that they didn't originate in a filmed medium. So no actor holds original ownership over the roles in the same way that Shatner, Nimoy, etc. do theirs. Now, several shows have done a TV-->Movie "reboot" of sorts, with new casts in the old parts, but have any of those really been "successful"? I don't just mean good box office, but a genuine resparking of the franchise. I can't think of any. In fact, to date, Trek is the ONLY show that "came back" the way it did. In no small part due to keeping the same actors playing their same characters.
In short, I don't think a "reboot" could work, or even be feasible, without a good solid decade of laying fallow.
where'sSaavik? seems to be suffering from the faulty -- yet completely understandable -- assumption that Series V was supposed to be a "Birth of the Federation" series. The setting chosen and the prequel nature of the show seem to make that the most obvious premise -- while not necessarily the exclusive one.
B&B occasionally remind us that they never promised us a BOTF premise, and they are essentially correct. What I find most interesting is that, in denying that they promised us the BOTF, they never follow up by confirming that they are indeed going to deliver BOTF, or whether they are going to ignore it completely. We never get, "No, you are not going to see the BOTF" or "Yes, BOTF is coming soon." Instead, we get a cryptic denial that translates roughly to, "Maybe we will. Maybe we won't. Don't you dare try to pin us down. We are two years into our show and we still haven't decided what it's about."
While Dennis will profess the beneficial reasons behind remaining flexible, I think this kind of amorphous premise-hopping is so non-committal that it has resulted in delivering nothing at all.
I'm all for flexibility with the details. Hell, I'll even go for a radical premise change midstream if the original premise isn't working. But this free-floating non-premise is ridiculous. We aren't talking about a gradually changing premise. We're talking about the evolution of an ephemeral premise to an even more ephemeral premise.
These guys don't want to put their foot down, and we fans have been very forgiving in never really forcing them to do so. We hang around and wait -- forever, if necessary -- out of some loyalty to a good friend who has been gone for years. We forever push back the line in which we expect it to finally gel. Maybe next season. Maybe the season after that. Maybe we should wait until the entire series is over, then we can look back and see if it was any good.
It's not good now. It hasn't been good for years. Any other show -- including shows that are far superior to "Enterprise" would have been given the axe long before now.
Instead, we're stuck in a negative codependent relationship. Star Trek won't break up with us because it still wants our cash. We won't break up with Star Trek because we used to really love her, and we think the "real" girl might still be in there somewhere. Besides, we owe it to her, don't we? She was there for us once when we needed her. We can't just dump her now when she's falling apart. That would be so selfish of us...
Ooooh... I'd watch it if they cast Katie Holmes.
What an interesting thread!
Rather than do a pastiche of quotes, I’m just going to speak to some points I saw raised throughout.
I do believe that ENT and Nemesis are the coffin nails. The TV franchise was already a dead horse during Voyager’s run – and Enterprise publicity circa the launch of the series succeeded to jolt the muscles out of rigor for an instant.
If the next TV iteration begins immediately following the cancellation of ENT, the concept of a re-imagining such as that for Mission Impossible, or Galactica, or Godzilla – that won’t work. TOS is still on TV, and their adventures are the equivalent of modern folklore. There were some big heavy hitting SF writers scribing those scripts back then – something that isn’t appreciated under the current administration. It will be impossible to view them both and not compare, and unless they change the way they write – rather than what they write, the differences they make will be inconsequantial.
What might work could be a total reconception of the stories and the Trek universe, and the way they tell the stories. It ain’t the fact that it’s the 24th century that made it all so boring. We had a Yesterday’s Enterprise, and a series of “mirror universe” stories that appeared to be much less boring than the main one, and they were set in the same century, with many of the same elements. In DS9, I wished they could have just stayed there.
The Trek Academy idea has perhaps some merit – perhaps focusing on the adventures of some cadets on their first assignments, making a career, perhaps not tied to a specific ship. I recall a while back a great cheezy fun space opera pilot called Star Command, with Morgan fairchild and a TV brat pack cast. They were on a very small ship – a corvette. They showed them at the academy too. They did cinematic cuts to the villian’s point of view, Death Star boardroom style, showing what they were up to. It wasn’t so bottled up creatively, as it is on Enterprise. I dunno when to set it or when – but I do understand the corner they painted themselves into with the latter day Treks – with their telescopic armor, time travel, and transporter reboots. I suspect the ‘back to basics’ idea they intended originally to go with in Enterprise was supposed to have dispensed with all that crap – until they started using it there too.
So, to set it away from all that fanboy techno deus ex machina, they’d need to either go somewhere that is far from it (which is what Voyager seemed to be aimed at doing, conceptually – before they blew their wad again, and what Enterprise was supposed to do, before they blew their wad yet again), or perhaps do some kind of “post-galactic apocalypse” kind of premise – where you might even be able to haul out heroes here and there from the Elvis years in the TNG setting – including Mr Scott, I imagine. I understand that Andromeda played at that idea somewhat. So you get a lot of the same ST goods – but the feel, the kinds of stories, the millieu – is all different. You might also get to have the BOTF concept without the inevitability of it, and the continuity hurdles.
The key questions about what to salvage – what are the few core trademarks and sacred cows that make it Star Trek – the ones that still have value.
Posted by Dennis Bailey
Agreed wholeheartedly, though I wonder how that fits with your running point about 24th century Trek boredom. It isn’t the fact that it’s 24th century that makes it so tedious, not any more than having it set in the Gamma Quad, the Delta Quad, or, as we are about to see, the Delphic Expanse, or what kinds of uniforms and haircuts they have. It’s their story telling style and reluctance to change anything.
Separate names with a comma.