Did you guys and gals read any B5 books? I liked them a lot. See amazon.com
My favorite is Techno-Mage trilogy by Jeanne Cavelos: 
Posted on 02/25/2003 11:14:23 AM PST by pabianice
After launching at warp speed in the fall of 2001, Enterprise, the UPN prequel series designed to reenergize the aging Star Trek franchise by attracting younger viewers, is limping along on impulse power. Midway through its second season, ratings are down 24 percent from last year. "What can you say?" executive producer Brannon Braga says. "We're bummed." And in clear violation of the series's prime directive, viewership is actually skewing older.
The news is even worse at the box office. Despite good reviews and generally enthusiastic fan response, Star Trek Nemesis, the most recent — and likely final — adventure to exclusively feature the Star Trek: The Next Generation cast (more about that in a moment), took in just over $40 million, making it the lowest-grossing Trek movie by far (translation: with production costs of $ 113 million, "Nemesis" was a financial disaster).
After five live-action series, 10 feature films, stacks of book titles and Q knows how many mass-produced trinkets, has the multibillion-dollar sci-fi franchise founded by the late Gene Roddenberry lived too long to prosper?
Corporate executives maintain that a warp core breach is far from imminent. Despite its ratings woes, Enterprise is still the top-rated drama on perennially struggling UPN and is in no danger of being canceled, says network president Dawn Ostroff. "Hit shows often take years," she says.
As for Nemesis, Paramount Pictures vice-chairman and chief operating officer Rob Friedman attributes the movie's flameout to tough competition from other holiday films. "I think we probably got 'Lord of the Ring'-ed," he says of the blockbuster Two Towers sequel that opened the following week. "Would we have preferred to have another $20 million at the box office? Sure. But that doesn't foretell any concerns about the future of Trek."
Maybe not. But it doesn't take a positronic brain to recognize that droves of fans have deserted in recent years. Movie ticket sales have declined from about 21 million for First Contact (1996) to 15 million for Insurrection (1998) to less than 8 million for Nemesis. On TV, the Trek audience has been shrinking since Next Generation's peak 11 years ago, when it averaged 17.7 million viewers a week in Season 5. Today, 4.3 million people watch Enterprise.
The series may be going where no man has gone before, but some Trek fans say the producers forgot the "boldly" part — those steamy decontamination-chamber scenes with Archer (Scott Bakula) and T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) notwithstanding.
"Enterprise has potential," says Jamahl Epsicokhan, a 27-year-old Web designer who has posted Trek episode reviews at Star Trek Hypertext Online since 1994. "But it doesn't take risks." Steve Krutzler, editor of TrekWeb.com, an Internet site that gets 150,000 visitors a month, says the series "was being hyped as a radical departure, [yet] everything feels like the same Star Trek we've gotten for 15 years."
Although Braga is not ready to divulge details, he says "epic challenges... that better exploit the sense of awe and danger" are ahead for the crew. "Let's just say there will be a slight revision in our mission, and a slight revision in the part of space that Enterprise is heading into," says executive producer Rick Berman, who has overseen the franchise since Roddenberry's death in 1991.
As to where the movies are headed, Berman is less certain. "I doubt because our box office fell off on Nemesis that it's going to be the end of Star Trek films," the producer says. "I can't imagine numerous other movies won't occur."
Though there have been no discussions as yet, Berman hints at one tempting scenario: combining characters from the various series in one grand adventure. "There are a lot of interesting possibilities," he says.
Berman's remarks suggest Trek is in an adjustment period; some fine-tuning is needed. "I don't think that there's any television franchise that people love to take potshots at as much," Berman says. In fact, he refuses to concede that Trek will ever run its course entirely. "Would anybody have guessed when the original series went off the air in 1969 that 34 years later it would still be part of the American mythos?" Berman says. "It's part of our lexicon."
Adds Braga: "You've got to keep an optimistic viewpoint. It's come this far, and it ain't goin' anywhere."
HOW TO FIX TREK
1. MAKE IT OBVIOUS It's cold and dark in space. Enterprise needs real peril, dread and fear so that characters are tested to within an inch of their lives. Introduce a chilling, powerful, wholly original threat that can't be vanquished in an hour. The Suliban aren't bad, but they're no Borg.
2 MAKE IT MORE REAL Let the crew make grave mistakes. Let them argue and be driven by less-than-moral impulses. Let the phaser beams rip through metal and bone. And let there be dangling emotional threads that weave through the lives of these otherwise bland characters.
3 LET CAPTAIN ARCHER BE HEROIC As written, Scott Bakula has as much commanding presence as Cap'n Crunch. Archer, like his beagle, is benign and a little too cute. He has an annoying tendency to second-guess, which trickles down to the rest of his whiny crew. Either light a fire under this laconic guy or kill him in a blaze of glory that explains why starships, planets and star systems should one day be named Archer. (And while you're at it, take out that annoying Ensign Hoshi with him.)
4 OPEN FIRE AND CLOSE THOSE PIE HOLES Enterprise should expand our belief about what is possible and transport us to realms unimagined with its ideas. But if it can't also be packed with action and adventure, move it to Lifetime. We're weary of the endless Trek babble on the bridge, the shuttlecraft, the crew quarters. Enough!
5 GET US ON THE EDGE OF OUR SEATS You shouldn't be able to figure out what the general direction and ending of any given episode is by the first 12 minutes. "Oh, here's where Hoshi overcomes her fear of failure..." "Well, it looks like Trip and that belligerent alien are going to work together to save both their hides..." Why not try some longer, unpredictable story arcs? Cliff-hangers, big and small, give a series purpose, poignancy and punch. Make us miss you this summer.
And at the movies...
It's no secret why Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (the whale tale) was a fan favorite. It had humor, nostalgia and intelligent cast interplay. Why did Nemesis leave us wanting? It zipped through the Riker-Troi wedding, a payoff fans had long awaited. Worse, the film didn't include a farewell scene for Picard and his crush, Beverly. The heart of Trek is heart, and Trek's best films tap into relationships.
Did you guys and gals read any B5 books? I liked them a lot. See amazon.com
My favorite is Techno-Mage trilogy by Jeanne Cavelos:
# 1 Since there is no prime directive, act like it. If a pushy race comes along, looking for conflict, give it to them.
They're doing some of that already, as in the last episode.
#2 Give us an enemy that is diabolical, mean and just plain bad ass. One that will not be defeated with a shield adjustment or some new gizmo that solves every problem.
Agreed. It's the use of technobabble to secure victory that kills 9/10th of the drama in Trek.
#3 If I have to watch one more episode where they go throught he whole "shields are down to 10 % Captain" I am gonna SCREAM. Get a new way to add suspense!
Did you see "Minefield" per chance?
#4 Gimme more of that hot Vulcan bootie. Sure I am a sexist pig? So what? Who do you think your audience is anyway?
Look, I've got the hormones of the next guy, but if you're going to complain about the writing of Trek being so fanboyish, stop acting like a fanboy.
#5 Weapons, I want weapons. The existing Phase Cannons are OK, but only for a start. I could never imagine sending a ship on a mission such as this without being armed to the teeth.
I'm actually happy with the Enterprise NX being so outgunned--it's a nice change of pace from the Federation always having the biggest gun (especially in Voyager). Of course, we want to see Starfleet ramp up its weapons program pretty quickly, but this is a good starting point.
#6 If we have technology today that can do certain things, I would expect them to be much improved in the future.
True, but given that the computers that we will be able to build in thirty years will make those in NextGen look like dinosaurs in comparison, they're walking a tightrope in establishing the right tech level.
#7 Who is the Chef? I have been waiting since the first episode to meet him/her/it. Since the Chef is mentioned in nearly every episode, we need to know who or what it is. Be BOLD.
The Chef thing is a running gag, not carelessness. I rather like never seeing him, but hearing all about him. :^)
#8 I like the idea that the Transporters are very iffy. Too often in the past, it was a crutch that bailed the writers out by simply "beaming" them out of trouble. It is nice to see them have to think of new ideas.
Amen.
#9 Trip is one of your best assetts, use him. He is a Texan (well Oklahoman anyway) a straight shooter and is the "everyman" we always look for in a Star Trek show. Highlight him and his straightforward approach every time Archer goes wobbly.
Agreed, Traineer is the best actor on the show besides Billingsly (Phlox).
And finally...
#10 Fighting, Conflict and Battles. Deep down, we all know it is a savage world out there. Space would only be worse. PLEASE no more Aids PC episodes where we get beaten over the head trying to make some PC point. Real men are NOT PC.
Now if we could just convince Hollywood of that . . .
Seriously, they've been doing a lot more battle scenes than NextGen ever conceived of (thanks to Roddenberry). The AIDS thing was stupid, I agree, but I think they more than made up for it with trapping the Enterprise between the Suliban and the Tholians last week. Archer was completely outgunned and still refused to turn over the TARDIS-thing before he could plant a bomb in it. He was positively Kirkian. :^)
Yours in Truth,
Nonsense. The post-Space Shuttle Enterprise shown during Decker's guided tour with Ilia on the Rec Deck ("All of these ships were named 'Enterprise'") in ST The Motionless Picture certainly didn't look 1950-ish. And it was only a poorly-seen silhouette in one fleeting scene - you could slap all the bells, whistles, and gimcrackery you wanted to on the basic outline. This was cleverly done in the otherwise horrible movie version of "Lost in Space" - you see the familiar saucer shape of the Jupiter II being launched from Earth, then *BANG* - the shell separates to reveal a cool-looking ship inside.
You just have to pretend that the original Trek did, in fact, look like it took place in the 23rd century. Oh yeah, and Klingons ALWAYS had big forheads. Ya gotta deal with it.
The viewing public apparently agrees with me - they're staying away in droves if the Neilsens for this excrescence are any indication.
And a show explaining how the Klingons got the lobsterheads would be fun. Do a story arc dealing with the "genetic experiment gone awry" that Worf alluded to in STTNG.
OK, I'll pull in my geek horns now ...
I consider the animated series to be canon. Live with it.
Who says I'm enjoying it? I've seen two episodes - that's all I could stand to watch.
For the Canon folks: It hasn't fallen prey to too many "violations", indeed it has merely fleshed out some things that were unexplained.
It has blown canon in more ways than there are stars in the heavens. We certainly didn't start really exploring space in a Cadillac like that - I think of the first Enterprise as a dorky-looking Chevy Vega or Peugeot, prone to repeated mechanical problems and with limited range. Probably the first one blew up or ran into something within a few months - who knows?
The only continuity error I really acknowledge is that the Imperial Klingons (chocolate mousse heads) are everywhere, whereas the TOS klingons were modified to look human for liaison purposes.
Believe it or not, I have no problem with the lobsterheads. There are a number of ways this could be "explained" in Enterprise, none of which have been done.
From what I understand, Roddenberry had wanted more makeup-enhanced Imperial-types, but there was no budget for it before the movies. Based on that, I think the continuity may be even BETTER on 'Enterprise'.
I remember hearing him speak at a con in which he said just that. But, Rick (spit) Berman could have at least given even the most perfunctory nod to the genius of William W. Theiss and the others who worked on the series, doing incredible work for the time with a budget of essentially nothing.
IMHO, if you go in to just watch the show without a frigging chip on your shoulder, you might enjoy it more.
The chip (a tree stump in my case) is there for a reason. The show is crap, wrong, and wrong-headed.
For myself, that was easy: I stopped watching ST about halfway thorough DS9, and almost gag when I see Ms. Columbo on the bridge of Voyager.
Voyager indeed sucked the big bag, which makes this continued "suckery" so hard for me to accept. And the common factor between STTNG, DS9, Voyager, and this latest disgrace is - you guessed it, Rick (spit) Berman.
It was really difficult to watch the spectrum of responses roll by so bitterly.
Sorry that you felt personally threatened by my opinion and that of others. But its difficult for me to accept this crock of night soil as "real" Star Trek. I simply can't look at a chunk of fecal material lying in the street and say that it smells like roses.
Yup. It also screwed up the "crap" "good movie" "crap" good movie" ... order.
To be completely honest, I stole the "gamut of emotions" line from Gertrude Stein (I think) ... ;)
I do however stand by my statement earlier. The ship setting out to "Go where no man has gone before" would be armed to the teeth. We have weapons now that are the equivalent of what is on here, it just seems ridiculous to me.
It seems that the producers have given the show a sort of collective amnesia about technology as it exists TODAY. For peets sake, we have spy satellites that can look obliquely at a location for a clear look at thing now, today. Everyone knows this. Why would they not take such seemingly simple steps?
And lastly. The whole Vulcan bootie thing…
That’s easy.
I like hot looking babes. This isn’t Opera, or High Art.
It’s entertainment
I like the fact that they are able to show a little skin once in awhile, especially if it looks like THAT !
Cheers,
knews hound
Do read B5 books if you liked the show. They are all well coordinated (much better then Star Trek).
Great idea. But I would have Anthony Hopkins cripple him and put him in a wheelchair, then have Julianne Moore roll the chair into a pit of hungry targs. Slowly.
The Star Trek franchise could learn a lot from "Babylon 5"; to my mind, the finest sci fi series ever made. You had true conflict. You had violence........for space as depicted in these series (Star Trek and B5) is populated by violent races. Political correctness HAS to go. Shake it up. Americans like ballsy heroes; a ballsy crew. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al had it. Picard and crew had it. Deep Space Nine hid it until the latter part of its run, nobly salvaging its legacy at the bitter end. Voyager and this latest attempt? Bland. Blah. Not a set of balls among their crews. I'm not trying to be crude; I'm trying to make a point. Let the crew set the precedent for the great Kirk; let this crew establish a legacy that the future Enterprise crews aspire to equal or exceed. So far.........they're just a bunch of folks on a cruise. In fact, one could expect to see more conflict on Carnival Cruise Lines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.