| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Star Trek Must Die By: Mark Morgan on 10/21/2001; 5:15 PM The final season of the original Outer Limits had no money, no supervision, no effects budget, no audience. In other words, it should have been uniformly horrible. Instead, it has two of my favorite episodes of televised science fiction: "Demon With a Glass Hand" and "Soldier," both by Harlan Ellison. This isn't about Ellison. Star Trekhas a huge franchise base; an army of writers, producers, directors, actors and effects technicians; and enough money to put a real damn starship in orbit by the end of the year. Voyager's best episodes aren't much better than those two Outer Limits episodes. This still isn't about Ellison. Cowardice and safe harbors are the rule of television, not the exception. Get any amount of money involved, and the bland creeps in like coliform bacteria into a school's water supply. Nervous producers look at the script and delete anything remotely risky. A gay starship captain? Never happen. An episode showing that democracy is a joke? Never happen. Too much money involved. And frankly, too many fans watching the show with a microscope to complain about life-changing issues like "What about the Eugenics War?" That's right, I mean you. You think anything groundbreaking is going to be written when the producers are convinced the only way to make money is to placate you? It's not. It's too late to save the series. Oh, sure, I've heard it from Berman: "Let's take a break from Star Trek. Time for it to rest." And what, churn out the same bland glop, only wait an extra year so that the fans will be in a frenzy to see the next scale model ship whip across the screen? That will solve the storytelling problems. That'll break through the blandness. Time to kill the show. I don't mean take a one year break. Or a five year break. I mean, kill the thing. No more Trek. Period. Get to the point where you and I and everyone else have forgotten the thing. Let it sneak back in, unencumbered by hype and marketing or budget or attention. Let it be dangerous and risky to do Trek. Then I bet you'd get some kick-butt stories. Because the show would only have its writing to depend on. The writers could write whatever they wanted to, because no one would threaten them with a Batt'leh attack for forgetting that Star Trek headquarters was supposed to have been destroyed in the Dominion war. Otherwise, expect it to get only worse. Expect it to continue down the road to mediocrity. And expect me to keep watching, this time with tears in my eyes. Because I've seen what television can do with SF, and Trek ain't it any more. I mourn the loss of, if not a friend, at least a companion.
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Kaju Sarkar on 8/8/2001; 5:53 PM STAR TREK IS THE BEST SHOW EVER >>>>>>>>> my email is kaju@startrekmail.com HA!!!
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Brian Carnell on 8/8/2001; 6:12 PM At 07:09 PM 8/8/01 -0400, Kaju wrote: >STAR TREK IS THE BEST SHOW EVER And this was Most Pointless. Post. Ever.
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Kaju Sarkar on 8/8/2001; 11:25 PM Yeah man i know i am goin through this weird phase sorry
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Mark Morgan on 10/12/2001; 1:11 PM Watching the new series, I wonder if they haven't found a second approach, and I wonder if it will work. Voyager's problem looks now that the executive producers desperately wanted to get away from the Trek mythos and create a new show, and instead they made this half show that was poorly written and was neither good SF nor good television. I've only seen one episode (the premiere) of Enterprise. It's very good. And as little like anything Trek as they can get away with. Except for one part: vigor. Can you imagine Captain Picard (or even Riker!) telling someone he was resisting the urge to knock them on their ass? The show had me at that point. Sure, it's not very Star Trek TNG, but it's exactly the kind of thing Kirk would have said. It's an adventure show again, and I must admit, it's a really, really fun one. The reactions of the crew are the reactions of the kind of people I know. I like that! The question is, will this work? Will people who aren't interested in Star Trek watch the thing? That's what the show needs more than anything, viewers who really don't know or care about where Voyager kept all its extra shuttles all those years. Now if they'd just get rid of that Greatest American Hero theme song, I'd be golden. (Admit it! When you first heard that thing you were going "Believe it or not, I'm walking on air....")
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Brian Carnell on 10/12/2001; 2:09 PM At 02:27 PM 10/12/2001 -0400, Mark wrote: >I've only seen one episode (the premiere) of Enterprise. It's very good. The second episode was very good as well. I think they did a nice job of saying, "what sort of problems would these folks have going into space for the first time" (for example, they keep missing when firing their torpedos). Third episode really sucked imo, but still not as bad as Voyager. Unlike the first two episodes, the third episode really had that "been there, done that" feel. My big concern is that they are apparently sticking with one overarching story arc throughout the series run, but it involves time travel. Why are Star Trek writers, etc. always so obssessed with time travel, especially when they so rarely put it to good use (only a handful of the *many* ST episodes involving time travel are worth watching a second time). > The reactions of the crew are the reactions of the kind of people I > know. I like that! That was my impression as well. Everyone on ST: TOS was bigger than life, whereas the folks on ST: TNG were prissy as all get out. DS9's characters always struck me as unbelievable, and Voyager were just plain boring. Now we've got the kids next door go into space. >The question is, will this work? Will people who aren't interested in Star >Trek watch the thing? That's what the show needs more than anything, >viewers who really don't know or care about where Voyager kept all its >extra shuttles all those years. I really don't think so. I love the show, but I really doubt someone who wasn't already a Star Trek fan would really get into the series. But it's probably good enough to stay around for 7 years. >Now if they'd just get rid of that Greatest American Hero theme song, I'd >be golden. (Admit it! When you first heard that thing you were going >"Believe it or not, I'm walking on air....") You mean, Connie Selleca isn't working for Starfleet? Dude, that was the coolest superhero show ever. Anyway, Brian's summary of Enterprise: at least it didn't suck like Mutant X did (I can't believe Marvel went to the mat in that lawsuit over such a crappy show).
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: ScottN on 10/12/2001; 3:36 PM Third episode really sucked imo, but still not as bad as Voyager No comment on VOY, but TPTB seem to be following the TOS/TNG/DS9 tradition of "character development by losing inhibitions temporarily" (The Naked Time, The Naked Now, Fascination). While this is a tad cliched, it seems to work. The blatant mistrust between Trip and T'Pol worked very well here, when the characters didn't have to be diplomatic/polite to keep the crew working together. They let them get the bigotry (on both sides!) out in the open. I'd say this ep worked, in the sense that we learned a lot about Trip in this ep. Even the BIMOL* characters showed development. Look at Phlox. He was seriously beating himself up over a misdiagnosis, understandable though it was. * BIMOL = But It's My Only Line! (Nitpicker jargon).
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Matthew Patterson on 10/12/2001; 4:49 PM So, in your opinion, is Enterprise worth watching instead of Ed? I saw the premiere, but it really turned me off. The main theme put me in a bad mood, and I was not impressed by the parade of emoting Vulcans we kept seeing. You'd think they'd be better than that. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Brian Carnell on 10/12/2001; 5:44 PM While this is a tad cliched, it seems to work. The blatant mistrust between Trip and T'Pol worked very well here, when the characters didn't have to be diplomatic/polite to keep the crew working together. They let them get the bigotry (on both sides!) out in the open. I'd say this ep worked, in the sense that we learned a lot about Trip in this ep. I agree that was the point of the episode, but it reminded me of bad genre fiction with long expository passages where characters are set up, rather than developing them naturally within the flow of the novel. It's almost like they were saying, "Okay, we're going to hit the pause button now and give you a lecture about the characters' motives." Maybe it wouldn't have annoyed me as much if I hadn't just finished "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" which was 300 pages of a good novel and 400 pages of "Look at this complicated backstory I developed!!"
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Matthew Patterson on 10/12/2001; 6:40 PM I suppose this would be a bad time to mention that the book is sitting next to my elbow as I type? (I greatly enjoy backstory, and I think we're going to need it by the time the series ends. If she can ever get the next three books out.) _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: ScottN on 10/12/2001; 7:05 PM I can agree with the "cabbagehead" thing... sort of. The problem is, how do you bring in backstory without "wavering scene... fade to flashback"? As I've pointed out, this is tried-and-true -- both TOS and TNG did this style of episode in their first seasons (The Naked whatevers). It may not have worked completely to your satisfaction, but I don't believe that using this plot device (somewhat successfully) causes the episode to "suck". Matthew, I don't know about "Ed". I've never seen it. I agree with the emoting Vulcans, but we've had that problem with guest Vulcans ever since "Take Me Out to the Holosuite". The only guest Vulcans we've seen who "get it" are the incomparable Mark Lenard as Sarek, and Alexander Enberg as Taurik (and Vorik). Hopefully, Ms. Blalock will get a handle on Vulcan-ness, soon. She seems to be improving as time goes on. Maybe she should talk to Nimoy or Tim Russ? However, emoting Vulcans aside, and while I like the show, I have a problem with the basic premise. The Vulcans here, seem to want to force humans into the Vulcan mold. What happened to the concept of IDIC, as (allegedly) promoted by Surak? Why do the Vulcans want to keep humans in their system? I find that attitude... illogical. On the other hand, I do think it's a good watch. Maybe I should take this over to Nitcentral?
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Matthew Patterson on 10/12/2001; 7:31 PM >However, emoting Vulcans aside, and while I like the show, I have a >problem with the basic premise. The Vulcans here, seem to want to >force humans into the Vulcan mold. What happened to the concept of >IDIC, as (allegedly) promoted by Surak? Why do the Vulcans want to >keep humans in their system? I find that attitude... illogical. On >the other hand, I do think it's a good watch. Rampant speculation: Mayhap Cochrane told the Vulcans about the Borg, and the Vulcans are trying to protect the humans? Aside from that, this, too, has often been a problem with Vulcans. See "Take Me Out to the Holosuite." (Even though I thought that episode was funny, 'twas wildly illogical.) _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Mark Morgan on 10/13/2001; 9:20 PM What happened to the concept of IDIC, as (allegedly) promoted by Surak? Why do the Vulcans want to keep humans in their system? I find that attitude... illogical. On the other hand, I do think it's a good watch. Whyso? My site not good enough for ya, ya punk? :-P I still liked the premiere, but there is zero chance I will ever have a Wednesday night off to watch this show.
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Benn Allen on 10/16/2001; 5:05 AM "...but there is zero chance I will ever have a Wednesday night off to watch this show." - Mark Morgan Does this mean that your local UPN affiliate doesn't run an encore presentation of each episode of Enterprise on Saturday or Sunday? Here in Dallas, channel 21, our UPN affiliate premieres each episode on Wednesdays (duh!). That tends to clash with 60 Minutes II. So I have the option of catching the repeat on the following Saturdays. Except the infamous theme, I liked the pilot episode and the series second ep ("Fight or Flight"). I do have my problems with the show. I definitely have come to dislike the ladies of the show. Hoshi's a whiny wimp. And T'Pol seems to exist to argue with EVERY decision Archer makes. I did not see the third episode. Last Wednesday, I watched 60 Minutes II. Last Saturday, I forgot it was on. That tells me all I need to know about how I feel about Enterprise. If I'm inclined to forget that it's on, it's not important to me. But the topic at hand, is Star Trek Must Die. I think it will. This isn't meant to be a comment on the quality of Enterprise, but I suspect that this may be the last of the series. I don't see where they can take it after this. In all honesty, Paramount has nearly oversaturated the market for all things Trek. The result is Enterprise, a series that is both Star Trek, and isn't. (The absence of the words "Star Trek" in the show's title and the "hip" theme with vocals are but two obvious non-Trek elements.) I think these are signs that Trek is dying. I think that TPTB are finding it necessary to inject so many non-Trek elements is indicative that life is fading from Star Trek. Of course, for all I know, Enterprise could give new life to The Franchise. But if it doesn't, when Star Trek does finally die, I wouldn't bet too much on a resurrection ten years down the line. And if there is one, don't expect to be any good.
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Mark Morgan on 5/16/2004; 8:43 AM It's communication breakdowns like this that make world conquest tedious. Three new orbital mind control lasers? We'll get back to you on that, Mark. Clean the admantium hull on the Overlord once in a while? Union rules against it. Ask the nanobots to just make one frickin' dinner. Just one. ONE! Like talking to a brick wall. But ask for them to kill Star Trek? No problem. Priorities, people!
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Brian Carnell on 5/16/2004; 5:24 PM Voyager was dreck but at least it had a few redeemable episodes -- for the past two seasons Enterprise's sole purpose appears to have been to make Andromeda look like a work of genius in comparison.
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Fibber Nacious on 5/17/2004; 9:07 AM First, I agree with you, this recent incarnation of Star Trek is so weak that even the constant wood I sport for T'Pol and the incessant visions I have of her and Hoshi locked in a saphic embrace can overcome my revulsion at the current storylines. It seems that a shift has taken place over the last few incarnations; that being a shift away from the episodic, to the serial. I grew up watching Cap'n Kirk galavant around the universe bedding various alien species--a girl, or some semblance thereof, in every port. Each week we had a new adventure, some new planet to sample, some new situation that would test the very fabric of the still young and fragile Federation. And now this? You say you want to see a gay starship captain and I say that is what you have. Two years on a ship with T'Pol, and Hoshi and he hasn't bangged either much less any of the alien hotties they have encountered. What gives? The only thing that could make Archer more gay is if he and his poodle went all over the ship giving each crew member and their quarters a full make-over. We don't have Star Trek--we have "Queer Eye for the Alien Guy." This shift from episodic to serial that happened over the last few seasons of TNG and carried into DS9, Voyager, and now Enterprise is what will be the eventual death of the franchise. I think that someone invented the perfect "badguy" in the Borg and that--our mutual love of the perfect badguy--is what carried the weight until now. What has Enterprise flailing in deep dark water is the lack of the perfect badguy. So it is time for them to revert back to the old standby, keep us on the edge of our seats but throwing us a change up every week. Maybe it isn't time for Star Trek to die so much as time for Berman to go. I just hope he gets his act together in time for the upcoming Star Trek prequel http://trekweb.com/articles/2004/04/22/4087eed3394be.shtml
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Matthew Patterson on 5/17/2004; 3:38 PM You say you want to see a gay starship captain and I say that is what you have. Two years on a ship with T'Pol, and Hoshi and he hasn't bangged either much less any of the alien hotties they have encountered. What gives? The only thing that could make Archer more gay is if he and his poodle went all over the ship giving each crew member and their quarters a full make-over. I rather resent the implication that acting with some integrity and refusing to become sexually involved with one's subordinates means that one is gay, and I rather imagine that most straight men do, too. Not that this has anything to do with the topic per se, but this is one of my bigger annoyances. Let us not confuse "acting with restraint" with "attraction to other men." (Besides, if Archer *were* gay, he'd have gone after Malcolm long ago.)
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Fibber Nacious on 5/17/2004; 7:46 PM Ok, let us also not confuse FANTASY, with REALITY.
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Brian Carnell on 5/17/2004; 8:22 PM It's not that it's a serial that's bad -- it's just that it's so badly written and designed. The next show should be Fear Factor: The Rick Berman Episodes where they force Berman to do increasingly humiliating things as retribution for the utter destruction of the ST brand.
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: ScottN on 5/17/2004; 10:33 PM Interestingly, the consensus on NitCentral is that the recent arc with the Xindi weapon has been fairly well done (about the final 1/3 of the season or so). Of course, 1/3 of a season doesn't make up for the 2 2/3 seasons of mediocre episodes.
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Mark Morgan on 5/19/2004; 3:37 PM I give up. Somebody else take over the damn world today, I'm taking a nap!
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Mark Morgan on 7/12/2004; 12:13 PM More proof that I am right about everything. Go read Toon In: The best TV happens when no one is looking: "In the natural world, punctuated evolution occurs when small groups find themselves geographically isolated and free from natural predators, allowing creatures with rare mutations to thrive and develop into entirely new species. So it is in entertainment: The best material has often come from the back alleys of the studio system. . . .The network liked [Spaceghost Coast to Ghost] because it was cheap to produce. And budget constraints meant that the writing had to be extra sharp in order to win viewers over." Kill Star Trek. It's the only way.
RE: Star Trek Must Die By: Daniel Cole on 3/23/2005; 9:46 AM well you may get your wish looks like they are going to cancel the show which I have to say is a shame the xindi weapons stuff was stupid but as they started to actully explain some of the back story it became quite interesting. I have to say I disagree with you that democracy is a joke and you seem to miss the original purpose of star trek it was supposed to be uplifting and positive we survived to the future and were somewhat better. In this respect the current itteration is much closer to the original design than any other. No show would have a gay main character in a position of power currently to risky given the conservative climate of America. The best recent sci-fi in my opinon has been Star Trek, B5, and Earth2 just so you see where I am coming from. Never even heard of the two outer limits episodes you mentioned, though from all I've seen the twilight zone was way better than any outer limits episode.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|