Enterprise and other Treks

[vampyre]

I saw Enterprise mentioned in another thread and instead of Hijacking it, I thought it deserved it's own thread.

When the show first started, I was very excited about it. I loved the idea of a pre-TOS show. Then it slowly ended up all FUBAR.

What really ruined it for me was that stupid time war story line. The show went from a good prequel to Quantum Leap in Space. If I wanted to watch time travel, I'd watch the Doctor. I wanted early TREK.

I feel that since Gene died, the people responsible for the franchise have lost sight of what Trek was all about. They have sucked the life out of a cash cow.

There is a new Star Trek movie due out this Christmas. It's supposed to be about the early days aboard NCC-1701. It's to show how a young Kirk takes command and forms the crew we all now know and love.

J.J. Abrams will be producing it. He is known for Felicity, Lost, Heroes and Cloverfield. I've never seen Felicity but I am a fan of the other stuff he's done especially Heroes. I think he can pull this off. If not, the franchise is probably gone for good. That would be too sad.

[slayercat]

May 1, 2008 9:07:19 GMT -5 @vampyre said:

Then it slowly ended up all FUBAR.

Boy, did it!! I really liked the show for a while and then about the third season they started doing strange things to "attract" more viewers that didn't work for me at all and I stopped watching. I was a Trek fan from the original but I don't go back to it much anymore. Much more interesting SciFi out there nowadays. The new movie sounds good, tho. Sylar is playing Spock!

[scraggles]

I quit watching Enterprise too! As you say, the stuff they did to try and attract more viewers was exactly the thing that drove me away.

I do think the entire Trek universe needs an update.

I finally got to watch all of Voyager (hurray for cable tv), and have to say that even though I loved Captain Janeway, the series was good, not great.

I think one problem is that tv writing styles have changed, and viewer expectations have changed. Season long story arcs are fairly common, and character development across a season, and through the life of a series is more intriguing than anything that ever occurred on Trek.

On a Trek show, the characters you met in the pilot episode, tended to be exactly the same characters you see in the series finale, no matter what they've been through, no matter what they've done or felt. I guess this is great for an open ended franchise with a big market for action figures and sequels, but as a story telling model, I'm not sure it's all that.

[vampyre]

Your right about the lack of dynamics in the Trek universe. Very few of the characters showed any growth.

In real life, you rarely ever see a serious career officer turn down a promotion or a command of their own. It would be suicidal to their career to do so.

Over all the Trek world is too shiny and sterile. All be told, I would say the Federation is much like Firefly's Alliance government. Their motto is; You're free to be what ever you want to be as long as you're like me.

I am looking forward to seeing Zachery Quinto as Spock. If Kirk loses his brain, we'll know where to look.

[deathlynx]

Trek will probably never come back to TV...I saw an interesting discussion once (might have been on TV) where the modern trend to darken shows and make them more realistic is what started to hurt the franchise...the original premise of the show (and even TNG) of a near Utopian society was what truly attracted the interest of the viewers...

As for the Temporal war, I didn't have as much a problem with it...since they had some of that on Voyager it was already cannon...Also, they needed to have it or else they would have to be especially careful about continuity with ALL of the other series...Though I completely agree with the dreck they threw in to season three as ratings grabbers...then again that's what happens when you try to take on established Sci-fi shows (first Smallville and then SG-1...

[vampyre]

i think good sci fi reflects the society it was created for. Star Trek was created back in the 60's when everyone was thinking the future would be a utopia. Here we are 40 years later and we realize if we're not careful, we'll be living the Mad Max future instead.

[Starlit Rogue]

I thought Voyager was really good. I remember watching it with my mom every time a new episode came out.

[Eryk Klarvindstot]

hehe I still watch the reruns of Voyager everyday before I go to work.

[deathlynx]

Vamp, you're right about sci-fi reflecting the society, but the difference is that people want to be uplifted...adding the dark into a universe that was initially designed to uplift ends up spoiling it for many fans...

[vampyre]

Maybe but think about the two versions of BSG. which one do you like better?

I like the newer one because to me it seems more realistic. The ship[ is beat up. everything is gritty. The people look like people that are living under extreme stress and poor conditions.

Unless there is some sort of miracle power source discovered and the world population decides to be more responsible, we wont see that shiny Utopia of the future.

We're on the road to Mad Max land and we're going fast and the breaks are fading fast.

I really liked Kess on Voyager. I hated to see her go.

[deathlynx]

lol...even the first version of BSG wasn't all shiny and happy (if you'll ignore the bad Cylon costumes )...And we have a number of fairly viable power sources available to us, we're just stuck in a loop with the petrolium based ones at the moment...

[vampyre]

By your command.

We have the availability, but will they be ready in time at an affordable price.
I don't understand why more people and power companies aren't using solar power more for example.

I looked into it for my house. It looks like it'd cost me $20k. while that's pretty high, I think that if there was more of a market for it, the price would come down some. Or maybe not. Demand could have the opposite effect.

I like the idea of hydrogen cars but the tech isn't quite ready yet. Do we want a few million Hindenburgs running around all over the place, crashing into each other every day?

The corn based fuel idea is totally ridiculous. We don't have enough land mass in the US to produce enough to make a difference and if we did, what are we going to eat. This idea is already cause food prices to rise.

Food and fuel prices are locked together anyway. Farmers use a lot of fuel planting, harvesting and getting their crops to market. Then more fuel is used getting the food distributed to local markets. It goes on and on.

One thing I do think is kind of funny. People complain about gas costing nearly $4.00 a galleon but they will pay nearly $2.00 for a 16 ounce bottle of water..something that's free from the tap.

Akk sorry I am drifting way OT. Where'd that soap box come from?

[deathlynx]

Corn isn't the only way to make ethyl alcohal...actually, kelp is far more efficient at it and heck, how much of the planet could be used to farm that?

Also, Hydrogen isn't nearly as bad as people think...Everyone fears the Hindenburg concept but to be honest the storage is just as safe as gasuline storage...keep in mind how incredibly combustable Diesal fuel is...you put it in a Regular engine and you have a fireball, and all because of one little spark...

Simmilarly we have fission power plants...Everyone is terrified of another chernoble, but think about the sheer number of nuke plants that not only are running, but nhave been running steadily and safely for decades...And yes, it's relatively easy to dispose of the waste...just shoot it into the sun...we have that technology...

And I agree about the water...the irony is that most areas have tougher restriction on the contents of the water supply than the FDA puts on the bottled water...