Dominic Keating On ‘Star Trek’ Audition + Coto v Berman/Braga | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Dominic Keating On ‘Star Trek’ Audition + Coto v Berman/Braga April 17, 2008

by John Tenuto , Filed under: ENT,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Dominic Keating (Lt. Malcom Reed on Star Trek Enterprise) reveals in a new interview with the official Star Trek Magazine, that he had an audition for JJ Abrams new Star Trek feature film. Keating also drew a sharp contrast between Enterprise’s 4th season showrunner Manny Coto and show creators Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.

Keating on his audition for Star Trek:

It was to play Jim Kirk’s uncle in the Midwest, where Jim grows up, before deciding to be a spaceman. I only got to read one scene, so maybe it was just that scene. I know I have it a good read. I didn’t say anything at the time, but I’m sure, even if they’d liked me, theid go, ‘Well, who is this guy?’ They’d say, ‘Oh, he played a part in Star Trek…’ And that it’d be, ‘No.” So that’s not going to happen. Would have been fun.

The 4th season of Enterprise is considered by most fans to be the best and much of the credit is given to writer/producer Manny Coto, who was brought in during the 3rd season and made show-runner for the 4th. The change was not lost on Keating:

The one thing I noticed in season four, and no detriment to Brannon [Braga] or Rick [Berman], was that the had a guy given the pole position, who was absolutely gagging for it. The life blood that came int the fourth season was palpable, and you saw it and felt it, whereas Rick and Brannon had been writing Star Trek for 15 or 16 years.

The latest issue of Star Trek Magazine has much more from Keating as well as other good articles on the film, and much more. Pick it on newsstands now.

 

Comments

1. Sean4000 - April 17, 2008

The 4th season was the best. Especially In A Mirror Darkly, Part II

2. Gary the Gorn - April 17, 2008

I liked his character on Enterprise. Butt Tripp was my favorite. The 4th season was a lot of fun. If they would have started the series that way I think Enterprise would still be around.

They should do a TV movie for Sci-Fi that would be cool.

3. Clark - April 17, 2008

I assumed they’d have wanted him to play an elderly Reed teaching weapons/self-defence classes at Starfleet Academy. That would’ve been okay, I guess.

4. Spockanella - April 17, 2008

I agree with #2. That whole Xindi arc left me absolutely cold. It’s such a shame that by the time that show really came into its own, it was canceled.

Gotta love Trip, and that T’Pol was no slouch either.

5. Tom - April 17, 2008

The 4th season of Enterprise may have been it’s best, but it it had only one way to go after 3 dismal years. The source material was lacking to begin with, so even Manny’s talent could bring it out of it’s morose dwellings.

The both the new Battlestar Galactic and Enterprise had a world changing calamity similar to 9/11. Each had an opportunity to play on that foundation and make political statements, like TOS did. Battlestar exceeded for the most part in this. But Enterprise took the premise and wasted it on pedestrian retreads of previous Trek plots.

After establishing that type of tone for the series, it could do nothing but fail. I think Trek fandom should make Entrprise aprochyphal, not TAS

6. Lore - April 17, 2008

How nice of him to give away a scene from the new film. No sour grapes from the cast of Enterprise. cough cough

7. TonyD - April 17, 2008

The fourth season was Enterprise’s finest and there were some nice moments, but looking back now it was still a mediocre effort in my opinion. There were too many weak episodes (Daedalus, anyone?) and outright ripoffs (Home was Ent’s version of TNG’s Family). The multi-part episodes all started off strong but fizzled at the end as they almost all had resolutions that were brought out in the last 5 or 10 minutes. Archer was still a wildly inconistent character, vacillating all over the place (in particular, he came across as a real jerk towards his crew in Daedalus). And let’s not forget “These Are The Voyages”, B&B’s “valentine to the fans” that ended the whole series.

8. Stop Bashing Nemesis - April 17, 2008

ENT was my least favorite incarnation of Trek which is saying something because DS9 was bloody boring until they got Worf and until the war.
ENT was undoubtedly at its best during season 4 and it should have kept going, maybe if they did something with the Romulan war instead of the Xindi temporal cold war it would have got its 7 seasons like all modern Trek.
And for as much as I think the Borg rock a fat one it was just wrong to throw them in there to get viewer ship back, and the series finale, OMG lets not get started on that.

But if I saw Dominic on JJ’s Trek as Kirks uncle I would still be thinking Malcom Reed, I don’t think its good to recast trek alumni just for the sake of getting them in there as a cameo, that ruins movies/tv shows.

9. j w wright - April 17, 2008

enterprise ruled, far superior to deep snore nine and star trek: lost in space

but, the younger generation grew up knowing only those shows as ‘star trek’ and naturally reacted badly to the adventures of john archer and crew… which was a real loss

pity, that

10. Redjac - April 17, 2008

Bor-innnnnnng….

11. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - April 17, 2008

I like to watch Enterprise because it’s a sort of fun sci-fi show, but I still can’t mentally place it in the Star Trek universe. As a show, I like it much more than, say, any Stargate shows. But I won’t be running out and getting any episodes on DVD. Enterprise just seemed out of place. But I won’t say it was bad, just that I don’t care enough to defend it.

I’m not a strict canon-head, but Enterprise always had a way of setting off the “Not Consistent With What You Know As Star Trek” alarm.

But, yeah, I like to watch it.

12. 'Beach O. Inthanity - April 17, 2008

7
I’ve said this before but the ENT finale wasn’t MEANT to be its final episode. It was just the last episode COMPLETED when the show was cancelled. “These Are the Voyages” was just supposed to be a regular ep.

13. Spockanella - April 17, 2008

#11 agree w/you. I liked it, but not enough to get emotionally invested. I never even watched it until Sci Fi started running it ad infinitum.

I’ve actually never (gasp!) watched any of the Star Trek versions other than TOS, TAS, and Enterprise. What few episodes of TNG I saw bored me to death, and after that I was sort of put off by the whole thing. But, you know, all of them had something that some fans could relate to, so in no way do I mean to trash any of them. I just think Enterprise maybe got bashed a little more than it truly had coming.

You’re right, “Fandom Menace” (love that name!). When watching Enterprise, I frequently forgot it was even part of Star Trek. It really did feel anachronistic. But I still found it mildly enjoyable.

14. sean - April 17, 2008

Yeah #6, now that I know the secret that Jim Kirk has relatives, I will be totally unable to enjoy the new movie! ;)

As far as Enterprise goes, it had a great many things going against it. Not the least of which was the miscasting of so many of the leads. I love Scott Bakula in nearly everything else he’s been in, but he was mediocre to forgettable in ENT. Same goes for John Billingsley, The actress playing Hoshi was essentially set dressing, and Jolene Blalock wasn’t exactly stretching her acting muscle with T’Pol’s two moods – irritated and asleep. I agree that Trip was probably the best developed character of them all, but even that wasn’t enough to pull me in. Everytime I see the show come on I just get frustrated at what a missed opportunity it was. Someone needs to blacklist that casting director, seriously.

15. 47!!!!!!!!!!! - April 17, 2008

I got my Star Trek Magazine a week ago!

16. New Horizon - April 17, 2008

—12. ‘Beach O. Inthanity – April 17, 2008
I’ve said this before but the ENT finale wasn’t MEANT to be its final episode. It was just the last episode COMPLETED when the show was cancelled. “These Are the Voyages” was just supposed to be a regular ep. —

You may have said this before, but you’re not completely correct

The episode ‘as originally envisioned’ was to have been a regular episode during the third season I believe. It was rewritten when Berman and Braga knew for sure that Enterprise was being canceled, and it was fully intended to be the finale.

News that the series was canceled came about before all the episodes were completed. Why do you think there all of those ‘Save Enterprise’ campaigns leading up to the end of the series? They also threw in the whole thing about killing Trip because they knew the series wasn’t coming back. This has been addressed in a few interviews by Brannon himself.

17. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 17, 2008

I loved ENT’s final season and a half, and I also would have liked to have seen it keep going. While it was not at its best in the first two and a half years, I don’t think it was, even then, any worse than the other Trek spinoffs (except maybe DS9 toward the end), especially VOY. I actually purchased the DVD sets, something I never bothered to do with any other Trek TV series, aside from TOS.
As someone who was never a big fan of TNG-era Star Trek, I actually found ENT rather refreshing. I liked the grit and uncertainty of it all. I also thought the Borg plot was a bit too much, until I actually thought about what effect the events of FC may have had on the timeline in general. In retrospect, it makes more sense to me now than it did then (I was never able to actually watch the series during its run because of the network it was on, so I only heard about it).
The biggest complaints I heard from Trek fans who did have access to the UPN was about canon violations. I have to say that, after viewing the entire series on dvd, those reports were grossly exaggerated. While they may have debunked some of the fanon (that is, preconceived notions about Trek history which were never based on actual canonized Trek), I thought they did an admirable job of tapdancing around issues of continuity, and never actually violated canon.
Of course, the bland characters are a complaint that I hear alot. To me, they were no less bland than the characters in TNG. The iconic characters of TOS have never been truely succeeded. I really just enjoyed the feel of a much more raw and even strained Terran/Vulcan alliance which started with the pilot episode, and became somewhat of a series-long arc. I also felt that the show’s producers/writers were rather bold on occasion, even exploring the issue some fans have with the Klingon ridges and the lack of those ridges on Klingons seen in the TOS-era. “In A Mirror, Darkly” was fantastic, and the many 3-episode mini-arcs were quite enjoyable as well. I also feel that “Terra Prime” is one of the better written Star Trek episodes in any series.

All in all, I think ENT is highly underrated, and will end up standing the test of time better than some people think. I think I’ll watch some this weekend.

18. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - April 17, 2008

Spockanella:

You mean to tell me you weren’t completely enraptured with the brilliantly executed TNG? Guards, seize her! (I kid)

DS9 was the show that I tried and tried to get into but the spark never caught fire. I recognize that it was well done, but I guess it just wasn’t for me.

Voyager was honestly, to me, hit and miss. The good stuff I thought was very good, but the bad stuff just stunk.

But these opinions are just that. Opinions. Bottom line is you like what you like. And don’t get cheesed off if someone else doesn’t like the same things.

19. ngl;sdb;ga - April 17, 2008

if enterprise didnt have that damn theme song it might have survived

i have faith indeed

20. 'Beach O. Inthanity - April 17, 2008

14
I don’t entirely agree that it was the fault of the actors. Characters on TV or in movies are defined by their protrayers to a degree, yes, but I think Enterprise’s problem was the way the characters were (and sometimes weren’t) written. Trip was well-developed, but by their fourth seasons, the other shows (primarily TNG and DS9. VOY pretty much never) were MUCH farther along character-development wise. ENT like most of the others mostly suffered from a lack of consistency and originality.
For instance, where is it written that just because Nimoy’s Spock’s hair looked that way that ALL Vulcans had to have that funky black bowl haircut? Hell, even the ENT Vulcan women’s hair was a version of that. At least they got away from the TNG bump-headed Vulcans/Romulans.
Making the Andorians’ antennae move was off-putting, not just because blah blah “TOS didn’t show them that way”blah blah, but because it made them TOO different from the TOS Andorians. Almost like the differences between Caucasian and, say, Asian humans. Both same species, yet obvious visual differences. Imean, why dd htey have to make them move? Aren’t Andorian antennae like human ears (however more sensitive they may fictionally be)? Do your or my ears move about randomly? Don’t think so. Having them swivel directionaly like a dog’s or a cat’s ears would have made more sense, believablity-wise
I liked the explanation for the smooth-headed Klingons. Coto was at least TRYING to tie the show ino TOS.
I agree with THX and Spockanella, though. Despite this rather lengthy opinion I cannot seem to get emotionally invested in the show.
Thought the “Mirror, Darkly” eps were pretty good…

21. 'Beach O. Inthanity - April 17, 2008

16
I stand humbly corrected….

22. Teleportation Girl - April 17, 2008

The only reason I watched that abomination was because I needed a Star Trek fix. At that time anything would do. What can I say, I was strung out. I’d take anything, even a crappy misinterpretation of the early days. That is how desperate times were back then.

lets all just pretend it was a dream sequence and wake up now to the new JJ Abrams Trek and move on.

some nightmares just need to be forgotten.

23. star trackie - April 17, 2008

The 24th century left me cold. I got absolutely NO Trek vibes from any of it. Maybe a hint here and there in Ds9, but most of it was cut from such a different cloth of TOS that I never found it inviting much less entertaining.

But I found the cast of Enterprise to be an island of freshness in the Berman infested waters of Trekdom. Archer was a pretty lousy captain, but the rest of the crew had some nice chemistry. And the stories seemed to be a lot more fun than the 24th century mediocrity that flooded the airwaves for 15 years.

While Enterprise wasn’t TOS, it was, at least, a step in the right direction. A small step, but a step none the less. And Reed was a good character whose potential was never really realised. I would have welcomed an appearance by him in Trek 09.

24. Cobra Commander - April 17, 2008

Well said #17!!!!
Enterprise didn’t get the love it deserved.
I skipped it entirely during its initial run. I am guilty. But watching it in re-run on SciFi has been great. I am now saddened that there were only four seasons.

My Fav’s in order:
TOS (Loved it since I was 4 years old)
TNG (Loved it since the beginning & all the movies)
ENT (Just now discovered what a gem I’d missed initially)
TAS (Can’t help it; it’s still TOS, just animated. I consider it canon)
DS9 (Liked several episodes, but never caught my complete attention)
VOY (Wow, this was suprisingly weak . . . so sorry)

25. Teleportation Girl - April 17, 2008

I should add here too that last Saturday while no one was watching the auditorium, an art director from Enterprise was there giving a slide show from behind the scenes of the set.

It was mostly cute photos of the cast and crew, but one interesting thing he said was that he had always felt that as art director he wanted the entire show to look like TOS, but that the network stepped in because the network felt that a vintage looking show would not have mass appeal.

I sincerely hope that next May that is proven wrong in a BIG way. I think anything that harkens back to the canon and look of the original series will be impressive to so many out there, even non fans. The look of it is incredibly appealing with the primary color scheme and massively cool sets.

And on a side note: I have to say I was and have been always impressed with the first, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, set designs. I think that movie is really incredible artistically speaking. Especially the AMAZING Spock sequences. Those are some of my all time favorite movie visuals ever. They remind me very much of the first opening sequence of Blade Runner…

26. fakesteve - April 17, 2008

15 or 16 years… well, in the series finale of ENT Bermanbraga showed again their huge respect for the whole franchise, the fandom and the actors. haha.

27. SirBroiler - April 17, 2008

I think of all of the shows, Enterprise was the most dynamic when it came to the dynamic and scope of it’s production.

It always feels “big” to me when I watch it – like a movie – despite its obvious character and writing flaws. And frankly, that’s what I love about it – and why I continue to re-watch many of the episodes. I always seem to find something new each time I see an episode.

Now don’t get me wrong, Enterprise has its share of stink-filled episodes – but so does every Trek incarnation – Voyager much more than all of the others. But TOS, TNG, DS9 – you can’t deny that there are episodes that just make you shudder.

In short, I like Enterprise. I like the idea of Enterprise. I think Enterprise was one of the most realistic Treks ever. And I wasn’t going to let the occasional drift from canon to color my opinion of the show. I wish it had been given the chance the other shows had.

Such is life.

28. fakesteve - April 17, 2008

@25… great timing… ;))

29. Teleportation Girl - April 17, 2008

In fact, I wonder if Ridley got the idea or inspiration of that opening sequence from Star Trek The Motion Picture.

See, now maybe JJ will create an iconic movie here with real heart, influencing others in the sci fi genre in the future.

Ok, I’ve said my piece. :)

30. Rainbucket - April 17, 2008

#14. I respectfully disagree about John Billingsley, he made Phlox one of the better realized and entertaining characters. Phlox was Neelix done right (well conceived character, not irritating) the way Jake Sisko was Wesley done right.

31. Teleportation Girl - April 17, 2008

wow awesome timing!

32. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator - April 17, 2008

…The life blood that came int the fourth season was palpable, and you saw it and felt it…

That’s what happens when you have fans working on a production of what they’re a rabid, hardcore fan of. Which is why Abram’s “Star Trek” should have been done by someone like Manny Coto – as it is, Abrams is just doing it for the money he’ll make. That’s not inherently bad, and I’m not saying Abrams is bad because of his motivations, but I AM making the point that the product will be very different than a product that is a result of a real love for the genre.

33. CmdrR - April 17, 2008

I agree the 4th season saw what Enterprise should have been… that is once they got past “Evil Space Nazis Meet The Sopranos.” (Yikes, what a steaming pile that two-parter was.)
I also liked a lot of the elements early in the series, before it went off course. I very much liked the idea that Earth ships were unprepared for the pummeling the would take at the hands of more experienced space-faring races. Phlox had a great early ep, deciding which of two races might live and which might die.
No Trek series is 100% gold. In the immortal words of Frye, even TOS had “about 30 really good ones.” I think Enterprise had about 30 really good ones in four seasons.

34. Kyle Nin - April 17, 2008

In my opinion, “ENT” is just as good as “TNG” and “DS9″. I consider all three to be my favorite of the Trek shows.

35. Cobra Commander - April 17, 2008

#30′s right IMHO

John Billingsley’s Phlox was one of the best parts of ENT. A great character and well-executed by John. I loved the Phlox scenes.

36. Orb of the Emissary - April 17, 2008

#8-

Stop Bashing Nemesis, I agree with you 100%. The 3rd season of ENT should of focus more on the Romulans instead of the Xindi war. Though the Xindi had their moments, the Romulans would have gone more with established canon (the show was a prequal, right?).
And I too would of just thought of Malcolm Reed instead of Kirk’s uncle had Dominic Keating been cast in the upcoming movie.
I think it’d be cool if we saw Jolene Blalock or John Billingsley reprise their roles of T’Pol and Dr. Phlox in cameos in the new movie. That would definately bridge ENT with the rest of the Star Trek series. :-)

37. Scott Xavier - April 17, 2008

Manny is the man. Though enterprise had some early off good stories, that xindi/zindi crap was just just that crap. And who the funk is future guy anyways?

38. fakesteve - April 17, 2008

Of course will JJ make some money… but anybody who saw his performance at last years TED conference knows that he is full of ideas, and able to transport them into his projects. When the franchise ended up in the hands of Berman and Braga, they used it like a money printing machine. They acted like they could serve any crap to the trekkies out there, as long as it was labeled “Star Trek”. Voyager was bad, Enterprise was worse. TOS was made by people who loved what they did, take a typical Bragasode and feel the difference. Should the ratings drop you could be sure that Braga was coming up with the Borg, in every timeline.

JJ Abrams is the best that happened to Trek since Gene died.

39. Desertrat - April 17, 2008

IMHO-What made Enterprise hit the ropes was Bakula’s performance and the outlandish attempt to get male views by putting Blaylock in what was pretty much a cat suit.

No imagination and no taste.

That show had so much promise to be a hallmark of Star Trek, but the fans were failed by the writing, acting and general thought behind the show. I knew after season two that this could signal the end of Star trek as we know it.

Good job Berman, you almost killed Star Trek!

40. Thomas Jensen - April 17, 2008

I never accepted the premise of “Enterprise”. …Well, you see it’s a show about the first Enterprise who set off into space with the first vulcan and they saved the Earth from destruction, etc.

No one ever mentioned it in any of the series, because it didn’t exist. It’s ‘history’ was all over the map. That show was simply a way for them to cash-in and keep the cash rolling into Paramount.

However the checks all bounced.

41. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 17, 2008

#32—”That’s what happens when you have fans working on a production of what they’re a rabid, hardcore fan of. Which is why Abram’s “Star Trek” should have been done by someone like Manny Coto – as it is, Abrams is just doing it for the money he’ll make.”

First of all, what evidence do you have to show that Abrams is just doing it for the money he’ll make? In that case, why agree to direct a movie within a “dying” franchise under the pressure of a $150 million investment? That is an accusation which requires some evidence, IMO. You are attacking his integrity (and his sanity) for no reason at all.

I like Manny Coto, but Paramount only approved this project because it involved an A-list Hollywood name like JJ Abrams. Otherwise, there is no Star Trek movie—especially with that superior budget.

And since when are Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (the writers of STXI) not fans of Star Trek? If it is just the director which you are concerned about, what about Robert Wise and Nick Meyer? Were they “rabid” fans of Star Trek? Absolutely not. If anything, JJ Abrams is a bigger fan of Trek than either of them was when they directed a ST film. One of his favorite experiences was, apparently, going to see TWOK with his friends, and he describes himself as a fan. I never heard Wise or Meyer say anything like that. In fact, Meyer said he had never seen the show (TOS) prior to taking on the film. Somehow, I doubt that Wise had either. So, is he (Abrams) a liar? And what reason do you have to believe that?

I have nothing against differing opinions, but in this post, you are presenting certain things as fact that actually have no basis in truth whatsoever. In fact, the only two statements you made which are not completely unsupportable are that Manny Coto is a rabid fan and looking to make money is not a bad thing.

It’s one thing to be skeptical, but you are peddling false propoganda which is seemingly geared toward discrediting JJ Abrams with no basis in fact. And why on this thread (which had nothing to do with Abrams, by the way)?

42. sean - April 17, 2008

#20

To me, those are all minor points. I don’t really care if the Andorians’ antennae move or if Vulcans all share the same barber. If the stories & characterizations are there, I’m on board.

The problem I had with ENT was with the weak characters and the borrowed storylines. Archer (as portrayed by Bakula) bored me to tears, and isn’t someone I’d ever want to know. The T’Pol character turned Vulcan aloofness into full-fledged misanthropy. and Hoshi & Mayweather…well, there’s not even enough character there to assasinate. They were just tedious.

It’s not about the actors being ‘bad’, but just a case of otherwise good actors either A)working with flawed material or B)working in the wrong medium. I think both came into play on Enterprise.

#30

Sorry, Phlox always struck me as rather cartoonish. That CGI smile didn’t help!

43. British Naval Dude - April 17, 2008

I enjoy Enterprise. Tho’ I be seein’ much of it fur the first time just now. Yes- I saw the baddies mentioned here. But most of tha’ goodies too.

Mayhaps if it wuz syndicated instead of on an unknown esoteric network…

perhpas Dr. Phloxx will indeed, as suggested, appear in ST 11 (no he won’t ta’ be sure) but if he had a scene curin’ a crewman’s constipation then that’d be grand… maybe even curing various constipation abounding here and thar’…. and put ‘im inna catsuit…

arrrrr….

44. stallion - April 17, 2008

I enjoyed Enterprise. I like the fact that some of the alien made famous on TOS were brought back like the Andorian, Tholian, and teleriate. I kind of wish they used the Tholian and teleriate a little bit more during season one like they did with the Andorian. If they ever make another Star Trek series the security officer should be an Andorian.

The Temporal Cold War wasn’t used as an excuse to explain why some stuff didn’t fit in the canon like many fans expected it would be used for or to bring back a character from other Trek series to Enterprise.

45. stallion - April 17, 2008

If you haven’t seen these episode I’m about to list than you should see it. It is a nice fix of good Star Trek and Science fiction.

Broken Bow
Fight or Flight
Strange New World
The Androian Incident
Fortunate Son
Cold Front
Silent Enemy
Dear Doctor
Shuttlepod One
Detained
Fallen Hero
Shock Wave
Vox Sola
Minefield
Dead Stop
The Communicator
The Catwalk
Cease Fire
Future Tense
Judgement
Horizon
The Breach
Cogenitor
First Flight
The Expanse

^And I haven’t gotten into Epidoes from Season 3 and 4.

46. star trackie - April 17, 2008

#32 “That’s what happens when you have fans working on a production of what they’re a rabid, hardcore fan of. Which is why Abram’s “Star Trek” should have been done by someone like Manny Coto – as it is, Abrams is just doing it for the money he’ll make.”

Have to disagree there. JJ has publicly stated that he is a big fan of TOS, but not so much the other series. And more importantly, he is a HUGE fan of classic Twilight Zone. Imaginative television has rarely reached the level of quality achieved by the Rod Serling and the original TZ. JJ has even been quoted as saying he likes TOS andTZ because it invloves….REAL people and tests them by putting them in incredible, amazing and often very dangerous situations.

After 20 years of boring paint-by-numbers Trek, I can hardly wait to have creativity and imagination be a big part of Trek again. JJ is the man, and when I think about how Berman and company mishandled and transformed an incredible idea into a 20 year excercise of mediocrity, I can’t help but be totally jazzed that the new altered timeline version of TOS is JJ’s very capable hands.

I mean come on, Nimoy wouldn’t give Berman or Generations the time of day because it was such a stinker….but he can’t say enough good things about JJ’s take on TOS. Nuff said.

47. CmdrR - April 17, 2008

Wow, I think some of us store up this stuff.

OK:
Enterprise, YES:
It’s Trek, and it looks great.
Phlox
Hoshi
A few good scripts.

Enterprise, NO:
T’Pol.
T’Pol on drugs.
Continuity nightmares.
60% dull scripts.
Beginning with a “primitive” Enterprise and then quickly adding phasers, transporters and virtually everything else enjoyed by TOS.
Gratuitous cat suits, not to mention colligen and silicone (and I ain’t talking about Horta.)

48. Sebastian - April 17, 2008

Totally agreed with Keating on Season 4 of ENT. New blood, new energy (I think the same will be true with Trek XI). Season 4 is the only season of that show I own. At that point, it was JUST starting to feel like a true predecessor to TOS. A real shame. If that was season 1 instead of 4, I think it could’ve easily gone 7 years despite franchise fatigue.

49. diabolik - April 17, 2008

If the new Trek somehow wipes the Enterprise past timeline from existence, (by establishing a different history) I will be happy.

50. Thorny - April 17, 2008

“Enterprise” had its moments, but they were few and far between. The first season was all over the map from well-done (“Shadows of P’Jem”) to totally forgettable (“Vox Sola”). And the concept of the Temporal Cold War should be recorded for posterity as “Worst ideas for a recurring storyline” to warn future TV writers.

The second season really only had one or two good episodes, the rest was misbegotten junk.

The Xindi storyline was misguided in the extreme. They had a unique chance to tell an exciting story about either the Klingons or the Romulans (both of which we already knew the Federation had issues with in its early history) but instead Berman & Braga give us the thoroughly uninteresting Xindi, a race (or races) no one had mentioned before and almost certainly never will again. They could have backfilled the history of the Earth/Klingon/Romulan relationship and established why the Federation is founded, truly utilizing the show’s setting as a prequel, but they didn’t.

They also should have taken a page from Babylon 5 and fired the star when it was clear he was not working out. Bakula was great on “Quantum Leap” but was terrible on “Enterprise”, his scenery-chewing in “In A Mirror, Darkly” is abominable and ruins an otherwise first-rate episode. Like O’Hare on B5, they could have brought Bakula back for ocassional visits, but he was miscast as Archer and none of the hit-and-miss supporting cast could make up for that, the way DS9′s extraordinary supporting players made up for Brooks’ lackluster performance as Sisko.

51. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 17, 2008

I’ve never had a problem being in the minority opinion, so I’ll say that ENT is my favorite spinoff series. The characters could have had more depth, but I think they didn’t because the show’s producers tried to shove so much into it early on that there wasn’t the usual space for character driven plots, normally associated with Star Trek. Still, I loved the tie-ins to the TOS-era, and as I said before, the uncertainty and instability of it all. That is what, to me, set it apart. It was more adventurous, more dangerous, and totally apart from the utopian Trek Universe we had come to know. That was exactly what I expected. After all, there had to be chaos before there was order. What I liked about ENT was exactly what I liked about the last seasons of DS9. It was a bit darker, and showed us that even Roddenberry’s vision of a perfect society could suffer uncertainty and fear. ENT was very similar, depicting Earth as the new kid on the block, and the galaxy full of villains, misunderstandings, mistrust, treachery, and danger.

I much prefer ENT to the 24th Century holodecks, ship’s counselors, children on starships, children on the bridge, and android officers.

1. TOS–nothing beats Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty
2. ENT–loved the depiction of Gene’s universe a century prior to TOS
3. DS9–the only 24th Century Trek I watch in reruns
4. TAS–aside from “Yesteryear”, most of it sucks, but icons still there
5. TNG–everytime I change the channel on TNG I say, “Make it so”
(although “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is wonderful)
6. VOY–not a bad idea in principle, but no.

52. fakesteve - April 17, 2008

Ron Moore showed with BSG what Enterprise could have been without BermanBraga… And yes, Bakula was a huge nail to the coffin.

53. US Taxpayer Dude - April 17, 2008

Enterprise, Enterprise, wherefore art thou Enterprise?

“Humans are too stupid to play in the galaxy, so wiser, smarter, more paternal Vulcans will babysit them”. Star Trek was all about Manifest Destiny, so that was its first error.

Scott Bakula is a nice guy. He could have played “The 40 Year Old Virgin” in his day. But I don’t believe him as an intrepid explorer or leader of men. Yeah, I’d enjoy hanging with him but that’s different.

Jolene… see the Vulcan complaint above. Also, too much “surgical enhancement” for my taste. Give me a real woman anyday. Also, the producers violated the Theiss Titillation Theory. There was no way her costume could fall off. Never! Not even in the Temporal Rift! That and they teased us too often with those shower shots. If you can’t do the time…

Tripp & Malcolm: good characters although too angry too often.

Hoshi: interesting plot assignments but her constant annoyance got old – smiles are good :-)

Writers: brought up in Hollywood by Hollywood parents. Not enough real world experience to be interesting. Star Trek suffered from this starting with TNG. The original Trek team were all “normal” people and Hollywood was a second career for most of them. Made their work that much more interesting – and that much less reflexive.

BRING IT ON JJ WITH DIRT AND RIVETS AND WELDERS AND CORVETTES AND BLONDE BABES AND BLOOD AND RISKS AND MISTAKES AND GLORIOUS VICTORIES AND GLORIOUS FAILURES AND ALL THE HUMAN FRAILTY THAT GIVES TOLERANCE MEANING! WOOHOO!!!!

54. CmdrR - April 17, 2008

try this again…

O’Hare was dumped because the financial backers of B5 didn’t like his onscreen manerisms. He remains a huge supporter of the show.

Brooks began the gig as a one-note performer, but eventually (yes, it took several seasons) he began to show some genuine interest in the role.

Personally, I thought Bakula in Mirror was outstanding. It was the “failed” Archer, which took a lot of courage for a lead actor to agree to do. What he (or more likely the writers) failed to do was to give Archer depth. They returned to a few items (feeding Porthos cheese) way too often, instead of giving him meaningful relationships. The Daddy flashbacks never really worked, IMHO. For me, anyway, the big misstep was T’Pol. Spock was the first Starfleet Vulcan. Don’t split hairs. He was first on the bridge of an Earth starship. Shaddap! Nimoy is also one of the few actors to portray a Vulcan without coming off ‘bored.’ Blalock’s bizarre physicality (Vulcan Kung Fu, anyone?) and lack of humor in the role killed an already questionable character.

55. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 17, 2008

#54—” For me, anyway, the big misstep was T’Pol. Spock was the first Starfleet Vulcan.”

I normally agree with most of your posts, but I have to stop you there. It is my understanding that Spock was the first Vulcan to graduate from Starfleet Academy. That is not the same thing as being the first Vulcan in Starfleet. I am a former US Marine officer, yet I never attended The US Naval Academy at Annapolis.
Blalock’s performance may have left us “wanting”, but T’Pol was not an “already questionable character”, as you say, at least not for that reason. This is an example of a preconceived notion being confused with canon.

56. Valar1 - April 17, 2008

I don’t care anymore about which series was best or worst. They are all history, the people behind the shows never listened to my complaints, never attempted to improve what I thought was lacking, and now they are gone. Rather than going through this bitch fest every time someone drags this crap out, I’m going to sit back and let the new guys show what they can do with a new team, a new work ethic and a new confidence by the studio. May the sun never set on the Star Trek empire.

57. Spockanella - April 17, 2008

Poor Scott Bakula (a Missouri boy, yeah!). Archer was such a doofus. I liked the dog, though.

And I can see everybody’s point about T’Pol (and she was wwwwaaaaYYY to engineered, if ya know what I mean), but…I still liked her.

It always seemed to me like Enterprise missed the mark. Like it was supposed to be a prequel but came off as a retcon instead. TOS had Spock? Hey, WE had the first Vulcan in Starfleet. TOS ran into the Tholian web? Check out OUR web. And Spock wasn’t REALLY the first Vulcan/human hybrid; Elizabeth Tucker was. Look at our Andorians…their ears swivel rather disconcertingly!

But I still liked it, for the most part. Go figure.

58. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 17, 2008

#54—”Blalock’s bizarre physicality (Vulcan Kung Fu, anyone?)…”

I may be misinterpreting, but I assume you are referring to her knowledge of a “Vulcan martial art”. Is that really so unbelievable, given that even in the 23rd and 24th Century , Vulcans can be subjected to combat rituals involving such weapons as the Lirpa and the An-woon, and even a dignified Ambassador like Sarek could be familiar with an ancient execution technique that involves the swift breaking of a man’s neck?

59. Demode - April 17, 2008

t#50…… the way DS9’s extraordinary supporting players made up for Brooks’ lackluster performance as Sisko….

Sorry, my friend, but Sisko was perfectly cast, in my opinion. He was my favorite character on the show. As a person who spent 10 years in the military, I found his character to be the most realistic Captain ever shown in Star Trek.

60. sean - April 17, 2008

I’m always surprised people speak so fondly of ‘In a Mirror, Darkly’. I think it’s one of the worst episodes I’ve seen. Sure, it’s nice to see a decent CGI Enterprise and more than just a Tholian’s head, but between the overacting that makes William Shatner look understated to the abominable rendering of the Gorn (‘Look everyone! It’s a talking Velicoraptor!’), I just can’t stand to watch it.

Even though my favorite series (DS9) visited the Mirror well too often, they still knew how to get the characterizations right without hamming up the screen like they were on a lost episode of Passions. And say what you will about Avery Brooks, but his Sisko had a commanding presence that harkened back to Shatner’s Kirk. When he gave an order, you’d better follow it. Archer’s ‘orders’ always felt more like suggestions. He just didn’t have the presence to make me believe he was the Captain.

61. non-belligerency confirmed (your trek is better than my trek) - April 17, 2008

each time the various series come up, we hear about something called “character development” and how this seems to determine how good/successful/well-written the series was a whole. we also hear alot about long-term “arcs” and how very important they are. i have never found either to be helpful in determining how ‘good’ a specific episode or series is. at all.

it doesn’t matter if crewman ricky once owned a parrot or harry kim grows up to be gay or hoshi stops using the motion sickness bag or data finally gets a blow job from a borg queen if the fact itself isn’t part of the immediate narrative. “character development” is useless unless character interaction is what drives a story. (you never need to have seen other TOS episodes to understand or enjoy the one you’re watching, for example.) ENT only became fun when the story moved, not as the characters “became beloved”. this, to me, is a basic flaw in contemporary trek. the producers thought by writing characters they would create drama. they should have written relationships let them be the drama. for more on the subject see: Star Trek XI (i hope).

62. Lore - April 17, 2008

#14 With all actors and production crew (and other people not working on the film such as Ronald Moore) being so careful to give nothing away, it just shows the bitterness that he gave away what little he knew about. (If he had known more he would have spilled it) Sorry to bash poor Malcom. Maybe that episode where Archer gave him a birthday cake will make it all better. This doesn’t ruin the movie, but the fans can’t change the fact that Enterprise was a lackluster effort.

63. Starfleet06 - April 17, 2008

What really bothers me is that most of you seem to think that Enterprise was the worst thing to happen to the Star Trek Universe and constantly berate and speak down upon it. The only thing wrong with Enterprise is that it tried to change with the times. It got a younger cast, shed the outrageously futuristic uniforms, got a theme song that didn’t sound like something my parents would listen to, made the stories cliffhangers rather than stand alone episodes and added some sex-appeal.

Let’s take a look at some of the more popular shows that have graced the airwaves in the past 7 years such as Scrubs, Heroes, 24, the OC, The Office, Grey’s, among many others. These shows on television today have those catchy songs as intros. Almost every one of those also has huge story arcs that last a whole season and sometimes more. They also really don’t have much character development when you really look at it. The stories are about sex, violence and betrayal. That’s what people like. That’s what’s popular.

Now you see, I’m in my college years now and I’m in the minority of people I know who like Star Trek. As much as I like to hear all you get all excited and caught up in this whole idea of “continuity” and “cannon”, I think it’s even more important that Star Trek becomes more capable of appealing to a younger viewing audience. And I think that is exactly what Abrams and company are trying to do. Star Trek is every bit as capable of being considered “cool” like Star Wars is.

I’m a new age Star Trek fan. I grew up with Jean-Luc and the Enterprise-D. I loved that crew and I loved that ship. The Original Series was old and outdated. The episodes put me to sleep. In my high school years I turned to Enterprise and was met with a people that I could relate to. People full of potential struggling to find themselves amongst uncertainty and doubt. Star Trek was new again. Star Trek had potential. And then Star Trek died…

This new movie is Star Trek’s chance. And you know why that is? It’s because of a cast of young actors and a director full of vision and hope. I do truly hope that this incarnation of my favorite show shows the world that Star Trek is cool; that Star Trek is not something that should be dismissed on a whim.

I just ask all you old timers to keep an open mind and accept that things aren’t quite going to be the same anymore. Star Trek didn’t just die because of Berman and Braga, it died because you refused to give it the chance to reinvent itself in a new-era.

Thanks for listening.

64. Gigastazio - April 17, 2008

#2: “Butt Tripp was my favorite.”

Butt Tripp?

I don’t think you were watching Star Trek, dude.

65. Lore - April 17, 2008

BTW Sean, it wasn’t the casting, It was the bad story lines and terrible writing that killed Enterprise.

66. CmdrR - April 17, 2008

Mr. Poopeyface, when I talk about Blalock’s bizarre physicality, I’m referring to her physical movement onscreen. In the episode “The Marauders” she instructs the rest of the landing party on a form of martial arts. The title character from Weekend at Bernie’s had better moves. Blalock appears to have modeling skills. Standing still, from a distance, I guess some guys would think she’s hot. Those abilities haven’t grown into acting chops. IMHO, and I’m happy if you disagree.

My other point was that Spock was “first.” I find it tedious to qualify which ‘first’ T’Pol occupies. At some points, they put her in a uniform. Spock had that honor. Prequels fail when they disrespect — I won’t use the word canon — stuff we love.

67. Lore - April 17, 2008

Sean, agree with you completely about DS9. Sisco rocked, have all seven seasons on DVD, but then again have all four seasons of Enterprise as well, after spending over $400, think I have to right to say it stinks LOL

68. sean - April 17, 2008

#61

It’s often the little touches that help a show sink or swim. On TOS, there was plenty of background and character developement that might not have had a specific tie-in to the story at hand, but that was part of the fun. It added to Sulu’s overall development as a character that he was interested in Biology or collected ancient firearms, just as it fleshed Riker out to know he loved jazz or Sisko liked baseball or Kirk in the Academy ‘was a stack of books with legs’. It transformed them into real, 3-dimensional people, with interests and lives all their own. And since when was Star Trek not driven by character interaction?

69. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 17, 2008

#63—This old timer very much appreciates your thoughts. My kids feel the same way about TOS as you do. They prefer ENT as well. I agree wholeheartedly that it is time to let go of the old and bring in the new, and I hope STXI does just what you say. I doubt it will have the same impact on me as TOS did, but on my kids….who knows?

70. Spockanella - April 17, 2008

63: Old-timers? Old-timers! Hey!

Oh, wait, you’re right.

Can’t totally agree with you but will admit that getting hung up on minutiae and “canon” can be a fool’s game. As others have pointed out many times, hello, it’s all fiction.

This old-timer CAN’T WAIT to see how Star Trek gets reinvigorated. In my wilder fantasies, I envision a brand-new show, more and exciting movies, and on and on.

71. Myrth - April 17, 2008

#63 Well said. Enterprise was a great show. Glad to see its not all hate here.

72. Teleportation Girl - April 17, 2008

#38, said: Voyager was bad

or as I used to call Voyager, “The 7 of 9 show”.

As far as TOS, last Sunday Nimoy said that he felt that season 2 was the best of all 3, and that by the end of 3 he felt they weren’t doing good work, as he put it. It struck me as so interesting to know that the actors really had an incredible vested interest in the writing and wanted it to be as top quality as it could be. These days it seems like actors get into series with the intention of getting screen time so they can move on to film acting. it was so great to hear Nimoy’s reflection of his experience and see how much he and the cast really cared about the work they were doing.

73. sean - April 17, 2008

#63

I don’t like Enterprise because it was boring, not because I’m an ‘old-timer’ that didn’t like a young crew. If that young crew had been 1/4 as interesting as as I’d hoped, I would probably have given it a pass. And I could care less about canon (generally speaking), as long as the stories are worthwhile.

In terms of comparisons to other shows – The OC is a bad example as it was cancelled about as fast it came on. No one watched after Season 2, and it showed. Heroes is full of interesting characters and has a lot more going for it than ‘sex, violence and betrayal’. Scrubs is a half hour absurdist comedy, so I don’t really see the connection (though I love the show). 24′s viewership has fallen too, because of that failure to evolve its own characters. How many times can you watch Jack Bauer torture a suspect before it feels like you’re trapped in a causality loop?

I’d have to take issue with your description of the themesong – it most definitely WAS something my parents would listen to. It came directly from the Adult Alternative Contemporary factory in LA. It wasn’t even written for the series! It was recycled from a movie that came out 3 years before the show. Come on! If you’re honestly listening to that kind of music in college, you’re going to the wrong school. We need to get together and make you a mixtape or something. :)

That being said, I don’t begrudge anyone for liking the show. I loved DS9, but that’s not everyone’s favorite either. Still, if I were to be honest, I hope the new movie is NOTHING like Enterprise.

74. 790 - April 17, 2008

Does anyone here realise that Manny Coto is now Brannon Bragas boss on 24.

Btw loved seasons 3-4 of Enterprise.

75. Myrth - April 17, 2008

I hear all over the place about the deaded ‘canon’ viloations on Enterprise. Does someone have a list of actual onscreen ‘canon’ taht was violated in the show and not ‘fanon’ that was debunked. Just wondering if there is really anything to back this up because i did not find anything in my recent reviewing of the 4 seasons.

76. Scott Xavier - April 17, 2008

Can’t wait to see what we will be in for as JJ jumps on board. I love lost. I loves season 3-4, they peaces so much of bad trek together. They pieced the whacked out actions of the vulcans of 1 and 2 together. I couldn’t believe how hot tpol was and how bad the trek seasons were declining.

Never wanted future guy to be the romulans but it seemed inevitable. As I watch 24 I see even more bad tv.

ALSO as time travel will happen in the new movie watch the last season of Lost and then you will see my comfort for possible new trek movie.

77. newman - April 17, 2008

Trip was my favourite too. But I did like Reed alot, and I think Keating is a good actor.

And I know that Berman and Braga got a lot of flak of the way they handled the show, but I think there were some weak actors in front of the camera as well. But Keating wasn’t one of them.

78. sebimeyer - April 17, 2008

It’s worth pointing out that the 4th season of Enterprise also gave us a Starfleet Captain who tortures.

I’d say there’s a number of things a Starfleet captain should never do on ST, and that’s very high on that list.

79. Ben - April 17, 2008

ENT was great, just because it made me a Star Trek fan !

it had it weaks moments/episodes or characters, but so had all other trek shows, even the “holy grail” TOS.

Shame it ended when it got VERY good in the 4th seasons.

I totally loved the ship, pod, room, and uniform designs, They were exactly how I would imagine it to be in real life.
The Andorians, specially Shran – just class
Phlox was a joy too and Bakula being the 1st Star Trek Captain was the icing on the cake.

80. S. John Ross - April 17, 2008

I keep meaning to watch Season 4 of ENT (apart from the Babel trilogy, I mean) … I really do mean to … one of these days …

81. James R. Kirk - April 17, 2008

Am I the only person who thought Captain Archer was awesome?

82. Richard Daystrom - April 17, 2008

I really liked the pilot “Broken Bow”. I thought “Now they are heading in the right direction”, but after about the last half of the first season and the Xindi arc, they just lost it. Beran & Co. in my opinion just run out of steam. By the time Coto arrived too little too late. Hopefully the latest incarnation will not be a retread.

83. Richard Daystrom - April 17, 2008

Berman & Co.

84. Teleportation Girl - April 17, 2008

haha love the obscure reference James R. Kirk!

85. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 17, 2008

Enterprise is the best and most refreshing of all the Mod Trek, precisely because it was the least like the others. DS9 had the best cast of characters no doubt, great bench depth. But it was still much too 24th century like. Ick.

I wish they could have done it as planned and made it more in line with what an older TOS would look like. But for the restrictions they had, it did look tons better than other Mod Treks to me.

Archer was a weak Captain, Mayweather was a board, and Hoshi was hot but not developed as a character. And T’Pol just never came alive entirely.

But Trip, Reed and Phlox were great.

The list for me goes:

TOS- ‘Nuff said.
TAS- More of the same, ain’t nothing but a good thang.
ENT- Retro-active Trek coolness.
DS9- Characters, characters, characters. Especially Quark.
TNG- The most disappointing show in my lifetime.
VOY- Worst. Trek. Ever.

86. LoyalStarTrekFan - April 17, 2008

I agree with Dominic Keating. His character was my favorite in ENT (but then the Security Chief is always my favorite character for some reason) and ENT was a great show. I have always loved ENT and when people were yelling over ENT I predicted that after it was cancelled people would start saying “hey, it’s not that bad. Why was it cancelled?” I seem to have been right about some people.

I am a college student and I love ALL of Star Trek. Nothing comes close to the greatness that is Star Trek. My favorite series is TNG with DS9 a close second followed by VOY but I love them all. I disagree with the “outrageously futuristic uniforms” comment though. With the exception of TNG Seasons 1-2, the 24th Century uniforms were great and the FC-DS9 uniform was the best uniform ever to be featured in Star Trek, in my opinion. I will agree though that the ENT uniforms were good and were more modern. I also agree that Star Trek can be just as popular as Star Wars if done properly. (Star Wars and B5 had many “futuristic” uniforms as well.)

A lot of people I know who don’t like Star Trek will admit that they never really gave it a chance because it’s “that Trek show” and consider Star Trek to be just for geeks. Now, to be fair they’re not huge Star Wars fans either but they’ve seen all the Star Wars films and say that they’re “okay.” Obviously they have not seen all the Star Trek films or many episodes of any show because of their preconceptions which I have previously mentioned. Star Trek has to get past that and get people into theaters. I think JJ Abrams can do it.

87. LoyalStarTrekFan - April 17, 2008

63, the problem is that all those shows you mentioned, with the exception of Heroes and maybe 24, are stupid, terrible shows. Now if you want to see great shows, that are also popular, you need to see NCIS, The Unit, and even though they’re horribly unrealistic, CSI, Law & Order, Criminal Minds, and other crime dramas. The good thing about these crime dramas is that they show law enforcement in a possitive light which is something I always like to see. Just don’t expect it to be overly realistic when it comes to police procedure (i.e. having the widow investigate her husband’s death, or Crime Lab techs interviewing suspects, etc.) Some great comedies are Back to You on FOX, and Two and a Half Men on CBS. Also, on TBS reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond which is another great comedy.

NCIS – Tuesdays on CBS
The Unit – on CBS
Back to You – Wednesdays on FOX
Two and a Half Men – Mondays on CBS
Everybody Loves Raymond – evenings on TBS
CSI (various shows) – on CBS
Law & Order (various shows) – on NBC
JAG – reruns mornings on USA

By the way, speaking of military dramas, NBC was stupid to cancel E-Ring a couple of years ago.

You will notice that garbage like Scrubs, The Office, OC, etc. are not on the list.

88. cellojammer - April 17, 2008

I watched ENT during its original run and sort of liked it. Gave it another chance as a DVD rental and liked it MUCH better. Canon gets stretched, but rarely to the breaking point. Even when it pushed the envelope…so be it…It’s just TV! Archer wasn’t a commanding presence, but maybe that was an appropriate reflection of mankind’s tentative steps into the unknown. Heck, I found something to like in all the characters. Believe me, no one was more surprised than I was this second time around.

These are a few of my favorite Treks (with positives accentuated):

TOS – will always be special
DS9 – Best characters and stories of the 24th Century
ENT – Better than you remember. Try it!
TNG – Great cast, many memorable episodes
VOY – Groundbreaking casting, took some creative risks that occasionally paid off!

89. rosequartz - April 17, 2008

Definitely the minority opinion, but I watched TOS in the 60′s, saw every TOS movie on opening night, and had to be pushed into watching TNG the first time around, then loved it. Enjoyed DS9 but only after watching the series twice. And still, if I had to pick a crew, it would be Voyager all the way.

90. don_sturdy - April 17, 2008

Only 13 more months of this kind of riveting insider info til the big show.

91. LoyalStarTrekFan - April 17, 2008

By the way, if anyone knows when Frasier is shown, I’d love to know. That’s another great comedy. I naturally don’t have time to watch everything, and wouldn’t even if I did because I enjoy outdoor activity, but I like to know when my favorite shows are on.

On to trek: I thing the 24th century is the best era in Trek. The 24th century shows are my favorites of Trek. I love all of Star Trek but the 24th century is just something special from the characters, the uniforms, the ships, the storylines, etc.

My favorite Trek shows in order
1. TNG
2. DS9
3. VOY
4. ENT
5. TOS

Favorite movies (Looking forward to May 2009!)
1. ST: FC
2. ST VI: TUC
3. ST II: TWOK
4. ST IV: TVH
5. ST: INS
6. ST III: TSFS
7. ST: NEM
8: ST: TMP
9. ST: GEN
10: ST V: TFF

Favorite Characters:
TNG S1: Lt. Natasha Yar TNG: Lt. Worf
DS9: Constable Odo/Lt. Cdr. Worf
VOY: Lt. Cdr. Tuvok
ENT: Lt. Malcolm Reed
TOS: Ens. Chekov/Cdr. Spock

Are you seeing a pattern here, all of my favorite characters are the security chief.

88, excellent point about ENT.

92. LoyalStarTrekFan - April 17, 2008

You know, you people just can’t make up your minds can you. One minute eveyone hates ENT, then when one of the actors gives an interview, all of a sudden you all love ENT. Make up your minds people. Either you like it or you don’t. I love all of Trek, as I have mentioned in my previous posts and have always liked ENT, not all of a sudden because one of the actors gave an interview. When Patrick Stewart gave an interview everyone was singing TNG’s praises and now people are criticising it. I find all of this fascinating. Just an observation.

93. Xai - April 17, 2008

32. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator – April 17, 2008

“That’s what happens when you have fans working on a production of what they’re a rabid, hardcore fan of. Which is why Abram’s “Star Trek” should have been done by someone like Manny Coto – as it is, Abrams is just doing it for the money he’ll make. That’s not inherently bad, and I’m not saying Abrams is bad because of his motivations, but I AM making the point that the product will be very different than a product that is a result of a real love for the genre.”

What a complete load of BS. Do you actually read what you type before you hit the button? Your descriptions of what Abrams does, or his likes and dislikes are completely fabricated… and I suspect you know this. Correct?
We DO have people involved with the production come to this site… something I like, and a tribute to Anthony… and they get to read this.. stuff?

94. James R. Kirk - April 17, 2008

#84

You’re the first person to notice that reference to the second pilot (at least the first that bothered to point it out). I wondered how long it would take. Thanks!

95. Xai - April 17, 2008

92. LoyalStarTrekFan – April 17, 2008

good point

96. James R. Kirk - April 17, 2008

#84

By the way, I like the blog!

97. Katie G. - April 17, 2008

How can Dominic Keating play Kirk’s uncle wi th that English accent? Would he put on an American accent or would he be married to the sister of the father or mother?

kg

98. dep1701 - April 17, 2008

#75 ” I hear all over the place about the deaded ‘canon’ viloations on Enterprise. Does someone have a list of actual onscreen ‘canon’ taht was violated in the show and not ‘fanon’ that was debunked. Just wondering if there is really anything to back this up because i did not find anything in my recent reviewing of the 4 seasons.”

I can name one off the top of my head: The episode where Enterprise runs into a Romulan minefield shows the Romulans not only using ships that looked remarkably like streamlined TOS Bird Of Prey ships rather than the “primitive space vessels” mentioned in “Balance Of Terror”, but they are also already using cloaking devices, which is supposed to be a big surprise when Kirk’s Enterprise first encounters the Bird Of Prey almost a century later ( “After a whole century, Mr. Stiles, what will a Romulan ship look like? I doubt they’ll radio and identify themselves” ).

Another REALLY nitpicky item is that when we see the flashback aboard Pike’s Enterprise in “The Menagerie”, that crew still clearly uses “lasers”. Even though I realize that Roddenberry and the series team decided that they needed a better name for the weapons by the second pilot, the fact that the footage was incorporated into the series and aired makes it canon, so Archer’s people should still have been armed with lasers ( although they could have come up with some fancy explanation as to why they were advanced beyond 21st century lasers ).

I just felt that they should not have had so many pieces of tech that were common in the twenty-third century ( photonic torpedoes? PUH – LEEZ. Adding another syllable to the name doesn’t make them less advanced to me).

99. DM - April 17, 2008

Enterprise:
Same plot as TOS: get a ship and fly around (I was hoping for Academy days)
CGI ship (bad effects)
Ship was wrong color
Name of ship didn’t make sense (it was never mentioned before in other series)
Fake T’Pol chest (I seriously doubt Vulcans get fake chest enhancements)

100. Katie G. - April 17, 2008

#92. LoyalStarTrekFan and #92. Xai

Sorry guys but I have to disagree somewhat. Do you know for a fact that it’s the same posters that are seesawing? Are you sure that the same person who is saying they hate ENT is suddenly praising it because Dominic’s interview was published? Or that the EXACT same ones who say they hate TNG suddenly love it because someone did an article on how Patrick Stewart stuck up for the Trekkies? It might just be different people. I’ve seen some names above that I don’t recognize at all so I do believe certain lurkers chime in when their faves are on or their pet peeves are featured.

Just sayin…

kg

101. Commodore Shaggy - April 17, 2008

If Star Trek is in the title then I have enjoyed it (I grew up with TNG and have loved Trek since I was a kid, including TOS which took a little time to get used to). It’s funny when I read about thoughts on Enterprise sometimes because it seems like some people watched the show with the intention of finding something wrong with it. But hey, if you disliked or hated it then that’s fine. I just think that there is something to like in every series and for whatever reason there are very few episodes out of all the shows that I don’t want to see more than once.

And ENT Season 4 was good IMO, I enjoyed many of the stories and ideas and seeing the Tholians and the Gorn again was great, I always wished that they would do a few more stories with those races in it.

102. Jack - April 17, 2008

ps. speaking of berman and braga… here are selected terms and phrases I don’t want to hear in this new movie

nano-anything
tachyon burst/pulse/wave/beam/stream etc. same with neutrino
anomaly
wormhole
subspace distortion/disruption/disturbance
phase variance… or phase anything else
modulating or remodulating anything
configuring or reconfiguring anything
dna resequencing, anything resequencing
holo-anything
anything-emitter
transwarp-anything
positronic-anything
chrono- or temporal- anything
alien device
the entity
shields down to any percent

and finally, the hackneyed analogies that go with using any of these things to save the day… “so, in other words, Mr. Kim, you’re saying we should… throw the baby out with the bathwater, sour the milk, sink the eight ball… gleam the cube… whatever…

——
and to add to that earlier list:

alien place name mixed with known/ordinary item — saurian brandy, zjkzj souffle, tiberian bat, jdlqdjq wildebeast — can’t places have unique objects/ lifeforms that don’t have an earth equivalent… it just makes all these strange new worlds sound so lame (I’m about to get started on the forehead aliens… oh dear).

103. Xai - April 17, 2008

99. DM – April 17, 2008
Enterprise:
Same plot as TOS: get a ship and fly around (I was hoping for Academy days)
CGI ship (bad effects)
Ship was wrong color
Name of ship didn’t make sense (it was never mentioned before in other series)
Fake T’Pol chest (I seriously doubt Vulcans get fake chest enhancements)

Sorry I disagree….
…nearly all Trek is the plot of TOS, even DS9….. and???
… I had no problem with a CGI NX-01 ENT… looked to have mass and weight to me and the effects were movie-quality or close.
… How can a ship we had not seen before be the wrong color?
…The ship had the wrong name? If it was named Enterprise and it’s now 100 years later, does that mean I must bring that 100 year old Ent in conversation every episode?. I used to have a mustang, but I don’t speak of it more than maybe once a year…
… lastly T’pol’s “nacelles”….Vulcans ARE a different species and does it really matter?

104. Sebastian - April 17, 2008

#81. Yes. You are. The Archer character had a lot of potential in the beginning, but he devolved into Captain Road Rage. And Bakula does not do anger so well (yet he was great as a put-upon time traveller in Quantum Leap). I’d written him off long before he took up torture (a revolting trait; NO MATTER the provocation). He became Captain Dick Cheney! Every episode I watched, he always did that facial grimace with the lips tightened and the look of pent-up indignation (aka Anger mode). His humor seemed forced. His relationship with Trip never felt genuine. Their “buddy banter” seemed kind of…generic; “Let’s have a beer and watch sports together.” “Yeah, Cap’n. That’d be swell.” By 4th season, he DID seem to be on track again as an explorer and there is a lot Iike about that year. But the rest? Not so much. Great idea; lackluster-to-poor execution.

105. Xai - April 17, 2008

and to add to that earlier list:

“….alien place name mixed with known/ordinary item — saurian brandy, zjkzj souffle, tiberian bat, jdlqdjq wildebeast — can’t places have unique objects/ lifeforms that don’t have an earth equivalent… it just makes all these strange new worlds sound so lame ”

You have TOS to blame for this… ceti eels, Denebian slime devils and the like… Modern Trek just followed the lead.

106. Jon - April 17, 2008

Replying to a way earlier post…
Douglas Trumball created and filmed the effects for both ST:TMP and Blade Runner. He also created and filmed the effects for 2001, so that might be why they look alike :).

107. PaulFitz - April 17, 2008

Enterprise just did not feel like Trek to me. The lack of character development was annoying (Phlox, Hoshi, Mayweather) The little we learned from Travis was at best dull (the space-boomer thing)
Hoshi was good at languages……….. (insert other traits here)
Phlox was great, but there was so much more to tell.
Reed was (in my opinion) boring.
The holy trinity of Archer, Trip and T’pol were developed fairly well (or as well as it could be), but none of it felt like Trek to me.

I was hoping for the series to expand on the foundation of the Federation, instead we got the Suliban (Who?) and the temporal cold war.
The Xindi (Who?), well done, yet annoying to NEVER have heard of them in any other series.

Season 4 was great tho, I finally got what I was waiting for…. and then it was gone. I have been a Trekkie since I was 3! And I had to abandon many episodes of Enterprise midway, it was unwatchable for a while. I have seen them all, but I cant help but feel that after Voyager a 5 to 10 year wait would have done some good.

I am not trying to piss all over the efforts made in Ent, but to me there were way too many misses, and not nearly enough hits, concerning the characters.

108. brady - April 17, 2008

Wow, why all the t’pol bashing? By far the hottest of all the trek babes!!

109. PaulFitz - April 17, 2008

An adendum:

I personally loved Voyager, why?
It was great to be able to just have a single story per episode premise. It meant there was someting different every week.
I know, Neelix, Harry & Chakotay should have never been…. But I loved Janeway, Paris and all the others, even Seven (and I’m batting for a different team than most guys, so it was not a sex-appeal thing).
Sure there were bad episodes, “threshold”, but there was a sense of fun on the show.
Anyways just my opinion.

110. Katie G. - April 17, 2008

#102. Jack

“alien place name mixed with known/ordinary item — saurian brandy, zjkzj souffle, tiberian bat, jdlqdjq wildebeast — can’t places have unique objects/ lifeforms that don’t have an earth equivalent…”

Hey, Jack. I believe the reason they combined the terms like saurian brandy, zjkzj souffle, tiberian bat, jdlqdjq wildebeast is so we would get a mental picture of what it was and know what they were talking about. If they said

Saurian shloopdee
Zjkzj haido
Tiberian gulo
Jdlqdjq neezu

we’d be going “what the heck is that supposed to mean?” (Or some other colourful metaphors.) I for one am glad they did it. I love the imagination of these contributors. Desperately long for that kind of brilliant gift of creativity but I don’t have it. So I have to live vicariously through them and their creations.

Love it. Eternal thanks to the ones who created this universe (every parsect and nanite).

Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

kg

111. non-belligerency confirmed - April 17, 2008

#102 jack
you got it, man. with you all the way on every one. particularly shield failure percentages. i just cringe.

also, normal tits would be great.

112. Katie G. - April 17, 2008

#107. PaulFitz

Yes, I got a little frustrated with DS9 when it became a long, unending episode when they launched the story of the Dominion War.

That’s why Enterprise lost me. They were doing fine then started the Xindi thing, going from episode to episode never resolving it. Yeah, guess I have the attention span of a five-year-old but I really liked it when each episode resolved at the end of the hour. Didn’t mind the two-parters but the whole season? I’m too impatient.

I really enjoy each series but my friend and I just love Voyager as well. She bought the DVDs and we make gluttons of ourselves on the weekend when she’s here, watching our favourites (which, actually, are quite a few). Each series had it’s lemon. Every once in a while they laid an egg but mostly they were excellent. With this tax return I may just buy all of “Enterprise” and just watch the eps I like.

I really enjoyed what they did with the Seven of Nine character. Thought it was excellent writing (although I was frustrated seeing her perfect form every week because mine is a little bigger and not as nice to look at). No jealousy there. Hah! Oh well. Something to aim for. Lose weight, get back on the Nautilus equipment and quit whining.

Bedtime. My eyes are glazing over. Goodnight.

kg

113. Jacob - April 17, 2008

Whenever a series fails, I usually ask whether is has a compelling conflict. That is the most important part of storytelling. Enterprise was at its best when there was a clash of ideals. Archer capitulating and asking the Vulcans for help. Soong torn between his affinity for his “children” and his inner morality. Phlox witholding a cure in favor of natural evolution. And in my opinion, Dear Doctor is the best episode of the series and the only one that truly transcends the show. Natural conflict. Great pacing. Told in an interesting way (in this case first person so that it would be a direct reference of how humanity finally makes its first tough decision regarding another culture, partly what this show is about). That was great character development for Phlox and told us everything about him that we needed to know.

Most of the time they don’t give us a reason to care. Their idea of conflict was simply to put the crew in danger, but that alone won’t work because the writers have no idea how to do interesting characters, and the outcome itself is never in question (which is fine, but they can’t act like the outcome is in question). They didn’t have the courage to actually kill off a character until they knew it couldn’t impact the show. Phlox was perhaps the only character that they truly explored. He was probably the most human out of them all. His reaction to the humans actually gave him a specific personality, much more so than the humans he was interacting with. T’Pol was interesting but ultimately badly written. They could have done a lot more with her. And Archer…they tried to make him a convincing leader by setting up so many impossible situations for him to get out of, but he lacked the charisma to pull it off. The Wrath of Khan explored the idea of the impossible situation well. In essence, Kirk never faced a situation that he couldn’t alter in his way. He never truly faced death because he always cheated it (at least until Generations). That’s great writing. But Archer’s situations were so artificial that it felt like he got out of them simply because the writers willed it.

The Vulcans were poorly written throughout. I would call it inappropriate. The writers couldn’t seem to form logical arguments, so instead of coming across as logical, the Vulcans seemed unreasonably cold and moody. One can call Spock cold at times, but it was justifiable. Nothing the Vulcans did was ever justified, and so what could have been reasonably argued came across as inappropriate action. Seeing Tripp trying to console T’Pol early on in the series and instead end up saying the most inappropriate things didn’t help either. That just completely destroyed character interactaion.

I don’t care so much about canon. Though I agree that TOS probably painted a more accurate picture of technological development over the years, some of the things they said began to make less and less sense as Star Trek history continued to expand.

114. LoyalStarTrekFan - April 17, 2008

100, I’m pretty sure that some of them are but you may also be partially correct. I still find the situation fascinating.

102, have you ever listened to scientists have a discusssion? Guess what, they talk like that. I know because I have several family members and friends who are scientists of one type or another and Star Trek always strived to be as scientifically accurate as possible. Obviously some things were made up (i.e. Heizenberg (sp?) Compensators, etc.) but there were many things, and I would say the majority, that were scientifically accurate. In fact, I didn’t know how much of it was accurate until I starting taking Astronomy classes as my lab credits (and watching “The Universe” on History). When it came to space phenomenon Star Trek was almost 100% accurate. Further, most of the medical information (again some stuff was made up, as in fictional diseases) was accurate. Again, a family member who works in the medical field has confirmed this. That’s why you have all the “techno-babble” because they were trying to convey that these people are scientists first. It should also be pointed out that most of the “techno-babble” was explained to the audience (usually with something along the lines of “In english, doc.” It wasn’t always explained but most of it was. With all that said, I will agree that they often over did it and could have easily done the same scripts and storylines without all the “techno-babble” but a little of the scientific talk is okay.

105, excellent point.

108, I think that both Jeri Ryan and Terry Farrell are better looking than Jolene Blalock, but you’re right she was very attractive.

115. LoyalStarTrekFan - April 17, 2008

110, excelent point about “Saurian Brandy,” etc.

112, completely disagree with you on DS9 and ENT. I feel there are times for single, stand-alone episodes and times for a continued arc. DS9 and ENT did the continued arc excellently and added a level of realism that hadn’t been in Trek before. Namely that not everything was the perfect, happy utopia and that no matter how far we progress, there will still be the ocassional problem. For instance, crime will never stop or completely go away no matter how advanced we become. Let’s face it: some people just can’t behave. That’s why I loved it when in DS9: “Honor Among Thieves” they said that the Orion Syndicate (a crime cartel) operates across Federation space, included on Earth.

113, Your post was interesting and you made many interesting points. With that said, I disagree with you about the technology levels in Trek. I don’t think that TOS best conveyed how technologically advanced we’ll be in that time. The movies did an excellent job but not the show. I don’t know which one did that best but I certainly don’t think it was TOS. After all, I dought we’re going to have brightly colored buttons that blink and look like “jellybeans” on ships of the future. I also disagree about the technology in Trek “making less, and less, sense” as time went on. In fact, Trek technology makes more sense than any other sci-fi show out there based on when it takes place. B5 wasn’t advanced enough, Star Wars was fantasy, etc. Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

116. LoyalStarTrekFan - April 17, 2008

In case anyone’s interested, parsec is abbreviated pc and lightyear is abbreviated ly. AU is Astronomical Unit which is the average distance between Earth and the sun.

1 AU = 1.496 x 10^8 km
1 ly = 9.46 x 10^12 km
1 pc = 3.26 ly
Milky Way Galaxy approx. 100,000 ly in diameter.

Vulcan is approx. 16 ly from Earth.

I just find this interesting. It further conveys just how large space is and how advanced they are in Trek when they’re able to cross these distances as easily as we drive somewhere.

117. Jacob - April 17, 2008

115: I meant in terms of progression. TOS hardly deserves any approbation for its technological prowess, but they did a commendable job of pointing out their obvious superiority. A hundred years prior they talked about ships that were barely more than blind bubbles with nuclear capabilities. And then the movies introduced the ideas of transwarp drives and creating planets. Then TNG comes along and we get the same kind of ship…except faster. And more powerful. And Enterprise paints a picture of a less powerful ship with a few less gimmicks. But technology renders so many unexpected things. Life a hundred years ago isn’t the same as it is now, and it won’t be the same in a hundred years. TOS talked about technology a hundred years past that didn’t even bear a resemblance to what they had. But the 22nd and 24th centuries as Enterprise and TNG saw it were simply scaled versions of TOS. That’s the point I’m trying to make. I found TOS’s approach a little more realistic.

118. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 17, 2008

Katie G:

Couldn’t agree more about the fact that it’s a case of people chiming in when their faves get brought up than any flip flopping.

Also agree about the Saurian Brandy, Ceti Eel thing. Its just a good writers shorthand to make something alien and familiar at the same time. It can be done badly however so obviously like anything it requires a deft hand.

“(although I was frustrated seeing her perfect form every week because mine is a little bigger and not as nice to look at).”

Sound like that makes you a bit more normal than anything. Most of the Hwood girls are much too thin these days, though thankfully Jeri isn’t one who has taken that to far. The lovely Ms. Blalock on the other hand…eat something dear.

Paul Fitz: Trust me, you aren’t the first member of your team to express a fondness for Seven of Nine. She is one of those types that seems to be a favorite of certain tastes. The same type that likes Ginger over Mary Ann. LOL.

119. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 17, 2008

115. LoyalStarTrekFan:
“After all, I dought we’re going to have brightly colored buttons that blink and look like “jellybeans” on ships of the future”

How do we know that? We are talking about 200 years. Look at where we were at 200 years ago from now. And now think about what 200 hundred years from now will be like with the progression of technology we have now. TOS looks like the far future to me. Why? Because it looked like something I couldn’t imagine. It was truly like nothing else we had ever seen.

. “I also disagree about the technology in Trek “making less, and less, sense” as time went on. In fact, Trek technology makes more sense than any other sci-fi show out there based on when it takes place. B5 wasn’t advanced enough, Star Wars was fantasy, etc. Anyway, that’s just my opinion.”

Which caused it to be less futuristic and imaginative. I want speculative fiction not a current science lesson. That is why TOS was MUCH more science fiction orientated. They had real SF authors noted and acclaimed for their imaginations and ability to wonder about things we haven’t seen or experienced yet writing stories for it.

120. Kevin - April 17, 2008

Am I the only one who would have thought it was kind of cool to see him play Kirk’s uncle?

121. Jack - April 17, 2008

Howdy,

I frankly liked the Saurian Brandy etc in the original series and even early next generation — but by Voyager they’d just gotten lazy/tired/jaded/ what have you… come on, Star Wars has banthas, etc…. and yes, one could geek out and argue the universal translator made them sound that way… but it just became unimaginative storytelling… the word started to seem so bland… we’re talking about characters on a society that had been travelling to alien worlds for generations, they’d know names of weird non-earth shit… come on, the Europeans adopted a lot of Native American terms for things and places…. it’s just early Trek seemed like a much bigger, more diverse universe where anything was possible because stuff wasn’t over explained… and I’m tired of hearing the budget excuse for Voyager, they could have made stranger new worlds…

And come on, do real scientists really talk like that? By using scientific terms in ways that make no sense, over and over again to bail themselves out of whatever situation Gilligan, I mean, Harry Kim, has gotten them into? If so, I want to hang out with these scientists. “Honey, I can’t find my keys, can you reconfigure the blender to emit a tachyon pulse? You know, just like threading a needle.”

I think I’m being a jerk, oops.

122. Jack - April 17, 2008

ps. oh yeah, I agree… totally weird boobs on trek.

123. Sebastian - April 17, 2008

#107 and #109 PaulFitz; Totally agree with your analysis on ENT. Don’t quite agree with you entirely on VGR. One very valid point you did make in VGR’s favor is at least the characters were well drawn; even if you did not like them (Neelix and Chakotay come to mind right away). I hear a lot of complaints about the whole Seven question. Whether she was one’s taste or not is beside the point; personally, I always found the cat suits and stilettos to represent a more adolescent, immature view of sexuality. Jeri Ryan is MUCH more attractive w/o all the dominatrix-sex kitten trappings, IMO. But at least her character gave the show a needed (if overused) focal point; and making her a former foe WAS very much in the Trek tradition (ala Chekov, Worf, Garak, etc). VGR lost me, though, as the series progressed later on (esp in seasons 5-7). A “sameness” set in; spatial anomalies and quantum tech troubles, etc. The constant resupply of shuttles became ridiculous; and the cleanliness and perfect condition of the ship (w. not a starbase in sight) also stretched credibility even for a fantasy/sci-fi series. But I find your ENT observations on the nose (and how those characters were criminally underused).

124. thebiggfrogg - April 17, 2008

#32 I disagree somewhat. I don’t think it follows that fans will make the best movie or TV show. Some of the fanboi ideas I’ve seen spewed on these boards would be abysmal. Sometimes new blood is good. Before this project I thought Trek should die for a decade. If XI fails I still think it should. Hopefully this will be done right. As a bit of a purist I hope they honor the original, keep most of the continuity intact, and reinvigorate Trek. All in all a tall order, but I don’t think a rabid fan would necessarily do it better (and might even make an overly self-referential mess of a flick).

125. thebiggfrogg - April 17, 2008

#78 And DS9 gives us a captain who blithely justifies the death of innocent civilians. Can’t remember the ep, but it had something to with Maqui and settlers in disputed territory. Also something a Starfleet captain should NEVER do. IMHO.

126. Teleportation Girl - April 17, 2008

#106 Jon, yeah totally, i know. but what amazes me about those specific effects is how they are unique and iconic and also add to the character development in a way, to show a human being interacting with the environment, reflected back in either the lense of the eye or the visor of a helmet. trumball really created a perfect depiction of experience and environment and wonder, a really hard thing to do visually.

i guess what i was trying to say and said it poorly, is that it would be great to have another iconic sci fi film out there for others to pull from for influence, like blade runner, ST:TMP and 2001 (well, and others). I have a lot of excitement for this new Trek movie because it seems to be getting back to really good production values.

the only thing i’ve seen recently that gave me shivers was the destruction of the resurrection ship in BSG, season 3. I’m hoping this new Trek has a few moments like that, total beauty. I have faith in JJ.

Thanks for reading the geeky ramble on effects. I just go ga ga over that stuff, but I think i got it all out so i’m good. haha

P.S. James R. Kirk – thanks!

127. fakesteve - April 17, 2008

awesome |ˈôsəm|
adjective
extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear : the awesome power of the atomic bomb.
• informal extremely good; excellent : the band is truly awesome

I can see no reference here to Bakulas Archer. But I am not reading tombstones either.

128. Teleportation Girl - April 17, 2008

shod·dy

adjective, -di·er, -di·est, noun, plural -dies.
–adjective

1. of poor quality or inferior workmanship: a shoddy bookcase.

Hey! I think I see a connection to Bakula here!

129. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 18, 2008

124. thebiggfrogg: Good point. Case in point. Manny Coto himself. Yes the 4th season of Enterprise was the best and yes I enjoyed the infusion of more and more TOS elements. However sometimes it went just a tad overboard. Just one or two little winks, nods or Easter Eggs than needed. I understand the temptation to do it. I had to make myself not do it when I would write Trek. So it CAN work but we have to watch ourselves.

That all said, Manny did a great job and by all rights his efforts should have been rewarded with another season.

130. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 18, 2008

97. Katie G. – April 17, 2008

“How can Dominic Keating play Kirk’s uncle wi th that English accent? Would he put on an American accent or would he be married to the sister of the father or mother?”

I am sure Keating would use an American accent. Many Brit/Scot/Irish/Aussie actors do. Such as Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Hugh Laurie in House, and Melanie Lynskey from Two and a Half Men as some examples

Or heck Colin Farrell. He didn’t use his native Irish brogue in Alexander. ;)

131. toddk - April 18, 2008

“Tellarites are always guilty of something…” Loved that line!

the reason that i dont like canon violations is how it changes the status of what was concidered “the best” or “what was concidered “first”.

The TOS ship was and always will be “best”
Archers ship would threaten that, or make it less signifigant.

Spock was “a favorite” and one of the things TOS fans admire spock as being the first vulcan to serve on a federation ship and starfleet..T’pol threatened that, and could have made spock less signifigant.

Canon to fans is about what is cool about star trek and what is accepted.

Mirror Malcom: If you want..I can hold that for you sir…

132. HamburgCaptain - April 18, 2008

Love what Manny Coto did for season 4. There were even relations to TAS. Remember the Enterprise Ep. with the Orion slave girls: At the beginning the Enterprise is heading to Berengaria and on the bridge they have a chat about the fire spitting dragons on the surface!

133. Battletrek - April 18, 2008

I think Berman would still have a job at Paramount if he hadn’t made Braga an executive producer.

134. fakesteve - April 18, 2008

I agree with hamburgCaptain that with manny coto on the helm from the very beginning ENT could have been a success… without Bakula of course. Captain Trip Tucker would have been up to the job.

When the first Enterprise promos were aired in 2001 with “wherever you will go” on the soundtrack, that was a cool and motivating song. Would have worked with the not too shabby Enterprise titles big time.

http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=1706167&id=1706230&s=143443

135. jonboc - April 18, 2008

Enterprise failed for one reason. It had the general perception of ‘more of the same.” The very same reason Nemesis failed out of the gate. It wasn’t word of mouth, or bad writing or bad direction or bad effects that killed Nemesis…the general public and apparently fans as well, were simply tired of it. There were empty seats on opening night. Numbers for Nemesis didn’t rise and fall. They never rose to being with. That apathy apllied to Enterprise as well.

Now, I thought Enterprise was a good show. Not great Trek, but infinitely more entertaining and fun than TNG ever though about being.

Ds9 had its moments, but the Bajor themes were boring and I never forgave the show for having a wormhole that they never used to explore the universe. Exploring strange new worlds went out the window with Ds9. But it had some great characters.

Voyager was instantly forgetable. A TNG retread. I liked Janeway and Tuvok, but the potential of that relationship was lost early on.

Enterprise wasn’t a bad show, it just wasn’t different enough. Bermanized 24th century Trek had wore out its welcome. Yes, Enterprise was 22nd century Trek, but it came off of Berman’s Trek assembly line and it looked, felt and sounded like TNG and all the other spin-offs. The old saying “Familiarity Breeds Contempt” has never been more accurate. And THAT is why we are headed back to TOS.

The saying “What’s old is new again” also rings true. TOS was so radically different from the subsequent spin-offs that it WILL seem new and fresh and, in my opinion, has a very good chance of putting Trek back on the map for that very reason.

136. Jack - April 18, 2008

well said, jonboc.

Time for something new. And I’m pretty confident they won’t fall into the “paying homage” trap that Superman Returns and later Star Trek fell into. Continuity is cool and all, but enough referencing already and just tell a cool story.

137. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 18, 2008

#98—In TOS, “Balance Of Terror”, Romulan ships (from the Earth-Romulan War era) are described as having been painted like giant birds of prey. This is established canon. ENT is simply consistent with that.

In ENT, the Romulans are experimenting with a prototype cloaking device on an unmanned ship. Just because they are further along in developing that cloaking technology than you previously assumed, doesn’t make it a canon violation—that is just debunking “fanon”. There is nothing in previously established canon which contradicts that. The cloaking device seen in BOT is much more practical and effective (although it still takes an enormous amount of power).

As for your reference to lasers in “The Cage”/”The Menagerie”, are you serious? This is the same episode which tells us that the USS Valiant disappeared in the area of Talos IV 200 years before, and depicts Spock as practically “giddy” upon seeing a pretty flower! Obviously, I agree with the Okudas, in that it is difficult to go by 1st season TOS episodes when trying to define “canon”.

Any argument which claims that ENT violated canon has a mountain to climb for sure. Fans have always had their own ideas about what Roddenberry’s Universe looked like during that time period, and ENT simply didn’t fit with that to some people. However, that is not the same thing as violating canon. You can decide to dislike ENT, but ENT IS canon, not in violation of it.

138. squireogothos - April 18, 2008

# 135

Exactly. We were tired of it and it seemed like everybody making it was too, especially with voyager, insurrection and nemesis. It became like factory farming or something.

139. Longwinded - April 18, 2008

#81 I did too. I never caught the show during it’s run on UPN because it was on…UPN. I could never find that channel but when I went to Iraq the local vendors there were selling boxed sets of all kinds of TV shows. Sometimes, in the case of all the Trek shows, you could get the whole series in one boxed set. That’s where I discovered Enterprise. It’s an awesome show! Sure there are a few duds but every show has them. What really caught my eye was that things didn’t always work right, people got hurt and still wore the bandages later. Not some neat trick at the doctors office and voila he’s all better thereby making the future sterile for the costume department.

I also appreciated that they left the ship and had good sets or locations and that they acted like we would today such as taking pictures on trips to somewhere new, watching and talking about sports, enjoying a good steak or pan-fried catfish, watching movies together. And so many more things that anyone with some military experience would recognize. Just good camaraderie.

I don’t need clones of TOS going on for 42 years, I need differences. If I want the same thing all the time I’ll watch a lawyer or doctor show. You can sum up those kind of shows in a few sentences. Doctor/lawyer is a very talented, bent on self-destruction, and very horny person who can’t committ. But this is Star Trek, a show about and embracing differences.

I hate to use this analogy again, even makes me cringe so I apologize now for using it, but even in the Army not every post or unit is the same. You’ll get some units that are high speed and some that are low drag. It’s what you make of it AND it will be the different situations you encounter there that will shape your own character development. I don’t need some sob story all the time telling me why little David is a driven jerk, bent on proving himself. I don’t. Also, I don’t need a disaster every week to move the story or characters along. It would be like the old joke, hey there’s a disaster in such-n-such galaxy, the Enterprise must be nearby, send them in.

I liked that Enterprise showed that the crew knew there were outmatched and were either prepared to go in anyway, call for assistance, or just get outta there. It was real. No large amounts of techno-babble saving the day type crap.

No hands in space grabbing the ship, no brain thiefs, no space worms nursing on the ships engines, or space jelly-fish turned into buildings, or a species that’s introduced in one series now reappearing in another looking like humans with leopard spots on the side of the head going down the side of the body. Yet now in the second series they apparently have been in the Federation for a very long time. But tell the 24th century doctors that because they are either incapable of working on them or very reluctant. Why? How about a ship lost in space that is capable of replacing shuttles at a moments notice and look as new as the day it was commissioned yet it’s crew can’t stop rationing food? I know, I know. It’s because they are rationing food that they can make the parts right?

See, that’s my point. You can rationalize anything you want if you care for something enough. But in the end it’s just a tv show, not my life. I hope it’s not yours. Have a nice day, it is here. I think I’ll take my dog to the park.

There, I said my two cents worth.

140. Enterprise Fan - April 18, 2008

I think Enterprise got a bum rap. True, the series didn’t find its rhythm until Season 3, but let’s look at any of the other latter-day series. Would you really want to base your judgement on TNG based on Seasons 1 and 2?

It’s also true that the series was often uneven. But it’s the utopian spirit of Star Trek that ahs always been the biggest draw. Do we really base our affection for TOS on the consistent quality of the episodes? I don’t think so!

The real tragedy is that Season 4 was starting to wind us toward some important missing pieces of Star Trek history, most notably the Romulan War. I would have really enjoyed seeing that play out, and it would have been a hell of alot more entertaining than the Dominion War, that’s for sure!

Visually, Enterpise was by far the most impressive of the Star Trek series. The sets, special effects and production quality were top notch. It is the only Star Trek series that my 14-year old son watches and looks forward to. The real shame is that Paramount blew an opportunity to create a series that would have had great appeal for a new generation. It’s completely unfair to blame the talented cast for the poor decisions that led to the series’ cancellation.

141. Enterprise Fan - April 18, 2008

By the way, what’s with all the negativisim toward Scott Bakula? I thought bringing him in as the captain was a masterstroke when it was announced, and I still do. When given te right script, he handled action, comedy and anger with great skill. Those of you who have a problem with Archer should not apply that to the ACTOR who played him.

On another note, I guess I’m in the minority for feeling that the Xindi arc did a very good job of exploring post-9/11 values. Archer’s use of torture was repugnant but completely believable considering the desperate circumstances that the crew found itself in. I find that entire season to be intense and exciting.

142. Teleportation Girl - April 18, 2008

I think it might be a good idea to back up a second and take a look at the big picture overview of all the series.

What was so appealing or at least partly appealing for me at least about TOS is that the writing was definitely more ‘theater’ based, morality plays (as we all know) about human beings on a voyage through space, and how those adventures affected them, the crew, their relationships – very much like the odyssey with James T. Kirk at the helm. But the questions that arose in those three seasons were very often dealing with testing of our definition of a moral code.

I believe The Next Generation also had this spirit in mind and very often the story structure reflected that. One reason Patrick Stewart, a stage actor, joined the cast was for that VERY reason, because he appreciated the writing and the human aspect of beings in space together. I believe Arthur C. Clark was also very into that aspect of space experience as well.

Deep Space 9 was kind of it’s own thing, very much about living in space aboard a station, so it was much more about character development, their personal lives in relation to their environment.

Now, as for Voyager and Enterprise…those were much more action based. Hey, lets find some bad ass aliens, get into fights, come to the brink of death and wham! time travel gets us out of it. Or something like that. To my mind, that is basic, mediocre cheap tv writing. It is not nearly as thoughtful and well crafted. It comes from a place of ‘lets get our ratings up with a few costumes and action scenes’ rather than real questioning and wonderment of what it is like to be on a ship traveling through space in the Star Trek universe.

***and Bakula’s acting was horrific, Enterprise Fan. Just the worst I’ve seen in ages from a lead on a show.

143. star trackie - April 18, 2008

141- I actually enjoyed Enterprise more than any of the other spinoffs. Having said that, Bakula was just wrong for the part. He was great in Quantum Leap but his acting, as Archer. was really quite bad at times and he had real problems conveying strength. His good ol’ boy next door, golly gee-whiz type of character simply did not translate well into a starship captain. Nothing personal against Bakula, he was just miscast.

144. Enterprise Fan - April 18, 2008

Sorry, Teleportation Girl. I complete disagree with your characterization of Bakula’s acting. We just finished watching Minefield, which has some intense scenes that are as good as any I’ve seen on a ST series. I would also recommend looking at Catwalk and Azati Prime. And calling him the worst you’ve seen in ages is pretty strong – there are alot of leads to choose from; I guess that means that Jim Belushi, among others, is safe in your mind!

I think the issue is that Archer’s character is a different kind of lead for a Star Trek series. He’s more of a classic jock (water polo, etc.) and is most comfortable charging forward. That’s part of the point of series – humanity really learns how to function in a larger interstellar community and gain some maturity. It’s this growth that allows this relatively young species to take a leadership role in creating the Federation.

By the way, I think Dead Stop probably gets my nomination as one of the best Enterprise episodes.

145. NoonienSpock - April 18, 2008

63-

I’m also what you call a “new age” fan who grew up with TNG, and I agree that people who like Star Trek are in the minority at my university.

However, in MY high school years, I found TOS… uh, fascinating (Thanks, G4). It might have been ‘old’, but it didn’t feel ‘outdated’–the themes were relevant–and it was new to me! I certainly didn’t find anything else like it on television.

I watched all of ENT (after it was broadcast on SciFi), but it’s just not for me. That theme song, Bakula’s un-captainly voice, Archer’s un-captainly actions (why bring your dog along for a first contact?)… a whole host of things already mentioned by others put me off.

I’m one of those people who likes to watch Heroes, Smallville, ANTM, The Office, and BSG, but I can also watch The Twilight Zone, The Odd Couple, Newhart, and Bewitched with a fresh eye and enjoy them. [Oh, if only all the films shown on Turner Classic Movie channel were available on DVD!] I believe that if something’s good, people who discover it–young and old–will like it.

Trends come and go, and ‘what’s old is new again’ frequently because we have short memories. Making Star Trek appeal to a new audience may not require so much of ENT’s approach as you may think, sex and revision-wise. However, I am with you in believing Abram’s Trek can elevate the franchise to ‘cool’.

146. squireogothos - April 18, 2008

the worst part about enterprise’s racy scenes were that they were so forced and cheesy and incredibly unsexy. like 14-year-old boys going “okay, so tucker can’t sleep so t’pol does this vulcan things where she takes her shirt offf and it wil be awesome! battlestar galactica and even smallville = way sexier.

147. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 18, 2008

146. squireogothos:

Well to be frank that is the audience that a lot of these types of shows are aiming for a lot of times, at least in part.

But I hope against hope that there are plenty of 14 year olds who aren’t so easily entertained or at least want something beyond titlation.

If not then I weep for future generations. But I know there has to be. But for a combination of reasons ranging from the excutives wanting their product to be on the cutting edge and hip and cool to the fact that those kids do spend a lot of money on the things they like. And that is the bottom line for the money makers most of the time.

148. gorn81 - April 18, 2008

Enterprise Fan, You’re absolutely right all of the modern Trek series hit their stride in the third or fourth season Enterprise is no exception.
TNG – Best of both Both Worlds Part 1 – Season 3
DS9 – Way Of The Warrior – Season Four
Voy – Scorpion Part 2 – Season Four
There were good eps before that but the series’ were just finding their feet and were more miss than hit.
Enterprise wasn’t cancelled because it was bad, but because CBS / Paramount wanted to make cheaper no brainer Shows(reality TV anyone).
We were robbed, Enterprise wasn’t given the chance the other series got,
we’ll never know for sure but if the fourth season is anything to go by we could’ve got some of the best Trek stories ever.
It’s a shame but that’s life.

149. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 18, 2008

#148–Excellent point. I still think that the last season and a half of ENT will hold up better with time as part of overall Treklore. Aside from a disappointing finish (“Terra Prime” would have been a better finale), those were very good episodes, IMO.
ENT is on my DVD shelf, and that is more than I can say for any other Berman/Braga Trek series.

I’ll take ENT over holodecks, ship’s counselors, android officers, Klingons in Starfleet, children on board Starships, and children on the bridge—anyday of the week!!!!

150. Enterprise Fan - April 18, 2008

Nos. 46 & 147:

LOL – as if TOS didn’t have gratuitous sex. Which female alien is Kirk seducing this week? Come on, at least be intellectually consistent in your analysis!

I’ll freely admit that Enterprise had its shortcomings – the decon gel was definitely a big goose egg. But let’s be honest: if we judged the other series (including TNG – Naked Now ring a bell?) by their 1st or 2nd seasons, then none of them would have gotten off the ground. Gorn81 is absolutely correct: Enterprise was cancelled because Paramount lost its commitment to that type of show. As for Bakula’s acting, I encourage any of you to watch some of the 1st season of TNG and see what you think of Patrick Stewart. Bakula grew with thte show, just as the leads of the other series did. The truth is that once you watch Enterprise in Hi-Definition, the other Star Trek series look kind of lame. That’s my opinion, anyway.

151. star trackie - April 18, 2008

150 “I’ll freely admit that Enterprise had its shortcomings – the decon gel was definitely a big goose egg. But let’s be honest: if we judged the other series (including TNG – Naked Now ring a bell?) by their 1st or 2nd seasons, then none of them would have gotten off the ground.”

..with one *cough* TOS *cough* exception… :)

152. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 18, 2008

150. Enterprise Fan – April 18, 2008

“LOL – as if TOS didn’t have gratuitous sex. Which female alien is Kirk seducing this week? Come on, at least be intellectually consistent in your analysis!”

I never said sex was a problem in and of itself. Indeed, I like sex and the lovely aspects of the feminine form. I am just saying that is that is all you get or not much else except flashy special effects and thrill ride action then that is a pretty empty sandwich. And really I wasn’t attacking Enterprise per se. Other than it was part of the wake of this new style of programming. I said above I liked Enterprise better than all other Mod Trek.

And as for Kirk’s conquests. Yeah he locked lips a bit in the original series. But I think much more is made of it than what it was. He was a ladies man. And the ladies liked him. But there was a whole HELL of a lot more to him that just that.

153. Katie G. - April 18, 2008

Wow. This thread is still going strong.

#115. LoyalStarTrekFan

Thanks. And actually I enjoyed both Enterprise and DS9 it’s just that I get antsy waiting too long for a resolution. As I said I’m not a patient person but that doesn’t mean the content was no good. Just that I’m fairly shallow, I guess. I want it NOW. Must have been a lovely child. [shudder].

#130. I Am Morg Not Eymorg

Thanks for the input. Didn’t know if Dominic Keating could do an American accent like Hugh Laurie (btw I had no idea that he was British/English until I saw some awards show and he started speaking with this English accent — you could have knocked me over with a feather I was so stunned. Never saw him before so didn’t know he wasn’t American). Wasn’t really that interested in Colin Farrell so I didn’t know much about him. And totally forgot about Bob Hoskins. Haven’t seen Roger Rabbit for YEARS.

Always thought that it was “parsect”. Didn’t know it was parsec. Duh.

#118. I Am Morg Not Eymorg

Don’t worry, I’ll never become anorexic or bulimic. And by the way I think that anyone who is, is in great pain. I’m not making fun. I medicate the pain with chocolate and other sweet things which is harmful in a different way. My weight machine broke and we don’t have the money for a new one or a gym membership. (Boohoo.)

I was keeping and eye on Jeri because I was concerned about it. Usually you can tell in the arms and the thighs (and of course the ribcage). If there is no muscle definition it’s usually a sign that they’re a little too thin. I saw Dolly Parton in a red spandex outfit once and she looked freakish. Her thighs were the same size as her calfs. Hopefully someone got carried away airbrushing the photo rather than her being too thin. It can really take a toll on your organs (as well as eating too much sugar…).

:-)

Hello, we were talking about Star Trek…

#141. Enterprise Fan

I thought Bakula as Archer was great. I enjoyed Enterprise. However, I do think they could have been just as successful with Christopher McDonald (Lt. Richard Castillo from TNG’s “Yesterday’s Enterprise” – - the guy Tasha was in love with from the Enterprise C). He was greatly underused, imo. I could see him doing a great Archer. [sigh.]

Gettng late. Gotta go. Great conversation, guys – - thanks!!

kg

154. Teleportation Girl - April 18, 2008

Well, no offense here intended, but i must say that it really doesn’t matter all of you Bakula/Enterprise fans, because JJ is an original series fan.

hehe

:)

155. sean - April 18, 2008

#125

Actually, the incident you mentioned does not involve the death of innocent civilians. What Sisko did was introduce an agent in the atmosphere that forced the Maquis to abandon the planet within a given timeframe. He didn’t kill or condone the death of any innocents.

156. Jacob - April 19, 2008

Gorn81: Enterprise had every advantage from its premiere, drawing an audience of over ten million. No show should take three or four seasons in order to finally regale. Lost, 24, and Boston Legal are just a few examples of shows that were great from their immediacy. The corollary of a slow start is abysmal ratings and immediate cancellation. TNG might have taken three seasons before the results were fully efficacious, but Enterprise didn’t have anything nearly as inventive as say Hide and Q and Where No One Has Gone Before and Q Who. Enterprise wasn’t even abrasive. It was dull and uninspired for reasons I listed in post 113. People were willing to give it a chance. But the series saw a steady decline below an audience of three million even into the supposedly superior season four. No network in their right mind is going to allow that to continue. Unlike Firefly, it was given a chance.

As for Archer, I see him as more of an intermediary type leader, capable of bringing people together, unlike Kirk who took divisive action regardless of the fallout and Picard who was more of a problem solver (of course that’s what they were trying to portray since this is the man who helped build the Federation). But again, they undermined the character by writing him out of situations in unbelievable ways. That does not lend to the character any credence of ingenuity as a leader. Instead, it came across as bad writing. I’m tired of him blasting his way into a situation despite the incredible odds when it should have been dealt with in a realistic manner. That’s the fault of the writers. Bakula himself was only partly convincing. Shatner came across like he was willing to do whatever it took. He had conviction for his ship and his crew. Stewart had a gravitas and presence. Bakula sounded like he was back in Quantum Leap making small talk. He’s a likable guy, but he never had any presence that people would truly respect as some sort of galactic peace keeper. Leonard as Sarek for instance had a serene reflectiveness about him. Bakula is too bubbly. Too much a part of himself. He doesn’t give off any palpable heat of emotion that one can sense and feel, at least not on the level necessary for the part.

157. Enterprise Fan - April 19, 2008

#151, Star Trackie: TOS is definitely an exception to the rule, no question. Of course, it was cancelled by the network after its 3rd season, which was a failure due to the lack of network commitment (late Friday slot, etc.). Sure sounds like you can draw some parallels with Enterprise’s situation.

Look, everyone, I’m not saying that Enterprise didn’t have shortcomings. But when I watch the show in retrospect I see alot of growth. The quality of the writing definitely improved and the direction (especially Roxann Dawson’s work) was occasionally excellent. Bakula’s Archer character works for me because he’s representative of humanity’s questionable readiness to move into a pretty chaotic environment. By the time you get to Kirk and especially Picard, the Federation is well-established, as are the requirements of a Starfleet officer. Archer’s character works because he is someone who in hindsight is not necessarily the best choice for a captain, but he manages to succeed anyway. That’s really the whole point. Archer grows and changes over the course of the series, and by the end of Season 4 we were just beginning to see the historic leader he would become. The real shame is that we never got to see the final fruition of that journey.

158. The Last Maquis - April 19, 2008

153. Katie G.

You know if you think about it, wouldn’t watching the entire Voyager series be considered waiting too long for a resolution? to see if they Get Back or not?
You might Have more patience then you think. I personally thought that Malcom was pretty cool. Enterprise was an okay show, I kinda grew up with TOS, and while it is Timeless and Classic, There’s no denying That DS9 was probably the Best Trek series ever, TNG was Great for a while….but I think It was the over-saturation on TV that diminished my interest in it, Like “Seinfeld”. I swear all I remember from some of they’re latter day Episodes was a TON of Techno-bable and at least one Show revolving around Geordi and Data’s Cat. when I heard the premise for Enterprise, I was upset , Why Go backward… There wasn’t anything Cool Before Kirk and Spock. but it surprised me a bit, I mean come on, Orion Slave girls, Hell yeah!! plus Telorites , Tholians, the Gorn man, the Gorn!!
and of course Andorians, Never understood why it was so hard to see at Least one of ‘em( in the background even ) on any of the other TNG era shows, but finally they brought ‘em back. Plus with a Kick ass Recurring character too. Movie TNG isn’t too terribly bad. Nemesis was the only Real Movie for them. And Voyager………Uhhhhhhhh No. I only see rushed production, sub- Par (and that’s being generous) Writing, and so many missed opportunities. Tuvok , and the Doctor(Early on only), were the only saving Graces for me. So that makes it TOS, DS9, ENT, TNG. plus the even Numbered Movies. and this is all just My Lame opinion So to anyone who Doesn’t agree with this, Including You Too Katie, it’s fine. no big deal and no offense intended.

159. The Vulcanista - April 19, 2008

#153

Katie, for more Hugh Laurie, check out the BBC comedy “Black Adder” series, starring Rowan Atkinson.

Laurie is better known for his comedy, and if I’m not mistaken, “House” is his first foray into drama, at least afa American audiences are concerned.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

160. Dr. Image - April 19, 2008

Coto’s season was VASTLY overrated.
Watch the reruns.
Too little and WAY too late.

161. Katie G. - April 20, 2008

#158. The Last Maquis

“…and this is all just My Lame opinion…

Your opinion is not lame. It’s just… different. We all see things differently and that’s what makes life interesting. OMG that sounds so cliché. Oh well. Everyone, sing along:

“We are the world, we are…”

Anyway, I love discussing Trek anytime, anywhere with anyone as long as they don’t get angry if I don’t agree with them. I love all the Trek series with the occasional omitted episode that I don’t like. And I love the “over saturation”. Can’t get enough. My friend brought the second season of TOS over today and we watched “Amok Time”, “The Changeling” and “Mirror, Mirror”. Loved it.

“You know if you think about it, wouldn’t watching the entire Voyager series be considered waiting too long for a resolution? to see if they Get Back or not? You might Have more patience then you think.”

And come to think of it, I never thought of it. (Hah!) Not that way anyway. Very interesting point. One might say… “fascinating”. But you really had to know that they were going to get back, I mean, come on. It’s the ‘how’ that they kept you wanting to come back for. Well, some of us, anyway.

I haven’t seen ‘Enterprise’ since it went off the air. We cancelled our cable because we prefer to continue eating. Maybe I’ll get ‘Enterprise’ as a birthday present from someone tired of hearing me whine about having to cancel my cable service. [Ahem, hint, hint].

Anyway, keep offering your opinion, my friend. I’d say quite a few of us are interested.

#159. The Vulcanista

Really? I haven’t seen much of Rowan Atkinson though I know he is “Mr. Bean”. Saw Rowan in “Johnny English” and quite enjoyed it. Saw only a few scenes of Mr. Bean and they seem funny. Funny thing about Hugh Laurie is that he is very rarely serious in “House”. Mostly joking and sarcastic. Almost seems he’s still doing the comedy thing! Actually, I watch “House” regularly. Must admit that he’s starting to get to me though. The attitude is getting a little “old”. Just like Ted Danson in “Becker”. It got kind of tiring after a while but I watched it faithfully. Guess it didn’t bother me enough to change the channel.

Thanks for the info, girlfriend! Have a great week. Better go to bed. My eyes are closing.

kg

162. Dom - April 23, 2008

Enterprise was a whole bunch of squandered potential. They talked up Jonathan Archer as a Han Solo-type then cast Scott Bakula, who is a real safe ‘Mr Middle Class America’ actor.

They cast Jolene Blalock, who is one seriously sexy woman, and give her a rubbish genderless haircut that totally negates her catsuited physique. I don’t care whether her breasts are enhanced or not: theyre very nice either way!

Similarly with Linda Park: stunning actress and total failure to use those assets! Park and Blalock, when allowed to be sexy, a la In a Mirror Darkly, aren’t just damn attractive, they’re strong and powerful too! Sex is part of what made original Trek work and all the later Treks felt unsexy! The ‘gel rub’ scenes were plain horribly contrived and felt like sexless people trying to be cool. Those scenes would have been sexy if the characters themselves had been sexy.

In hardware terms, the attraction of ST:E should have been the lack of futuristic weapons. While laser cutters and the like could easily be used, regular machine guns, rifles and pistols should have had a placer in the armoury, as would hand grenades, smoke flares and so on.

We know from TOS that Romulans fired nukes at ships in the wars, so the Big E should have been much more heavily armoured and had far less powerful deflector shields. The E should have fired nuclear missiles rather than photonic torpedoes. Definitely no transporters, shuttlecraft only. In other words, what Ron Moore’s Galactica has got bang on!

The characters needed to be more of an extrapolation of our time. Their speech patterns and personalities were still those of the ‘evolved’ (read boring!) humans we saw in the 24th Century Treks. Actors were always told to underplay human roles in the modern Treks, to show up the non-humans more: a mistake in my opinion, because surely they should all have been working together normally!

Had Enterprise season four been its first, it might have lasted a lot longer. However, there was definitely a feel of franchise fatigue pervading the show and Berman and Braga were burnt out relics of 1980s TV. Trek itself had lost its engagement with the mainstream audience and had become its own parallel universe rather than a believable extrapolation of today’s society.

Oh well, it’s all very well with hindsight! I’ll simply look forward to the new movie.

163. Mark Lopa - April 25, 2008

The potential ENT had was enormous. Manny had it right, and I think bringing on the Reeves-Stevens helped, too. In the commentary during “Terra Prime,” they were saying here are so many more stories to be told, and there are.

No doubt ENT is more popular now than it was during it’s original run (sound familiar?), and a lot of that has to do with The Sci-Fi Channel. Maybe there is enough potential left for a TV movie.

164. Paul The Bass Player - November 2, 2008

Wouldn’t it be nice if they came up with a new series…

Star Trek – Acadamy
They could have O’Brien, Jake Sisco, Nog, Hoshi (phwohhh), Tpal, Chacote, Tom Paris, Harry Kim and many others could be part of it if not all new cast.

Maybe Riker as a an ex Marquee could become a lecturer at the acadamy.

Starfleet command could continue to have problems with alien races, and bring back the Andorians.

165. Mister Bigggs - January 18, 2009

#51 – you are not alone. ENT is my favorite right behind TOS

ENT was being jerked around by an unsupportive network (jeez, basically three incarnations in 4 seasons), shuffled in time slots, pre-empted all the time, and to top it off, every “fan” who could find a continuity error decided the show was crap. The “fans” are lucky JJ’s been green-lighted to go ahead with the franchise after the was ENT was treated by it’s supposed lifeblood.

If not naive enough to say ENT didn’t make mistakes. Sure they did. Lots of marginal stuff in Seas 1 and 2, but no worse than VOY, by and means. Take some time and look back at some of the droll in the first 2 seasons of TNG. The only reason “fans” let that go was they were desperate for more trek, not because it was good trek or better trek.

I think, from what I’ve seen around, ENT, now being viewed in the light of 2008/9 is getting a much better reception than when it was in first-run. If it had gotten the same support. and same open-mindedness, perhaps we’d be just finished with seas. 7 and getting a, what looks like, really cool new movie to boot.

If you’ve never seen ENT, don’t go by the bunch who feels they have to criticize it or they are worthy because B/B made some canon errors. See if for yourself. It’s a good show. I didn’t discover it until SCI-FI and after that bought the box set and enjoyed it a great deal. Check it out. It’s at least worth a good look – it’s closer to Gene’s vision of trek than DS9 or VOY ever were – the VFX are first rate – and when they hit the mark on a story – they really got the job done. In my opinion, a highly underrated cast, and a show that shouldn’t have had it’s legs cut off when it finally reached it’s stride in seas 4 when Coto took the helm with some enthusiasm.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.