Should Star Trek Die?

securitas writes "The New York Times Television reporter William S. Kowinski writes about questions of the Star Trek franchise's viability due to overexposure, audience fatigue and creative exhaustion. Star Trek actor and director LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge) is in favor of a hiatus, and is quoted as saying, 'Star Trek's just not special enough, not anymore.... They need to shut the whole thing down, wait five years, create an interest, an excitement, a hunger for it again.' Also quoted are Leonard Nimoy (Spock) and executive producer Rick Berman. The article is particularly salient given the recent announcement of Star Trek Online, a massively multiplayer online game scheduled to launch in 2007. Remember that Activision sued Viacom over the Star Trek franchise last year, ending the license despite a 10-year licensing agreement that originally expired in 2008. So the question is: Should Star Trek die?"

Comments

BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!!

[MoxCamel]

Levar and company are right, Nimoy is high. (not that that's a bad thing...) Although I'd give it even longer, say ten years. It's all a pipe dream though. ST is just too hot a property, and I seriously doubt they'll have the patience to wait two years, let alone five. Coming to a WB station near you: Star Trek Babies!

But a simple hiatus won't fix ST. ST needs better writing, fresher ideas, and to get away from this fixation of techno-babble saving the day. And while I'd be the first to jump into a goo chamber with T'Pol, the "FOX approach" is simply gratuitous and insulting.

ST needs to get back to it's cerebral roots. (yeah the current line in Enterprise is better, but after living through Voyager, it would be hard to get worse.) It needs a rest, but it also needs intelligent direction. coughfirebermancough.

Re:BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!!

[Pharmboy]

I like Enterprise as well, although season 2 was a bit thin. I can't help but to agree with the original post that Berman is part of the problem, if not the whole problem. His approach has become too predictable, too formulaic. He seems to have lost his way.

They do focus on technobable entirely too much, and they forget what the hell ST really is: A soap opera for nerds, with social commentary that questions the status quo. Once you get away from that, it gets weak. Its not about taking sides on current issues, its about raising issues and letting the viewers debate it. Also, just ONCE I would like to see them shut the Autodestruct down with more than 1 second left... Showing dumb luck as just dumb luck would also be more realistic.

The Xindi thing was good, although I agree its about time to move on. I DO really like the way Archer has to face a bunch of moral questions, and the response is usually realistic. IE: Yes, what we will do is wrong, but the world is not so black and white, and we have to survive. Again, its the story, not the do-dads and special effects that make the show.

Oh yea, and although I am a bit insulted by the overt sexuality of T'Pol, I would still savor the opportunity to bring out a little emotion in her, if ya know what I mean ;) Oh, and lots more Hoshi, who is sexier than T'Pol anyway. Hoshi doesn't have to look like a slut to be hot. Once they found out more people like Hoshi than T'Pol, I noticed Hoshi became a lot more scarce. That is just dumb.

Re:BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!!

[Paulrothrock]

There was an Enterprise episode about how freighters were the targets of piracy, and how their captains feel ignored by the Earth government and start taking laws into their own hands. Why not make a few more shows like that, about how ordinary citizens are coping with the incredible technological and political changes in their world?

What made DS9 the best (my opinion) was how it didn't ignore what was happening around it. In TOS and TNG I got the feeling like as soon as some good issues got raised, they were off to some other planet (usually EXACTLY LIKE EARTH except for ONE CRAZY DIFFERENCE).

Maybe ENT shouldn't have created the Xindi. Maybe they should have focused on the important events happening to the people of Earth? Things are changing quickly in their world just like ours. And they wouldn't have to shit all over Star Trek lore to do it.

Re:BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!!

[Foolhardy]

Nimoy is high.

He must be on LDS.

Re:BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!!

[Scrameustache]

Once they found out more people like Hoshi than T'Pol, I noticed Hoshi became a lot more scarce. That is just dumb.

You'll lust after whom Rick Berman wants you to lust!
Fall in line, ensign!

Re:BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!!

[Suidae]

That fits in a bit with my idea for Trek.

I loved TNG, most of it was really well done. But I got tired of the 'stateless' nature of the show. DS9 was cool once they got a real story going, but then at the end of the story they had to kill the show (well, it had been on the air long enough either way).

What I want now is a Trek show run kind of like a cross between the last few seasons of DS9 and The Outer Limits. Pick a story in the Trek universe. Any story, past, present or future, choose a story in the empires of humans, vulcans, klingons, whomever. Run it like a SciFi channel mini-series. Use as many or as few episodes as it takes to tell that story. Maybe its just one episode, or maybe it takes a dozen to do the story right. When the story is done, thats it, its over. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Maintain an active online presence, and actually use fan suggestions. Pick up loose threads from other series, follow characters that showed up in other series. Sprinkle in episodes that tell the same story from the perspective of several different characters of different races.

The possibilities for such a show, particularly with writers that will pay attention to feedback from fans, are nearly endless, as is the potential for money-making spin-off series in the style of the older shows.

I think it died

[Anonymous Coward]

a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

Star Trek is dead, has been for awhile

[stratjakt]

The question is, should we bury it, or spritz it with Fabreeze and see how long we can milk it "Weekend at Bernie's" style.

Re:Star Trek is dead, has been for awhile

[FictionPimp]

ok, I'd pay to see shatner playing a dead guy with scottie and bones taking him around the ship pretending he's alive.

Re:Star Trek is dead, has been for awhile

[GlassUser]

shatner playing a dead guy

And this is different from any of his other star trek appearances how?

Yes...

[AltImage]

The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few...

Re:Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

...or the one.

*cough*Berman*cough*

Re:Yes...

[ConceptJunkie]

That's a typo. You meant to say:

The good of the money outweighs the needs of the few.

Re:Yes...

[madprof]

No one has the courage to say "It's dead Jim"...

Re:Yes...

[pjt33]

Nonsense. It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

Overexposure?!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Overexposure is what Madonna has.

Star Trek is "not special anymore" because it's been taken over by people who can't understand what made it special. Bring in some real writers who understand why Threshold and Meridian were terrible stories and why The Inner Light was a great one, and the viewers will follow.

Re:Overexposure?!

[abb3w]

Overexposure is what Madonna has.

As opposed to what T'Pol has?
Not that I mind having something to appeal to my baser instincts, as long as you can do it while actually telling a thoughtful SF story. And frankly, Bujold's the only author in SF who's had anything new and thoughtful to say about sex since about 1975. Yes, the repetitive calisthenics are fun, but so what?

Re:should star trek die? yes

[Ansonmont]

Can someone just mod this whole "story" a Troll?

Anyone else find it amusing?

[plover]

Did anyone else find the layout of the article amusing? This quote, '[Leonard Nimoy] likens the current situation to the period after the first "Star Trek" feature film, when "I felt that 'Star Trek' was like a beached whale," he said.' was right next to the picture of a 400+ pound 'John Harper, of Tulsa., Okla., in Starbase 21, his booth of memorabilia at the "Star Trek" convention in Los Angeles.'

Sorry this is so cruel, but it made me laugh.

Re:Anyone else find it amusing?

[underpar]

"I won it as a door prize at the Star Trek Convention, although I find their choice of prize highly illogical, as the average Trekker has no use for a medium-sized belt."

YES!

[rdilallo]

If Star Trek would die, so would half of the conversations on Slashdot!

Re:YES!

[richie2000]

If Star Trek would die, so would half of the conversations on Slashdot!

And if Microsoft would die, we'd be all out of topics.

(From the Netcraft-confirms,-yada,-yada,-yada-dept.)

Wouldn't bother me much...

[ThosLives]

It wouldn't bother me at all to see the current generation of Trek put on hold. I can't really stand any of it since TNG ended (I don't even enjoy the movies all that much). I had such high hopes for Voyager, and that was a let down (I've maybe seen 10 episodes). I had such high hopes for Enterprise, and I think I only watched the pilot.

I'd agree that there is too much exposure, lack of creativity (it's the same old plots over and over) and way too much trying to be uber-politically-correct and "visionary". It was better when they put the social commentary in without ramming it down your throat.

I love the idea of having a great spacefaring future, but the best new sci-fi / space shows out there were canned (Farscape and Firefly). I don't really care too much for Stargates; too sappy for my tastes.

While it may be sad to have no new Trek, I think it would be best if they just let a good thing go and not risk tarnishing the franchise any further.

Re:yes

[Palshife]

I've seen this post several places on the Internet before, same spelling errors and all. Where'd you get it?

yes, the creativity is gone

[holy_smoke]

It was a fun ride but it got old a long time ago. Same with the Star Wars family.

good things are only good until they get ruined by over-indulgence. They've explored all the angles into a mind-numbing state of mediocrity.

Star Trek = cool
too much Star Trek = boring, repetitive, predictable, stale.

Better to spend their energies creating the next cool thing instead of re-hashing and desecrating the last cool thing.

If you don't know...

[ari_j]

If you don't already know who Levar Burton and Leonard Nimoy are, you:

A) Shouldn't be on Slashdot
iii) Aren't qualified to talk about any Trek, because you missed the only two good series in the franchise

Enterprise is a great show. They just need to divorce the Star Trek name from it. Great sci-fi, but it doesn't belong anywhere in the Trek timeline.

Re:If you don't know...

[fr2asbury]

Yeah but . . . what have "In Search Of . . . " and "Reading Rainbow" have to do with Star Trek? ;-)

Re:If you don't know...

[IronicCheese]

"In Search Of..." and "Reading Rainbow" (ISO and RR for those of us who know and love the Trek Canon) are two of the least-watched and certainly least understood of the Trek Shows.

ISO was a Spock vehicle, a spinoff meant to explore the mind of our favorite Vulcan. Week after week he would show off his latest research; giving us a sense of what he was doing, peering into that scope of his while Kirk was seducing the alien babes.

Spock's facination with UFOs (naturally) later gave way to an obsession with Uri Geller and the Bermuda Triangle, by which time, most Trekkers left feeling that this show had jumped the shark.

RR was a prequel to the TNG storyline -- wherein a very gifted warp physics engineer shows his softer side by reading children's books, set at a time before he was blinded in a tragic e-book explosion. Paramount, for reasons that are not totally clear, decided to set this futuristic space adventure somewhere in modern times, and sadly, the pilot that explains the temporal anomoly was never aired and is lost to posterity.

Hope that clears things up.

Yep

[jellomizer]

Yes, Star Trek should die. Right before one series ends an other begins. between TOS and TNG There was a good time frame difference and plenty of time to rethink new ideas new planets and alien creatures. Then DS9 came along DS9 wasn't to bad either it many ways it was a lot better the TNG. But after DS9 Voyager and Enterprise (although Enterprise is better the voyager) are still just kinda sucking the franchise dry. Give them some time for the nature of politics to change and for some of the issues of today be different. Also some time to revaluate our technology that we have in the future to really make a good guess what the future will be like. But the franchise is still struggling to match the ideas of the future of the 1960s and trying to loosely follow that time frame. I Think they need to make a new franchise that will make more sense.

Priorities

[rlp]

What makes a good sci-fi series is:

1) The quality of the writing
2) The quality of the acting
3) The quality of the special effects

Many shows get this backwards (such as the current ST series and the horrendous ST Voyager). The old Dr. Who series with Tom Baker had ultra cheap special effects (the special effects budget must have been about five pounds) - but are still enjoyable when viewed today. The original ST's special effects were not special by today's standards, and Shatner's acting - well 'nough said. But, the quality of the writing created the whole franchise. B5 and Star Gate (though I'm a little worried about the later) were good because of the many excellent scripts. Forget overexposure - get some decent writers that understand science fiction and can write interesting, thought provoking scripts. That will revive the franchise. Anything else, and it's doomed.

Death Before Social Commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else wish Star Trek would stop trying to be profound with its social commentary episodes?

In this article Levar Burton mentions a future episode where they hope to parallel questions and concerns about the war in Iraq to some civil war on Vulcan. I know geeks love this kind of stuff, but most of the non-rabid Trek fans hate it.

Why? Because Trek moralizing is geek moralizing. It's that naive, "I live in an ivory tower mommy and daddy paid for" philosophizing that makes the series so unapproachable. You know the storyline is going to end with a darker hand shaking a lighter hand, and the entire universe commiserating about how stupid and violent we humans are. It's goofy and embarassing - you know, like that stupid poem Data recited about his cat.

Trek needs to get cool again, and it needs to get cool again fast. Why don't people realize that the reason people liked Kirk was because he was a man's man? He took his ladies and he beat up his enemies. He didn't recite Shakepeare at them.

Re:Death Before Social Commentary

[Morpeth]

Ummmm... there was plenty of social commentary in the original series. A black female communications officer on the bridge, along with a Chinese-American and a Russian? You don't think that was social commentary, not heavy handed perhaps - but very much a statement, especially given when the original series was filmed

Sure Kirk had his butt kicking episodes, but there was often references to (at the time) contemporary or historical issues. Perhaps because they didn't interest you, you've forgotten them, which is fine, I'm just saying the commentary was clearly there.

I think if you do it without going over the top, being too obvious, too black-n-white or simplistic, social commentary can be very interesting and effective. Personally, I'd get tired of a program that just did action all the time with no context or reference point, that's was FPS's are for :)

My 2 cents anyhoo

GameDev forums

[T-Kir]

Thanks to the google cache... about two thirds down the page posted by "Jesper T". Had to use the cache because the direct link to my original search came back with a resource denied (original google search text: "Western in space. Kinda campy but did have its moments. Very memorable characters. Fanbase: Big enough to get a few movies going after its cancelation. Noteworthy:").

Um...

[StarKruzr]

I think you mean "death rattle."

Seriously though, are you going to try to tell me Enterprise is not a better show than Voyager? It's good SF - not GREAT SF, with a few exceptions - but it's well-written and well-acted.

Can you people give me some good reasons why you seem to hate Enterprise so much?

(I mean, hell, I'll give you Voyager ;)

Re:Um...

[NanoGator]

"3) Over-reliance on time travel. TOS wasn't exactly time traveless, there had to be 5 or 6 involving it... but every other episode of Enterprise uses this stupid cliche."

That's the basis of the series! Do you have this complaint about Doctor Who as well?

"8) Zero character development. For god's sake, even Andromeda has characters that grow and learn, and exist outside of their duty to the ship."

Been watching?

"11) Insistence on tying in every damn thing that the other series did. Let's see, romulans, klingons, borg, Risa, Enterprise E, and a host of others."

Again, that's the point of the show. (Never mind that the Enterprise-E and the Borg are what kicked it all off to begin with.)

I don't care if you like or hate Enterprise, but when the question is asked "Should Trek die", people start pulling things out of their asses to prove their point. Never mind that the question is completely irrelevant if it still commands an audience. "I don't like it, so nobody else should like it either."

Re:yes

[meringuoid]

I like the idea of Enterprise. A primitive starship does away with all the ridiculous technological dei ex machinae that plagued Voyager's plots: Enterprise NX-01 doesn't have a tractor beam, it has a harpoon! The low-tech scenario means the writers can't use bullshit physics to resolve a plot quite so often.

I'm not so convinced by the actual implementation of Enterprise... I can't see how Archer's universe is going to become Kirk's universe, and it doesn't feel quite like Trek all the time. But there have been some damn good episodes - I actually like Enterprise a lot better than Voyager.

Re:ST XX: Return of the Franchise

[richie2000]

Um, yeah. In the pattern buffer interface right next to the impulse-stream modulator. Stick Berman in it and then transport the whole section into a nearby star. Kinda like the Beam-A-John 3000:

Enterprise Tech Manual, page 378:

The Galaxy-class starships are the first Federation-built space vessels built with only one conventional bathroom (in the Captain's private cabin). All other cabins come with a Beam-A-John 3000 personal transporter that will transport all human (or alien) waste products into space, well aft of the ship.

The model 3000 also has the newly implemented Waste-Away feature that gives the feces a relative speed to the ship corresponding to one quarter impulse power. This ensures that, even during heavy manoeuvering, the ship will never double-back and hit anything to spoil that beautiful off-white Federation paintjob. Should the inertial dampening field collapse, the Beam-A-John 3000's powerful sensor array can also cope with any kind of surprise vomit attack. The main and battle bridges are ofcourse equipped with enough transporter power to handle an elephant's excrement, should Q see fit to materialize one there.

Hey! Hey! Hey!

[nightsweat]

Let's not get carried away with the bad-mouthing random semi-nudity.

I mean, come on!

Not overexposure, but context.

[plover]

I think Star Trek isn't special anymore because the times have changed.

Back in the 1960s, in the days of Commies and Sputnik and the Space Race, a show about astronauts warping around space with a dashing captain punching the Evil Empire in the nose was exactly the right formula to grab America's attention. Surround him with beautiful but deadly women, tear his shirt off in a fight over them every so often, and it captured the interest of teens and young men and women all over the country. And since there were three whole networks of TV channels to choose from, competition for attention was scarce.

But now, there are hundreds of channels with thousands of shows. The internet is high speed and in the kids' bedrooms. Soccer moms spend every waking minute taking their kids from activity to activity. Kids just aren't interested in Star Trek. It's now just a show for their dads and moms to watch; there is no excitement for kids, nothing new in these movies and series. There's no evil villain that they could show that these kids haven't already virtually shot a thousand times in their Nintendos.

Star Trek won't die as long as we adults keep hanging on to our memories of Captain Kirk. But we can't expect our kids to hold him in the same "reverence." And no matter how "special" the stories might be to us, they're just another level in a video game to the current generation.

Re:Not overexposure, but context.

[wwest4]

> But now, there are hundreds of channels with thousands of shows.
> The internet is high speed and in the kids' bedrooms. Soccer moms
> spend every waking minute taking their kids from activity to activity.
> Kids just aren't interested in Star Trek.

Mine thinks of nothing else. I'm lucky if I can convince him to go out for a run or a bike ride - he'd rather play starship creator or throw in a DVD and watch episodes. When he flips through the hundred channels, guess where he stops? Trek Uncut. When he's not staring at his SETI@home screen, he's searching google for a Zephram Cochrane birth announcement. His last class project was about his visit to Vegas, and he spent a disproportionate amount of his energy on the side trip to see Trek at the Hilton... in spite of the impact of seeing the strip, GameWorks, In-and-Out, the Hoover Dam, Grand Canyon, and Zion. It's not just another video game to him. He just gets it.

Trek hasn't really changed. It's always been about flashing some scandalous bits to attract general viewership. The spoils (occasional good bits of sci-fi, ideas, imaginary worlds and histories) go to the geeks. The difference now is that many older geeks have tired of their dependence on the general viewers and want to divorce the real meaty center of star trek from the filler that keeps Joe Sixpack in his seat and, by the way, the shows on the air. Well, I say that the only way you can really ever divorce yourself from the filler is by creating something on your own. Geek kids understand this intuitively. Some start with Trek as a base and some start something new, but by the end, Trek just whets one's appetite and does not sate it. That's why my son isn't happy only to sit and watch episodes or wait idly for the next movie. He's building ships, coming up with his own stories and characters, and looking for signs of trek-like progress in the real world.

There is also the argument that there is too much popular filler and Trek has become diluted, but that's another thread...

What series' did you watch?

[tgd]

I watched them all, and I remember a campy western set in space, a all-to-perfect soap opera buried in technobabble, a total fluke in the Trek saga in the form of DS9 when the show sucked until they dropped any semblance of it actually being like "Trek", and went much darker and was far better than the prior series. Voyager shouldn't even be commented on. It was the worst part of all the sci-fi shows on TV all mushed together in a shocking display of suck. Enterprise has been entertaining, I suppose. The acting is horrid, but its never been good in the Trek franchise.

In all of those, however (even being a Trek fan), I fail to see any semblance of a cerebral root.

Re:What series' did you watch?

[MoxCamel]

In all of those, however (even being a Trek fan), I fail to see any semblance of a cerebral root.

Then you may want to go back and rent some TOS DVDs. Were they all cerebral? Hell no. Some of them were downright awful. But when you put them in the context of the era (late 1960s) they were powerful but subtle. They addressed issues of race, politics, social issues, sexism, and more. It seems a simple space western today, because we don't have the context.

Even the worst episodes of TOS were better than many "better" episodes of later series, because the writers seemed to care.

Re:What series' did you watch?

[nathan s]

In my honest opinion, Voyager was the most interesting of the three that I've seen (TOS, TNG, and Voyager). I know a lot of people seem to be blasting Voyager on the basis of its technology or something of the like. However, Voyager tackled some real issues.

A few that I can recall offhand:
- Throughout the entire series, a lot of time was spent discussing what is basically Artificial Intelligence in the form of the ship's doctor. Over the course of the show, this 'program' develops a personality and actually some creativity, and at least one Voyager episode is a court case that closely parallels a recent real mock trial (although here the AI is arguing for life instead of the ownership of its intellectual property) http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0594.html?pr intable=1
- Another aspect of the show is the characterization, which I felt is much better than previous Trek series. Capt. Janeway has to make some quite tough decisions, and the series finale is perhaps the most interesting episode for her as she encounters a future self and has to defend her decision to protect millions of strangers' lives at the risk of her own crew/family. This theme repeats throughout.
- The whole Borg thing was quite well explored, in my honest opinion (although it may be better so in DS9). Some people seem pissed that the Borg aren't all-powerful, but really, apart from the Species 8472, they don't face much real competition. The destruction of some of their collective at the end of Voyager is reflecting another long-lived Trek theme, individuality vs. the collective (and of course, individuality comes out ahead here - good or no, but that's what it was about).

It wasn't perfect, but overall I felt that the characters offered more to care about than previous Treks. I enjoyed the TNG crew, and was amused by the Western antics of the TOS crew, but Voyager actually had me caring about more than one character (I only found Picard interesting in TNG, and Spock was the main reason to watch TOS for me).

This is all quite personal, and I'm sure people quite disagree; however, I think that people might appreciate Voyager more if they paid more attention to the characters and less to the technology.

Re:What series' did you watch?

[Tassach]

Did you notice that DS9's change in tone corresponded with B5 beating it in the ratings game? Competition is good. Of course once B5 went off the air it was back to the same old Star Drek.

Re:What series' did you watch?

[Scrameustache]

Voyager tackled some real issues.

A few that I can recall offhand:
- Throughout the entire series, a lot of time was spent discussing what is basically Artificial Intelligence in the form of the ship's doctor. Over the course of the show, this 'program' develops a personality and actually some creativity, and at least one Voyager episode is a court case that closely parallels a recent real mock trial (although here the AI is arguing for life

Yeah, hmmm, TNG did the exact same thing with Data, trial and all.
Its sad when you're ripping yourself off.

The whole Borg thing was quite well explored, in my honest opinion

See, here, you're not making any kind of sense.
TNG Borg: RESISTANCE IS FUTILE, one, ONE Borg Cube defeated the entire Federation fleet and was only stopped by daring and clever hacking.
Voy Borg: A single lost Federation ship without ressources defeats the ENTIRE DAMN COLLECTIVE. Pussyfication galore!

individuality vs. the collective

Was explored in depth in TNG with Hugh, "I Borg" and the follow ups.
Voyager rehashed it.

I felt that the characters offered more to care about than previous Treks.

Kess. Was supposed to age very fast. After 3 years, they realised they had only untied her hair while she should have aged by about 30 human years. Also, they realised by that time that they had to cross Borg space, a daunting task. How did they solve these problems? MAGIC! Kess becomes Q-like, flings Voyager to the other side of Borg space (but no farther, that would have been too convenient), decides she's too hot for them, leaves, and they get a replacement babe in the same show. That disgusted me. That was...horrible.
Sure, the new babe was better, but the way they solved these problems... They painted themselves into a corner and pulled the magic powers card to solve it. Not worthy of Star Trek.

Re:What series' did you watch?

[Firethorn]

Well, considering that the Original Star Trek is probably older than half the people on this board, I'd agree that people don't get how 'edgy' TOS was for the time. Heck, the very idea of a female bridge officer! Do you remember the black/white episode? It might seem obvious and overdone now, but back then?

Re:What series' did you watch?

[Abcd1234]

*sigh* Not you again. There's crap in every medium. There is a metric buttload of *bad* books out there. Worse yet, everyone has a different idea of what defines "bad"... for example, I think the Count of Monte Cristo is a bad book (oh, I've tried to read it... how I've tried), but there are many who would disagree. Same goes for movies, music, and, yup, you guessed it, TV! The key, since you seem to have missed it, is to find quality material that you enjoy. Of course, if you choose not to do that, that's fine, but don't criticize an entire medium (and, by proxy, the people who view it) just because *you* have decided that it's worthless. After all, millions of very smart people (many probably smarter than you or me) watch TV every day (they also probably read books, watch movies, and listen to music... variety is, after all, the spice of life).

Re:yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard TOS episode:
The Enterprise or the Federation are menaced by a mysterious and deadly force. Kirk finds a way to destroy it.
Hidden agenda: The electic collection of different writers promote an interesting and occasionally contradictory mixture of left-wing liberalism, American jingoism, and Judeo-Christian egocentrism.

Standard TNG episode:
The Enterprise or the Federation are menaced by a mysterious and deadly force. Captain Picard asks it to please stop. It does.
Hidden agenda: Gene Roddenberry's personal viewpoints (secularism, humanism, collectivism, communism, pacifism, gay rights, sexual equality, atheism, political isolationism, etc). Disclaimer: I am an atheist and a humanist, but not a communist, so I had decidedly mixed feelings about this agenda.

Standard DS9 episode
DS9 or the Federation are menaced by a mysterious and deadly force. Sisko blows it up with cool special effects and lots of technobabble in order to appease the rock 'em, sock 'em crowd, then he turns around and subjects the audience to an agonizingly self-righteous lecture on the evils of violence and the horrors of war, in order to appease the intellectual crowd. If the writers are completely out of ideas, we get to to hear about their weird homegrown Bajoran religion.
Hidden agenda: None. The writers' only real agenda is to milk the Star Trek cash cow.

Standard Voyager episode
Drop Kirk's military control and aggression. Drop Picard's principled strong leadership. Keep Sisko's self-righteous monologues and dalliances with offbeat spirituality themes. Appease crucial lonely male Trekkie demographic with 7 of 9's large busom. Appease spiritual types with constant references to native American vision quests.
Hidden agenda: None. The writers' only real agenda is to milk the Star Trek cash cow.

Standard Enterprise episode:
Copy Voyager's modus operandi, but insert different personalities and different large busom. Annoy longtime Trek fans by ignoring continuity with TOS. Lonely male teen demographic is very excited about this new show.
Hidden agenda: None. The writers' only real agenda is to milk the Star Trek cash cow.

Star Trek Porn

[AliasTheRoot]

Thats pretty much all that can save it. Marina Sirtis should get naked and service Brent Spiner.

Boycott ENTERPRISE .. it's just that bad.

[jeff13]

Since ENTERPRISE began it has been hailed as being the very worst Star Trek ever done... and after Voyager that's quite an accomplishment. Now, after three seasons of fascistic, racist, and horrifically mysoginistic story lines the TV viewing public, who avoided this show like dog shit on the sidewalk, will get more.

Why?

Well, we don't know why. But we can guess. And the best guess always goes with the money.

Paramount, rather like NBC losing 'Friends', is horrified to learn that their long standing Star Trek franchise is dead. Dead dead. No one cares for the material except a very, very, smelly and small number of Fan boy freaks. You know... the kind who have no life but fetishizing dolls and other 'collectibles'. Forget those who appreciated the intricate and smart stories from the original series 40 years ago... those people are looong gone. Paramount has opted to do what all giant Corps. do when faced with an artistic crisis... they buy more. They market more. They keep it going even if it looses millions simply because they still have no idea what to do. So they keep doing what they are doing.

Notice how popular shows (can we think of one? Hmm... something by that Joss guy) get the shaft while "franchises" get perpetuated as if they deserve too. The lesson being that a brand name is far, far, more important than a good show.

Worse, Enterprise is also the producers sycophantic pro George "Dubya" Bush cream dream. Notice how the protagonist, Capt. Archer, is the son of a "great man" who was held back by the (liberal) Vulcans. As the show progresses, Archer becomes increasingly more angry and with a terrorist attack on Earth by an alien race he agrees to "do what it takes" to ... well, the actual goals aren't defined. Stop the bad guys? Sound familiar? Propoganda is not what I watch Star Trek for let alone a soft sell for the War in Iraq. It's become painfully obvious that Enterprise means to present the 'War against Islam" as a great adventure. Sick.

Then, just to undermine the characters rather like on Voyager... soldiers are brought into the show to "solve the problem". Enterprise just failed first year English... sad.

Looking at the original Trek compared to ENTERPRISE one has to wonder why in 1965 they had a multi-racial show that portrayed a ship full of different people while today they can't even give the one black guy on the show lines. The producers lack of giving a shit or even basic morals becomes more apparent. There is an asian girl who is portrayed rather like all women on Enterprise; a weak willed child who's job is so unimportant the stories forgot about her main skill early on. And just when you thought you'd seen the main characters turned into put upon tokens Enterprise will come along with an ep about fundamentalist suicide bombers that deserves an award for being the most racist and ignorant story put on TV in some years.

If this weren't bad enough I can't leave without bringing up the horrifically mysoginistic undertone of Enterprise that is personified by the character T'pol. Even from the first show we see a woman who is attacked by Archer and yet she is drawn to him like a battered wife (and is a psychology T'Pol demonstrates consistantly. I think it's the producers true feelings about women. Scary). Make sense? Only to certain sexually twisted fanboy writers. Anyho', this has continued and is sure to keep on going. Lately, T'Pol has inexplicably decided that wearing a silly cat suit isn't enough to degrade herself so she has become a sort of ships whore by fucking the engineer... again for no apparent reason.

And now for what might be the real reason ENTERPRISE should go away... it's a joke on the Star Trek fans! The producers of this show have, I can only divine, seemingly tried to turn Enterprise into a kind of childish 'Capt. Proton' (if you get me) that takes gleeful joy in ignoring, destroying, or just plain making fun of everything Trek that came before. Noticeably all the good stuff Paramount doe