Slashdot Mirror


TrekUnited Campaign Ends

ForteMaster writes "TrekUnited, the controversial campaign to save Enterprise from cancellation, has ended its campaign today. Interestingly enough, the article mentions that "a multiple of the money raised by TrekUnited so far" was being offered, with "further details to be released shortly". A case of counting the chickens before they've hatched, maybe? Here is some commentary from TrekToday on the subject."

53 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Sad by elid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately, the article doesn't explain why Paramount turned down the Canada offer. That would seem to make the most sense, as the Trek fan fund itself wouldn't have been able to actually fund a season, while an actual production company would.

    1. Re:Sad by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's all here: Trek Report: "Bound"

      Paramount is owned by Viacom, whose owner is a bitter rival of Rupert Murdoch, who owns SkyOne, one of the participants in the deal.

    2. Re:Sad by toolz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess that's an easy one.

      If Paramount were to accept the Canada offer, it would have, for the first time, let someone other than Paramount produce a ST product. What if it turned out to be a success? Can you imagine the finger pointing at the current ST overlords?

      ST is a valuable Paramount property. No way anyone is going to get his grubby fingers on that! :)

      --
      You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
    3. Re:Sad by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I suspect it's a ma[tt]er of keeping creative control, though I don't know the full details of the Paramount offer. While Enterprise might be a separate part of the entire series, what happened during it clearly has an impact on later shows. Outsourcing such a key series would constrain the keepers of Star Trek canon.

      In some ways, it's sad because it shows Paramount do plan to continue extending the series further and further. It's kind of the equivalent of that Mercury Grand Marquis or Buick Park Avenue you see with the Canadian license plates in the left lane, blinker on, vehicle driving at 5, 10, 20 below the speed limit, annoying just about everyone. You can't fault the drivers, they're clearly too old to know better, but it'll continue doing the wrong thing at the wrong pace until different drivers come along, and, truth be told, at that point you're probably looking at the type of kid who'll do the car up with spinners and under-the-body neon lights.

      So you end up feeling, really, that maybe the old people, with their poor eyesight and slow reactions, really are the best people to drive the car, and once they no longer have use for it, that the car should, really, be sent to the dump.

      Of course, the other solution is we move to driverless cars. Then this whole business of people going at 75, or even 80, on a highway clearly marked as 70, will be a thing of the past. In the analogy, I guess, this would mean handing over control of the Star Trek series to a computer. With the right AI, this would be in many ways the most fitting solution and the best tribute to what Trek stood for. Technology being used to help mankind, exploring areas never explored before.

      To boldly go, indeed, where no man has gone before.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Sad by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Outsourcing such a key series would constrain the keepers of Star Trek canon.
      hahahaha, lol, OMG, snif.
      Oh, man. That was the best laugh in days.

      Well, actually not. With the way it has been going lately.
      Continuity is a huge problem. And fans are very sensitive of canon.
      One or two writers who get paid, regardless if they uphold canon. Or a bunch of bloodthirsty, dressed up klingon/Borg/Ferengi, trekkies debating over the slightest intonation of a character.
      Now, who would hold up canon more...

    5. Re:Sad by FriedTurkey · · Score: 5, Funny


      Kirk: Bones. What is wrong with this post?

      McCoy: He has taken an analogy way to far.

      Kirk: Can you fix it?

      McCoy: Dammit Jim. I am a doctor not a moderator.

    6. Re:Sad by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2
      ST is a valuable Paramount property. No way anyone is going to get his grubby fingers on that! :)


      Well, it WAS before they let Berman loose on it. Congratulations Rick, you've killed Star Trek. Gene would be so proud of you.

  2. Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where do I send money to if I want to make sure Paramount continues to not make Star Trek shows?

    Just askin', is all.

    1. Re:Donations by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other words, you really do want to save Star Trek from ill-concieved and poorly executed spinoffs?

    2. Re:Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A serious question is "What happened to the money I donated".

      Do they just keep it now?

    3. Re:Donations by Aurin+Wildfire · · Score: 5, Informative
      Now they call off the battle and wow, look they are $144,173 richer.


      "Our final proposal was knocked down by Paramount. We will not see a season five for Star Trek Enterprise," wrote Jane Braz in a post at the Trek Fans United Forum, speaking on behalf of TrekUnited founder Tim Brazeal. The group said that it would begin refunding donations on Monday or Tuesday."
    4. Re:Donations by Golias · · Score: 2, Funny

      Genius!

      I think I'll start a "Save Charmed fund."

      Has it been cancelled yet? I haven't really watched the WB since Buffy & Angel were there. I'm going to assume that it has been... or if it hasn't, it's probably "on the bubble." I seem to recall hearing they tried to shoe-horn Rose McGowen into the cast after firing that 90210 chick. Anyway, the show sucked, but if Voyager and Enterprise had a core "loyal" fans, I bet Charmed does too.

      The hope of seeing Alyssa Milano's legs on TV again ought to fetch me at least a few grand from the same sort of ignorant boobs as those who donated to TrekUnited.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Donations by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They collected $144,173

      Wow, it's a shame they called it off. With that kind of scratch, they could have funding almost 1/10 an episode.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. Berman and Braga by George+Tirebuyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These two should have been cancelled. A while back.

  4. It's a shame by nightsweat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was starting to enjoy the series. The last year and a half they got their act together and the show was as good as any of the others.

    I'm sure some people here will now question my sanity, but for every Borg in TNG, there was an episode featuring Troy and her mother doing something stupid.

    Enterprise was pretty good, heading towards borderline great. It's too bad they killed it. It's going to be tough to bring the franchise back credibly.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    1. Re:It's a shame by Dionysus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, with Manny Coto (who was responsible for this season) leaving for 24, it was probably a good idea to end it now. Unless you wanted a repeat of the two first seasons of Enterprise. And that's what you would have gotten, with Berman and Bragga in charge. Can you say, Temporal Cold War?

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    2. Re:It's a shame by ergean · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes I can say: "Temporal Cold War". But it hurts.

  5. Good! by decipher_saint · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any movement that justifies the current state of Trek should fail.

    Ok, flamethrower off...

    Star Trek is like a burnt out rocker, it's been on the road for years, it's out of creative juice, it's just going through the motions. I say, let Trek rest up a few years, you know, like get some new material and come back stronger than ever!

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Good! by TheStupidOne · · Score: 3, Funny

      Star Trek is like a burnt out rocker, it's been on the road for years, it's out of creative juice, it's just going through the motions. I say, let Trek rest up a few years, you know, like get some new material and come back stronger than ever!

      Metallica did that and we were "rewarded" with St. Anger. Bleh... =P

      --
      unable to resolve function slashdot.sig(), aborting...
    2. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you kidding?! Star Trek isn't just the Federation -- it's an entire universe! So try these setting premises on for size:

      * Space pirate ship
      * Klingon ship

      Even if you're stuck on the Federation, there's no way to go wrong with Nimoy directing a Captain Sulu based show.

      Star Trek has been pinned down and raped by bad writing, bad casting and bad direction for far too long. Universal needs to give the franchise a five to ten year hiatus then bring it back with some people in charge who don't suck and actually give a fuck about something besides the numbers on their paychecks.

  6. So sad by ZWarrior · · Score: 2

    Although I did not get to see any of the series, it is rather sad to hear that it is being canceled. I have heard a great deal of praise for the series, and something about taking showers with Vulcans.

    What does surprise me is that Paramount has refused to accept the demand from the fans, including 3.1 MILLION dollars raised to fund it. It makes you wonder what they are up to, and why they are allowed to monopolize the Star Trek world in such a way.

    Makes you wonder what Roddenberry would say at this point.

    --
    Here I come to save the da... *thud*
    I gotta get me a shorter cape.
    1. Re:So sad by Mant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How many episodes would 3.1 million make? A quick Google tells me its about 1.6 million per episode, so about two. So it isn't going to be much of an impact when looking at making a new series.

      They can monopolize Trek because they own the rights, that simple. This is true for just about every creative endeavour these days. Indeed, it's rather the point of copyright to grant a limited time monopoly (although you can argue the limited time part has been effectively removed, and the rights holders are often not the creators).

  7. Finally, the end of Enterprise by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's been a long road
    Getting from there to here
    It's been a long time
    But my time is finally near.

    And I will see my dream come to life at last
    Enterprise has finally been cancelled!

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  8. It's about time by WD_40 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's time for Star Trek to die. IMO, the last really good series was TNG, although DS9 got pretty good at the end. The whole thing is way too runout and it all lacks originality.

    Another thing that pisses me off is the pussified political correctness. In the old days they didn't "target the weapons array", they freakin' took care of business.

    It's time for Star Trek to die for awhile and hopefully come back in a decade or two a reborn entity that is worth watching.

    --

    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

  9. www.m-w.com by AnonymousKev · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "TrekUnited, the controversial campaign to save Enterprise from cancellation, ...

    Was it really controversial? Unconventional, maybe, but not controversial.

    --
    Anonymous Kev
    Proudly posting as AC since 1997
    (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
  10. Save Enterprise? No. by dbolger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I watched the first episode of the new season of Enterprise, "Storm Front" last night. I'm sorry, guys, but I can't keep this up any more. Let me set out my stall, before I begin. I have devoted large amounts of time, energy, and interest to Star Trek over the years. In school, it was probably one of the things that people used to define me - hell, it was my number one interest, so there was undoubtedly a good reason for that. I have, as long as I can remember, been a Trekkie. As soon as I saw "Encounter at Farpoint", I was hooked. I went on to watch every single episode of The Next Generation, and with very few exceptions, I loved it all. I went out of my way to find and watch every episode of the original series, being honestly excited when the pilot, "The Cage" was aired on BBC, and I couldn't believe how deep and powerful the stories were. I owned, in one format or another, all the films up to "The Undiscovered Country", and stuck with Deep Space Nine through what I considered a bad start, to the very end where it became the best Star Trek I'd seen. I bought action figures. I bought t-shirts. I bought numerous books. I bought the "Star Trek Factfiles" until Eason's stopped stocking them. Even when it came to Voyager, where I saw more bad episodes than good, I stuck with it. I watched. I hoped. I've seen all the new films, even though I've seen their quality slide since "Generations". I am not a "fairweather fan".

    When I first heard about "Enterprise", I was really looking forward to it. A show set before the original series? Fantastic! We would see wars with the Klingons and Romulans! We would see how Earth and Vulcan came together, and the birth of the Federation! Surely it would be amazing! I looked at the crew they were giving us, and was impressed. There was so much potential. I thought that this would be the series that brought Star Trek back from the ridiculous "time travel saves the day" plots of Voyager, and returned it to its roots. But I was wrong. From the outset, my hopes were trampled on. From the very first episode, "Broken Bow", I saw time travel, the "temporal cold war", the complete ignoring of even the most basic points of the Star Trek timeline - poor and insulting plots which must be seen cliché by even the most blinkered science fiction fan. And yet still, I kept watching. Deep Space Nine, I reasoned, was weak to begin with too - it took a few seasons to get into its strike, but turned out to be amazing. So after two seasons, I found myself still sitting in front of my television, hoping against hope and reason that Enterprise would be redeemed, but I was, once again, disappointed. No redemption came. Season three came to a close with the plot still tied up with the Xindi and the temporal cold war - threads which began in the very first episode, and if the producers had any sense, would have been cut there and then. There has been no real development, no dealing with serious social issues, nothing at all of what made Star Trek great. The season ended, and I was left feeling cold and unemotive.

    From America, then, I heard that a fourth season had been promised, and soon afterwards, I read that Enterprise had been cancelled and would not receive a fifth. Quite frankly, I was relieved. Not only was this series not good Star Trek, it was bad to such a level that it was tainting the other series' which bore the name. Of course, then there came the protests. Obsessive fans - not of Enterprise, I believe, but of Star Trek, protesting against the cancellation, and fundraising to have Paramount produce another season. Why did they do this? I do not believe these people love Enterprise. Hell, if they did, then they wouldn't be obsessive Star Trek fans, because to love Enterprise is to love the complete antithesis of what Trek should be. I believe these people were protesting because they were afraid - afraid of not having a Star Trek on television with which to centre their lives, afraid of being forced to think for themselves, and made to find a new focus that wasn't based aroun

    1. Re:Save Enterprise? No. by QangMartoq · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Right now, I believe that is the only thing that can rescue what is left of the show's core, and that is, despite all the hurt, something I still want to do. "Save Enterprise"? No. To hell with Enterprise. Save Star Trek."

      dbolger, if I had mod points right now, you'd have them!

    2. Re:Save Enterprise? No. by barawn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I watched the first episode of the new season of Enterprise, "Storm Front" last night.

      The guy in charge of the fourth season of Enterprise (Manny Coto) was asked "Why Nazis?" regarding Storm Front. His response (bitterly)? "You'd have to ask Berman and Braga." Storm Front is the last vestige of the crap that Berman and Braga have been spewing for the first three years.

      Watch the second episode of Storm Front, and you'll see what I mean. Suddenly, all the annoying characters and stupid plotlines that Berman and Braga put forward just vanish in one episode. That was the whole point. Coto had to have the Nazis in there. So he did as little with them as he could - two episodes, and they're gone, and all the crap gone with them.

      The fourth season of Enterprise is much better than the previous seasons. Unfortunately, Paramount (and Berman) had no intention of letting Enterprise run for more seasons anyway, because it was under someone else's control. There's simply no way that Enterprise, on UPN, could've drawn enough viewers to make Paramount realize Berman was an idiot - which, of course, was the point. Berman hands over reigns, says "okay, if you can do a better job, go ahead." ... and then promptly sets the show up to fail miserably.

    3. Re:Save Enterprise? No. by gowen · · Score: 3, Informative
      The term "undiscovered country" comes from a Shakespeare play (Henry the V I think)
      Hamlet. It's from the soliloquy that starts "To Be, or Not To Be".

      "the dread of something after death,
      The undiscovered country from whose bourn
      No traveler returns, puzzles the will
      And makes us rather bear those ills we have
      Than fly to others that we know not of?"
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:Save Enterprise? No. by Dunkelzahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy crap. Awesome post. You're already maxxed on mod points, so I will reply instead of mod you up.

      I've been a Trek fan for years. Much like you, I stood by and was loyal to every series, up until season two of Enterprise. Interest was slipping, though honestly it had begun to slip somewhere during Voyager's run. I liked the Hirogen, but they ruined the Borg. In the beginning it looked to me like there was a lot of potential for good storyline about the birth of the Federation, with episodes such as The Andorian Incident and the one that followed it up (I liked Shran), but for every good episode I watched I would see six or more completely ludicrous episodes. There were cheesy episodes in TOS, DS9, and even TNG, but they were the exceptions rather than the rule, for the most part.

      Anyways, I abandoned Enterprise a bit over a year ago. Evil Time Travelling Space Nazis. They should just tack on a "From Hell", make it a B-Movie and be done with it.

      Star Trek was over with First Contact. That was the end.

      At least Star Wars still has one good movie left... and at least Lucas has the wisdom to let Star Wars die (as a movie franchise) after Revenge of the Sith.

      --
      .
  11. Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love how the only thing that with all the wrongs in the world that require funding, the only thing that can mobilize some people is a television show.

    Poverty? Government and corporate corruption? Yawn. Just don't takes away my tee-vee, or else we'll take to the streets!

    Sigh.

  12. Health care? Domestic violence? by EvilCabbage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, it's a shame the show was canned, but does it bother anybody else how many people were prepared to dig very deeply to keep a television show running, when there are some issues out there they could actually put their money to and do some good?

    1. Re:Health care? Domestic violence? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there are some issues out there they could actually put their money to and do some good?

      So, I assume then that you've never, ever, in your life paid for any sort of entertainment?

  13. ...and it didn't matter... by maxzilla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    something tells me that paramount really didn't take the money because all the actors probably had new contracts with other shows. when Enterpize announced this would be the last season I'm sure the actors already had new projects to work on. i'm sure another Star Trek series will kick off eventually, and then people will forget about Enterprize. either that or that $3 mil that they collected could be put towards starting a new series from scratch. either way I dont really care.

  14. Now my hopes are dashed by RealProgrammer · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess I have to move. It's been nice living here in the basement, but Mom isn't getting any younger and complains about fixing breakfast now. Oh, but wait -- there are still reruns! I've still got the original series on VHS and TNG on DVD! Still, it'll be harder to lure chicks down here without a new episode coming on.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  15. Look at Doctor Who by Marillion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If the success of the Doctor Who revival is any indication, sometimes a long running series needs to take a few years off.

    Bring it back when you can assemble a fresh creative team that hasn't burned out from years of doing the same thing over and over.

    --
    This is a boring sig
  16. Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent by justanyone · · Score: 3, Insightful


    The quality of a TV show is often irrelevent to its cancellation. As best I can tell (based on experience with many beloved shows) it depends on:

    * Buffy, MASH, etc.: Great shows, cancelled because producers and/or actors felt the show had 'run its course'.
    * Wonderfalls, Firefly, Space:Above and Beyond (and HUGE numbers of others): F$*&^$'ing FOX had a political axe to grind and decided that progressive shows (with a Democratic leaning) should be killed and the rights to restart them never released;
    * (Almost Buffy): production costs due to special effects were so high that it almost didn't balance the quite significant Advertising revenue;
    * Ellen: Advertiser pullout due to a controversial actor;
    * 1970's Space:1999: Bad writing, including implausible, inconsistent plotlines, characters that just 'show up', stilted language, etc., will kill a show through bad ratings - people recognize quality, to some degree.
    * Sonny and Cher: Some shows deserve to be killed (grin); Seriously, this was a good show for its time but the TV 'Variety Show' went away with cable because the variety was available on different channels instead of all in the same show.

    Just my 5 cents.
    - Kevin

    1. Re:Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IMHO, Buffy should have been cancelled two seasons before it was: quality was seriously down.

    2. Re:Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I know, I know, it's pointless to argue with a conspiracy theorist but -- why exactly would Fox put on HUGE numbers of leftist shows* and immediately cancel them for ideological reasons? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to not put them on in the first place? Isn't it, perhaps, more plausible that they canceled the shows because no one was watching them but you?

      * Never mind whether anything you mentioned is "Democratic leaning", anyway...

    3. Re:Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent by Reignking · · Score: 4, Informative

      Way to make things up! Ellen was canceled, like many shows, because the ratings sucked.

      Joan Garry, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said the cancellation was a disappointment but not a surprise. "We're all disappointed ABC made a decision based on ratings. We really wish that they had seriously considered the impact of Ellen's work and looked at it from a broader perspective," she said.

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    4. Re:Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Isn't it, perhaps, more plausible that they canceled the shows because no one was watching them but you?

      Oh, but that's just another level of the conspiracy!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent by TigerTale · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Firefly...progressive shows (with a Democratic leaning)



      If, by "Democratic leaning" you mean the sort of Democrat who wore a grey uniform and fought the Union in the War of Northern Aggression, then sure, Firefly leans Democratic. Otherwise, I don't see how you categorize a pro-gun, anti-government, Western-in-space as either progressive or "Democratic leaning." Libertarian, sure--but just throwing a professional hooker into the mix doesn't make a program "Democratic."

  17. Idea For Next Show by DanielMarkham · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Vulcan Bay Watch" You heard it here first.

  18. Just when you think it couldn't get worse by noewun · · Score: 2, Funny
    The site also stated that many Trek crewmembers are now working on executive producer Brannon Braga's new CBS series Threshold, which stars Brent Spiner (Data).

    The night that show premieres may be the night I throw away my TV.

    --
    I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    1. Re:Just when you think it couldn't get worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Extra points if you can hit B&B in the head.

  19. My question is... by Holi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who gets the money now that this ridiculous idea failed?
    Damn I wish I had started this. I'd be sitting on a beach some where wiping margarita off my mouth with a $10,000 towel.

    It didn't work for Farscape, why would it work for Enterprise.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  20. Why don't the fans... by cnelzie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...create their own positive thinking fictional future universe based upon the ideals of Gene's vision, but removing all of the trappings of Star Trek.

    They could create a new series that can captivate audiences, tell stories in a new world that starts sometime 100 to 200 years from now. Sure, they couldn't use much of the Star Trek hardware; no Transporters, no Warp Drive, but is all of that really necesary to tell a SciFi story along the lines of Gene's vision?

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
  21. Luck for them it's over... by IdJit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now they have more time to camp in line in front of Grauman's theatre for Revenge of the Sith!

  22. Don't worry by tobybuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In a few years time they'll be looking for what new programs they can make and yes, instead of creating something really new and interesting, they'll figure that the golden goose as a new egg to hatch.

    The milking of this baby will go on and on.

  23. Let others run with Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Take a look at the various fan films being made on the web, like:

    www.newvoyages.com
    hiddenfrontier.com
    www.star shipexeter.com

    These prove that Trek can still work. All it needs is people with PASSION behind it, making it GOOD. True, the fan films aren't perfect, but they are far more enjoyable than what Paramount puts out.

    If Paramount insists on hiring the "it's just a gig" crowd, like they have been, they will continue to turn out mediocre shows. The "it's just a gig" crowd can't be bothered to make plots work, develop characters, or keep continuity.

    Personally, I have wondered why fans don't just get together and make their own ORIGINAL series which has nothing to do with Trek. Flying around the universe in spaceships is nothing patented or copyrighted by Paramount. It's a genre, and it's not owned by anyone. Think of the wonderful freedom which comes with making your own universe.

  24. Shatner School of Punctuation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think, this poster, went, to the Shatner, school, of, punctuation. ;-)

  25. OSF by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Interesting
    How about an open source fiction project?

    The first phase is to construct the universe in which the stories will take place.

    Then you start hashing out plots for a first season run.

    Then you start in on the actual scripts. Seems like you could eventually converge on logically plotted and entertaining scripts.

    You could also wind up with an unholy mess, but if you had the right people in charge you might get something. You'll need someone who knows how to pitch ideas once it's ready.

  26. It's too bad. by JMZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The last season of Enterprise has been fairly strong. I think a lot of people built up some irrational hatred over the first couple seasons.

    I also think people have clouded memories of the quality of past shows. TNG was horrible for most of its run - just horrible. It redeemed itself now and again, but mostly it sucked (especially early seasons). Voyager was poor. DS9 was ridiculously bad. Remember the final episode? One of the worst things I've ever watched.

    Are some themes played out? Of course, but so what? Sure the "let's clone Tucker" Enterprise episode was a rehash - but they did as good a job at it as Star Trek ever did.

    As to "not addressing social themes" - I'd say they've tried. What do you think the "mind meld disease" was? Who do you think the Xindi represent? What is implied by the Tellarite/Andorion feud?

    Is the social stuff ham-handed? Yes, of course. And it always was, from the original series on - it's just you were younger then.

    Enterprise has all the stuff you once liked about Star Trek. Maybe you don't like that stuff anymore - but it's still a good show.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...