Slashdot Mirror


Trek Producers Will Provide World A Break

David Crumpton writes "Star Trek Producers have finally agreed that Star Trek fans are oversaturated with the show, and are planning to provide a break. This does not mean they wont bring something new to the screen; they will just wait a few years. They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."

42 of 480 comments (clear)

  1. They still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fans are tired of Star Trek. Fans are tired of THEIR Star Trek. And, this choice was hardly theirs to make.

    1. Re:They still don't get it by CarpetShark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. I've mentioned this before in previous Trek articles, but I liked Star Trek: TNG for the ethical dilemmas, the hints at mankind's potential, goodness, discovery, and the general sense of something bigger than our own petty modern squabbles over territory or wealth etc. These recent treks that are all about wars and payback (thinly veiled references to the war on terror etc.) are the complete antithesis of what I felt Star Trek was about.

    2. Re:They still don't get it by despisethesun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the original series was full of thinly veiled references to the Cold War. Star Trek has long been a sort of idealized reflection of the time it was created in, just like most science fiction.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    3. Re:They still don't get it by EpsCylonB · · Score: 5, Interesting

      These recent treks that are all about wars and payback (thinly veiled references to the war on terror etc.) are the complete antithesis of what I felt Star Trek was about.

      You fundamentally misunderstand star trek. From the beginning of the 60's show it was supposed to have been a commentary on soceity at the time (cold war, racism, hippy peace and love, etc.).

      The best example of this is the 6th star trek movie, its an obvious allegory of the end of the cold war. Starting with a klingon energy moon exploding (meant to reseamble chernoble), following through the diplomacy (including the line "only nixon could go to china"), a new bird of prey that can fire torpedos when cloaked (the US/Russia fighter battles) and ending with a traditional (although IMO overplayed) star trek happy clappy ending.

      In fact the secret of great sci fi is that is never really about the future, or another universe, or whatever. It's about present day, after all if you couldn't identify anything in it why would you watch it ?. People watched TOS because they found the idea where man had stopped fighting each other and become harmonised inpspiring.

      The enterprise writers shouldn't stray away from social commentary but they should learn how to do it right.

  2. re: drop by computerme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."

    That, and the stupid Enterprise theme song they would never apolgize for.

    Mr. Bermann, I am looking in your direction.....

  3. Does it count as a repost..... by evenprime · · Score: 5, Funny

    when this same sentiment is expressed on slashdot at least once a week, every week for over a year?

    --

    "Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
    I think that goes for OS's too
  4. Trek in NYT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Today's NY Times also has an article on the impending death of Enterprise.

    1. Re:Trek in NYT by maotx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the NY Times article:
      As Jolene Blalock, who played the Vulcan officer T'Pol on "Enterprise," explained: "The stories lacked intriguing content. They were boring." A lifelong "Star Trek" fan, Ms. Blalock said she was dismayed by early "Enterprise" scripts that seemed to ignore basic tenets of the franchise's chronology, and that offered revealing costumes instead of character development. "The audience isn't stupid," she said.

      Bingo. That is exactly what is wrong with Enterprise. I'm personally a fan of it, new to the trek series (always liked the movies), but I knew that this was different from the theme of the previous shows and movies. I never really liked the any of the series but Enterprise was an exception. Maybe it is because of the unusuality of it that cought my attention. Still, the lack of character development and cheesy scripts in the begining seasons (those that I really didn't watch) was enough to drive almost anyone away. I really didn't get into it until it's fourth season. Oh well, sad to see it go but maybe a break will bring in new creativity. Or, perhaps they'll just finally let Star Trek die after 30? years.

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    2. Re:Trek in NYT by Excelsior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article you mention is a joke. Not once does it mention Enterprise airing only on UPN, unlike previous Star Trek successes.

      Further, the article mentions that when Enterprise first aired, it had over 12 million viewers, then dwindled quickly. Then it goes on to hypothesize things like saturation and a poor matchup with UPN content. If that was the problem, Enterprise wouldn't have started out with 12 million viewers.

      In the world of science, if something fails when it had always succeeded, we identify the differences, and hypothesize that the differences cause the failure. In the world of Star Trek, the genuises at UPN find bizarre reasoning, rather than identify the obvious. Sad really.

  5. There will still be reruns in a few years by erikdalen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Won't all new star trek series compete against reruns? They'll probably still have reruns of old Star Trek in a few years.

    I'm hoping the break won't be too long. I'm not "saturated" with Star Trek :) /Erik

    --
    Erik Dalén
    1. Re:There will still be reruns in a few years by mph_az · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I grew up with TOS in reruns and saw the TNG when it was new. I love both dearly, but the franchise has clearly run out of creative juices.

      A break may be just the thing to clear everyone's head (fan and writer alike) and hopefully come back with some new and interesting stories to tell.

      Plus -speaking of compeition, if they wait a few years, all the interest in star wars will have died out.

    2. Re:There will still be reruns in a few years by EpsCylonB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, but the point is that enterprise is going up against these re runs and *losing*. Cos its a crappy show.

    3. Re:There will still be reruns in a few years by StarKruzr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It hasn't been a crappy show for quite a few episodes now. They had a change of writers in this beginning of this season and it got a lot better.

      --

      +++ATH0
    4. Re:There will still be reruns in a few years by EpsCylonB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think they can cancel re runs, the rights to show the different treks are owned by different channels aren't they ?.

    5. Re:There will still be reruns in a few years by epiphani · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you look at the quality of TNG between seasons 2 and 5 (after the actors and writers had found the characters, and before Gene died) - you'll see what good trek really should be.

      The episodes often had some level of allegory, had rich character personality and generally good plots. The character development wasnt really -bad- after season 5, but the episodes lost alot of the allegory or idealism that Gene brought to the show.

      I remember watching the special features on the DVD for season 2 (I think) and there was mention of Gene's common statements of "In the 24th century, X doesnt happen". Because we as a society were supposed to have grown out of it.

      The idealism - the pure hope and character strength slowly evaporated. It became people exactly like we are today, with all the same failings as if society hadnt progressed at all, and only the technology was different. I think the latter half of DS9 demonstrates this the most.

      --
      .
  6. Im loving the beginning of the end.... by seanvaandering · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have to admit though that the show in the last 4 episodes here are keeping me right on the edge of my seat. Even the different opening and "The Alliance" theme was just awesome to watch. yes the "alternate universe and timelines" plot is old, but to see it played out on Enterprise is awesome. Not to mention Jolene looks great in that alliance outfit - NICE!

  7. Or perhaps the ratings dropped... by techmuse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or perhaps the ratings dropped... because they decided to replace strong plots and good character development with gratuitious sexual situations in order to attract UPN's 18-25 year old male target audience. Or perhaps they relied too much on time travel stories, which have become rather cliche in Trek of late. Or perhaps not calling it Star Trek for two years didn't help? Or perhaps the really BAD theme music for Enterprise? Or the tortured script of Nemesis, which was an obvious attempt to combine the elements of the higher rating treks into a new movie? Or Berman and Braga not understanding what Trek audiences really like?

    Just a thought...

    1. Re:Or perhaps the ratings dropped... by mikael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or perhaps the ratings dropped...

      because they decided to replace strong plots and good character development with gratuitious sexual situations in order to attract UPN's 18-25 year old male target audience.


      Definitely.

      Or perhaps they relied too much on time travel stories, which have become rather cliche in Trek of late.

      More than likely. For a Sci-Fi series to become popular, it has to explore current political issues. Star Trek explored the Cold War through the battle between Earth and the Klingon empire. ST:TNG achieved this by exploring the topics of discussion: can intelligent machines really be considered life, the drugs war/international trade.

      Another problem is if you have two series exploring the same topic (Eg. Farscape and ST:Voyager both exploring the topic of a crew finding their way home).

      Or perhaps not calling it Star Trek for two years didn't help?

      Or perhaps the really BAD theme music for Enterprise?


      Audiences don't usually watch a Sci-Fi series just for the introduction sequence or title, but it is a good indicator of the amount of effort put into the program.

      Or the tortured script of Nemesis, which was an obvious attempt to combine the elements of the higher rating treks into a new movie?

      A movie is really a one off event that you might see once. Whether somebody will make the effort to watch the next episode of a series, is based on the previous two episodes.

      Or Berman and Braga not understanding what Trek audiences really like?


      Definitely.

      It's no use blaming the old reruns for poor ratings. Even for a series based purely on special effects, the special effects are constantly improving from month to month.

      As a comparison, UK Gold plays reruns of old Dr. Who episodes. The old series seems slow and clunky compared to the new series.

      The only problem now (unrelated to the series) is that the title sequence of every other program now seems to use SFX (eg. Sports programs also do the zoom-in sequence from Earth orbit to country/sky/clouds/city/street/sports field).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Or perhaps the ratings dropped... by monopole · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't underestimate a good opening sequence. A good opening sequence in Anime can estabilish much of the plotline and cast of chartacters while giving a sampler of the animation as well (consider the Sakura Wars TV opening sequence). A great opening sequence will close the deal without having seen anyting else (consider Coboy Bebop or Noir)

  8. They're convinced, eh? by willith · · Score: 4, Funny
    They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.

    voice type="Haley Joel Osment"

    I see dumb people. And the worst part is, they don't even know that they're dumb. They don't see each other. They just believe what they want to believe.

    /voice

  9. But doesn't that mean... by sdmartin101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.
    But, if the fans would rather watch the other series, doesn't that mean that the fans think the other series are *better* than Enterprise?
  10. Re: drop by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 4, Funny

    That, and the stupid Enterprise theme song they would never apolgize for.

    I consider their changing it for a parallel universe to be an apology.

  11. Trek Needs a break? by zanzibuz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am tired of hearing this "trek needs a break" comment from the producers of Star Trek. Trek does NOT need a break for the reasons the producers say! What it needs is good writing. It needs to break itself away from being a action-oriented series where every episode is predictable. All of those episodes are nothing more than an old western gunfight redressed with new technology. Its all been done before.

    The reason why nobody was watching Enterprise was that there was real reason to watch it. The writing was okay at best. It seemed like there were too many episodes that were created to titilate, and not enough episodes to provoke thought. We need to have some depth in the characters. In Enterprise, there is only depth in T'pol and Tucker. I have found their relationship to be one of the hilights of the series. OTOH, there is the pilot Mayweather who is still on the opening credits, but hasnt had any significant development since the first season. Why do you have a character in the spotlight, yet give us nothing intriguing about him?

    What we need is another DS9. That series was great in that it had continuity. The characters actually *gasp* changed over the few years! I find it sad that we know more about Garak, a plain simple tailor, than we do Jonathan Archer. Or Will Riker.

    I will welcome a new Trek series with open arms, IF they can provide character development worthy of my time.

    1. Re:Trek Needs a break? by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am tired of hearing this "trek needs a break"

      Me too, what Trek needs is for Rick Berman to die.
      Seriously, die. Because he's got too much power and money to let go, and HE'S killing it softly, with sucking.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Trek Needs a break? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      the fact we know so much about Garek indicates he was a little more then just a tailor ;)
      Otherwise he wouldnt be that interesting.


      No way, that was the most interesting part about him!

      Don't you remember that episode where Garek came up with a revolutionary way of sewing the seams on the pants of Cardassian uniforms? And then Kiera was all like "We can't have a new method of sewing Cardassian pants come from a Federation space station!" and Cisco was like "It will be good for diplomacy, so I'll let Garek market his new pants" and Odo was like "My people don't wear pants". Then it turned out that what Kiera was really worried about was that Garek's new seam technology would stop the Cardassians' pants from splitting in the midst of battle, which is how Kiera's people had won most of their battles. Then her shuttle gets hijacked by some rogue Cardassians, and they're wearing the new pants! But she faces her fears and defeats them, in the process learning that courage and faith are more important than the seam of your pants.

      Best episode ever! I wish they had more tailoring episodes.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  12. Re: drop by bsharitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being on UPN probably didn't help much either.

  13. Blame Berman and Braga by GuyWhoPosts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Leave it to the producers to blame anything or anyone but themselves! If they had some original IDEAS and good WRITING, Enterprise would be an enduring hit, and people would prefer it to reruns of the other series. They need people in charge who will think outside the cookie-cutter.

  14. Silly by Evro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Voyager came out it had to compete with DS9 new episodes as well as TNG and TOS reruns. But I guess it's foolish to expect them to say "yeah, Enterprise sucked, sorry." The whole premise of the show was stupid. Kirk's crew was supposed to be "the first" and Enterprise ruined all of that backstory time and time again. I remember when they were brainstorming ideas for the new show, one of them was like Star Fleet special ops or something, I felt sure they'd go with that since it really sounded interesting. I even said "Man, they'd never do a show that predated Kirk, the fans would throw a fit," but apparently they aren't that in-touch with their fanbase. Which I guess is logical, since Star Trek isn't that popular, and finding fans must be very difficult.

    ST: Nemesis was also a flaming pile of dung, rivalling Star Trek V in the crap department. No need to rehash the reasons that movie sucked. But suffice it to say that while oversaturation probably contributed to people being sick of the show, the quality of the content they're producing has gone down the tubes.

    --
    rooooar
  15. Competition by ari_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have it wrong. The ratings didn't drop because Enterprise was competing with Trek reruns. They dropped because it couldn't compete with Trek reruns.

  16. Re:"Star Wars III" vs. "Enterprise" by SetupWeasel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yet, why will "Star Wars III" rival the the popularity of "Star Wars IV", "V", and "VI"? Good writing, directing, and acting is the answer.

    HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    HAHHAHHAHHA!
    HA HA HA!

    Oh shit, that's a good one!

  17. Re-run competition by The+trees · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.

    I can attest to this. When the choice became suffer through another episode of Enterprise vs watch a re-run of TNG (both in the same Wednesday timeslot, TNG on SpikeTV), I chose TNG every time. If Enterprise had been even almost as good as TNG, the choice would be different. But when the only advantage it has is that it's new, forget it.

    --
    $ make work
    make: *** No rule to make target `work'. Stop.
  18. The problem is writing by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TOS, TNG, and DS9 had great writing.

    TOS: Yes lots of the writing was kitchy and the humor as mostly slapstick, fine but mostly it was well placed. The plots were not new, they in many was resembled westerns or adventure stories. Still they managed to ask some questions and do things that were not possible in those more conventional genres at the time. When they did use kitch and slapstick it was not over done, except in a few episodes, "Trouble with Tribbles" anyone?

    TNG: Largely continued the traditon of TOS. There was a little more character development which gave the show a little more dimention but the writers did a great job of not over doing to th point where the show had to become serial. They also took the kitch down an notch. All and all the show was very inteligent like what had come before it and felt like it had some more depth. They still had an incredible freedome of plot to do anything they wanted and keep the show mostly fresh for its entire seven years.

    DS9: Ok, I felt this was a radical departure from the TNG and TOS. It had a much stonger focus on charater development and relations ships then the others, and it was a serial prime time soap, lets just face it. Still there was plenty of chance for variety. It was a busy port where different charater could resonably come and go. The writing never felt streched or unnatural it was consistant with the timelines the other shows had established and played by the rules created in the other series. The new format allowed them to expolre some political issues that could not be address in the episodal format of the other series.

    VOY: Holly crap! Lets write ourselves into a corner with the very first episode, the flog the plotline out for seven years. Yes the show had its moments but there was really only one goal they could have from day one. The first seasons had long streches of "What clever trick to advance our homecomeing will we find and fail at this week?" it got old real fast. The writing was miserable the dialog was not even kitchy more just bad. Then they started introducing plot arcs like the borg and breaking all the rules. Come on the Borg were supposed to be this highly adaptive and terrible enemy which nearly vanquished the entire starfleet. In TNG every tangle the enterprise had it incurred serious damage and often needed repairs at space dock. The Enterprise, a bigger more war-ship inspired vessal usually had help too. Where exactly did Voyager a science ship all alone refit, how did they survice the attacks with no backup? Sure they did it in the writing but it seemed so far feched and generally inconsistant. I think that had to irritate lots of true fans.

    Enterprise: Personally its a step up form Voyager I don't care what anyone says. It still suffers terribly for consistancy problems regarding the transporter, the state of technology at the time and lots of other stuff. Archer's character is irratic at best, wholly inconsistant at worst. The relationship with the vulcans is entirely to close, in TOS we get the impression humans and vulcans have peaceful relations some exchange of goods and technology but little real cultural connection, to the point that they barely understand each other. Yet on Enterprise years earlier then TOS humans and vulcans are in constant meetings and already serving together. It feels like they are at least trying to get it write unlike VOY which it felt like they were throwing the story to the wind.

    We don't need a break we just need someone besides UPN sheparding the writers. UPN is trying to go for cool or sexy as the shows cake when that has in the past been the icing. Past Treks worked because they were philisophical stories and often played with some actual science even in their world of fantasy and embelishment. These things were just not present in VOY and ENTERPRISE.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  19. I just saw the "In a mirror, Darkly" eps... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I want to weep now.

    That was beyond watchable. it was entertaining.

    Screw a break, I want a series based of the Mirror Universe.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:I just saw the "In a mirror, Darkly" eps... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's because, in the Mirror Universe, Bergman & Braga got killed before they ruined the series.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  20. I'll agree with one thing Berman said by Enahs · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I agree that Nemesis was a good movie. Heck, I'll even say it was a great movie. I enjoy it more than most the Star Trek movies. In some ways I actually thought it was better than (don't kill me!) Wrath of Khan.

    However, I think Berman needs to understand that, by and large, fans think that the last few years of Star Trek have been pure, utter crap. Only the most rabid Trek fans have enjoyed anything from DS9 on. DS9 was a soap opera (much more so than the last two seasons of TNG; at least TNG had some compelling story lines) and Voyager and Enterprise just plain old sucked. This from a guy who can more or less recite lines while watching Wrath of Khan.

    Berman, Braga, just think about this: I hear more sci-fi fans talk about Andromeda than Enterprise. In that case I think it's more due to the fact that Andromeda is in syndication and local channels use it to fill out their lineup, as well as Sci-Fi and WGN, among others, carrying it. I mean, c'mon, guys, you're being beaten out by something that carries Gene's name! I'd much rather watch one of the Stargate shows or the modern Battlestar Galactica than watch that dreck you call Enterprise. Why? Well, it may not be the best acting, but the shows are just better. And that's sad, because compared to old Trek, all of them suck.

    No, Rick, it's not merely oversaturation; if oversaturation was the only key problem, sitcoms would have died out years ago. No, Rick, it's you and Paramont. Craptacular story lines, craptacular acting, and no offense to LeVar, but craptacular directing too. Add to that that the show is stuck on the least-popular network in the U.S., and it's not hard to figure out why Trek is dead.

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  21. Ronald Moore is laughing at this by adso · · Score: 4, Funny

    The best Trek series I've seen in years just ended its season a few weeks ago.

    Battlestar Galactica
  22. I love spin by vkapadia · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, Saddam Hussein declares he will provide the Iraqi people a break from his rule, due to oversaturation of his dictatorship...

  23. Re:yay by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I stopped watching all trek shows back a few weeks after Deep Space Nine started.

    I was a huge fan of Deep Space Nine, I thought it was an utterly fantastic show. Granted, it had too many plot themes based around Quark and the like that nobody really cared about, and also stands guilty for having one of the biggest deus ex machinas in history by having the Prophets make the enemy war-fleet disappear into thin air, but it had some very good moments, especially in the later series when the Dominion plot arc really panned out - if you really did stop watching Trek altogether just a few weeks into DS9, you missed out on a very good show once they worked out the right balance between Space-Opera and Sci-Fi action, something TNG had from almost the very beginning and Voyager/Enterprise never quite managed to find.

    For the record, while I'd call myself a huge fan of Deep Space Nine, I'm only a casual fan of Trek in general - I couldn't recite facts about Dilithium crystals, but I could probably look them up in my DS9 Technical Manual that someone once bought for me ;-)

    --
    Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
  24. Nope. They Forgot To Tell Good Stories by reallocate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> ...I liked Star Trek: TNG for the ethical dilemmas, the hints at mankind's potential, goodness, discovery, and the general sense of something bigger than our own petty modern squabbles...

    To each their own, but conflict and combat have aways been key components of Star Trek, and every other drama. Shows depicting a bunch of ethically mature humans displaying their wholesome goodness while they unobtrusively research the galaxy would be thundersously boring.

    When one of the Trek series, like TNG, had the budget we'd see conflict and war as grand battles between starships. This has the effect of depersonalizing the conflict. On series with smaller budgets, like TNG and Enterprise, conflict and combat were often depicted as phaser and disruptor fights between a few actors on a set. Or, worse yet, between Trek heroes and a Monster of the Week.

    I'm not sure what "payback" you've seen as a theme in Enterprise. The Zindi arc was the most combative and it was about preventing an attack on Earth, not payback. The long Dominion War dominated DS9; Klingon culture made its debut in TOS; and the Borg wreaked havoc in TNG.

    In the end, Enterprise and the last few movies were brought down because they weren't telling good stories. Tell a good story and people will watch.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  25. TOS and TNG by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is the problem as I see it. I loved TOS. I loved TNG.

    Then, DS9 came out. The first few episodes were interesting, because it was a "different" kind of Star Trek, but taking place in the same time period as TNG. Unfortunately, there were only a few really innovative episodes. DS9 got old fast because it degenerated into a political show based in a science fiction environment, but with hardly any good wholesome science fiction. Seemingly, every episode was about some political problem with the Cardassians and how it was going to be solved with various political maneuvering. If I had wanted to watch politics, I could have switch to Fox News and seen it there. Those politics get me worked up enough; why should I get any more worked up over nonexistant politics in a nonexistant place, with nonexistant people?

    Nearly all TOS and TNG episodes had this interesting quality that no show was about one specific thing. In other words, there was always some overall plot, and then there were other things happening concurrently that complicated things. This was good because the overall plot was usually solved by pushing some button or reprogramming the scanner array or something, but the other things made the episode interesting and thought provoking. DS9 episodes didn't have that quality. There was usually just one thing going on, and personally, it didn't provoke any thought.

    When Voyager came out, it once again seemed interesting. Here was yet another show taking place in about the same time period as TNG. Unfortunately, it quickly became quite boring as well. Here they are, 70 years from home, assuming they travel nonstop at maximum warp speed, right? How come everybody there speaks English? Am I supposed to believe that some universal translator exists that can immediately translate languages it never heard? Even the Klingons had their own language, for crying out loud, and they were much closer to home! Then, the question arised of why in the heck they would make so many stops if it will take so long to get home anyway? At this rate, they'll get there in 140 years! Once again, most episodes lacked that quality present in TOS and TNG episodes. It quickly lost its luster.

    When Enterprise came out, I only saw the first episode, and I came to the conclusion that I just didn't care anymore. It didn't seem right for some reason. I had grown to know Star Trek as being a show with Kirk's crew or with Picard's crew. Those crews gave the shows some kind of feeling that all these other crews just tried to hard to mimic.

    I hope they release a DVD boxed set of all TOS and TNG episodes; I'd buy it in a minute.

    TOS = The Original Series
    TNG = The Next Generation
    DS9 = Deep Space Nine

  26. The real problem... by cybermint · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...was that the vulcan chick was not nearly as hot as Seven of Nine. Naked chicks + Borg = Good show

  27. Re:Nope. They Forgot To Tell Good Stories by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the end, Enterprise and the last few movies were brought down because they weren't telling good stories. Tell a good story and people will watch.

    I sure hope somebody sees this and mods you Insightful because that is _*IT*_. The problem is idiots like Berman are so egotistical and blind to the fans that they figure if the ratings are low it's the fans' fault. Their stories are perfect--who could ask for better?--so it must be for some other reason that the show is dying.

    The best thing for Star Trek would be if Berman and Braga simply disappeared.

    Just for fun, here's an example of just how stupid (coral cached link) the last Trek film was. Funny, yes, but sadly accurate.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)