Slashdot Mirror


Could Fuller Take Trek Back To TV?

bowman9991 writes "Bryan Fuller, creator of the TV show Pushing Daisies and a former Star Trek writer and producer, is geared up to make it happen. The new Star Trek TV show would be based on "old style" Star Trek, rather than the more recent incarnations and variations: Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise and Star Trek: The Next Generation. There hasn't been a Star Trek TV series since Enterprise was canceled after four seasons in 2005. Fuller wrote twenty one Star Trek episodes over four years, two in Deep Space Nine's final season, and the rest for Voyager. He also produced Voyager's last season. If J.J. Abrams' reboot is successful (and the latest trailer suggests it will be!) perhaps we'll see him involved with a new Star Trek TV show with the style and impact of Fringe or Lost. The new Star Trek movie featuring a young Kirk and Spock is in cinemas May 2009." Besides his work on many episodes of Trek, Fuller's work includes Dead Like Me and some of the best of Heroes. (He's one of the names I actively seek in the writing slot.) Between him and JJ Abrams, the era of Rick Berman looks to finally be at an end. Cross your fingers.

101 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm... by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Rather than another series that will result in overpriced DVDs, I'd have loved to get a DS9 or Voyager Movie or two...

    1. Re:Hmmm... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure I'm not the only one who's hoping for a Patrick Stewart casting. DS9 or Voyager Movies? Eck. A new TV Series with Picard.. and Data!? Amazing!

      Two things:
      1. Brent Spiner would have to lose some weight
      2. They've got to get rid of Data's emotion chip. That's when Data lost his charm, I feel.

      Otherwise, bring it on.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    2. Re:Hmmm... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two things:
      1. Brent Spiner would have to lose some weight
      2. They've got to get rid of Data's emotion chip. That's when Data lost his charm, I feel.
      3. They've got to rip off the Spock story from "Search for Spock" to bring him back to life.

      Fixed that for you ;) Alternatively they could pretend that "All Good Things..." was the last real TNG story and all of the crappy movies never existed. I'd be just fine with that.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Hmmm... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I agree, Patric Stewart would make an EXCELLENT Klingon or other bad guy for the series.

      I would rather see Star trek redone with starfleet being the weak guy and getting our asses handed back regularly. Combat with the klingons needs to be "OH CRAP! RUN!" instead of this "I am here to reason with you, can we sit down for tea and crumpets?"

      They started the right track with enterprise, but it needs to be far more gritty. More death, A sea of red-shirts flowing out the ship and popping like popcorn whenever a hull breach happens. Kirk getting pissed and launching all 8 photo torpedoes at the single ship and then vowing to exterminate that species for killing ensign Davis. he can even rip his shirt and hyperventilate when he does it... That would be very much like the first season.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Hmmm... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Were all of them crap?

      Yes. Generations utterly ruined Data's character for the sake of an "Oh.... shit!" joke, destroyed the Enterprise-D for the sake of an action scene and killed off Picard's family for the sake of a cheap shock and never bothered to explore the ramifications of this.

      First Contact was an enjoyable standalone film but utterly destroyed whatever continuity we had from TNG for the sake of creating a single villain for the audience to focus on. It also didn't really do justice to Troi or Crusher. Actually come to think of it, none of the movies did them justice.

      and Insurrection was pure Trek, albeit perhaps a bit too cheesy.

      Perhaps? It was incredibly cheesy. And don't even get me started on Nemesis. This guy summarizes Nemesis way better than I could ever hope to.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Hmmm... by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Funny

      "They've got to get rid of Data's emotion chip. That's when Data lost his charm, I feel."

      Without his emotion chip he would fail to grasp the full irony of your statement.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    6. Re:Hmmm... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Deep Suck 9 was just that...

      Oh please. DS9 was decent-to-poor in the early goings, much like TNG, but once the Dominion War plot arch started up, it went from good to truly great. No other Trek has been as dark and gritty as DS9 was, actually showing a real, unsanitized war with it's attendant ugliness, while portraying a federation that was, for a change, flawed and multifaceted. Pity it seems to get such a raw deal from a certain subset of the Trek fanbase.

    7. Re:Hmmm... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but once the Dominion War plot arch started up, it went from good to truly great

      Yes, if by "truly great" you mean bailed out with a plot device (wormhole aliens) and don't stop to question why Captain Sisko seemed to be single-handily running the Federation's war-effort, ranging from commanding a fleet of some 600 ships on his own to commanding a ground battle that could have been ended in two minutes if any of the Trek powers had the equivalent of machine guns or artillery. Are there really no infantry weapons bigger than rifles in the 24th century?

      actually showing a real, unsanitized war with it's pretty special effects

      Fixed that for you.

      while portraying a federation that was, for a change, flawed and multifaceted

      That was actually one of the redeeming things about it. My favorite DS9 episodes were In the Pale Moonlight (Sisko and Garek assassinate a Romulan Senator to bring them into the war) and the various Maquis/Eddington episodes. Garek had the best character in the series (IMHO) and Eddington's critique of the Federation particularly damning:

      "Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis? We've never harmed you. And yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their "rightful place" on the Federation Council. You know In some ways you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it."

      It got to me to thinking. What is the Federation really? At least as written by Gene Roddenberry it seems to border on communism. Even DS9 continued this trend to a certain point -- mentioning "transporter credits" in one episode. Apparently the government doles out ration coupons to control how often the citizenry can move about. Where's the individual freedom and liberty?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Hmmm... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The two best ideas I've heard for a ST series are one about Section 31 (similar to stuff like Alias, but in Star Trek) and one about the 29th century with the timeships and all that.

      A series about Section 31 could be pretty awesome if it was done right but anything involving time travel is a recipe for disaster and reset-button plots. Section 31 though -- think of some of the stories you could write with that. Maybe the Federation has it's own torture scandals? Maybe what they did to the Founders comes out at some point? Think of intrigue with the Tal Shiar.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Hmmm... by geobeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But please get a better actor than Shatner.

      A bad actor he may be (who had his ass handed to him by Ricardo Montalban in that movie), but every captain of every TV or movie spaceship since has, and always will be, compared to Shatner's Kirk.

      Sometimes you don't need talent to achieve immortality; you just need to be recognizably unique.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    10. Re:Hmmm... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seven Days was a show based entirely around reset-button plots, and it was awesome.

    11. Re:Hmmm... by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No other Trek has been as dark and gritty as DS9 was, actually showing a real, unsanitized war with it's attendant ugliness, while portraying a federation that was, for a change, flawed and multifaceted.

      Strange ... you say that like it was a good thing. Some of us actually watched Trek *because* it was a vision of a cleaner, sanitized world, a better humanity where the ideals we strive for are seen in action actually solving problems. The darker, more flawed vision of the Trek universe in DS9, where the ends justify the means and everyone's a broken hypocrite underneath, undermined what seemed to me to be the whole point of the Trek universe.

      Also, the Dominion War had a tendency to have ships blowing up all over the place as eye candy, destroying the sense that each ship mattered, that each ship represented a huge investment of resources, a rich and meaningful history and a crew with stories of their own. In attempting to be a bigger, louder Babylon 5 (all while struggling to find a message beyond "life sucks" after it's writers failed to make the initial high-concept post-insurgency-peace theme compelling), DS9 ceased to be recognizable as Trek to me.

      Oh dear, I've become a person who argues Trek.

    12. Re:Hmmm... by geobeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...showing a real, unsanitized war with it's attendant ugliness...

      Are you serious? DS9 was The Care Bears Fussy Day compared to the ugliness of a real war. The producers didn't have the budget or the political will from the network to add any real ugliness.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    13. Re:Hmmm... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, if by "truly great" you mean bailed out with a plot device (wormhole aliens) and don't stop to question why Captain Sisko seemed to be single-handily running the Federation's war-effort, ranging from commanding a fleet of some 600 ships on his own to commanding a ground battle that could have been ended in two minutes if any of the Trek powers had the equivalent of machine guns or artillery. Are there really no infantry weapons bigger than rifles in the 24th century?

      Meh, I never said the show was flawless. But it was, in those seasons, as good as the best TNG, IMHO, and far better than anything Voyager or Enterprise have ever offered.

      I agree, the wormhole aliens solution was a bit contrived (although, it makes sense in the context of the show... the aliens are supposedly a) all-powerful, and b) the custodians of Bajor... going to them for help isn't unreasonable). Then again, was Data's solution to the Borg problem in "Best of Both Worlds" any less contrived? And as for Sisko's role, well... you could just as easily level the same criticism against Picard in TNG leading the charge in any number of engagements.

      Garek had the best character in the series (IMHO) and Eddington's critique of the Federation particularly damning:

      I couldn't agree more. I also think the episode in which there was an attempted military coup on Earth was brilliantly executed.

      It's funny, though. You say that "portraying a federation that was, for a change, flawed and multifaceted" "was actually one of the redeeming things about it." To me, that's what makes the series brilliant.

      I mean, the goal of science fiction shouldn't be to present funny aliens, or to give nerds neat technology to drool over. It should be to use the setting as an environment in which one can then explore the human condition in a way that would otherwise be impossible. DS9 attempted to do that, exploring the decisions and compromises one must make during a time of war, and it did so better than, I think, any other other Trek, save for TNG.

    14. Re:Hmmm... by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First Contact coulda' been really good, if they'd played up the distrust/hatred between Sisko and Picard. With everyone not trusting Picard and Sisko hating him but being thrown together, having to work together to defeat the Borg, coulda' been a cool character driven movie.

      Instead, they went with standard Star Trek plotting and cardboard characters.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    15. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was thinking that Data needs to become more artificial and less human. He is a completely new form of life, and no one has scratched the surface of what that means. So, in a bid to keep Data, and still get rid of old Brent I think that he should 'outgorw' his body, and need to be transferred to something bigger. He starts as a shuttle, becomes a star ship, and then changes 'bodies' when he gets a new job. One season he is a deep space probe, next year he is a war ship, later he is a holodeck program. Maybe he could copy him self into a probe and then reintegrate himself when he returns. I think I'm just tired of machines that try to be human, we need a machine try to be a machine.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    16. Re:Hmmm... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you serious? DS9 was The Care Bears Fussy Day compared to the ugliness of a real war

      Heh, alright, fine, *some* of the attendant ugliness. Obviously there's no way they could do it "properly", Saving-Private-Ryan-style, but they at least *tried* (hell, one of the main characters got his leg blown off, for god sake!).

    17. Re:Hmmm... by Gilmoure · · Score: 5, Funny

      The fact that Shatner is so iconic shows that, bad acting aside, he has presence. Sometimes, that's all you need. Will be interesting to see how the new guy plays Kirk.

      Eventually, the original Star Trek roles could become a kind of entrenched character set, similar to Shakespeare characters. A hundred years from now, folks will be arguing over different actor's interpretations of Kirk and Spock in Amok Time.

      And then there will be the inevitable Star Trek in the park productions and the all nude/gender swapped productions.

      I weep for the future.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    18. Re:Hmmm... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I gave it half a season before deciding it was too freaking lame to continue.

      So I take it you never watched TNG, either? Or have you conveniently forgotten the horror show that was the majority of season one?

    19. Re:Hmmm... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      although, it makes sense in the context of the show... the aliens are supposedly a) all-powerful

      But they weren't all-powerful. There were at least two episodes where it was revealed that you could use a plot devic^W^W"chroniton beam" to kill them. Yet the Dominion never thought to do this?

      Then again, was Data's solution to the Borg problem in "Best of Both Worlds" any less contrived

      Not in the context of that episode and what we knew about the Borg. It got pretty lame afterwards and I personally wish that Best of Both Worlds had been the last we saw of the Borg. At least DS9 stayed away from them, expect for the Pilot Episode, which was actually a good use of the existing back story IMHO.

      And as for Sisko's role, well... you could just as easily level the same criticism against Picard in TNG leading the charge in any number of engagements.

      Picard never commanded a fleet of 600+ ships or set Federation policy. Sisko seemed to be doing both as the war progressed. The size of the battles seemed at odds with continuity too. In the Best of Both Worlds Starfleet was only able to scrape together 40 ships to defend Earth but ten years later was regularly losing hundreds of ships at a time and was still able to continue the war effort? WTF?

      It should be to use the setting as an environment in which one can then explore the human condition in a way that would otherwise be impossible. DS9 attempted to do that, exploring the decisions and compromises one must make during a time of war, and it did so better than, I think, any other other Trek, save for TNG.

      Hey I'll grant you all that. And don't get me wrong -- I did enjoy DS9. It just got pretty hard to take seriously towards the end. For all the nit and grit of the war it still seemed too contrived -- Bajor never got devastated (indeed, after the first two seasons we forgot all about Bajor besides the wormhole aliens and some one-off episodes), the Dominion neatly withdrew from all of the Federation planets that it occupied without a fight and never made a second attempt at taking DS9 or ending the blockade of the wormhole. Then the female founder went from "We'll fight to the last man" to "I'll surrender and stand trial for my war crimes" after a three minute discussion with Odo.

      I would have written it a lot differently. Have Bajor forced to pick sides -- maybe it even sides with the Dominion in the same manner that Finland sided with Nazi Germany in spite of being a Democracy -- have a Stalingrad fought on Federation soil (Betazed maybe?), have the Federation start conscripting it's citizens to try and offset the manpower advantage, have a pacifist Federation member try and sue for a separate peace (Vulcan maybe?) etc, etc, etc. There are many ways you could have done it better I think.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:Hmmm... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Star Trek for me was supposed to be an idealized future, and we are the good guys. It had to tread carefully to avoid becoming overly preachy (and failed on occasion), but I'm not sure I like a darker or more warlike federation.

      Ah, but that's not what DS9 ever portrayed. What they portrayed was an idealized future where the good guys were forced into war because, guess what, sometimes you have to fight to survive. And the minute your goal is survival, well surprise surprise, it's suddenly a lot harder to be idealistic.

      I find this fascinating, though. To me, the entire reason Trek was flawed was because it's idealistic future was so wildly unbelievable. I'm sorry, but even in a world of limitless energy, food, and freedom, with perfect, idealized human beings, there's still going to be individuals/groups/races out there try to eat the good guys' lunch... you know, like the Dominion. And the minute you admit that, you have to be open to the idea of conflict with those people. And who would believe in a real, war-like conflict that didn't involve compromising one's ideals on occasion? At minimum, odds are you're going to have to kill on occasion, and last I checked, that's not a terribly nice, idealistic thing to do.

      Then again, at least in my mind, this is the difference between sci-fi, as entertainment, and sci-fi as an actual intellectual genre. IMHO, Trek, in its idealized form, can only succeed in the former. To truly examine the human condition, a prerequisite to achieving the latter, you actually have to admit that humans are not, and will never be, perfect, idealized creatures living in a perfect, idealized world.

    21. Re:Hmmm... by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But hopefully without it getting all crappy and losing direction while they try to draw it out further then it was meant to go.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    22. Re:Hmmm... by icebrain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It got to me to thinking. What is the Federation really? At least as written by Gene Roddenberry it seems to border on communism. Even DS9 continued this trend to a certain point -- mentioning "transporter credits" in one episode. Apparently the government doles out ration coupons to control how often the citizenry can move about. Where's the individual freedom and liberty?

      That's one of the bigger things that bugs me about Star Trek. Starfleet guys get all kinds of cool toys and get to go places and blow shit up... but the majority of the population is held down on the planet, and kept fat/dumb/happy by the "ever-good" Federation government. Apparently, resources are unlimited, so there's no money or poverty. So what do those people do all day?

      I mean, compare that with Star Wars, where even some teenaged kid who sucks water from the air miles from civilization on an armpit of a planet somewhere between No and Where owns a vehicle capable of suborbital flight and two autonomous self-repairing AIs. I think I'll take the latter scenario, warts and all.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    23. Re:Hmmm... by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Deep Suck 9 was just that...

      Oh please. DS9 was decent-to-poor in the early goings, much like TNG, but once the Dominion War plot arch started up, it went from good to truly great. No other Trek has been as dark and gritty as DS9 was, actually showing a real, unsanitized war with it's attendant ugliness, while portraying a federation that was, for a change, flawed and multifaceted. Pity it seems to get such a raw deal from a certain subset of the Trek fanbase.

      Also, the limitation the original series, TNG and Voyager is that every member of the cast is all part of the same crew, with the same background (Starfleet Academy). They're all on the same team, playing by the same rules, which means any conflict (which is what makes things interesting) must be external - it's us vs. them, or us vs. some inexplicable spatial phenomenon, or some alien influence is affecting our people. You can't have any conflict between members of the cast, and there's no opportunity for character development.

      DS9 fixed this. You have a Cardassian-built space station, owned by Bajor (which is not a member of the Federation), operated jointly by the Bajoran military and Starfleet. In the pilot, we learn that Commander Sisko, who has his own personal demons (he's a widower raising a son on his own), really doesn't want to be there and strongly dislikes and deeply mistrusts our hero, Captain Picard. Station security is operated by the Bajorans, headed by a guy who isn't really sure who he is or where he came from. There are independent businesses who lease space and pay rent, including a bar owned by a Ferengi and a tailor's shop operated by a witty Cardassian who speaks in lies and double entendres and who might or might not be a spy.

      Voyager tried to set up the same kind of conflicts: in the pilot, the crew of Voyager is chasing an enemy ship, aboard which is a Federation spy. Both ships get sucked across the galaxy and lose half their crews, so it becomes necessary to join forces; they also pick up a couple of locals (one of whom even has his own ship). However... now they're all on the same team, forced to work together (and the two locals become friends with everybody). Most of the Maquis have had at least a little Starfleet training, so even though they're not Starfleet officers, they at least have some sort of common ground. There were a couple of times when they tried to stir up some sort of conflict between the Federation crew members and the Maquis crew, but it didn't really work. The first few seasons of Voyager were pretty lame, but when they traded Tess for 7 of 9, the writing improved dramatically - I'm not sure why. 7 was an interesting character, but everything else seemed to get suddenly better at that point too.

      Enterprise had a Vulcan science officer before the Federation existed, so there was some very interesting conflict there. Dr. Phlox also wasn't from Starfleet, but like Neelix and Tess he's friendly with everybody. Like the Original Series, the crew doesn't have that bland Federation perspective; there's more of a wild frontier feel, and an opportunity for the crew to have disagreements between themselves. I thought the infamous pointy-nipple rubdown scene in the pilot was completely inappropriate, but T'Pol's later relationship with Trip was great (and her nudity there WAS appropriate). I was also annoyed that when T'Pol decided to join Starfleet, she wasn't given a Starfleet uniform, because her Vulcan catsuit looked sexier (same issue with Counselor Troi's asymmetrical cleavage in early seasons of TNG).

      Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with sex on Star Trek, but it needs to be well-written plot-driven sex, instead of gratuitous "let's put a hot chick in something revealing so people who don't care about the show will still like to look at it". 7 of 9's catsuit was just fine, because it was plot-driven (she was never a member of Starfleet, and the Doctor expla

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    24. Re:Hmmm... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It got to me to thinking. What is the Federation really?

      One thing that no Star Trek series has gotten much into is the interaction between military and civilian life. It's really strange if you think much about it. You have this huge fascist/communist state with a seemingly pervasive military presence. They have tons of military vessels just patrolling around the galaxy in seemingly random ways, under the excuse of scientific research and exploration, but constantly poking their noses in everyone's business. They're using their military might to cause outcomes favorable to themselves on a regular basis.

      And then when you see civilian life, everyone seems to just be hanging around in restaurants and bars or running vineyards. It's a very pastoral but irrelevant civilian life.

      And for some reason, no one is disturbed by it.

    25. Re:Hmmm... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 2

      Yes. Generations utterly ruined Data's character for the sake of an "Oh.... shit!" joke, destroyed the Enterprise-D for the sake of an action scene and killed off Picard's family for the sake of a cheap shock and never bothered to explore the ramifications of this.

      Not to mention the bad-decision making:

      Picard: "Guinan, can I leave the Nexus?"
      Guinan: "Where would you go?"
      Picard: "I don't understand."
      Guinan: "Time has no meaning here. So if you leave, you can go anywhere, at any time."
      Picard: "Alright, I know precisely where I want to go. Veridian III, just before Soran launches the missile. Because, even though I obviously don't care about changing the past and preserving the time-line as I once did, I don't feel tempted to go back a few more weeks to warn my brother about a fire and to inspect the Amargosa observatory for trilithium, arresting Soran before the Romulans even bother attacking. No, I want to give Soran a chance to succeed. Again. You want to come?"
      Guinan: "Can't. But there's somebody else who might help. Just don't mention the details of your stupid plan or it's going to depress the hell out of him that the Enterprise is in your hands."

      First Contact was an enjoyable standalone film but utterly destroyed whatever continuity we had from TNG for the sake of creating a single villain for the audience to focus on. It also didn't really do justice to Troi or Crusher. Actually come to think of it, none of the movies did them justice.

      They stripped away everything that was original about the Borg with the introduction of the Borg Queen. However, I think they did fine with Troi and Crusher. They're not meant to be major characters. The TNG episodes that focused on Troi or Crusher were always horrible, they're just not very strong characters. They're good on supporting roles, but when you try to give them a bigger piece of the pie just to be fair, you end up with the situation on Insurrection. Yes, let the psychologist and doctor have better aim with their phaser rifles than the Klingon who used to be the security chief. That makes sense.

      And don't even get me started on Nemesis. This guy summarizes Nemesis way better than I could ever hope to.....

      That summary of Nemesis is spot on, except for the little chat between Picard and Janeway. She wasn't promoted while they passed Picard on for promotion. They offered the admiralty to Picard on several occasions during the series. If anything, Picard would be snickering that she's behind a desk, while he gets to go to Romulus.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    26. Re:Hmmm... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Funny

      He is not a bad actor, in Boston Legal he did a FANTASTIC job. it's just that shatner is not cut out for the stiff captain role but that of a loose cannon mad cow disease old guy.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    27. Re:Hmmm... by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...a loose cannon mad cow disease old guy.

      I so want to see this on YouTube.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    28. Re:Hmmm... by Wraithlyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's why Cavil in Battlestar is so great. He's like the anti-Data.

      "I DON'T WANT TO BE HUMAN!!!"

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    29. Re:Hmmm... by BRSloth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like you never saw ANY Star Trek. It never was about fighting, it always was "diplomacy whenever possible."

      How many times Kirk had to discuss with some alien race (well, most of the time, Spock) about our "old, barbarian ways" and how we learnt how to be civilized.

      How many times Q called humans "barbarians" to Picard?

      Star Trek was always "brains over power", fight only when it really needs.

    30. Re:Hmmm... by istewart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a way, the wormhole aliens were simply a logical extension of the ideas they began exploring with the character of Q. Q chose to present himself as easily relatable, essentially a human with boundless control over space and time. However, it was easy for Picard to dismiss Q as a god due to his human appearance, which included such flaws as hubris and a willingness to pass judgment. The Prophets, on the other hand, had a completely different non-linear perspective that was not friendly to human comprehension (or easy writing). Thus Sisko and co. had a much harder time dismissing them.

      The theme of relating to superhuman intelligences is found throughout Star Trek. It's just too bad that later attempts at exploring it failed so miserably, such as the Q episodes of Voyager.

    31. Re:Hmmm... by Rakarra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hell, one of the main characters got his leg blown off, for god sake!

      I think Nog's shift from goofy comic relief at the beginning of the show to bitter war veteran was one of the better highlights of the show.

  2. Star Trek/Lost Mix by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sort of like Voyager then in that they too were Lost (in the Delta Quadrant)? Only this time I want 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 9 of 9.. In fact I see no reason to have any other cast member that a bunch of 7 of 9's... Well maybe a leather clad Janeway, hmmm I seem to have gone off topic.

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    1. Re:Star Trek/Lost Mix by kat_skan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well maybe a leather clad Janeway, hmmm I seem to have gone off topic.

      *shudder* I think what you've gone off is the deep end.

    2. Re:Star Trek/Lost Mix by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think I'm the only one, either.

      No, there's loads of other slashdotters who miss their mommies.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Hmmmm. by khasim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Fuller wrote twenty one Star Trek episodes over four years, two in Deep Space Nine's final season, and the rest for Voyager.

    And Voyager was such a great series. Sarcasm intended.

    1. Re:Hmmmm. by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Funny

      And Voyager was such a great series. Sarcasm intended.

      Not one lesbian kiss scene in the whole series, so much for 'where no man has gone before'

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:Hmmmm. by eln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's always interesting to see the varied opinions within Trek fandom. I, for one, thought Enterprise was an excellent show, although the story arc involving the Xindi and the Expanse took waaaaaay too long. I hated Voyager, almost as much as I hated DS9. Never cared for Janeway either.

      In order, I'd have to say my favorite treks were:
      1.) TNG
      2.) Enterprise
      3.) TOS
      Then, off in the far distance:
      4.) Voyager
      5.) DS9

    3. Re:Hmmmm. by frieko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you watch DS9 after the war started and they started to let Ron Moore do his thing? Watching the creature-comfort Federation come to the brink of collapse was much more interesting than watching Picard show up at a planet and lecture the locals about their backward traditions.

      By the way, if you win a Trek argument on slashdot, you automatically get laid tonight. I promise.

    4. Re:Hmmmm. by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you watch DS9 after the war started and they started to let Ron Moore do his thing? Watching the creature-comfort Federation come to the brink of collapse was much more interesting than watching Picard show up at a planet and lecture the locals about their backward traditions.

      Ah, but the real fun was when he'd lecture his own crew about respecting those backward traditions...

      Also, there are four lights.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    5. Re:Hmmmm. by JackassJedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      A friend of mine and me (over- and over-)analyzed Voyager over the years. In fact we found it so involutarily ridiculous that we wrote around 30 parody episodes of Voyager in the absurd humor style, here's an excerpt:

      (Janeway and Tuvok are in a room; there's a door on one of the walls.)
      Janeway: We're trapped. What should we do now?
      Tuvok: I could try to modify the door in such a way that it is open.
      Janeway: How do you want to do that?
      Tuvok: I will pull this lever.
      Janeway: I don't have any better idea myself (hesitates) Try it.
      (Tuvok pulls the lever, the door opens.)
      Janeway: Well done. I will add a positive record to your personel file, but now we've got to get out of here.


      Anyway my point is that a lot was due to the bad acting, a terrible lot. Some stories weren't actually so bad, but the bad execution made it look like nonsense. The same stories with the actors of DS9 would have been actually somewhat decent.

      --
      Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
    6. Re:Hmmmm. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (I'd take orders from Janeway any day!)

      If the primary selling point of the show is that some people have the hots for the Captain, and those people aren't nerds' girlfriends, the show is fucking over before it began.

      Voyager was more of everything Trek - they found out that it was too much. The only thing they didn't have enough of was camp. You have to be able to laugh! Personally, I've never enjoyed Trek so much as I did in Season 4 of Enterprise, so I may be the wrong guy to talk to... but seriously, you are not allowed to use story as a bullet point in the positive column if the main story arc is stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Hmmmm. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed. The Ron Moore-run version of DS9 after the war broke out was by far some of the best Trek ever to hit the small screen. Very entertaining stuff and it always kept you guessing. I guess if you were a dyed-in-the-wool Gene Roddenberry fan, though, you probably wouldn't have liked it because it was also the least Roddenberry-esque Trek to ever hit the small screen.

    8. Re:Hmmmm. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you are not allowed to use story as a bullet point in the positive column if the main story arc is stupid.

      Why not? Where were the writers supposed to go with that? A starship lost in the Delta Quadrant. Of course every so many episodes are going pretty much have to be about some hair-brained attempt to get back home that fails miserably. The only way to get around that is to either not have a show based on this premise, or to establish, early on, that getting back home was not an option and they were just going to have to make the best of life in the Delta Quadrant. As long as there was any hint that they were going to try to get back home, the main story arch was doomed to failure.

      With Voyager the only Trek show on for many years, the only thing a Trek fan could do was to suck it up and look passed the stupid story arch.

  4. Having written for voyager isn't a good thing by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unless you liked hearing about the latest Fucktoquadillion gigastream of pure hexashitrillic energy the borg were beaming at voyager's past timestream in order to attract the hirogen to hunt them and the leprosy dudes to steal their organs.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:Having written for voyager isn't a good thing by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fuller's episodes tended to be a lot more character based. The technobabble episodes tended to be written by Brannon Braga.

  5. pushing daisies by JeffSh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    pushing daisies was amazing and it wasn't until the show was canceled and i started looking around that i even realized who fuller was, but have since recognized that I have long enjoyed his work without knowing who he was.

    Now I know who to credit for all the entertainment that I really liked (Voyager, Season 1 heroes, Pushing daisies...)

    It's a shame that pushing daisies didn't make it. I think the show was a huge victim of the writer's strike. The shortened first season killed the audience and it never recovered. it's been very disappointing for my wife and I because the shows we can watch and enjoy together are few and far between, and this was one we both really liked.

    We also both really liked Heroes Season 1, but Season 2 was a complete disaster and neither of us watch it any more. It's weird how it all seems to be about fuller's presence or absence (in hindsight).

    They hired Fuller for writing on Heroes again, but I think it's too late. They should just kill the show.

    Oh well.

  6. Let the grim reaper do his job by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes a soul should just be allowed to pass over. Let that field lie fallow for a decade or so at least.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Let the grim reaper do his job by Bieeanda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Make it twenty. When you can't stretch a modern Star Trek series more than four years, and your final episode is focused around characters from another series entirely, you need to let the horse rot for a while instead of lashing it some more.

    2. Re:Let the grim reaper do his job by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 2, Funny

      So basically, Star Trek's post-it went to Mason, and he fucked up as usual.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
  7. All I know by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rick Berman: TNG
    Bryan Fuller: Failed ABC series and Voyager

    OP loses credit

    1. Re:All I know by Ucklak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Rick Berman is the reason Star Trek became Star Twrecked. Let's get positions casted, put putty on someone's nose, rinse and repeat.
      TNG and DS9 didn't have a token vulcan so Voyager got a black vulcan and Enterprise had a female vulcan. The guy doesn't know how to put a character together.
      All his movies with the exception of First Contact sucked and got progressively worse.

      Part of the charm of TOS was the banter of Kirk, McCoy and Spock. It was 3 guys diametrically opposed at work in different situations. That was the formula that none of the other series had. Enterprise was the closest but didn't know what it had and failed to deliver.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    2. Re:All I know by skeeto · · Score: 2, Informative

      And I hear Fuller needs to go easy on the Pepsi.

  8. Re:yeah right. by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Something tells me Fuller won't be nearly as big into the big-breasted ladies as you might think. I think we're more likely to see buff dudes.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  9. Trailer, Really? by vjmurphy · · Score: 4, Funny

    "If J.J. Abrams' reboot is successful (and the latest trailer suggests it will be!)..."

    Yes, because trailers are always the best source for determining a film's success. In fact, why bother releasing the movie, since its success is assured?

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
  10. I hope not? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Voyager? Wasn't that the worst one of all? That machine should have been a little more banged up at the end but yet they had even more resources than when they started out. I know trek is BS but damn the same stories over and over get old after a while.

    Let it die for a few more years at least.

    1. Re:I hope not? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Voyager? Wasn't that the worst one of all?

      If you honestly believe that, then I envy your ability to completely erase Enterprise from your memory.

      Does the world really need more Trek sequels? If we have to make sequels, couldn't we at least make one in the Babylon 5 or Blake's 7 universe?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. Star Trek is in "The Future" by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Star Trek was always a fantasy to me as an engineer about what 'could be'. Just over the progression of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY you could see incremental improvements in technology. Voice controls actually worked, bio-neural networks, etc. STOP recreating (and fucking up) the original story line.

    TOS happened, it's done with. Quit going before it. Stop milking the lives of Scotty, Kirk, or the beginning of the beginning of the federation.

    Set something 90 years out from the end of VOY. Put the first Cardassian (or other former enemy) on the bridge (Worf). Maybe bump up Warp speed or another method of going fast (But not Warp 10 retarded shit VOY broke out). Invite some scientists writers, the writers of Futurama, to the initial writings and get some pseudo-science based technologies. Just make up some new shiny tech. Don't fill it with too much technobabble. (Stargate was a good balance in my mind).

    You could easily make it dark too. DS9 is hands down my favorite series.
    Federation Civil War?
    Fall of the Federation?

    STOP GOING BACK IN TIME.

    1. Re:Star Trek is in "The Future" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Federation Civil War?
      Fall of the Federation?

      Andromeda was, apparently, originally meant to be the sequel to ST:TNG. The Federation would be betrayed by one of its allies and collapse into a civil war and the story would follow an attempt to rebuild it.

      The folks at Paramount didn't want it. They felt it would be too dark for Star Trek and not have the hopeful feel that the rest of the series had.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Star Trek is in "The Future" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Federation Civil War?

      Fall of the Federation?

      Andromeda was, apparently, originally meant to be the sequel to ST:TNG. The Federation would be betrayed by one of its allies and collapse into a civil war and the story would follow an attempt to rebuild it.

      The folks at Paramount didn't want it. They felt it would be too dark for Star Trek and not have the hopeful feel that the rest of the series had.

      citation needed

    3. Re:Star Trek is in "The Future" by xda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the definition of Star Trek is an imagination of science and social interaction. TOS and TNG are perfect examples of using modern science to imagine a world far into the future on which to play out imaginative dramas. You can clearly see the progress made between these 2 series and it continues on through the films and DS9 and VOY.

      I had no interest in going backward, I never watched Enterprise until it was already canceled. I got hooked on it, but it wasn't really Star Trek to me.

      The only REAL way to make progress in Star Trek is to keep the imagination flowing, inspired by recent advances in science while making an effort to explain away the holes in the story and the stuff that looks stupid in retrospect from the previous series.

      Anything else is just mental masturbation for all those Treky bastards who make the rest of us look like dorks for liking the TV show.

    4. Re:Star Trek is in "The Future" by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Star Trek was always a fantasy to me as an engineer about what 'could be'.

      Much of the fantasy gizmos that could only live in science fiction are common today. When TOS was on TV in the 60s, there were no cell phones (communicators), no self-opening doors, no flat screen voice activated computers, and if I sat here and thought about it for a while I could probably come up with a lot more.

      Real technology in some cases has surpassed TOS. In Star Trek II, Bones gives Kirk reading glasses for his age-related presbyopia because Kirk was allergic to "Retinox" (presumably a drug that softens the eye's lens so geezers can focus), but in 2003 the FDA approved the implant in my left eye which cured my extreme myopia (nearsightedness), age related presbyopia (farsightedness), and the cataract that had formed. If I'd been astigmatic the implant would have cured that as well, too.

      I've been amazed at the scientific and technological advances in my lifetime. McCoy would be in awe if he could see a 21st century operating room!

      Don't fill it with too much technobabble

      The technobabble has always irked me, and it got worse with TNG. Why say "blind as an antarian bat?" That's just dumb IMO, "blind as a bat" suffices. I parodied 1960s sci-fi a few years ago with Saturday, written as Science Fiction from the early 1960s

      I stuck some science fiction 21st century optical devices on my eyeballs and drank some coffee. The devices are great, they're nothing at all like sticking pieces of glass in your eyes, as you had to do back in the 1970s. This new, science fiction technology is (usually) completely invisible to the user.

      Patty wasn't answering the voice communicator.

      About quarter to ten she transmitted her coordinates via the afformentioned device, and said she overslept. Was it aliens? No, I believe her friend was born in the US. In fact, she doesn't have a foregn name. Now, if she had been named Gordo Burro, that would have perhaps been an interesting alien.

      But this was just a blonde American kid.

      I flipped a switch, and the computing device stirred to life, causing a pot of coffee to appear in the coffeepot. I removed an anesceptic wrapping from a pastry and installed it in the radiation chamber for fifteen seconds. With butter.

    5. Re:Star Trek is in "The Future" by master_p · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand why many people like 'dark' Trek. If you like dark sci-fi, watch something else. Star Trek is optimistic, and if you change that, it is no longer Star Trek.

    6. Re:Star Trek is in "The Future" by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The folks at Paramount didn't want it. They felt it would be too dark for Star Trek and not have the hopeful feel that the rest of the series had.

      That is because they were idiots and didn't see the potential for more realistic stories along the lines of the sixth and seventh seasons of DS9. The final seasons of DS9 were really among the best Star Trek stories ever produced because they reminded us that despite advanced technology and an "evolved understanding" (never really understood how that was supposed to work, human nature is human nature no matter how evolved we might become in our understanding) there were still wars, petty squabbles, treachery, and all of the other things which make the good guys just a little bad and the bad guys just a little good. As much as I enjoyed Star Trek, I always disagreed with the optimal "we have evolved beyond all human weaknesses" view of the future. After Gene passed, they began to take more risks with Star Trek and DS9 showed us how far they had come and could still go with a Star Trek series, but even then it does not begin to approach the sort of gritty no-nonsense reality that we see in Firefly and Serenity. The following recollections from Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore, two of the DS9 writers, really sums it up best concerning the conflict between the "optimistic we have overcome all need for violence" people and the "humans are humans 24th century and technology or not with flawed characters, relationships, wars, and all of the other gritty and real stuff" fans:

      Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore were the writers most involved with the creation and development of the Dominion War. Rick Berman wanted the war to be over within three or four episodes at the most. Behr and Moore knew the series would never be able to wrap up the war in that many episodes. Berman also criticized the "depressing" and "violent" stories. Moore later said "It's a fuckin' war! What do you mean it's too violent?!"

      In fact, my favorite Star Trek episode of all time is season 6 episode 19 of DS9: In the Pale Moonlight because it shows how tough situations can bring out the worst in people, even highly evolved Star Trek perfect people, and reveals some flaws in the DS9 characters that had always before that episode remained beneath the surface, often hinted at but never before fully exposed. The episode also makes really good use of the character Garek (one of my favorite Trek characters) and his unique Obsidian Order experience, training, and assassin/espionage talents.

      "That's why you came to me, isn't it captain? Because you knew I could do those things that you weren't capable of doing. Well, it worked. And you'll get what you wanted: a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant, and all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal... and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain." -Garek

  12. How do you reinvent Trek? by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You'd have to change the animal so much that it wouldn't seem recognizable. The old formula has become such a cliche that there's absolutely nothing you can reuse from it. Reset button at the end of the episode, lame. Space anomalies, lame. Gritty scifi future with lots of angst, made lame by overexposure on Galactica. Aliens who look exactly like us save for bumpy foreheads? I could buy it when I was younger but it's just ridiculous these days. (I'll probably be in the minority on this one.) Time-travel plots, squishy techno-babble science plots, holodeck plots, everything that makes Trek Trek is what's been killing it. It's like asking "Can we make a healthy Big Mac?" Yeah, and by the time you're done removing everything that's bad about that burger, you're left with nothing but lettuce and sesame seeds.

    I'd say Firefly was a great model on how to do a space show that wasn't Trek but it died after a season. I'm not really sure how that happened given the fan support, it must have just been Fox superdickery more than anything else. But aside from that, Firefly gave us a space show that was like Trek only in so much as there were spaceships -- everything else was as different from Trek as it was from other shows. Even the basic premise -- "Imagine you made a TV show about Han Solo before he and Chewie joined the Rebellion" -- even that description carries certain assumptions the show blew away.

    Galactica has good production values and good acting but the writing is a crime. Half of the uber-plot of the show is a mystery, what's the Cylon's angle? What are their motivations? Why did they do what they did? And a good mystery writer needs to know how it happened before the first chapter's written because support for the whodunnit has to be written in to every subsequent chapter. Not having a clue and just pulling it out of his ass at the end is cheap and unsatisfying and that's the approach Galactica's taken. Heroes as well for that matter, and Heroes season 1 was completely awesome, it was only the later post-Fuller seasons that turned into a giant crap sandwich. But as far as BSG goes, the original was completely derivative of Star Wars and the remake seems to draw a lot more from network dramas in terms of pacing and feel.

    I'd say Babylon 5 was the true post-Trek show. You could see the inspiration from Trek but it also drew on a hell of a lot of other sources, really steeped in scifi goodness. It moved beyond what Trek was and DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, they were all muddling around at the same level. They never really rose to the challenge. The times they tried, they were just ripping off B5 plots instead of doing something bigger, better, and smarter. And that's sad because for all of the greatness that was B5, there was still room for improvement.

    I remain in the "stick a fork in Trek and call it done" camp. I'll take a look at the new movie just to be charitable but my expectations are extremely low. I'm willing to be surprised. I just feel that if they really want to do a wonders of space exploration and discovery show, they should really nix the whole Trek thing and come up with something brand new. The CGI has come so far these days, they can get away with stuff that couldn't have been imagined.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:How do you reinvent Trek? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      But aside from that, Firefly gave us a space show that was like Trek only in so much as there were spaceships -- everything else was as different from Trek as it was from other shows.

      Man, it was Buffy in space. Is that really a good thing?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:How do you reinvent Trek? by Ecuador · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aliens who look exactly like us save for bumpy foreheads?

      Well, at least they devoted a TNG episode to explaining that. Haven't you seen "The Chase"?

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    3. Re:How do you reinvent Trek? by Jim+Hall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You'd have to change the animal so much that it wouldn't seem recognizable. The old formula has become such a cliche that there's absolutely nothing you can reuse from it. Reset button at the end of the episode, lame. Space anomalies, lame. Gritty scifi future with lots of angst, made lame by overexposure on Galactica. Aliens who look exactly like us save for bumpy foreheads? I could buy it when I was younger but it's just ridiculous these days. (I'll probably be in the minority on this one.) Time-travel plots, squishy techno-babble science plots, holodeck plots, everything that makes Trek Trek is what's been killing it. It's like asking "Can we make a healthy Big Mac?" Yeah, and by the time you're done removing everything that's bad about that burger, you're left with nothing but lettuce and sesame seeds.

      As a fan, what I'd like to see is the Star Trek experience from another point of view. Don't keep giving us the "good guys", the Federation, with their Prime Directive.

      Give us a series based on, say, the Klingons (TNG era .. please skip the whole "TOS to TNG" evolution thing - TOS Klingons looked that way because of budget, that's it.) A story similar to Star Trek: Klingon would make a great pilot for a Klingon-based series - a young Klingon goes through the Rite of Ascension to become a true Warrior, joins a ship. Let the series experience the Star Trek universe through the lens of a young Klingon - not some goody Federation captain, which we've now seen more times than we need.

      As he experiences the universe as a Klingon warrior, so do we. Let a mentor show him the true path of a Klingon warrior. Show the audience the code of honor from the Klingons. Throw in some Klingon language (swearing in Klingon!)

      In this series, there's no Prime Directive. Very little diplomacy, no helping other cultures to better themselves. And it should go without saying: no journey of self-discovery, except for the central character as he learns what it means to be a true Klingon warrior.

      Hey, I'd watch that every week!

    4. Re:How do you reinvent Trek? by rlgoer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Jollyreaper's posting is right on target.

      As soon as writers get a hold of a holodeck, an all-powerful being (Q), or time travel, you can kiss the show goodbye. It's like comedians making jokes about sex: Sure, sex jokes can be good, but all too often they just mean the comedian is running short on material, and because sex is an easy giggle, they seize on it. It becomes like a comedian's deus ex machina. With a holodeck or all-powerful being you get the same thing - almost a literal deus ex machina. And with time travel, that machine quickly reveals the writer's scientific and creative limitations, as he or she either ignores obvious paradoxes, or lamely explains them away.

      I sometimes wonder whether the reason why most SciFi series's all seem to go this sorry route is that the Writer's Guild limits, consciously, the show's ability to draw in fresh ideas. SciFi and Fantasy writing is hard, and takes imagination. And you can't just stick a bunch of writers in a room and expect them (without serious prodding and mining the outside world for new ideas) to avoid burbling on about sex, holodecks, time travel, space anomalies, and all the clichés they've come to be known for.

      I'm still wondering, though, when we can have space ships that don't bank and turn (like a plane in the atmosphere) or make 'noise' when they explode in the emptiness of space, and when we have a bridge with a window to the outside world that doesn't look like my neighbor's HD TV - but rather fills most or all of the room, and doesn't just point 'forward' (with other ships always approaching with an identical orientation). I understand that one has to make concessions to the realities of earth-bound production (e.g., everyone has to speak the same language, they need mostly to be humanoid, corridors on ships need to be big enough to accommodate cameras, etc.). But that shouldn't mean that all plots must be constructed around a bunch of hackneyed conventions.

      If SciFi is going to draw in new people, it really needs to go where no one has gone before, kinda like Firefly started to do (see the thread on Fox SciFi, though, for why that didn't happen).

      Of course, part of me knows, deep down, that the reason SciFi is often so stupid is that we ourselves are stupid. Or at least I am. I watch this stuff, after all.

      --
      ---- Richard L. Goerwitz III
  13. Now, I love Pushing Daisies... by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Funny

    And I think this is a good thing, but I can't help hearing the voice of the pushing Daisies narrator doing the classic Trek introduction.

    "Our five year 3 days and 32 minute minute mission..."

  14. "It wasn't too bad." :) by khasim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And that is the problem. Look at how bad it really was. Not in comparison to even worse shows. But in comparison to GOOD shows.

    They had set up a really interesting concept ... and then totally neutered it. Everyone on the ship were best friends. Even though a large chunk of the crew had declared their own war. And the ship somehow kept getting repaired. And the borg were suddenly very weak. And do we really want to go into time travel?

    Now compare that to Firefly's only season. Some of the crew did not like other members of the crew. The captain was not perfect. They had to work to keep the ship flying.

    1. Re:"It wasn't too bad." :) by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even worse, since they're in difference universes, the navy ship has the ability to press it's own oil from shale it finds, create food incredibly cheaply, and has a ready supply of spare parts if anything breaks - the merchant doesnt

      You lost me. Maybe you could try a car analogy?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  15. I saw Janeway by gizmo2199 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rather, Kate Mulgrew entering a restaurant near Times Square a couple of months back.

    I heard the voice then I did a double take, and sure enough it was her.

    She looked old.

    I was tempted to go in and say hi, but I'm not that much of a geek.

    --
    This Sig does not Exist.
    1. Re:I saw Janeway by dr_dank · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rather, Kate Mulgrew entering a restaurant near Times Square a couple of months back.

      I heard the voice then I did a double take, and sure enough it was her.

      She looked old

      That was really Admiral Janeway who came from an alternate timeline to dine at Olive Garden.

      Fun fact: the ablative hull armor is actually made of stale Olive Garden breadsticks.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  16. It'll fail by Sqreater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They just don't get it anymore. But I'll say it anyway. Science fiction and superhero comics are about satisfying male adolescent psychology. Stray from that with ass-kicking females wielding blasters and you will crash and burn. No female captains. No ass kicking female aliens. Male to male conflict. Have a strong, even arrogant male lead who is the ONE WHO IS QUICKER, SMARTER, almost all the time. It is NOT a group effort. It is about a superior male captain. Look to the original Kirk. Note that Spiderman succeeded and made a LOT of money. Unsure adolescent male becomes confident, capable, and powerful when he puts on the spiderman personality. And he saves the FEMALE....who does not kick his butt anywhere in the movies. Nor does she somehow acquire powers of her own to satisfy modern Political Correctness. As for a Vulcan, the Vulcan MUST be a blend of Vulcan and Human. It is not optional. The Vulcan exists entirely to explore human psychological and social truths. By itself, a Vulcan is a piece of cardboard.

    One more point of many more I could make. Science fiction has taken the depressing direction of the failure of humanity. Star Trek I was about the success of mankind. Get back to that. Apparently "serious" series makers did not feel very adult making a story in which mankind succeeds. Ok, do it again. Get them lost. Get them destroyed. Get them wandering around. Make the characters "real" by making them mean, nasty, slutty, jerks. Make them inferior and struggling. Have the female characters engage in comments about how stupid, inferior, ridiculous, juvenile male motivations and behavior are. Fail as a series.

    Oh, and don't engage in the ridiculous, like making a holographic doctor or having an alien doctor who knows more about human medicine than humans. Jeesh, who came up with that grating piece of nonsense? Someone making a job for a friend? And the sick bay should not be bigger and more technologically advanced than the bridge. etc etc etc.

    The future will be more of the same, only different. Remember that.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:It'll fail by digitalhermit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, yeah.

      I enjoy strong female characters. Wishy-washy girls are damn boring. Give me a woman who can kick my ass when I try to grab hers and I'm hers. She needs to be intellectually and emotionally bad-ass too. Hell, if she can understand the DCTs behind that JPEG and adjust the DoF for optimum bokeh while she takes a picture of her kickboxing team, then I'll make my case to be her man.

      It's one thing to be with a gentle little thing just out of college... It's another thing entirely to get down with a woman who knows what she wants. Want to make an unsure adolescent male confident? Don't let him wrestle with rabbits (hah, like the recent Heroes episode).. Give him tigers.

      I agree with the rest though. Television has been emasculated. I enjoy Dystopia though... Against the backdrop of crumbling civilization, the gems that are the future of mankind stand out.

  17. I vote for Kirk and Spock by tjstork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Frankly the whole charm of the TOS was that it wasn't -that- far into the future, and the basic characters just worked.

    By creating Kirk and Spock and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise, Roddenberry gave us the modern equivalent of a Hercules myth. We can milk Kirk and Spock for two thousands years, and, if we are as good as the Greeks, we should.

    And frankly, I'm sick of all the darkness in present science fiction. Science is advancing more all the time and if there was ever a time for optimism based on a scientific society, NOW is it. Humanity can improve, and will improve, and having a series that reminds us of what our future could be, if we chose to do it, and reminds us of our ongoing moral obligations, is a damned fine thing.

    Sick of all these moral halfwits running around in sci-fi these days. Poor Adam's crying again on Galactica. Big woosy. Poor Col Tigh's drinking again, and he's a fricking Cylon. That show had all sorts of promise and then they made Adam cry all the time and Tigh into a Cylon. What the frak is that. I'm sick of complexity in characters. I want -Gods-.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:I vote for Kirk and Spock by nevillethedevil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And frankly, I'm sick of all the darkness in present science fiction. Science is advancing more all the time and if there was ever a time for optimism based on a scientific society, NOW is it.

      Well said. This was one of Gene's original themes in TOS. He created it with the idea that maybe, just maybe, we as a species were going to make it. Star Trek was always at it's best when it had a message (which Voyager tried to rehash but just came off as preachy).

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
    2. Re:I vote for Kirk and Spock by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And frankly, I'm sick of all the darkness in present science fiction. Science is advancing more all the time and if there was ever a time for optimism based on a scientific society, NOW is it. Humanity can improve, and will improve, and having a series that reminds us of what our future could be, if we chose to do it, and reminds us of our ongoing moral obligations, is a damned fine thing.

      Autonomous computers happened. Before, technology was more or less always operated by humans. To "Go where no man has gone before" got the addendum "but where a workforce of robots have photographed the landing site, built the base, commmunicated with any natives and so on." Look at the Mars rovers, when do you think we'll ever get there? By the time humans come along it'll have been poked, prodded and probed in pretty much every way and the passengers close to tourists (ok, so I'm exaggerating a bit).

      While leaders have managed to rally the people into committing great atrocities before, but computers are obidient to a fault, never corrupt, never work against the system from the inside and has no moral problems doing anything. When people controlled people there'd always be a ratio of controllers to the controlled, but with computers you can have thousands of computers controlling each person.

      Nobody would believe you could have people listening in to every phone conversation. It'd require absurd amounts of manpower just recording and putting it all together before armies of analysts would work on it. But hooking up a supercomputer to the network backbone to do all that is credible. According to some sources, the NSA might already have done it.

      Technology makes our lives incredibly convienient which is why we we're giving it all up to computers more or less under our control. I like that I can carry a piece of plastic instead of fiddling with change and have it mapped right into my online bank where I can pull it right into some financial planning. My cell phone tracks me everywhere I go because I find the ability to make or recieve calls convienient. Honestly I'd be seriously creeped out if anyone knew exactly where I was at all times, so in ways I trust the cell phone operator more than I trust any person.

      The more I've seen of technology, the more I think it'd be like Star Trek minus the Enterprise, just the replicators and holodeck back on earth. Or the "I, Robot" movie before the takeover or "Well-E". Technology does the hard stuff and most humans are perfectly happy just enjoying life without making any significant contribution to anything. The only interesting story is someone turning all that convienience against us, which leads to dark sci-fi.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:I vote for Kirk and Spock by geobeck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Science is advancing more all the time and if there was ever a time for optimism based on a scientific society, NOW is it.

      Please give me directions to the world you live in, because it doesn't sound a lot like mine, where scientific discovery is telling me that the chlorinated organic chemicals we've been spewing out for the last half century are polluting most of our dwindling supply of fresh water, resulting in the next generation of people having shorter life expectancies than their parents for the first time, where advances in genetics are used by giant companies to patent life forms to use to engineer pesticide-resistant crops for the main purpose of encouraging industrialized farmers to use more pesticide (produced by those same companies) and to introduce terminator genes into agricultural crops so farmers will be forced to buy seed every year instead of replanting, where the rapid advances in computer technology encourage users to buy new computers and cell phones at least once a year, generating huge amounts of electronic waste that end up clogging landfills or causing dangerous levels of air pollution in the third world, and where the biggest proponent of climate science has half the world convinced that an incremental increase in global temperature is the worst thing we have to worry about.

      I'd really like to live in a world where science gives people a real reason to be optimistic, because it seems to be doing the opposite in this world.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  18. What about a show about Starfleet Academy? by beinh0wer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think it would be a nice twist if they created a new show about Starfleet Academy. Set it in the post Nemesis Star Trek universe so as not to step on the toes of either TOS, TNG, or the JJ Abrams reboot. The story could follow the life of a select group of cadets through the rigors and trials of attending and graduating from the Academy. Would definitely allow them to provide a more 'human' look at the Star Trek universe while still getting technical enough to appease the Trekkies. Another benefit is that at the end of the show's run at the Academy, we would have a new crew, fresh out of the Academy to put on a starship for a 5 year mission and see them grow through the ranks.

    --
    "There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -AE
    1. Re:What about a show about Starfleet Academy? by rotide · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I understand where you are coming from, but no thank you. I just see an Academy series simply degrading into another 90210 or any of the multitude of other "kids in school/college" shows that are/were out in force.

      I mean seriously, we have enough shows dramatizing the trials and tribbleations of kids in school.

    2. Re:What about a show about Starfleet Academy? by beinh0wer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well the big difference is that they are star fleet cadets and not Tori Spelling. :) I see what you mean, though. I don't think Dawson's Creek in the Star Trek universe is what anyone wants. I still think if done right, this could be a big hit. The cadets at Starfleet Academy are there because they are the best and brightest minds, with aspirations to become starfleet officers not some high school bimbo driving daddy's Mercedes and hanging out at the mall. Think Nova Squadron, Basic Warp Design, and a Military Academy as opposed to Beverly Hills high school, prom, and cellphones.

      --
      "There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -AE
  19. Re:I loved Pushing Daises but... by itsdapead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I loved Pushing Daises but it failed fair and square.

    I think some of these "high concept" shows are only really good for a dozen or so episodes. Unfortunately, the US system expects everything to run for 7-8 years or be deemed a failure. If PD had been made in the UK they'd have done two runs of 6-12 episodes, finished the story and gone out while they were ahead (c.f. Life on Mars UK vs. Life on Mars USA).

    Heroes is another case in point: Season 1 found a fresh new way to do a superhero origin story. Shiny*. Unfortunately, once that was finished, well, either take up the spandex or go back to your families and quit whining, guys.

    (also c.f. the 6 episodes in each season of BSG which are really, really good or how much better B5 got when they crammed two seasons of plot arc into one...)

    Now Trek doesn't have to be high concept if they go back to the basic TOS/TNG formula: not stuck in the delta quadrant; not stuck on a space station in the vanguard of a galactic war; not a pawn in the great time ware. Nope, just a starship crew on a continuing mission to explore strange new worlds and go where no man/person/reptile/walking tree-oid has gone before. Think of a story, any story, they can stumble into it.

    If they want high concept, do a movie or mini series.

    * Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, everybody on the CColonBackSlash blog is probably whining about how rubbish Season 8 of Firefly is turning out to be, and asking why the hell they cancelled the Simpsons in 1995.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  20. Yes more like TOS - W/ Kirk putting his boots ALOT by spineboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I liked the TOS, because there was much more of an unknown quality to the enemies - Spock was distrusted by many crew members, WTF were Romulans? - oh SH*T they look like Spock.
    I much prefer the renegrade style, wild west Kirk, than Tea and Crumpets Pickard (although he is damn good)

    Yes - weekly defeats with the Federation in jeopardy would be quite tense and exciting to watch.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  21. Re:Yes more like TOS - W/ Kirk putting his boots A by ImpShial · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes - weekly defeats with the Federation in jeopardy....

    Was a regular thing during the last few seasons of DS9.

    --
    I gave up religion for Lent.
  22. Re:more ToS would be a step backwards by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The original series was fantastically uneven. At the high end it was unmatched by anything that followed with episodes like Amok Time, City on the Edge of Forever, Devil in the Dark etc. At the low end, well it made me want to hurl chunks.

    A common thread between many of these great episodes was great writing be authors like Harlan Ellison and Theodore Sturgeon. Bring in some good writers from Sci Fi and you will have great episodes again.

    TNG was more even but never reached the heights of the great ToS episodes. Brent Spiner though was terrific.

    Enterprise was mostly crap, but the 4th season where they reverted back to the old ToS/TNG formula it was pretty good. Of course by then everyone had given up on the series so it was too late.

  23. Re:Like what? by uberhobo_one · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fringe ignores word 'science' in SF :P

    I wish that's all Fringe did. Unfortunately, the writers of Fringe kidnapped, beat, and sodomized science in front of it's own children. Then, when done, gave each other high-fives for doing such a great job.

    It's like they have some kind of scientific buzzword dartboard in their office that they use to write the jargon that their characters use.

  24. Just continue ST:ENT. by Jupix · · Score: 2

    Honestly, it was the most interesting piece of Star Trek since TNG. Implement some DS9 continuity and I think it could be really successful. Just my two cents.

  25. I Hope This Means by aquatone282 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope this means the Captain gets to bang a lot of hot alien babes again.

    And if the Captain is a woman, so much the better.

    --
    What?
  26. Where no Sci Fi show has gone before by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I love Star Trek, I'm re-visiting TNG with my girlfriend who has never seen it, I think she likes it (Yah!!) but where else can the story go?

    We've done the five year mission, then went forward several hundred years to the next generation, did the space station thing, got lost in a new sector of the galaxy and then went back to the beginning. Now we go back to the beginning, again?

    I'm sorry but Star Trek has got boring. It follows a formula, new technology, new badder enemy, war, combat, new technology, beat bad guys - go home. Every ST after TNG followed the exact same formula, days of our lives in space.

    The only hope for ST is what made it interesting in the very beginning TOS and TNG, science fiction Forget all the lame 'b' grade effects, effects are the only thing that have made trek pleasing to watch, it was the imagination that filled in the gaps when I first watched TOS, and at the time it was the most ground breaking thing on TV - fuck IT WAS TV - and the story was king!!!

    but, no no no these shows are seen as 'franchises', not a craft that sparks the imagination of the viewer, as one lame idea after another is tried. I'm sure I'm not the only sci fi fan that is banging their head in frustration. Now I'm sure that the new Star Trek movie will work, but it will work in the way that when a Chinese artisan copies a work of art faithfully and skill fully, yet they still don't understand the idea that brought the art into being in the first place.

    For Star Trek to work in the future (are you listening Star Trek producers) you need to get back to what Star Trek was and should be a vehicle for hard science fiction. Go read Greg Bear Eon, Eternity (get Greg Bear to write the episodes) then call on Allister Reynolds and Robert Reed or half a dozen other sci fi writers that other slashdotters could name. Better yet, make the entire story Open Source or Creative commons and start asking for submission for stories from the fans. Two words Paramount BIG FUCKING IDEAS.

    For fuck sake make Star trek in your face science fiction again, or just say it's over, cause the way it's being killed is just sad.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  27. Re:Waerp Speed limit history by Time_Warped · · Score: 2, Informative

    TOS Enterprise could do about warp 8, but there was a chance of engine damage above warp 6. There was 1 episode where an alien took over and modded the engines and it did around warp 14 or so. There was a computer game in the 70's called trek or strtrk it place a limit of warp 10 as the max speed a star ship could travel. The closer you got to warp 10 the greater the probability you would time warp. I think the voyager episode was a tribute of sorts to the computer game " +++" ;-) The rest of the series had a faster than warp 10 being possible. Maybe there where parallel universes and warp 10 was the limit in one but not the other. ;-)

  28. Re:Lost interest by porcupine8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I disagree. In the past couple of years, my husband and I have been Netflixing all of TNG, as well as BSG (though we're caught up now) and, for a couple weeks, Babylon 5. We agree that while TNG was a very good show once it hit its stride in season 3, a bit more continuity would have made it really great. In fact, we're noticing the bits of continuity that we never noticed when it was on and we were in jr high (like Worf's several-season dealing-with-the-empire arc), and that alone is making the series even better for us. We love BSG for its serialness, and Babylon 5 we appreciated the serial nature but couldn't get past how bad each individual episode was.

    And there is definitely a happy medium to be found between "cliffhanger at the end of every episode" and "everything tied up with a neat little bow." To leave sci-fi, Scrubs strikes this balance very nicely. There are a lot of multi-episode arcs (often found in the subplots), and continuity in general is something that happens consistently rather than once a season, but the actual main plot line of each episode is almost always resolved at the end. You get actual character development over time, unlike many traditional sitcoms, but you can also watch a single episode and be satisfied at the end.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  29. trek is a multi-generational series by peter303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    44 years spans at least three cultural generations.
    The original Trek was military culture familiar to the WWI and Korean era veterns of the 1960s.
    The New Generation was 'yuppies in space' - well-healed baby boomers, team organization, yada, yada, yada.
    The newer Treks never quite caught the pathos of the younger generations. The GenY's are individualistic and artistic, sort of like "herding cats in space" - not your corporate team players. Another Roddenberry scifi show called Andromeda captured this pathos better.
    I cant really characterize the newest adults - the 9/11, Iraq War, and Second Depression generation. The generation always plugged into electronic communication and networks.

    The New Generation made an interesting prediction that seems to be coming true - the death of television. I recall one episode where some 21st century types were revived from hibernation and asked about television and money and the crew said they didnt do those any more. Roddenberry's uptopia did not have money or TV.

  30. Or they could re-ignite Star Trek like this by master_p · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They could make a show named 'Star Trek' which shows the exploration of space, first contact with an alien civilization, how faster-than-light travel was developed, etc. And slowly progress towards the 24th century, to the level of Star Trek we know.

    In this new show, the characters will watch Star Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9) just for fun. Actors from previous series could make cameo appearances as themselves, being interested in space travel.

    The show could be serious, almost a documentary, which shows the dramatic side of space exploration, the politics, the international competition, the effects on people' lives, the change of culture. It could also have a side like X-Files, with conspiracies about UFOs etc, which are later resolved.

  31. Reasons for optimism by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your criticisms are interesting but like so many people, you lack perspective.

    The fact is, right now more people are wealthier than they ever have been. Many of our problems today, are problems of wealth. That is a good problem to have. Bad problems to have are rampant starvation. We're WELL on the way to making all of humanity less hungry than ever. China is lifted out of poverty, India is on its way out. Dude, that's 2 billion people that can eat, that couldn't. That have money, but didn't.

    Our lifetime is a TRIUMPH of progress. Even this present recession is a minor calamity compared to what other people have gone through in the past.

    We take it for granted any more that when we choose to have a child, that the child will live. This was not possible even 50 years ago.

    We take it for granted that when we turn on the tap water, it will be safe. By and large it is safer water than it has ever been. 100 years ago, we had the likes of cholera to worry about. Today, it doesn't happen, and neither do many other diseases born of bad water.

    We have more food than ever, of every kind, and if you want all natural food, you can get that too.

    Landfills might be choked with trash, but landfills are only a tiny portion of the overall earth. In the northeastern United States, a great reforestation has taken place and within our lifetimes. And there are more birds than ever before. Just look up... there used to be few birds, and now there are great and enormous flocks of them migrating. I didn't see -that- when I was a kid.

    Cars are definitely better than they have been. Today's econobox weighs less, goes farther, handles better on a tank of gas. You might rip computers, but where once people bought manufactured goods subject to the tolerances of the human eye and hand, now they get consistent and reliable products made perfectly by a machine. This allows consumers to have goods of a greater complexity than ever before.

    I'm routinely critical of science because in the short term, it is politicized, and over-promises. But the thing is, all of those incremental advances do pile up in a way that works out good for humans. We may find, as we advance more problems to solve, but, there's no denying that that past we leave behind, at least in terms of technology and lifespan and the human condition, is nowhere near as bright as the future that lies ahead.

    Either the USA or the Chinese are going back to th e moon. It looks Mars will finally survive a Democratic administration. We have better unmanned space probes heading out to newer places than ever before. I would have NEVER thought that we would see pictures of Pluto's surface in our lifetime and we're going to get that. We are getting counts and pixel sized images of planets in other solar systems.

    And plus, hell, Microsoft is shipping a version of Windows that actually works, Linux can finally recognize my mouse in X without screwing everything up, and Intel CPUs can add.

    --
    This is my sig.
  32. To Boldly Go by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2, Informative

    When the politically correct newer versions of Trek came out, and changed the line "To boldly go where no man has gone before" - which was one of the greatest ever! - to a neutered, lame "no ONE has gone".... it pretty much jumped the shark.

  33. Yeah, glad that Berman's gone by Pluvius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, everyone knows that only the first two seasons of TNG were any good (The Naked Now deserved a frigging Emmy!), after which Roddenberry died and Berman shitted it up with characters like Reginald Barclay, Gowron, and Locutus of Borg. Berman could never help create a character as perfect as Wesley Crusher and he should've stopped trying. And then he comes out with that boring, actionless piece of fluff called Deep Space Nine, which was so awful that it ran for only seven seasons in an oversaturated market. Some Cardassian tailor with a mysterious past? Who cares? An all-out war between the Federation and some major dominion in the Gamma Quadrant, filled with intrigue and plot twists? Who wants to see that?

    Sarcasm aside, I think what CmdrTaco meant is that we should hope for the end of the era of Brannon Braga. He's the one primarily responsible for Voyager and Enterprise, and the only things he did that were good for the franchise were because of Ronald Moore.

    Rob

  34. Re:Lost interest by julesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Babylon 5 we appreciated the serial nature but couldn't get past how bad each individual episode was

    How far in did you watch it? It gets seriously better about half way through the second season. Some of the season 1 episodes are painful to watch (I'm primarily thinking of TKO here), but by the time you get to season 3 that just doesn't happen any more.

  35. Re:Lost interest by Spinalcold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Give Babylon 5 more of a chance, the first season is terrible, to the point that I had a hard time getting through. But someone promised me that if I held out to season two I would be hooked and that I would think it the best Sci Fi out there. Well, the second promise never held, but it is my second favorite Sci Fi out there. And once you hit season 3 you won't be able to stop even to sleep.

  36. Starships are done, done, done. by chrome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Starships on Trek have been done. You can't do yet another one, without falling back onto the old formula. DS9 was good because it was a different formula, but even it got stale after a while. Star Trek Academy would suck, please don't do that. If Trek does come back, I'd like to see a show based on the idea of a (Culture reference here) "Special Circumstances" team, a group of top Starfleet specialists who are basically a special operations team that are show into dangerous situations, and with limited equipment and resources they need to resolve a serious problem that concerns the Federation. Or something else. Just not yet another Enterprise.