PeterDavid.net

There's an online petition to get Angel picked back up, but here's what James Marsters(Spike) has to say on the subject.

Update from the James Marsters forum...

*

Quick Postcard Campaign to Save Angel

Unfortunately, emailing networks or posting in online petitions is a waste of time. As soon as they start getting emails, they set up spam filters to delete the mail and they don't ever see what comes in. Waiting around for somebody to organize something is wasting precious time--organized campaigns are going to be great but here's something you can do NOW.

If you want to actually do something that actually might--MIGHT--help to get another season for Angel...

DO THIS TOMORROW

1. Go and buy some postcards that show scenes from your city. Tourist postcards. Postcards that have the name of your town or city or area of the country on them. You don't need anything fancy, just something that will show immediately where you are located so they know this is coming from all over.

2. Write a short message on the postcard in your own words saying that you want Angel to be renewed and support the show. Keep it positive. Don't be insulting. Don't be abusive.

3. Address the postcard to one of the people on the list of addresses in this message. Levin may ignore the cards coming into the WB, but the media outlets will see there's a story in this and publicize it. The names on the list are in order of importance so start at the top and send as many postcards as you want to (or can afford to send).

4. Go and get at least six friends who probably aren't reading this on the internet but would be willing to send postcards, and get them to do the same thing.

5. DO IT TOMORROW! Speed of response is what counts along with the size of the response. Don't wait for instructions from some group. Just DO IT.

Here are the addresses to mail your cards to:

Matt Roush

TV Guide

Box 500

Radnor, PA 19088-0500

The Hollywood Reporter

Attn: Cynthia Littleton

5055 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90036-4396

Entertainment Tonight,

Paramount Pictures Domestic TV

Roddenberry Building

5555 Melrose Avenue

Hollywood, CA 90038

Extra

Warner Bros

4000 Warner Blvd.

Triangle Building, 4th Floor

Burbank, CA 91522

Entertainment Weekly

1675 Broadway New York

NY 10019

TNT is the best possibility to pick up Angel since they've gotten good ratings with the reruns and do some original programming.

Turner Network Television

Attn: Robert DeBitetto (pres, original programming)

1888 Century Park East, 14th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Turner Network Television

Attn: Julie Wietz (exec vp. original programming)

1888 Century Park East, 14th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Turner Network Television

Attn: Attn: Mr. Jamie Kellner, Chairman and CEO

1050 Techwood Dr. NW

Atlanta, GA 30318

Turner Network Television

Attn: Garth Ancier, Executive Vice-President, Programming

1050 Techwood Dr. NW

Atlanta, GA 30318

Rumor is that Levin doesn't accept cards or letters and they get returned, but a flood of mail might make news even if it doesn't get through

Warner Brothers Network

Attn: Jordan Levin, CEO

4000 Warner Blvd., Building 34R

Burbank, CA 91522

(818) 977-5000

*

And, if you want to send cards to Joss to express support and let him know the level of interest, here's where to send them:

Joss Whedon

C/o Mutant Enemy Productions

PO Box 900

Beverly Hills, CA 90213

And to send cards supporting the cast and crew:

Angel Productions

20th Century Fox

PO Box, 900

Beverly Hills

CA, 90213-0900

Now, if you actually want to accomplish something, make some news, and maybe, just maybe, get a sixth season for Angel...

DO THIS TOMORROW AND DON'T PUT IT OFF!

Also, permission is given to repost this message to other lists, message boards and other places that are interested in supporting Joss and Angel. Spread the word and let's do something quickly. Speed counts.

*

Let me just add to that.

For further information on what you can do to help save Angel,go to http://www.renewangel.com/

Best wishes,

Scott

I like TV, and sometimes I'm unhappy to see shows I like end, but never enough to actually petition and whatnot.

Angel getting cancled is a huge disapointment. I have a few hopes for it being picked up by another network, but hearing that Enterprise is facing the same thing is just darn depressing.

Those are two of the only Primetime shows I even watch. My Dad and I love watching Enterprise, and it's writing has been top notch, and really gives a feel of the TOS.

Angel also is just being cut down becuase it's too popular, and thus too costly to keep. Sounds just like Buffy, but with no UPN net to catch it.

Enterprise cancelled?

There IS a God.

Now they just need to fire Berman and Braga.

Re: Trek Enterprise

What I have been reading is that it remains on the bubble. Les Moonves has yet to make a decision. It wouldn't surprise me to see it cancelled because -- wow -- it blows. If you had asked me last year whether Paramount would ever cancel a Trek show in advance of its seventh season, my answer would have been 'no.'

But since then, I've watched as VOYAGER and DS9 have done terrible in syndication ratings.

My theory has always been that Paramount invests in the Trek franchise to break even now, but make buckets of money years down the road through syndicated reruns.

Paramount is now seeing that model is no longer working. They have to ask themselves now where they're gonna make their money in Trek?

I hear that Berman and Braga's leadership of the franchise is under scrutiny by the good folks at Paramount. These guys should have been given the boot after INSURRECTION and most certainly after NEMESIS. Now, it may be too late to fix the problem...

But here's my solution: Turn the lights off of at ENTERPRISE. Fire Berman and Braga, thanking them for their time. Regroup.

Hire new talent. Find some folks who know how to write character and plot, people who both understand Trek AND know how to engage an audience. THEN and only THEN create a new series revolving around the Enterprise-E with an all-new cast.

The thing I would encourage, this is key, is that they shouldn't shoot another show or movie until they are bursting with the need to tell the story.

Face it, Enterprise is paycheck driven. There's no story there aching to be told.

Aron Head

EvilBastard.net

I have to admit that sometimes I stay with a disappointing comic book because Im sure the creative team will either pick up the pace or leave and a new team will come aboard. I have felt the same about these 2 shows for awhile now. Season 5 has not really inpressed me and I am disappointed by more shows than I like of Enterprise. I really do think that Star Trek needs a break. Maybe a miniseries or two can take the place of a regular show. Angel on the other hand deserved another season.

Actually, Angel hasn't been "Cacelled" so much as "Not Renewed", in an interview on the subject Joss said it would run to the end of this season at least.

Paging UPN...Time to snatch another Whedon show from WB...

Nothing left for me to watch on WB...

I like Enterprise, it's one of a handful of shows I watch every week and would be dissappointed to miss an episode.

As long as they finish up and don't leave things hanging. 1 more season is ok. I'm more upset when shows are renewed and then cancelled with a cliffhanger ending anyway (FArscape).

As far as Angle goes, I've only been watching since last season, and this season I was waiting for reruns to watch. Guess I may have to waith for my buddy to get the DVD's and then I'll watch it.

I feel sorry for the people working on these shows and how they can find steady work.

I do agree the need to rid Trek of B&B is even stronger than Disney needs to get rid of Eisner. what's Robert Wolf up to?

ANGEL's had a decent run; much as one might like to see it continue, it may be just as well to ring down its curtain before the franchise disintegrates. Too, there is still much room in the Buffy/Angelverse for further storytelling in other series or other forms (what's the current status of the RIPPER project?).

ENTERPRISE is a different animal. I don't think the problem with the series rests entirely Berman & Braga, though I do think that the Trek franchise could benefit from fresher blood in the driver's seat.

My issue with ENTERPRISE is one of series design. The reason the new show has had such difficulty telling fresh stories is that it uses exactly the same template as that of TOS, TNG, and VOYAGER: starship command crew wanders the galaxy and has adventures. It's a decent template, to be sure, but it becomes more and more difficult over time to do new things with that template.

DS9 succeeded largely by not using the starship-command-crew template; it was still Star Trek, but it wasn't (mostly) a clone of TOS/TNG. By mostly staying in one place -- and doing a good job of worldbuilding for that setting -- the producers pushed the boundaries of the franchise and broadened the scope of the Trek universe.

Thus if I were pitching a new Trek series to succeed ENTERPRISE, I wouldn't make it a starship show. I can think of at least two Trek-series concepts I would pitch instead; there's a lot of room in the Federation universe for other series-types to work. (For evidence of which, see the newly released "Sam Cogley mystery" in the Trek paperback line.)

Nor is weekly series format the only prospect. I've long thought that one way to keep the franchise alive -- and to make good use of established characters -- might be to produce two or three made-for-TV features a year as "event" programming.

Damn. Both of these are shows that i like... poor Joss loosing all three of his genius shows in one year... granted Buffy he ended by choice, but Firefly and Angel are getting canned unfairly. Isn't Angel one of the WB's highest rated shows?

As for Enterprise it was a bit slow at first but this last season its begun to pick back up. If they just got rid of that damn stupid intro...

I'd seen an Enterprise article a few weeks ago saying that they were cutting this season down to 24 eps, and were going to do the same for next year, yielding 2x26 + 2x24=102 total... just enough for syndication.

It's not the seven season stuff that's critical, it's the 100-episode syndication mark. That's a serious financial consideration. So they'd kill it now if they don't think they can sell the 4-year package, or try to rescue it in the remaining 30 episodes so they can sell it forever.

Angel's already hit 100, and WB doesn't own the syndie rights anyway: any more that they push it means money in Fox's coffers, and an expensive contract renegotiation too.

I cannot say that I will be upset to see Enterprise canceled. From the start of the third season, the show went from bad to worse and has continued it's downward spiral, as far as I am concerned. The main complaint I had with it, aside from crappy writing of course, is that the promise of NOT rewriting history was blown early on in the first season. There were established TREK universe timelines that were just plain ignored and while I would normally not mind all that much, we're talking about THIRTY years of history here.

As for Angel, I really enjoy the show a lot. Most of the time (if you can keep Boreanaz out of the director's chair from now on...LOL) the episodes are very well done and quite entertaining. I will be profoundly sad to see it go off the air, if the cancellation does indeed, take place.

I think a Star Trek show featuring that new starship from ST:Voyager would be awesome. It was the ship in the episode when the Doctor was transmitted to the Alpha Quadrant via an alien relay and met that ship's holo doctor. I can't recall the name of the ship (Prometheus?) but it's the ship could split into 3 vehicles for battles.

Just my 2 cents, of course...

I hear that Berman and Braga's leadership of the franchise is under scrutiny by the good folks at Paramount. These guys should have been given the boot after INSURRECTION and most certainly after NEMESIS. Now, it may be too late to fix the problem...

Poor Harv Bennet, He produced one Trek movie that was a flop, (after doing what remains the most sucessful of the films) and he was told not to let the door hit him on the way out. Imagine his annoyance when looking at the current caretakers continuing to lose viewers by the boatload and somehow keep thier jobs. If Enterprise had been on any other network but UPN it would have been canned halfway though the first season, they can't possibly argue that they didn't have a chance to make it work. Might I suggest that if Paramount wants to try again they go with the "Starfleet Acedmy" concept, basically the adventures of a young James Kirk. Trek is supposed to be young people, (high school and college age kids was always it's primary audience, not aging fanboys like myself), and a new show with a young cast and characters the audience is already familar with, (Kirk is already an ICON, something none of the spinoffs have ever managed to create no matter how hard they try) might help bring that audience back. Plus it has a built in hollywood pitch line "It's SMALLVILLE meets STAR TREK".

The main complaint I had with it, aside from crappy writing of course, is that the promise of NOT rewriting history was blown early on in the first season. There were established TREK universe timelines that were just plain ignored and while I would normally not mind all that much, we're talking about THIRTY years of history here.

You have any examples of this? I thought that Enterprise did a good job of sticking to canon so far and I can't think of any blatant examples of ignored continuity off the top of my head.

Um, examples?

Archer has met the borg, I believe, despite what happened in TNG. Oh, and wasn't Spock the first Vulcan to serve aboard a starfleet vessel? (And yes, I know the argument about him being the first 'Starfleet' officer, but T-Pol is second in command, which makes her a de-facto one as well.

I definitely won't miss Enterprise. I never found the show painfully bad like I did Voyager (I think I watched all of one episode after the mid-second season, the Sulu one), but I did find it very, very dull. Since I moved to Gainesville, we don't have UPN - plus, of course, it's on opposite Angel - so I haven't bothered watching it.

Angel, on the other hand, I'll miss. I'm a little concerned about it going on much longer; X-Files is the only genre show that I can think of that didn't start going downhill in its sixth season. Buffy had a few very, very good eps in its sixth, but also several very bad ones. I do think this is the best season of Angel so far, though it's kind of hard for me to judge, since I watched them so unconventionally (saw every single ep seasons 1-4 last summer).

We gave up on Enterprise this year. We watched the season opener to see the "new direction" and saw a rather shallow sexed-up action show. We've seen maybe two episodes since and weren't impressed enough to tune back regularly. When Enterprise moves back opposite of West Wing, we won't be recording or watching anymore.

My wife and I met at a Trek club, and I read Imzadi to her cover-to-cover. In recent years, though, Trek has suffered a great deal. We watched Voyager most of the time, but not all. However, Nemesis was the first and only Trek movie that I never saw in the theatre (for that matter I saw all the others opening day).

No longer can Paramount put the words Star Trek on anything and have a sure sale. When die-hards like us quit watching, Paramount has serious concerns.

** The main complaint I had with it, aside from crappy writing of course, is that the promise of NOT rewriting history was blown early on in the first season. There were established TREK universe timelines that were just plain ignored and while I would normally not mind all that much, we're talking about THIRTY years of history here.

You have any examples of this? I thought that Enterprise did a good job of sticking to canon so far and I can't think of any blatant examples of ignored continuity off the top of my head. **

Encounters with the Borg, Encounters with the Feringie, (both of which trample, unnessarily over Next Gen continuty). Kirk's Enterprise no longer being the first ship to travel in time, (and by extension Kirk no longer being the first Captain to travel in time), Mind Melds being changed from scared part of Vulcan culture, used in thier religious cerimonies by thier high priest no less, to a disgusting habit that causes the Vulcan version of AIDS/Althimers. Vulcans being changed from cool logical aliens to know it all paraniod, bigoted jerks who spy on thier neighbors, surpress thier own population, lie to thier allies etc etc. And of course in 30+ years of continutiy no one ever mentioned an attack on earth that killed millions, (Strange, you would have thought that Spock or Data would have mentioned that somewhere along the way, you would have thought Wesly Crusher would have had to study it if nothing else), and of course we never befor heard of the aliens that were behind that attack.

Who can save Star Trek? I know he's TECHNICALLY not fresh blood, but my first choice would be Ira Steven Behr. The DS9 Episodes he wrote were inventive. Sometimes they were dark, some times they made me laugh my ass off, and other times they made turn my TV off for an hour after then end of the show so I could sit there and think. Sometimes all three at once.

If everyone is just going to sit around and say how sad they are going to be if Angel gets cancelled, and not speak out then it WILL get cancelled.

So don't sit around and hope someone else steps up and saves the show. Every person helps! If you want this show to survive then help it survive!

And of course in 30+ years of continutiy no one ever mentioned an attack on earth that killed millions

Most of the folks I talk to believe that the finale for Enterprise will be a great big time knot invalidating the entire shows reality in order to make Kirk's reality valid. Making it even lamer than Bobby Ewing's shower, and nowhere near as much fun as "Emily, you should wear more sweaters."

Enterprise will be remembered as largely apocryphal the same way the Trek Animated series is considered out of continuity. I'm not surprised by the imminent cancellation; Berman and Braga have been running on fumes and collecting paychecks for years. Here's my heretical idea for the next Trek series...

Star Trek. The adventures of Captain James Tiberius Kirk, his Vulcan science officer Mr.Spock and irascible Doctor Leonard McCoy. Basically I'm calling for the "Ultimatization" of the originaly series. If you're unfamiliar with the term (which I sort of doubt) Marvel relaunched some of its titles with a seperate continuity. I think the Original Series can be reimagined in 21st century terms, while keeping the optimisim and adventure of the 60's incarnation. Remember it was a 60's idea of what the next 300 years would be like.

BTX

Enterprise will be remembered as largely apocryphal the same way the Trek Animated series is considered out of continuity. I'm not surprised by the imminent cancellation; Berman and Braga have been running on fumes and collecting paychecks for years. Here's my heretical idea for the next Trek series...

Star Trek. The adventures of Captain James Tiberius Kirk, his Vulcan science officer Mr.Spock and irascible Doctor Leonard McCoy. Basically I'm calling for the "Ultimatization" of the originaly series. If you're unfamiliar with the term (which I sort of doubt) Marvel relaunched some of its titles with a seperate continuity. I think the Original Series can be reimagined in 21st century terms, while keeping the optimisim and adventure of the 60's incarnation. Remember it was a 60's idea of what the next 300 years would be like.

As long as we can sweep away all the unnessary garbage that was retconned in after the fact, (Kirk being a troublemaker who never followed orders, starfleet not being a military organization and it's personal being exploriers not military men, Everyone in Starfleet getting along so nicly there was never any conflict) I'm all for it. Although I still think the starfleet acedmy concept might be the way to go.

And of course in 30+ years of continutiy no one ever mentioned an attack on earth that killed millions

Most of the folks I talk to believe that the finale for Enterprise will be a great big time knot invalidating the entire shows reality in order to make Kirk's reality valid. Making it even lamer than Bobby Ewing's shower, and nowhere near as much fun as "Emily, you should wear more sweaters."

I saw this coming in the first season when much was being made about a temporal cold war. I'm hoping we're wrong only because I can't see producers being that stupid, really I can't.

Enterprise will be remembered as largely apocryphal the same way the Trek Animated series is considered out of continuity.

You know it bothers me that the Animated series is out of continuty, sure there were some really lame stories but that's true of the live action Trek. The animated show also had a few gems, (The follow up to the Tribles story, the Guardian of forever story where Spock traveled back in time and became his own uncle, an amuzing Harry Mudd story, a Larry Niven short story readapted as a Trek story), sure the animation was limited but some of the scripts were done by writers of the original series and all things concidered weren't that bad. Plus Peter David and other writers have used some of the characters from the animated shows in the novels and comics, to good effect.

This is going to a long comment, responding to comments made by Jeff and Darren J. Hudak about Enterprise and it's perceived lack of continuity with the other Star Trek shows.

Borg: It was established in Voyager (Dark Frontier) that at least some elements of the Federation knew of the Borg before Picard did. So they had to get that information from somewhere. I thought the Borg episode made things seem MORE consistent since they showed how the Borg apparently knew to attack the Federation even before "Q Who" (in "The Neutral Zone"), by having a signal go to them.

Spock: It's never, ever been stated in any episode or movie that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet. It may be 'common knowledge' among fans, but it still hasn't been established by any onscreen, canon source. I wouldn't mind if T'Pol joined Starfleet, since there is NOTHING to contradict other than the notion in many fans minds that something is fact when in fact it has no basis in Star Trek canon.

Ferengi: They made sure that they didn't learn the name of the race that attacked the Enterprise. That may seem like a cop-out, and it is to an extent, but they did make an attempt to be consistent. Also, it was clear that people in the Federation knew of the Ferengi even before TNG, since there was a joke in "Encounter at Farpoint" about them. We were also expected to believe that Picard's //Stargazer// was defeatedby the Ferengi several years before TNG without knowing much about them.

"Kirk's //Enterprise// no longer being the first ship to travel in time": Source please? I can't recall where this was ever stated.

"Mind Melds being changed from scared part of Vulcan culture, used in thier religious cerimonies by their high priest no less, to a disgusting habit that causes the Vulcan version of AIDS/Althimers": I'm pretty sure that it was previously established that the mind meld was an ancient ritual, and I don't think "Fusion" contradicted that. The episode showed that the Vulcans people did not accept the Mind Meld at that time even though it was ancient. Obviously the Vulcan culture changes in the 100+ years after //Enterprise//.

"Vulcans being changed from cool logical aliens to know it all paraniod, bigoted jerks who spy on thier neighbors, surpress thier own population, lie to thier allies etc etc.": I don't think that the Vulcan attitude had changed that much, or at all. First of all, you can't really consider Spock nor Serek to be typical Vulcans. The first was half-human and the other married at least two. Even so, Serek was shown to be stubborn at times, not speaking to Spock for years since he joined Starfleet. In "Yesteryear" it was shown that the other Vulcan children were mean. (I guess that taking TAS into a conversation about continuity and canon isn't a good idea, but I feel it did set the tone of the Vulcans for many writers of later shows) "Take Me Out to the Holosuite" showed Vulcan behaviour not dissimilar to that of the Vulcans on Enterprise. Some Vulcans attitudes were different, like Tuvok, but it was established in "Flashback" that Tuvok's parents wanted him to emulate Spock by also going into StarFleet. These examples should show that there are differences between individual Vulcans and those that are in higher up may not represent the entirety of Vulcan culture. (For the "lieing aspect" of Vulcans, Spock has been known to deveive at times, like in "The Enterprise Incident". Also, part of the perceived change in Vulcan philosophy may also be attributed to the work of the Vulcans in "Fusion".

"And of course in 30+ years of continutiy no one ever mentioned an attack on earth that killed millions, (Strange, you would have thought that Spock or Data would have mentioned that somewhere along the way, you would have thought Wesly Crusher would have had to study it if nothing else), and of course we never befor heard of the aliens that were behind that attack.": The storyline is not done yet. It seems to me that the Expanse is going to be gone by the end of the season since the Sphere were artificially created. The main reason why they didn't mention the attack in the other Star Trek series was that Enterprise wasn't written yet, but of course that's the obvious answer. I see two possibilities: Enterprise somehow erases the incident from the past, (note that it was mentioned by Daniels that the changes hadn't reached the 29th century yet and it wasn't supposed to happen), or that it did happen and it just wasn't mentioned. How often was the Tomed incident mentioned? Once (I belive), in "The Neutral Zone". Even though "thousands" of lives were lost. Why was it mentioned? Because it was relevant to the matter at hand. Why was the Earth-Romulan war mentioned in "Balance of Terror"? Because it was relevant. Why weren't the Xindi mentioned in later series? Maybe they all died. Maybe they weren't relevant to the situation at hand. Fans would complain either way: If they make up a new enemy, people will complain that they never heard of them before. If they use a known enemy (say the Romulans), they would complain that they don't have an original idea no matter how well thought out the story is. Until we know how the story ends, we won't have an idea about how 'history' will remember the incident.

Now, I thought the first two seasons of Enterprise were still pretty bad, but I don't think they were bad because of continuity (which as I explained above I don't think violated a lot) but rather of some pretty bad writing. I think it has improved greatly this season.

I'd like to see a new Trek series that focuses on both the Academy and Starfleet Medical. They can bring in Gates McFadden as Beverley Crusher full time again! Just as long as they don't bring in B4--the only bad part of NEMESIS in my opinion.

Daniel

Good thing you created this entry for all the Angel talk to move to, PAD.

"Kirk's //Enterprise// no longer being the first ship to travel in time": Source please? I can't recall where this was ever stated.

Spock mentions that they are the first to travel though time, (in fact, if memory serves, he specifically mentions that they proved time travel is possible), the first time in the old series that they traveled back in time.

The ONLY way out for Enterprise is for the powers that be tack on two extra episodes to the season for a total of 26 and then do the following:

-1- Wrap up the Xindi arc. Do what it takes, but by the end of the credits, get NX-01 out of the Expanse.

-2- End the temporal Cold War. But do it in a way that RESTORES the continuity as we ALL knew it prior to all of those resets as established by Enterprise.

-3- As a possible consequence of the end of the temporal Cold War, strand the NX-01 into the future. The 24th Century will do nicely. Now THAT would be a true fish-out-of-water series that would allow for the wonder and awe so sorely lacking in the series.

-4- Give the franchise a break. Two or three years will do nicely. Give the current regime their walking papers. And then find JMS, PAD, and a few other proven talents in the genre, and let them have a crack at it.

-5- You know, if the powers that be REALLY want to start a new series, I know of a starship captain with purple eyes that might well fit the ticket...

Cheers,

Bryan

And of course in 30+ years of continutiy no one ever mentioned an attack on earth that killed millions

hmmm...I agree with all the statements except perhaps this one. And, really, the only reason I disagree with it is that this isn't the first time Trek has done something like this.

I'm thinking about the Federation/Cardassian war. It evidently ended shortly before the beginning of TNG, and yet we don't hear a single thing about it until, what, season three? And yet somehow it still worked, and created one of the more compelling antagonist races in all of ST lore (in my opinion - I know some will find this offensive, but I find the Cardassians far more interesting than the overrated Klingons).

Still, I will not mourn the passing of Enterprise. Sure, the first season had some good stuff, and the initial concept was great, but it just fizzled for me (everything after and including the Ferengi episode has just fallen flat for me).

Personally, I'm hoping for a Bobby Ewing/shower type ending for the series at this point. Or the Enterprise being lost battling the Kzinti (TAS reference, for those not in the know). Or both :)

Richard: I was wondering as New Frontier is so popular, is there any chance it becoming the next Star Trek TV show?

Luigi Novi: As Peter has stated to me and others in person and on this blog, New Frontier will NEVER be a TV show for two reasons:

1. Because Peter created most of the characters, he’d have to be paid a royalty for each one used, and for each episode, and as he commented the last time I saw him at Midtown Comics in Times Square, NY, the royalties from just one episode would be enough to put all three of his daughters (Caroline had not been born yet) through college. It has been opined that this is why the character Robert Duncan McNeil played on Voyager was a completely new character, and not Nick Locarno, the character with the similar background that he played in New Ground(TNG), and why Jolene Blalock’s character on Enterprise was not T’Pau from Amok Time(TOS) as early pre-show publicity suggested. The writers of those original episodes would have to be paid royalties for every episode Nick Locarno and T’Pau appeared in.

2. Whoever is in charge of Trek wants to be able to take credit for the series that they create, not something that someone else created. Personally, I find this reason the more perplexing one, since even people who adapt material well get credit for it, as when Steven Spielberg directs a movie based on a book by Michael Crichton, Alice Walker or Philip K. Dick, or the whoever wins the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar (as opposed to the Best Original Screenplay Oscar), but Peter has, IIRC given this as a reason why NF won’t be on the small screen.

M. Keller: The main complaint I had with it, aside from crappy writing of course, is that the promise of NOT rewriting history was blown early on in the first season. There were established TREK universe timelines that were just plain ignored and while I would normally not mind all that much, we're talking about THIRTY years of history here.

Darryl: You have any examples of this? I thought that Enterprise did a good job of sticking to canon so far and I can't think of any blatant examples of ignored continuity off the top of my head.

Luigi Novi: You’re joking, right? Hmm….let’s see…

Remember Me(TNG) and Trials and Tribble-ations(DS9) both established that Kirk’s Enterprise was the first, and without qualifier (i.e.: “Federation” starship…). Enterprise says otherwise.

A Matter of Time(TNG) established that there were no phasers in the 22nd century, yet Archer’s crew has “phase pistols”, which certainly sound like a 22nd century version of phasers. And why did Captain Pike use lasers in The Cage(TOS)?

The First Contact with the Klingons depicted in Broken Bow(ENT), the pilot, totally contradicts what was established in by Picard in First Contact(TNG) and McCoy in Day of the Dove(TOS). Picard, said that the encounter led to decades of war, which it apparently did not, and don’t tell me that they might go to war with the Klingons, because aside from the fact that Bones said they were only blood enemies for 50 years at the time of Day of the Dove (well over a hundred years after Broken Bow), that would not mean that First Contact with them led to it, unless you use an obtusely broad meaning of the word “led.” Picard also spoke of this incident as leading to the need for surveillance of societies on the verge of achieving warp prior to First Contact, a situation entirely different from the one depicted in Broken Bow.

In the second episode, Unexpected(ENT), the crew encountered a ship with cloaking technology, even though in Balance of Terror(TOS), cloaking technology was new, and Spock even said that invisibility wass theoretically possible.

Terra Nova(ENT) attempted to establish that the Terra Nova colony was Earth’s first outside its solar system, even though Metamorphosis(TOS) established that Zephram Cochrane moved to the Alpha Centauri colony not long after 2119.

Numerous members of Archer’s crew, including Archer himself, Trip, Reed, and Phlox, has have had numerous conversations in which they learned of Vulcan pon far in episodes like Fusion(ENT), Fallen Hero(ENT), Two Days and Two Nights(ENT), and Bounty(ENT), yet no one, including, Bones, had any knowledge of it in Amok Time(TOS).

A Piece of the Action(TOS) made it clear that subspace radio had not been invented until after 2168, but Silent Enemy(ENT) shows Archer’s crew deploying and beginning to use subspace radio relays, even though that episode is set in 2151.

Archer’s encounter with four Ferengi in Acquistion(ENT), directly contradicts The Last Outpost(TNG), which made it clear that Picard’s encounter with them in that latter ep was the Federation’s first with them. Rationalizers have tried to argue that the Ferengi never told Archer what the name of their race was, but that’s just plain stupid. As soon as Archer retook the shop from them and overpowered them, he should not only have interrogated them and had Hoshi examine the entire database from their ship, which would’ve gleaned this info, but he should’ve made a visual record of them for future reference.

The term “First Contact” seemed to refer to the first formal encounter between two alien people, which is supported by the fact that humans’ first contact with aliens is considered to be the open, formal one in ST First Contact with the Vulcans, and not the numerous mostly unknown or clandestine visitations by aliens to Earth established in Time’s Arrow part I and II(TNG), Tattoo(VOY), Death Wish(VOY), etc. But Carbon Creek(ENT), which depicted Vulcans visiting Earth in 1957, attempted to refer to this clandestine visitation as “First Contact.”

The assertion in Stigma(ENT) that there was a strong stigma in Vulcan society attached to the mind meld is totally at odds with premises regarding the mind meld established in a multitude of episodes and movies like ST II, ST III, Gambit partII(TNG).

Archer’s crew encounters non-corporeal, energy-based lifeforms in The Crossing(ENT), even though Spock spoke of non-corporeal life as a possibility in Wolf in the Fold(TOS).

The Breach(ENT) indicated that Denobulans, who, along with humans and Vulcans, are part of the Medical Exchange program, are familiar with Tribbles, even though Bones never had heard of them in The Trouble with Tribbles(TOS).

Up until Regeneration(ENT), I was content to accept the possibility that reports of the El Aurians rescued in ST Generations were filed away someplace, since they didn’t have visual records, proof, or possibly even detailed explanations of the people who they fled from. But in Regeneration, we have LOADS OF PHOTOGRAPHS of Borg drones, which Data should’ve produced in when they “first” encountered them in Q Who(TNG). And Phlox’s discovery that omicron particles are harmful to the nanoprobes was ever mentioned in any of the NextGen or Voyager episodes featuring the Borg.

Intraship beaming was said to be extremely hazardous in Day of the Dove(TOS), but Archer does so in Chosen Realm(ENT) without any mention of difficulty or danger.

Should I go on?

Enterprise’s writing has improved this season, and the Xindi arc has provided some nice ongoing storylines, but its attention to continuity is not that great, particularly since the very premise of the show contradicts established Trek history, and I don't buy most of the tortured logic gymnastics used to rationalize these things. This wouldn't even be so bad if the writing were as good as on DS9 or NextGen. I would KILL to have Ronald D. Moore, Ira Steven Behr, Rene Ecchevaria, and Robert Hewitt Wolfe, and a bunch of other guys with middle initials to take over the franchise.

Jeff: Oh, and wasn't Spock the first Vulcan to serve aboard a starfleet vessel? (And yes, I know the argument about him being the first 'Starfleet' officer, but T-Pol is second in command, which makes her a de-facto one as well.

Luigi Novi: I don’t recall any episode that established that he was the first Vulcan to serve on a Starfleet ship. Which one was this?

I dunno. I guess I am in a very small minority that actually really enjoys watching Enterprise. Up until this whole "Xindi" storyline began, I thought the series was one of the freshest and original in the Star Trek pantheon. My only criticism is that the blatant sexuality in the show seems either forced or out of place. Trek has always had a level of sexuality, but it always seemed to fit well until this series. Setting that aside, I enjoy watching this show every Wednesday night and hope it will continue through its planned, seven year run.

But what do I know. I also enjoyed Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.

Here's my take on the Trek continuity issue..

The Borg for example. Everything you saw in the Next Generation happened exactly the way you saw it...UNTIL the First Contact film when the Borg went back into time, and thus the continuity was altered. So you should just view the Next Gen episodes as a window to the pre-altered continuity.

The same thing with the 'Future's End' storyline in Voyager which ended up accelerating Earth's technology at a faster rate. Thus that explains why a lot of the tech on Enterprise seems more advanced than the tech on the Original Trek series.

And finally Capt. Archer's continual interference in the Sulibans affairs in their Temporal Cold-War, has pissed-off the Sulibans, so they sic the Xindi on them by telling them that the humans would destroy them in the future. Thus again the timeline was altered. So we should view the Original Trek series as a window to before the timeline was altered. There cannot be any mention of the Earth attack if the timeline hasn't been altered yet.

And if Enterprise is cancelled, I'll be bitterly disappointed. The current season finally seems to be going somewhere, and I'd hate to see it go now.

Darren J. Hudak: Kirk's Enterprise no longer being the first ship to travel in time, (and by extension Kirk no longer being the first Captain to travel in time),

Darryl: Source please? I can't recall where this was ever stated.

Darren J. Hudak: Spock mentions that they are the first to travel though time, (in fact, if memory serves, he specifically mentions that they proved time travel is possible), the first time in the old series that they traveled back in time.

Luigi Novi: Well, duh, of course it was. Obviously, Darryl was asking which episode this occurred in, Darren.

The first episode in which Kirk’s Enterprise traveled back in time was The Naked Time(TOS), and Spock’s dialogue did seem to indicate that this was the first time that time-travel had been successful, but keep in mind that this was the crew doing this on their own with the Enterprise. Archer hasn’t traveled back in time with his ship, but has done so only with Daniels.

Feh! I find it hard to believe that 'Enterprise' isn't getting the same amount of 'do-overs' that 'V'ger' did. That show was dead in the water since season three!

Anyways, I won't be sorry to see 'Enterprise' go.

Perhaps they can concoct some kind of series with a TNG-DS9-Farscape vibe...maybe I'm asking too much.

Making it even lamer than Bobby Ewing's shower, and nowhere near as much fun as "Emily, you should wear more sweaters

I think the Bobby Ewing shower episode was the LAST episode of Dallas that the wife or I viewed. I felt so cheated, I swore off of it.

What is the Emily reference? Bob Newhart show maybe?

Also, what is a retconned?

Thank you.

Lets just wait a few years. Im sure Joss will have Ripper on TV and an Angel/Buffy movie out, where they fight a mega demon, get transported back through time to the point where the first human and vampire mingle. Buffy can end the Vampire theat before it begins, but in doing so, looses Angel.

Star Trek might fail as Starfleet Academy, just because more girls watch these Dawson Creek shows than guys and Star Trek is still a mostly guy show.

I would like to see a Small Starship that travels to world and puts our diplomatic fires. There would be a tiny crew of 7-8 people, a captain, diplomat, security or two, an aide and so on. Several episodes could be in an arc (3 episodes on andor dealing with a civil war) (5 shows on Telar dealing with a terrorist threat.

Lets give trek and Joss a break for a few years.

Actually, I believe the TOS claim was that Spock was the first Vulcan to attend Starfleet Academy, not the first Vulcan in Starfleet.

Ok, I found a reference, according to "The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A reference Guide to the Future"(Copyright 1994, First Printing April 1994)

Pg 309 "Spock was the first Vulcan to enlist in the Federation Starfleet, and distinguished himself greatly as the science officer aboard the original USS Enterprise."

Dunno how official of a source the book is, but it confirmed my memory of Spock's history.

Peter needs to license the characters out at a discount rate so a TV show (or at least a few movies) can be made.

Hey, I'm not much of a Star Trek fan, but I had a gay friend in college who was a huge fan, and he always wondered where all the homosexuals were in the future. He wondered if they discover homosexuality was a gene thing and wipe it out, or are they all on one ship touring the universe somewhere. THAT would be a different Star Trek series.

Gary B, the last scene in the final episode of "Newhart" revealed that the entire series had been Dr. Bob Hartley's (of "The Bob Newhart Show") dream.

I think TV Guide once listed it as the greatest series-ending scene ever.

The beauty of it was, the studio audience realized what was happening as soon as Bob turned on the light by the bed (I imagine they recognized the set), and gave out a huge roar when Suzanne Pleshette appeared from beneath the covers. I always wondered how Mary Frann felt about that...

"Posted by Alex Clarke @ 02/16/2004 09:20 PM ET

Here's my take on the Trek continuity issue..."

Excuse me while I say..."What???"

*shakes head and just sighs*

Concerning the answers provided by the following writer ( Luigi Novi @ 02/16/2004 09:13 PM ET ), I just HAVE to say...YOU ARE DA MAN!

Add me to the list of the bitterly disappointed fans of Angel. I will be sending out a postcard, if only to console and thank the cast and crew of a fine show.

PAD, any chance of you writing an Angel novelization in the future? That would at least leave something for us forlorn fans to look forward to.

Some thoughts:

On Luigi Novi's comments concerning royalties for character use:

I find it surprising that a writer would retain rights to characters created for a licensed property. I would think that such would be considered "work-for-hire". Or maybe I'm just thinking of comics. Does Timothy Zahn rake in the royalties for all the appearances of the Solo twins in the New Jedi Order? (Or did the twins first appear before the Thrawn trilogy?)

On gary b's questions:

I believe the "Emily reference" is from the finale of Bob Newhart's second titular show, "Newhart", where the entire "Newhart" series was just a dream that Bob's character from the original "Bob Newhart Show" had. He wakes up next to his wife from the original show, and his last comment to her is that she should "wear more sweaters" (since his wife from "Newhart" regularly wore sweaters).

And, "retcon" is an abbreviated form of the phrase "retroactive continuity", meaning that a later story in a series alters the previously established history--thus, it "retroactively" changes the "continuity".

While we're knocking around ideas for new Star Trek shows, how about a JAG-type thing in Starfleet? You'd probably have to base it out of a small starship, and they could zip around putting out Starfleet fires (the types created by Mackenzie Calhoun, no doubt...)

I'm pretty glad Enterprise is gone. Thought it was a blight on Star Trek, personally. Angel, on the other hand will be sorely missed.

About the homosexual characters: the books of Star Trek have always proved the homosexuality exists, but the writers of the TV shows/movies have always tiptoed around putting any in, out of fear of offending their audience no doubt. Always thought that was kind of silly mysel, and contrary to Star Trek ideal of breaking stereotypes (female captains, black captains etc.)

I thought ENTERPRISE gave up on its initial premise too quickly -- they had the whole friggin' universe! -- to turn the show into 24 in space. Forget exploration and discovery; the sole mission is to stop the terrorists, I mean aliens, from committing another unprovoked attack on America, I mean Earth (even if they did attack Florida).

The funny thing is, ENTERPRISE had some very good episodes. "Proving Ground" was extremely good, with the great Jeffrey Combs and the passionate Andorians being a nice contrast to the logical Vulcans; and I liked the "Strategy" ep as well.

While I'm sad to see the shows go, I'm glad they *know* they're going. That gives them a chance to wrap up the storylines, instead of ending smack in the middle of a cliffhanger. (JOHN DOE, anyone?) I suspect ENTERPRISE will somehow reset history, so the attack never happened.

Won't miss Enterprise one bit (and this from someone who made audio tapes - there were no home video set-ups at the time -- of the original series during its initial run).

Never really much cared for Enterprise: the Vulcans being rude rather than stoic, Archer making Sisko's character actually seem animated, the same tired character-driven stories and Gordian time travel paradoxes that Berman, Braga and Bormanis have a jones for, the gratuitous insertion of T&A, the visual dullness of the sets, and the internal inconsistencies (way too many to list here) just didn't float my boat.

Pretty much gave up any hope of finding even a modicum of enjoyment once the interminable, 9/11-inspired Xindi mess got rolling.

Beating the audience mercilessly over the head with a 'message' just results in nasty headaches. Some episodes made this viewer feel he should be wearing a goalie's mask to avoid the blows.

I really hope UPN or someone picks up ANGEL. It deserves to go 7 seasons!!

And I hope Enterprise doesn't get canceled. It has been getting better this season (mostly: it has had a couple of not-so-good episodes). Sure its not Deep Space 9 quality stuff and if I was forced to pick which show to keep (Angel or Enterprise) I'd say ANGEL. So..if UPN canceled Enterprise, but picked up ANGEL.....I could forgive them for canceling Enterprise...(though I'd still miss Enterprise)

BUT still, I really don't want either of the shows canceled. I enjoy ANGEL quite a bit and while Enterprise isn't great: I do enjoy watching it. And its the only Star Trek on right now.

My dream: UPN renews Enteprise and decides to kick Bermen & Braga out and gets somebody really cool (like James Wong & Glen Morgan or Josh Wheldon or somebody else who knows what their doing) to take over Enteprise.

And get some new writers too! Heck, get PAD to write some episodes!!

As for Angel, my dream is that WB will realize their mistake and bring it back next season...lol. Yes, I know the Enterprise thing has a lot more chance of happening...(though it prob won't...). So here's hoping UPN or somebody else picks Angel up..

*sigh* Anyway...here's hoping I don't lose two shows I watch this season.

Really I hope I don't lose any shows...lol *knock on wood*

DF2506

" After last season..with Farscape, Firefly, John Doe...that was too much...especially Farscape (love that show) "

My dream Star Trek series... hmm a few years ago my RPG did ran it already. In game time it was concurrent with the last three seasons of Deep Space Nine. The catch... we were all cardassians drafted to serve on a Galor class warship called the Rezarc. Some of the players were really Pro-Dominion kill the Federation bastards, others were releuctant warriors, a few were in and out of the brig for insubordination, most of them tried to kill each other and then there was me... the lowest ranking member of the crew worked his way up from waste management to Transporter Operator simply by having the common sense to stay out of peoples way. Of course he was also an Obsidian Order/Cardassian Intelligence Agent. Alas while on shore leave on Cardassia, he died in midway through the campaign repaying to debt to an old friend. Something about gathering information on where to get a recording rod and where some of the best holoforgers were. You don't need me to tell you that's the last time he'd ever ask for a discount on a suit.

On the continuity issue I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the Romulan cloaks (and if someone did, and I missed it, I apologize).

In TOS ep "Balance of Terror", when the Romulan ship decloaked, Spock mentioned that cloaking tech was 'theortically possible' and that the Rommies "May have" found away the immense power drain a cloak would require.

In ENTs "Minefield" the NX-01 encounters Romulan ships with cloaks over 100 years prior to "Balance of Terror".

Personally, I'd like to see Enterprise get one more season.

Why? Well, why not?

I thought Angel was doing well in the rating's??? As Far as ENTERPRISE? That should have been cancelled after the first season. I do not call that show Star Trek. That show is more like a Star dud in my humble opinion. I could do a better Trek than that!

Never mind ENTERPRISE! We had good Treks TNG should at least have had 6 movies under their belts by now then pass it onto DS9 & then VOY like TOS did but Berman made sure the last 2 of TNG's storylines were so weak that there was no way for them to continue. Berman seriously needs to be gone and yes, I can't stand him! :)

Might I suggest that if Paramount wants to try again they go with the "Starfleet Acedmy" concept, basically the adventures of a young James Kirk.

I agree with the Academy concept, but not with Kirk. I'd like it to be post TNG/DS9/VOY. The problem with going back in time is the same one facing Enterprise: not only do you constantly have to worry about continuity, but you are limited by it. By setting the story after everything else we've seen, the opportunities to explore are endless.

The problem with an academic setting is the limited scope. DS9 took place on a "backwater" station, but it was in the middle of the Dominion conflict, which had a bearing on the entire Star Trek Universe. A school would only face "What new species of alien is being admitted this week?" and other such problems. They could talk about what happened in other parts of the universe, but they'd never be a part of it themselves.

Enterprise is NOT cancelled. But its future is uncertain. It could very well get the axe or, if renewed, it could move to a different night. UPN will probably make a decision around April when they review their 2004-05 schedule. Until then, if you like the show, show your support for another season.

I would like to know who to send post cards to that will eventuate in a "New Frontier" series.

Am I the only one thinking that Enterprise would work pretty darn well if it's seen as the history/origin of the Mirror Universe? Continuity-wise, anyway. The occasional bouts of bad acting and muteness of main characters is a different matter entirely.

I think the show is improving in quality, but it still has a long way to go. More lax adherence to the minutiae of continuity also makes for better viewing, by the way.

I will miss Angel and should Enterprise be cancelled, I would regret that very much.

If it happens, I would be very frustrated because Enterprise would definitely be more deserving of having seven seasons than Voyager!

Enterprise certainly has its weaknesses but in general, I like the series. Season three is definitely moving into the right direction. I like the continuing storyline and strong continuity within the series.

What I am less fond of is the strong T&A content in many episodes but to be fair, at least it is not as blatantly one-sided as in Voyager and more balanced: Also female fans get something to look at. Nevertheless, the blue underwear in Enterprise is very conservative and women don`t show more than a naked back and bare shoulders.

During the first two seasons Enterprise has only very few episodes I would classify as bad but quite a few that were not better than average. In the third season, so far I like them all. What I am missing now, though, is the sense of fun. The episode in which Shran re-appeared had some great fun moments but that was an exception. Of course the third season so far dealt with a very serious topic, but so did DS9 during the Dominion War storyline. Nevertheless, DS9 didn`t lose the fun element even then.

Also, I am really wondering now why Travis Mayweather is still listed as a main character. He has less to do and to say than a character like Geordi in TNG!

These problems can be fixed and I am sure, this would help Enterprise. I am hoping it will get the chance because I think Enterprise has a lot of potential!

> It has been opined that this is why the character Robert Duncan McNeil played on Voyager was a completely new character, and not Nick Locarno, the character with the similar background that he played in New Ground(TNG), and why Jolene Blalock’s character on Enterprise was not T’Pau from Amok Time(TOS) as early pre-show publicity suggested. The writers of those original episodes would have to be paid royalties for every episode Nick Locarno and T’Pau appeared in.

Didn't Bashir first turn up on TNG?

Bladestar: Ok, I found a reference, according to "The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A reference Guide to the Future"(Copyright 1994, First Printing April 1994)

Pg 309 "Spock was the first Vulcan to enlist in the Federation Starfleet, and distinguished himself greatly as the science officer aboard the original USS Enterprise."

Dunno how official of a source the book is, but it confirmed my memory of Spock's history.

Luigi Novi: The vast majority of the info in the Encyclopedia and Chronology is canonical because it is derived from the episodes and movies. However, such information in those two books usually cites the episode or movie from which that data point is derived, Bladestar, and I noticed that you not only didn’t provide it, but that you’re using a different version of the Encyclopedia, since the one I have does not have info on Spock on page 309. (I’m guessing you’re using the most recent version that came out in 1999 after DS9 ended with the blue cover that had the updated material in the back of the book instead of being incorporated into its main body. I still have only the 1997 updated version with the purple and black cover that has all the new info incorporated into the old in one section.)

Bladestar: Peter needs to license the characters out at a discount rate so a TV show (or at least a few movies) can be made.

Luigi Novi: Amen, brother. I wish they’d give him something like a larger percentage of profits from the merchandising, and/or maybe exec producer/creative consultant status in exchange for reduced royalties, but then again Peter has stated that he’s not keen on moving to the West Coast. :-(

M. Keller: Concerning the answers provided by the following writer ( Luigi Novi @ 02/16/2004 09:13 PM ET ), I just HAVE to say...YOU ARE DA MAN!

Luigi Novi: LOL. Thanks, M. I’m a fan of Phil Farrand’s Nitpicker’s Guides for Trekkers, and a frequent visitor to his message board site, www.nitcentral.com, where I and other nitpickers like to keep track of these things for fun. (Nits do not, IMO, have anything to do, in and of themselves, with the overall quality of the episode, mind you, but I’m hoping to one day maybe publish my own collection of bloopers and blunders that I’ve been compiling for the past several years.) The site’s also grown to include topics including politics, religion, humor, music, novels, movies, science, other TV shows, etc., you can create your own conversation, and moderators actively patrol for trolls, so feel free to visit. :-)

Steve: On the continuity issue I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the Romulan cloaks (and if someone did, and I missed it, I apologize).

Luigi Novi: Apology accepted. :-) (I mentioned it in my 02/16/2004 09:13 PM post, along with 13 other examples of Enterprise continuity mutilation.)

Dee: Berman made sure the last 2 of TNG's storylines were so weak that there was no way for them to continue.

Luigi Novi: Well, you’d think he had done the right thing by hiring the guy who wrote Gladiator and The Last Samuari to write the script, wouldn’t you? Who’d have thought that John Logan would’ve turned in such a weak, ST II-plagiarizing story? (Then again, he also wrote The Time Machine…)

Somebody: Didn't Bashir first turn up on TNG?

Luigi Novi: No, Emissary(DS9) premiered before Birthright part I(TNG). The former premiered on Jan. 3, 1993. The latter premiered on February 22, 1993. In any case, I’m sure that Bashir was specifically created when DS9’s story Bible was written (though his last name was Amaros, since they didn’t know an Arab would be cast).

Just with the licensing of the characters- it applies one-way to book characters going to TV, but not the other?

After all, Selar, Shelby and Lefler all had TV debuts before NF (Burgy too maybe, can't remember), so why doesn't PAD have to pay to use them?

Just curious...

Actually, it was better when Bobby stepped out of the shower and asked...

"What's Family Guy?"

The Newhart ending was still the best though.

I'm really disapponted about Angel, but I have mixed feelings about Enterprise. While We have much of the season 3 recorded, Laura and I haven't watched them yet. However, I was disappointed by the second season if you exclude a few episodes. The Ferengi and Borg episodes are not what broke my balls because 1) If memory serves, Archer and crew didn't know the name of the race, and it wasn't mentioned. Data in The Last Outpost said details on the Ferengi were sketchy at best. 2) T'Pol and Archer mention a Borg transmission that won't get to the Delta Quadrant until the 24th Century, which would coincide with the events of Q-Who?. I'm not saying this makes the episodes better. I'm only saying that this what I perceive to be an explanation for those episodes. The thing that really annoys me about Enterprise is that there is no explanation for the Klingon heads.

JHL

ENTERPRISE should not exist at all. We've seen instances in that universe's established 'future' history of displays showing the ships which have borne the name "Enterprise" and nowhere is NX-01 to be seen. It never existed as far as the established future (ST - MOTIONLESS PICTURE and ST:TNG) is concerned.

Someone above also wrote about the Romulans and Archer's ship. Did we see the Romulans at all in that episode? Because, in the original series BALANCE OF TERROR episode, we're inarguably told that nobody knew what the Romulans looked like.

But it isn't just ENTERPRISE.

Consider the Dominion War or the Borg incursions in TNG/DS9. One of the early episodes in the original series (THE CORBOMITE MANEUVER) had the Federation enter into relations with Balok's bunch, the First Federation. These people fielded spherical vessels the size and apparent power of Borg cubes. When one has allies such as this, the Dominion or, for that matter, the Klingons, really aren't that much of a problem. But nowhere are they ever mentioned outside of the original series. What, they were wiped out by a very species-specific plague? And what of the Organians? Would they really allow the likes of the Borg or Dominion to stomp through known space unchallenged?

They weren't even internally consistent/logical. Look at Defiant. Supposedly a new class of Borg-killer vessel. Heavily powered and armed and equipped with ... an old-model Romulan cloaking device? Nuts to that. Dust off the plans to the Pegasus phasing cloak and put THAT in instead. Now we're talking.

Too, in ENTERPRISE, the ship goes from standard explosive torpedoes to new photon torpedoes (probably based on information gleamed in the Klingon ship they rescued) in the span of months. Yet, from the original series through the ST movies, we see almost no change in technology other than perhaps warp-capable shuttles and the holodeck. Most of whatwe see is version 4.2 of the original stuff. Haven't they managed to obtained ANY worthwhile new technologies in terms of vessel propulsion, offense or defense from races they're allied to, or enemies whose ships they've managed to capture? When even the Ferengi can give the flagship (NCC-1701-D) a tough time, maybe it's past due for a rethink of basic technological direction?

Fans of VOYAGER have created a 'virtual' extension of the show, taking it through season 8 and 9. By the end of the extended series, the Federation has adapted both Borg and Sernaix (a new race developed for these stories) technologies into the new ship designs making them a LOT tougher and more efective all around. If only Paramount could have seen fit to allow official writers to let them go that route early on.

I didn't provide the episode info listed in the book as I didn't see the point in reproducing too much of it. As far as the page number, it should have the same information under the Spock entry in your edition. Mine has a mostly blackish/dark cover...

Someone said something about possible ideas for a new Trek series. In Voyager there was the ship that was captained by Bruce Dern(I think) and went after Janeway saying that she and her crew were responsible for a lot temporal screwups (paraphrasing here), and then there is the temporal agency that Daniels works for in Enterprise. Are the two related or the same? Different time periods? I love time travel episodes, and if you had a series with an agency that went through time correcting mistakes (a la Quantum Leap) I think it would be fun to see other ships, different times. There was the whole thing where the DS9 crew went back and Sisko became the person responsible for the riots. To me, the possibilities are endless.

And no offense to Luigi, or any other nitpickers out there, but I think all of that ruins the fun of a show. I don't like blatant disregard for continuity, but if you get into semantics about the way things are phrased about who the first vulcan in starfleet was, and one source says it was the federation starfleet and another just mentions starfleet, can one argue that they aren't the same thing? Can someone argue that some person says we are the first federation starship to timetravel, and the actual first starship to timetravel did it before the federation was founded? If you're going to nitpick, be complete. After all, you are leaving out the federation at your conveinced, but it's a fairly big organization to be omitted at leisure. Besides, maybe there will be another time travel episode where someone changes what happened so that the first time travel episode that negated the later time travel might not have occured, making the first thought time travel the actual first time travel again, which would in turn create a possible loop that the second time travel that had previously been erased exist again to negate the first time travel, which would do away with the third time travel, and then of course would show that there is no need for a third time travel, which as I'm sure you know by now, would completely be needed to restore everything back to the way it was. (Man! I love Temporal Mecahnics!)

I'm a little saddened, but not terribly suprised that Enterprise may be cancelled. I enjoyed the first two seasons, shakey though they may have been at times. Wasn't bothered too much by some of the continuity glitches, especially since a lot of them could be explained away--as someone has in this thread--as the result of so much time-travel in the Trek world. But the whole Xindi bore really killed it for me. I haven't watched the show regularly since its been opposite Smallville & wouldn't notice if it was axed.

After all, Selar, Shelby and Lefler all had TV debuts before NF (Burgy too maybe, can't remember), so why doesn't PAD have to pay to use them?

Because the use of all existing Trek characters is covered under the licensing agreement between Pocket Books and Paramount.

Technically speaking, the NF characters likewise belong to Paramount. So in theory, they could turn around and base a series on NF without having to pay me a cent. In theory. In actual practice, that would never fly with the Writers Guild, and a settlement that's commensurate with what other show creators get would be necessary for a series to proceed.

PAD

Ahhh, I knew there would be something like that. Thanks for the explanation...

Still reckon an SCE-type crew putting out diplomatic/military fires instead of engineering ones would make the best new Trek series.

"no offense to Luigi, or any other nitpickers out there, but I think all of that ruins the fun of a show"

Most of the nitpicks really have no bearing on the quality of the show.

I have been enjoying it so far. I think the Expanse storyline made things more interesting this season, though I thought when it was first announced that it was supposed to have been over by now. I am pretty sure that the Xindi attack on the Earth was clearly stated as something that shouldn't have happened. It is outside of our known continuity.

What I believe to be a big mistake from the beginning is the pandering they have done with T'Pol's body at various times. There really is no reason for doing that except trying to get short term ratings bumps that don't seem to have worked.

As far as later continuity and the end of the series, currently it is 2152 or 2153. The first Romulan War is supposed to take place from 2156 - 2160. Enterprise either needs to wrap up before 2156 or perhaps the last few years of the series would take care of the whole war and the series would end with the establishment of the Romulan Neutral Zone.

I think the show still is enjoyable.

Neil

//The funny thing is, ENTERPRISE had some very good episodes. "Proving Ground" was extremely good, with the great Jeffrey Combs and the passionate Andorians being a nice contrast to the logical Vulcans; and I liked the "Strategy" ep as well.//

Our local clique is of the opinion that Enterprise is only worth watching when Jeffrey Coombs is on.

And if you like his character here, by all means go watch "The Frighteners" (a previous movie by Peter Jackson), where he plays a strange and hilarious mix of Fox Mulder and a Clive Barker leftover.

Ya' know, I think that "Enterprise" IS the Star Trek "ulyimate" version. The show has taken elements of all the previous series: exploration, sense of wonder from TOS, borrowed tech and races from TNG, war and political storylines from DS9, and lastly lone ship in unknown space from VOY. Like "Ultimate Spider-man", "Enterprise" has played fast and loose with continiuty, but included lots of familiar things. The main difference that I see between the two, is that in ultimate spidey, when the writer has revisited the continuity of the original Spider-man, he has given it a fresh spin or gone into the emotions behind the decisions behind the choices made in the original version -- in "Enterprise" the revisitations just seem like carbon copies. When "Enterprise has done something NEW, it has been pretty good. I especially enjoyed the episode "Strategm" which showed us smart, devious human thinking. I can't recall anything quite like it it any Trek series. Also, I think some of the Xindi stuff is pretty good Space Opera. I'm willing to give it another season. I just hope the writing continues to improve as it has the last handful of episodes and that TPTB at CBS have "faith of the heart."

In re: a NEW FRONTIER series, one also needs to remember that they'd almost certainly have to recast Robin Lefler. I can't imagine Ashley "I'm a big movie star now" Judd going back to the role, at least not as a regular in a TV series.

I always thought that if Paramount had a network, they had all TV formats available to them. They could make ST mini-series, the Captain Sulu long-promised, never-delivered storyline, ST TV movies, and so forth. A little planning and a good, resolvable storyline would go a long way towards satisfying Paramounts merchandising goals and give the faithful what they want. WB could do more with DC comics characters as well, and not just a non-costumed Flash (I shudder at the thought).

Angel's demise has less to do with ratings (which are marginally better than last season's), and a WHOLE LOT to do with the fact that it is owned and distributed by Fox, not Warner Bros.

This is Vertical Integration at work. Media Corporations want shows that they can make money on at all stages of its life -- original broadcasts, reruns, syndication, licensing and DVD sales. They prefer not sharing any of this revenue stream with any other Media Corporation...which explains why Smallville survives (Warner production and distribution, based on DC characters playing on The WB) and Angel is given the boot.

Given that, the only possible future home of Angel might be F/X (News Corp.) rather than TNT (Time-Warner) or UPN (Viacom), but the series is a lot more expensive to produce than The Shield...so don't look for it there, either.

They made sure that they didn't learn the name of the race that attacked the Enterprise.

I get tired of hearing this lame excuse for the Ferengi.

You meet an alien races, which is your damn job, and you don't atleast get their names... well, you're the worst damn explorers ever.

That's what Archer and ENT is... a bunch of lame-ass explorers selling sex to teenagers so atleast *somebody* will watch the crap.

Ya' know, I think that "Enterprise" IS the Star Trek "ulyimate" version.

Which I think is part of the problem.

First, they wanted to advertise is as "not quite Trek", yet be Trek.

They also wanted to it to be reverse-tech, yet not quite reverse-tech.

Maybe things would have gone a little better if they'd outright said: Yes, this is semi-this and that, but since it's 35 years of backstory, we're just gonna start from scratch.

But they didn't.

1. If ANGEL is cancled, the WB has no one to blame but themselves. I think their previous track record between the last couple of seasons of Angel and Buffy when it was still with the WB speak for themselves.

2. If STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE is cancled, Paramount has no one to blame but themselves.

Everyone but the proverbial powers that be want to go forward. What's happening with Picard and company? What's happening on DS9? As entertaining as the paperbacks are, to some it is not enough.

There's a whole Gamma quadrant left unexplored. Peter created a New Frontier. Yet Paramount goes retro, and badly at that, despite the best efforts of Bakula and company.

And in the end, it is the people who work directly on the shows that take the initial blunt of the blame while the fans suffer.

Here it is. The Show that will Save Star Trek.

Dig it: "Star Trek: Crusher."

That's right. Wes Crusher, still amped up with his space-and-time hopping abilities he had at the end of Next Gen.

He zips from Trek past to future! He appears in episodes not meant for him (as in the Tribbles DS9 episode).

He rights wrongs! Fights Q! Gets laid by serious foxy babes!

Man. I was joking. But this is a good idea. I'm telling you. I'm TELLING YOU!!!

And it wouldn't be another "We're on a ship" show! More like James Bond meets Quantum Leap! With more boobs!

Meow

The abrupt, early notification of Angel's cancellation had nothing to do with allowing Mutant Enemy to wrap up the show in a grand fashion.

Networks don't abruptly announce a show's end of season cancellation to INCREASE ratings.

The WB is NOT promoting Angel's demise like NBC is lovingly characterizing the end of "Frasier" or "Friends".

For every die-hard "Angel" fan that will savor these last few episodes... There will be thousands of casual watchers who will turn off the show and watch something else because they will now feel certain that "Angel" will not be back next year.

Let's face it... the current WB hierarchy doesn't like Joss, Fox Studios, etc. (no matter what they say in their press releases) because "Buffy" was famously pulled from their network and put on UPN.

Last year's "near cancellation" was the WB's way of reinvigorating viewer interest in "Angel" and also swiftly kicking Joss & Co. in the butt-- telling them to pay more attention to the show... While they (the WB) steadfastly worked to find and develop another show to eventually replace "Angel".

And the WB's plan has worked perfectly-- at least in the "Angel" creative department. Most viewers seem to think that "Angel" Season 5 is light-years better than last year's work. (At least so far.)

The sad fact is... the WB honchos already believe they have found something that will replace "Angel" as the "perfect" lead-out for "Smallville"... or they would not have announced the cancellation so early.

They didn't make the announcement early to help Joss find a new "home" for "Angel"... or to let the talented Mutant Enemy stable of writers find replacement TV gigs... The WB made the announcement early because they could.

And anybody who doesn't think announcing the "Angel" cancellation on Friday the 13th wasn't some WB flunky's idea of a sick joke to drive salt into Joss and Co.'s wounds... Isn't taking the time to read between the lines.

James Heath Lantz: The Ferengi and Borg episodes are not what broke my balls because If memory serves, Archer and crew didn't know the name of the race…

Luigi Novi: Why are there so many people who buy this as an explanation? Do you honestly buy the idea that Archer didn’t ask them what their names were, that he didn’t have their computer banks examined, take visual records of them, etc.? And if he didn’t, then that’s just as outrageous a plot hole, and I’m not buying it. You don’t have these alien shitheads take over your ship without making extensive records of who they were, what their names were, where they’re from, what their technology’s like, etc. when you know other people might run into these guys, like the captains of the three future NX-class ships being built. Travis told Ryan in Fortunate Son that with more Warp 5 starships on the way, things would be changing. You coulda fooled me.

James Heath Lantz: T'Pol and Archer mention a Borg transmission that won't get to the Delta Quadrant until the 24th Century, which would coincide with the events of Q-Who?. I'm not saying this makes the episodes better. I'm only saying that this what I perceive to be an explanation for those episodes.

Luigi Novi: And why didn’t the Enterprise-D crew know who the Borg were in Q Who(TNG), given all the photos they took of the Borg in Regeneration(TNG)? And what about Phlox’s discovery that omicron particles are harmful to the nanoprobes? Again, nothing was ever mentioned of this in any of the NextGen or Voyager episodes featuring the Borg. Crusher stated that she was only able to remove Picard’s Borg implants at the end of The Best of Both Worlds partII(TNG) after he was disconnected from the Collective. But given what Phlox discovered, she should’ve known that she could’ve killed the nanoprobes in him with omicron particles.

The StarWolf: Someone above also wrote about the Romulans and Archer's ship. Did we see the Romulans at all in that episode? Because, in the original series BALANCE OF TERROR episode, we're inarguably told that nobody knew what the Romulans looked like.

Luigi Novi: I don’t recall anyone complaining about this, since we didn’t see their faces in Minefield(ENT), but Archer should not have encountered Romulans with cloaking devices, since Balance of Terror indicates that was the first time they had seen that technology.

Bladestar: As far as the page number, it should have the same information under the Spock entry in your edition. Mine has a mostly blackish/dark cover...

Luigi Novi: That would mean we have the same edition, but page 309 of The Encyclopedia contains the entries from Marlena Moreau (mirror) to Morrow, Admiral. Spock’s entry is on pages 458 & 459, and it does say in the second paragraph of 459 that he was the first Vulcan to enlist in Starfleet (it doesn’t specify the Academy), but it doesn’t cite the episode that established it. It continues on about his service under Captain Pike before it provides The Menagerie(TOS) as a source. (Is it saying that episode established not only his service with Pike but his status as the first Vulcan in Starfleet?)

Steve O'Rando: In Voyager there was the ship that was captained by Bruce Dern(I think)…

Luigi Novi: Captain Braxton was played by Allan Royal in Future’s End I-II(VOY), and by Bruce McGill in Relativity(VOY). Bruce Dern has never appeared in Star Trek.

Steve O'Rando: …and then there is the temporal agency that Daniels works for in Enterprise. Are the two related or the same? Different time periods?

Luigi Novi: Braxton is from the 29th century, and Daniels is from the 31st, but nothing has been stated that prevents them from being the same organization.

Steve O'Rando: And no offense to Luigi, or any other nitpickers out there, but I think all of that ruins the fun of a show.

Luigi Novi: To each his own. And none taken. But as I stated above, nitpicking is entirely distinct from the overall quality of the show. The overall quality of the plot, the dialogue, the characterization, the acting, directing, FX, action, originality, theme, etc., are what determine whether an episode is good or not, not how many nits it has. There are some nits are not mere nits, but big plot holes or contrivances that (in the absence of a good story that may allow me to forgive it) destroy suspension of disbelief, like the “Archer never got the Ferengis’ names” rationalization, but not all nits are thus. Some of my favorite episodes and movies have the highest number of nits, after all.

Personally, nitpicking is fun, so long as it’s done that way. As Phil Farrand, who started the whole shebang with his Nitpicker’s Guides said, it’s should be done with good humor and cheer.

Steve O'Rando: I don't like blatant disregard for continuity, but if you get into semantics about the way things are phrased about who the first vulcan in starfleet was, and one source says it was the federation starfleet and another just mentions starfleet, can one argue that they aren't the same thing?

Luigi Novi: Starfleet is Starfleet, Steve. Why would it be two different things. Presumably It was merely incorporated into the Federation when the Federation was founded.

Steve O'Rando: Can someone argue that some person says we are the first federation starship to timetravel, and the actual first starship to timetravel did it before the federation was founded? If you're going to nitpick, be complete. After all, you are leaving out the federation at your conveinced, but it's a fairly big organization to be omitted at leisure.

Luigi Novi: Actually, I pointed out to Darren J. Hudak that Archer never traveled through time with the Enterprise. Both times he did so, Daniels plucked out of the 2150’s with his 31st century equipment.

Neil Ottenstein: As far as later continuity and the end of the series, currently it is 2152 or 2153.

Luigi Novi: Last week’s episode, Harbinger, was set on December 27, 2153.

Neil Ottenstein: The first Romulan War is supposed to take place from 2156 - 2160. Enterprise either needs to wrap up before 2156 or perhaps the last few years of the series would take care of the whole war and the series would end with the establishment of the Romulan Neutral Zone.

Luigi Novi: It doesn’t have to take place in 2156. The use of the word “century” in Balance of Terror when describing when it took place can be rounded off.

Half the fun of the "Nitpicker's Guides" is the really silly stuff, like when the phaser is in the character's left hand, something else in the right, then half a second later for no reason the phaser in the right and the other object is in the left. Or the equipment oddities and the like...

The possible upside to all this (and a possible, though unlkely reason for Angel's cancellation) is that it frees up David Boreanaz to play Superman, which he's apparently screen-tested for, but couldn't make fit with his Angel schedule. I keep having this nagging (and probably paranoid) thought that one of the producers in the movie division (which probably has more pull at Time-Warner than the TV network) called programming and told them to cancel Angel to free up Boreanaz for the Superman movie (now set for worldwide release in 2084, at the rate production is going).

Ah, as long as they don't cancel American Chopper and Monk, I don't care ;-)

I'm not nitpicking when I complain about the Ferengi, the Romulans, and the Borg on Enterprise. I'm just annoyed with the narrative laziness. I thought the whole point of doing a prequel was to escape thirty years of continuity. I'd like to see new concepts, new aliens, and so on.

Look at what TOS, TNG, and DSN had accomplished by the end of their third seasons. This is why I'm disappointed with Enterprise.

Considering that the show debuted post 9/11, I thought it would have been interesting and fitting with the times if the whole Expanse/Xindi storyline had started the series -- we've done exploration -- why not show a starship crew and its captain truly tested?

Instead we got two years of more of the same and no real character development. What interests me about Enterprise and even Smallville is how secondary characters often get short shrift, when on Buffy, Xander, Willow, Cordelia, Giles, even Joyce were so fully developed while still supported the main character.

And after nearly three years, we still don't know who Future Guy is? Sorry, that's not suspensful, it's just annoying.

I think you hit on why I've had zero enthusiasm for ENTERPRISE - the narrative laziness of the series. If they really wanted to do an "us versus future guy and an alien group," why not just create a new series covering that and leave Trek alone? (Of course the answer is that if you can make it Trek, you're guaranteed a show.)

A series dealing with the early days of what would become Starfleet could have been an amazing series to focus on. Instead, we've been stuck with having to dump in all the worst aspects of the others series into this one because they can't think outside of the loop of TNG/Voyager any longer. A real shame.

I don't think it's nitpicking to look at Enterprise and think, "Boy, they really didn't do a good job here in just giving us more of the same that they've had for the past ten years." They could have easily done this show and not have anyone thinking continuity was messed with. But they couldn't be bothered and ended up actually making it harder than necessary. Oh well, at least there's some good stuff in the previous series.

After all, Selar, Shelby and Lefler all had TV debuts before NF (Burgy too maybe, can't remember), so why doesn't PAD have to pay to use them?

Because the use of all existing Trek characters is covered under the licensing agreement between Pocket Books and Paramount.

Technically speaking, the NF characters likewise belong to Paramount. So in theory, they could turn around and base a series on NF without having to pay me a cent. In theory. In actual practice, that would never fly with the Writers Guild, and a settlement that's commensurate with what other show creators get would be necessary for a series to proceed.

Of course, there's also nothing stoping them from simply "renaming" the characters you created or simply creating similar ones. My guess is that Paramount would want to stay on the Writers Guild's good side though.

EClark

I have only watched Enterprise a couple of times, but from what I've seen I can honestly say that. Berman & Braga wouldn't know how to write a Star Trek plot if it walked up and kicked them in the ass!! The last show that I watched was where they meet the Borg. I might just be stupid, but wasn't Picard the one that discovered the Borg? I do agree that Paramount needs to fire Berman & Braga, and come up with a new series.

(with people writing it that actually know what they are doing) I think that New Frontier, or one about the time travailing ship Relativity

The person missing on Enterprise is Ronald D. Moore. If you watched "Battlestar Galactica" you can tell the effect he had on that series, and he was responsible for a heck of a lot of DS9 and TNG. And though I hated Voyager, Michael Piller was responsible for a lot of DS9 and Voyager. ( I personally think ds9 was the best series)

And Piller was responsible for the excellent Dead Zone series.

On a brighter note, the galactica series has been given a green light for 13 eps.

Travis

I think Rick Berman is just burned out. Fifteen years working the same universe can do that. Braga did some good episodes about ten years ago. Same thing.

PAD:

I know we kinda hijacked your previous thread with this one, but you've been fairly silent about the supposed impending doom of Enterprise. What are your thoughts on this subject, if any? My primary reason for visiting this site is because I enjoy reading what you have to say about stuff like this (or anything else on your mind). What's your take?

Well, apparently Peter's ripping off Joss in advance again by writing comic books. :-) Seriously, it's being announced that Joss will write twelve issues of a new Astonishing X-Men title starting in May, with John Cassidy doing the art.

The FRAY TPB he wrote turned out pretty good, now Joss is gonna write an X-Men title? Damn, I'm to NOT get back into comics...

If they want to keep Trek's hardcore fans then they may need to bring back Kirk to keep it alive say want you want but us diehard's never forgave Berman for killing him off in Generations!!! I still say Berman needs to go. That man has had his run time to give it someone else before THERE IS no nore Trek franchise to speak of.

I say: let PAD take over Trek. :)

It seems that a lot of the continuity problems mentioned higher up in this thread sort themselves out if we come to the one very obvious conclusion.

Spock was a big fat liar.

I don't know why we didn't see it before! He must be some kind of undercover Vulcan spy, sent in to screw up Kirk and the gang with misinformation.

There. Everything's solved. We're all happy now.

These remarks may earn me the characterization as a troll, but they are really my heartfelt beliefs.

I'm happy to see "Angel" go. There can never be a "good vampire" story, any more than there can be a "good rapist story" or a "good Nazi-affirming Holocaust story." 'Nuff said there.

As for "Enterprise," I know how people love the Star Trek Universe. Some of my best friends are part-time Klingons. But what strikes me about the history of the Trek shows is how, over the years, they've related less and less to our own lives.

The original "Star Trek" reflected the America of the 1960's in many of its facets; the militarism and the peace movement; America as the world's policeman and as a place insignificant in the cosmic order of things; a place of wise men and wise guys.

With each successive Trek production, the stories have entered their own little world, with very little reflecting back our own lives. "Voyager" was escapism from escapism; Janeway and crew didn't even have the regular Trek universe to deal with, most of the time.

"Enterprise" was like "Happy Days" for Trek. There weren't really Richie Cunninghams or Arthur Fonzerelli's in the real world, and most of the nitpicking on "Enterprise" seems to say that "This isn't how the early years of Starfleet really happened! It's a fantasy!"

Remember the outcry when David Gerrold wrote a "Next Gen" script with gay people accepted in Starfleet? That determination to keep Trek from touching events in our world - things that might disturb us or really make us think - is what's killing it.

I just want to say something concerning the posting in which PAD was asked to say something about the threat that Enterprise could be cancelled.

If PAD says, I don`t like Enterprise, this would be repeated all over the net and beyond. Most probably, it would also be exaggerated and retold out of context. It will also reach the attention of the people PAD is working with and for when writing his Star Trek books. Maybe they wouldn`t mind but maybe they would. Why should PAD risk it?

It is similar with when I read the vast majority of articles about Star Trek. The main tune is: Everything is wonderful, we have a great time and we are proud to be part of it. When there is criticism for a change, it is usually very carefully phrased and most sticky topics are either evaded or they refuse to comment. As frustrating as it is for us fans sometimes, I can understand why this is done very well.

Why can't there be a "good vampire" story?

I'd really like to know how there can't be a story about a good version of a non-existant fantasy creature....

If you had told me years ago that I'd be more upset that a series that featured a Vampire with a soul was getting the axe than a Trek property, I'd have laughed at you.

But that's how it is. I'm really miffed that one of the very few TV shows I enjoy anymore is going off air.

Enterprise? I watched a handful of episodes the first season. That was it. I grew up watching TOS in re-runs after school. TNG hit when I was in High school and lasted through college. In its whole run, I missed exactly one episode the night it was first broadcast.

Since then, the series has interested me less and less. DS9, I came and went. There were things about it I enjoyed but it didn't hold me the way TNG did. Voyager - I expected a lot. The idea of a crew lost out there sounded exciting. In the end... bleh...

Yes, far more upset to know that I'm losing Angel than the possible demise of a Trek property. Still, I feel sorry for the fans who may also lose a show they enjoy. I don't understand how you watch it, but I still extend sympathy.

The cancellation of Angel has me a little worried about another WB show.

It was announced that the WB ordered a pilot for a new version of Dark Shadows. I wonder if they figure this can replace Angel since it's a "vampire" show? I really hope that isn't the idea behind Angel getting the axe because it could have the opposite effect and people might not watch Dark Shadows out of spite. To me, it seems the better thing to do would have been to let Angel run for one more season and pair it with Dark Shadows since they would have a similar audience. Use Angel to help DS build an audience. Then if Angel didn't get a 7th season, Dark Shadows could continue.

I give Dark Shadows an at most six month run on WB. Remake shows almost NEVER do well especially since it is a remake of a show that was already remade. On any other network it would dead quicker than a monkey with ebola. Except maybe UPN where it would get three seasons and guest appearance by Snoop Dog.

If the new Dark Shadows is as bad as the 1990 remake, then it's just as well it'll be hidden away on WB and gone in six months.

Never watched Angel, but I do believe you could write about a "good vampire." The main problem is that there have been plenty attempts in the past few years and very few have worked. Too often producers and writers go for the "goth rock" video-cam, wannabe-Anne-Rice pap instead of telling intriguing stories about interesting characters. That spoiled the field for getting decent vampire stories out there, I think.

Just for the record:

DARK SHADOWS hasn't been picked up as a series yet, it only has a pilot commitment. And before it is dismissed out of hand, keep in mind that the pilot is being written by one of the show's executive producers, Mark Verheiden, who is also an executive producer and writer on SMALLVILLE and a comics writer of some reknown. Also keep in mind that another of the exec producers is one of the most powerful men in TV at the moment, John Wells (ER, THE WEST WING, etc.). I give DS more than a fair shot this time 'round.

I will definitely check DS out and I expect to quite like it. While it is no replacement for the Jossverse, that doesn't mean it can't be good.

Also, another pilot commitment for WB is Warren Ellis' GLOBAL FREQUENCY, and if that makes it to series, I'll certainly check it out as well.

Those two potential series and the continuation of SMALLVILLE give me hope for the WB despite the boneheaded move of cancelling ANGEL.

lets get to the root of the problem. Enterprise has bad ratings, why? blame bad acting and writing all you want, but its always been my belief, since Voyager, that its because these shows are on UPN. if you were to take Enterprise and move it to say, Spike TV or TNT or any other cable network then you'd see ratings increase. why? not everyone gets UPN, i know that i've been without a UPN station since the 6th season of Voyager. hence, i've only seen 5 episodes of Enterprise.

UPN can not continue to go up against the three major networks and WB, the only show they have kept on the air for an extended ammount of time was Voyager. others only lasted 2 or 3 seasons at the most.

how do we fix this? fire Berman, hire new writing and move Enterprise from UPN.

ANGEL isn't about a "good vampire." It's about redemption. His supernatural condition is merely allegory. This is why the show resonated so well with people.

To hijack a thread that was hijacking another thread, and to piss off people who don't want to talk about politics:

GO EDWARDS!

Travis

Posted by Fred Kzinti @ 02/17/2004 02:28 PM ET

Here it is. The Show that will Save Star Trek.

Dig it: "Star Trek: Crusher."

*

*

*

*

*

Note: to real Wil -- Kidding! Luv ya, Dude. :)

sorry, I meant to say... potentially piss off...

Travis

I dunno ... STAR TREK died for me a long time ago.

The trend started, actually, about mid-season 6 of NEXT GEN, when the scripts started bristling with "Phase Variance" this and "Tachyon Emmission" that and so much technobabble that the human element -- the part that those of us who are not NASA interns could relate to -- was buried beneath the jargon. (Scotty used a nice futuristic-sounding word here and there, but, generally, he would look worried and just fix the damned thing.) When I see a statement like Crusher stated that she was only able to remove Picard’s Borg implants at the end of The Best of Both Worlds partII(TNG) after he was disconnected from the Collective. But given what Phlox discovered, she should’ve known that she could’ve killed the nanoprobes in him with omicron particles., I think less of whether or not a good point has been raised and more of, "Look, she got the damned things OUT, isn't that enough??"

Then, also, I remember growing up with TOS as the only series. In those days, the show was thought of as having a distinct philosophy, one very much based on finding peaceful solutions and adopting a "Do Unto Others" attitude. As the years, the serieses, and the audiences have changed, I find it ... well, not really startling, but uncomfortable that the attitude has morphed into one of "let's kick butt." When I see a post suggesting that a STAR TREK show should be more like JAG, the change in attitude becomes that much more evident.

I've tried all of the series for a whiole, but none of them kept me after NEXT GEN ended. VOYAGER had an interesting premise, but the execution was, IMO, flawed. Upon first hearing the premise, I thought "This should be interesting ... they can't stop at Starbase 272 And A Half to restock after getting into a phaser battle, and they can't afford to beam down to the Planet Zircon with the Main Characters and Yeoman Fred RedShirt so that Mr. RedShirt can get killed. They'll actually have to Think their way through situations!!" It would also have been interesting to see changes like obvious jury-rigging on the bridge and in Engineering, and uniforms that didn't look Brand Spanking New because they really couldn't afford the waste of power to reprocess everything. And Morale Builders that didn't rely on the bloody holodeck, because they need every ounce of spare power to try to get back Home, dammit!!

The thinking never really changed, though. They continued having pitched battles, sparkling sets and costumes, and elaborate holodeck fantasies, and even the better episodes looked recycled. Mind you, in no way am I saying that my thoughts would have necessarily been correct or the only way to go.

I don't know how much of the decline of the show has to do with Berman and Braga. I'm sure that they played a part, but, given the number of people involved in a television program, it seems a bit drastic to blame everything on them. And statements like Berman seriously needs to be gone and yes, I can't stand him! :) ... excuse me, but do you know the man?

The franchise has been in existence since the late 1960's ... I agree with those who thinks it needs a rest. Upon being asked if it wouldn't be interesting to have a Beatles reunion, John Lennon asked back if it wouldn't be interesting to take Elvis back to his Sun Records period, finally concluding that he was happy simply to pull out the old Sun records. Between the scads of material available with the various existing serieses and the movies and the novels and the comics and comic adaptations, there is enough existing material to keep an avid Trekkie, Trekker, TrekFan, Trekkist, etc. busy for years. I'm not suggesting that the whole franchise shut down entirely ... like many on this blog, I love the NEW FRONTIER novels ... but does there really need to be a new show every television season?

Thanks for reading.

The FRAY TPB he wrote turned out pretty good, now Joss is gonna write an X-Men title? Damn, I'm to NOT get back into comics...

And here I am considering getting back into comics (after 2.5 years out) fully.

If I do, the guys at Roaring Studios/Dabel Bros Pro get the blame, since I couldn't resist picking up their stuff for The Hedge Knight and Dragonlance: Legend of Huma.

Anyways, when I got out of comics, I was reading 4 series, and three are still going: Wolverine, X-Men (now New X-Men), and Uncanny X-Men (now X-Men). I also read Gen X.

And now all three of those are bi-monthly, plus there's more series I'd love to get now, AND there's, as Bladestar mentioned, new series coming as well.

Even adding stuff I wanted but didn't get, X-Factor and X-Force, that's only six books a month.

What was once four books to get most of what I wanted, now it takes atleast 8 a month, if not more like 12.

I dunno about that.

Not to mention back issues; I'm not a trade paperback person, but even more so for a regular series than a mini-series.

not everyone gets UPN

I'm really wondering at times how many people actually get UPN, and how many more people get UPN shows via Fox and such.

I know that parts of Iowa don't have a UPN affiliated, so people in areas like Cedar Rapids were seeing Buffy and ENT on Saturday nights.

So how do these ratings figure into the overall performance of ENT, etc?

malvito: When I see a statement like“Crusher stated that she was only able to remove Picard’s Borg implants at the end of The Best of Both Worlds partII(TNG) after he was disconnected from the Collective. But given what Phlox discovered, she should’ve known that she could’ve killed the nanoprobes in him with omicron particles.”, I think less of whether or not a good point has been raised and more of, "Look, she got the damned things OUT, isn't that enough??"

Luigi Novi: You’re missing the point.

The point was that she claimed she couldn’t get his implants out until his link to the Collective was severed. Now we find out that two hundred years earlier, some other doctor part of a Medical Exchange Program just zapped the nanoprobes with some particles he had easy access to. It was one of many continuity mutilations that the series has committed.

Just as Voyager seemed to forget (or just plain not care) that it was supposed to be set on a ship on the other side of the galaxy without access to starbases and other resources for repair and replenishing (given its spotless appearance for seven years), or that it was moving in a supposed irreversible line toward the Alpha Quadrant (given the way it seemed to be moving circles during its multiple encounters with Seska during the second season, not to mention the numerous times they ignored significant jumps through space it had made when referencing where they were in space)—points that you yourself seemed to be making, malvito, which I agree with entirely—so too do Berman and Braga Enterprise not seem to adhere to or care that Archer’s ship is supposed to be set over a hundred years before TOS, and two hundred before TNG.

I know this is not on point... But I am SO loving the names being at the BEGINNING of the posts!

I'm happy to see "Angel" go. There can never be a "good vampire" story, any more than there can be a "good rapist story" or a "good Nazi-affirming Holocaust story." 'Nuff said there.

Um ... huh?

Leaving aside the point that "Angel" isn't so much about a vampire as it is about striving for redemption (as others have pointed out), I'd question your statement on its face.

I'm willing to stipulate to the latter two (though I have my suspicions that some incredibly gifted writer could probably pull off at least one of them), but the former is giving values to a creature that is entirely fictional in nature.

It's rather like reading Wells' War of the Worlds and saying "okay, now there can never be a 'good Martian' story. We know they're evil and vulnerable to the common cold."

How exactly can vampires be so intrinsically evil that you can't depict them positively? They don't exist except in the minds of those who write about them and those who read (or watch TV shows) about them.

I'm not saying you're a troll by any means -- I've seen your stuff around here long enough to know otherwise. I am, however, very curious as to how you can defend the above.

TWL

And statements like "Berman seriously needs to be gone and yes, I can't stand him! :)" ... excuse me, but do you know the man?

Actually, I do. Not well by any stretch of the imagination, but I've met him and had a conversation or three with him.

And I think I'd agree that it's time he turned the reins over to someone else. In my case, it's nothing to do with personal likes or dislikes -- it's a matter of looking at the end product and seeing that frankly, it's tired.

The statement you're quoting is pretty silly, agreed, and it's good to call people on such things -- but it'd be easy to turn that into "don't criticize unless you've met him", and I'd rather not see that either.

TWL

It's pretty simple.

Ratings speak. When DS9 could be only 2nd or 3rd to Hercules and Xena, be the black sheep of the trek family, and yet STILL be less likely to bring about the "death of the franchise" then you know you've got a dud on your hands with ENTERPRISE.

I'm sorry to see ANGEL go, but Joss has obviously moved on, and the show has had a bit of the feeling of a goodbye (esp. with the Cordy episode) so why not? Go out with a bang.

I agree with Tim Lynch...you _could_ do those stories. Hell, wasn't there an HBO special with Kenneth Branagh that showed the Nazi point of view in regards to wiping out the Jews? It was a disturbing movie, but some characters in it came across as VERY sympathetic. It wasn't pro-Nazi by any means, but it showed that many who went along with the genocide were appalled by it.

>>but does there really need to be a new show every television season?<<

Does there NEED to be a show? No.

However, the same sentiments have probably been felt by a large number of people everytime a TV series, movie franchise, or comic book have hit a low for a large number of people for an ongoing period of time.

When PAD took over Hulk, that was the feeling. Everyone like the character and history, but the book was dead in spirit. Why continue with a concept that has been worn thin? And behold, along came a writer! The rest is history.

The same could be said of Moores's Swamp Thing, Simonson's Thor, Byrne's Superman, etc.

Unfortunately for TV shows, its a lot more expensive to try something so new and drastic as was tried with these comics. Its much easier to just cancel and try something different.

The sad thing is, when I read everyone's opinions in this thread, I can't help but scream. I love Enterprise! The first two seasons were better, but that's because they were allowed to "do their thing." Once the network or whoever made them "fix" it, it suffered. I still enjoy the show, and I love the characters. I know there is still hope.

The same thing happened with DS9. The first 1 1/2 seasons were far superior to the rest. But as soon as TNG ended, everyone went over and tried to "fix" DS9. They tried to make it more like TNG with higher ratings. While the ratings part is a "lofty goal to be sure," the superior quality, IMHO, of DS9 at that point makes the effort "somewhat superfluous."

Oh well. In the end, its just a TV show. We will all live just fine with or without it. But its still depressing to see shows with such potential not be given a chance. (Such as the far superior Firefly, the incredibly entertaining Karen Sisco, or the only remaining Joss show on TV).

Ideas for new Trek Series

1) Any series where humans aren't the focus. Investigate the lives and cultures of Ferengi, Klingon, or Cardassians. Endless possibilities. Lesser chances of continuity conflicts. Would there be interest? Like any SF television show...if the writing were good.

2) Animated TNG. Arguably the most popular of the Trek series. Would give the former actors some voice-over work.

I really like the idea that the timeline difficulties with Enterprise are the formation of the Mirror Universe. That's an ending for the series that's not a cop-out, and consistent.

And if he were interested...and Paramount had the brains to give it to him...I'm sure PAD could create a series that would revive Trek -- better than either of my two ideas above.

Speaking of NOT focusing on Humans...how about the Trill? It seems to me, at least, that there could be some seriously great stories concerning that species, ya know?

Also...if it were up to me in any way, I'd revive DS 9, the way that Pocket Books (Paramount) has with their relaunch campaign. Those books are, arguably, some of the best stories to ever grace the TREK universe.

The sad fact is... the WB honchos already believe they have found something that will replace "Angel" as the "perfect" lead-out for "Smallville"... or they would not have announced the cancellation so early.--insideman

Heh, heh!!!

I can't help but think about the "other" surefire hits the WB honchos thought they had like Birds of Prey and Tarzan.

You know... as cliched as they are, there is still a great deal of wisdom in the old sayings. How do they go? Oh yes...

"Don't count your chickens before they hatch!!!"

Oh, well. Good luck WB, you are going to need it.

Tim Lynch and a few others raised this point about my joyous dance at the demise of "Angel." He said:

"I'm willing to stipulate to the latter two (though I have my suspicions that some incredibly gifted writer could probably pull off at least one of them), but the former is giving values to a creature that is entirely fictional in nature."

But is any human character, written past fairy-tale level, really entirely fictional? They all have a base in reality.

The vampire has always been a stand-in for the rapist, the person who projects sexuality, even love, but desires only violence. There have been other signifieds, especially recently. Some see the vampire as a symbol for a gay man or lesbian, which is what the X-Men and DC's Legion of Super Heroes represented for comic fans. Goths (who are almost extinct now) loved that outcast status; the more unloved they felt, the more they loved it.

So, when I attack vampires in fiction, they see me as attacking gays. Which would, of course, make me a bigot. However...

As a victim of violence (and I don't want to sound whiney, but it was close to a sexual assault) I see the vampire in his original identity as a rapist. And I see the values of the vampire as passed on to fans of vamp shows; the most principal of which is, a man never stands taller than when he steps on the neck of a friend. Maybe I'm more sensitive to that aspect of the character than other people, or maybe other people are simply in denial.

Thomas,

Thanks for explaining your point -- and my sympathies about the pain you obviously went through in the past. It's not something anyone should have to suffer.

Given that interpretation, I understand why you feel that "good vampire" stories can't exist. There's certainly an undercurrent of sexuality in most depictions of vampires, yes -- but I don't really agree with the "projects sexuality but provides violence" interpretation across the board.

If we're talking cinema, look at Nosferatu, one of the first vampire films ever made. Nosferatu is not a charming seducer. He's absolutely monstrous and terrifying -- there's nothing sexual about him in the slightest, IMO.

I could point to several literary vampires who aren't depicted as especially sexual, either. (Steven Brust's Sethra Lavode is the one who most immediately comes to mind, but she's not the only one.)

Basically, I think I can agree that IF you see a vampire only as a rapist stand-in, your discomfort is justified -- but I think you're being untrue to the archetype, and I definitely think you're reaching when you say it's the "original intent" of the form. Vampire lore has been around for a very long time, and I don't think it was especially linked to sexuality until Bram Stoker came around a century and a half ago.

Not a huge deal to me personally -- as long as you're not lobbying that vampire stories themselves are evil and corrupting things that must be banned, your beliefs are entirely your own and not for anyone to judge one way or t'other. Thanks for elaborating -- and again, I'm sorry to hear about the events in your past that have made this interpretation so entrenched.

TWL

The point was that she claimed she couldn’t get his implants out until his link to the Collective was severed. Now we find out that two hundred years earlier, some other doctor part of a Medical Exchange Program just zapped the nanoprobes with some particles he had easy access to. It was one of many continuity mutilations that the series has committed.

I appreciate your point, Luigi, and agree that something like that is symptomatic of the type of thing that gives migraines to the Continuity Cops in fandom, Deity Of Your Choice Bless'em. I'm afraid that you missed my point, which was unrelated, being about the preponderance of what critic Roger Ebert referred to as "polysyllabic goobledygook," which was one of the big things that killed TREK for me.

so too do Berman and Braga Enterprise not seem to adhere to or care that Archer’s ship is supposed to be set over a hundred years before TOS, and two hundred before TNG

On that we are in perfect agreement. It is big problem when one creates a series that takes place before the original but is filmed afterwards. The Continuity Patrolling can get a bit wearisome, but when the original series is as well known as STAR TREK it does not make a lot of sense to create a series that is going to end up annoying the fan base with its contradictions. Actually, even moreso than the RetConning, I found it difficult to accept the new look, considering the advances in every factor of filmmaking since the original series guaranteed that the stories taking place one hundred years before would look more futuristic than the stories that took place afterwards. Then again, I have this same problem with STAR WARS Episodes 1 and 2.

The statement you're quoting is pretty silly, agreed, and it's good to call people on such things -- but it'd be easy to turn that into "don't criticize unless you've met him", and I'd rather not see that either.

I would have to agree with Mr. Lynch on that one. My real point, which may not have been expressed cogently enough, is that it's one thing to knock the work and quite another to knock the person.

I'm reminded of a Kansas City Theatre weblog of which I am a member, whereupon a local wrote in to criticize our Renaissance Festival, stating that he did not have a good time and making blanket statements about the participants. He compared the lot of them to fans at Trek conventions (which, in the same email, he admitted that he had never attended), using terms such as "untalented" and "drool-dealers." Now, I see problems with the RenFaire and will be the first to speak up about them, but there is a difference between spotting and noting a problem and trashing people with whom there is no acquaintance and therefore no way of assessing said person's abilities or contributions.

If TREK is to continue on in one form or other, I would agree that new blood would do it a world of good. Along with the Bad Trek, though, (which is not exactly a new thing ... The Way To Eden or Spock's Brain, anyone?) Berman is also responsible for a lot of Good Trek, and it seems to me unreasonable for someone to say they can't stand someone they've never met based on the fact that said person is running short of new ideas for a franchise that is well over 35 years old.

I knew I couldn't let this pass, so here are my comments:

ANGEL-I feel that WB is making a mistake by canceling the show. If there's anything I've learned about TV is that the show you cancel will always have been more of a draw than the show replacing it until a few years have passed. I also know that many new shows fail because it doesn't strike a chord with the audience or has that one element to draw them back. People understood the nature of redemption Angel has gone through and have identified with it. Unless DARK SHADOWS has either/both of the two required traits. It'll be gone before January. WB is taking a big gamble by replacing Angel, and it may not pay off.

On the other hand, it does get costly to produce Angel, and from what I've heard, WB MAY have overextended themselves on costly pilots. Petitions may work, but maybe everybody should chip in and PAY for next season. So if anybody here wins the lottery send 50 million to 20th Century Fox. :)

Although I would like to point out that those other shows may not last either if what I heard was true.

ENTERPRISE- Hoo boy! What do I say?

My feelings are that the pilot is a masterpiece compared to the 1 3/4 episodes combined I've seen. People have a problem with Berman and Braga. Leave Braga alone. Berman had Ron Moore brainwash him so now Braga will do everything Berman tells him to do... Oh Sorry, thoughtless rant. Seriously, I think that the production partnership between Braga and Berman is that Berman wears the pants, because he is "keeper of the flame." But I do feel that Berman should be replaced because quite frankly...

Berman doesn't seem to like continuity. Or maybe he's using this "Temporal Cold War" as some sort of an out in case fans don't like the changes. Maybe.

But I feel that ultimately, he's had 14+ years at the conn. He needs someone to relieve him. We need Fresh ideas, not old ones endlessly recycled.

Charles F. Waldo

P.S. since everybody is putting down what Series they'd like to see for Star Trek, I'd just like to raise the quantity of comments by saying... Give George Takei his Damn Sulu show already! :)

"Give George Takei his Damn Sulu show already! :)"

AMEN!!!

I still believe that a series of Star Trek tele-movies would be best for now. You could do some Sulu adventures. Touch base with Riker and his new ship and crew(because you'll never get Patrick Stewart back). Follow up Voyager and DS9. And then spring off from there, taking elements and plot threads from all over (Star Fleet Academy, Wesley Crusher, Worf and the Klingons, Young Kirk, etc.) At least you'd get some important cameos from time to time. And, if any of them really fly, maybe then think about an ongoing weekly series.

Much like PAD's NF books touch upon various areas of Trek. Which is one of the reasons I read them and enjoy them so much!

Doubt this would be considered "cost effective" though. But how fun would it be to have two or three event movies a year?

But I also like the idea of an animated series. But can there be a "mature" animated series that would satisfy Trek fans and still appeal to the kiddies? Gotta keep that mechandising machine rolling, you know.

But overall, Enterprise is not doing it for me, either. I used to make a point of catching all of the previous Treks - not anymore. Sad, really.

Trek Dreams...

CAT

I'm happy to see "Angel" go. There can never be a "good vampire" story, any more than there can be a "good rapist story" or a "good Nazi-affirming Holocaust story." 'Nuff said there.

I'm not even sure about the 'good rapist' impossibility. Stephen Donaldson's 'Chronicles of Thomas Covenant' was basically a 'good rapist' story.

Now, I know I'm just imagining it...because it's the same clip they use week after week after week...but as Enterprise began this week and Scott Bakula said "This is UPN"...well, he sounded a bit more pissed than I remember him.

Vampire lore has been around for a very long time, and I don't think it was especially linked to sexuality until Bram Stoker came around a century and a half ago.

Well, a bit before Dracula (which was published in 1897, BTW)--the first modern vampire story, Polidori's "The Vampire," featured a vampire clearly inspired by Lord Byron, and that was published in 1819. However, most actual vampire folklore has mixed up symbols of death, disease, predation, and night, with sex being an only occasional part of the mix. (The traditional vampire account ends with the villagers digging up the coffin to find a bloated corpse with prominent teeth--basically the result of decomposition, and hardly sexual.)

I'm not even sure about the 'good rapist' impossibility. Stephen Donaldson's 'Chronicles of Thomas Covenant' was basically a 'good rapist' story.

Good, good call. My wife was skimming this thread and mentioned TC to me as well. (It was something along the lines of, "you're such a huge Covenant fan I'm surprised you didn't bring it up already." I plead idiocy. :-)

On the other hand, the fact that TC is a rapist is one of the reasons many friends of mind can't get through the first book without hurling it against and/or through a wall...

And to Doug Atkinson -- thanks for correcting me on Stoker's timing. I knew it was Victorian era, so I guessed it was early in said era when in fact it was almost at the end. My fault. (Doesn't change the overall point much, fortunately.)

TWL

Gah. Make that "friends of MINE," not "friends of mind." The D and E keys really shouldn't be that close together on the keyboard...

TWL

I'm happy to see "Angel" go. There can never be a "good vampire" story, any more than there can be a "good rapist story" or a "good Nazi-affirming Holocaust story." 'Nuff said there.

Major difference between Vampires and rapist and nazis, namly Vampires are totally fictional, They don't exist in the real world. They are evil simply because creators, over the years have told you they were evil. If someone wants to write about a good vampire, (which obviously they have), then a good vampire suddenly exist. People make this stuff up, vampires are good or bad at the whim of some guy behind a typewriter, really, trust me on this. But if we have to use the Nazi parellel, well Oscar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party and also a "good" Nazi. And while I'm not going to say there can be a good rapist I can certainly imagine a rapist who does does good things. Sometimes things are not always black and white.

The sad fact is... the WB honchos already believe they have found something that will replace "Angel" as the "perfect" lead-out for "Smallville"... or they would not have announced the cancellation so early.--insideman

I wonder if not Dark Shadows than Global Frequency considered as Angel's replacement.

As for Joss on Astonishing X-Men, I find it hilarious that they have Brian Singer (with dougherty and someone else I think writing Ultimate X-Men) There's some bad blood between them.

With Angel I think it has to go. It's not so much the good vampire theme that bothers me, because Good vampire stories can be done, as long as you accept the premise that Vampires by nature are not evil. (I know in the jossverse they are but frankly he's been mucking about so much with his mythology for the past few years, it doesn't all fit together.)

spoilers for smile time below

This week's episode is a good example for why the show is done. Was it funny? sure, but it was empty, you go back to early buffy even the funny episodes had some sort of theme that connected with the plot. The monster was an analogy for the theme. As Neil Gaiman so eloquently put in his introduction for Astro City. The magic trick on which all good fiction depends.. There is room for things to mean more than they actually mean. Smile Time was funny and bizarre and felt a lot like a drug trip but it didn't mean anything. He's run out of things to say. At least I think he has with the Buffyverse.

Why was ENTERPRISE even created BEFORE Kirk and company came a gong? Simple, Berman hates Trek and always has in his mind Trek was always childish. He has changed Trek Universe so much that Ican't watch anything remotely connected to it. ENTERPRISE is nothing but rehashes of past TNG/VOY episodes. Hack writing at best. Berman sucks and doesn't know good science fiction if it bit him on the ass. TNG should hae had more movies. There was no excuse for what happened to the best Trek show on TV. ENTERPRISE and all the Treks that followed TNG never did well because you had Berman in charge. ENTERPRISE I won't miss it. and as far as Angel goes I'd rather watch re-runs of Buffy if I want to see a good vamp story. Could be people are getting tired of Trek & Vampire storylines and thats why the ratings are taking a nose dive.

Typo hell but I type in realtime, no spell checker. Setting a new Trek series before Kirk's time period was a dumb idea to set a Trek story. Why make it in the past instead of the future? Trek was supposed to be about the future not going backwards. Berman has no clue and never did. Sigh.

I'm happy to see "Angel" go. There can never be a "good vampire" story, any more than there can be a "good rapist story" or a "good Nazi-affirming Holocaust story." 'Nuff said there.

Although I've seen a lot of disagreement on this statement, I think I understand the point.

The point is that vampires are (usally) portrayed to live their unlives committing unforgivable act after another. (Angel is no exception and, quite frankly, was especially henious.) How can one realistically portray an utter villain sympathetically? It'd be akin to having a show whose premise is a resurrected Hitler trying to redeem episode after episode. No one would buy the premise and no one would want to latch on sympathetically with the main character.

But for me, that's part of what makes it compelling--how they manage to do it.

Angel has the advantage of not being real. There are no children of vampire victims around to remind us how sick it would be to actually root for such a character.

It's interesting to see what tracks they take to make it work. The most common of them seems to have said villain die heroically but torturously or otherwise suffer (Spike shutting the Hellmouth, Angel being stuck in hell for 100 years). OBERGEIST, a Dark Horse comic, has a doctor of the Mengele persuasion redeem himself this way. The most interesting one though is a Nazi Captain from BRIMSTONE. Here was a sincerely good man who, after escaping from Hell, tries to redeem himself of his sin which, relatively speaking wasn't too, too terrible (he betrayed a number of Jews who turned to him for help to the SS not because he was a bastard, but because he was afraid he'd be caught helping them). Ultimately, he realizes that there are some sins that cannot be forgiven and that he is truly damned. He then voluntarily allows himself to be sent back to Hell.

And as Digression:

God that episode of ANGEL was priceless. I just wish they had muppet Spike. Let's hope PAD hurries up and posts his review so we can start talking about it.

Typo hell but I type in realtime, no spell checker. Setting a new Trek series before Kirk's time period was a dumb idea to set a Trek story. Why make it in the past instead of the future? Trek was supposed to be about the future not going backwards. Berman has no clue and never did. Sigh.

I disagree. I thought setting the show in Trek's past was a great idea--I'd often thought a Cpt Pike or Cpt April series would do well. One of the problems I saw with the newer Trek's is that the writers had made their technology so advanced that it became increasingly more difficult to make threats.. well, threatening.

There's nothing wrong with the retro approach. Just as there was nothing wrong with doing a Trek version of Lost in Space. Its the excecution thats been fatally flawed.

Actually, Dee, Angel is the WB's second highest rated show in their treasured 18-34 demographic, so it's not that "ratings are taking a nose dive." It's all about the WB's desire to make syndication bucks off a Warner Bros. production rather than seeing them go to Fox. Hopefully it'll bite 'em in the ass.

'Course, I have noticed that Angel takes a certain level of native sophistication to grok fully...

Enterprise, of course, is being canceled because of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

Cannot say it is 100% true (read something about this years ago, don't recall the source) but, apparently, the rationale for setting Enterprise in pre-original series time had something to do with Roddenberry's will and estate, that either has some specific control over the content, or is in line for specific royalties (or both), but makes no mention of anything taking place beforethe original series, which, presumably, Paramount hold's the lion's share of licensing for.

Repeat for those hard of seeing -- cannot verify this.

I think what perhaps most irks me is that, as each series progresses, we no longer get characters who just happen to appear on a series titled Star Trek, but rather actors portraying Star Trek characters.

On dealing with the Star Trek issue:

2 ideas:

New Frontier (already suggested) but how about Star Trek: The Adventures of Captain Sulu. It was well set up by the end of the one movie (#5?) but also in Voyager. It would bring Tuvok back in a "younger" mode and bring a familiar crew back to TV. His period of being a starship captain still has "violently opposed to federation" Klingons and Romulans. Plenty of room there to build into the mythos!

-Jim

Tim:

Angel is actually pretty far down in the rankings of WB shows... 7th Heaven is still #1 (go fig), with Smallville, Gilmore Girls, Charmed, and Everwood consistently pulling better numbers...

He's run out of things to say. At least I think he has with the Buffyverse.

Well actually the Smile Time episode has a nice little metaphor in it about kids being left by their parents to be raised by the tv. And the joke on how it can be evil and soulsucking should be obvious. Not to mention the idea of someone selling his soul to hell to save a failing show which has a whole new dimension added to it by now.

As for the 'there can be no good vampire story anymore than a good rapist or nazi story', well I've read all the arguments about that, and I am sorry about what happened to you but I'm afraid that statement by itself is still one of the more nonsensical I've read in a while.

What a vampire is, is by now different per story. Because each writer sets it in a different light, with a different mythology. It can stand for rape and seduction. It can stand for loneliness and isolation. It can stand for being apart from everyone around you and harbouring a terrible secret. It can stand for the nature of evil and/or the nature of redemption.

And in the Jossverse especially many of the arguments fall flat since in that mythology basically everyone of us would be an evil monster since losing your soul and getting injected with demonic evil would turn all of us into that. So technically, souled Spike or Angel can't even be really blamed for their past soulless deeds since they could practically not help it.

And in other vampire stories, the protagonists already hate what they are and refuse to drink blood. You completely generalize all those stories, while many have nothing more in common than the use of the bare legend of these fantasy beings.

But even apart from that, your argument basically consists of the idea that there can be no redemption story. No stories about characters who've done terrible things in the past and are trying to make amends. I suppose Xena should not have been made. Or Eastwood's Unforgiven.

Oh and yes 'good nazi' stories can be made. And have been. Someone truly believing the nazi cause, but slowly seeing it for what it is and then trying to fight it would be one basic example.

Really, with any genre or type of story....it all depends on the story.

Angel is actually pretty far down in the rankings of WB shows... 7th Heaven is still #1 (go fig), with Smallville, Gilmore Girls, Charmed, and Everwood consistently pulling better numbers...

This is a direct quote from the press release re: the 100th episode, dated Jan 21:

ANGEL is currently The WB's second highest-rated series with adults 18-34. The series was created by Academy and Emmy Award-nominated writer Joss Whedon, along with David Greenwalt. Whedon serves as executive producer, along with Sandy Gallin, Gail Berman, Fran Rubel Kuzui, Kaz Kuzui, Jeffrey Bell and David Fury. The series stars David Boreanaz, Alexis Denisof, J. August Richards, Amy Acker, James Marsters and Andy Hallett. "You're Welcome" was written and directed by David Fury. ANGEL is a Mutant Enemy, Inc. and Kuzui/Sandollar production in association with Twentieth Century Fox Television. The series is currently in its fifth season.

First of all, Thank you, Luigi. I never thought of the things you mentioned. Upon closer examination, I found you were right. Thanks again.

Secondly, here are some Star Trek ideas.

1. The Captain Sulu series everybody is mentioning would be a WONDERFUL edition to Star Trek.

2. A series in which the captain is in a wheelchair. The chair also doubles as the captain's chair and can be linked to the bridge, ship's systems, etc. Well, I like the idea. It gives a hope and a role model to the disabled the same way Geordi did, and it makes the captain and his ship inseparable (How the hell is that word spelled?) thing more than just a way of thinking or a metaphor.

Enterprise, of course, is being canceled because of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

Judging from the fact that anything that George Bush finds interesting, such as space exploration, is instantly demogogued by the left, we'll be lucky if NASA exists after 2004, much less if Trek ever really happens.

As for Angel, I'm sorry, but it's past it's prime. I personally think it jumped the shark with the team losing Cordy and taking over Wolfram and Hart. I say put it out of it's misery, or at least mine.

Charmed-- this was once a really good show. Now it's just a parody of itself. Will admit that Angel is a better show, so the people who think that WB is cancelling Angel because it's a Fox show have a point.

Why was ENTERPRISE even created BEFORE Kirk and company came a gong? Simple, Berman hates Trek and always has in his mind Trek was always childish.

Okay, I'll be the first to admit Berman is a hack and Enterprise is the final nail in the coffin of Star Trek, but to say he hates Trek and deliberately made a bad show is ridiculous. Why spend so much effort rehashing plots from TNG if he thinks it's "childish." I think Berman sincerely believes that he is making a good show or at least a show that he thinks Trek fans will want to watch. But I can't believe that someone would devote over ten years of their professional life developing TV shows around a concept that he hates.

Judging from the fact that anything that George Bush finds interesting, such as space exploration, is instantly demogogued by the left, we'll be lucky if NASA exists after 2004, much less if Trek ever really happens.

Well, at least we won't have to worry about those Klingons.

Personally, from all accounts (including his own), I'm not convinced Bush finds anything interesting. The whole "look, I'm Kennedy!" space push was an obvious attempt to look like he's got some vision beyond Halliburton's coffers, and as such came straight from Karl Rove's playbook.

Besides, Bush can talk about it all he wants, but he'll just talk. He'll never actually fund the program, any more than he funded the rebuilding of Afghanistan as he promised, or delivered more than a sliver of the funding he promised toward helping New York City after 9/11. Fuding things takes money, and you don't have money if you cut taxes and go to war.

Oh, wait. That's right, he has money if he cuts taxes and goes to war.

But it won't get us to Mars, and it sure won't get us to Star Trek.

Has anyone here read "Starfleet Year one" by Jan Michael Friedman?

Here's a synopsis of the book:

Earth Command defeated the Romulans with the help of other races across the galaxy, and the Neutral Zone was established. Out of that necessary and uneasy collaboration came the United Federation of Planets and its combined forces, Starfleet. But the close quarters of a starship among so many races and personalities is discomforting to all the ranks. Control of what could grow to be the greatest power in the galaxy is at stake and no one is taking it lightly.

A powerful new class of starship, the Daedalus, flagship of the new Federation fleet, is up for grabs among the six new Starfleet captains. Adm. Ed Walker is determined to keep this jewel, and all of Starfleet, under military command and away from the scientists. He chooses Capt. Aaron Stiles as his protégé in the endeavor. Stiles, bent on avenging the death of his brother Jake, faces stiff resistance from Walker¹s rebellious space jock nephew Dane and scientist Capt. Bryce Shumar. But they face their biggest threat of all in an unknown alien race destroying the bases of the Oreias system. Can brains and brawn combine to win without killing each other in the process?

(note: I "borrowed" this synopsis of a trek book review web site, so not my words)

Anyhoozlebee, I think this book was what Enterprise should have been -- low powered, clunky ships, antogonistic alien "allies", laser & missile battles between slow moving ships, etc. If you haven't read it, check it out and see if you agree.

But....as we all know, TPTB at Paramount have always ignored the input of the writers of Trek novels. Sigh ad infinitum.

I'm happy to see "Angel" go. There can never be a "good vampire" story, any more than there can be a "good rapist story" or a "good Nazi-affirming Holocaust story." 'Nuff said there.

I disagree and not just because Angel is about a formerly bad person looking for redemption. "A Boy and His Dog" and "A Clockwork Orange" are two excellent stories in which the protagonist is a rapist and murderer, a totally reprehensible person without redemption. But they are both excellent stories.

Do the authors of these stories want you to emulate these characters? I would hope not, but just because the main character is not an admirable person, doesn't mean that compelling stories cannot be told about them. In fact, neither story would have worked in the main character had been a soup kitchen volunteer.

A lot of people are saying what kind of new Trek show they'd like to see next.

Now, I think the Trek well is dry and has been since before Voyager debuted, but if someone were to ask me what kind of show they should do next, I'd say leave Starfleet behind. Five shows that basically revolve around a the same formula of a Starfleet captain and his senior crewmembers is enough. Let's explore what life in the Federation is like for those who don't work for the government. Maybe a show about a group of colonists working to terraform a planet on the fringes. Keep Starfleet in background. In fact, maybe even have the colonists regard a visiting starship captain nosing around as an unwanted intrustion.

Re: Angel--maybe the movie format would be the best thing for the franchise. Think of what Whedon would do with a truly beefy fx budget. Plus, it might attract SMG to return if the next Buffy appearance she made were on the big screen. Let WB wallow in its reality-TV lowest common denominator mud pit.

Re: Enterprise. Good riddance. The only way the franchise can/should be revived is to return its storylines to the formula that worked best in Classic Trek--there's right and wrong and the guys and gals in the right kick the tails of those in the wrong. Moral ambiguity and New Age sensitivities have marooned Star Trek too long.

Assuming people are still reading this far down, here are my thoughts on Angel and Enterprise. I watch the former, but not the latter. Angel, is in fact, one of only three first-run shows I watch right now. I continue to enjoy it, and don't feel it has jumped the shark. In fact, I'm interested to see where this whole Wolfram & Hart deal will ultimately take Angel's team, since you know the senior partners don't have their best interests at heart. I wouldn't mind seeing the series go another season or two.

That being said, if it ends this year, I will be disappointed, but won't dwell on it too much. I'm actually cutting back on the amount of first-run TV I watch (though I continue to watch shows on DVD occasionally, including Angel). There are other things in my life that need my attention more than TV shows, even quality TV shows.

As to Enterprise, I watched it the first year, and thought it had the potential to recapture my interest after the disappointing Voyager, which I gave up on as a regular viewer by the middle of the first season . It looked like they were getting back to the core of Trek, which was stories about the characters and their relationships to each other, but somehow they got off track and my interest faded. I've only seen two episodes since then. Considering how much I've enjoyed Star Trek over the years, that's unfortunate.

Perhaps the Trek franchise is in need of a rest. After all, there has been a Trek series of one kind or another on the air continuously since September, 1987. That's 17 years folks. 17 years of continuous Trek. I remember when the only new Trek came in the form of novels and a movie every three years.

If you had told me in 1982, as I wondered what would happen next in the Trek universe now that Spock was dead, and hungered for new stories, that the first of four new series would premiere in just five years; and that Trek would continue on TV for nearly two decades after that fact, I'd be both surprised, and excited at the possibility. Yet, today, I don't watch the current series at all; still haven't seen the latest movie (I always used to see them on opening day); and except for the original series am not buying the shows on DVD (though price is a factor in that decision, to some degree).

Occasionally, I sit down and re-read the "Best of Trek" books from the 1980s, which contained collections of articles from Trek magazine-- articles about where Trek was going; whether there'd ever be a new series; whether Kirk should be re-cast or there should be a Sulu/Chekhov series (no one seemed to consider an entirely new crew); etc. When I do this, I recall, the level of interest and excitement I felt about what lay ahead for Trek, a feeling I no longer have about the franchise.

That feeling of excitement about a TV series was re-awakened with Babylon 5. In fact I got cable for a year just to see the final season of that show and finish the "novel." By 1998, when season 5 of B5 aired, I wouldn't have bothered for any other show, including Trek.

Maybe Enterprise is telling the history of the Mirror Universe, as some have suggested, or maybe Archer and Company will have to make the ultimate sacrifice to put the "correct" history back in place, as others have suggested; but I think if either of those possibilities are correct, it should've been made clear much earlier. They might've kept my interest.

So, to summarize: Angel continues to be good; still has stories to tell. Trek should rest and recharge its batteries. Come back fresh in a few years.

Rick

e: Enterprise. Good riddance. The only way the franchise can/should be revived is to return its storylines to the formula that worked best in Classic Trek--there's right and wrong and the guys and gals in the right kick the tails of those in the wrong. Moral ambiguity and New Age sensitivities have marooned Star Trek too long.

I would argue the diametric opposite. The current regime talk about moral ambiguity, BUT DON'T REALLY BELIEVE IT...a good guy/bad guy morality underlies everything...the Federation has to be the good guys and they're not allowed to make mistakes.

I would allow them to make mistakes; stronger stories come from that--you cannot have a compelling story when you know the heroes won't make mistakes (and yes, Kirk made a lot of them...AN ERRAND OF MERCY would never be told in the current regime). Black and white morality are fine for kids...but we're not kids any more.

Hi. Long time Trekkie (I started watching when NBC started showing it.), first time poster here.

I enjoy Enterprise.

I am well aware of the many complaints about Enterprise's "pre-retconned" glitches with future continuity.

I've always assumed that the series would have to end with a Dallas/Newhart negation, to explain why all future Trek mythos has no memory or mention of the Archer Enterprise, thier various first contacts, the Denobulans, etc. Starting with the Xindi/Expanse season, I adopted the theory that the entire series was occuring in a parallel dimension or parallel universe.

Props to the person here who theorized that Enterprise begins in the standard Trek universe but the conclusion of the Temporal Cold War will eliminate all memory of them and initiate the creation of the Mirror Universe of TOS and DS9 fame. That concept may need some tweaking, but it has potential.

To the many people who'd like to see something based on Trek lore but totally different and yet the same, and particularly the person who suggested a story in which the end of the Temporal Cold Conflict causes the Archer Enterprise to shift 300 years into it's own future (I assume that person was joking): It's (koffGeneRoddenberry'sAndromedakoff) been done.

"Actually, even moreso than the RetConning, I found it difficult to accept the new look, considering the advances in every factor of filmmaking since the original series guaranteed that the stories taking place one hundred years before would look more futuristic than the stories that took place afterwards. Then again, I have this same problem with STAR WARS Episodes 1 and 2."-Malvito.

As far as Star Wars is concerned, I think the idea of the earlier stuff (EpI) looking newer and more futuristic than the later stuff (the original trilogy) was that the empire was a tyranical dictatorship, and no one could really get anything new, they just had to rebuild and piece together the older stuff. That was my understanding, anyway.

monkeys.

Without reading any of the posts above, it was my impression that the fate of Angel this year was going to be dependent on an appearance by Sarah Michele Gellar, and how that guest appearance went ratings-wise? I heard that they would indeed cancel if she didn't make the appearance?

Anyone hear about this?

As for Enterprise, the writing has been ok at times, horrible more often than not. I like how Archer was willing to show some ruthlessness early on by threatening a Zindi(sp?) to throw him out an airlock. But then they spend too much time on off-topic stories. Some say the best part of Deep Space Nine, was the last half of the final season when the episodes were all continuous, rather than stand alone stories. This kind of storyline progression is what's needed. It keeps people in the story. Fillers just don't cut it except in between major elements of the overall story.

But I wanted to state that I read on the Sci-fi channel website that they had fired the writers of Enterprise. This has piqued my interest even more than it originally had after last night's episode which was a clone of the same concept in Voyager where 7of9 went crazy while being alone as the crew was placed in cryogen sleep while passing through hazardous space. The Doctor was there too, just as T'Pol was. The doctor broke down, just as T'Pol lost emotional control. Too many similarities not to be either a coincidence or a sign of poor and lazy writing. Next week's episode was previewed as having to deal with a mutiny on the ship. This was also done on Voyager. See a pattern?

You know the show's in trouble when the same writer's rehash old scripts that were bad to begin with.

This series has so much potential. When it started I was worried after seeing that the people making it were the same people who wrote and produced Voyager, and I thought the best episodes of Voyager were the final and the Dinosaur episode.

MYOB'

.

we'll be lucky if NASA exists after 2004, much less if Trek ever really happens

err...let me go off on a limb here, but I don't think we'll be 'lucky' if Trek happens...that is, if it happens in the way Trek says it happens.

The 'utopia' of the 24th century is certainly a nice destination, but the path Star Trek writers suggested the earth followed to get there was kind of rocky.

I'd like to find a different path to the same destination.

Mr. Reed, you've said the thing that has probably sparked the most response, and even though it's been done to death, I feel compelled to respond.

I'm happy to see "Angel" go. There can never be a "good vampire" story, any more than there can be a "good rapist story" or a "good Nazi-affirming Holocaust story." 'Nuff said there.

I also disagree with this. The difference between a rapist or Nazi and a vampire is that to be a rapist or Nazi, one must make an ethical decision. To rape another person is to force one's will on another person. To become a Nazi is to choose a political philosophy that assumes one group of people is inherently superior to another due to the uncontrollable circumstance of their birth, which many would argue is evil -- I wouldn't say evil, but it's certainly misguided and it can easily motivate evil actions.

A vampire is a person that another vampire chose to make a vampire. They're people randomly granted power. There's no reason you can't tell a story that casts them in a favorable light. Even in the Buffy-verse, where vamps are soulless humans possessed by demons who lack compunction, Angel and Spike defy that definition because they are different creatures -- vampires reinhabited by their former mortal souls. Further, since vamps are part demon and we've seen full-blooded demons who aren't evil, and even some who are good.

Vampires aren't inherently evil creatures, though, mainly because there are hundreds of vampiric legends to draw from, and they aren't merciless monsters in each one. You can draw from Stoker, or Ann Rice, or Mexican lore, Chinese legend, Teutonic myth, or Vampire: The Masquerade, and from each you will find differences. A vampire could be a human struggling with monstrous impulses; an intelligent creature bent on destruction; the heir to genetically transferred power; a monster and nothing more; any of these and more are available options.

If you still see them after reading this thread, you should try watching My Best Friend is a Vampire. It's a vampire movie in which vampires just want to be left alone. They buy pigs' blood from butcher shops and wear lots of sunblock. It's an '80s teen comedy, but it's not a bad movie, and it's got David Warner in it, as well as Rene Aber... Aberjoi... um, Odo from DS9.

Okay, this may or may not be the right place to post this idea, but it is not exactly without precedent. I'm gonna mention what I think would make a cool new Trek series. Feel free to scroll past this post...

Okay, back in the heady days of DS9, I was kicking around the idea of submitting a script for that series. Looking back, I realize that it committed several serious sins of writing for an ongoing series, mainly that it focused on brand new characters (read J.M.Straczynski's book on scriptwriting to see why this is a bad idea if you actually want to sell a script). It dealt with a new (or previously unrevealed) corps of Starfleet, one dedicated to reclaiming alien technology.

Basically, it dealt with a group of new recruits who were to meet this 'special ops' starship on DS9 to head out on their first mission, to uncover the homeworld of the Husnocks, the race wiped out by 'Kevin', a member of the race the Dowd, in the TNG episode 'The Survivors' (http://stng.36el.com/st-tng/episodes/151.html if you want to see an episode synopsis).

Okay, it might not seem that interesting when laid out like that, but the principal concept was going to be how a brand-new female android, created by Bruce Maddox, would come to deal with her existance and some sort of meaning to her 'life'. I had planned to have her interacting with Bajoran faith giving her some sort of framework that her life might take.

Basically, she would not endeavour to be more 'human', as Data does, but to really discover what being synthetic is, and how it relates to faith (where others are only supposing to have a creator, she knows for a fact that she does! as an example).

Kinda lame, now that I look at it. Ah, well, it is good to get that story/series idea off my chest after all these years. If someone can take that idea, run with it and make it into a series or book or something that makes them lots of money, go and have a ball. With my blessing :)

Anyway, what was the topic under discussion? Oh, yeah. Enterprise is better off gone (although, for all the Berman-bashing going on here, he did write my favourite TNG episode 'Brothers). I would miss Angel, except I never really catch it on a regular basis since season two anyway.

**Besides, Bush can talk about it all he wants, but he'll just talk. He'll never actually fund the program, any more than he funded the rebuilding of Afghanistan as he promised, or delivered more than a sliver of the funding he promised toward helping New York City after 9/11. Fuding things takes money, and you don't have money if you cut taxes and go to war.

Oh, wait. That's right, he has money if he cuts taxes and goes to war.**

Oh give me a break. He promised an extra Billion spread out over FIVE years. That's 200 million dollars a year. To the gov't that's the same as you finding 35 cents in the couch cushions.. Heck the Dept. of Education misspent HALF of that amount in one year and no one even cared except Bill O'Reilly, and when he tried to make a stink every body came down on him.

**err...let me go off on a limb here, but I don't think we'll be 'lucky' if Trek happens...that is, if it happens in the way Trek says it happens.

The 'utopia' of the 24th century is certainly a nice destination, but the path Star Trek writers suggested the earth followed to get there was kind of rocky.

I'd like to find a different path to the same destination. **

Well, to be honest, while Trek SOUNDS nice it goes against two hard core realities 1) physics, and 2) human nature.

Besides, I'm not sure I want to live in Politically Correct hell.

To Tim Byrd:

Who'd that press release come from, the production company? Here's the actual WB show rankings and ratings (all viewers) from last week:

1. 7th Heaven - 4.1/6

2. Everwood - 3.9/6

3. Smallville - 3.1/5

4. Gilmore Girls - 3.3/5

5. Reba - 2.9/5

6. The Surreal Life - 2.8/4

7. Charmed - 2.8/4

8. One Tree Hill - 2.6/4

9. Angel - 2.4/4

In adults 18-34 it's a little different - again, last week, same shows:

1. Smallville - 2.7/8

2. Gilmore Girls - 2.3/7

3. Everwood - 2.2/6

4. Charmed - 2.2/6

5. 7th Heaven - 2.1/6

6. One Tree Hill - 2.0/6

7. Angel - 1.9/5

8. The Surreal Life - 1.9/5

9. Reba - 1.7/7

I've got nothing against Angel... I kinda like it (last night's episode was great) - it's just that the numbers tell a different story than what the publicists would have you believe...

Fenn

I wonder if Angel is off-beat enough for someone like HBO to be interested in. Can you imagine what they could do with it there (naked werewolf girl notwithstanding)?

To Tim Byrd: Who'd that press release come from, the production company?

Try the WB itself:

http://www.thewb.com/PressRelease/Index/0,8341,150762,00.html

But, as I said, it was dated 1/21, and these things aren't static.

Either way, it's a top 10 show.

Um, "Top 10 show" doesn't necessarily mean much on the WB. Remember, they only program 2 hours a night (plus reruns on Sundays) and not every night. Per their website, they currently only have 16 shows.

How would I do Trek? First, I'm afraid I agree the existing showrunners have been around too long and haven't had a success in too long, either tv or movie. So, let's give it a one year rest and then shake it up.

4 (or maybe 8) separate 6 show mini-series, all set in the ST universe, all in same timeslot, possibly with different show runners. In other words, first 6 weeks of the season "Captain Sulu" by Peter David. Second 6 weeks of the season "Starfleet Anthropologists" by JMS. Third 6 weeks "Starfleet Academy" by Joss Whedon. Fourth 6 weeks "The .8 G Wing" by Aaron Sorkin. Mix and match existing characters from different shows, bring in new characters as well, etc.

I hope that no one minds the bit of off-topic comment here. I haven't been visiting here for a very long time, but I don't think that I've ever seen this much time go my without Peter making some kind of comment. It is unusual for him to go silent for days?

Mr. David, if you read this, I hope that you've just got better things to do than hang out with us internet geeks and nothing horrid has happenned.

David, if I had to guess, I'd say it's because Peter doesn't want to comment on Trek because, as he's stated in the past, many times that he's done so, his comments have gotten twisted and misinterpreted, and spread around the net, which could potentially make his relationship with Pocket Books (which is owned by Paramount, and publishes the Trek novels) difficult.

The most unfortunate example I am aware of is when Gene Roddenberry's aide de camp, Richard Arnold, who took a dislike to Peter, told Gene that Peter, in his 10/12/90 But I Digress column, publicly attacked Trek and claimed that he wrote better Trek than Gene, which of course, wasn't true. Without Gene having read the article, Richard Arnold turned Gene against Peter, a situation Peter was unable to clear up withe Gene before he died.

As for why Peter has been also silent on the Angel portion of the thread, I don't know, but maybe it's along similar lines.

I've read too many interviews with Berman and past articles that he is quoated as saying "he hated GR's verson of Trek." Why do you think he went out of his way to make ENTERPRISE set in a past time period instead of a future one? HE HATES IT! Berman has killed the entire Trek franchise that we all knew and loved for decades with this one rehashed show. Berman just wants the paycheck, he could careless about Trek as a whole. Go ask anyone Berman worked with on TNG. Go read his interviews. The vibe I get from the man is he looths it period. He didnt want to attach Star Trek to Enterprise title now, why was that eh? He killed TNG's movie run. Face it, the man has no passion for it so therefore, Paramount should have canned his ass a long time ago. and PAD is probably not going to comment on ENTERPRISE cause it's too close to home, knpw what I mean?? TNG should have went out with a bang not a whimper.

Dee: I've read too many interviews with Berman and past articles that he is quoated as saying "he hated GR's verson of Trek."

Luigi Novi: Did he actually say that?

Dee: Berman has killed the entire Trek franchise that we all knew and loved for decades with this one rehashed show.

Luigi Novi: I don't think he did this with this one show. I think Voyager and 3 of the 4 films in the NextGen movie run contributed to this.

Dee: I've read too many interviews with Berman and past articles that he is quoated as saying "he hated GR's verson of Trek."

Luigi Novi: Did he actually say that?

If Dee's citing it, it must be tr--

Tr--

Er, Dee always knows what--

Um. Never mind. I just can't do it.

I've read too many interviews with Berman and past articles that he is quoated as saying "he hated GR's verson of Trek."

I'd like to see those articles because I'd have to wonder about that. Berman didn't just fall from the sky the day after Roddenbury's death. He worked on TNG prior to being named the "caretaker" of Trek legacy. How could someone so (allegedly) openly hostile toward's Roddenbury's work manage to ascend so high in the organization.

Interesting. One person has said that one big problem with "Enterprise" was that they were having too many character-driven stories. Another said that one big problem was that he missed the original's character-driven stories. Guess you just can't please some folks...

Personally, I thought "Enterprise" was running out of steam during the second season, and that the Xindi arc was just what they needed to kick the show right in the impulse engine. I do anticipate that the arc will end with a story which will clip the entire season, and possibly the NX project's entire existence, into a closed temporal loop.

If we want a new Trek series that looks like somebody's existing stories, how about an "X-Files" inspired one, involving a brave Federation investigator (and probably his sidekick, a former member of the Obsidian Order) uncovering and trying to destroy Section 31?

(Yes, I'm kidding - sort of...)

Just for the sake of a random thought, I'd love to see a one hour television special about Star Trek. The special would use various castmembers of the various shows and simply put them in humorous scenes that we fans would love to see and get a kick out of watching.

Whenever the idea of the special, which I realize is five shades of not-gonna-happen, runs through my mind, I am reminded of Shatner's retort in Free Enterprise to Han Solo being referred to as cooler than Captain Kirk.

Dee: I've read too many interviews with Berman and past articles that he is quoated as saying "he hated GR's verson of Trek."

And these articles are where?

Sorry, but I'm from Missouri ... you have to show me.

I hope Enterprise doesn't get cancelled, but it doesn't look good.

There are PLENTY of things that could have been done by the creators to improve the series. Hiring REAL WRITERS would have been a good start. There are MANY writers who have tried to get scripts out to those guys (including a neighbour of mine) and they all come back unopened. There are so many possibilities that exist in the Star Trek universe, it is a crime to not explore more of them.

To the current creators credit, the series has improved, but it could be better.

Good point, Drifter. TOS had a good deal of success with stories written by actual SF writers ("The Trouble With Tribbles", "Amok Time", two different versions of "City on the Edge of Forever"...). Maybe "Enterprise" should solicit some SF writers to script for them.

Hey, I've heard of this guy called Peter David, who writes a pretty good stick... :)

Den wrote: Now, I think the Trek well is dry and has been since before Voyager debuted, but if someone were to ask me what kind of show they should do next, I'd say leave Starfleet behind. Five shows that basically revolve around a the same formula of a Starfleet captain and his senior crewmembers is enough. Let's explore what life in the Federation is like for those who don't work for the government. Maybe a show about a group of colonists working to terraform a planet on the fringes. Keep Starfleet in background. In fact, maybe even have the colonists regard a visiting starship captain nosing around as an unwanted intrustion.

What if we made it about a small independent vessel with a crew that's just barely managing to keep themselves afloat financially, travelling between some of the colony worlds?

That was pretty much the premise of Joss Whedon's brilliant (and much missed) Firefly, wasn't it? The Alliance pretty much represented the Federation, I thought.

Luigi Novi: I don't think he did this with this one show. I think Voyager and 3 of the 4 films in the NextGen movie run contributed to this.

I'd say it was only two of the four films. And Nemesis wasn't nearly as infuriating as First Contact. Generations and Insurrection weren't exactly great, but few of the original series movies were, either.

**What if we made it about a small independent vessel with a crew that's just barely managing to keep themselves afloat financially, travelling between some of the colony worlds?

That was pretty much the premise of Joss Whedon's brilliant (and much missed) Firefly, wasn't it? The Alliance pretty much represented the Federation, I thought.**

True, but the Alliance was extremely sinister and I don't think the average Trek-zombie can handle a show where the Federation isn't the happy benevelent utopia.

This is also a big reason why the well is dry.

All you have to do is look up Rick Berman interviews on google's search. I'm sure they'll popup. I'm not gonna sit here and take up PAD's blog with Berman interviews. so, you're on your own with that one. :)

The well went dry because Berman IS NOT science fiction. He never was and never will be. He's a soap opera writer, just look at the lame storylines he picks for production and you'll see a pattern. He fired his good sci-fi writers and replaced em with people who didn't know how to write Trek. That's why Nemesis flopped so bad. Try hiring a real science fiction writer next time Berman instead of taking the cheap way out by hiring some one who didnt know Trek's Universe at all.

Dee said

Try hiring a real science fiction writer next time Berman instead of taking the cheap way out by hiring some one who didnt know Trek's Universe at all.

Dee, you have a point, BUT it must be understood that it is just as expensive to write a solid story as it is to write junk. There are hundreds of good writers out there. My neighbour tried desperately to get a meeting with ANYBODY from the Enterprise crew. The man has a Ph. D in English, so he at least has credentials. All his stuff came back unopened. I personally thought it might be fun to focus on the time just after First Contact and explore more Earth "History". No luck on getting a meeting on that, despite having a script and myself a Ph.D in Philosophy. They don't answer the phone at UPN.

I have seen so many good scripts and ideas from so many writers here in my area, the crew could go on 10 5 year missions and still have leftover scripts. The well has certainly NOT run dry. Let us NOT give Berman and company a free pass on this one. They are a lazy, unimaginative lot. The fault is not in the stars, it lies with Berman and Co.

In filmmaking, it takes as much work to make crap as it does to put together something worthwhile. The producers have more than enough money and plenty of talent in front of the screen and behind the camera. They have scripts from writers from all over the world and they send them back unopened, so I suppose they will get what they deserve. Too bad, the show is getting better.

True, but the Alliance was extremely sinister and I don't think the average Trek-zombie can handle a show where the Federation isn't the happy benevelent utopia.

But, the Alliance might not have really been "sinister." It's just the point of view we were given. There were corrupt officials, sure, and the Serenity crew certainly wanted to avoid the officials, but there was good reason for that, what with them being smugglers and the like.

Blue Sun, they were sinister. And that might be the biggest Trek diffence, I think, other than the complete lack of people in funny prosthetics pretending to be aliens. Firefly's Alliance seemed pretty capitalistic. The Federation didn't seem so -- unless I'm mistaken, it was even pointed out a few times that they'd done away with money.

Luigi Novi: I don't think he did this with this one show. I think Voyager and 3 of the 4 films in the NextGen movie run contributed to this.

Robin Sizemore I'd say it was only two of the four films. And Nemesis wasn't nearly as infuriating as First Contact. Generations and Insurrection weren't exactly great, but few of the original series movies were, either.

Luigi Novi: ST First Contact was by far the best out of the four NextGen films, IMO, and is generally considered thus by fandom. ST Nemesis may not have been as bad as Generations and Insurrection, but it was pretty bad. As far as the original series movies, I find 4 of out the 6 to be good: The II-IV trilogy, and VI.

Dee: All you have to do is look up Rick Berman interviews on google's search. I'm sure they'll popup.

Luigi Novi: Dee, nowhere in the interviews with Berman referenced by Google or that I’ve read elsewhere say that he hated Trek.

Dee: I'm not gonna sit here and take up PAD's blog with Berman interviews.

Luigi Novi: I don’t recall anyone here saying you had to post entire interviews, only the quote, and the interview to which it is attributed. Why “take up PAD’s blog” with the posts you’ve made here, but not a mere quote and attribution?

Dee: so, you're on your own with that one.

Luigi Novi: No, you’re on your own in citing the interview or quote in question. If you’re going to make a serious charge as asserting that Rick Berman has stated that he hates Trek, then the obligation to provide the quote is on you, not us.

Dee: He fired his good sci-fi writers and replaced em with people who didn't know how to write Trek. That's why Nemesis flopped so bad.

Luigi Novi: I think that’s a very insular attitude to have. Good writing is good writing. I loved The Last Samurai, which like all good fiction, is about the human condition. If John Logan had approached the script for Nemesis the same way, and focused on the same human condition-themes as he did in The Last Samurai or Gladiator (like perhaps focusing on how Riker and Troi ended up together, instead of just making it a throwaway portion of the story), then ST Nemesis could’ve been good. No franchise is going to survive if it’s run with the elitist attitude that “oh, that person doesn’t know how to write for our franchise.”

Tokyo Drifter: My neighbour tried desperately to get a meeting with ANYBODY from the Enterprise crew. The man has a Ph. D in English, so he at least has credentials. All his stuff came back unopened. They don't answer the phone at UPN.

Luigi Novi: Paramount/Trek stopped accepting spec scripts (the only ones in the industry, I believe, who used to do so at all) after Voyager.

All you have to do is look up Rick Berman interviews on google's search. I'm sure they'll popup. I'm not gonna sit here and take up PAD's blog with Berman interviews. so, you're on your own with that one. :)

No, you made the assertion, so it's up to you to substantiate it.

Now, let me see if I've got the logic right: Rick Berman openly and proudly hates Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry's philosophy, yet he manages to land gig as an executive producer at TNG. He even rises to the point of taking over as "caretaker" of Trek after GR dies (hmmm, did they really rule his death as natural causes?).

After which, he continues to publicly bad mouth the show that's kept him employed since the late 80s and he even starts to deliberately make bad shows and bad movies just to destroy the franchise from the inside.

Is that about right?

Isn't easier just to assume that Berman's problems are simply arrogance and incompetence rather than some sinister motive?

But, the Alliance might not have really been "sinister." It's just the point of view we were given.

But, Whedon gave us nothing to suspect that they were anything but sinister.

I'm happy to see "Angel" go. There can never be a "good vampire" story, any more than there can be a "good rapist story" or a "good Nazi-affirming Holocaust story." 'Nuff said there.

I disagree - it depends on the writers' take on the nature of vampirism. Some writers like Brian Lumley write them as evil evil evil to the pits of their rotten core, but some other writers write them as sympathetic protagonists with heavy burdens to bear and secrets to hide. Like P.N. Elrod's Jack Fleming from her Vampire Files novels - he's a guy who just happened to be in the wrong situation at the wrong time, and his being a vampire was more like an unpleasant medical condition.

We can't make sweeping generalizations about vampire stories just because the high-profile ones take the "bad vampire" angle and write them as evil-for-evil's-sake (and let's face it, that's how Buffy started) or as cheesy erotica staples. It's like saying there can't be any "good werewolf" stories because they're nothing but bloodthirsty and violent forces of nature.

Incidentally, Forever Knight was a great TV series about a vampire seeking redemption after years of being monstrous. The vampires on that show weren't evil-for-evil's-sake - they were shown doing all kinds of human things like solving crimes, serving in the Red Cross, and so on. (this show was why I could never get into Angel - to me, FK had always done it first and had concentrated on the vampire thing without cluttering it with ninety-nine other kinds of supernatural stuff).

As to the whole argument about the Borg nanoprobes being vulnerable to a certain kind of radiation, I would think the answer is obvious: in the 200 years between series, they discovered this vulnerability and adapted, perhaps with a heads up as part of the signal that was sent. It makes sense that they might have been able to glean this much from Phlox or understood why his nanoprobes stopped working, thereby rewriting the future of BoBW & First Contact, and then sending vulnerable drones in order to ensure that this vulnerability would be be exposed and taken care of.

I LOVE angel i really love Angel it is my absolute favourite show and i really agree and obviously so many others agree it is so much better then some dumb reality tv show! A ton of people were dissapointed when Buffy stopped and they were all relieved Angel was still around. Now we find out that Angel is being shut down we are ALL furious!!!!!

SAVE ANGEL DUMP REALITY TV!!!

Gee, Sara, how do you feel about "Angel"? :-)

Y'know - a lot of the general indifference to Enterprise may simply be down to the fact that there is so darn much of Star Trek going about. And by that I mean the TNG/Voyager/Enterprise triptych.

Now, the problem is that these are all much of a muchness- sure the actors differ from series to series but the general plots, structures - even individual scenes are all much the same. You could play a party game here - cut out scenes from a random selection of episodes from each s eries, jumble them up, write some linking d ialogue and - hey presto - a whole new episode.

Now, 'tis true that each series has also produced a number of individual episodes that stand up well in terms of drama and general quality - and it could also be argued reasonably that TNG was responsible for the resurgence of interest in television science-fiction after the Galactic 80 fiasco.

But there is sooo much of it that is the same - pick a mid -season story from, say, Season 5 of Voyager, season 5 of TNg and season 2 of Enterprise - very little difference I maintain. And the stuff is all over the place even here in Britain - you can't move for it on Sky One, BBC2, Channel 4...clogging up the television arteries like the TV version of a Big Mac with cheese.

There's my comparison - Trek nowadays is like fast-food - it works provided you serve up the same thing, day by day - the customers are happy because they know what they are getting, you are happy because you don't have to give much thought to changing the recipe. Occasionally you can introduce a whole new item - Cajun Chicken burger or a new Starship captain - but you soon move back and your audience goes with you. Smiles all round.

( By the way I exclude DS9 for two reasons - one, because I hold that it DID establish an indentity distinct from the rest of Trek as it was in the 90s - and two, for the far less valid reason that I liked it the best...I want my DS9 movie gewdammmit !!!)

Whilst I can't advance any argument that Berman hates the GR universe I do find it strange, to say the least, that Original Trek remains the one high profile SF series that hasn't been released on those big Season 1 DVD boxed sets. Even Lost in Space is now available ( and yup, I'm buying it - the pain, oh, the pain )- but not TOS.

Isn't Berman missing the trick here ? Given that Enterprise is supposedly a prequel of sorts to the original s eries, then releasing TOS on DVD would seem to be a good way of priming both fan, and general public, enthusiasm. After all - if people are willing to stand up and be counted as fans by buying Battlestar Galactica on boxed set ( umm- one !! )- then imagine how they will flock to buy Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley et al...?

Yet - it isn't there to buy... wonder why ? Even with Eneterprise struggling to survive, TOS remains concpicuous by its absence. Could it be that someone, somewhere is afraid that reviewing TOS would make a lot of people realise that Star Trek used to be about really fun people in really clourful sets going to really weird planets where they would have really wild adventures...

And not a bunch of dreepy faced saddos in grey bolier suits sitting in a dimly lit spaceship snapping at one another ...

Actually, Dave, I'm fairly certain I read recently that TOS is next up for DVD treatment right after Voyager's run is completed.

My suspicion is that it simply took a lot more effort to assemble in terms of cleaning up prints, getting extras from people who are now harder to find, etc. That could be completely bogus -- but in any case, I think it's on the way.

TWL

I understand the need for continuity, but come on. Bashing the show because of all of the continuity errors seems silly to me. Enterprise has remained true to its own continuity and Star Trek in general has so many time travel episodes that have affected what could have/did happen that I doubt anyone really knows the history behind the Star Trk universe.

Dear Tim

You have made an old man very very very happy !!!!

cheers

dave

One thing that should be mentioned (and if it was already then shoot be because after 50+ posts of what was wrong with Enterprise gave me a headache) is that, while this is a TV show, no writer can write something current and leave open infinite possibilities. The people saying that the NX-01 has never appeared any form of Trek history is preposterous! It hadn't even been thought of yet. Most Star Trek shows, until Enterprise, have been forward storytelling where they can build on history already established or history they just made up. With Enterprise we have had a chance to see the beginnings of that history and sure there will be some problems - but to a large extent they are still making up history. Jeez Louise, It sounds like the famous SNL skit in here. Star Trek (and all forms of entertainment on TV) is suppose to be fun - well, this is taking it a bit extreme.

Another thing that I saw over and over (at least through the first 50) was how they should do "Starfleet Academy" or "Star Fleet Academy with Jim Kirk, Spock, etc..." I guarantee you that if they had done this type of show or something similar, the same people tearing apart the show about continuity would have had a field day with this one too. Eg...OH, did you see last night's episode??? You have got to be kidding... I can't believe that they had Kirk kiss an Asian woman. They have totally blown the continuity of the TOS. Everybody knows that Kirk's first interracial kiss was Uhura... This would have been of course been wrong because it was the first interracial kiss on television, but you get my point. We all have our different ways of making the show fit together, justifying (or not) different events of the timeline.

Enterprise for better or worse is a fun show as it was meant to be. There will never be a show that will live up to every expectation of every fan. I have been let down with a few episodes, but over all have had a lot of fun with this current series. I hope to have fun with it a few seasons more.

"Another thing that I saw over and over (at least through the first 50) was how they should do "Starfleet Academy" or "Star Fleet Academy with Jim Kirk, Spock, etc..." I guarantee you that if they had done this type of show or something similar, the same people tearing apart the show about continuity would have had a field day with this one too. Eg...OH, did you see last night's episode??? You have got to be kidding... I can't believe that they had Kirk kiss an Asian woman. They have totally blown the continuity of the TOS. Everybody knows that Kirk's first interracial kiss was Uhura... This would have been of course been wrong because it was the first interracial kiss on television, but you get my point."

Your point was also made rather dramatically last night, as I visited a local major retailer of books. As I browsed the SF, a gentleman (and I use the term loosely) of about 20 or so destroyed the quiet I was enjoying, by loudly "proving" to his friend that the "Enterprise" series couldn't have *really* happened - because there was no picture of the NX-01 on the cover of the Official History of Star Trek!

The problem with Paramount and by extension, the existing Trek franchise is the same problem that can be applied to most suits at Hollywood Studios. Note I say "Most" as even amidst the dregs of tie-wearing, tie-choked execs you can sometimes find a person with a modicum of creative vision. That is, formulaitis. "This is what has worked for us in the past so it will work again in the future." Three very virulant strains of this disease are "spinoffitis" , "sequalitis" and "adaptatitis" all of which are the new plague of American filmmaking. How else could be a a plot vacnt character study vignette like "Lost in Translation" get " Best Original Screenplay"..there is very little competition that has any marketing behind it.

Someone once said that nothing new exists under the sun. They were wrong. The theme may be reminiscent of earlier works but that does not neccesitate being derivative. Unique characters, plot twists and challenges can always be original or at the very least their combination can be original.

Take Enterprise- I actually had an opprtunity to read Peter's column in Dreamquest a while back about Enterprise and he hit on a proposal that I made to the suits at Trek. But were told "Paramount tells us when we do a new series not the other way around." This only reinforces the formulaitis. Until someone comes up with a cure for these plagues of entertainment we will be stuck with more and more "reality shows" like The Simple Life and Joe Midget. These shows are a direct outgrowth of the lack of creativity in the industry because they can be unpredictable and non-formulaic which is what the public demands.

I call for the industry to quit taking the cheap route of quasi-reality shows and invest in some real creativity. Shows that push the limits like The Twilight Zone did in it's day, or Quantum Leap the most original time travel series ever. But most importantly not be dogmatically attached to formulas and not be afraid to try something new..notably like sci-fi channel and do it as a mini-series to test the waters and then go for a full series if you find an eager public.

BTW: Peter if you'd like to be involved in the development of an Anti-Trek as in Anti-Matter series potentially to pitch to Sci-Fi channel drop me a line.

www.missionthanatos.com

Believe it or not, I went through all the posts about Star Trek (hereafter ST) and Enterprise's cancellation. I've got some (long . . . sorry) comments:

1) The purpose of a TV show is to sell the products of the advertisers who buy spots on them. If the show's not attracting and holding the eyeballs of viewers, then the network and its marketers can't sell spots on that show to advertisers, and the outside funding for the show dries up. They then have to fund whatever episodes they need to for contractual reasons with the leftover funds, or via debt — a recipe for disaster (Federal government, are you listening?).

2) Writing SF and bringing it to the screen is a HUGE risk, and arduous work. If it's really bizarre, it may attract people with imagination, but run-of-the-mill viewers will be befuddled and switch channels to some salacious or violent inanity that feeds the baser impulses without engaging the intellect or more refined sensibilities, and the series is axed (as happened for the original Outer Limits, which was an anthology with no continuity, but usually excellent, original writing). Gene Roddenberry achieved a miracle by even getting Desilu to pick up ST:TOS in the first place, and only after a while did it catch on — in syndication. The optimistic (arguably SIMplistic) tone of TOS was driven by tremendously interesting characters (Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty), a fine mix of often very hammy acting spiced with not a little humor — and a contemplative edge. Sometimes Archer, T'Pol, Trip, etc., were interesting and engaging, and often they were wooden (as Picard was pompous and stentorian). I got tired of Jolene Blalock's pulchritude being exploited for its superficial, salacious effect. I could see that she is a talented actress, and felt that the sexual angle was overemphasized -- but, hey, that's ST tradition (Yeoman Rand, Dr. Crusher, 7 of 9, Dax . . .). Sex sells, and Hollywood will never restrain itself from stooping too low if money is to be had. I believe it was Samuel Goldwyn who said "No one ever lost money by underestimating the taste of the American public." Berman may have tried to find a new formula that'd give better longevity to a series, but this one didn't do it.

3) But there's also the copy-my-own-successful-formula trap. This isn't unique to Trek. It's rampant in the arts, as well: An artist finds success in a stylistic niche and analyzes the elements, finding certain ones that seem to have resulted in that success, and then continues creating stuff that replicates that formula ad nauseam, often resulting in outright crap. It takes EFFORT to create truly original, creative stuff, and it's RARE (that's why it's so highly sought after). It's mentally exhausting, expensive, and time-consumptive. Doing it on demand week in and week out and being able to replicate the success so as to attract advertisers, and thereby be attractive to the network- or syndication moguls, is HARD. Human nature is lazy, and if one finds such a formula, instead of working to constantly create new, fresh stuff that leaves people craving more, it's much easier to continue mining the same vein until it's exhausted as popular interests tapers off. Enterprise seemed to do that almost as if in sleepwalking mode, as if the people involved were giving up and letting the inevitable work to its Greek-tragedy end -- out with a whimper, not with a bang.

4) The artistic and idealistic pretensions of the ST franchise are there, of course. They evolved from plain old flag-waving, drum-thumping, optimistic (sometimes even jingoistic) Americanism in TOS' run, to much more starry-eyed global/cosmic idealism in the later franchises. But, after all, it's just a TV show, and to expect slavish technical and detail consistency from such ephemera is ridiculous. They'd have to hire a full-time ST trivia consultant to do it, and I believe that person would finally end up in an asylum ("Dagger of the Mind" was a fine TOS episode!). Enterprise's premise was a good one, but I'll agree that its technology had a much more advanced look than the ultra-primitive TOS sets. What were they to do, use the same painted-wood sets with 35mm-slide displays? No, they used modern matte- and computer-generated shots, and the effects were better. ST is, after all, mere fiction. I mean, look at Zefram Cochrane: In Generations he's a grown-up hippie, and in TOS he's marooned on a planet with an incorporeal lifeform that's his lover ("The Companion"). Suspend judgement at the disparity. It's just a show franchise. If the cognitive dissonance bothers you, get a life!

BTW: What if there are alien species who are horrified (like Muslims) at the thought of interspecies mating with humans, who intercept Star Trek episodes that discuss or show this, take them seriously as humankind's real intent, and come here to sterilize the planet? Will aliens be offended by our often obvious species-supremacy pretensions, and treat us as Ugly Earthlings?

5) Science purists bash the technical aspects of the ST franchise with "impossible!" judgements, and often justifiably so (the endless streams of quirky particles, beams and warps make little sense and become tiresome). Why, oh why, was it that nearly every ST:Voyager episode began with the ship encountering some kind of rift or disturbance? This became a formula that turned into a family joke: "Will it be a rift again?" But the staid statements of "impossible!" are redolent of the alleged turn-of-the-nineteenth-century U.S. Patent Office official who said that all possible inventions had then already been made. There are enough puzzling phenomena in nature, that scientists are often left speechless (e.g., observations of the Hubble telescope that contradict aspects of current cosmological theory). Can faster-than-light travel be? I believe so. It is quite possible that someone will come up with something completely unanticipated (as Cochrane did with his warp engine), at some point. The universe should be full of inhabited worlds. "Where are they?" a famous scientist once asked, astonished that they haven't come and contacted us. Haven't they?

To try and impose the vision of ST fiction onto our own future is ridiculous. It's going to be vastly different than what ST's depicted, and far more wonderful. It will be built by real flesh-and-blood people who make mistakes, who are both noble and petty (often the very same person!). I mean, Patrick Stewart (“Picard”) that we shouldn't go into space until we solve our own pressing global problems. Well, we'd be Earthbound forever, then, for human nature will not change that radically. Mightn't the very act of going into space lead to solution of these problems as a side effect?

I got tired of the endless Xindi machinating and the handwringing about it in Enterprise, and have actually kind of breathed a sigh of relief that the show has ended. The intro was a terrible bore. I yearn for someone else to come up with an entertaining SF series (ST-based or otherwise), but sure as shootin', once they stumble across what looks like a "formula for success," they'll always end up copying themselves ad nauseam until cancelled. Maybe the great SF writer Theodore Sturgeon, who said (?) "Everything is crud," was right?

NEXTEL I930 FOR JUST $120
MOTOROLA RAZR V3I AT.......$175
MOTOROLA A1000 FOR ........$180
MTOROLA MPX 300 AT JUST ....$120USD
MOTOROLA MPX 200 ....$125USD
20GB iPod 20GB iPod ........45USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Pink M9435LL/A ......40 USD
Apple 40 GB iPod photo....................40 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Silver M9160LL/A ....40 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod Photo M9830LL/A..........60 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod photo .........55 USD
Apple 30 GB iPod Photo M9829LL/A..........50 USD
Apple 512 MB iPod Shuffle MP3 Player......40 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Blue M9436LL/A.......45 USD
Apple 2 GB iPod Nano.........50 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Nano.........60 USD
Apple 30 GB iPod Video.....110 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod Video.....150 USD
EMAIL:marrymobileltd@yahoo.com
NOKIA 9300 AT.....$150
NOKIA N90 AT ...$180
NOKIA N91 AT.....$190
NOKIA N70 AT......130
NOKIA N71 AT......$150
NOKIA N80 AT......$170
NOKIA N92 AT......$230
NOKIA 8850 SPECIAL EDITION-- US$140
NOKIA 8850 GOLD EDITION-- US$135
NOKIA 9210 AT ......$165
SONY ERICSSON P910 AT....US$145
Sony Ericsson K500i AT....., $100
Sony Ericsson S700i AT.. $145
SONY ERICSSON P900 AT .....US$140
Sony Ericsson: Z1010AT..... $155
Sony psp............150usd
GARMIN 396......160USD
this systems are all brand new sealed in company Box.
EMAIL:marrymobileltd@yahoo.com