Since the Farpoint thread is quickly being hijacked by discussion the announced or pending cancellation of “Angel” and “Enterprise,” please continue all discussion about that topic over here. Thanx.
PAD
Since the Farpoint thread is quickly being hijacked by discussion the announced or pending cancellation of “Angel” and “Enterprise,” please continue all discussion about that topic over here. Thanx.
PAD
• 
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 pìšš øff 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.”
OK, Wil Wheaton, we know it’s you! Get back to your on blog! Scoot!!
*
*
*
*
*
Note: to real Wil — Kidding! Luv ya, Dude. 🙂
sorry, I meant to say… potentially pìšš øff…
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 dámņëd 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 dámņëd 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? Ðámņ, 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 dámņëd 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. Hëll, 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 Ðámņ Sulu show already! 🙂
“Give George Takei his Ðámņ 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 pìššëd 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 ášš. 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 hëll 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 hëll 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 Hëll, 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 bášŧárd, 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 dámņëd. He then voluntarily allows himself to be sent back to Hëll.
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 hëll 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 ášš.
‘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 hëll 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 hëll 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 prot