jimbo92107 Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Let's face it, fellow Treksters, Star Trek is a great series, but lately the old dilithium crystals have gotten a bit dull. Enterprise's plot lines have petered out into a mish-mash of recycled dreck from previous sci-fi and soap plotlines. They had a COWBOY episode, for chrissake, and one in rusty car Detroit, as well as more of the usual cheapo-set underground and indoors episodes, and the Zindi super-weapon was a complete yawn and the end, followed by a NAZI episode. Jesus, what's next, the EVIL TWIN? They even resorted to T&A with T'Pal, which I don't really mind, but with uptight old Trip? Puh-lease! Today the only thing saving the Enterprise series from the joy-sucking dramatic entropy of Count Backula is some pedal-to-the-metal performing by America's finest uberactor, Jeffrey Combs. Yet even this great man's melodramatic poses and meticulously overwrought characterizations are not enough. Star Trek is failing, people, and it will take more than one man's heroic efforts to save it. America once sent men to the moon. Why? For a pile of rocks? No. To take pretty pictures of Earth? No. To satisfy our unquenchable urge to explore the universe? Hell no! We went there because some of those geeky engineers thought maybe, just maybe, in their darkest, most secret fantasies, that we'd find some sex-starved, green-skinned beach babes with an uncontrollable lust for earthmen--even engineers! That's why I call upon Hollywood's finest writers, directors, producers and actors to save Star Trek. We can't let this series die, I tell you, we just can't! Every geek's gotta have a dream, damn it, if not here on earth, then somewhere out in space! There's just got to be women out there somewhere...well, maybe I digress. Jason Alexander, aka Duckman, has appeared on just one Star Trek episode, a single appearance of DS9. How is it that one of the best comedic actors has only one appearance? Star Trek built its fan base with striking characters, not forgettable ones. Brad Pitt, what's your excuse? Couldn't they write an episode where they encouter an alien Achilles? And what about you, Kevin Spacey? You should have at least six different characters in Star Trek. Aren't you as versatile as Combs? Then there are the babes of Hollywood. Let's just mention a few: Kate Beckinsale, Halle Berry and Nicole Kidman. You should be ashamed of yourselves for not appearing on Star Trek episodes. How do you think history will remember you if you don't? Only Star Trek survives the cruel test of time. Get an episode before it's too late for you, and for Star Trek. And aside from the obvious sexual allure, have women really so little to say to the human race? I am frankly dissappointed. And then there are the writers. Where have you gone? I remember the original series, when some of the finest sci-fi writers penned episodes of Star Trek, and because of that high level of quality, actors everywhere wanted to be on the show, just like Batman. But now, where's the good stuff? Nazis? Cowboys? Oh, the pain, the pain...[sorry, Dr. Smith] My point is simple, but I must reiterate. Quality is the key to rescuing Star Trek. Quality must be boosted in every aspect of production, from writing to acting to set design to special effects. Hollywood can and should wield Star Trek as its creative sword, poking us with its sharp tip or smacking our asses with the flat of the blade. It just isn't right to let that sword get rusty and dull. Science fiction is about people, technology, and asking "what if." Those issues can be vital, and those questions need asking, but they will be heeded only if people watch the show. Lately, people haven't been sufficiently intrigued by what they see on Star Trek, so the audience is drifting away. Star Trek is limping along on one quarter impulse. Well, maybe it's time to juice up those engines and get back to the hunt for farther out, yet strangely familiar new worlds and civilizations. Will it be worth the money? I don't know. But at least it will be something worth watching, for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremeskiing Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 That was great, had me laughing pretty hard. I like your point about actors, instead whoopi goldberg playin guinen w/o pay for her first season, they have the big show playing an orien slave trader. They should bring back shattner/kirk, screw the fact he is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 There are always possibilities, Spock said. If indeed Genesis is life from death, then we must come back here again. STII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendo001 Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Now is the time for all trekkies to stand up and in one voice Save Trek............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blade1701 Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 enterprise has been so lame for the first 3 and a half seasons, i have been hanging on by my finger nails in hope that they pull it together and sort it out, but alas i guess they just cant manage it. You were right about TNG and the original series, stars were falling over themselves to get a part in them, god even Stephen Hawkins was there in his glory, now look whats happened, nothing no one interested in it at all, the writers have failed the fans big time on this. Dont know if they thought they could just churn out any old c**p and we would be happy with that (oh how wrong can you be). The series had so much potential, really looked forward to it starting (how disapointed was I). Ah well enough of the ranting, still have my fingers crossed!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranger Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Good post, Jimbo. For years the producers have been moving away from what made Star Trek so unique, perhaps in the hope of reaching a greater audience. Instead the ratings keep dropping. Berman thinks the golden goose has layed all its eggs, but the fans are still here, waiting for a good Trek. I don't think guest roles from famous actors would save the show (Star Trek would become a spot the celebrity show ;) ), but good writers, directors and producers certainly would. After all, they are the main reason the show didn't do as well as it should have. By the way, Jason Alexander appeared on Voyager, not Deep Space Nine. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Fire Bermann & Braga, and hire Execs that genuinely love Trek!! ......Get it out of Paramount's hands & into someone that loves Trek. Let's try these 2 things first. :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relentless Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I love star trek, and yeah some fresh minds could do it a great favor. Hopefully one of these days each new episode of the next hopefull startrek series..... won't be a repeat of all the other ones. I've seen the same anommally from one star trek series to the next and the next. What Star Trek writers and actors/producers need to do is just go back to Science, NASA etc and ask for information and get some possible scenarios on what could be 'new' but somewhat scientific. For annomallies etc; what I mean really is perhaps NASA could provide a few theroies for the ST writers to eat up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedrus Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 A couple ideas I thought of.. tell me what you think I want to see a Star Trek series that focuses more on wartime and less on exploring.. i mean.. thats all we've had since TOS (except for DS9 but they explored in the lil shuttlepod thing) .. I want to see a huge fleet launch an attack on an outpost and have another fleet sitting in cloak, just to decloak and rip them apart.. personally it'd keep my blood pumping for that episode.. Looking at ENT, I think the writers have had a serious problem developing characters.. I think there should be a series involving like a new crew every episode.. we could see different viewpoints every episode, not having the same characters set in stone.. also, this would keep the stories from ALWAYS having a good ending.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 A couple ideas I thought of.. tell me what you think I want to see a Star Trek series that focuses more on wartime and less on exploring.. i mean.. thats all we've had since TOS (except for DS9 but they explored in the lil shuttlepod thing) .. I want to see a huge fleet launch an attack on an outpost and have another fleet sitting in cloak, just to decloak and rip them apart.. personally it'd keep my blood pumping for that episode.. Looking at ENT, I think the writers have had a serious problem developing characters.. I think there should be a series involving like a new crew every episode.. we could see different viewpoints every episode, not having the same characters set in stone.. also, this would keep the stories from ALWAYS having a good ending.. All you gotta do is have more ships! :D Besides.......Would any admiral send only one ship into battle?? Of course not! Hell, even a standard patrol would have at least 2 ships!! :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I think Manny Coto has succeeded in bringing some new blood into Trek, something that was long overdue. Berman and Braga have been doing Star Trek for so long that they have forgotten what true Star Trek is about. What do you think Star Trek is about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lipsmacker Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 B&B are just turds. Look at TNG after they took over... episodes like "Worf in the wild west", "Transporters turns picard into a sissyboy" and "Mama troi mudbaths with kligon boy" I wonder what they had to do to be left in charge of something like Trek. The crap to good ratio increased greatly when B&B got into the act. If I were to sign any petition to paramount, it'd be to can those two guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTrek001 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 yea poor trek is no good with B&B... I hate the fact that Trek has become so comercialized... I mean when I saw Nemisis and the found parts of B4 why in the hell wasn't Lore even mentioned? I mean it was like the entire trek universe forgot Lore.. WTF! It's things like this that make me mad at the writing and direction of Trek.. I know its small beans but hey it is about consistant story telling. I mean if Sisco talks as if his Dad were dead for the first 3 seasons then all of a sudden he's alive and fine thats just crap ass bad writing... I know things come up and change thru-out time but come on. Crappy daytime soap operas have better consistancy than Trek these days.... I have no problem with bringing back a dead charactor or some such but explain it in a believeable manner... Ugh.. I hated taking english in school but I know that I can write better trek than I've seen... END RANT NOW>>> LOL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
presputnik Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 It's all been downhill since they stopped the open submission policy. When Star Trek succumbs to corporate realities at the expense of the creative process, then we know we have a problem (Come on, if we didn't have the open submission thing, we wouldn't have Ron Moore, he would have joined the freaking navy!) I think the producers need to get things back the way they were. Of course all the episodes have been more or less finished, so the first thing we need to do is save Enterprise. (Oh, and someone needs to get Bakula an acting coach. There, I said it.) So yeah, open submissions. And maybe I'm wrong but if all the Enterprise torrent webmasters (I mean I assume[/i] that there are a bunch of others) temporarily stop distributing brand new episodes, just to get the ratings up. You know, force people to watch the show on TV if they want to see it within 2 or 3 weeks of its original air date. We wouldn't want to isolate those who don't locally get Enterprise, so 2 to 3 weeks seems fair. At least, that's my opinion :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 You know' date=' force people to watch the show on TV if they want to see it within 2 or 3 weeks of its original air date. [/quote'] How are we supposed to watch the show on TV when we can't get the channel????? :stare: :stare: :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
presputnik Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 That's why I said that we should just delay the episodes release online, so the people who DO get it can watch it and support it and hopefully drive up the viewership and maybe, just maybe, let someone out there know that we really don't want to see Enterprise aborted. I apologize for the people who don't get it locally, but you'd still be able to see the episodes 2 to 3 weeks later. I'm aware that this is rough for all you poor souls who don't get Enterprise on TV, but maybe you guys could...."take one for the team" After all, we're talking about Enterprise here! What kind of monster only gives Enterprise 4 seasons? It's asking alot, but it may be a worthwhile gesture to the fatcats in charge who's insight into the show starts and ends at the ratings. :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now