Jawa Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Hey do not forget that the show was on UPN, most star trek fans do not get that channel... If PBS sent Enterprise the rating would have been near 10 million... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Hey do not forget that the show was on UPN' date=' most star trek fans do not get that channel... If PBS sent Enterprise the rating would have been near 10 million... ;)[/quote'] Yes but if I am not mistaken, most people are comparing it to TNG or other treks that continually got over 10million viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Hey do not forget that the show was on UPN' date=' most star trek fans do not get that channel... If PBS sent Enterprise the rating would have been near 10 million... ;)[/quote'] Yes but if I am not mistaken, most people are comparing it to TNG or other treks that continually got over 10million viewers. That is why stats don't always paint an accurate picture.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 They do when studios decide about the future of most shows as well as advertisers, but your right they dont always paint the true picture of a show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starcrunch Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The way I look at is that they (paramount) had three consecutive popular series runs, so they were bound to mess up. Enterprise I think, was just too much of a stretch, and I think that they were getting nervous. I wonder if they think they made a mistake by pulling it. Because I believe this fourth season was really good, But I think were right about budgets, I mean did you guys see that Tholian in "In a mirror, darkly" that was ridiculous. I remember when they were talking about how much it cost to do the ODO effects for DS9 and it was a small fortune, everytime they did it in an episode. Like I've been saying though , the franchise just needs time to breathe and for some new blood to come in and reinvigorate. People who love Star Trek are vocal and Paramount or whoever else owns it will always be wise to this. Star Trek will be back, but in a more traditional sense I hope. My opinion is that Enterprise was awful, The theme song did it for me right from the start, I said oh no, UPN is Star Trek, 90210 for the kids. As far as the Borg go Their technology is able to change on a whim, all they have to do is implement stuff that they have assimilated, I'm sure it could easily be explained why they just now have these hubs to travel through space. Next I think they should do a hybrid and have a planet colonized by Starfleet and have a ship tied together with the colony, kinda like DS9 with the Defiant only on a planetary level. But my god no more prequels except as novelty episodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 from reading a few threads it seems apparent that the first few seasons were crap. same with TNG and Voyager. they didnt really warm up until 3rd or 4th season. perhaps ent wasnt that bad after all. maybe the viewing public had had enough. i wasnt too keen on the idea i have to confess. the beginnings of space travel didnt look that exiting. going back to a more primitive ship was like making Knight Rider with a hoda civic. (i like civics btw) not more exiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLapage Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 going back to a more primitive ship was like making Knight Rider with a hoda civic. (i like civics btw) Sweet, let's do it! I'll call my contact at NBC. Or even better than a honda, how about a Dodge Aries or Omni? This would be great!! I'ld try using my Saturn, but it looks too much like the firebird (that's what the original car was, right?). ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 the guy across the road is selling an A registration Metro. any good??? :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLapage Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 What do you mean by "registration" Metro? Well, the Metro is an OK car IF and only IF it's in good condition. It gets like 40-50 mpg, but is insanely stripped down. That pic looks like a piece of $hit, but it could just be dirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 EXTERMINATE!!!EXTERMINATE!!!EXTERMINATE!!!EXTERMINATE!!! Where the hell were those Daleks erm i mean Fat Cats in Paramount. They should have axed Voyager and Enterprise before they screwed Star Trek up with so many Incositancies. I feel sorry for the Actors. There talent got wasted by writers who didn't even know what they were on about (Threshold comes to mind. Major head ache inducing episode) http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies3.htm If Enterprise was allowed to go on for 7 years with Berman and Braga it would be another Voyager. Lets hope the next show is up to the standard of TNG or DS9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primehellix Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 No' date=' DS9 was a bad decision. Period. Bad actors ('cept maybe Avery Brooks, but he was it the WRONG show), bad writers, bad production. But yeah, TNG was awesome. I had just finished watching every ep of Voyager and felt rather repulsed, so I watched some eps of TNG and gave sighs of satisfied relief "Ah! Now this is Star Trek!" Enterprise was a good idea, but it wasn't amazing to start with, and when it started to get amazing, they cut it. Idiots. And besides UPN IS THE WORST NETWORK TELEVISION STATION. I used to think WB was, then I saw the commercials during Enterprise for the crap UPN funds, which is even crappier than the crap on WB, hard to believe.[/quote'] No, ENTERPRISE was a bad direction!!! It is obvious comparing their syndication ratings! Do you get what I mean by saying "BIG HOLES"? Well, I'm saying it! I agree about the extermination, Furious. But I disagree about the actors' wasted talents. Actually, there were some quite well written scripts for ENTERPRISE... and in my opinion, it were the actors who gave them the meaning of... nothing. And, IT WOULD NEVER BE ANOTHER VOYGER. I'm not a particular fan of VOY, but the level of it's actors is quite above the level of ENT's cast. THAT'S WHY IT HAD ITS SEVENTH YEAR, AND ENT DIDN'T HAVE ITS FIFTH SEASON. Good actors means interesting series. Interesting series means high rating. High rating means longer syndication. Longer syndication means more profit. More profit means... SEVEN SEASONS INSTEAD OF FOUR!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 No' date=' DS9 was a bad decision. Period. Bad actors ('cept maybe Avery Brooks, but he was it the WRONG show), bad writers, bad production. But yeah, TNG was awesome. I had just finished watching every ep of Voyager and felt rather repulsed, so I watched some eps of TNG and gave sighs of satisfied relief "Ah! Now this is Star Trek!" Enterprise was a good idea, but it wasn't amazing to start with, and when it started to get amazing, they cut it. Idiots. And besides UPN IS THE WORST NETWORK TELEVISION STATION. I used to think WB was, then I saw the commercials during Enterprise for the crap UPN funds, which is even crappier than the crap on WB, hard to believe.[/quote'] No, ENTERPRISE was a bad direction!!! It is obvious comparing their syndication ratings! Do you get what I mean by saying "BIG HOLES"? Well, I'm saying it! I agree about the extermination, Furious. But I disagree about the actors' wasted talents. Actually, there were some quite well written scripts for ENTERPRISE... and in my opinion, it were the actors who gave them the meaning of... nothing. And, IT WOULD NEVER BE ANOTHER VOYGER. I'm not a particular fan of VOY, but the level of it's actors is quite above the level of ENT's cast. THAT'S WHY IT HAD ITS SEVENTH YEAR, AND ENT DIDN'T HAVE ITS FIFTH SEASON. Good actors means interesting series. Interesting series means high rating. High rating means longer syndication. Longer syndication means more profit. More profit means... SEVEN SEASONS INSTEAD OF FOUR!!! No a good show depends on two main things. Good actors and good writers. The Actors did their part and the writers failed in it. Most Star Trek actors have theatere experiences and they really do well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 the writers didn't fail, the network failed, TNG had great rateings cause it went directly into syndication... Enterprise was shown on chanel that about 80% of all star trek fans do not have. Just look at how many have downloaded a torrent of enterprise (i saw it on BTEFNET.net before it closed, 150 000) From one tracker think how many other trackers there are out there... When people do not have the oppertunity to watch something they can't up the ratings for a show. And besides TNG didn't have great scripts all the time if you look at the episodes there are a tonn of crap eps. but equal amounts of Greats eps. I miss NBC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primehellix Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 No a good show depends on two main things. Good actors and good writers. The Actors did their part and the writers failed in it. Most Star Trek actors have theatere experiences and they really do well. Well, it is your opinion :) I considered Archer irritating and not in place on the Enterprise bridge as commanding officer, and thought Trip even MORE irritating. The only two characters that was nice IMO were Flox and Hoshi (Gosh, is that the right way to spell?!?!?! ). Even the dog was irritating - a cheap way to resemble Spot's part in TNG. I even liked better the Picard's fish than that dog!!! /we're excluding from the nice characters T'Pol and her... anathomy, ofcourse ;) / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foil Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 DS9 always irked me because I really liked some of the characters, really hated some of the characters, and thought the whole station idea was too hard for the writers they had to do anything really interesting with. Enterprise lacked the quirkiness that the other shows had but it was effectively doing something different. It gave us more action, better filming and music, and a story that was persued long term instead of the usual Star Trek shake and bake resolutions every episode. Those baseball caps that they wore in the beginning, however, should have been kept...I really missed those. It just blows me away when people say that Star Trek was recycling their ideas over because I thought Enterprise was the first series since TOS that wasn't doing this...it was building its own stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 No a good show depends on two main things. Good actors and good writers. The Actors did their part and the writers failed in it. Most Star Trek actors have theatere experiences and they really do well. Well, it is your opinion :) I considered Archer irritating and not in place on the Enterprise bridge as commanding officer, and thought Trip even MORE irritating. The only two characters that was nice IMO were Flox and Hoshi (Gosh, is that the right way to spell?!?!?! ). Even the dog was irritating - a cheap way to resemble Spot's part in TNG. I even liked better the Picard's fish than that dog!!! /we're excluding from the nice characters T'Pol and her... anathomy, ofcourse ;) / Thats IS the writers fault. The actors don't have any say what there character will do or say. the writers didn't fail, the network failed, TNG had great rateings cause it went directly into syndication... Enterprise was shown on chanel that about 80% of all star trek fans do not have. Just look at how many have downloaded a torrent of enterprise (i saw it on BTEFNET.net before it closed, 150 000) From one tracker think how many other trackers there are out there... When people do not have the oppertunity to watch something they can't up the ratings for a show. And besides TNG didn't have great scripts all the time if you look at the episodes there are a tonn of crap eps. but equal amounts of Greats eps. I miss NBC... Your probably right. TNG and DS9 started were syndicated shows and they did well. Voyager and Enterprise were in UPN. I'm not american but i heard that UPN and its affiliates don't treat star trek right. They don't advertise it and always pre-empty it for local sports. DS9 always irked me because I really liked some of the characters, really hated some of the characters, and thought the whole station idea was too hard for the writers they had to do anything really interesting with. Enterprise lacked the quirkiness that the other shows had but it was effectively doing something different. It gave us more action, better filming and music, and a story that was persued long term instead of the usual Star Trek shake and bake resolutions every episode. Those baseball caps that they wore in the beginning, however, should have been kept...I really missed those. It just blows me away when people say that Star Trek was recycling their ideas over because I thought Enterprise was the first series since TOS that wasn't doing this...it was building its own stories. It was DS9 that stopped the "Shake and Bake" and enterprise copied it. Infact enterprise is a TOTAL rip off of every trek show. Season 3 was a HUGE rip of of DS9 but instead of the 6 season Dominion arc (From Season 2 Rules of Acquisition to Season 7 What You Leave Behind) they had a one season Xindi Arc. Here is my rip off of I smell Pussy by 50 cent I smell Rip off Is that you Berman? I smell Bullshit you Braga? I smell unneccasy female characters with big breasts and thight clothes is that Voyager and Enterprise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I think Paramount should beg our forgiveness. The Emperor is not as forgiving as we are. Who stopped the electric car? Who made that guy, a Star! We Do! We Do! Who did these things, who kept the martians on their *? We do! We do! WEeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOOOOOOooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 ENT may be dead, but the Simpsons live on! 17 years and counting. 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