Blogcritics Comments on This is a Star Trek Post

Comment by David Flanagan on This is a Star Trek Post

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:03:19 EDT

Good points Ms. Tek. Thanks for the perspective. BTW, I'm a huge Farscape fan as well. The show really helped launch the Scifi Channel to success. David ]]>

Comment by Ms. Tek on This is a Star Trek Post

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:26:53 EDT

MD, try Netfilx if you want to try before you buy. That is how I watched the whole series since I came back stateside in September. ]]>

Comment by Ms. Tek on This is a Star Trek Post

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:25:26 EDT

A few problems with that.... I used to work for an advertising firm so I got a bit of an education on trends. TV movies don't really work anymore. Back in the early to mid 80's, you always had each network doing their "made for TV movies". Eventually, they got phased out by the hour to two hour "news program" such as Dateline and I can't even remember the names of them all. There has been another "shift" and there are less and less news programs on but now the focus is on "reality TV". What the networks are concerned with are ratings and lets face it- Sci-Fi just doesn't bring in the bucks. The reality is that the Sci-Fi loving population is a small one. I think this is mostly due to the "geek factor". People just don't think its cool to like Star Trek. Think of the Sci-Fi loving guy from the Simpson's. Tres un-cool. In this day an age, the budget that you need for effects to do a decent bang up has to be pretty healthy. The networks just are not going to invest that amount of cash when they aren't going to grab enough of the view population for a Sci-Fi series. Star Trek is skewed toward men 18-34. To do something like that on Prime Time is a real risk. Hence, why we have T'Pol in Enterprise near naked all the time. If seven of nine had not been a "hottie", people would have dumped Voyager as well. Recently, the Sci-Fi channel made a mini-series of Battelstar Galactica. IT WAS REALLY GOOD. They were not willing to devote the resources to invest in a new series if they didn't think it was going to fly... People liked Battlestar and now it is in production as a new series for the Sci Fi channel. At the same time not to long ago, they canceled FarScape (which I LOVED) and there was a general outcry. There was enough of an outcry that FarScape has just wrapped up filming a mini-series to fill in the loose ends. The two major Bastions of Sci Fi are Star Wars and Star Trek. People expect some quality out of these old franchises. Unfortunately, Star Wars should have been left alone and Berman and Bragga have lost touch with their fan-base. The last TNG movie tanked and was an awful mess. Someone needs to take control of this Starship or its going to crash right into the sun! ]]>

Comment by Mac Diva on This is a Star Trek Post

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:16:14 EDT

I haven't followed Enterprise. But, the Star Trek ethos has become so embedded in society, I believe it can overcome some ineptitude. I am tied between STNG and DS9 for favorites. If I had seen more of the DS9 episodes, it might win. I'll be putting the DVDs on my wish list. ]]>

Comment by David Flanagan on This is a Star Trek Post

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:06:45 EDT

It surprising how much DS9 and Avery Brooks as a captain gets the shaft, I've noticed. I think that DS9 could very easily be a highly rated TV movie, or a very effective part of a new Star Trek movie. As a matter of fact, this is one of the MAJOR problems we see today with this franchise, the unwillingness to take chances and be adventurous with the ST universe. Why can't they have periodic made-for-tv movies, or even just two-hour specials which are basically short stories which jump randomly around in the timeline to tell different stories? We could have an adventure one month with Captain Sulu and his vessel, a glimpse of which was caught in "The Undiscovered Country." We could have brand new characters we've never seen before on new adventures, go forward in time 300 years to see a futuristic Star Trek adventure, explore an alternate timeline scenario (imagine a fledgling federation vessel that discovers Klingons and Romulans, but stumbles into them during an al-out war between the two races), etc. Berman and Braga have sucked the life out of the whole series, and fans are slowly but surely losing what used to be their rock-solid loyalty. What the series needs is the same sense of energy, adventure, and optimism that Roddenberry brought, not the tired hollywood formulas applied today. David ]]>

Comment by Jim Carruthers on This is a Star Trek Post

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:06:46 EDT

Thought the first season of DS9 was basically "Little Prairie House in Space", the last three seasons were the best written of the franchise. I gave up watching "Enterprise" this season because it is just stupid crap with no characters, no plot and no direction. It is just shallow jingoistic bullshit. That Scott Backula has said there is no room for quality SF teevee only means there is very little hope for more Trek. "Enterprise" is like a dog or retarded child, you just know it isn't going to get any better. ]]>

Comment by Ms. Tek on This is a Star Trek Post

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:35:50 EDT

I've heard people say that about the Sisko charter before... but you also have to understand that he just lost his wife and has gotten over an encounter with the Borg. On top of it, he didn't really want to be at the station AND he's a figure out of a Bajorian religious legend. What you see is that he actually grows as a person in the series. The ending of the series, at least if you are familiar with Buddhism and Hinduism is that he completes his growth and has actually transcended. He has reached another level. It was so sad, and so great. I just felt bad that after so many years of fighting... oh well... I don't want to ruin it for people who have not seen the series! Some say it left it open for Movies which I just don't see happening ever. It surprising how much DS9 and Avery Brooks as a captain gets the shaft, I've noticed. Most the time when people talk about Star Trek captains, they lead Sisko out... Perhaps its because he started out as a commander. Maybe its because he didn't really have a star ship until they gave him the defiant. All I know is that in all the captains thus far, his is the crew I'd like to serve on if I had a choice! *puts vulcan ears back in drawer and stops geeking out* ]]>

Comment by David Flanagan on This is a Star Trek Post

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:24:51 EDT

How much more do they need to trash the Star Trek name before someone cans them? Ms. Tek, Here are words you never thought you'd hear from me: I am in complete agreement with you. First of all, DS9 was an excellent continuation of the ST series. Avery Brooks as Commander, then later, Captain Sisko was a great move. At first, I thought Sisko was too soft and nice, later, they perked up his personality and gave him some of the edge that made him such a popular part of the "Spencer For Hire" series. This fit the whole tone of the series perfectly, especially in his dealings with the Dominion and the Cardassians. If I remember correctly, it was mid-way through the DS9 series that Roddenberry died, so the DS9 series has Roddenberry's touch, whereas, Voyager and now Enterprise are Bragga and Berman creations. These two series are, in my opinion, flat at best. The DS9 series is certainly one that I plan on owning some day, though, recently, I've become addicted to Stargate, SG-1, which, like STTN and DS9, has a good storyline, great character development, and good chemistry between the major characters. I currently own Season 1 and 6 of the series and am planning on purchasing the rest over the next several months. Anyway, good post! David Flanagan ]]>

Comment by Phillip Winn on This is a Star Trek Post

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:27:37 EDT

It sounds like I stopped watching Enterprise just in time -- after the first three episodes. :-( ]]>