Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Sci-Fi

Trek Producers Will Provide World A Break 480

David Crumpton writes "Star Trek Producers have finally agreed that Star Trek fans are oversaturated with the show, and are planning to provide a break. This does not mean they wont bring something new to the screen; they will just wait a few years. They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trek Producers Will Provide World A Break

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:18AM (#12398228)
    Fans are tired of Star Trek. Fans are tired of THEIR Star Trek. And, this choice was hardly theirs to make.
    • by CarpetShark ( 865376 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:14PM (#12398625)
      Agreed. I've mentioned this before in previous Trek articles, but I liked Star Trek: TNG for the ethical dilemmas, the hints at mankind's potential, goodness, discovery, and the general sense of something bigger than our own petty modern squabbles over territory or wealth etc. These recent treks that are all about wars and payback (thinly veiled references to the war on terror etc.) are the complete antithesis of what I felt Star Trek was about.
      • by despisethesun ( 880261 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:40PM (#12398773)
        And the original series was full of thinly veiled references to the Cold War. Star Trek has long been a sort of idealized reflection of the time it was created in, just like most science fiction.
        • It had a number of cold war themed episodes, true. On the other hand, most of those focussed on the futility of conflict and the possiblities if we could just transcend such shallow regional squabbles. Checkov's presence on the bridge said it all in some ways.

          Look at a classic trek cold war episode and the chances are you'll find a tale of two oncew great cultures who near-anhiliated one another; or else a conflict, deadly to both sides, that can only be resolved by settingv aside their differences and d

      • by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @02:11PM (#12399366)
        >> ...I liked Star Trek: TNG for the ethical dilemmas, the hints at mankind's potential, goodness, discovery, and the general sense of something bigger than our own petty modern squabbles...

        To each their own, but conflict and combat have aways been key components of Star Trek, and every other drama. Shows depicting a bunch of ethically mature humans displaying their wholesome goodness while they unobtrusively research the galaxy would be thundersously boring.

        When one of the Trek series, like TNG, had the budget we'd see conflict and war as grand battles between starships. This has the effect of depersonalizing the conflict. On series with smaller budgets, like TNG and Enterprise, conflict and combat were often depicted as phaser and disruptor fights between a few actors on a set. Or, worse yet, between Trek heroes and a Monster of the Week.

        I'm not sure what "payback" you've seen as a theme in Enterprise. The Zindi arc was the most combative and it was about preventing an attack on Earth, not payback. The long Dominion War dominated DS9; Klingon culture made its debut in TOS; and the Borg wreaked havoc in TNG.

        In the end, Enterprise and the last few movies were brought down because they weren't telling good stories. Tell a good story and people will watch.

        • by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @03:16PM (#12399849) Journal
          In the end, Enterprise and the last few movies were brought down because they weren't telling good stories. Tell a good story and people will watch.

          I sure hope somebody sees this and mods you Insightful because that is _*IT*_. The problem is idiots like Berman are so egotistical and blind to the fans that they figure if the ratings are low it's the fans' fault. Their stories are perfect--who could ask for better?--so it must be for some other reason that the show is dying.

          The best thing for Star Trek would be if Berman and Braga simply disappeared.

          Just for fun, here's an example of just how stupid [nyud.net] (coral cached link) the last Trek film was. Funny, yes, but sadly accurate.
      • by EpsCylonB ( 307640 ) <eps&epscylonb,com> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @02:25PM (#12399444) Homepage
        These recent treks that are all about wars and payback (thinly veiled references to the war on terror etc.) are the complete antithesis of what I felt Star Trek was about.

        You fundamentally misunderstand star trek. From the beginning of the 60's show it was supposed to have been a commentary on soceity at the time (cold war, racism, hippy peace and love, etc.).

        The best example of this is the 6th star trek movie, its an obvious allegory of the end of the cold war. Starting with a klingon energy moon exploding (meant to reseamble chernoble), following through the diplomacy (including the line "only nixon could go to china"), a new bird of prey that can fire torpedos when cloaked (the US/Russia fighter battles) and ending with a traditional (although IMO overplayed) star trek happy clappy ending.

        In fact the secret of great sci fi is that is never really about the future, or another universe, or whatever. It's about present day, after all if you couldn't identify anything in it why would you watch it ?. People watched TOS because they found the idea where man had stopped fighting each other and become harmonised inpspiring.

        The enterprise writers shouldn't stray away from social commentary but they should learn how to do it right.
    • How PC is that ? Why you ask. Remember Vulcan women don't look manly ; Vulcan series with spock needing to go home to find a mate ,Vulcan women dress like women.

      They made her hair like a man and dressed her as a man. What a 'penis' turnoff.

      Bring Back Kirk and Spock and the miniskirts with hot women. Where is the good action ? Hot women like in the original series. Most beautiful chicks in the world ! = Good ratings.
    • IMHO, The reason that Enterprise failed was because the whole concept of a prequal was ill conceived in the first place. Also, since there are other trek programs on TV, the fans made their choice of which Trek is the better (or the worst) fo the offerings out there today.

      The fans made their decision about Enterprise, as is obvious in the ratings.

      Just because Enterprise failed should not mean that there should be such a long hiatus.

      Either gring us, the fans, a trek series set in the days of Kirk and Spo
    • Yes, but this would be admitting directly that they were wrong, and they krunked it up. This way, they're just saying "oh, the timing was off."

      It would be like Lucas admitting he did a shitty job with Episode I and II, they're too much on their high-horse to admit such a thing. It's always the fans' fault, or a marketing/deployment fault, or anyone's fault other than their own.
  • re: drop (Score:5, Insightful)

    by computerme ( 655703 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:19AM (#12398236)
    >They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."

    That, and the stupid Enterprise theme song they would never apolgize for.

    Mr. Bermann, I am looking in your direction.....
    • That, and the stupid Enterprise theme song they would never apolgize for.

      At least they changed it to something better in the last two episodes :)

    • If they want a show to compete against other trek reruns, then give us something we WANT TO WATCH other than what we've already seen dozens of times. It says something about the quality of the show if you think that people would rather watch TNG (which I would) than this Enterprise crap. Voyager was better than this.

      • Re: drop (Score:3, Interesting)

        by juiceCake ( 772608 )
        Well, it's all relative, as such things always are. It was precisely the kind of show I wanted to watch. Others disagree, others agree. I really enjoy Enterprise and put it second only to DS9. The worst series in my opinion was Voyager.

        I'm of the belief that taking it from syndication to a station that is not widely available, or at least to a station that won't expose the show nationwide as did syndication is the single largest factor.

        Let's face it, we can nitpick to our hearts' relative desire about each

      • Which to choose, which to choose?

        On the one hand, it's an entirely new episode of Enterprise ...

        On the other hand, it's a repeat of a show with dated material, bad effects and hilarious acting. Looks like it will be the repeat.

        Isn't it strange how none of the other series on TV have to compete with reruns?

        Will people skip the new Batman movie to watch the old Batman and Robin TV show?

        Will people skip the latest hospital drama to watch reruns of Emergency!?

        Did anyone skip Firefly to watch reruns of Spa
    • Re: drop (Score:5, Funny)

      by AtariDatacenter ( 31657 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:24AM (#12398269)
      That, and the stupid Enterprise theme song they would never apolgize for.

      I consider their changing it for a parallel universe to be an apology.
    • Re: drop (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bsharitt ( 580506 ) <(moc.ttirahs) (ta) (tegdirb)> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:30AM (#12398321) Journal
      Being on UPN probably didn't help much either.
      • Re: drop (Score:4, Funny)

        by michrech ( 468134 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @01:25PM (#12399058)
        Being on UPN probably didn't help much either.

        It hasn't helped that they have shown fucking baseball games the last two weeks.

        If there have been new episodes, I have been unable to see them! >:|

        Guess I'll have to find out the episode number/names so I can find them on eMule or some sort of bittorrent.

        Damned UPN! Even more-so, DAMNED SPORTS!
        • by dexter riley ( 556126 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @06:34PM (#12401649)
          Obviously you never watched the original series, which was all about baseball. Remember "The Omega Glory"? Its talk about the "yangs" and the "kohms" is nothing but a thinly veiled reference to the New York Yankees and Commisky Park, home of the Chicago White Sox.

          Remember the scene where Kirk holds up the flag and sings the national anthem?
          Remember the three-run homer by Sulu at the bottom of the fifth?
          Remember Spock and Sox commentator Harry Caray singing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" in the seventh inning stretch?
          Remember Scotty's cry of "Captain, my arm cannae take much more of this!"

          Ah, the good old days, before ST:Voyager and MLB:Free Agents. Sigh.
  • by evenprime ( 324363 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:20AM (#12398240) Homepage Journal
    when this same sentiment is expressed on slashdot at least once a week, every week for over a year?
    • Except that it's not true. General audiences are oversaturated with Star Trek, and have been Since Voyager's early days. But Trekkies can never get enough. Bookstore still stock dozens of new Star Trek paperbacks (uniformly gawdawful), the gigabytes of fanfiction on the web, the cons, the people who literally live in their costumes... Trek has even spawned a mass suicide cult. This is major obsession.

      The sad thing is that this mania seems to affect even decent writers who happen to be Trekkies. The Reeve

      • by mbauser2 ( 75424 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @08:13PM (#12402534) Homepage
        General audiences are oversaturated with Star Trek, and have been Since Voyager's early days.


        I have three words that will reveal that any and all variations on the "too much Trek" argument as unequivocally wrong. Those three words?

        Law and Order [nbc.com]

        Just like Trek, every episode of Law & Order is "competing" with decades of its own reruns -- the original L&O is currently airing its 15th season, Special Victims Unit its 6th, and Criminal Intent its 4th. That means there's 22 (14 + 5 + 3) years of L&O reruns on cable right now.

        Star Trek has 24 years of reruns in play at the moment -- 3 for the original, and 7 for each of three spin-offs. (Enterprise reruns aren't syndicated yet, and the cartoon isn't airing anywhere.)

        I'm pretty sure L&O reruns air more often than Trek reruns, so let's consider it even -- Both franchises have an unhealthy number of old episodes to "compete" with. Yet Dick Wolf and NBC can get general audiences to watch four new episodes of Law & Order every week, while UPN and Berman/Braga can't get a fraction of the same audience to watch one episode of Enterprise.

        See my point? If the problem was as simple as "general audiences" burning out on over-exposed franchises, they would have given up on L&O, too. But they didn't. The problem isn't in the audience. It's in the the show.

        We could argue all night long about why L&O has longer legs than Trek. I figure L&O has two things going for it -- better marketing (NBC is just better at promotion than UPN) and consistency -- whether you like L&O or not, you have to admit that it's pretty much the same show it was 15 years ago. (The producers know their franchise's strengths, and stick to them.) The last ten years of Trek on the other hand, have been all over the place. Star Trek has no quality control.

        Which is my long-winded way of agreeing with half the posters here: The problem isn't "too much Star Trek", it's "too much bad Star Trek". Trek's been going downhill since Voyager and it's not going to get better with hacks like Berman and Braga. Even letting the show "rest for a few years" won't help, unless they get some new, smarter producers.
  • Commonly heard in conjunction with the phrase "Don't orange all your noodles in one exoskeleton"
  • Trek in NYT (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:20AM (#12398244)
    Today's NY Times also has an article [nytimes.com] on the impending death of Enterprise.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      The failure of "Enterprise" is not due to the fact that "Star Trek" re-runs are competing against it. Given the option of watching a good episode of a "Star Trek" re-run and a good episode of a new "Star Trek" show, most people would prefer the latter. Since they have already seen the re-run, they would prefer to see something new.

      The problem here is that most episodes of "Enterprise" suck. The writing, the directing, and the acting is horrible.

      Here is proof of the accuracy of my analysis. Consider

    • Re:Trek in NYT (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maotx ( 765127 ) <{maotx} {at} {yahoo.com}> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:11PM (#12398606)
      From the NY Times article:
      As Jolene Blalock, who played the Vulcan officer T'Pol on "Enterprise," explained: "The stories lacked intriguing content. They were boring." A lifelong "Star Trek" fan, Ms. Blalock said she was dismayed by early "Enterprise" scripts that seemed to ignore basic tenets of the franchise's chronology, and that offered revealing costumes instead of character development. "The audience isn't stupid," she said.

      Bingo. That is exactly what is wrong with Enterprise. I'm personally a fan of it, new to the trek series (always liked the movies), but I knew that this was different from the theme of the previous shows and movies. I never really liked the any of the series but Enterprise was an exception. Maybe it is because of the unusuality of it that cought my attention. Still, the lack of character development and cheesy scripts in the begining seasons (those that I really didn't watch) was enough to drive almost anyone away. I really didn't get into it until it's fourth season. Oh well, sad to see it go but maybe a break will bring in new creativity. Or, perhaps they'll just finally let Star Trek die after 30? years.
      • Re:Trek in NYT (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Blalock's candor is dead on. Surely, as an actress, she's tired of having to ring the same notes day in and day out. Even though she's one of the show's major characters around which a good many episodes pivot, it seems as though she and pretty much everyone else is frankly underutilized while the producers pursue their season-long arcs of what is basically additional canon (as opposed to augmenting bits of pre-TOS canon fans can relate to).

        She also has the nicest ass in series television.
      • Re:Trek in NYT (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        This is why I would never become an actor, regardless of how much fame and fortune I could make. I didn't get to read the NYTimes article (can someone please post a non-subscription link?) but your quoted paragraph above lets me see her in an entirely new light. Up until this moment, I had thought her to be a brainless piece of eye-candy who knew nothing about Star Trek and simply needed a job. And the reason I had that impression is because the character so plays is so terrible and so unvulcanlike I ass
      • Re:Trek in NYT (Score:3, Interesting)

        by master_p ( 608214 )
        T'Pol was not behaving like a Vulcan at all. While the actor that played Spock could really play the role as if he had not emotions, Blalock plays T'Pol as if T'Pol is always angry: she does not speak calmly to others, she raises her eyebrows, and her face generally shows signs of angryness. It was pretty disturbing throughout the show.
    • Re:Trek in NYT (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Excelsior ( 164338 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @01:11PM (#12398975)
      The article you mention is a joke. Not once does it mention Enterprise airing only on UPN, unlike previous Star Trek successes.

      Further, the article mentions that when Enterprise first aired, it had over 12 million viewers, then dwindled quickly. Then it goes on to hypothesize things like saturation and a poor matchup with UPN content. If that was the problem, Enterprise wouldn't have started out with 12 million viewers.

      In the world of science, if something fails when it had always succeeded, we identify the differences, and hypothesize that the differences cause the failure. In the world of Star Trek, the genuises at UPN find bizarre reasoning, rather than identify the obvious. Sad really.
      • The article you mention is a joke. Not once does it mention Enterprise airing only on UPN, unlike previous Star Trek successes.

        Uh, what?

        Dude, Voyager was a UPN show. Not one of the great Star Treks, but it did better (ratings-wise) than Enterprise.

        In the world of science, if something fails when it had always succeeded, we identify the differences, and hypothesize that the differences cause the failure.

        Which only works, of course, if the differences are real.

        Then it goes on to hypothesize thin

  • by erikdalen ( 99500 ) <erik.dalen@mensa.se> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:20AM (#12398245) Homepage
    Won't all new star trek series compete against reruns? They'll probably still have reruns of old Star Trek in a few years.

    I'm hoping the break won't be too long. I'm not "saturated" with Star Trek :) /Erik
    • by mph_az ( 880372 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:24AM (#12398274)
      I grew up with TOS in reruns and saw the TNG when it was new. I love both dearly, but the franchise has clearly run out of creative juices.

      A break may be just the thing to clear everyone's head (fan and writer alike) and hopefully come back with some new and interesting stories to tell.

      Plus -speaking of compeition, if they wait a few years, all the interest in star wars will have died out.
      • by epiphani ( 254981 ) <epiphani&dal,net> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @01:20PM (#12399033)
        If you look at the quality of TNG between seasons 2 and 5 (after the actors and writers had found the characters, and before Gene died) - you'll see what good trek really should be.

        The episodes often had some level of allegory, had rich character personality and generally good plots. The character development wasnt really -bad- after season 5, but the episodes lost alot of the allegory or idealism that Gene brought to the show.

        I remember watching the special features on the DVD for season 2 (I think) and there was mention of Gene's common statements of "In the 24th century, X doesnt happen". Because we as a society were supposed to have grown out of it.

        The idealism - the pure hope and character strength slowly evaporated. It became people exactly like we are today, with all the same failings as if society hadnt progressed at all, and only the technology was different. I think the latter half of DS9 demonstrates this the most.
    • by EpsCylonB ( 307640 ) <eps&epscylonb,com> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:27AM (#12398289) Homepage
      Yeah, but the point is that enterprise is going up against these re runs and *losing*. Cos its a crappy show.
      • I don't think they will ever admit it, I am surprised they didn't try to cancel the reruns with as big of an ego as some of the show producers have.
      • by StarKruzr ( 74642 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:33AM (#12398340) Journal
        It hasn't been a crappy show for quite a few episodes now. They had a change of writers in this beginning of this season and it got a lot better.
        • In your opinion , and fair enough maybe altot of people agree.
          To me though , It still is the worst star trek show ever.
          Though i respect the die-hard fans and their love for it , i just couldnt get into it and i did try oh so hard.
          I whatched every eppisode and yes true enough it did improve.
          Though to me it improved to the level of Season 1 voyager..
          That is saying something.

          I totaly respect the decision ,they are giving it a rest for another few years,
          Gives them a chance to produce a star trek on par with ST:TNG .

          Though hopefully they dont take as long as long a break as lucas had and end up forgetting how to make good sci-fi.

          Had Enterprise not been a star trek , i mnay have enjoyed it more .
          The proble was mostly that it had so much to live up to and so little to live up to it with.

          Your constantly trying to find yourself comparing it to the star-trek greats , yet not being able to. Fair play to those who could seperate it from the others and view it as an entity in and of itself , i just couldnt and as such the show fell so very short for me.

          Heres hopping for a new Star trek that can carry on the flame for all the trek fans by 2009
          • you must have a fetish for some of the chicks on voyager. every episode of that show that I've seen was lame. I watched it to get a sci-fi fix, not because it was trek, or because it was good.

            On the other hand, I thought the last season of enterprise was great. I really appreciate how they explore the darker side of human nature as opposed to TNG where the whole crew of the entireprise is a bunch of fucking supermen that never have a negative impulse unless they're under alien control.

        • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:59PM (#12398909) Homepage
          It hasn't been a crappy show for quite a few episodes now. They had a change of writers in this beginning of this season and it got a lot better.

          But the first episodes were so appalingly bad (to me and others I'm sure) that sticking around in the hopes that it would stop sucking was just too high of a price to pay.

          The show simply never engaged me or made me care about it. Stopping sucking just before getting cancelled is not the right time.

      • Cos its a crappy show.

        I agree. TNG was the best of them all. I'd rather watch re-runs of that that any of them. DS9 was pretty good too.

  • I have to admit though that the show in the last 4 episodes here are keeping me right on the edge of my seat. Even the different opening and "The Alliance" theme was just awesome to watch. yes the "alternate universe and timelines" plot is old, but to see it played out on Enterprise is awesome. Not to mention Jolene looks great in that alliance outfit - NICE!

    • > yes the "alternate universe and timelines" plot is old

      Seriously. We're watching an episode arc of spin-off at an earlier time of a classic science fiction show, where they portray an alternate of that universe and cross it with a completely different timeline.

      Actually, they've gotten enough experience with it that they may end up doing these last four episodes pretty darn right. But it is a bit too late.
    • by Cylix ( 55374 ) * on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:42AM (#12398403) Homepage Journal
      So I work in the broadcat industry and every once in a while I find something that makes me go "oh shit."

      So I watching the begining of "the empire/enterprise" and I see the meeting with zepharym? cochran. I'm thinking... oh shit... someone is playing the movie... were going to get a severe beating... wtf. I'm kinda glued to the screen kinda wondering how bad this is going to go down and then try to recall who would have made this mistake in the control room.

      Then of course they shoot the vulcan... I was so completely relieved.
    • You have to be kidding. These last few "evil" alternative universe episodes have been almost unbearable for me to watch because of the bad "I-have-an-angry-villain-voice" acting.
  • by techmuse ( 160085 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:22AM (#12398256)
    Or perhaps the ratings dropped... because they decided to replace strong plots and good character development with gratuitious sexual situations in order to attract UPN's 18-25 year old male target audience. Or perhaps they relied too much on time travel stories, which have become rather cliche in Trek of late. Or perhaps not calling it Star Trek for two years didn't help? Or perhaps the really BAD theme music for Enterprise? Or the tortured script of Nemesis, which was an obvious attempt to combine the elements of the higher rating treks into a new movie? Or Berman and Braga not understanding what Trek audiences really like?

    Just a thought...
    • Competition (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:48AM (#12398451)
      They have it wrong. The ratings didn't drop because Enterprise was competing with Trek reruns. They dropped because it couldn't compete with Trek reruns.
    • by mikael ( 484 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:01PM (#12398547)
      Or perhaps the ratings dropped...

      because they decided to replace strong plots and good character development with gratuitious sexual situations in order to attract UPN's 18-25 year old male target audience.


      Definitely.

      Or perhaps they relied too much on time travel stories, which have become rather cliche in Trek of late.

      More than likely. For a Sci-Fi series to become popular, it has to explore current political issues. Star Trek explored the Cold War through the battle between Earth and the Klingon empire. ST:TNG achieved this by exploring the topics of discussion: can intelligent machines really be considered life, the drugs war/international trade.

      Another problem is if you have two series exploring the same topic (Eg. Farscape and ST:Voyager both exploring the topic of a crew finding their way home).

      Or perhaps not calling it Star Trek for two years didn't help?

      Or perhaps the really BAD theme music for Enterprise?


      Audiences don't usually watch a Sci-Fi series just for the introduction sequence or title, but it is a good indicator of the amount of effort put into the program.

      Or the tortured script of Nemesis, which was an obvious attempt to combine the elements of the higher rating treks into a new movie?

      A movie is really a one off event that you might see once. Whether somebody will make the effort to watch the next episode of a series, is based on the previous two episodes.

      Or Berman and Braga not understanding what Trek audiences really like?


      Definitely.

      It's no use blaming the old reruns for poor ratings. Even for a series based purely on special effects, the special effects are constantly improving from month to month.

      As a comparison, UK Gold plays reruns of old Dr. Who episodes. The old series seems slow and clunky compared to the new series.

      The only problem now (unrelated to the series) is that the title sequence of every other program now seems to use SFX (eg. Sports programs also do the zoom-in sequence from Earth orbit to country/sky/clouds/city/street/sports field).
      • by monopole ( 44023 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @01:31PM (#12399096)
        Don't underestimate a good opening sequence. A good opening sequence in Anime can estabilish much of the plotline and cast of chartacters while giving a sampler of the animation as well (consider the Sakura Wars TV opening sequence). A great opening sequence will close the deal without having seen anyting else (consider Coboy Bebop or Noir)
        • The greatest opening theme ever is of course Star Blazer's one. It really shows what the series is about.

          Robotech's opening theme is also a great one, again setting the tone for what is to follow.

          Generally, an epic quest needs a symphonic soundtrack.
  • by willith ( 218835 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:22AM (#12398257) Homepage
    They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.

    voice type="Haley Joel Osment"

    I see dumb people. And the worst part is, they don't even know that they're dumb. They don't see each other. They just believe what they want to believe.

    /voice

  • by sdmartin101 ( 601186 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:23AM (#12398265)
    They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.
    But, if the fans would rather watch the other series, doesn't that mean that the fans think the other series are *better* than Enterprise?
  • Wow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TiredGamer ( 564844 )
    They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.

    If Enterprise was offed due to TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY reruns, how the hell is any other future series going to make it? Paramount isn't going to just pull those 4 moneymakers off the market.

    Let's try: "this show sucked bad, but we just don't have the cajones to admit we failed Gene Roddenberry (again)."

    Seriously, did they clone Bill Gates and Steve Jobs so as to hide within their own Reality Distortion Fiel

  • re-runs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BibelBiber ( 557179 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:25AM (#12398278)
    if they dont bring anything new the stations will certainly bring re-runs which is probably much worse...
  • by base_chakra ( 230686 ) * on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:26AM (#12398285)
    Star Trek Producers have finally agreed that Star Trek fans are oversaturated with the show, and are planning to provide a break. ... but after the moratorium, what we want are new producers.
  • by dmouritsendk ( 321667 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:27AM (#12398297)
    They should remember that no matter how long they wait, a new 'Trek' as bad as enterprise won't get good ratings eigther.

    I would much rather re-watch a episode of the original series, TNG or DS9 than a brand new episode of Enterprise. Which says more about Enterprise than it does about any of the older series.

    They simply need to do better than enterprise, otherwise a break will have no effect on ratings.

  • by zanzibuz ( 107145 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:29AM (#12398312)
    I am tired of hearing this "trek needs a break" comment from the producers of Star Trek. Trek does NOT need a break for the reasons the producers say! What it needs is good writing. It needs to break itself away from being a action-oriented series where every episode is predictable. All of those episodes are nothing more than an old western gunfight redressed with new technology. Its all been done before.

    The reason why nobody was watching Enterprise was that there was real reason to watch it. The writing was okay at best. It seemed like there were too many episodes that were created to titilate, and not enough episodes to provoke thought. We need to have some depth in the characters. In Enterprise, there is only depth in T'pol and Tucker. I have found their relationship to be one of the hilights of the series. OTOH, there is the pilot Mayweather who is still on the opening credits, but hasnt had any significant development since the first season. Why do you have a character in the spotlight, yet give us nothing intriguing about him?

    What we need is another DS9. That series was great in that it had continuity. The characters actually *gasp* changed over the few years! I find it sad that we know more about Garak, a plain simple tailor, than we do Jonathan Archer. Or Will Riker.

    I will welcome a new Trek series with open arms, IF they can provide character development worthy of my time.
    • by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:00PM (#12398532) Homepage Journal
      I am tired of hearing this "trek needs a break"

      Me too, what Trek needs is for Rick Berman to die.
      Seriously, die. Because he's got too much power and money to let go, and HE'S killing it softly, with sucking.
    • Garak, eh? (Score:3, Funny)

      by DoorFrame ( 22108 )
      I may be crazy, but I have the sneakiest suspicion that Garak is, in fact, more than just a simple tailor. There's something about his eyes, but I can't quite pin it down.

      Oh well, I guess we'lll never know more.
  • by fuchsiawonder ( 574579 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:29AM (#12398314)
    Not even! The reason people didn't watch is because the writers kept doing stupid things like using the Borg, Nazis, and time travel. All these alien races to have first contact with, and a damn Borg cube shows up on screen.

    Oh yeah, the opening theme was substandard too.
    • by Yokaze ( 70883 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:34PM (#12398738)
      Yeah. I was also fairly dissapointed. They have no feeling for development at all.

      All the Star Trek "history" at hand, and what do they do? Show technology and species not even seen in TOS. And what about all the species found in TOS? Most begin appear in the 4th season. Previously, there seemed to be more species from later series than from TOS.

      And couldn't they do the story without a transporter? Photon torpedoes? Or sub-space communication? Or phaser? Would be starting with a laser be so bad?

      Couldn't be space traveling and making contact with new species challenging enough? No, they had to invoke a new earth destroying time-war in a unheard region with unheard species.
  • by ratsnapple tea ( 686697 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:31AM (#12398326)

    I found this posted originally to another article and modded flamebait, but I think it raises issues pertinent to Star Trek and which should concern all Star Trek fans.

    --

    This has very little to do with the article, but a few days ago the L.A. Times published an article regarding the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit [torontopolice.on.ca] that focused on their fight against child pornography ("Sifting Clues to an Unsmiling Girl" [latimes.com]). They are the law enforcement organization that photoshopped the victims out of child porn photos in order to get the public's assistance in identifying the backgrounds (it worked). In any case, the article had this amazing claim:

    On one wall is a "Star Trek" poster with investigators' faces substituted for the Starship Enterprise crew. But even that alludes to a dark fact of their work: All but one of the offenders they have arrested in the last four years was a hard-core Trekkie.

    Wow. All but one in four years. Seemed rather unlikely to me.

    So, I called the Child Exploitation Section of the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit and spoke to Det. Ian Lamond, who was familiar with the Times article.

    He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources?

    Nevertheless, Det. Lamond does confirm that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest." They've arrested well over one hundred people over the past four years and they can gauge this interest in Star Trek by the arrestees' "paraphenalia, books, videotapes and DVDs."

    Det. Constable Warren Bulmer slips on a Klingon sash and shield they confiscated in a recent raid. "It has something to do with a fantasy world where mutants and monsters have power and where the usual rules don't apply," Bulmer reflects. "But beyond that, I can't really explain it."

    I asked Det. Lamond if this wasn't simply a general interest in science fiction and fantasy, such as Star Wars or Harry Potter or similar.

    Paraphrasing his answer, he said, while there was sometimes other science fiction and fantasy paraphenalia, Star Trek was the most consistent and when he referred to a majority of the arrestees being Star Trek fans, it was Star Trek-specific.

  • by christurkel ( 520220 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:35AM (#12398358) Homepage Journal
    Maybe it just plain sucked. Not all of it, and I'm not bashing the actors involved but the writing and plots...who wants to watch that kind of garbage?
  • by GuyWhoPosts ( 880445 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:37AM (#12398365)
    Leave it to the producers to blame anything or anyone but themselves! If they had some original IDEAS and good WRITING, Enterprise would be an enduring hit, and people would prefer it to reruns of the other series. They need people in charge who will think outside the cookie-cutter.
  • by GrouchoMarx ( 153170 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:38AM (#12398370) Homepage
    They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.

    Gee, sounds like Microsoft's main problem; they're competing against Windows 98. :-)

    Seriously, though. Would you rather watch a classy show like TNG any night of the week, or watch a crappy show like Enterprise that is bad even by normal Sci-Fi standards to say nothing of Trek standards on Friday night? Put a bad show in the death slot and ratings go down. Put a good show in the death slot and ratings go down. That's why it's called the death slot. Duh.

    Enterprise's competition isn't reruns of old Trek, it's wanting to do something entertaining on a Friday night. :-)

    Wait about 3-4 years, then bring back the Enterprise Season 4 team (Manny Coto, the Reeves-Stevenses, etc.), and make sure that Berman and Braga are not permitted anywhere close to the sound stage, and you'll probably get a good show out of it.
  • Silly (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Evro ( 18923 ) * <evandhoffman.gmail@com> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:45AM (#12398418) Homepage Journal
    When Voyager came out it had to compete with DS9 new episodes as well as TNG and TOS reruns. But I guess it's foolish to expect them to say "yeah, Enterprise sucked, sorry." The whole premise of the show was stupid. Kirk's crew was supposed to be "the first" and Enterprise ruined all of that backstory time and time again. I remember when they were brainstorming ideas for the new show, one of them was like Star Fleet special ops or something, I felt sure they'd go with that since it really sounded interesting. I even said "Man, they'd never do a show that predated Kirk, the fans would throw a fit," but apparently they aren't that in-touch with their fanbase. Which I guess is logical, since Star Trek isn't that popular, and finding fans must be very difficult.

    ST: Nemesis was also a flaming pile of dung, rivalling Star Trek V in the crap department. No need to rehash the reasons that movie sucked. But suffice it to say that while oversaturation probably contributed to people being sick of the show, the quality of the content they're producing has gone down the tubes.
  • thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!

    Dear Rick,

    While we have enjoyed the "Star Trek Universe" for what seems like decades now, we have begun to get a little nauseated at the thought of YASTS (Yet Another Star Trek Series). Please remember the words of some wise sage from the past: "Everything is good, in moderation" and apply it to future Star Trek endeavors.

    Warmest Regards,
    The Star Trek Fans
  • Re-run competition (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The trees ( 561676 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @11:56AM (#12398501)
    They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.

    I can attest to this. When the choice became suffer through another episode of Enterprise vs watch a re-run of TNG (both in the same Wednesday timeslot, TNG on SpikeTV), I chose TNG every time. If Enterprise had been even almost as good as TNG, the choice would be different. But when the only advantage it has is that it's new, forget it.
  • by dlockamy ( 597001 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:06PM (#12398579)
    >They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."

    somewhere in a darkened room rick berman sits against the wall...with his fingers in his ears and quitely whispers...

    "I'm a GOOD Star Trek producer...and GOOD Star Trek producer...by stories are epic gems...EPIC GEMS!
  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:17PM (#12398639) Journal
    TOS, TNG, and DS9 had great writing.

    TOS: Yes lots of the writing was kitchy and the humor as mostly slapstick, fine but mostly it was well placed. The plots were not new, they in many was resembled westerns or adventure stories. Still they managed to ask some questions and do things that were not possible in those more conventional genres at the time. When they did use kitch and slapstick it was not over done, except in a few episodes, "Trouble with Tribbles" anyone?

    TNG: Largely continued the traditon of TOS. There was a little more character development which gave the show a little more dimention but the writers did a great job of not over doing to th point where the show had to become serial. They also took the kitch down an notch. All and all the show was very inteligent like what had come before it and felt like it had some more depth. They still had an incredible freedome of plot to do anything they wanted and keep the show mostly fresh for its entire seven years.

    DS9: Ok, I felt this was a radical departure from the TNG and TOS. It had a much stonger focus on charater development and relations ships then the others, and it was a serial prime time soap, lets just face it. Still there was plenty of chance for variety. It was a busy port where different charater could resonably come and go. The writing never felt streched or unnatural it was consistant with the timelines the other shows had established and played by the rules created in the other series. The new format allowed them to expolre some political issues that could not be address in the episodal format of the other series.

    VOY: Holly crap! Lets write ourselves into a corner with the very first episode, the flog the plotline out for seven years. Yes the show had its moments but there was really only one goal they could have from day one. The first seasons had long streches of "What clever trick to advance our homecomeing will we find and fail at this week?" it got old real fast. The writing was miserable the dialog was not even kitchy more just bad. Then they started introducing plot arcs like the borg and breaking all the rules. Come on the Borg were supposed to be this highly adaptive and terrible enemy which nearly vanquished the entire starfleet. In TNG every tangle the enterprise had it incurred serious damage and often needed repairs at space dock. The Enterprise, a bigger more war-ship inspired vessal usually had help too. Where exactly did Voyager a science ship all alone refit, how did they survice the attacks with no backup? Sure they did it in the writing but it seemed so far feched and generally inconsistant. I think that had to irritate lots of true fans.

    Enterprise: Personally its a step up form Voyager I don't care what anyone says. It still suffers terribly for consistancy problems regarding the transporter, the state of technology at the time and lots of other stuff. Archer's character is irratic at best, wholly inconsistant at worst. The relationship with the vulcans is entirely to close, in TOS we get the impression humans and vulcans have peaceful relations some exchange of goods and technology but little real cultural connection, to the point that they barely understand each other. Yet on Enterprise years earlier then TOS humans and vulcans are in constant meetings and already serving together. It feels like they are at least trying to get it write unlike VOY which it felt like they were throwing the story to the wind.

    We don't need a break we just need someone besides UPN sheparding the writers. UPN is trying to go for cool or sexy as the shows cake when that has in the past been the icing. Past Treks worked because they were philisophical stories and often played with some actual science even in their world of fantasy and embelishment. These things were just not present in VOY and ENTERPRISE.

  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki.cox@net> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:20PM (#12398655)
    I want to weep now.

    That was beyond watchable. it was entertaining.

    Screw a break, I want a series based of the Mirror Universe.
  • by Enahs ( 1606 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:27PM (#12398693) Journal
    I agree that Nemesis was a good movie. Heck, I'll even say it was a great movie. I enjoy it more than most the Star Trek movies. In some ways I actually thought it was better than (don't kill me!) Wrath of Khan.

    However, I think Berman needs to understand that, by and large, fans think that the last few years of Star Trek have been pure, utter crap. Only the most rabid Trek fans have enjoyed anything from DS9 on. DS9 was a soap opera (much more so than the last two seasons of TNG; at least TNG had some compelling story lines) and Voyager and Enterprise just plain old sucked. This from a guy who can more or less recite lines while watching Wrath of Khan.

    Berman, Braga, just think about this: I hear more sci-fi fans talk about Andromeda than Enterprise. In that case I think it's more due to the fact that Andromeda is in syndication and local channels use it to fill out their lineup, as well as Sci-Fi and WGN, among others, carrying it. I mean, c'mon, guys, you're being beaten out by something that carries Gene's name! I'd much rather watch one of the Stargate shows or the modern Battlestar Galactica than watch that dreck you call Enterprise. Why? Well, it may not be the best acting, but the shows are just better. And that's sad, because compared to old Trek, all of them suck.

    No, Rick, it's not merely oversaturation; if oversaturation was the only key problem, sitcoms would have died out years ago. No, Rick, it's you and Paramont. Craptacular story lines, craptacular acting, and no offense to LeVar, but craptacular directing too. Add to that that the show is stuck on the least-popular network in the U.S., and it's not hard to figure out why Trek is dead.

  • by NaruVonWilkins ( 844204 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:27PM (#12398695)
    I rarely actually sit down in front of the TV. I have a lot more time on the computer when I can have a video window open on another monitor.

    So I picked up torrents for some Enterprise episodes in HD, thinking "hey, I'll just watch it here, and if I really like it, I'll make time for it."

    A group called BayTSP started sending abuse notices to my ISP, threatening to sue me if I didn't stop sharing Enterprise episodes. So I stopped. And I don't watch it. I do, however, watch Battlestar Galactica, for which I have not received any file sharing complaints.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:28PM (#12398702)
    I didn't watch enterprise for a reason, I saw the first eppisode, they showed the klingons as they were in TNG NOT as they were in TOS as they would have been in TOS and that would have been closer to thier time... but that's not the big thing that bothered me, I didn't like the show because it was going backwards, every star trek out there was getting bigger better technology, we were watching not only the technological evolution, but also the relationships between the species, it was an excellent show, but enterprise went back to the begining of the star terk universe when the federation first started, they couldn't even do warp 6, if you compare the technology it couldn't even survive a battle in 23rd century, the show enterprise was going against everything we were used to.

    I loved DS9, TNG, and VOY, yes even TOS when I was a kid I loved to watch DS9 and TNG re-runs, but the thing is TNG and DS9 where in the same time frame, they had similiar technology, we got to meet up with character from the other show (Thomas Riker on DS9, and Bashir in TNG)the only thing the I didn't like about VOY was that they weren't in thier classic federation dealing with the klingon/romulan empire and it was all these small (in comparison)groups that Voyager needed to depend on to get home I still enjoyed Voyager.

    to finish up I'd just like to say that we didn't lose interest in Star trek, Star Trek was going in another direction. I would love to see a Star Trek series that takes place from the same time era as TNG maybe slightly more into the furutre with newer technology, dealing in the classic ferdation situation going out on a mission of peace, exporing and from time to time dealing witht he klingon/romulan empires, and of coarse meeting the other species the the federation as met b4
  • by adso ( 469590 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:42PM (#12398789)

    The best Trek series I've seen in years just ended its season a few weeks ago.

    Battlestar Galactica
  • by arkham6 ( 24514 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:42PM (#12398792)
    NO MORE TIME TRAVEL!

    Seriously, time travel episodes are really silly. And over done. A lot.

    Did i mention they were over done?
  • by d_jedi ( 773213 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @12:47PM (#12398823)
    The lack of continuity. Show one new episode.. and then three weeks of reruns? Not a way to keep a captive audience..
    • I don't know what it is with some of these new networks. People, generally, want to watch a series.. every week at the same time, all the time, until the end of the series for the year.

      I personally *hate* sitting down, only to find out that it's a re-run again... surprise! New episodes are 3 weeks away! In many cases, I miss new episodes because of this very thing.

      Idiots.

      The only thing worse are annoying TV logos, the worst of those being the "morphers". Personally, I've stopped watching TBS and a fe
  • I love spin (Score:4, Funny)

    by vkapadia ( 35809 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @01:04PM (#12398950)
    In other news, Saddam Hussein declares he will provide the Iraqi people a break from his rule, due to oversaturation of his dictatorship...
  • by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @01:07PM (#12398957)

    Any good sci-fi helps the other works in the story, not subtracts from them.

    For example, I read the Hobbit as a kid and liked it. Then found out about LOTR. Read those and loved them. Found out there was essentially a prequel, The Silmarillion. Read that and loved it.

    None of these books subtract from the experience of any other. Why? Because each book adds to the experience of the other. When Aragorn is singing about Luthien, it's a beautiful moment. After you read the Silmarillion, you know what he's singing about and why - and it adds to the moment.

    But the new Trek shows don't do this.

    They take off on their own and (to me anyways, this is all opinion, YMMV, etc) don't add to the story.

    A good example is Khan. Seriously great villain. But now when I look at Khan, I have to picture that ship full of whiny kids pining for Brent Spiner. Doesn't add to it.

    And most of the new stuff feels that way to me. Seems like right after DS9 decided it was a war show, the whole magical exploration thing that I liked so much was lost, and it never really came back.

  • Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <nokrog>> on Sunday May 01, 2005 @01:18PM (#12399021)
    >They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."

    I am SORRY. The problem is not the re-runs. The problem are the people who are there in charge now. Rick Berman and his staff have continued to turn out LAME scripts. NOTHING new. Designing a prequal that looked like it was a century above the next gen series, yet smaller. TERRIBLE casting choice for the Captain. Scott Bakula is not captain material. They'd have bene better off with Michael Ironsides or Someone more captainly. I stood beside the producers when they selected a Woman for the role of the Captain in Voyager. I stood behind alot of the dumb coices made. Deep Space Nine, while not the best of the new stuff (TNG is WAYY better), it did not make sense within the Star Trek ethos. How can you go boldy with no starship?? That's why they added the Defiant. The Defiant and the War with the Dominion is what saved DS9 from sinking into mediocrity. Star Trek was known for thought provoking plot lines and for translating the current events to the show. Where's the terror attacks and idiotic security? If Berman and crew think they can just take a couple years off and come back with the same screenwriters and producers, you got another thing coming. Unless there's MAJOR changes AT THE TOP, you won't see a difference in the new trek series in a couple years.
  • TOS and TNG (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @02:28PM (#12399465)
    This is the problem as I see it. I loved TOS. I loved TNG.

    Then, DS9 came out. The first few episodes were interesting, because it was a "different" kind of Star Trek, but taking place in the same time period as TNG. Unfortunately, there were only a few really innovative episodes. DS9 got old fast because it degenerated into a political show based in a science fiction environment, but with hardly any good wholesome science fiction. Seemingly, every episode was about some political problem with the Cardassians and how it was going to be solved with various political maneuvering. If I had wanted to watch politics, I could have switch to Fox News and seen it there. Those politics get me worked up enough; why should I get any more worked up over nonexistant politics in a nonexistant place, with nonexistant people?

    Nearly all TOS and TNG episodes had this interesting quality that no show was about one specific thing. In other words, there was always some overall plot, and then there were other things happening concurrently that complicated things. This was good because the overall plot was usually solved by pushing some button or reprogramming the scanner array or something, but the other things made the episode interesting and thought provoking. DS9 episodes didn't have that quality. There was usually just one thing going on, and personally, it didn't provoke any thought.

    When Voyager came out, it once again seemed interesting. Here was yet another show taking place in about the same time period as TNG. Unfortunately, it quickly became quite boring as well. Here they are, 70 years from home, assuming they travel nonstop at maximum warp speed, right? How come everybody there speaks English? Am I supposed to believe that some universal translator exists that can immediately translate languages it never heard? Even the Klingons had their own language, for crying out loud, and they were much closer to home! Then, the question arised of why in the heck they would make so many stops if it will take so long to get home anyway? At this rate, they'll get there in 140 years! Once again, most episodes lacked that quality present in TOS and TNG episodes. It quickly lost its luster.

    When Enterprise came out, I only saw the first episode, and I came to the conclusion that I just didn't care anymore. It didn't seem right for some reason. I had grown to know Star Trek as being a show with Kirk's crew or with Picard's crew. Those crews gave the shows some kind of feeling that all these other crews just tried to hard to mimic.

    I hope they release a DVD boxed set of all TOS and TNG episodes; I'd buy it in a minute.

    TOS = The Original Series
    TNG = The Next Generation
    DS9 = Deep Space Nine

  • by cybermint ( 255744 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @02:28PM (#12399473)
    ...was that the vulcan chick was not nearly as hot as Seven of Nine. Naked chicks + Borg = Good show
  • by John Leeming ( 160817 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @05:57PM (#12401259)
    I had almost given up on ENTERPRISE last season, when I heard that Berman and Braga were essentially stepping back and letting Coto take over as producer.

    My reasons for giving up were the pointless story arcs and liberal re-imagining of the TREK Universe until it was barely comparable to the initial vision of Roddenberry...and being a survivor of the "Arnold Wars" for the heart and soul of Trek, I saw this coming a long time ago.

    When I found that Berman and Braga had written ENTERPRISE into a corner last season for Coto to resolve without help, it showed Berman and Braga for what they were...petulant weasels who desired all credit and spread all blame.

    Considering what Coto was left with, he did a brilliant job of pulling the series out of the corner, and eliminating the 'Time Wars' arc at the same time.

    But Berman and Braga had done their damage...if the fans didn't like _their_ version of TREK, then Coto would be the 'fall guy' for their errors...and he is.

    Berman and Braga are _NOT_ science fiction fans, let alone writers...they are TV hacks, trying to cash in on the work and imagination of others, and being given the keys to the kingdom through control of TREK.

    They wrested control of the TREK franchise from Gene when he had his stroke, and they cut out Majel, reducing her to comic relief or computer voices. They ignored quality of content for T&A and shoot-em-ups.

    A simple check of IMDB [imdb.com] on their records indicates that they have no real experience in production of programming, aside from the pocket universe of TREK; it's not unreasonable to presume that they chafed under Roddenberry's "rules" and decided to change the TREK Universe completely to their own interpretations.

    Mind you, this is not to argue that the TREK Universe is inviolate...but their interpretation of the original concepts that Roddenberry laid out bear little or no resemblance to those concepts.

    We could do worse than Manny Coto...in fact, we _have_ done worse with Berman and Braga.

    We would all be better served by getting Paramount to remove those two and letting Coto, or anyone else with a _real_ programming/writing background, take over the TREK Universe.

    Roddenberry created his universe with people who have worked on cop shows, soap operas, adventure shows and films, and all manner of programs, having done the same himself.

    Berman and Braga have incestuously drawn the circle of TREK so tightly that it has developed the same stagnation we would see in inbred hillfolk...the hideous and pointless sterility that we would expect has hit TREK because of them.

    Dump Berman and Braga...let in some 'fresh' genetic material to allow TREK to regenerate as it moves along, and not lock it away for Berman and Braga to continue screwing it all up again.

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Working...