|
Post by christianjames on Dec 14, 2009 19:01:26 GMT -6
Hi im new, joined just so i could get this off my chest
I knew instantly when Enterprise was announced that it would never ever be as popular as the other treks. Simple reason being is that its a prequal. Most of us has followed star trek for years, watching its progress and its continuing story. The reason most of us watch it is because its set in the future and we like the future that it creates. Unfortunatly Enterprise (although its set 100 and odd years from our present day) its set, to a trek fan, in the past. We want to see what comes next, not what came before. What happened before trek started is almost irrelevant, it started for us with kirks ship. Wot happened with Archers ship would have been cool to see in an episode of DS9 or voyager, but not to base a whole series on. I understand that Trek's popularity was waining at the time and they were trying to get back to the roots of what made the original programme succesful but it clearly didnt worked, hence the cancellation of Enterprise. Then imagine my horror when i saw the new movie was also a prequel!! Didnt they learn anything from the cancellation of Enterprise? Now as it happens the budget was big enough to make the movie exciting and the actors had sex appeal, i loved the film! But we, as fans simply wont accept the trek timeline being ruined! do we disregard 40 years of star trek history or disregard one movie? So to the creators of the next Star trek project, stop delving in to our past, we want to see what come next!
|
|
|
Post by macawol on Dec 15, 2009 5:10:24 GMT -6
Calm down, jammies. I for one loved Enterprise (as I did every other ST series)
And a lot of story arcs in ST is about temporal problems, so why not reinvent the entire franchise based on that? (I think it is a freaking cool idea)
|
|
|
Post by christianjames on Dec 15, 2009 9:36:45 GMT -6
oh dont get me wrong, i enjoyed the series while it lasted, but feel a bit jipped that treks fantastic record of a 7 year run was cut short because of some bad decisions at paromount.
|
|
|
Post by macawol on Dec 15, 2009 11:17:09 GMT -6
Unfortunately it seems to be a trend among Sci-fi shows created around that time not to last very long.
But yes, we needed a new ST show, and they decided on ENT, but the universe is huge, so there are still tons of stories outthere.
How about following the adventures of a Klingon B'rel class starship, as they fight for the empire, kill pirates, and mock those weak starfleet officers?
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Dec 17, 2009 8:25:44 GMT -6
You have some good points, but I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I would have liked seeing the early days of Starfleet, when transporters were new and untried, and they used lasers instead of phasers. But the way it was presented didn't ring true. It didn't seem primitive enough. The Vulcans were shown as an old, highly advanced race. They have apparently had all the Star Trek technology (warp drive, phasers, transporters) for hundreds of years, and so did the Klingons, Andorans, Nausiccans and everybody else. But as far as we can tell from watching ENT, none of these people have progressed at all since then! That doesn't make sense.
Communications is an example. In the TOS episode "Balance of Terror" we are told that at the time of the Romulan War, visual communications between spaceships wasn't possible. It should have been the same in ENT, most likely because of compatablity problems between the technologies of various alien races. To download, not to mention translate, entire databases between Earth and Andor and Vulcan should have taken hours (if it was possible at all!), and not been instantaneous. There should have been all kinds of problems with differing protocols and interactions between aliens. But the producers of ENT didn't want to bog down their stories with these details, so they didn't bother showing us all that.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Dec 17, 2009 8:35:35 GMT -6
For me, this is a no-brainer! I don't even count the new movie as a Star Trek movie! I've gotten into arguments on other forums about this -- there are TEN Star Trek movies, not eleven! For my money, a new series should stick with the timeline we already know. It should be set in the 24th century, right after Next Generation. Maybe it would follow Riker on the Titan, or follow another ship entirely, as VOY did.
|
|
|
Post by macawol on Dec 17, 2009 8:52:20 GMT -6
For me, this is a no-brainer! I don't even count the new movie as a Star Trek movie! I've gotten into arguments on other forums about this -- there are TEN Star Trek movies, not eleven! Well, I regard it par of the mirror universe, it is there, and a part of the ST universe, but not the 'REAL' One. For my money, a new series should stick with the timeline we already know. It should be set in the 24th century, right after Next Generation. Maybe it would follow Riker on the Titan, or follow another ship entirely, as VOY did. Well, I think it would be an interesting idea, not to focus on a single ship or base. Say during a season you might follow 4 different groups: A section 31 agent. A groups SCE engineers. The classic starship as normal. A Frontier colony. And let each episode focus on one of these set ups. And even use different medias, such a Cartoon Animation, CGI Animation, ordinary acting.
|
|
|
Post by christianjames on Dec 18, 2009 12:25:46 GMT -6
Lets not dismiss the newest movie until weve seen the sequels as the timeline tampering may be corrected in a later film. And as for a new Trek series, i actually think the 24th century based programmes have had sufficiant coverage and it maybe time to move on. A 25th century Star Trek with even faster ships, more advanced technologies and new areas of the galaxy to explore would be apealing to both fans and non-watchers alike.
|
|
|
Post by andrewlee on Dec 18, 2009 13:50:24 GMT -6
Lets not dismiss the newest movie until weve seen the sequels as the timeline tampering may be corrected in a later film. And as for a new Trek series, i actually think the 24th century based programmes have had sufficiant coverage and it maybe time to move on. A 25th century Star Trek with even faster ships, more advanced technologies and new areas of the galaxy to explore would be apealing to both fans and non-watchers alike. I'm not against prequels if continuity is maintained! I'm much more in favor of a new Trek series that is not in the alternate reality of the latest Star Trek movie that is set between the 25th and 26th centuries!! I think that the Federation being enemies with the Romulans has been done enough and I would not be interested in this "OVER DONE" plot in another Star Trek series!!!!
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Dec 18, 2009 14:33:40 GMT -6
Maybe the Federation is in danger from within? 100 years ahead there could be a threat from the Delta Quadrant, a series set entirely within the Gamma Quadrant perhaps with the Jem Hadar as a lawless menace or a Klingon-like society or a new race risen in the Alpha Quadrant - after all in the mirror universe the Terran Empire established itself in 100 years or so so it's plausible that an aggressive, expansionist species could do so. Also, how much have we heard about the farther reaches of the Beta and Alpha Quadrants? There's so much possibility out there - after all the universe *is* infinite by nature!
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Dec 21, 2009 8:45:42 GMT -6
Lets not dismiss the newest movie until weve seen the sequels as the timeline tampering may be corrected in a later film. I think it's already too late for that. It's not so much the destruction of Vulcan I disapprove of, it's the whole thing! The idea of the entire cast being cadets at the same time, Kirk being promoted straight to Captain... everything. It's just too much of a mess to be salvaged I think. I think there are plenty of stories still to be told in the 24th century. And what kind of new technology are we talking about? Faster ships? Why? New technology would be nice, but it's hard to imagine some radical new technology, even beyond Star Treks, something that would change 24th century society. That's a tall order. And why do we need some new place to explore when we've only scratched the surface of our own galaxy? Granted there are the Romulan, Cardassians and so forth on all sides, but we could still explore the Delta Quadrant as ArkRoyal says.
|
|
|
Post by christianjames on Dec 28, 2009 12:23:51 GMT -6
well, it does seem your massivly apposed to the newest movie, each to thier own. its a great movie, unfortunatly its not a great star trek movie for avid fans. The problem now, is that after the failiure of Star trek enterprise, rick berman and brannon braga have been removed from the franchise and the task to produce all future treks. So it would appear that everything that is going to be created from now on will be done so by a production crew that isnt familiar with the unniverse that is already in place. So if you are wanting to continue watching and enjoying star trek, then you may have to get used to sloppy continuty. Actually ive just watched seasons 3 and 4 of enterprise and in my rage after the cancellation announcement i now realise that i should have continued to watch the forth season. its some ov the most exciting star trek iv seen. At the end of the day, we only have our selfs to blame, it was scrapped due to bad ratings! we should have been tuning in!
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Dec 30, 2009 9:48:10 GMT -6
In my opinion, if a new series is based on sloppy continuity, it will not be the Star Trek that I know, so I will feel no guilt at all in not watching it. I tend to agree, in retrospect, that season 4 of ENT was just starting to get good. What I didn't like was the whole Xindi weapon storyline, and then there was that time travel storyline. And I may be a little hazy, but wasn't that also when the alternate universe episode aired? I got out of the habit of watching, basically.
|
|
|
Post by andrewlee on Dec 30, 2009 11:57:07 GMT -6
I did like some episodes of Enterprise, however after giving this more thought, I think that they should make series in sequence. they could flash back to the past in an episode as long as continuity is maintained and it adds to a story in a good way!!
|
|
|
Post by christianjames on Dec 31, 2009 11:55:03 GMT -6
well reading all the comments so far i think its safe to say that my original message summed things up. No more prequals!!! it just confuses everything. i hope paramount dosnt hand the franchise over to the blockbuster hollywood types on a permanent basis because star trek as we know it will end and they will acomplish very little character work. If i wanted to see mindless graphics of things exploding for two hours i would watch star wars, not trek!!! Happy new year
|
|