The Decline of ST and SW

Vercingetorix · Post by **Vercingetorix** » 2003-05-26 03:36am

It seems this forum is mostly about imaginary battles between the ST and SW universe, but I'm afraid I'm not really enough of a fanboy to be able to participate in that sort of discussion, so I hope it's alright to post another sort of comparisson in here.

The similarity between ST and SW that has really struck me over the last few years is their decline in quality. The last two trek series - Voyager and Enterprise - are generally seen as below Trek's usual creative standards, just as the last two SW movies are below the standards set by the original trilogy. One explanation, I suppose, is that any concept runs out of creative steam if overdone.

However, it's interesting to note that ST and SW's problem seem to have very different sorts of causes. With modern trek, the problem seems to be that the wrong people are in charge. Berman has been involved to some extent in all modern trek, but the higher quality series - Next Generation and DS9 - were headed by Piller and Bher respectively. The latest two series, in contrast, were both headed by Braga, which suggests that he may have something personally to do with the quality decline. In contrast, Lucas has been in control of all the Star Wars films. So since we can't use the wrong people in charge explanation, the question is, why isn't he able to live up to his past accomplishments?

Sr.mal · Post by **Sr.mal** » 2003-05-26 03:44am

Because George Lucas has a budget now. The film can be great because of SFX insead of acting, dialog, and plot structure.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-05-26 04:51am

Lucas is also a piss-poor director (with gobs of dough). He might be a wizard at creating universes, but he couldn't direct his way out of a Mentos commercial.

He had a great idea for ESB and ROTJ, and that was to hire directors other than him.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-26 04:52am

Sr.mal wrote:Because George Lucas has a budget now. The film can be great because of SFX insead of acting, dialog, and plot structure.

Solution to problem: Let Jeffrey Falcon and Lance Mungia make Episode III!!

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-05-26 05:04am

just as the last two SW movies are below the standards set by the original trilogy.

Granted, but the difference is that, with Episode I, Lucas started out on the lowest note he ever had (well, okay, not worse than Howard the Duck, but you know what I mean), and then improved significantly into Episode II. With Star Trek, it's been getting worse and worse ever since Voyager's inception.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-05-26 08:02am

It's a combination of a decline and raised expectations on the part of the fans.

With Star Wars, we are expecting greatness. Fine. We have been given that with ESB and ROTJ

Now that they are making E1 - E3, we should be still expecting it.
Problem is, George Lucas said he was directing them.

Lucas himself has admitted he's not a storyteller in terms of dialogue and plotline (case in point, Anakin - Padme, unless there is gonna be some explaination at helps drive Anakin into the Dark Side). He's a visual effects story teller.

That's part of the reason Steven Spielburg directed the Indian Jones movies. Lots of dialogue, plotline and character development. George thought that up, Steve made it happen.

(Makes you wonder how E1 and E2 would have been with Spielburg directing)

However, I don't think G.L is interested in dialogue and story. E1 - E3 is about the fall of the Republic, the Jedi, and Anakin skywalker and the rise of the Empire, Palpatine and Vader. From that point of view, he's done an okay job of that. We have a fairly good idea of the "plot line" of that now.

Star Trek on the other hand has the same problems, but no one cares to correct them.

Case in point.
TOS and TNG were Gene Roddenbury's babies. He had control, and the series were very good. DS9 was post-Gene, but for the most part, stayed true to his style. Sure, there are arguements over religious content, but those are also story elements. The reason was the people in charge "interned" under Gene so to speak, and knew what he wanted.

The only "problems" with these series are a question of 'technical' terms and uses, and other things directly related to storyline/tech interaction. They just came up with the term "technobabble" and let anyone fill it in anyway they wanted too. In universe, that's okay. Cross-universe is when it becomes the problem.

However, Voyager and Enterprise, and the TNG era movies, are not under the control of people trained or that served under Gene. They are under the control of fan-boys answering to corperate suits that want ratings, ratings, ratings.

Why the hell do you think we got 7 of 9 in a cat suit on Voyager, and T'pol in one on Enterprise? Ratings. They are trying to grab the young male audience, pun intended.

That is why some of the plots are so weird and convulted (others however, are still pretty damn good) and we there are so many errors.

They don't care anymore.

Star Wars is not so much declining in quality as it is falling short of expectations
Star Trek is declining in some forms of quality because no one in charge is fixing what needs to be fixed FIRST.

Vercingetorix · Post by **Vercingetorix** » 2003-05-26 01:22pm

Granted, but the difference is that, with Episode I, Lucas started out on the lowest note he ever had (well, okay, not worse than Howard the Duck, but you know what I mean), and then improved significantly into Episode II. With Star Trek, it's been getting worse and worse ever since Voyager's inception.

Personally, I thougt Episode II was MUCH worse. If you grade them on technical acheivements, such as how well they do the big battles and the light saber fights, then maybe Episode II comes out on top. But if you grade them on the quality of the script and the quality of the acting, Episode II is simply terrible, to the point of being almost unwatchably bad.

Star Wars is not so much declining in quality as it is falling short of expectations

You don't think that the latest two movies are of a lower quality than the first trilogy?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-05-26 01:33pm

Vercingetorix wrote:Personally, I thougt Episode II was MUCH worse. If you grade them on technical acheivements, such as how well they do the big battles and the light saber fights, then maybe Episode II comes out on top. But if you grade them on the quality of the script and the quality of the acting, Episode II is simply terrible, to the point of being almost unwatchably bad.

A bit harsh, but your choice. I thought Episode 2 was a damn fine movie. People with unrealistic expectations don't seem to get it, but that's fine. If it wasn't a Star Wars movie, would your criticism be as harsh? If it were just a new sci-fi movie that came out, I would have loved it just the same.

You don't think that the latest two movies are of a lower quality than the first trilogy?

Your problem seems to be there's no evil Empire yet, no rogues like Han Solo, no rebels yet. Too bad. This is a time of peace in the galaxy; everyone's content. The Seperatists are only beginning to drive the galaxy into darkness. Lucas could have easily made carbon copies of the original movies, stuck Darth Vader into the second act of Episode One, etc. but maybe he's trying to serve the story, and not fanboy dreams?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-26 01:40pm

My feeling on episode II was that it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It contains some of the best scenes in the series, but it also contains some of the worst scenes in the series.

However, it really can't compared to the petrified corpse that is Star Trek. And people are really very harsh when they judge the admittedly weak romance subplot; there is some godawful dialogue even in series that no one will say a bad word about, like Babylon5, but no one will dare say that.

Look at some of Sheridan's pompous soliloquys or Sinclair's horrible "let's walk through a script of every stereotypical thing two people supposedly in love could possibly say" first-season romance subplot with his girlfriend. And let's not even get into Star Trek, where they dispense with the entire concept of explanation and simply show them fall madly in love for no reason (7 of 9 and Chakotay? Jadzia Dax and Worf? Troi and Worf? WTF?)

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-05-26 02:09pm

I agree, ST and SW really can't be compared. TPM and AOTC were still decent movies, not as good as the originals, no, but still great fun. On the other hand, I just watched Star Trek: Nemesis last night for the first time. I only saw it because someone lent me a copy of the DVD; I had refused to spend any money to see the picture knowing it would end up in Berman's and Braga's pockets.

It lived down to my expectations. The villians were the most trite, hackneyed, cliched, cardboard cutout villains I have seen in years. Shinzon somehow manages to get followers in the Romulan military despite his constant treatment of them with the most scathing, open contempt possible (and who would ever follow a leader like that). His motivations are spectalularly unrealistic as well - he's been treated as a slave all his life by the Romulans, so his greatest desire is to destroy the earth, since that's where the man he was cloned from was born. WTF

We have Troi and Riker madly in love and getting married, despite having spent the past 15 years in close contact, with nary a hint of that sort of attraction for each other.

It was just bloody awful. It was so bad that it even makes Star Trek 5 look good.

And this travesty of a TV series, Enterprise, is no better. I have watched a couple of episodes out of curiosity. That was enough. I couldn't take the bad writing, bad storytelling, and B&B pissing all over TOS series' continuity anymore. The Star Trek franchise is now a shambling zombie, still lurching along, but with all the life gone out of it. Someone needs to shoot in the head and put it down.

Vercingetorix · Post by **Vercingetorix** » 2003-05-26 02:13pm

A bit harsh, but your choice. I thought Episode 2 was a damn fine movie. People with unrealistic expectations don't seem to get it, but that's fine. If it wasn't a Star Wars movie, would your criticism be as harsh? If it were just a new sci-fi movie that came out, I would have loved it just the same.

Of course I would judge it the same if it weren't Star Wars. I like the first three movies, but I'm really not a huge fan and have no sentimental attachment to the series. My expectations that they will be well-made, well-written and compelling are the same expectations I have for any other film. Those expectations are not unrealistic.

Your problem seems to be there's no evil Empire yet, no rogues like Han Solo, no rebels yet. Too bad. This is a time of peace in the galaxy; everyone's content. The Seperatists are only beginning to drive the galaxy into darkness. Lucas could have easily made carbon copies of the original movies, stuck Darth Vader into the second act of Episode One, etc. but maybe he's trying to serve the story, and not fanboy dreams?

Really? What have I said that would lead you to believe that my problem is the lack of an "evil Empire"?

Really now. I have no special attachment to specific subject matter. I think the material he's attempting to cover now can be done just as interestingly as the material he covered in the past. It CAN be done just as interestingly, but it isn't due to significant artistic failings. The problem with these films is not my high expectations or my attachment to specific subject matter, the problem is limp, lifeless acting, ridiculously bad character development and very mediocre storylines.

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2003-05-26 08:50pm

Perinquus wrote:I agree, ST and SW really can't be compared. TPM and AOTC were still decent movies, not as good as the originals, no, but still great fun. On the other hand, I just watched Star Trek: Nemesis last night for the first time. I only saw it because someone lent me a copy of the DVD; I had refused to spend any money to see the picture knowing it would end up in Berman's and Braga's pockets.

I felt much the same way about buying Lucas' seemingly endless series of cleaned up or altogether improved versions of the OT, which finally culminated in the SE. I eventually paid anyway, much as I disliked Lucas' franchise-whoring.

I do the same with recent Trek, especially when I realized that hoping to deprive two guys of money after they've already cashed a fat pay cheque isn't gonna do much good.

Besides I, myself, want the Trek franchise to continue, even if it does take a long-needed creative hiatus. I am a Trek fan. I do not want it to just die and never return, regardless of my feelings for Bugfucker and Buttplug.

It lived down to my expectations. The villians were the most trite, hackneyed, cliched, cardboard cutout villains I have seen in years.

How many movies have you seen in recent years?

I can think of a number of far more overdrawn villains I've seen in recent movies and television. Methinks you exaggerate.

Shinzon somehow manages to get followers in the Romulan military despite his constant treatment of them with the most scathing, open contempt possible (and who would ever follow a leader like that).

Yeah, after he took over. There's no indication that he was shitting on them before he became Praetor.

His motivations are spectalularly unrealistic as well - he's been treated as a slave all his life by the Romulans, so his greatest desire is to destroy the earth, since that's where the man he was cloned from was born. WTF
We have Troi and Riker madly in love and getting married, despite having spent the past 15 years in close contact, with nary a hint of that sort of attraction for each other.

Did you not see "Insurrection"? (Sure, someone can pop in with the obligatory red herring about how bad it was; they can summarily fuck off after saying as much, since that's about YESTERDAY'S NEWS.)

If you had seen the film, you'd know Troi and Riker rekindled their relationship therein. They'd toyed with each other quite a bit throughout TNG. It all stemmed from a romantic relationship they had prior to their tenure on the E-D...you did watch TNG, didn't you?

It was just bloody awful. It was so bad that it even makes Star Trek 5 look good.

I'm sorry to bust your balls quite this hard, but that's the most exaggeratory series of claims I've seen of this film in quite some time.

You watch--someone will come along and, only because the subject matter is Star Trek, will suspend all their otherwise decent understanding of logic and claim that I must be saying "Nemesis" is a great film. Nice potential false dichotomy, but that's not so. I realize it has its problems.

But I'm also not particularly interested in distorting said problems to the point that they became untruthful. Trek V is worse in every conceivable, measurable manner. I challenge anyone to try and seriously demonstrate otherwise.

And this travesty of a TV series, Enterprise, is no better. I have watched a couple of episodes out of curiosity. That was enough. I couldn't take the bad writing, bad storytelling, and B&B pissing all over TOS series' continuity anymore. The Star Trek franchise is now a shambling zombie, still lurching along, but with all the life gone out of it. Someone needs to shoot in the head and put it down.

If you've only watched a couple of episodes, how can you call the show a travesty of TV? Hasty generalization, or are you basing your judgment in hearsay?

The show isn't TNG. It's not as good as DS9, and it's not as good as TOS was in its time.

Is it therefore a "travesty"? Does that mean, overall, everything about the show just reeks of bad writing and continuity violations (most of which, incidentally, are VERY minor)?

No.

Like I said, I'm sorry if I'm seriously breaking your balls here, but I get sick and tired of people acting as judge, jury, and executioner to "modern" Trek when they readily admit to refusing to watch what they're talking about!

That is, of course, not to even begin to discuss how ENT compares to everything ELSE on TV--you did, after all, say "TV series," not "Star Trek series." The day "King of Queens" and all that other laugh-track shit is off the air, we might talk more about that.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-05-26 10:43pm

seanrobertson wrote: I felt much the same way about buying Lucas' seemingly endless series of cleaned up or altogether improved versions of the OT, which finally culminated in the SE. I eventually paid anyway, much as I disliked Lucas' franchise-whoring.

Lucas' misdeeds in no way compare to the literary prostitution engaged in by B&B.

seanrobertson wrote: I do the same with recent Trek, especially when I realized that hoping to deprive two guys of money after they've already cashed a fat pay cheque isn't gonna do much good.

If I spent money to rent the DVD, a portion of that money would go to B&B as a royalty. I borrowed a DVD, at no cost to myself, so while B&B got paid, none of my money ended up in their pockets, and I watched their crap at no cost to myself. What is there about this that you find so difficult to understand.

seanrobertson wrote:
It lived down to my expectations. The villians were the most trite, hackneyed, cliched, cardboard cutout villains I have seen in years.
How many movies have you seen in recent years?

Quite a few, since the local Hollywood Video store gives one free rental per visit to police officers, firemen, and paramedics. I get a lot of movies this way.

seanrobertson wrote: I can think of a number of far more overdrawn villains I've seen in recent movies and television. Methinks you exaggerate.

Name one. You have a shaven headed bad guy, in long, high collared black robes, who keeps to dimly lit areas, and speaks in slow, menacing tones while ominous music plays in the background, and you think this is NOT a grossly overdone caricature villain?

seanrobertson wrote:
Shinzon somehow manages to get followers in the Romulan military despite his constant treatment of them with the most scathing, open contempt possible (and who would ever follow a leader like that).
Yeah, after he took over. There's no indication that he was shitting on them before he became Praetor.

He's so consumed with contempt that when one of his followers congratulates him on his victory and comes on to him, he freezes in mortification, and snarls at her that if she ever touches him again he'll kill her, and you think it likely that these Romulans had no hint of this contempt before this? Yeah right. Whatever.

Even if he had somehow concealed this, he still needed them as followers if he was to rule the entire Romulan Star Empire. A villian who behaves in such an unbelievable way is a poorly drawn character.

seanrobertson wrote: Did you not see "Insurrection"? (Sure, someone can pop in with the obligatory red herring about how bad it was; they can summarily fuck off after saying as much, since that's about YESTERDAY'S NEWS.)

If you had seen the film, you'd know Troi and Riker rekindled their relationship therein. They'd toyed with each other quite a bit throughout TNG. It all stemmed from a romantic relationship they had prior to their tenure on the E-D...you did watch TNG, didn't you?

Yeah, I watched it enough to see Riker use the word Imzadi in maybe every tenth episode. Ooooh, feel all that romantic tension in the air.

It still smacks of B&B sitting around the conference table and one day saying: "hey, let's get Troi and Riker together". Where's the backstory? Where's the building of romantic tension? In Farscape we had Crichton and Aeryn gradually grow closer until they became a couple, encountering numerous obstacles and pitfalls along the way, but finally coming together. In Dark Angel we had Logan and Max, two people with emotional issues, gradually discovering their feelings for each other and growing more comfortable with them.

B&B are talentless hacks who couldn't write an effective romantic backstory if their lives depended on it, so they just slap Troi and Riker back together all of a sudden and hey presto! They're a couple.

At least Geo. Lucas tried. I grant you, he fucked it up, but he tried. B&B just put them back onscreen as a couple and bam. Stick a fork in 'em, they're done.

seanrobertson wrote:
It was just bloody awful. It was so bad that it even makes Star Trek 5 look good.
I'm sorry to bust your balls quite this hard, but that's the most exaggeratory series of claims I've seen of this film in quite some time.

Hardly. Bad as that movie was, the villains were not so cardboard, the main characters were not so wooden, and the ending was not ripped off from Star Trek II.

seanrobertson wrote:You watch--someone will come along and, only because the subject matter is Star Trek, will suspend all their otherwise decent understanding of logic and claim that I must be saying "Nemesis" is a great film. Nice potential false dichotomy, but that's not so. I realize it has its problems.

If you think it's so bad, why are you defending it? It sucked like a hoover on steroids.

seanrobertson wrote:But I'm also not particularly interested in distorting said problems to the point that they became untruthful. Trek V is worse in every conceivable, measurable manner. I challenge anyone to try and seriously demonstrate otherwise.

Too easy. Trek V didn't bomb as bad at the box office. That's the most measurable manner of all - the financial bottom line.

seanrobertson wrote:If you've only watched a couple of episodes, how can you call the show a travesty of TV? Hasty generalization, or are you basing your judgment in hearsay?

I'm basing it on the few episodes I've endured, and on seeing that despite B&B's claim that they would take the show in new directions, they're just doing the same things they did with Voyager - the same over-reliance on technobabble, the same way of hitting the reset button at the end of each episode, so that no episode advances character development or fleshes out this fictional universe, the same way of playing EVERY alien culture an a one-note caricature, etc. etc.

I'm basing it on the fact that even the few episodes I've seen reveal unmistakably that B&B are not just unconcerned with maintaining continuity with TOS, they're positively contemptuous of the idea.

seanrobertson wrote:The show isn't TNG. It's not as good as DS9, and it's not as good as TOS was in its time.

Is it therefore a "travesty"? Does that mean, overall, everything about the show just reeks of bad writing and continuity violations (most of which, incidentally, are VERY minor)?

No.

Very minor? Very minor?!? We now have the Klingon Empire, which was a distant power in Kirk's day, a mere four days away. Why did Deep Space 9 have such a terrible problem with their war between the Klingons for a season if at warp 9 they could have reached Earth's orbit in under two days?

How could Kirk's generation possibly explore space realistically if the Earth/Klingon Neutral Zone was just four days out? Actually, since Kirk's Enterprise could travel faster than Archer's, how can starships explore space for five year missions with a wall of space keeping all starships from traveling further than three days in a whole specific direction? (source: pilot ep. "Broken Bow".)

Or how about Ponn Farr? Remember when the Pon Farr was so secretive, so hush-hush, so hidden, that even James Kirk only heard about it when his best friend Spock risked court-martial by comandeering the Enterprise? But thanks to B&B, now Trip, Reed and the rest of the gang are all fully aware of it 150 years earlier. (source: ep. #17 "Fusion".)

And then there's the Ferengi. I remember when Picard and his crew still knew very little about them (TNG ep. "The Last Outpost"). Yet here they are two hundred years earlier! Wanna tell me how a race, who strives on trading with multiple different races, can survive centuries through the time periods of Archer, Pike, Kirk, Decker, Harriman, Garrett and into Picard's time before first contact is even made? (source ep #19 "Acquisition".)

And let's not forget the Romulans. In "Balance of Terror", the idea of the Romulans being able to cloak was brand-new. The Enterprise never heard of it before. They even called it an "invisibility shield" and tried to take guesses as to how it worked. Clearly the Earth/Romulan war did NOT involve cloaked ships. But yet suddenly, 100 years earlier the Romulans have full cloaking technology, Archer and gang know they have it, and their technology is so refined that they were able to cloak hundreds of small mines as well. And because the cloaked mines were rather old, the Romulans now suddenly had this technology much further back than even in Archer's time. (source ep. #29 "Mine Field".)

Jesus H. Christ, if I've only seen a handful of episodes, and every mother fucking one of them violates the shit out of ST continuity, how the fuck can you claim these continuity errors are "very minor"? What more errors are contained in all the episodes I'm not watching?

seanrobertson wrote: Like I said, I'm sorry if I'm seriously breaking your balls here, but I get sick and tired of people acting as judge, jury, and executioner to "modern" Trek when they readily admit to refusing to watch what they're talking about!

Whoa, back up there old son. You are making it sound as though I am refusing to look at something in the first place, and judging it to be bad without giving it a fair trial. That is not what happened here. I have seen it - enough to know that I don't want to see any more. And I've seen B&B's other work on "Voyager", and on the recent Trek films. And having given it a viewing I find it to be absolute crap. The height of shite. Pure manure. It has been weighed in the balance, and found wanting. The jury is not still out; it has reviewed the evidence, and delivered the verdict.

"Enterprise" SUCKS.

seanrobertson wrote: That is, of course, not to even begin to discuss how ENT compares to everything ELSE on TV--you did, after all, say "TV series," not "Star Trek series." The day "King of Queens" and all that other laugh-track shit is off the air, we might talk more about that.

Why? I don't waste my time watching that crap either. And this is a red herring anyway. Sure, plenty of other shows on TV suck like crazy. It doesn't for a moment change the fact that "Enterprise" sucks, "Nemesis" sucked, and B&B are talentless hacks that have completely and thoroughly desecrated a once proud sci-fi franchise.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-27 05:18am

Perinquus wrote:The Star Trek franchise is now a shambling zombie, still lurching along, but with all the life gone out of it. Someone needs to shoot in the head and put it down.

Saying that is an insult to zombies.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-05-27 07:23am

Vercingetorix wrote:Really now. I have no special attachment to specific subject matter. I think the material he's attempting to cover now can be done just as interestingly as the material he covered in the past. It CAN be done just as interestingly, but it isn't due to significant artistic failings. The problem with these films is not my high expectations or my attachment to specific subject matter, the problem is limp, lifeless acting, ridiculously bad character development and very mediocre storylines.

I thought Ewan McGregor, Temuera Morrison and Ian McDiarmid delivered solid performances in that movie.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-05-27 07:24am

Perinquus wrote:I'm basing it on the few episodes I've endured, and on seeing that despite B&B's claim that they would take the show in new directions, they're just doing the same things they did with Voyager - the same over-reliance on technobabble, the same way of hitting the reset button at the end of each episode, so that no episode advances character development or fleshes out this fictional universe, the same way of playing EVERY alien culture an a one-note caricature, etc. etc.

Enterprise has its share of flaws, but none of the things you've mentioned are among them. They've used less technobabble than any Trek series since TOS, they've left plot threads unresolved in one episode in order to continue them in a later episode on several occasions and they've taken great pains to move the Vulcans (and to a lesser extent, the Klingons) AWAY from the one-note caricatures that they'd become in previous series. You seem to be simply regurgitating the standard arguments that the bashers have been using since before the show even aired. Like I said, Enterprise has it's fair share of flaws, and some episodes are among the worst hours of television I've ever sat through, but none of the flaws you mentioned are actually present in the show.

Very minor? Very minor?!? We now have the Klingon Empire, which was a distant power in Kirk's day, a mere four days away. Why did Deep Space 9 have such a terrible problem with their war between the Klingons for a season if at warp 9 they could have reached Earth's orbit in under two days?

Voyager established that it would take decades to travel across the galaxy after Kirk managed to reach its centre within a few days. Travel time from the GQ wormhole to Earth became shorter and shorter throughout DS9's run. Face it, Trek ships have always travelled at the speed of plot.

Or how about Ponn Farr? Remember when the Pon Farr was so secretive, so hush-hush, so hidden, that even James Kirk only heard about it when his best friend Spock risked court-martial by comandeering the Enterprise? But thanks to B&B, now Trip, Reed and the rest of the gang are all fully aware of it 150 years earlier. (source: ep. #17 "Fusion".)

I've seen that episode, and the words "Ponn Farr" were never mentioned. The Vulcans said that they mated every seven years, but they made absolutely no mention of the psychological changes that they went through at that time that Spock was so embarrased about.

And then there's the Ferengi. I remember when Picard and his crew still knew very little about them (TNG ep. "The Last Outpost"). Yet here they are two hundred years earlier! Wanna tell me how a race, who strives on trading with multiple different races, can survive centuries through the time periods of Archer, Pike, Kirk, Decker, Harriman, Garrett and into Picard's time before first contact is even made? (source ep #19 "Acquisition".)

They knew very little about them in "The Last Outpost," but they seemed to become far more familliar with them in a very short period of time after that episode. Perhaps, now that they had a face to go with the name, they were finally able to match Archer's records up with the things they'd heard about the Ferrengi up to that point.

And let's not forget the Romulans. In "Balance of Terror", the idea of the Romulans being able to cloak was brand-new. The Enterprise never heard of it before. They even called it an "invisibility shield" and tried to take guesses as to how it worked. Clearly the Earth/Romulan war did NOT involve cloaked ships. But yet suddenly, 100 years earlier the Romulans have full cloaking technology, Archer and gang know they have it, and their technology is so refined that they were able to cloak hundreds of small mines as well. And because the cloaked mines were rather old, the Romulans now suddenly had this technology much further back than even in Archer's time. (source ep. #29 "Mine Field".)

I don't really have any explanation for this, other than the fact that the Romulan War will almost certainly become a major plotline in future season of the show (just judging by the timeframe they set it in,) and that one of the show's other continuing plotlines, the Temporal Cold War, also invloves giving cloaking devices to races that should not yet have them. It's still very possible that this will be explained later on.

Jesus H. Christ, if I've only seen a handful of episodes, and every mother fucking one of them violates the shit out of ST continuity, how the fuck can you claim these continuity errors are "very minor"? What more errors are contained in all the episodes I'm not watching?

seanrobertson wrote: Like I said, I'm sorry if I'm seriously breaking your balls here, but I get sick and tired of people acting as judge, jury, and executioner to "modern" Trek when they readily admit to refusing to watch what they're talking about!
Whoa, back up there old son. You are making it sound as though I am refusing to look at something in the first place, and judging it to be bad without giving it a fair trial. That is not what happened here. I have seen it - enough to know that I don't want to see any more. And I've seen B&B's other work on "Voyager", and on the recent Trek films. And having given it a viewing I find it to be absolute crap. The height of shite. Pure manure. It has been weighed in the balance, and found wanting. The jury is not still out; it has reviewed the evidence, and delivered the verdict.

"Enterprise" SUCKS.

You know I really don't think it's healthy to get this worked up over a show you don't like. There's plenty of shows out there that I don't like, but it doesn't bother me too much since I can always change the channel. Is your remote control broken, so that you can't change to any channel other than UPN? You might want to look into picking up a universal remote. They don't cost much and can be really useful. Or if it's the channel-changing mechanism on the TV itself that's broken, you might be better off just hooking up a VCR and changing channels through that.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-05-27 09:41am

What i like in SW:Lucas is trying to link TMP and AOTC to the OT.
What i hate in SW:too much SFX not enough good acting.

Hello Vercingetorix say hi to Asterix for me

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-05-27 10:12am

Lord Poe wrote:If it wasn't a Star Wars movie, would your criticism be as harsh?

That's the problem. It would have been a good sci fi movie. But it had the Star Wars name, and so I expected much better. The first two episodes were very disappointing to those of us who remember watchingStar Wars in the theaters in 77. I too think that GL should allow someone else (like SS) to direct Episode 3. Why not end on a high note?

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2003-05-27 10:16am

Perinquus wrote: Lucas' misdeeds in no way compare to the literary prostitution engaged in by B&B.

Probably not, no.

If I spent money to rent the DVD, a portion of that money would go to B&B as a royalty. I borrowed a DVD, at no cost to myself, so while B&B got paid, none of my money ended up in their pockets, and I watched their crap at no cost to myself. What is there about this that you find so difficult to understand.

I understand that; I'm saying it's irrelevant, because those two bastards are already wealthy. Twenty bucks won't make much of a difference in sending them an "up yours" card at this stage

Name one. You have a shaven headed bad guy, in long, high collared black robes, who keeps to dimly lit areas, and speaks in slow, menacing tones while ominous music plays in the background, and you think this is NOT a grossly overdone caricature villain?

Only one? It'll be hard to limit it to only one. Let me think for a minute.

And to clarify, you said these were THE most trite, cardboard, etc. villains you'd seen in years, not simply that they were among them--that's what I regarded as hyperbole.

I'm not saying that guys in black robes, standing in shadows, speaking in menacing tones to the tune of scary music are...waitaminute. Palpatine?!

Anyway, I digress; it's too hard for me to be funny in the first place, especially with these fucking wisdom teeth cropping up. For THE most ridiculous villain I've seen in recent years, I can't decide on just one, so how about a tie:

1--General Thade of "Planet of the Apes." No redeeming qualities, no nothing...just pure, literally snarling evil the whole time. Delighted in being bad just for the sake thereof.

2--Billy Zane's character in "Titanic." Ugh. Stone-cold, one-dimensional prick.

He's so consumed with contempt that when one of his followers congratulates him on his victory and comes on to him, he freezes in mortification, and snarls at her that if she ever touches him again he'll kill her, and you think it likely that these Romulans had no hint of this contempt before this? Yeah right. Whatever.

Even if he had somehow concealed this, he still needed them as followers if he was to rule the entire Romulan Star Empire. A villian who behaves in such an unbelievable way is a poorly drawn character.

Over-the-top, yes, but don't forget the context of our disagreement: you said Shinzon and his friends were THE worst villains you'd seen in years of films. I think the guy, for his flaws, is still a little better drawn than a General Thade.

Yeah, I watched it enough to see Riker use the word Imzadi in maybe every tenth episode. Ooooh, feel all that romantic tension in the air.

Did you watch it enough to hear one of those two establish that they'd had a pretty serious relationship sometime shortly prior to Riker's promotion to Lt.? The episode with "Tom Riker" establishes their history very well.

It still smacks of B&B sitting around the conference table and one day saying: "hey, let's get Troi and Riker together". Where's the backstory? Where's the building of romantic tension? In Farscape we had Crichton and Aeryn gradually grow closer until they became a couple, encountering numerous obstacles and pitfalls along the way, but finally coming together. In Dark Angel we had Logan and Max, two people with emotional issues, gradually discovering their feelings for each other and growing more comfortable with them.

Those two already had the feelings. In my own experience, they are feelings that do not go away, even with a lengthy passage of time. The two apparently rekindled their relationship in "Insurrection," which we saw...they were in the bath tub together, you may or may not wish to recall

(Hey, I still think Marina Sirtis is a hottie. But I've always liked women older than me *shrugs*)

Of all the things one could criticize "Nemesis" for, I think that one is slightly off the mark.

Hardly. Bad as that movie was, the villains were not so cardboard, the main characters were not so wooden, and the ending was not ripped off from Star Trek II.

The villain was extremely cardboard. That deceitful "god" thing?

Sybok's arguably the "main" villain, but the premise of that character is almost as bad as "god's."

Supposedly, Spock had no brother as per dialogue in TOS. Shades of B&B years later, Shatner and co. come up with the brilliant idea of Spock's "half-brother!" Wow...one throw-away line makes it all okay!

They go the most cliched route possible in handling a Vulcan: make him Mr. Emotional. He wins people over by forcing them to confront a single memory, after which they're under his control and ready to throw caution to the wind when going to the "center of the galaxy"?

...I dunno, man. I don't see that Shinzon is THAT much worse than clownish Sybok.

seanrobertson wrote:You watch--someone will come along and, only because the subject matter is Star Trek, will suspend all their otherwise decent understanding of logic and claim that I must be saying "Nemesis" is a great film. Nice potential false dichotomy, but that's not so. I realize it has its problems.
If you think it's so bad, why are you defending it? It sucked like a hoover on steroids.

Well, actually, I didn't say I thought it was that bad.

But I'm not arguing whether or not it's great on its own merits, either.

What I object to are claims that it's in the same league as Trek V Or: "How Spock, Bones, and Jim Row, Row, Rowed Their Boat." Shudder.

I primarily object to the characterization of the film as portraying THE worst villains in all of Hollywood, etc.

I think we can pick the thing apart without going overboard, is all.

Too easy. Trek V didn't bomb as bad at the box office. That's the most measurable manner of all - the financial bottom line.

Ah, not bad

I'd have to retort, have bad films ever done well at the box office? See, I considered "Titanic" to be a crashing bore--no pun intended. Where it wasn't a silly love story, crudely grafted onto the picture as a contrast for the ultimate tragedy (how ham-fisted is that?), it was just sooooo unbelievable.

Take, for instance, the scene in which the old hag finishes her story to Bill Paxton's crew. Ok, sure: all these guys are going to sit around for hours while this old woman babbles on about playing footsie with Leo DiCaprio. Suuure

Then, at the end of the fairy tale, they're all going to turn on the water works? They'll all stand around, doe-eyed, and cry? Who the fuck is running that ship, little elves that live under the deck? Those guys got WORK to do!

"Titanic" was of course a tremendous success, though its core audience consisted of teenage girls who saw the thing a dozen times. (Since they love DiCaprio so much, I guess the old "girls want a big, strapping protector" model is bunk.) Does that mean it's a great film? Parts of it were okay, but for the money it made, I found it extremely disappointing.

Same story with any Jim Carrey movie. I rarely find the guy's "I'm CRAZY!" routine funny; he does the same shit in movie after movie, without fail. To date I think he's maybe done two serious roles, and even then managed to work in a taste of his zaniness.

Anyway, I seem to recall that his first "Ace Ventura" movie did real well. (I think pt. dos bombed.) We'd have to judge it on its comedic merits, of which there are few, certainly nothing varied: it's all Jim screaming, jumping up and down, basically acting like the same asshole he always is.

I also recall that Trek V came out early in the summer of '89, pretty much sans opening weekend opposition from the "Batmans," "Total Recall," etc. "Nemesis" was out for all of a few days before the premiere of a huge cash cow, TTT, in Dec. '02. (What in the FUCK where they thinking?!)

I'm basing it on the few episodes I've endured, and on seeing that despite B&B's claim that they would take the show in new directions, they're just doing the same things they did with Voyager - the same over-reliance on technobabble, the same way of hitting the reset button at the end of each episode, so that no episode advances character development or fleshes out this fictional universe, the same way of playing EVERY alien culture an a one-note caricature, etc. etc.

I'm basing it on the fact that even the few episodes I've seen reveal unmistakably that B&B are not just unconcerned with maintaining continuity with TOS, they're positively contemptuous of the idea.

I haven't noticed much reliance on technobabble. The reset button is still around, though they do seemed to have made an effort to keep it somewhat less obvious; e.g., the events of "Minefield" to "Dead Stop."

Very minor? Very minor?!? We now have the Klingon Empire, which was a distant power in Kirk's day, a mere four days away. Why did Deep Space 9 have such a terrible problem with their war between the Klingons for a season if at warp 9 they could have reached Earth's orbit in under two days?

The four day thing was, admittedly, NOT minor. That was a major fuck-up.

How could Kirk's generation possibly explore space realistically if the Earth/Klingon Neutral Zone was just four days out? Actually, since Kirk's Enterprise could travel faster than Archer's, how can starships explore space for five year missions with a wall of space keeping all starships from traveling further than three days in a whole specific direction? (source: pilot ep. "Broken Bow".)

Right. I'd be insane to disagree with you here. All I can really point out is that in following episodes, the four day thing isn't brought up again, nor is Earth's proximity to the Klingon Empire portrayed as such. It's pretty much one episode's fuck-up, not one that's reflected throughout the entire series (even though, yes, it does set the tone for the series as a whole).

Or how about Ponn Farr? Remember when the Pon Farr was so secretive, so hush-hush, so hidden, that even James Kirk only heard about it when his best friend Spock risked court-martial by comandeering the Enterprise? But thanks to B&B, now Trip, Reed and the rest of the gang are all fully aware of it 150 years earlier. (source: ep. #17 "Fusion".)

Is "Fusion" the one with T'Pol in heat?

And then there's the Ferengi.

That sucked, too.

And let's not forget the Romulans. In "Balance of Terror", the idea of the Romulans being able to cloak was brand-new. The Enterprise never heard of it before. They even called it an "invisibility shield" and tried to take guesses as to how it worked. Clearly the Earth/Romulan war did NOT involve cloaked ships. But yet suddenly, 100 years earlier the Romulans have full cloaking technology, Archer and gang know they have it, and their technology is so refined that they were able to cloak hundreds of small mines as well. And because the cloaked mines were rather old, the Romulans now suddenly had this technology much further back than even in Archer's time. (source ep. #29 "Mine Field".)

I don't know that cloaking was established as brand-new in "Balance of Terror." I thought the cloaking was a stretch in "Minefield," but it's not established that all Romulan ships are thusly equipped circa 2153, or that the Earth-Romulan War will be fought by such ships. For all we know, they're little more than system patrol craft.

Now, mind you, I don't really believe that

I think ENT has made poor efforts at maintaining consistency with TOS.

OTOH, I won't let a few crude cloaking devices or a couple of guys hearing a blurb about Pon Farr ruin the whole show for me. The Ferengi appearance came close to doing just that, but here again, I'm not trying to hold ENT up as the greatest TV show ever: I'm objecting to the claim that it's horrendously bad for TV in general, which I think is more than a little unfair.

Jesus H. Christ, if I've only seen a handful of episodes, and every mother fucking one of them violates the shit out of ST continuity, how the fuck can you claim these continuity errors are "very minor"? What more errors are contained in all the episodes I'm not watching?

Phase cannons ("Silent Enemy"?) and the new "photonic torpedoes" are what I was thinking of.

However, let me clarify: by "very minor," I meant in the scheme of...what? 50+ episodes?

*snipped funny "ENT SUCKS" text*

seanrobertson wrote: That is, of course, not to even begin to discuss how ENT compares to everything ELSE on TV--you did, after all, say "TV series," not "Star Trek series." The day "King of Queens" and all that other laugh-track shit is off the air, we might talk more about that.

Why? I don't waste my time watching that crap either. And this is a red herring anyway.
[/quote]

No. It's not a red herring. You're context-dropping again:

And this travesty of a TV series, Enterprise, is no better.

You made it sound as if ENT was a travesty to all TV, which is relative to "that other time-wasting crap"

Since "King of Queens" (or whatever) is worse, it's a bit much to call ENT simply a travesty of TV. It's not up to the standards of other Trek, but it's not THAT fuckin' bad such as to be a pimple on some sitcom's ass.

As for why I care, especially when I maintain that ENT isn't a great show: I don't want people to see your statements, recognizing you as an intelligent poster, then run off and repeat them all over the SD.net BBS, as is sometimes prone to happen.

That is, we have quite a number of impressionable youngsters around who are quick to become an elder poster's "yes men." They frequently respond with single-line trash like "LOL" or "yeah ent sucks hard i saw it last night," which dismays me; this place is otherwise so chock FULL of brilliance, I hate to see that kind of crap within a country mile of something otherwise so good.

However, I think it's presumptuous of me to simply blow these kids off for good; we all gotta start somewhere, after all. So, without trying to sound super-altruistic, I just want them to sometimes see that even unpopular subjects require that they still back their shit up--just as they would be of any other subject raised in the BBS. I would hope that could cut down on that wheel-spinning "ENT sucks, B&B suck donkeys" noise, which is a plus for me; and for their sake, let them know that reasoning isn't something one applies selectively/whimsically.

Sure, plenty of other shows on TV suck like crazy. It doesn't for a moment change the fact that "Enterprise" sucks, "Nemesis" sucked, and B&B are talentless hacks that have completely and thoroughly desecrated a once proud sci-fi franchise.

But they suck...compared to what? You cannot suck in a vacuum

(Ugh, shit. That's baaad. Forgive me.)

Next to other Star Trek? (Perhaps, though I disagree that "Nemesis" is anywhere near as bad as Trek V or "Insurrection.")

You were extending that comparison to other films (including hits like Ace Ventura: Pet Dick) and other TV ("Raymond Blows the Milkman"). That's where I differ from ya.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-27 10:19am

I'd also agree that Star Trek V was a better film than Nemesis. At least 5 was tongue in cheek, had quite a few good lines, and an original plot.

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2003-05-27 10:44am

Vympel wrote:I'd also agree that Star Trek V was a better film than Nemesis. At least 5 was tongue in cheek, had quite a few good lines, and an original plot.

Vympel, man, you're killin' me...

They lifted the ST:V plot directly from TOS. It's not very original.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-27 11:00am

seanrobertson wrote:
Vympel, man, you're killin' me...

They lifted the ST:V plot directly from TOS. It's not very original.

Which episode? (the Apollo one?)

Still, the other points remain.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-05-27 11:20am

I think too, that ST V was better than Nemisis.
One line is one of my favourite:
"Jim, what do you want?! See Gods I.D.?!"

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-27 11:21am

Tribun wrote: "Jim, what do you want?! See Gods I.D.?!"

Actually, it's "Jim, you don't ask God Allmighty for his ID!"

"Why not?"

and later

"Excuse me? What does God need with a starship?"

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-05-27 11:28am

Actually, it's "Jim, you don't ask God Allmighty for his ID!"

Must be because I simply translate the German Version:
"Mein Gott Jim! Was willst du?! Seinen Personalausweiß sehen?!"