MSNBC Story: Starfleet, we have a problem

[Holy Bovine]

At least we know the real story behind Viacom's mangling of a once great franchise.

 

[mojo1701]

Ah, yes, I was just thinking about that one.

Thanks for reminding me, Holy Bovine!

 

[myrdden]

Agreed. The article seems to be an exercise in demogoguery designed to fan the flames of discontent. It offers little in the way of concrete solutions, instead offering a pithy presentation of network exec-type advice that normally spells the end of any struggling series. In the end it seems to boil down to throwing more money at it. I'm just glad he didn't take any shots at the acting talent, which I believe has thus far been the strong suit of Enterprise. I suppose sprinkling in some cameo star power couldn't hurt as long as it blended and the writing didn't try to overly spotlight it.

I'm also going to pimp my agreement here too.

I also agree that the cast and crew have been consistently strong. However the other half of the equation (the writing and producing of the show) isn't pulling their fair share of the work. I really want the show to be successful and entertaining for me, but so far it has mediocre at best and struggling to capture my attention. Maybe Trek does need some down time to let the creative juices flow back in. Or maybe my expectatios for the show are radically different than the producers.

Myrdden

 

[Umbran]

Maybe Trek does need some down time to let the creative juices flow back in.

There's a basic illogic to the "give it a rest" argument. Generally speaking, franchises are not single entitites. They are conglomerates - the efforts of many writers and actors. The show itself only needs to rest if you've been using the same creative and acting people, and don't wish to use others.

There are lots of people out there who can infuse Trek with any number of new and different flavors, if the people in charge of production would allow it.

But that brings up another question - if they did something terribly radical and new, would we really think it was "Trek"? Given how little unity there is in what folks actually want from the show, I dunno...

 

[Ranger REG]

As a longtime Trek fan, I agree with SOME of the points made in the article to make it better episodes. But to put it simply: I want story-driven episodes with action elements, not action-oriented episodes with the story coming in second in priority.

IOW, Impress Me, like you did in TOS, TNG, and in DS9. I was impressed with VOY for the first three seasons, but from then on ... * Yawn * with only a handful of "Hmm, interesting" episodes ("Blink of an Eye," which rehashed the TOS "Wink of an Eye" episode, with a different story).

 

[LuYangShih]

At least we know the real story behind Viacom's mangling of a once great franchise.

I want a link to the site where that comic came from and I want it now.

 

[Stormfalcon]

That would be www.penny-arcade.com

 

[LuYangShih]

Thank you Stormfalcon. I appreciate it. Laughter, away!

 

[Orius]

I agree 'the fan base' is misleading.

I think we keep seeing what Rick Berman wants (time loops), most of the people I know want to see the history of the beginning of the Federation, why is there a Prime Directive, why were the Klingons hated so, show more of the Andorians (they are the 3rd prime race of the Fed). The shows should be building the Federation that we know, not creating a show of a unknown history.

I totally agree. I too believe Trek fans want to see the foundations of the Federation laid here. I'd also throw in the Romulan War here. The Xindi storyline so far isn't going badly, but I think fans are more interested in how the Star Trek universe is shaped. The biggest problem is that I think Berman and Braga don't really know how to do it.

 

[Orius]

I read the article and found it to be something that a network exec would come up with. Of course, we all know what happens when network execs start fiddling with good series (or at least once-good franchises).

And for added irony, the article was for MS *NBC*.

1) Give it a good, long rest. Finish up Enterprise (at least run it to fufill whatever contracts have been made regarding its duration), then put in a 10 to 20-year moratorium on new Trek series and movies. We've had non-stop Trek since 1987, and it's been tired since Voyager. It needs a lot of time to refresh, and so do we as fans.

I don't know about a decade or so. I'd say maybe two or three years.

2) Fire Brannon and Braga. It was under their leadership that we got Voyager and Enterprise, let alone their lousy attempts to freshen up the franchise with more action, titilation, and tossing continuity out the window. It's far better to have leadership that emphasizes good writing and respect for the audience's intelligence. Action and titilation aren't necessarily bad thing, but they could never hope to compensate for the lack of good writing.

3) Get good writers again. One of the things that made TOS great was that they got writers who put out good science fiction, and this extends to TNG and DS9. These days, we have to wonder what species of simians they have at the word processors churning out Trek scripts. They need to find decent science fiction writers willing to work on Trek. The sad part is, they don't have to look far, since some of the novels are good stuff, but they're not willing to take the minimal effort to get these authors onboard.

I think both these points go hand in hand. First of all, Braga. I get the impression most fans want to see him gone. Both Berman and Braga are regularly bitched about, but Braga seems to be a bit more hated.
I've also read that Braga can't take any form of criticism. That's not a good thing, and that might be why the show may not have good writers. If he's got too much ego, it's definitly not going to help with fresh creative minds on the staff. That includes the novel writers, some of these people have been creatively involved with Trek longer than Braga, and they have their own preconceptions of the Trek universe. That's a recipe for a lot of ego conflicts.