DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 5:27 pm**

I don't know if it will make any difference. But if nothing else, it should be a powerful statement to Paramount and UPN (since all they really seem to recognize is money) as to how much some people want this show to continue.

http://www.trekunited.com/news.php?id=13

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 5:31 pm**

I think this is good news. I hope it leads to the show getting another season.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 5:36 pm**

Same here. I would love to see another season.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:49 pm**

I admit I didn't click the link there, but fans donating money in order to finance a TV series or movie is illegal. I read that after those idiots at Scifi Channel canceled Farscape and the fans were looking into helping finance an ending themselves.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:00 pm**

I can't help but think of ways that $3 million would be better spent.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:02 pm**

Luke wrote:I can't help but think of ways that $3 million would be better spent.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:20 pm**

Whether it's legal or not (and I'm sure Paramount wouldn't actually accept the money; too many complications) ... it will get attention. That more than anything. While also giving a strong impression that, despite apparent low ratings and so-called "fatigue," there's a dedicated fan-base (which Paramount already has to know ... but it may make them do a bit of a double-take). And a healthy market for Trek, when done right. The whole thing, I hope, will make Viacom/Paramount (or whoever) ... reconsider.

I'm sure the money could be invested more wisely, yeah. 3 million does seem a lot. Well, okay, it is a lot. But, again, I think it's more about the attention ... the point it sends across, I guess.

And, well, I spend loads of cash on DVD's and such ... every year. More than I realize, when I add it up. More than I should spend, certainly. Probably hundreds of dollars throughout the year. And I don't need to buy these things ... so, I could use my money more wisely, too; could spend it better ... so, if random people wanna use their own spare money to pitch in for Enterprise, I won't complain. Now, granted, 3 million is a lot, lot more, but ... and to dump that much into saving a television program ... probably hasn't ever been done. *Shrugs.* I think this is an interesting situation, and I wonder how Paramount and Co. will react to it. And whether it'll get any media exposure.

I'm rather pleased at the news. But, then, loving the show as I do, I'm a bit biased.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:08 pm**

I really hope something changes their minds and we get another season but it doesn't look hopeful. A mini-series perhaps?

They are working on Star Trek XI now so we'll see how that turns out and see if Star Trek really needs a whole new creative team!

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:55 pm**

orestes. wrote:They are working on Star Trek XI now so we'll see how that turns out and see if Star Trek really needs a whole new creative team!

Absolutely - a whole fresh new start.

A new movie that launches a TV series could be great.

Try and get away from the existing franchise and go waaaay into the future. Enterprise's mistake was that it went backwards. We saw all this great technology etc in the previous three series - much of which gave rise to the Holy Three Plot Points (Transporter accident, holodeck malfunction, time travel) and they took it all away and thought it could still work.

Plus there were all the continuity errors, which is a big no-no when you have fans as anal as us.

They included species which were clearly not met until at least TNG, and then tried to include them in some way (Borg, Ferengi etc). It was as though they realized they had cut themselves off from a whole raft of stories by setting it in the past.

So either we need a sequel series to the existing continuity (picking up a few years after Voyager) or just put it in the distant future. Really freshen up the franchise. I love the show to death (and have for most of my life), but it really does need new blood.

Cancelling the show may have been the best thing for the franchise. Take a few years off the series, maybe have a few movies, and build a hunger for more TV Trek. Look how successful The Next Generation was after a long TV hiatus!

Posted: **Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:19 pm**

Loomis wrote:
orestes. wrote:They are working on Star Trek XI now so we'll see how that turns out and see if Star Trek really needs a whole new creative team!
Absolutely - a whole fresh new start.

A new movie that launches a TV series could be great.

Try and get away from the existing franchise and go waaaay into the future. Enterprise's mistake was that it went backwards. We saw all this great technology etc in the previous three series - much of which gave rise to the Holy Three Plot Points (Transporter accident, holodeck malfunction, time travel) and they took it all away and thought it could still work.

Plus there were all the continuity errors, which is a big no-no when you have fans as anal as us. They included species which were clearly not met until at least TNG, and then tried to include them in some way (Borg, Ferengi etc). It was as though they realized they had cut themselves off from a whole raft of stories by setting it in the past.

So either we need a sequel series to the existing continuity (picking up a few years after Voyager) or just put it in the distant future. Really freshen up the franchise. I love the show to death (and have for most of my life), but it really does need new blood.

Cancelling the show may have been the best thing for the franchise. Take a few years off the series, maybe have a few movies, and build a hunger for more TV Trek. Look how successful The Next Generation was after a long TV hiatus!

No, no, no; it doesn't need to be set in the distant future to be good. Why are there so many people who want this? If it were actually made for that reason, they'd all end up hating it. Technology isn't what what makes good Trek. Trek is about good sci-fi storytelling; whether in the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th or 30th century. Personally, I don't need to see ridiculously advanced technology in Star Trek to be entertained.

Season 4 of Enterprise, under the creative direction of Manny Coto, has proven that it isn't the time period the first 3 seasons were set in that turned people off; it was they god-awful writing.

Posted: **Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:51 pm**

http://theedge.bostonherald.com/tvNews/ ... leid=71459

Article on Spike TV possibly picking up the series. No surprise Scifi Channel has no intrest in the series.

Posted: **Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:27 pm**

If Spike plays their cards right this could be really good for their station.

Posted: **Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:49 pm**

TM2-Megatron wrote:

No, no, no

I take it you disagree.

it doesn't need to be set in the distant future to be good. Why are there so many people who want this? If it were actually made for that reason, they'd all end up hating it. Technology isn't what what makes good Trek. Trek is about good sci-fi storytelling; whether in the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th or 30th century. Personally, I don't need to see ridiculously advanced technology in Star Trek to be entertained.

No it isn't about technology, and I totally agree - Trek works best when it is about the characters. You look at the 1987 episodes of The Next Generation, and they beat anything recent in the story department. TNG concentrated more on character as it went along, and benefitted from it. (The popular episodes, however, do seem to be the big "event" ones).

My point, however, is that by setting the show at a past juncture, the show had cut itself off from some of the story potential. We know the end point, because we know at some stage, a new Enterprise will come along helmed by James T. Kirk. It is a bit like the Star Wars prequels. While some of the "how it happened" stuff is interesting, those prequels are ultimately pointless because they simply pad out stuff that has already been alluded too. Enterprise is worse in this regard, as it is making it up as it goes along. The introduction of alien species such as the Borg - which we all know were first introduced in a Q episode, designed to show how unprepared the TNG crew were - smacked of desperation. They couldn't get the ratings with telling the story of the clunking old ship, so they introduced stuff from a series set afterwards. (I'm sure there is a logical explanation as to why nobody remember the Borg years later, but that is besdies the point...)

Setting the show in the distant future would not be so much about the technology, but more about breaking away from the traditional roots of Trek. It would give the writers and the audience free reign to tell stronger stories without having to be beholden as much to Star Trek continuity. A fresh start, rather than new technology, is what the series needs. Perhaps a few years without Trek will give the fanbase renewed vigour when it comes back. Just look at the Doctor Who frenzy in the UK at the moment!

DVDizzy Forum

$3 million contribution to help save Enterprise

$3 million contribution to help save Enterprise