New Trek Pre-quel Film?

[Uraniun235]

Rick Berman did other television series before TNG, including Cheers. I've heard here and there (nothing concrete, though) that when Roddenberry was negotiating with Paramount, they told him he had to have an executive producer from some lineup they had, and he picked Berman. Was that a judgement error on Gene's part or was Berman really the best of the people he was offered? I don't know. Ronald D. Moore claims that Berman started to get really pushy regarding show policy during the third season, making up rules like "you can't so much as mention Kirk or Spock or TOS" and then later claiming to never have done so. (I wouldn't be surprised if he did that out of embarrassment regarding the blatantly derivative 1st season episode "The Naked Now") Berman is also directly responsible for the lethargic music used throughout TNG, as he consistently ordered the composers to not put too much energy into the music.

Brannon Braga joined TNG during the 4th season, IIRC, as a writer. He wrote such episodes as "Cause and Effect" and "Sub Rosa". I think he also wrote "Rascals", but I could be wrong. He also co-wrote Generations with Ronald D. Moore. Berman probably took a liking to Braga at this time (or, who knows, maybe Braga had the idea for Voyager and his condition for letting Berman play with it was to make him an executive producer?) and eventually made him Executive Producer when Voyager came along.

Braga's more a shitty writer with an oversized ego than a shitty producer with an oversized ego. This is evident in most of the episodes he's penned... including the godawfully boring "Cause and Effect".

[Stofsk]

Berman is also directly responsible for the lethargic music used throughout TNG, as he consistently ordered the composers to not put too much energy into the music.

That's a decision I have some trouble understanding. Does he offer any sort of rationalisation?

Braga's more a shitty writer with an oversized ego than a shitty producer with an oversized ego. This is evident in most of the episodes he's penned... including the godawfully boring "Cause and Effect".

Not to mention the unwatchable "All Good things..." Only John DeLancie saved that for me. I was hoping for something with a little more omph than yet another time hop adventure.

I can't think of a single Braga episode which I've liked.

[Uraniun235]

IIRC, Berman said something to the effect of not wanting the music to take attention away from what was happening on-screen.

It might be that he personally feels big, energetic music makes serious and dramatic moments less serious. In any case I really think it's a matter of personal taste with him, and sadly his became the word after a couple of seasons. Dennis McCarthy wrote some pretty neat stuff when he could get away with it, and Jay Chattaway's first episode (Tin Man) was a big departure from what the series had settled into by then. Ronald D. Moore also claims that Berman was the one who vetoed blooper reels and the idea for a musical episode.

I think Berman just took it way the hell too seriously to the point where the series was somewhat stifled by it.

[Sarevok]

Not to mention the unwatchable "All Good things..." Only John DeLancie saved that for me. I was hoping for something with a little more omph than yet another time hop adventure.

The time travell plot in All Good Things was well done. It was a great final episode for TNG.

[Stofsk]

The time travell plot in All Good Things was well done. It was a great final episode for TNG.

Obviously I disagree.

However, while the time travel hopping wasn't bad, it wasn't good either. Let's just say it's not the ending I wanted. As such I found it disappointing. I don't think it was a great finale.

[Slartibartfast]

Rick Berman did other television series before TNG, including Cheers.

By "did" i suppose you mean he was a guest actor once in Cheers. Because that's about as much as he "did" in Cheers.

[Uraniun235]

Ah, my mistake, he didn't produce Cheers.

Berman joined the Paramount family in 1984 as director of current programming, overseeing Cheers, Family Ties and Webster. Within a year, he was named executive director of dramatic programming, overseeing the development of the telefilms, mini-series and specials including the epic "Space," "Wallenberg: A Hero's Story" and ABC's top-rated MacGyver. He was promoted in May 1986 to vice president, longform and special projects for Paramount Network Television, overseeing the development of telefilms, mini-series and specials.

...

Prior to joining Paramount, he was director of dramatic development for Warner Bros. Television. He was an independent producer on numerous projects from 1982-1984, including What on Earth, an informational series for HBO, and "The Primal Mind," a one-hour award-winning special for PBS. From 1977-1982, he was senior producer of The Big Blue Marble, for which he won an Emmy for Outstanding Children's Series.

[Sarevok]

The time travell plot in All Good Things was well done. It was a great final episode for TNG.

Obviously I disagree.

However, while the time travel hopping wasn't bad, it wasn't good either. Let's just say it's not the ending I wanted. As such I found it disappointing. I don't think it was a great finale.

Personally I liked the episode. The complex time travell plot was well written. I liked how they tied story happening on three different timelines on three different Enterprises.

[Hardy]

If they do make a prequel I sure hope that they put Archer in there and perhaps set it during the Romulan wars. Perhaps the new movie could be the prelude to the Romulan wars.

I'm just hoping to see the NX01 on the silver screen.

[Chardok]

Givent the fact that this is going to be a prequel movie there is a good chance it will be a Enterprise movie.

What kind of damn sense woul it make to make a movie after a series is cancelled due to it's complete craptasticness? Yeah, not cancelled while it was great. Cancelled because nobody watched it because it sucked farts straight out of my asshole.

Well, we are talking about B&B sooooo.........

[Hardy]

Givent the fact that this is going to be a prequel movie there is a good chance it will be a Enterprise movie.

What kind of damn sense woul it make to make a movie after a series is cancelled due to it's complete craptasticness? Yeah, not cancelled while it was great. Cancelled because nobody watched it because it sucked farts straight out of my asshole.

Well, we are talking about B&B sooooo.........

Those are some highly arrogant conclusions based on assumptions and personal opinion, rather than that of the public opinion. Highly assertive, if you ask me.

[neoolong]

Unless I'm reading the ratings information wrong, haven't they been going down along each season?

That would mean that public opinion says it sucks.

[Slartibartfast]

Save Enterprise? Hahahahahahaha... *sigh*

[Uraniun235]

If they do make a prequel I sure hope that they put Archer in there and perhaps set it during the Romulan wars. Perhaps the new movie could be the prelude to the Romulan wars.

The Earth-Romulan war... fought with "primitive" atomic weapons, in ships that lacked visual communication?

On Enterprise?

No. They do that and I'll send them a videotape of an NX-01 model burning.

[neoolong]

Exactly when was the war supposed to take place?

It seems a little odd to have this Xindi thing going on, and then tack on another war right after.

Unless they tie both together.

[Stofsk]

Exactly when was the war supposed to take place?

It seems a little odd to have this Xindi thing going on, and then tack on another war right after.

Unless they tie both together.

What are you talking about, man? I mean isn't it obvious that the Xindi is alien butt-speak for "Romulan Star Empire" and Hoshi just couldn't be arsed translating? And those different faces - reptiles, mammals etc - they're clever disguises that the Tal Shiar developed to trick us, the viewers, into thinking the Xindi were a completely unrelated conglomerate of aggressors when in fact they're part of a Romulan strike force that's set to take earth by storm! By next season (god willing) the Enterprise will be revealed as a Daedalus class Cruiser (the suacer section was an optical illusion, see)! Then, those earth boys will kick some Romulan arse! B&B wouldn't lie to me, would they?

(Doctor's diagnosis: "Hmm, you seem to be suffering from delusions of grandeur, and also seem to be seeing this show, 'Enterprise', through rose-tinted glasses.")

Disclaimer: this is a joke, don't panic, I'm not that delusional...

[Hardy]

Unless I'm reading the ratings information wrong, haven't they been going down along each season?

That would mean that public opinion says it sucks.

Nielsen's ratings are somewhat inaccurate. One Nielsens box cold represent over 200,000 people. Could it be possible that in some cases a massive group of Enterprise fans are being represented by a non-Trekkie. It's a bit of an irrational statement, but I am only trying to express a possibility.

The Earth-Romulan war... fought with "primitive" atomic weapons, in ships that lacked visual communication?

On Enterprise?

No. They do that and I'll send them a videotape of an NX-01 model burning.

Enterprise was a State of the Art ship for it's time. I do acknowlegde that it contradicts a lot of the Trek timeline, but there is no reason why a lot of the technologies on Enterprise were prototypical and advanced and could be used ro some extent.

Remember that history can always be interpreted differently from what really happened. The "low tech" perception for the ships during those wars may have been a generalization of the majority of warships during that time. They may have had a few high tech, highly advanced ships that served quitly or never made their mark in history to be remembered 200 years later.

[SirNitram]

Unless I'm reading the ratings information wrong, haven't they been going down along each season?

That would mean that public opinion says it sucks.

Nielsen's ratings are somewhat inaccurate. One Nielsens box cold represent over 200,000 people. Could it be possible that in some cases a massive group of Enterprise fans are being represented by a non-Trekkie. It's a bit of an irrational statement, but I am only trying to express a possibility.

At the risk of sounding arrogant(Oh wait, I am arrogant. Nevermind. I'm better than you!), statistics is not some new, edgy thing which doesn't have all it's adult teeth yet. The potential for the mistakes you theorize is widely known, and is taken into account for things like the Nielsen's.

Even if we postulate that there is uncorrected bias, the consistancy of the trend(Constant drop) shows that the bias can't be big enough to completely distort the situation.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

You know, the fact that UPN is currently polling viewer interest for ENT doesn't speak well at all for the show's stability in the future.

[The Kernel]

At the risk of sounding arrogant(Oh wait, I am arrogant. Nevermind. I'm better than you!), statistics is not some new, edgy thing which doesn't have all it's adult teeth yet. The potential for the mistakes you theorize is widely known, and is taken into account for things like the Nielsen's.

Even if we postulate that there is uncorrected bias, the consistancy of the trend(Constant drop) shows that the bias can't be big enough to completely distort the situation.

Not to mention the fact that since ad revenues are set by Neilsen ratings, it doesn't make a bit of difference to Enterprise's cancellation if they ratings were wrong.

[Hardy]

Unless I'm reading the ratings information wrong, haven't they been going down along each season?

That would mean that public opinion says it sucks.

Nielsen's ratings are somewhat inaccurate. One Nielsens box cold represent over 200,000 people. Could it be possible that in some cases a massive group of Enterprise fans are being represented by a non-Trekkie. It's a bit of an irrational statement, but I am only trying to express a possibility.

At the risk of sounding arrogant(Oh wait, I am arrogant. Nevermind. I'm better than you!), statistics is not some new, edgy thing which doesn't have all it's adult teeth yet. The potential for the mistakes you theorize is widely known, and is taken into account for things like the Nielsen's.

Even if we postulate that there is uncorrected bias, the consistancy of the trend(Constant drop) shows that the bias can't be big enough to completely distort the situation.

Very true. Not arrogant, just factual . I agree with what you say here.

There is no reason to say that Enterprise is a bad show becuase you would have to comment on writing, acting, and SFX which is purely based on opinion. Nielsen ratings are only a reflection of how a show performs in relation to what else is on TV at the time. Besides possible statistical inaccuracy, there are many more reasons why Enterprise is not perfroming well.
One of them is genre. I dont think that the majority of America are sci-fi fans. Even so, cable and satellite TV is available tot hem so there ar more options such as syndicated shows or other sci-fi shows or movies.
Antoher is timing. Enterprise Starts at 8:00 on the east coast which is an inconvienient hour in which people could possibly be watching soemthing more productive when they finish dinner or get home from work. And then you have younger fans who are sent to bed early or the fans that are just unavailable and tape their shows. The fact that you can download episodes of Enterprise also hurts ratings as people wont watch TV. Inventions such as Tivo and the DVR have also allowed people to watch other TV outside of the normal time slot.
[/list]

[SirNitram]

Nielsen's ratings are somewhat inaccurate. One Nielsens box cold represent over 200,000 people. Could it be possible that in some cases a massive group of Enterprise fans are being represented by a non-Trekkie. It's a bit of an irrational statement, but I am only trying to express a possibility.

At the risk of sounding arrogant(Oh wait, I am arrogant. Nevermind. I'm better than you!), statistics is not some new, edgy thing which doesn't have all it's adult teeth yet. The potential for the mistakes you theorize is widely known, and is taken into account for things like the Nielsen's.

Even if we postulate that there is uncorrected bias, the consistancy of the trend(Constant drop) shows that the bias can't be big enough to completely distort the situation.

Very true. Not arrogant, just factual . I agree with what you say here.

Nah, I am arrogant. I just didn't express it here.

There is no reason to say that Enterprise is a bad show becuase you would have to comment on writing, acting, and SFX which is purely based on opinion. Nielsen ratings are only a reflection of how a show performs in relation to what else is on TV at the time. Besides possible statistical inaccuracy, there are many more reasons why Enterprise is not perfroming well.

I daresay we can objectively quantify quite a few things. The SFX, for one, are some of the best on TV. However, we are once again reminded that SFX don't make a show.

As anyone with any professional work in writing will tell you, the writing in it commits the basic stuff you're not supposed to do. We're told instead of shown(How many times has Archer rambled on about something which would have been awesome to see, like standing on mountains or craters?), downplaying any suspense, and having zero internal continuity, let alone using existing continuity.

These are more than opinions.

One of them is genre. I dont think that the majority of America are sci-fi fans. Even so, cable and satellite TV is available tot hem so there ar more options such as syndicated shows or other sci-fi shows or movies.

This is an obvious fact. However, as SG-1 is proving and the original Trek proved, well-done scifi can often find enough fans to get by.

Antoher is timing. Enterprise Starts at 8:00 on the east coast which is an inconvienient hour in which people could possibly be watching soemthing more productive when they finish dinner or get home from work. And then you have younger fans who are sent to bed early or the fans that are just unavailable and tape their shows. The fact that you can download episodes of Enterprise also hurts ratings as people wont watch TV. Inventions such as Tivo and the DVR have also allowed people to watch other TV outside of the normal time slot.
[/list]

I can't comment on the time-slot issue, though I know there's alot of buzz about such things. Also, wasn't Enterprise originally in a more favorable slot?

[Hardy]

As anyone with any professional work in writing will tell you, the writing in it commits the basic stuff you're not supposed to do. We're told instead of shown(How many times has Archer rambled on about something which would have been awesome to see, like standing on mountains or craters?), downplaying any suspense, and having zero internal continuity, let alone using existing continuity.

These are more than opinions.

Right. Professional do's and donts are inherent in any situation.

But Archer isn't the first guy to tell us what he has done or has been doing either. In TNG and TOS the space battles and EVA's normally took place off camera while being coordinated from the bridge which is on camera. We normally do not even see flashbacks during that time.

This is an obvious fact. However, as SG-1 is proving and the original Trek proved, well-done scifi can often find enough fans to get by.

The original Trek was written around the time that sci-fi was entering it's prime. I dont want to make a severe logical error so I wont say anything else about TOS's initial fan base.
But as you said, SG-1 has proven that a sci-fi fan base can grow.

I can't comment on the time-slot issue, though I know there's alot of buzz about such things. Also, wasn't Enterprise originally in a more favorable slot?

In 2001, according to my memory the 8:00 spot wasn't that competitive as it is now. Maybe it's just me?

[SirNitram]

As anyone with any professional work in writing will tell you, the writing in it commits the basic stuff you're not supposed to do. We're told instead of shown(How many times has Archer rambled on about something which would have been awesome to see, like standing on mountains or craters?), downplaying any suspense, and having zero internal continuity, let alone using existing continuity.

These are more than opinions.

Right. Professional do's and donts are inherent in any situation.

But Archer isn't the first guy to tell us what he has done or has been doing either. In TNG and TOS the space battles and EVA's normally took place off camera while being coordinated from the bridge which is on camera. We normally do not even see flashbacks during that time.

The concept of a battle from the bridge isn't really a violation of the 'Don't tell, show' maxim. It's a means of storytelling pioneered in old submarine movies, and Roddenberry carried this.. Purposefully.. into TOS. We're still seeing the battle, but the perspective is different. I'm talking about how Archer has literally said 'I've done this and that and this' and I keep thinking 'You know, any of those scenes would be actually INTERESTING, as opposed to you sitting your ass there'. That is what the maxim is supposed to prevent.

This is an obvious fact. However, as SG-1 is proving and the original Trek proved, well-done scifi can often find enough fans to get by.

The original Trek was written around the time that sci-fi was entering it's prime. I dont want to make a severe logical error so I wont say anything else about TOS's initial fan base.
But as you said, SG-1 has proven that a sci-fi fan base can grow.

I can't comment on the time-slot issue, though I know there's alot of buzz about such things. Also, wasn't Enterprise originally in a more favorable slot?

In 2001, according to my memory the 8:00 spot wasn't that competitive as it is now. Maybe it's just me?

No, no, I mean, wasn't it originally in a different time slot? And it got bumped to the 8PM Death Row.

[Hardy]

The concept of a battle from the bridge isn't really a violation of the 'Don't tell, show' maxim. It's a means of storytelling pioneered in old submarine movies, and Roddenberry carried this.. Purposefully.. into TOS. We're still seeing the battle, but the perspective is different. I'm talking about how Archer has literally said 'I've done this and that and this' and I keep thinking 'You know, any of those scenes would be actually INTERESTING, as opposed to you sitting your ass there'. That is what the maxim is supposed to prevent.

OK. Now I see what you are saying. But it still isn't the frist time in Star Trek that an exploit has been more described than visually shown onscreen. I dont think Archer does it too often either. They still dedicate entire episodes to flashbacks, or ussually just make a long story short by telling it. It saves some production budget as Enteprprise has one of the highest production budgets on Television.

No, no, I mean, wasn't it originally in a different time slot? And it got bumped to the 8PM Death Row.