Fun Star Trek: Enterprise

As stated by Gary Mitchell in WNMHGB back in 66 how Kirk always had his head in a book! It's true that todays style of film is at odds with us older fans view of shows like Doctor Who, Star Trek and Star Wars! It's like they think that the big explosions and the blasting allows for the lack of story in other areas!
JB

I think that the general populace has been dumbed down, fairly massively, even since our time. Literacy is not encouraged.Wham, bam, violent heroes are.

Yes, you are right. Kirk could have a fist brawl with the best of them, but more often than not, he would devastate his enemies with a moral speech that shamed them, or destroyed a computer with cold logic.

That Kirk has been castrated and all we are left with is the one who could have a fist brawl, pretty much.

You're so right, Doctor! We all make mistakes in literacy agreed but errors are now making their way into texts for DVDs, novels and especially magazines, which is terrible considering how being correct was beaten into most of us when we were kids back in the day! There, They're, Their is the most common mistake I find in written pages these days and the writer's inability to understand which one of the three fits where!
JB

And though it may sound trite, a bit daft and bizarre, I think a huge clue to how bad things has become is to simply compare the contents of the first ever DOCTOR WHO ANNUAL with the contents of the latest.... Both were presumably aimed at the same age range and audience.

But....

1965: Large page count. Dense text stories (apparently written by David Whittaker) with a few illustrations and the odd comic strip and game...






2018: Much reduced page count. Lots of easy puzzles, simplistic features and very basic comic strip. No text stories. Clearly aimed at someone with an attention span approaching zero.

So sad, and worrying, in an Orwellian way.

The destruction of words, evidenced by, of all things, children's annuals.

There is that point, which is extremely valid. You could, in the past, quote Dickens or Shakespeare or Melville, and most of us knew what you were talking about. We have a generation (and not all of them, because I have done my best to raise my two kids to not be ignorant of the classics) who aren't reading like we did.

The other problem, and I know we've all talked about this before, is that Abrams came into the job not being a Trek fan, and wanting to make it another Star Wars. They are two very different styles of sci-fi, and should have remained so. I like the new films, but they aren't the Trek I grew up with. This also brings up the fact that modern movie going audiences have little to no attention span. A movie like Wrath of Khan would sink after opening weekend in this day and age, because there's no real action until the last half of the final act. It's a lot of exposition and philosophy.

chainsaw_metal1 said:

There is that point, which is extremely valid. You could, in the past, quote Dickens or Shakespeare or Melville, and most of us knew what you were talking about. We have a generation (and not all of them, because I have done my best to raise my two kids to not be ignorant of the classics) who aren't reading like we did.

The other problem, and I know we've all talked about this before, is that Abrams came into the job not being a Trek fan, and wanting to make it another Star Wars. They are two very different styles of sci-fi, and should have remained so. I like the new films, but they aren't the Trek I grew up with. This also brings up the fact that modern movie going audiences have little to no attention span. A movie like Wrath of Khan would sink after opening weekend in this day and age, because there's no real action until the last half of the final act. It's a lot of exposition and philosophy.

Click to expand...

I prefer learning all about the movie's enemy, his history, powers, weaknesses before the heroes try to defeat him with laser blasts and whatever rather than show us explosions and battles from the beginning onward and then introduce the villain quite casually with no back story or the like and then they just kill him off like they're saying well we've had enough of him I'm getting bored now, let's make a new big baddie!
JB

Doctor Omega said:

And though it may sound trite, a bit daft and bizarre, I think a huge clue to how bad things has become is to simply compare the contents of the first ever DOCTOR WHO ANNUAL with the contents of the latest.... Both were presumably aimed at the same age range and audience.

But....

1965: Large page count. Dense text stories (apparently written by David Whittaker) with a few illustrations and the odd comic strip and game...

2018: Much reduced page count. Lots of easy puzzles, simplistic features and very basic comic strip. No text stories. Clearly aimed at someone with an attention span approaching zero.

So sad, and worrying, in an Orwellian way.

The destruction of words, evidenced by, of all things, children's annuals.

View attachment 5542

View attachment 5543

Click to expand...

I saw that 1965 annual on a market about twenty years back and the guy wanted £20 for it, which was beyond my range back then. But you're right, the old stuff gave you so much more than the poor light weight annuals they print today! Maybe they are trying to dumb our descendants down because a good and free thinker won't accept the orders of a tyrant!
JB

There's a local book store that was going out of sale, and had everything 40% off. By the time I finally got in there, the inventory was well picked over, but I saw the 2018 Annual, and damn near picked it up, just to have. I never actually looked at it, just thought it'd be cool to have. Now I'm rather glad I didn't waste my money.

I remember purchasing the 2005 Christmas annual with Eccleston and thinking why am I doing this? I'm not even a fan of this guy and it's not like my old Doctor Who series!!! I then bought the next years one with Tennant and yet again wasn't really sure but by the end of 2007 my daughter had come along and I bought them for her! () Nowadays though the annuals have always gone to my son and I've never really even looked at the books while this years annual we decided against buying as my son is not really a Who fan and more a Ninjago and Primeval follower!
JB

Maybe it's just me, but just going on this video, I would consider Brannon Braga one of the biggest jagoffs in television. He really comes off as very unlikable.

chainsaw_metal1 said:

Maybe it's just me, but just going on this video, I would consider Brannon Braga one of the biggest jagoffs in television. He really comes off as very unlikable.

Click to expand...

And yet he still bagged Jeri Ryan!!!!
JB

Was Star Trek Enterprise Really That Bad?

My wife says that Bakula IS Henry Winkler (The Fonz) and has been telling me that since 2001! I told her that Winkler is a shortish chap and Bakula is fairly tall but she says it's the same guy and that he's wearing platform shoes!!!
JB

johnnybear said:

I remember purchasing the 2005 Christmas annual with Eccleston and thinking why am I doing this? I'm not even a fan of this guy and it's not like my old Doctor Who series!!! I then bought the next years one with Tennant and yet again wasn't really sure but by the end of 2007 my daughter had come along and I bought them for her! () Nowadays though the annuals have always gone to my son and I've never really even looked at the books while this years annual we decided against buying as my son is not really a Who fan and more a Ninjago and Primeval follower!
JB

Click to expand...

Eccleston has come clean now about his falling out with RTD and the other producers on New Who and says the role was SO different to any other he had ever taken and that his relationship with Davies has been destroyed for all time! I always said he was miscast in the part and so far (not mentioning Whitaker) he is the only actor that has very little Doctorish characteristics in his portrayal!
JB

I suspect that he now sees the day that he e-mailed RTD. putting his name forward for the role, as one of the biggest mistakes of his life.

And, while he had his moments in the role, I think RTD was mistaken in responding to that e-mail.

I get the impression the leather jacket, Northern accent and buzzcut was an Eccleston approach that just ain't the Doctor, but the team yielded to these ideas from Eccleston. I think they should have known better.

Just a mess all round.

And I now hear that Eccleston has taken his Doctor Who role off his c.v. in the program of the latest play he is doing.

But he will never escape the role.

What a dolt.

I remember seeing a poster from Lord of The Rings and mistakenly believing that Eccleston was in that! I wasn't very happy as I always felt that he was a bit obnoxious and a legend in his mind but then I found out it was Viggo Mortensen! What a shock though a while later to find that he was the new Doctor in what was my favourite television series!!! That was the beginning of my dislike for the revamped show!
JB

I remember being very moved, years before, by his performance in LET HIM HAVE IT, and - when I heard that he was now the Doctor, there was a moment of head-scratching as it seemed such a left-field choice, but the reasonable, rational part of me thought that this could be an amazing bit of casting, depending on what Chris brought to the role.

Then the first photos appeared in the paper of the buzz cut and - particularly - the leather jacket and - after raising my eyebrows - I thought, well, the classic show ended with a bit of a whimper and the movie got nowhere... Maybe a bold new approach is needed. Maybe it is me that is being too blinkered. Why should the Doctor never have cropped hair and why should he always have to have an Edwardian theme to his clothes?

Then the show aired and, while he came across very well as an ancient being in that first episode, feeling the Earth turning beneath him, his attempts at humour seemed forced. All grinning "Fantastic!" I could see him acting. It didn't seem natural when he felt obligated by the script to go zany. But it was only the first episode. Give the man a chance.

That was on the Saturday.

On the Monday, the shit hit the fan.

DOCTOR WHO QUITS! screamed the front page headline.

Was this a joke?

As the story unfolded, it said that the BBC had stupidly failed to tie Eccleston down to more than a one year contract. It also said that toy manufacturers were furious with him as they had just made the toys ready for sale and the Doctor was going!

It was with a somewhat bewildered feeling that I watched the second episode.

Episode 2 and this guy was already going!

And we thought Colin was short lived!

It felt, to me, at the time, like a waste of a regeneration.

I am very good at denial and I watched the rest of the season still thinking that there were crossed wires somewhere and this guy would surely change his mind or something. But leave he did.

As for the season itself, I hated the fart jokes and that BAD WOLF thing turned out to be, in my opinion, one massive damp squib.

There was a kerfuffle over a false statement the BBC put out about Eccleston not wanting to be typecast, when he had said no such thing.

Then the BBC were spinning that there had been a one season plan for him all along, to allow the concept of regeneration to be introduced to the kids. Pity they hadn't told the furious toy manufacturers that in advance.

The first photo of Tennant appeared in costume and he looked more the Doctor...

I still had hope.

Uncertainty over the series would grow over the years... The RTD era seemed uneven... The only hope for making this an amazing science fiction show seemed to be that writer, Moffat. He wrote the best ones didn't he? Surely the show under his watch would be amazing.

Be careful what you wish for...

And then the Moffat era began. Matt Smith proved me wrong after I dismissed his casting as a mistake... But I hated his scripts and the feel of the show. Capaldi promised a new era. But I felt he was so badly served a Doctor. He could have been the best of the new lot, in my opinion.

And now Chibnall.... But that's a story that is yet to be told...

16K
I like this

9.8K
I dislike this

That is the amount of likes to dislikes as of today on the Jodie Whittaker reveal video. And how many of those clicking like will actually watch the show?

Moffat lied when he said there had been no backlash. RTD too toed that party line.

But if Chibnall could overcome the hurdle of that statistic.... It has been done in the past with Michael Keaton as Batman and Daniel Craig as Bond... From rejection by the fans to almost universal acclaim...

If Chibnall can provide intelligent, powerful scripts that capture the hearts, minds and imaginations of all the boys and girls....

If Jodie can knock it out of the park performance wise and make the above statistic seem foolish, while showing that yes, I am the Doctor! You lot moaning about my gender looks stupid now, doesn't it!!

If the merchandise sales can also do an amazing u-turn and rocket skywards again....

And if Chibnall can, with ease, make the RTD and Moffat eras look like the fumbling attempts of amateurs in comparison to his era, then all will be well and the series future will be assured.

We can only wait and see.

And there's not so long to wait now. The time of truth approaches.

I preferred Tennant as The Doctor even if his What?, What?, What? became very annoying! He seemed to be a much more likable actor and Doctor for me and yet people to this day deride his performance and stories!!!
Matt Smith looked good from the start with enough eccentricities and Magnus Pyke arm waving to prove that this isn't or wasn't an error in casting but then the writer whose stories so many people loved takes over the reigns of the show and takes away the magical element of the series with his lack lustre scripts and silly aliens! His next two series weren't much better if not worse but then he casts another actor ala JNT & RTD and then the shit really hits the fan and the show sinks without a trace story and interest wise for me! But before he goes he does a scorched earth policy and poisons the waters of the show for all time by changing the whole idea of regeneration by having men change into women and vice versa because to quote, "The whole idea of regeneration is silly!" What a piece of work that man really is!
JB

Enterprise really was that bad IMO. Voyager was actually really good in it's first season, matter of fact S1 is one of the best seasons. Mid-S2 is where is starts to really get wonky, too many filler episodes and epic plot episodes. But back to Enterprise --- the time travel series focus was bad and the too modern Enterprise offended many fans. The show had sloppy continuity and many significant plot events happened off screen between episodes. It just wasn't a good show. It had some good episodes and I've heard it got better in S4, but S1 & 2 were terrible.

With Voyager they tried to create their own Klingons in the Kazon, but they were really not that interesting compared to the inhabitants of Q'Onos! I think when ratings started to slip that's when they introduced the Borg into the series! And unlike TNG they gave us quite a few Borg adventures along the way!
JB