• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

The definition of irony

The irony being that Manny Cotto was bringing those things, as well as continuity back to the series, when Paramount decided to kill it.
The irony I was referring to was that the original BSG was camp and kiddy crap, while Trek was the one dealing with "serious issues." Go back 25 years and tell a sci-fi geek that Star Trek should be more like BSG and they will laugh.
Yea, that's rather ironic too. Hadn't thought of it in that direction though.

As fun as BSG was for kid, it did no more than Lost in Space to accredit the Genre.
I thought this was gonna be about the Cop from The Village People getting arrested. ;)

I liked the FARK headline:

Panel of Star Trek experts convene to determine why "Enterprise" failed. Finally emerge from nerd conclave with announcement that it wasn't enough like "Battlestar Galactica"

Personally I thought, "It sucked" was sufficient explanation - except that Voyager did, too, and it ran a full seven season. "It sucked and it was on the wrong network" was the more likely explanation. Paramount managed to build a network around a "flagship" series which did not appeal to the core demographic that ended up supporting the rest of its series. After the debacle that was Voyager and the bottomless pit of suck that was Enterprise when it started (I hear it got better later, but frankly the lost me with the pilot) even the Trek die hards stopped watching. So the SF fans, who watched nothing on UPN but Trek stopped tuning in, and the rest of the UPN's audience was watching their other shows but not Enterprise. The fanatics who had kept Voyager's ratings just above the cancellation point had deserted the franchise and even Paramount had to admit it. They ran out the string to get the magic 100 episodes needed for syndication and to save face by completing five years and then they pulled the plug as they had to. So Enterprise's failure wasn't entirely its own. Voyager had sorely tried the patience of the fan base and the last couple of feature films hadn't helped. If Enterprise had been spectacularly better than other recent Trek it might have revived the franchise, but by being just as mediocre at the start, and improving only slightly at the end, it was unable to undo the damage the Voyager had been busily doing for the seven years before Enterprise made its bow.


Yea Joe,

Season 4 was worth watching if you were a Trekkie and looking for good television. The rest of the series was a waste IMO. I think Season 4 was "too little, too late." It got good LONG after fans such as yourself gave up on it, which is totally understandable. I, on the other hand, NEVER watched Enterprise UNTIL the 4th season because I heard Manny Coto was taking it back to Trek roots, and I gave it a chance...and was pleased.
I've only been watching it on terrestrial in the UK. In my opinion, the whole Season Xindi thing was too gimmicky and too drawn out.

To have a storyline of that nature, you have to really devote several seasons to it to do it justice. Every now and then you need to break off from the main story arc otherwise people will become frustrated.

That's how I felt. The whole Xindi thing had a feel of, going two steps forward and a step backward. It was very frustrating. It felt very drawn out. I twas too dependent on the singular plot.

Be interesting to see how season 4 turns out when it gets to the UK, from what you've said.
Those are my feelings precisely. Season 1 and 2 is when they should've killed it, there was very little worth watching of those two seasons. Season 3, was improved, but as Galahad mentioned, there was something that just got old about it before the season ended. Season 4, I think was really good, better than all of VOyager, and better than all of Enterprise that came before it (Sorry CE, I can't knock DS9, because I really enjoyed most of DS9)
I agree, Joe... Voyager had as much to do with the demise of Enterprise (in hindsight) as anything else. I couldn't stand Voyager. The premise was great, but the "experts" are right... today's BSG deals more with character-driven "real-life" issues than Star Trek has for the past decade.

The Trek movies since First Contact have focused on making Trek "history moments" instead of incorporating current events & subjects as the main story plot. In 1986, "save the whales" was a huge movement in mainstream society. In 1991, the Berlin Wall had just fallen and the Communist empire was in economic ruin. Now, I think Generations was a great flick. To my surprise, I find a lot of Trek fans don't think so. They sure seemed to love it back in 1994. I think it hit home with a lot of older fans, who felt that the torch not only was being passed, but that it really NEEDED to be. The story dealt with feelings a lot of those people were having, I think.
"Generations" is actually my favorite NG film, although it was a bit long and talky in places. 15 to 20 minutes of careful editing sprinkled throughout would've tightened it up nicely.

The same, of course, could be said for ST:TMP.

And never let the crew on the Bridge wearing silly hats. ;)
For me Voyager killed my interest in ST and hearing that Enterprise would have heavy time travel didn't exactly have me running back. I never even saw the last movie.
I actually liked the Xindi arc, and a few eps here and there before. But, I agree, it needed to be more topical, as was TOS, to be great. STNG did topical a few times, but not often enough. That was part of what I liked about B5. There were lots of themes politically parallel to today.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.