A Fair Go
I was recently asked to write something up on why I am supporting Trek United in their fight to get "Enterprise" back into production.
What does the loss of Enterprise mean to me? As some have realisticaly pointed out, the world did not end on May 27th. There were other programmes to watch on TV, there is good SciFi currently in production, for the Trek fan there are re-runs and DVDs. If that is not enough, you could alwaysopen a book since Star Trek in print is still alive and well. Why not accept what we are given and make the most of it?
Why not? Because Star Trek fandom is in the enviable position of being an organised voice for the wishes of Science Fiction fans and as a group we have historically shown that we can affect the decisions of the media giants. In short we don't have to take it!
I feel that Viacom and Paramount need to be told that the fans, the people who watch the programs and buy the DVDs, are not happy with the way that the production of "Enterprise" was handled. Right from the beginning "Enterprise" was plagued with a management that didn't seem to want it, dubious Production and Directing decisions, lack of promotion and lethal TV programming.
I could understand if it were a lost cause but we're talking about a Star Trek series with a potentially huge, ready made fanbase. They had to work pretty hard to lose that massive head start. It wasn't a bad concept either. To give Berman his due I think the idea of showing the history of how the Federation developed has great potential. Many didn't like the idea of a prequel to the previous series but to my mind their thinking is too linear. By going back, closer to our own time, I believe the writers gave Star Trek more relevance to the modern world than a Utopian 24th century society whose principles and history are shrouded in mystery.
I want to see Enterprise come back because it didn't deserve the raw deal it got.The show had great potential as was shown when it was handed over to Manny Cato and I think, given intelligent programming and aggressive marketing, the creative team that they had could have delivered some ground-breaking TV.
To add insult to injury Viacom management are now making statements about how "Star Trek needs a break" as if the fault lies with the concept, the genre, rather than their handling of it. What's the odds this will be used as a rationale for grounding all Trek productions - films as well as TV?
What Star Trek needs is a change, not a break. It needs a change of attitude at management level. It needs a change of format, maybe direct to video, three part mini-series or anime ... something different. It needs to realistically challenge the real issues of modern society: gay acceptance, the dangers as well as the advantages of globalisation, the destruction of the environment...
Viacom have it in their power to solve all of the problems that plagued Enterprise! Don't lay the blame Trek! Bring Enterprise back and give it a fair go!
What does the loss of Enterprise mean to me? As some have realisticaly pointed out, the world did not end on May 27th. There were other programmes to watch on TV, there is good SciFi currently in production, for the Trek fan there are re-runs and DVDs. If that is not enough, you could always
Why not? Because Star Trek fandom is in the enviable position of being an organised voice for the wishes of Science Fiction fans and as a group we have historically shown that we can affect the decisions of the media giants. In short we don't have to take it!
I feel that Viacom and Paramount need to be told that the fans, the people who watch the programs and buy the DVDs, are not happy with the way that the production of "Enterprise" was handled. Right from the beginning "Enterprise" was plagued with a management that didn't seem to want it, dubious Production and Directing decisions, lack of promotion and lethal TV programming.
I could understand if it were a lost cause but we're talking about a Star Trek series with a potentially huge, ready made fanbase. They had to work pretty hard to lose that massive head start. It wasn't a bad concept either. To give Berman his due I think the idea of showing the history of how the Federation developed has great potential. Many didn't like the idea of a prequel to the previous series but to my mind their thinking is too linear. By going back, closer to our own time, I believe the writers gave Star Trek more relevance to the modern world than a Utopian 24th century society whose principles and history are shrouded in mystery.
I want to see Enterprise come back because it didn't deserve the raw deal it got.The show had great potential as was shown when it was handed over to Manny Cato and I think, given intelligent programming and aggressive marketing, the creative team that they had could have delivered some ground-breaking TV.
To add insult to injury Viacom management are now making statements about how "Star Trek needs a break" as if the fault lies with the concept, the genre, rather than their handling of it. What's the odds this will be used as a rationale for grounding all Trek productions - films as well as TV?
What Star Trek needs is a change, not a break. It needs a change of attitude at management level. It needs a change of format, maybe direct to video, three part mini-series or anime ... something different. It needs to realistically challenge the real issues of modern society: gay acceptance, the dangers as well as the advantages of globalisation, the destruction of the environment...
Viacom have it in their power to solve all of the problems that plagued Enterprise! Don't lay the blame Trek! Bring Enterprise back and give it a fair go!
posted by Kirok of LStok at
22:50
|
1 comments
