Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise
NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28060] Mi, 04 Mai 2005 19:10
sdlitvin  
May 1, 2005
Its Long Trek Over, the Enterprise Pulls Into Dry Dock
By DAVE ITZKOFF

IN the sector of planet Earth known as Hollywood, it was business as
usual on the Paramount back lot. On a sunny day in early March,
green-skinned aliens with zippers embedded in their faces were eating
catered lunches, stagehands were disassembling lighting rigs labeled
"Thorium Isotope Hazard," and all were doing their best to ignore the
fact that the warp engines on the starship Enterprise would soon be shut
down, perhaps never to start up again. "Welcome," a security guard said
with heavy irony, "to the last days of Pompeii."

On May 13, UPN will broadcast the final two episodes of "Star Trek:
Enterprise," the most recent spinoff of the genre-defining
science-fiction series created by Gene Roddenberry nearly 40 years ago.
The scenes filmed in March will bring closure to the story of a
futuristic space vessel and its intrepid crew, but the end of
"Enterprise" also casts into doubt the future of a venerable
entertainment property that is entering a realm where no franchise has
gone before.

Almost from the moment it was canceled by NBC in 1969, the original
"Star Trek" set about defying television conventions: a three-season dud
in prime time, it became a success in syndication, spawning a series of
motion pictures, a merchandising empire, and three television sequels
(the syndicated hits "Star Trek: The Next Generation," "Star Trek: Deep
Space Nine" and "Star Trek: Voyager," which helped start the UPN network
in 1995).

"Enterprise," a prequel devised by the veteran "Trek" producers Rick
Berman and Brannon Braga, was supposed to be the series that would take
the franchise into the future by venturing into its past. "We knew that
in the 23rd century, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock were out exploring the
universe, and they were comfortable in space," said Mr. Berman, who was
put in charge of the film and television properties after Mr.
Roddenberry's death in 1991. "But who were the first people to have to
try a transporter? The first people to come into contact with hostile
alien species; who were hesitant about taking these first steps into the
galaxy?"

Set 100 years before the first "Star Trek" series, aboard an embryonic
version of the ship that would later carry Kirk, Spock and company
across the cosmos, "Enterprise" made its debut on UPN on Sept. 26, 2001,
to over 12.5 million viewers. By the end of its first season, its
audience was just half as big, and by the end of its second season,
barely a third of those original viewers were still watching. "People
never really warmed up to 'Enterprise,' " said Ronald D. Moore, a former
staff writer of the syndicated "Trek" television sequels who is now
executive producer of the Sci Fi Channel's new "Battlestar Galactica"
series. "It never quite grabbed people viscerally and hung on, like the
other shows did."

As Jolene Blalock, who played the Vulcan officer T'Pol on "Enterprise,"
explained: "The stories lacked intriguing content. They were boring." A
lifelong "Star Trek" fan, Ms. Blalock said she was dismayed by early
"Enterprise" scripts that seemed to ignore basic tenets of the
franchise's chronology, and that offered revealing costumes instead of
character development. "The audience isn't stupid," she said.

Aware of viewers' disappointment, the producers made significant changes
for its third season: a single, yearlong storyline was established,
pitting the ship's crew against a malevolent alien race called the
Xindi, and Manny Coto, creator of the Showtime series "Odyssey 5," was
brought in as a co-executive producer. But while Mr. Coto was widely
hailed by colleagues and fans alike for delivering episodes that equaled
the quality of previous "Star Trek" series, the show's ratings continued
to erode.

When it was time to commit to a new season of "Enterprise," UPN ordered
fewer episodes than in the past and shuffled them to yet another time
slot. Still, some people clung to hope. "Being the optimists that actors
are," said Scott Bakula, who played "Enterprise's" heroic Captain
Archer, "you think, 'Maybe if we do a really good job. ...' But
basically we were kidding ourselves."

The network says the problem was that most of "Enterprise's" viewers
were male, unlike those of its bigger shows, like "America's Next Top
Model" and "Veronica Mars." "It didn't really fit into the overall
brand, and it was harder to attract the audience for that show, because
they weren't sitting here all week," said the UPN president, Dawn Ostroff.

As "Enterprise" prepares for its final voyage, its producers admit that
the found it hard to write for both dedicated "Trek" fans and
uninitiated viewers. "When it was time to start the writing for Season
4," Mr. Coto said, "we were mostly gearing episodes towards people who
knew the 'Star Trek' universe. We were not worried so much about people
who didn't. They were gone anyway."

Yet "Enterprise" was also hobbled by competition from the four previous
"Star Trek" TV series, which continue on cable and in syndication. "If
anything, Paramount has gone to the well too often, because the
franchise has been such a huge cash cow for the studio, for decades,"
said the longtime "Trek" actor and director Jonathan Frakes, who
reprises his "Next Generation" character, Commander Riker, in the
"Enterprise" finale. "You can go right through the dial and there's
always 'Star Trek' on somewhere."

At the same time that "Enterprise" began to sputter, the "Star Trek"
film franchise went into a tailspin: the 2002 theatrical release "Star
Trek: Nemesis" was the series' first bona fide bomb, grossing just over
$40 million. "There became a certain perception that the franchise
wasn't something people had to rush out and see in any way, shape or
form," said Mr. Moore, who wrote the screenplays for the "Star Trek"
films "Generations" and "First Contact." "That perception becomes
self-sustaining, and then people drift away from it."

They may have drifted toward Sci Fi's "Battlestar Galactica" (which
brought in about 2 million viewers in its first season this winter) and
USA's "Dead Zone" (which averaged almost 3.5 million viewers last
summer). "It's like there's a certain number of science-fiction fans,
and that's it," Mr. Coto said. "It's a genre that appeals to a certain
type of individual, and there's not a lot of them."

THIS fall, for the first time in 18 years, there will be no original
"Star Trek" series on television; a new film installment is unlikely to
materialize before 2007 or 2008. Paramount Network Television confirmed
that there was no timetable for the development of a new show, and no
creative team in place to develop it. And despite the near-universal
praise he earned for keeping "Enterprise" aloft, Mr. Coto said no one
had approached him about further involvement with the "Star Trek"
franchise. "It is kind of disappointing, frankly," he said. "I don't
think a lot of people who are in charge right now are that interested in
talking about the next thing."

From his office in the Gary Cooper Building at Paramount Pictures,
behind a door with a plaque that reads "Please speak softly, massage in
progress," Mr. Berman remained remarkably sanguine for a man so
frequently threatened with bodily harm on Internet message boards. He
had begun preliminary work on a potential new "Star Trek" film, but, he
said, "I'm not certain that I will be involved in creating the next
'Star Trek' series. I have no idea when that's going to happen, and it
very well may be someone new who's going to be doing it."

And as he spoke of the optimistic vision that Mr. Roddenberry presented
in the original "Star Trek," one in which the most demanding of
humanity's earthbound problems have been solved and the infinite wonder
of the universe awaits mankind, Mr. Berman expressed a similar
hopefulness for the future of "Star Trek" itself. "You can go anywhere
in the world and people know what 'Beam me up, Scotty' means or what a
Klingon is," Mr Berman said. "They're not going to go away."

But some who are departing the Star Trek universe, like Ms. Blalock,
seemed relieved to be free of early-morning makeup calls and prosthetic
pointy ears: "The girls on set, we would always joke: 'We're gonna be
cute after this all over. After we shake off the haggard.' "

http://tinyurl.com/dep7l


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28088 ] Do, 05 Mai 2005 02:58
Snake  
"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:wm7ee.5641$GQ5.2581 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> From his office in the Gary Cooper Building at Paramount Pictures, behind
> a door with a plaque that reads "Please speak softly, massage in
> progress," Mr. Berman remained remarkably sanguine for a man so frequently
> threatened with bodily harm on Internet message boards.

LOL!!!

>He had begun preliminary work on a potential new "Star Trek" film, but, he
>said, "I'm not certain that I will be involved in creating the next 'Star
>Trek' series. I have no idea when that's going to happen, and it very well
>may be someone new who's going to be doing it."

Yes!! Thank the stars!!

Let us Pray...

"Great Bird of the Galaxy, let these words travel from his mouth to your
ears and may you listen to /our/ pleas, to grant us Peace and Prosperity by
granting these wishes"

Amen
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28286 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 04:24
CaptainPike  
"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:wm7ee.5641$GQ5.2581 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> From his office in the Gary Cooper Building at Paramount Pictures,
> behind a door with a plaque that reads "Please speak softly, massage in
> progress," Mr. Berman remained remarkably sanguine for a man so
> frequently threatened with bodily harm on Internet message > boards.

Oh my God, I was one of them! LOL
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28355 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 23:51
ToolPackinMama  
Steven L. wrote:

> "You can go anywhere
> in the world and people know what 'Beam me up, Scotty' means or what a
> Klingon is," Mr Berman said.

No thanks to him!
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28373 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 03:08
urbanasphalt  
Berman is a slick and successful Hollywood producer. He makes "product"
that you people gobble up.

He doesn't care about your stupid opinions.

He does not give a damn, so shut up already.

Berman and Braga - real people with real jobs!

You people - shut-ins, morons and hobbyists!
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28382 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 04:23
Snake  
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:117npm8f969nt56 [at] news.supernews.com...
> Steven L. wrote:
>
>> "You can go anywhere in the world and people know what 'Beam me up,
>> Scotty' means or what a Klingon is," Mr Berman said.
>
> No thanks to him!

Doesn't a no-talent hack have to steal credit from *somebody*??

Yup, thanks to Mr. Berman "Beam me up, Scotty" and "Klingon" are now
universally tied-in with "Star Trek Sucks!" for far too many people in the
world. 15 years ago to say that was absolute social heresy.

Not any more :(
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28395 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 06:02
urbanasphalt  
Star Trek doesn't matter in the real world. I have watched at least one
episode a week for over 30 years, and saw it during its original
broadcast run, but Trek has never mattered one iota in any society at
any time.

Talking about Trek just never happens in the real world, and if it does
it's only for a few minutes. Or - Trekkie dolts get together and talk
about it for hours.

There is nothing heretical about saying "TREK SUCKS".

It's just a TV show.

Go outside and play. Staying indoors too much is bad for you kids!
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28397 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 06:10
Snake  
<urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115438578.382684.97570 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Star Trek doesn't matter in the real world. I have watched at least one
> episode a week for over 30 years, and saw it during its original
> broadcast run, but Trek has never mattered one iota in any society at
> any time.

Ha ha, then you are apparently living in a bubble world. I think you
SERIOUSLY need to bone up on your social sciences studies, my good man.
From the workers, scientists and astronauts in NASA to female CEO's I really
think you need to learn exactly how many people Star Trek's story of future
optimism touched.

Pardon me, but where have you been living??? Hundreds of thousands of
direct quotes, some from massively important people, are available.

> Talking about Trek just never happens in the real world, and if it does
> it's only for a few minutes. Or - Trekkie dolts get together and talk
> about it for hours.
>
> There is nothing heretical about saying "TREK SUCKS".
>
> It's just a TV show.
>
> Go outside and play. Staying indoors too much is bad for you kids!

LOL :D
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28403 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 06:30
urbanasphalt  
Hahaha! You really crack me up! I wrote that people don't blabber on
and on about Trek in the real world - and they don't. Many scientists
and astronauts, WHEN PROMPTED BY AN INTERVIEWER, will gladly admit that
TREK was a huge influence on them. Good for them! I love the way you
write "really important people", too. I am in awe!

Trek was great. I am an original true fan, but talking about it at
parties, in bars, in restaurants and such is just stupid.

It's a TV show. (I grew up in various countries and have lived outside
of the States for over a dozen years. I go back to New York about 3
times a year and not once, not in Brooklyn, not on the Upper West Side,
not in Chelsea, not in the Village, not even down in the Bowery, has
anyone, from sanitation worker to real estate mogul, ever brought up
the subject of TREK. I imagine that your discombobulated, immature,
gadget-filled, in-thrall-to-the-mass-media "world", such as it is, is
rather different)

Punk.


)
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28409 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 08:33
ToolPackinMama  
Snake wrote:
> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> news:117npm8f969nt56 [at] news.supernews.com...
>
>>Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"You can go anywhere in the world and people know what 'Beam me up,
>>>Scotty' means or what a Klingon is," Mr Berman said.
>>
>>No thanks to him!
>
>
> Doesn't a no-talent hack have to steal credit from *somebody*??
>
> Yup, thanks to Mr. Berman "Beam me up, Scotty" and "Klingon" are now
> universally tied-in with "Star Trek Sucks!" for far too many people in the
> world. 15 years ago to say that was absolute social heresy.
>
> Not any more :(
>
>
You said it!
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28411 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 08:36
ToolPackinMama  
Snake wrote:
> <urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1115438578.382684.97570 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Star Trek doesn't matter in the real world. I have watched at least one
>>episode a week for over 30 years, and saw it during its original
>>broadcast run, but Trek has never mattered one iota in any society at
>>any time.
>
>
> Ha ha, then you are apparently living in a bubble world. I think you
> SERIOUSLY need to bone up on your social sciences studies, my good man.
> From the workers, scientists and astronauts in NASA to female CEO's I really
> think you need to learn exactly how many people Star Trek's story of future
> optimism touched.

Yes, certainly that is true.
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28438 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 16:31
Snake  
It is a TV show - and therefore *art* (!) - that conveyed a message.

What you say it true - "nobody mentions Trek in real life". Just like
almost all people don't mention their mothers influencing their life nor how
good their education was or was not / what they learned in school.

People simply go on with their lives, their personalities made up of all the
influences and events that occurred to them. 99.99% of people never discuss
deep philosophical issues of right / wrong, influence / reaction, lessons /
values throughout their day. If you are waiting for people to mention
"Trek" during the day why don't you also wait for them to mention
"Einstein's Relativity and how that essentially changed the world through
Oppenheimer's Manhattan Project???"

Sorry, **I've** proved my statements as true with findable quotes. You only
mention common actions of all people with no proof of this being untrue.

*declared winner*

Next subject, please

:D

Peace.

<urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115440255.670843.47630 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hahaha! You really crack me up! I wrote that people don't blabber on
> and on about Trek in the real world - and they don't. Many scientists
> and astronauts, WHEN PROMPTED BY AN INTERVIEWER, will gladly admit that
> TREK was a huge influence on them. Good for them! I love the way you
> write "really important people", too. I am in awe!
>
> Trek was great. I am an original true fan, but talking about it at
> parties, in bars, in restaurants and such is just stupid.
>
> It's a TV show. (I grew up in various countries and have lived outside
> of the States for over a dozen years. I go back to New York about 3
> times a year and not once, not in Brooklyn, not on the Upper West Side,
> not in Chelsea, not in the Village, not even down in the Bowery, has
> anyone, from sanitation worker to real estate mogul, ever brought up
> the subject of TREK. I imagine that your discombobulated, immature,
> gadget-filled, in-thrall-to-the-mass-media "world", such as it is, is
> rather different)
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28497 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 04:13
urbanasphalt  
I'm not here to engage in "internet debate". That's for fat suburban
loony housewives. I'm here to state that a 1960s TV show was very
entertaining. Live with it.

My response was to someone's absurd claim that saying "TREK SUCKS"
would have been heresy 15 years ago. Nope. Wouldn't have been and still
isn't.

Be a good little boy. Go outside and play
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28498 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 04:14
Snake  
<urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115518392.799252.196920 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not here to engage in "internet debate". That's for fat suburban
> loony housewives. I'm here to state that a 1960s TV show was very
> entertaining. Live with it.
>
> My response was to someone's absurd claim that saying "TREK SUCKS"
> would have been heresy 15 years ago. Nope. Wouldn't have been and still
> isn't.
>
> Be a good little boy. Go outside and play

LOL

I'm probably older than you are, /son/.
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28533 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 09:11
urbanasphalt  
Are you a true fan, or a K/S dipshit?
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #28546 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 15:33
Snake  
<urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115536282.068878.35440 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Are you a true fan, or a K/S dipshit?

No, NO K/S!

But...it (definitely!!!) took me a while to understand that a *lot* of the
"K/S" stuff is done in the name of *fun*. So I've learned (with
difficulty!) to ignore it. A lot of the K/S people simply do it because
they are having fun with the characters, enjoying the interpersonal
relationship between them and taking it to (some) conclusion.

Heh, IDIC and all that, you know?

I thought the Marshak & Culbreath stories (short & novels) were pretty much
the /biggest/ waste of book paper in the Star Trek universe. I was, like,
"Girls, get a life!"
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #31850 ] Di, 10 Mai 2005 08:01
urbanasphalt  
Snake, you are a great man! (or woman)
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #32387 ] Di, 10 Mai 2005 14:45
Snake  
<urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115704867.854979.164430 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Snake, you are a great man! (or woman)

Well, you probably don't think so now...

Anyway, sorry for hurting your sensibilities in the other thread. I'm kind
of a warped f*'er and I have a pretty twisted sense of humor :P
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #33019 ] Mi, 11 Mai 2005 11:29
urbanasphalt  
No worries. This is merely an internet gossip site. It does not matter.
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #33029 ] Mi, 11 Mai 2005 16:39
Snake  
<urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115803742.167237.165680 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> No worries. This is merely an internet gossip site. It does not matter.

Still, in the end you seemed like a very nice guy and I hope I didn't hurt
any feelings. You were kind enough to say something nice to me, after all.
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #33067 ] Do, 12 Mai 2005 03:40
CaptainPike  
Come on, Mr. Asphalt. While I agree with just about everything you have said
here, why the name calling?

Snake was only disagreeing with you.

<urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115440255.670843.47630 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hahaha! You really crack me up! I wrote that people don't blabber on
> and on about Trek in the real world - and they don't. Many scientists
> and astronauts, WHEN PROMPTED BY AN INTERVIEWER, will gladly admit that
> TREK was a huge influence on them. Good for them! I love the way you
> write "really important people", too. I am in awe!
>
> Trek was great. I am an original true fan, but talking about it at
> parties, in bars, in restaurants and such is just stupid.
>
> It's a TV show. (I grew up in various countries and have lived outside
> of the States for over a dozen years. I go back to New York about 3
> times a year and not once, not in Brooklyn, not on the Upper West Side,
> not in Chelsea, not in the Village, not even down in the Bowery, has
> anyone, from sanitation worker to real estate mogul, ever brought up
> the subject of TREK. I imagine that your discombobulated, immature,
> gadget-filled, in-thrall-to-the-mass-media "world", such as it is, is
> rather different)
>
> Punk.
>
>
> )
>
Re: NYT Article On Enterprise's Demise [message #33094 ] Do, 12 Mai 2005 05:56
urbanasphalt  
I like disagreement. It can lead to truth.

I dislike lying K/S BULLSHITTERS who use a 1960s TV show to butress
their own sordid little hobbies. They are demented nutcases.
Vorheriges Thema:Re: Does anyone know of a moderated "Battlestar Galactica" news group?
Nächstes Thema:availability of transporters on 24th century earth
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:49:58 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09223 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered