The Popular Appeal

[Grom 0]

...

 

Let's face it, Trekkies are a sort of American aristocracy when it comes to their own genre of television productions. One minute we are swept away by the cliffhangers and gripping plots, the next minute we are shouting at the television exposing the inaccuracies after breaking out our Star Trek Encyclopedia. We care, plain and simple. We want Star Trek to stick around and at the same time we want it to retain a certain level of artistic quality, perhaps beauty. Yet, herein lies the problem. In this democratic age that we live in what is beautiful is not necessarily what is popular. Alexis de Tocqueville saw this in his book "Democracy in America" in the early 1800s. This is certainly what we see in the United States today. How many of you out there actually have writings of Cicero, Goethe and Homer in your bookcases? Americans, instead, read the latest novels of Stephen King, John Grisham, Tim Lahaye and Dr. Phil. The writings of those individuals don't necessarily hold and merit of greatness, but they do appeal to the masses.

 

What does this have to do with Star Trek? If you haven't heard, Star Trek is dying and perhaps this season is its last breath. On these boards I've heard various complaints how Star Trek: Enterprise is not following completely what is supposed to be canon and other multitudes of inaccuracies. Are these "mistakes" out of pure ignorance? Have they really not read the DS9 technical manual? I don't think so. I think what we're seeing in the Star Trek world especially is a greater move toward popular appeal. The effect of this move has turned off many longtime Trek fans because there has been a sacrifice of some artistic quality. I don't have to list off the changes to Star Trek over the last five years, you know what I'm talking about.

 

As Star Trek fans I don't think we have an easy choice. Either we accept and support the move toward a popular appeal while sacrificing some of what makes Star Trek what it is today or we reject the popular appeal and let the show take a break, maybe even eternally. I don't think that there is any middle ground in this situation. Popular beauty usually results in a cheapened replication of what is truly beautiful. For example, how many real Monet paintings are in American homes? Not many. Yet, there are multitudes of replica Monet paintings that give us a feeling of aristocracy.

 

Thoughts?

 

(NOTE: These are only my opinions. :) )

 

...

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

I think it's a valid statement and your remarks hold some truth to them. However, I think the television industry is having a bit of trouble figuring out what the "popular appeal" really is. Given recent items in the last few months, I honestly don't think they would have expected any reaction to the situation during the Superbowl. If they had, it wouldn't have taken place...period, end of statement. The recent issue with the Passion movie...I honestly don't believe many in Hollywood thought it would succeed because "they said it was bad." In fact, I even heard several folks say that exact thing.

 

Being unable to determine what the popular appeal is at the moment is part of the problem facing Trek. This recent season seems to have shown an attempt, for the most part, to merge the two worlds. Are there several outstanding problems? There are, but as with the last episode, they seem to be working to come up with interesting explainations for them that stick.

 

Another problem with Enterprise is the fans. The fact is that many are complaining because "that's not canon" when in fact, no such thing exists for this time period. This had led to many, who had been forced to rely on novels for the most part, to come up with history for the 2100s. Now people are upset because what they're showing on screen doesn't fit their version of "what it's supposed to be."

 

When you get down to it, we knew almost nothing of what happened before First Contact and the start of the Earth-Romulan War. TNG said that Australia was the last nation to join the "world government" of Earth, now apparently a year before Archer's ship launched. We know there is a four year long war between Earth/Romulan Empire. It ends and a year later several governments get together to form the United Federation of Planets. We know what some of the UFP's first ships were. We know that first contact between the *Federation* and Klingon Empire didn't go according to plan. Finally, we know that Sarek is born about five years after the founding of the Federation.

 

That's it. Nada, zip, nothing. Does this upset people? Are there folks reading this saying "Fred, that's not all we know. According to..." Well, fact is, canon is what we've seen on TV and the movies. Perhaps you can go so far as to say some of the technical manuals can be included. That's it. If it isn't in there, it isn't Trek canon. This is part of the problem Enterprise has run into.

[Lance Moris 0]

It's like if Lucas ends up making a sequel trilogy... he'd be fighting the novels for what is Star Wars canon.

[Dumbass 0]

How many of you out there actually have writings of Cicero, Goethe and Homer in your bookcases?

Homer wrote a book?

[Dumbass 0]

It's like if Lucas ends up making a sequel trilogy... he'd be fighting the novels for what is Star Wars canon.

First of all, he already said he won't. (Yes, I know, the original plan was for 9 but he changed his mind.) Second, if he does anyway he will most likely do what he did with the prequels and wait another 15 years after the next movie comes out to let things die down a bit.

 

What he did when he decided to do the prequels was say "Nothing is to be done that will interfere with the time between XXX and YYY unless I give it my OK. You can do what you want with the rest but try to make it consistent with your colleagues' work." In fact, because it was consistent, he was able to blend the Extended Universe with the movies and even used some of their ideas. I think Lucas reserves the right to expand this to ZZZ for events, say, 30 years after Jedi and he will allow sufficient time for any Extended Universe stuff to become less relevant.

 

Of course if he does do 3 more movies it will have to take a completely different direction. The main themes of the 6 movies to date are the resurgence of the Sith, fall of the Jedi, and rise and fall of the Empire. Reforming the Jedi Order would certainly be a factor but I don't see how he could base 3 movies on just mopping up the remains of the Empire. Could he use what is in the Extended Universe now? Sure, but then Lucas would essentially be filming someone else's story.

[Nemesis 0]

I am growing tired of this, the dates and times and what the species looked like or what ships they used is not what trek is about. The problem is not with Berman or Braga, its with the fans. They have lost site of the message and demand too much out of the things that are really trivial at best. Everyone blames Enterprise for inconsistencies but no one seems to realize they took the time to explain them!

[Captain Huff 0]

Well for starters, I never have and never will think of Star Trek in the same light as Monet or Homer. Similarly, I don't see myself as part of an aristocracy of fans for watching what always has been and always will be a pop product. Y---es... it's a *good* pop product... But as much as I like Taco Bell tacos, they're still fast food. So yep, I'll still complain when I get a soggy taco and I'll still complain when a ST Enterprise episode sucks, but it's all relative. Nothing will make them a four star meal followed by a Shakespeare performance.

 

I don't own Monets because I can't afford them.

 

And lastly, have you read Dr. Phil? :)

[NDak 0]

I am growing tired of this, the dates and times and what the species looked like or what ships they used is not what trek is about. The problem is not with Berman or Braga, its with the fans. They have lost site of the message and demand too much out of the things that are really trivial at best. Everyone blames Enterprise for inconsistencies but no one seems to realize they took the time to explain them!

::thinks he has had this argument before::

 

I am one of those fans who dislike the inconsistencies. And the problem for me is it affects the realism of the story, but that’s another argument. My problem with Enterprise is the whole basic concept of a prequel. You are just asking for problems. Star Wars is a little different but even they have gotten themselves into the same problem. But not nearly as bad.

 

It’s like this whole Xindi officer issue. These people are pretty advanced no? Then why don;t you hear about hem anywhere else in Trekdom?

 

The problem with prequels is you really shouldn’t introduce new material that will never be seen or collaborated in the 'future.' (IE meeting the Klingons about 60 years before TOS says they did.)

 

I think it depends on what your are looking for in the series, if you don’t care about how they tell the story and what they say, then you probably don't have any issues with Enterprise, but if how the story is told is important, than you are going to have issues with Enterprise.

 

And for some of us, the ships, the species that is what it is about, and that doesn't make us any less of Star Trek fans. And I totally agree with Huff, as much a some of us would want to think; Star Trek will never be a great literary work, period. its the simple difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy.

 

And as for the Topic: I agree with Grom maybe it is time we put Star trek on hiatus and let it live on in reruns for a while. Becuase what is happening I think is dangerous to health of Star Trek. (Although even I will admit that Enterprise is salvagable)

Edited March 7, 2004 by Ern_Ndak

[FredM 0]

First of all, he already said he won't. (Yes, I know, the original plan was for 9 but he changed his mind.) Second, if he does anyway he will most likely do what he did with the prequels and wait another 15 years after the next movie comes out to let things die down a bit.

Hey there,

 

I know this is a side note but...according to some web sources, the actor playing Chewy has a line in his contract binding him for "Episode III" and "Episode VII." Just an intersting development...

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

Problem is, I don't think there are any real major inconsistencies with the show. There might be when you compare it to what the Trek fan base *assumed* was the pre-Federation history. But all in all, there really aren't any. Furthermore, we don't know how it all ends! I mean, we're trying to say "Well that doesn't make sense! That disrupts everything!" when they haven't finished telling the story.

 

Do I think Enterprise is the best Star Trek incarnation ever? No. Do I think it's developed into a quality addition to the franchise? Yes. Do I think it's more interesting than Voyager? In my view, yes. Do I think it holds more realism and consistency than Janeway? Yes.

 

As I said, I think a lot of the problem is the fact the fans held certain "assumptions" for so long they thought of them as "canon." Well, they aren't...so let's move on in life and enjoy this show. Is it perfect? Find me one that is. :)

[John_Anderson 0]

IMO I personally don't care about inconsistencies in Enterprise with everything that everyone calls Canon. I personally haven't been watching Enterprise simply due to the fact that the last few seasons have bored me to tears and have left me compeletly uninterested. As of late though, with the interesting story going on I've been getting back into it.

 

Ya gotta remember that TV shows are one big business. They've taken liberties with things to kind of draw in more fans. To kind of make everything somewhat general and simple. Simply because they need the ratings to sell commerical air-time and to make there money back that they invested into making a single episode. No one can ever make anyone happy and when it all comes down to it it's all about the numbers, simple as that ;)

 

The more liberties they take the better. I mean if you tune in just to watch the show and gripe about it, that's one more person tuning in for them. If someone were new to the entire Star Trek experience and started watching Enterprise they wouldn't know anything about the history of the Starfleet and the Federation and all it's the stories and those people would probably give two rips about it.

 

We just gotta stop clinging onto all this and open up our mind to something that may be different, ya gotta a remember in the end they have to make sure that everyone goes home entertained after watching the show.

 

But then again, those are my two cents :D

 

P.S. Also as a side note, I've also heard about the rumors over a a sequel to the original trilogy. I wouldn't doubt that Lucas would try to pull it off. He'd probably only do it when the hundreds of dollars he bathe's in start to get a little too old :)......No I don't have anything against him.....Even though he's a greedy, selfless, could care less about his fans, son of a......Well I'll just leave it at that ;)

Edited March 8, 2004 by John_Anderson

[Garnoopy 0]

Do I think it's more interesting than Voyager? In my view, yes. Do I think it holds more realism and consistency than Janeway? Yes.

Ouch Fred, that hurts.

[NDak 0]

 

Do I think Enterprise is the best Star Trek incarnation ever? No. Do I think it's developed into a quality addition to the franchise? Yes. Do I think it's more interesting than Voyager? In my view, yes. Do I think it holds more realism and consistency than Janeway? Yes.

I guess I 'm alone, but I actually though Janeway was one of the better Captains. Sisko was a little too involved in the whole "I'm God" thing and Archer just doen't seem like a Captain, he just doesn't seem like he has any teeth to him--for everything you might say about Janeway she'd unleash on you if you screwed around with her crew. And she stayed consisent in that way, she didn;t get all wishy washy on us.

 

P.S. And to tell you the truth I liked the first two seasons of Voyager and the last three--it was the 3rd and 4th that killed me.

[FredM 0]

Ouch Fred, that hurts.

Hey there,

 

I'm sorry, but Archer and company haven't managed to destroy a Borg Cube by themselves...nor have they gone thru 47 shuttlecraft when they supposedly don't have enough power to use replicators all the time.

[Travis Kroells 0]

Homer wrote a book?

::Runs off to Barnes&Noble.com::

 

:D

 

Sad part is, Im serious :) ;)

[Dumbass 0]

::Runs off to Barnes&Noble.com::

 

:D

 

Sad part is, Im serious :) ;)

Yeah, it's called "Nuklear Phyziks for Dumbies" or something.

 

Hey Garnoopy, you think maybe Homer Simpson invented the QoB's "Donut Drive"? Makes sense to me.

[NDak 0]

Hey there,

 

I'm sorry, but Archer and company haven't managed to destroy a Borg Cube by themselves...nor have they gone thru 47 shuttlecraft when they supposedly don't have enough power to use replicators all the time.

::snickers:: they didn't do it ALL by themselves they had nanites to help them...ask wes crusher they are people too ::ducks::

 

 

Oh and:

 

Hey Garnoopy, you think maybe Homer Simpson invented the QoB's "Donut Drive"? Makes sense to me.

 

And au vile Klingonssu wonder why everyone looks down on au! A donut drive! Really, au have to use donuts to power aus ship!

Edited March 8, 2004 by Ern_Ndak