Star Trek producer reveals the reasons Enterprise failed

[TMC]

http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php

Many people think that Star Trek: Enterprise was the one major failure
in the Star Trek franchise. But WHY did it fail? Longtime Star Trek
producer Rick Berman has the answer.

Running from 2001 to 2005 (only four seasons, as opposed to seven for
the previous Star Trek reboots), Star Trek: Enterprise was the fourth
entry in the sci-fi franchise since The Next Generation (or TNG, if
you prefer) began airing in 1987. It was also the third series to be
created in a span of 10 years and was probably suffering from
"franchise fatigue," as Star Trek producer Rick Berman—who was really
reluctant about creating Enterprise—explains:

I think Enterprise was embraced, but by certainly a smaller audience.
It was not embraced by a lot of people. There are a lot of different
guesses one could make about why. I always felt that whoever came up
with the term "franchise fatigue" was right, that there was definitely
some of that. There was just too much going on at the same time.
By then, DS9 had ended, Voyager was still on the air, a third TNG
movie was coming out, and there was definitely a feeling that maybe we
were pushing it. "Oh, my God, here comes another Star Trek show." It
was the fourth Star Trek series in a decade. The prequel idea I think
was a good idea. After Voyager we certainly weren't going to say, "OK,
now it's time for a new show. Voyager is going to go off the air in
May and in September you're going to get a new crew on a new ship in
the same century."

The idea of going back and learning a little something about what went
on for the very first people who were stepping out into space ... it
seemed to us to be a great idea. ... The show certainly had a great
start. It got very good reviews and it had a huge audience for the
first half a dozen episodes and then it started to slip. I could take
the blame for it. I could put the blame into the scripts. I could put
the blame into franchise fatigue. I don't know why it didn't work.


It's rather a relief to know that it wasn't all the sex and sexiness
on the show (we're talking the sex/love story between T'pol and Trip
Tucker, as well as the many decontamination/shower scenes on
Enterprise) that did it in.

However, we have to point the finger at that Xindi story arc, which
didn't work at all for many people with its tale of mass murder,
destruction and revenge. Gene Roddenberry, who didn't like the stories
to be about conflict on his Star Trek, may have spun a little bit a
lot in his grave.

So what do you think? Do you agree with Berman?

[Your Name]

In article

Post by TMC
http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php

<snip>

Post by TMC
So what do you think? Do you agree with Berman?

I'm not sure if this is a re-post by a rebooted server or a new message
with old news, but it was posted a while back.

The real reason Enterprise failed is because Rick Berman and Branon Braga
are complete and utter talentless morons. You only have to look at the
"career" since flushing Star Trek down the toilet to see more proof of
that.

[Zombie Elvis]

Post by TMC
http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php
Many people think that Star Trek: Enterprise was the one major failure
in the Star Trek franchise. But WHY did it fail? Longtime Star Trek
producer Rick Berman has the answer.

This is a little like when a CEO runs a company into the ground and
writes and then writes a tell-all book where he blames the failure on
everything but his own incompetence. See also, presidential memoirs.

Post by TMC
Running from 2001 to 2005 (only four seasons, as opposed to seven for
the previous Star Trek reboots), Star Trek: Enterprise was the fourth
entry in the sci-fi franchise since The Next Generation (or TNG, if
you prefer) began airing in 1987. It was also the third series to be
created in a span of 10 years and was probably suffering from
"franchise fatigue," as Star Trek producer Rick Berman—who was really

"Franchise fatigue." Is that Latin for "we kept throwing crap at the
wall until nothing would stick?"

Post by TMC
I think Enterprise was embraced, but by certainly a smaller audience.
It was not embraced by a lot of people. There are a lot of different
guesses one could make about why. I always felt that whoever came up
with the term "franchise fatigue" was right, that there was definitely
some of that. There was just too much going on at the same time.
By then, DS9 had ended, Voyager was still on the air, a third TNG
movie was coming out, and there was definitely a feeling that maybe we
were pushing it. "Oh, my God, here comes another Star Trek show." It

I'm guessing that most people who would say, "Oh, my God, here comes
another Star Trek show." probably were never Trekkies in the first
place. Berman misses the point that by increasingly flooding the
airwaves with crappy shows, they alienated their own fanbase. While I
suppose that this might be just another of saying "franchise fatigue,"
it tends to ignore a very real and often drastic decline in quality
from across the franchise as a whole. As life long Trekkie myself, I'd
say that the progression of modern Trek went something like: TNG
struggled to match TOS in quality, DS9 surpassed TNG at times, Voyager
hit rock bottom fairly quickly, and Enterprise basically remained
stuck in the same basement to which Voyager had consigned Star Trek.

Post by TMC
was the fourth Star Trek series in a decade. The prequel idea I think
was a good idea. After Voyager we certainly weren't going to say, "OK,
now it's time for a new show. Voyager is going to go off the air in
May and in September you're going to get a new crew on a new ship in
the same century."

This is probably about as close as Berman is likely to come to
acknowledging his problems. Voyager was ending and Berman girded his
loins to give fans more of the same. Unfortunately, Enterprise was
conceived as a prequel which would necessarily mean that it would
require a different approach. Unfortunately, the Earth which Berman
gave us in Enterprise was pretty much the same as at The Federation of
the TNG era. You still had a crew of smug, often self-righteous,
humans who tended pat themselves on the back for being so evolved even
though the glorious Federation is in the distant future and in this
era they are only just emerging from an era of war and terror. Fans
can be forgiven for tuning out a show which promises something new and
delivers more of the same.

Post by TMC
The idea of going back and learning a little something about what went
on for the very first people who were stepping out into space ... it
seemed to us to be a great idea. ... The show certainly had a great

And precisely what they didn't give us as they were still using the
same warp drive, phasers, and photon torpedoes that would be used a
century later. Travel was quick and easy -- quicker and easier in fact
than in the original Star Trek which is set a century later than
Enterprise.

Post by TMC
start. It got very good reviews and it had a huge audience for the
first half a dozen episodes and then it started to slip. I could take
the blame for it. I could put the blame into the scripts. I could put
the blame into franchise fatigue. I don't know why it didn't work.

As the cliche goes, denial ain't just a river in Egypt. It's a little
like watching Mubarak pretend that he can placate his people by merely
dissolving his cabinet.

Post by TMC
It's rather a relief to know that it wasn't all the sex and sexiness
on the show (we're talking the sex/love story between T'pol and Trip
Tucker, as well as the many decontamination/shower scenes on
Enterprise) that did it in.

Right, because sex and sexiness was soooooo new to Star Trek. It's not
like anyone on Voyager was running around in a skintight catsuit. And
it's not like anyone on TNG, like say Riker was sleeping with every
alien chick he met. And of course there is the ever chaste TOS, where
female members of crew actually wore Starfleet Burkas and Captain Kirk
swore a vow of celibacy.

Post by TMC
However, we have to point the finger at that Xindi story arc, which
didn't work at all for many people with its tale of mass murder,

Right because war and its consequences had never, eeeeeeeeeeeeeever
been explored in Star Trek before. Well, maybe for a brief period
during the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh seasons of DS9. And sure
in TNG the Federation was just coming off a war with the Cardassians
and there was that thing where the Romulans tried to invade Vulcan.
And there might have been a couple dozen episodes of TOS which might
have been a metaphor for the Vietnam War. But other than that.....

The Xindi arc didn't work because it was simply too big. It was a
huge, epic war which lead to and shaped creation the Federation and
would have been remembered hundreds of years later. As such, it simply
doesn't make sense that something like the Xindi arc isn't referred to
at all in four Star Trek series spanning over five hundred episodes
that run over the course of over two hundred years. Now perhaps if
Enterprise had run a storyline involving some event which is referred
to in every Star Trek series -- like say, the Romulan War which we
were told occurred in the same century that Enterprise did -- perhaps
that might have worked. But no, they had to make up their own founding
event, first with the Temporal Cold War and when that failed, the
Xindi War.

Post by TMC
destruction and revenge. Gene Roddenberry, who didn't like the stories
to be about conflict on his Star Trek, may have spun a little bit a
lot in his grave.

Roddenberry didn't like stories about conflict between his heroes but
he had little trouble with having Captain Kirk set aside the Prime
Directive and kicking a little ass when necessary.

Post by TMC
So what do you think? Do you agree with Berman?

Excuses by a man trying to save face after running a legendary
franchise into the ground. It's ironic that the man who arguably saved
Star Trek when an aging Gene Roddenberry had seemingly lost his touch,
seems to have hung on to it long after he lost his own touch and
doomed it as well. But I'd like to also single out Berman's writing
partner, Brannon Braga, as well. He did after all work closely with
Berman on both Voyager and Enterprise and he surely deserves a share
of the blame for running Star Trek into the ground.
--
"Please captain, not in front of the Klingons."
-- Spock

Roberto Castillo
***@ameritech.net

http://robertcastillo.net/
http://twitter.com/ZombieElvis
http://robertocastillo.tumblr.com/

[Your Name]

Post by Zombie Elvis

Post by TMC
http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php
Many people think that Star Trek: Enterprise was the one major failure
in the Star Trek franchise. But WHY did it fail? Longtime Star Trek
producer Rick Berman has the answer.

This is a little like when a CEO runs a company into the ground and
writes and then writes a tell-all book where he blames the failure on
everything but his own incompetence. See also, presidential memoirs.

Yep, plus that CEO still gets paid an obscene "bonus" while the real workers
are told ther's no money left for them. X-(

Post by Zombie Elvis

Post by TMC
Running from 2001 to 2005 (only four seasons, as opposed to seven for
the previous Star Trek reboots), Star Trek: Enterprise was the fourth
entry in the sci-fi franchise since The Next Generation (or TNG, if
you prefer) began airing in 1987. It was also the third series to be
created in a span of 10 years and was probably suffering from
"franchise fatigue," as Star Trek producer Rick Berman-who was really

"Franchise fatigue." Is that Latin for "we kept throwing crap at the
wall until nothing would stick?"

Nope, it's Greek for "we never wanted to make Star Trek and decided to do
something different".

Post by Zombie Elvis

Post by TMC
I think Enterprise was embraced, but by certainly a smaller audience.
It was not embraced by a lot of people. There are a lot of different
guesses one could make about why. I always felt that whoever came up
with the term "franchise fatigue" was right, that there was definitely
some of that. There was just too much going on at the same time.
By then, DS9 had ended, Voyager was still on the air, a third TNG
movie was coming out, and there was definitely a feeling that maybe we
were pushing it. "Oh, my God, here comes another Star Trek show." It

I'm guessing that most people who would say, "Oh, my God, here comes
another Star Trek show." probably were never Trekkies in the first
place. Berman misses the point that by increasingly flooding the
airwaves with crappy shows, they alienated their own fanbase. While I
suppose that this might be just another of saying "franchise fatigue,"
it tends to ignore a very real and often drastic decline in quality
from across the franchise as a whole. As life long Trekkie myself, I'd
say that the progression of modern Trek went something like: TNG
struggled to match TOS in quality, DS9 surpassed TNG at times, Voyager
hit rock bottom fairly quickly, and Enterprise basically remained
stuck in the same basement to which Voyager had consigned Star Trek.

The real problem was that Beavis & Butthead came up with the idiotic idea of
making a "non-Trek Trek show" (largely because they never wanted to make
"Star Trek" in the first place) ... which anyone with more than half a
braincell could tell you is an oxy-moron from the start.

Post by Zombie Elvis

Post by TMC
So what do you think? Do you agree with Berman?

Excuses by a man trying to save face after running a legendary
franchise into the ground. It's ironic that the man who arguably saved
Star Trek when an aging Gene Roddenberry had seemingly lost his touch,
seems to have hung on to it long after he lost his own touch and
doomed it as well. But I'd like to also single out Berman's writing
partner, Brannon Braga, as well. He did after all work closely with
Berman on both Voyager and Enterprise and he surely deserves a share
of the blame for running Star Trek into the ground.

Yep, both of the Butthead twins were the problem, both simply wanted to add
a big name to their resumes and both have since proven that their utterly
incomptent in the entertainment industry. Neither of them should have been
hired to clean the toilets (where incidently they found their moronic
ideas), let alone actually be in charge of Star Trek.

BUT you also have to blame the idiots at Paramount who put these two fools
in charge, and then those same morons employed Hollyweird's current new toy
on the block JJ Abrams to finally bury "Star Trek" with his moronic "reboot"
(another current fad in Hollyweird).

[Fozzi]

Post by TMC
It's rather a relief to know that it wasn't all the sex and sexiness
on the show (we're talking the sex/love story between T'pol and Trip
Tucker, as well as the many decontamination/shower scenes on
Enterprise) that did it in.

Right, because sex and sexiness was soooooo new to Star Trek. It's not
like anyone on Voyager was running around in a skintight catsuit. And
it's not like anyone on TNG, like say Riker was sleeping with every
alien chick he met. And of course there is the ever chaste TOS, where
female members of crew actually wore Starfleet Burkas and Captain Kirk
swore a vow of celibacy.
I think he is off the mark here anyway, at least with the others there was
something of substance to surround the 'sexiness' on enterprise it was
pushed completely into the foreground and all pretence that it wasnt blatant
tittilation was dropped. It might have been laudable but there was nothing
but the titilation, the decon scenes were basically softcore porn and poorly
made softcore porn at that. I dont watch trek to masturbate i watch it to
have my valures and beliefs challenged not thrown out the window.
nonetheless your snide rebut was hilarious, shows what a creative mind can
come up with in only a few minutes pity the E writers lacked that mindset.

It was rather sad, there cast was good enough to carry stories of substance
they were never given the opportunity to show it

cheers
Fozzi

[Your Name]

Post by Zombie Elvis

Post by TMC
It's rather a relief to know that it wasn't all the sex and sexiness
on the show (we're talking the sex/love story between T'pol and Trip
Tucker, as well as the many decontamination/shower scenes on
Enterprise) that did it in.

Right, because sex and sexiness was soooooo new to Star Trek. It's not
like anyone on Voyager was running around in a skintight catsuit. And
it's not like anyone on TNG, like say Riker was sleeping with every
alien chick he met. And of course there is the ever chaste TOS, where
female members of crew actually wore Starfleet Burkas and Captain Kirk
swore a vow of celibacy.
I think he is off the mark here anyway, at least with the others there was
something of substance to surround the 'sexiness' on enterprise it was
pushed completely into the foreground and all pretence that it wasnt blatant
tittilation was dropped. It might have been laudable but there was nothing
but the titilation, the decon scenes were basically softcore porn and poorly
made softcore porn at that. I dont watch trek to masturbate i watch it to
have my valures and beliefs challenged not thrown out the window.
nonetheless your snide rebut was hilarious, shows what a creative mind can
come up with in only a few minutes pity the E writers lacked that mindset.
It was rather sad, there cast was good enough to carry stories of substance
they were never given the opportunity to show it

Enterprise's idiotic soft-p[orn scenes were only one of MANY problems -
the two biggest being Berman and Braga themselves, pls the fact that they
pee'd all over established history (and of course JJ Abrams' new movies
continue that particular stupid trend). :-(

[o***@hddg.com]

Post by TMC
http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php
Many people think that Star Trek: Enterprise was the one major failure
in the Star Trek franchise. But WHY did it fail? Longtime Star Trek
producer Rick Berman has the answer.
Running from 2001 to 2005 (only four seasons, as opposed to seven for
the previous Star Trek reboots), Star Trek: Enterprise was the fourth
entry in the sci-fi franchise since The Next Generation (or TNG, if
you prefer) began airing in 1987. It was also the third series to be
created in a span of 10 years and was probably suffering from
"franchise fatigue," as Star Trek producer Rick Berman—who was really
I think Enterprise was embraced, but by certainly a smaller audience.
It was not embraced by a lot of people. There are a lot of different
guesses one could make about why. I always felt that whoever came up
with the term "franchise fatigue" was right, that there was definitely
some of that. There was just too much going on at the same time.
By then, DS9 had ended, Voyager was still on the air, a third TNG
movie was coming out, and there was definitely a feeling that maybe we
were pushing it. "Oh, my God, here comes another Star Trek show." It
was the fourth Star Trek series in a decade. The prequel idea I think
was a good idea. After Voyager we certainly weren't going to say, "OK,
now it's time for a new show. Voyager is going to go off the air in
May and in September you're going to get a new crew on a new ship in
the same century."
The idea of going back and learning a little something about what went
on for the very first people who were stepping out into space ... it
seemed to us to be a great idea. ... The show certainly had a great
start. It got very good reviews and it had a huge audience for the
first half a dozen episodes and then it started to slip. I could take
the blame for it. I could put the blame into the scripts. I could put
the blame into franchise fatigue. I don't know why it didn't work.
It's rather a relief to know that it wasn't all the sex and sexiness
on the show (we're talking the sex/love story between T'pol and Trip
Tucker, as well as the many decontamination/shower scenes on
Enterprise) that did it in.
However, we have to point the finger at that Xindi story arc, which
didn't work at all for many people with its tale of mass murder,
destruction and revenge. Gene Roddenberry, who didn't like the stories
to be about conflict on his Star Trek, may have spun a little bit a
lot in his grave.
So what do you think? Do you agree with Berman?

Christ, this again?

The reason Star Trek: Enterprise FAILED is because B&B, the blood tick
team, floundering for any direction, quickly decided to make the
series a WAR show to mirror the United States' 9/11 attack as a rogue
terrorist attack on Florida from hostile alien worlds consumed the
years. B&B rubbed it in the audience' face.

As the price of profound arrogance and stupidity, yet again America
had its ass kicked, filleted, grilled, and handed back to them on a
silver platter on September 11, 2001. But like all shows since then,
the good guys easily find the bad guys with their vigilant super high
tech.

( BS. If Trek were made in Japan, the Japanese would have won WW2)

It was way TOO much, way TOO soon.

The Captain became a George Dubya Bush who actually showed up and
reported for duty and didn't go AWOL during war combat.

(Funny how in the parallel universe episode, it was finally revealed
that the Captain heard taunting voices in his mind constantly screwing
with his head. Bakula definitely acted this character one strap short
of a straight jacket.)

The rest of the seasons became an uncomfortable to watch, miserable,
dysfunctional, unhappy tale of a group of people who really didn't
like being with each other. There was no fun, no reason to want to be
in this tin drum in space. Nothing that made Star Trek special was in
this series, with the exception of rare moments with the doctor, Trip
+ T'Pol, and Empress Hoshi <sigh>.

If you were fan enough to stick around, you got The Big Red Reboot
Button to mind fuck you. Though, the final season shepherded by
another was GREAT in potential and HAD the series BEGUN with the final
season, it might have lasted, the B&B idiots ruined the franchise, and
proved themselves in the same category of dream makers as
Golan-Globus, professional producers of trash.

[Ron]

Post by o***@hddg.com

Post by TMC
http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php
Many people think that Star Trek: Enterprise was the one major failure
in the Star Trek franchise. But WHY did it fail? Longtime Star Trek
producer Rick Berman has the answer.
Running from 2001 to 2005 (only four seasons, as opposed to seven for
the previous Star Trek reboots), Star Trek: Enterprise was the fourth
entry in the sci-fi franchise since The Next Generation (or TNG, if
you prefer) began airing in 1987. It was also the third series to be
created in a span of 10 years and was probably suffering from
"franchise fatigue," as Star Trek producer Rick Berman who was really
I think Enterprise was embraced, but by certainly a smaller audience.
It was not embraced by a lot of people. There are a lot of different
guesses one could make about why. I always felt that whoever came up
with the term "franchise fatigue" was right, that there was definitely
some of that. There was just too much going on at the same time.
By then, DS9 had ended, Voyager was still on the air, a third TNG
movie was coming out, and there was definitely a feeling that maybe we
were pushing it. "Oh, my God, here comes another Star Trek show." It
was the fourth Star Trek series in a decade. The prequel idea I think
was a good idea. After Voyager we certainly weren't going to say, "OK,
now it's time for a new show. Voyager is going to go off the air in
May and in September you're going to get a new crew on a new ship in
the same century."
The idea of going back and learning a little something about what went
on for the very first people who were stepping out into space ... it
seemed to us to be a great idea. ... The show certainly had a great
start. It got very good reviews and it had a huge audience for the
first half a dozen episodes and then it started to slip. I could take
the blame for it. I could put the blame into the scripts. I could put
the blame into franchise fatigue. I don't know why it didn't work.
It's rather a relief to know that it wasn't all the sex and sexiness
on the show (we're talking the sex/love story between T'pol and Trip
Tucker, as well as the many decontamination/shower scenes on
Enterprise) that did it in.
However, we have to point the finger at that Xindi story arc, which
didn't work at all for many people with its tale of mass murder,
destruction and revenge. Gene Roddenberry, who didn't like the stories
to be about conflict on his Star Trek, may have spun a little bit a
lot in his grave.
So what do you think? Do you agree with Berman?

Christ, this again?
The reason Star Trek: Enterprise FAILED is because B&B, the blood tick
team, floundering for any direction, quickly decided to make the
series a WAR show to mirror the United States' 9/11 attack as a rogue
terrorist attack on Florida from hostile alien worlds consumed the
years.  B&B rubbed it in the audience' face.
As the price of profound arrogance and stupidity, yet again America
had its ass kicked, filleted, grilled, and handed back to them on a
silver platter on September 11, 2001.  But like all shows since then,
the good guys easily find the bad guys with their vigilant super high
tech.
( BS.  If Trek were made in Japan, the Japanese would have won WW2)
It was way TOO much, way TOO soon.
The Captain became a George Dubya Bush who actually showed up and
reported for duty and didn't go AWOL during war combat.  
(Funny how in the parallel universe episode, it was finally revealed
that the Captain heard taunting voices in his mind constantly screwing
with his head.  Bakula definitely acted this character one strap short
of a straight jacket.)
The rest of the seasons became an uncomfortable to watch, miserable,
dysfunctional, unhappy tale of a group of people who really didn't
like being with each other.  There was no fun, no reason to want to be
in this tin drum in space.  Nothing that made Star Trek special was in
this series, with the exception of rare moments with the doctor, Trip
+ T'Pol, and Empress Hoshi <sigh>.
If you were fan enough to stick around, you got The Big Red Reboot
Button to mind fuck you.  Though, the final season shepherded by
another was GREAT in potential and HAD the series BEGUN with the final
season, it might have lasted, the B&B idiots ruined the franchise, and
proved themselves in the same category of dream makers as
Golan-Globus, professional producers of trash.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think they were ooking at the forums, seeing how bad it was getting
among the fans and deciding how ow coud they go and not ose everyone.
But eventually took to my suggestion and got Judith & Garfield Reeves-
Stevens butit was too little too late.

The Stevenses (?) were taking the show back where it should have been:
dealing with Andorians and Tellarites-- not some shitty Xindi we never
heard of before. With Romulans and Orions, not Future Guy. B&B started
Enterprise going down hill from the very beginning by not dealing with
the roots of Star Trek; instead, what they had created was Next Gen
Lite with trips to Risa, secret raids by Ferengi,
and everything but Picard and Riker. Oh, wait: they did have Riker,
didn't they? <g> And even when there was no friggin' Prime Directive,
Archer acted like there was one anyway. Those two morons just did not
understand the thing that made TOS so special. I know I wanted to see
more about Col. Green... ;-)

Ron


_________
"He's acting different; like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Sulu."

-- Brian (The Family Guy) --

[Anim8rFSK]

Post by TMC
http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php
Many people think that Star Trek: Enterprise was the one major failure
in the Star Trek franchise. But WHY did it fail? Longtime Star Trek
producer Rick Berman has the answer.

These interviews are hilarious. Berman continues to prove how tenuous
his grasp on reality is; insisting, for instance, that NEMESIS is a
really good movie even if nobody likes it.

[Ron]

Post by TMC
http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php
Many people think that Star Trek: Enterprise was the one major failure
in the Star Trek franchise. But WHY did it fail? Longtime Star Trek
producer Rick Berman has the answer.

These interviews are hilarious.  Berman continues to prove how tenuous
his grasp on reality is; insisting, for instance, that NEMESIS is a
really good movie even if nobody likes it.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"

Hey, I liked Nemesis-- but then I also liked Howard the Duck, too.
It's just too bad that the ending was a little too derivative of Wrath
of Kahn, but otherwise it was a pretty good movie. Now, the movie that
truy stank was STAR TREK. *Everything* that I can think of was wrong
with that movie. I would have left even if I was watching it on a jet
plane 25,000 feet up. There are ony two movies I really hate: Lensman
and now, Star Trek. Oy. ;-(

Ron

_________
"This is the school in which we learn, time is the fire in which we
burn."

-- Elroy Schwartz --

[Wiseguy]

Post by Ron

Post by TMC
http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php
Many people think that Star Trek: Enterprise was the one major
failure in the Star Trek franchise. But WHY did it fail? Longtime
Star Trek producer Rick Berman has the answer.

These interviews are hilarious.  Berman continues to prove how
tenuous his grasp on reality is; insisting, for instance, that
NEMESIS is a really good movie even if nobody likes it.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"

Hey, I liked Nemesis-- but then I also liked Howard the Duck, too.
It's just too bad that the ending was a little too derivative of Wrath
of Kahn, but otherwise it was a pretty good movie. Now, the movie that
truy stank was STAR TREK. *Everything* that I can think of was wrong
with that movie. I would have left even if I was watching it on a jet
plane 25,000 feet up. There are ony two movies I really hate: Lensman
and now, Star Trek. Oy. ;-(
Ron

Madeline Kahn?

[Bast]

Post by Anim8rFSK

Post by TMC
http://blastr.com/2011/02/star-trek-producer-reveal.php
Many people think that Star Trek: Enterprise was the one major failure
in the Star Trek franchise. But WHY did it fail? Longtime Star Trek
producer Rick Berman has the answer.

These interviews are hilarious. Berman continues to prove how tenuous
his grasp on reality is; insisting, for instance, that NEMESIS is a
really good movie even if nobody likes it.

Sure, but you don't expect hin to tell the truth do you ?

" Ya I was put in charge of Enterprise because I was "lewinski'ing" a
parmount executive, and even though I'm a no talent hack who had no idea
what I was doing the guy got me the job and gave me gobs of money, to keep
me servicing him."

.....And I dare someone to come up with a more believable story.