You know what? Internet discussions are contentious, and if you can't take someone calling you on what they see as poor reasoning, that is your issue alone. The flip side is that they're not in real time, so if it bothers you, you can just not respond to it.
You complain about people "turning a discussion into a debate". I'm not going to take all the heat on this; one side can't do that. And this is just going to be something relatively unique to Star Trek - with its forty year history, there are going to be people who don't give up on it completely and choose to both analyze why this week's episode falls short of expectations and express cynicism about next week's. That's unavoidable, and truth be told, probably healthy.
I'm sorry if people feel insulted or harrassed, but when I ask why someone to explain why they liked something I consider poor, it's not meant to be belittling, but genuine interest. That people feel uncomfortable with those questions being asked... Well, let's just say one of the conclusions you can draw from that reinforces my own opinion.
That's an easy one. We're not discussing the eqpisodes or even the show in a way, but how viewers here are reacting to the shows. I don't see other shows getting crapped on like this one. If these were defended, it was like opening up a wound with a Bowie Knife, and the only way to play was to not play at all.
If you'd go back and read the threads you'd understand how hard it was to continue discussing anything while avoiding the crap.
No matter what happens, I'm going to start reporting the thread craps. It's a PITA but there should be a limit.
Thinking about it this morning, it occurred to me that the Enterprise threads remind me more of discussions relating to religion & politics than discussions about a television show.
(NOTE: I'm just drawing a parallel here... I'm not turning this into a religious/political discussion)
I suppose that it says a lot about a franchise that people feel so passionately about it... but ultimately people end up discussing something that they're almost TOO passionate about, and it the end result is what we see in those threads every week.
Sorry you feel like that Glenn This thread is named Enterprise renewed so no, we are not just talking about particular episodes, we are discussing how last season ended and where the show is going. Aren't all TV threads about how people have reacted to the show?
Time to let it rest Moe. We do understand your passion for the series from your many posts. Somehow I dont think you are treating it as just a TV show like you had mentioned.
Because, the way I see it, asking "why" is a natural part of conversation, especially when two people disagree. If I post that I didn't like an episode, and list where I thought it failed in its attempts to be good television, and then someone else posts "I liked it", my natural response is to ask why. If you don't want to "justify" or "defend" your opinion, fine. Your choice. But saying that you shouldn't have to put up with people asking why you liked it is just trying to squelch conversation.
As I said before, I think of stating an opinion (or acknowledging a statement as one's opinion) as the start of a line of conversation, not the point at which it dead-ends.
If that were the case, then there would be no problem.
Unfortunately, it's not just "why's" or "home come's" that we're talking about. Take a look at any of the recent Enterprise threads, and you'll see that the conversation isn't nearly as cut-and-dry as "how come you liked it?" or "home come you didn't". There's almost a negative tone from the getgo.
You know what it really comes down to? ... Reviews vs discussion, just like the "Movie" section. Every Enterprise episode thread is a 'review thread' from post 1 on, instead of a 'discussion thread'. I really don't want to participate in a 'review thread' of each Enterprise episode other than if I liked it or not. What I would like to do is discuss the episode, but that is a rare, rare thing on this board. Maybe we could have a Review thread and a Discussion thread? I know that's a PITA, but that's where I think I see the major differences. It doesn't have to happen for every other show just because it happens for Enterprise... for some reason Enterprise illicits much more passionate 'reviews' than any other show.
Well, then, make that your goal. If you say "I liked it and I bet this mean T'Pol is hiding something", then it's on you to reply to the people who talk about whether or not T'Pol is hiding something rather than those who talk about whether or not Brannon Braga could pass a high school creative writing class or whether Rick Berman even knows there's a science advisor on the payroll.
The threads are what you make it. If you see people mocking the show and decide just to leave as opposed to participate, you're not making it any better, and it's not the admins' job to do it for you unless someone is being completely out of line.
Since we're just at the point of bickering now, my hand is being forced.
Would those of you who love or like this series like to do your appreciation thread starting now? Please let me know.
Then this thread can die off, or I can lock it. Whatever. But I don't want to waste bandwidth just discussing past discussions and doing all this back-and-forth talk.
My thinking is that the appreciation thread will be an ongoing one. As I said, the individual episode threads will continue, with all opinions welcome. The ongoing appreciation thread also can discuss the new episodes, but in that one thread, which will not allow for the negative opinions.
If you guys can wait until September, then so can I.
O man, I should probably not post this, if it's beating a dead horse, please delete it.
I don't want a thread that only gushes about Enterprise where only positive posts are allowed . I don't mind the odd cynical post, actually I appreciate it, it's the continuous bashing, the pre-episode sucker-type comments, and constant reminders of impending doom. A forced lovefest won't be any fun at all .
The comments by Jack Briggs, Mikel_Cooperman, and especially those by Jason Seaver, pretty much cover my views on the issue at hand and were stated more diplomatically and more charitably than I would have. Ah, but the devil is in the details . . . .
Glenn Overholt wrote (post #197):
Quote:
Ok, I'm a little slow. I just figured out what the dots after what Voyager was supposed to do mean!
No seriously, therein lies part of the problem. With Voyager, a lot of viewers of the other shows didn't know what Voyager was, and what direction it was going in.
Now before you think I'm changing my mind (because I did like it) the theme behind Voyager was to take a trip. A very long trip.
Let me guess: were they on a trek? . . . . some kind of . . . star trek???
(post #197):
Quote:
And I must state again that the reason a lot of people think that TNG is the cat's meow (or whatever) is just because of Stewart. If he were replaced by an unknown, would you still have watched it?
All other things being equal, yes. Yes, I would. Stewart himself was an "unknown" in the U.S. before TNG. But, contrary to your statements, one of TNG's strengths was, in fact, its ensemble-like format. That was, of course, almost totally erased with the advent of the movie series.
Dave Scarpa wrote (post #198):
Quote:
And it would be nice if they hired someone with a fanboy mentality to oversee the show but folks this isn't happenning.
I think they tried that with scriptwriter John Logan, who so described himself in so many words, on ST: Nemesis, and look how that turned out.
Quote:
But has'nt[neglect of "side characters"] been true of every Trek series (Maybe sans DS9).
No. No, it hasn't.
Quote:
How much did you know about Uhura or Chekov, or Deanna and Doc Crusher? The series have always had it's triad of stars.
Actually, for those paying attention, quite a lot could be learned about Troi and Dr. Crusher over the seven-year life of TNG. On Uhura, Chekov, and Sulu, on the other hand, not a whole lot, unfortunately. The triadic "star" system in the original series is, indeed, one of its greatest weaknesses, in my opinion; one that has transferred somewhat to the latest two incarnations of the franchise.
Moe Maishlish (post #200):
Quote:
. . . I don't think it's that terrible an idea, and I frankly don't think it's unoriginal or revisionist. In fact, I think that, handled correctly, this direction may be as compelling and interesting as many of the courtroom dramas our there. Maybe this plot could evolve into a mix of Law & Order & Trek. . . who knows? But I'm not expecting every last minutia of Trek's past to dictate the direction this show must take. I'm willing to allow the writers & producers some breathing room for creativity, and we'll see where they take the show.
Every evidence before me, lo, these past three years says that, given their leeway, the producers of this show have come up with much of nothing except undaring and unmitigated mediocrity. You, and those who think like you, may wish to see genre mishmash added to the rotten stew, but I don't see any way for the program to go from there but down. (Yes, folks, it could get worse! From mediocrity to laughingstock.)
(post #204):
Quote:
Back to my wine example, some people will enjoy a nice modest $10 bottle of wine, while others think it's sewage. It has nothing to do with standards... it's just a matter of what you like, and what you don't like. Some people just don't like being told that they have low standards for liking what they like, just as others don't want to be told that they are uppity-snobs for only appreciating $100 bottles of wine.
Your wine analogy is, put plainly and simply, utterly bogus. For your example to be in any way comparable to the situation we're "discussing", the two wine tasters would have to disagree over the same wine; not different classes or casts of wine. Every viewer gets to see the same version of each Enterprise episode. Period.
(post #207):
Quote:
. . . some of us feel that Enterprise is no worse than some of the previous incarnations of the franchise.
Telling.
(post #210):
Quote:
The problem is when the detractors chime in and say "It sucks, and until you can prove us otherwise the conlusion is it that it will forever suck and you're all wrong. So there . . . nany nany boo boo, and my dad can beat up your dad". That may sound trite, but frankly that's what a lot of these arguments seem to boil down to when I read them.
Actually you're describing the way your side of the argument has conducted, and is conducting, itself: "We like it. So, there!
(post #210):
Quote:
The thing is that posting in an Enterprise related thread is like trying to walk through a crowded dog park and not stepping in a big pile off doodie. You try really carefully to avoid getting messy, but there's so much of it lying around that eventually you're gonna step in it.
The "doodie", if such there be, is what's on screen, week after week. Expect no apologies if some of us say so---bluntly and unapologetically.
(post #210):
Quote:
Having said that, to us these are not shortcomings.
There are lots of other threads in this forum for other TV shows that include constructive discussion, and that don't devolve anywhere near the levels that I've seen in Enterprise related threads. Smallville, Sopranos, Simpsons, Southpark, Six Feet Under, etc. . . . . . Take a look at those threads for the kind of discussion that I'm talking about. That's the kind of conduct that I would hope for the weekly Enterprise threads.
(post #223):
Quote:
Thinking about it this morning, it occurred to me that the Enterprise threads remind me more of discussions relating to religion & politics than discussions about a television show.
. . . . .
I suppose that it says a lot about a franchise that people feel so passionately about it... but ultimately people end up discussing something that they're almost TOO passionate about, and it the end result is what we see in those threads every week.
(post #232):
Quote:
I don't see other shows getting crapped on like this one. If these were defended, it was like opening up a wound with a Bowie Knife, and the only way to play was to not play at all.
Once again, this is your prima facie evidence that Star Trek is not "just another tv show". Just keep your head buried in the sand, if you wish; but then don't ask why someone else makes a "big deal" out of it.
And the others are right: the irony of your making this hulabaloo over threads about a show that supposedly only "mildly" entertains you is too telling to be accidental, all denials not withstanding.
(post #235):
Quote:
And other shows don't have 40 years of history which features very dedicated fans,. . . That's just naturally going to make for higher expectations and bigger disappointments.
And that's a keypoint. If you expect little or nothing, that's what you'll get, week after week after week.
Mikel_Cooperman wrote (post #206):
Quote:
This is not just any show though it's a franchise and how can you not compare it to Trek that has come before it, or to go with the analogy used before, a bottle of wine that you are drinking now with the same brand that you had had years before?
Each incarnation of Star Trek recapitulates, recalls, and resumes this "franchise" and all its history, internal and external. That's the whole point of the branding: to remind the target audience of what came before. That's the way the producers and their marketeers want it, at least when they find it convenient. The recalling, however, comes at a cost; and that cost is to be held to a standard of the related programming that has preceded the present incarnation. You can like it or not. You---and they---can try to pretend that it is not so, but it is.
Quote:
You can compare things all you want, but again... it just boils down to individual taste.
de gustibus non est disputandum, eh?
(post #216):
Quote:
I'm not talking about envoking martial law and forbidding people to discuss the subject. I'm just asking that people recognize that's it's a Television show, is meant for entertainment (unless you work for the series or somehow make money from it), and should be used to entertain. The moment that entertainment crosses over that line and becomes stressfull in any way, I think it's time that one takes stock in ones hobbies and re-evaluates how they choose to spend their time.
To me, the moment a television show (or anything else that's meant to entertain, like a movie) stops being fun to watch and starts to stress, anger, or upset me, is the moment that I change the channel or turn it off.
Reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live number spoofing the late-night local horror-movie shows of the fifties and sixties. After we see several spoofs of horror movies like "The Thing That Would Not Leave" (John Belushi), guest Christopher Lee intones about other movie spoof titles like "The Creature from the Black Studies Program". Then Dan Ackroyd does his best mock-announcer voice to scare the audience while Lorraine Newman keeps screaming in terror. At the end the voice gives the consummate piece of horror news: "Just tell them: 'It's educational!'" (whereupon the audiences fell out of their chairs busting a gut).
So, a mind on "cruise control"? Brainless entertainment? No thanks.
"Opinion" is not enough. Informed opinion, carefully thought-out and coherently presented, analyzable, interpretable, and, hence, "reproducible", is, to my understanding, what the HTF is supposed to be all about (at least for some of us). If that intimidates you, as the man said, the problem lies within you, and not with others who have no problem articulating their views. It is not necessarily hostility in others that makes them want you to explain why you believe as you do on a given subject under mutual consideration.
I missed ZERO HOUR but have read much of the discussion about the time-travel storyline. Can someone fill me in on how the Xindi storyline was resolved?