The Corporate Enterprise (Trek Related)
Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections: The Kitchen Sink: Trek Related: Trek Discussion: The Corporate Enterprise (Trek Related)
Patrick Hogan: I bought your Nitpickers Guide for Next Generation Trekkers when the 5th season was being shown here (Ireland), and I enjoyed the book very much. And I enjoyed Trek very much too. But having seen as far as the end of season 4 of Voyager and as far as most of season 6 of DS9 I find myself becoming increasingly hostile to Trek, in terms of its quality and what the creators take us, the viewers and effectively their employers, for. In fact, I cannot in good faith defend Trek any longer as a series or a universe, which is something I never thought I would have call to say. (sorry if I am breaking your secondary directive) . Nitpicking is really great fun; it also keeps you alert and makes you aware of proceedings in individual episodes as well as the universe of Star Trek as a whole. It makes you think about episodes rather than just passively receive them. In fact it was your book purchased those years ago that was the first step in writing to you today. My question to you (finally) is this; Given that you
have found enough errors in the Star Trek universe to fill 4 books, don't you think that there's something fundamentally wrong with Trek, if not as a science fiction universe, then as a production series? In your Guide for
Next Gen. Trekkers you have an amusing section that the Creator's always right. I have reached the conclusion that Trek's popularity is inspite, not because, of the creators. Perhaps I am being overly critical of Trek, but its just the nitpicker in me in overdrive. What I am saying, and now
believe, is more than just nitpicking unfortunately. The content of this message is hardly standard nitpick fare, but I like to hear your response to my question if you could spare the time to reply. If not I can at least say "There, I've said it!!" All the best with future projects.

Phil: Okay! Now for the next bombshell . . . ;-) Seriously though, I do not--first of all--think that the thickness of the guides proves Trek's unworthiness as a television series. The operative words here being "television series." In all honesty, the words "television series" have rarely evoked images of quality story-telling. On many occasions I have stated my position that I do not believe the visual media are well-suited to great story-telling. I'll take the novel any day over the movie. It's been my experience that any television series begins coming apart at the seams as soon as it's subject to scrutiny. (I gotta tell ya, I was a bit worried about X-Files when I started that guide because it seemed like the writing was so very tight. But then I slapped myself a couple of times and got back my nitpicking perspective!)

So, I think Trek's about normal for television.

But I think the question was: Is there something fundamentally wrong with Trek as a production series? My opinion is: On the contrary, I think Trek--for the most part--has always had phenomenal production values. But Trek has always had at it's essence one and only one purpose: to make money; to generate advertising revenue; to sell merchandise.

It is a corporate product and corporations exist for profit. They are often not greatly concerned with quality. They are often not greatly concerned with what users think about the product. In the case of television, the corporation is concerned with ratings because ratings directly translate to dollars. The fans can moan all they like and the corporation won't be too concerned as long as the ratings justify the cost (and in the case of Trek it's difficult for any ratings not to justify the cost because the thing is such a multi-headed entity that the argument can be made that Paramount MUST have at least one Trek alive to keep alive interest in the movies and this in turn keeps alive interest alive in the entire syndicate, yada, yada, yada).

Fans watch the shows. The ratings are enough to keep the shows going. The Corporate Enterprise perpetuates itself!
By Admin on Wednesday, January 13, 1999 - 9:25 pm:

Patrick Hogan: Thanks for the reply. I think the creators must take a significant amount of responsibility for the money making aspect. Ok, they have to sell a product, but they are doing terrible damage to the product in the process and hoping we won't notice. Its so annoying to see, for example, in DS9, in the 12 episodes I have seen since 'Sacrifice of Angels' in Season 6, you would never think there was a war on !! On its own, the episode 'Far Beyond the Stars' was very good, but what has it to do with the Dominion, it doesn't advance the war story at all; or even forget the war situation itself , we don't see
how its affecting the characters very much. The problem to me seems to be that the creators are pushing the show so that they can do their midseason
crisis, and then wait for the end of season cliffhanger to come along.

Everything in between is mostly pointless filler. If in DS9 you would never think there is a war on, in Voyager the behaviour of ship and crew leaves you thinking that they are in the Alpha Quadrant with a starbase ashort distance away....Voyager has HOW MANY shuttles...! Trek cries out for some kind of longterm planning (of course it might affect Nitpickers
if Trek actually started to become consistent!), and for creators who take pride in an artistic product. I can't help make the comparison with Babylon 5. I was recently introduced to it, and have seen as far as the
end of season 4. I had heard it called 'The Poor Man's Star Trek'...if anything its the reverse, Trek being the poor man's B5. I know the comparison is not really fair, in that B5 was planned fully and is notable
in that regard. Trek, after a certain stage, just evolved...but now that's coming home to roost in the form of stagnation. Anyway, I rate B5 far above Trek now, almost exclusively for the former's consequential
storylines...what characters do and say DOES matter, longterm. Also I was impressed on hearing that the B5 creator turned down a studio's executives when approached to do a 6th season of B5 because he had planned for 5 seasons and didn't want to upset the story by adding a 6th season. (Of course I would be surprised if that wasn't a lever he used to try and get
the spin off show going, but at least there's more than a hint of artistic integrety involved.) Oh, wrote too much!

By Richie Vest on Thursday, January 14, 1999 - 8:17 am:

You can't compare Babylon 5 and any of the Star Trek Series. They are not the same. Babylon 5 is one of the most original series in American Sci-Fi. Trek, as much as I love those series, has copied itself three times.

By Sharon Jordan on Thursday, January 14, 1999 - 2:46 pm:

I have always felt that all television was for entertaining us folks. Star Trek has, from the beginning, given us really good entertainment. More than just an escape, but to tickle our brains with very real characters, and good story lines(well most of the time) It's entertainment as it is. I will agree that Star Trek (and other shows) cannot entertain us with it's uncontinuity. It's like insulting our intelligence. I believe Phil is right, that Creators ar only thinking of the revenue, just like any product sold on the market. But if the product doesn't work as it sould, you take it back right? I also believe television, like theater, film, etc. is art. And art should be handled carefully. If the creators want their product to sell, appeal to the intelligence of the fans and pay attention to the fine tuning of your product. Treat it with love. Alright, everything has it's mistakes, and Phil's books makes us think a little harder when watching an episode. (I think he's keeping us from taking the show a little too seriously) I find his books funny. I think he also critique the shows very well. i have found on M*A*S*H* websites, nitpics about certain elements in the show. Like Hawkeye's dad being listed as decease in the first few years of the show, but then he's alive for the rest of the time. But the show was one of the best shows on tv. My feeling on that show there. It ran for eleven years! Everything will have their nits, it's good to laugh at them. I just hope there im more in the minds of the creators than just profit.

By Sharon Jordan on Thursday, January 14, 1999 - 7:43 pm:

I really hope I made sense!!! If not, chalk it up to brain death!!

By Adam Howarter on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 2:46 am:

I don't know if I'd call B5 original. Interesting yes, but not original. The number of plot elements it borrows from Lord of the Rings (a much better story) are too numerous to count.

By Nyla on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 6:10 am:

Whoa. Everyone has written such well-thought-out, coherent messages that I find
my brain shrinking from the thought of attempting to expound further. So, then,
here's what I think:
Um.

What they said, double. And I will not see B5 until ST is totally off the air out of
loyalty to it.

"Several miles over the madness horizon and accelerating." T. Prache

By Richie Vest on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 8:05 am:

Nyla Why wait to see B5? It is a great show. One can be a Trekker and A B5 fan.

Adam Well The Original Part was telling a story over the course of a 5 Year Period. That is not usually done in American Sci-Fi.

By ScottN on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 10:20 am:

Adam,

EVERYTHING is derivative. We are probably telling stories that can be traced to Og the caveman telling his kids "oog oog".

By Adam Howarter on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 5:59 pm:

Thats an excuse. Its used by unimaginative writers to justify their lack of ability, or worse lack of use of their ability. "I *WOULD* write a good story...but...ummm...there aren't any left." Thats like saying we might as well close the patten office tommorrow because everything thats ever going to be invented has already been invented.

By Sharon Jordan on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 9:19 pm:

I have seen B5 from time to time, and I enjoy it! For not as a Star Trek copy, but for what it is independently! It has done what Star Trek has done, what other shows have done, and give us great characters. I like to get under the skin of characters, and B5 has done that as well as Star Trek. I don't think B5 is a poor man's Trek. It just, to me, another good science fiction show.If we are to compare Star Trek:Deep Space Nine to B5, then we should compare ER to Chicago Hope. Does anybody? I haven't seen it. I have noticed that both have done well.

By Sharon Jordan on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 9:21 pm:

By the way, Nyla, thanks! I appreciate the compliment. I was afraid I was just babbling!

By Omer on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 9:34 pm:

Adam - I can not recall reading or watching something TOTALLY original in the last five years or so... the best book I ever read, Catch 22, isn't Original per se' : It has lots of ideas I've seen else where, but it's funny and smart and has great characters, and the philosophy behind it is complex and intelegent. If u see an original story it's probably because you've never seen the story it's inspired by. Tolkin is inspired by celthic myth. Orwell was inspired by the U.S.S.R. it's all been done before.

By Adam Howarter on Saturday, January 16, 1999 - 1:22 am:

>I can not recall reading or watching something TOTALLY original in the last five years or so. <

That doesn't mean its not out there. It just means the writers are to unimaginative to come up with it. (Insert rant about how Hollywood has run out of ideas here.)

By Nyla on Saturday, January 16, 1999 - 7:49 am:

A. I have my own reasons for waiting to see Babylon 5 until I am a mature, married
adult. If you really loved me... Ooops, sorry, wrong speech. :-)
B. Sharon, you're welcome.
C. I haven't seen much original lately either

By Omer on Saturday, January 16, 1999 - 8:13 am:

Adam. Name one original creation!

By Chris Ashley on Saturday, January 16, 1999 - 9:14 pm:

Some theologians would argue that there's no such thing as original creation, as everything derives from God.....but that's another question. (I take Tolkien's view of that anyway, so don't go flaming me about it.)

By Adam Howarter on Saturday, January 16, 1999 - 10:25 pm:

<Name one original creation.>
Glass.

By ScottN on Sunday, January 17, 1999 - 12:34 am:

Adam,

Volcanoes did that long before man.

By Nyla on Sunday, January 17, 1999 - 6:29 am:

Hey, Chris: what view would that be? I've read the trilogy a hundred times, and
am racking my brains to figure out what you'e talking about

By Omer on Sunday, January 17, 1999 - 9:32 am:

YEah OK< I ment a book, movie, etc

By Chris Ashley on Sunday, January 17, 1999 - 9:43 pm:

Nyla--Tolkien's overall view of fantasy, and to some extent of the concept of creativity in literature, is dealt with in his essay "On Fairy-Stories". It is half of the book "Tree and Leaf", if you can find that; it's also included in the "Tolkien Reader", which any decent bookstore should carry. A very interesting essay if you liked the trilogy. (It's sooooo refreshing to me to hear a really smart Christian perspective on things I think are cool!)

By NYla on Monday, January 18, 1999 - 6:51 am:

re Chris "refreshing"
Yeah, I know what you mean. That's the feeling I get when I read Diane Duane's
early ST books, or her Wizardry series

By Litaddict on Monday, January 18, 1999 - 8:09 am:

OK, this is getting even more off topic but...Chris, Nyla, have you ever read C. S. Lewis's stuff? He was a good friend of Tolkien and wrote stuff that (I think) was just as neat.

By Chris Ashley on Monday, January 18, 1999 - 8:42 pm:

C.S. Lewis rocks this world. I have read approximately every book he ever wrote (well actually I can think of 4 I haven't but he wrote about 50 so that ain't so bad).

What did you think of the movie "Shadowlands" if you've seen it? I wasn't sure quite how to react.

And as for off topic, who cares? Every good discussion wanders. That's what the Web is for!

By Litaddict on Monday, January 18, 1999 - 10:06 pm:

I did see "Shadowlands" a long time ago - I remember a little of it, but I want to see it again now that I've become a big fan of Lewis.
Man, he is AWESOME! I haven't read much of his nonfiction, but the sci-fi trilogy, the Narnia series, 'The Screwtape Letters,' 'The Great Divorce' - oh, it's wonderful stuff! I'm in the middle of 'Out of the Silent Planet' right now, and am enjoying every word (again). Lewis has got to be my favorite author. Which of his books do you like best? For me (so far) it's either 'The Great Divorce' or 'The Last Battle.'

By Sarah Perkins on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 - 4:24 pm:

I am also a Lewis fan and have read nearly all of his books. My all-time favorite is "Perelandra", the one where Ramson is sent to Venus. Lewis is a wonderful writer and possibly the best Christain writer of this century. His fiction is excellent, and his non-fiction is very insightful and he's not preachy at all. He respects everyone.

On another line, it really is amazing, isn't it, to see how many little referances (or not so little) to Lord of the Rings crop up in B5. JMS knows good stuff when he sees it, I guess.

By Nyla on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 - 6:23 pm:

I agree! C.S. Lewis is right up there, man! (Sorry, I'm getting overly
enthusiastic.) Unfortunatly, I've been unable to find his sci-fi
trilogy--everytime I'm in a used bookstore, I forget i

By Chris Ashley on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 - 8:58 pm:

Hmm....I actually enjoyed "Perelandra" the least of the space trilogy when I first read it, and it's been awhile since. The other two had more, shall we say, action, and that appeals to this "First Contact" fan. ;-)

Of course I've nothing against talk. I thought "My Dinner with Andre" was an excellent movie.

And "Perelandra" is probably the deepest of the trilogy; it's just not the sort of thing I normally expect from sci-fi. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.

As to my favorite Lewis book....so hard to pick. "Voyage of the Dawn Treader", "That Hideous Strength" and "The Great Divorce" are probably the top three, for completely different reasons.

By ScottN on Monday, April 05, 1999 - 9:52 am:

Not really sure where to put this...

I was in a (discount) bookstore the other day, and saw the NextGen guide as an audiobook. What I liked was who the readers were:

Denise Crosby, Robert O'Reilly (sp?) and Dwight Schultz.

By Alfonso Turnage on Monday, June 07, 1999 - 3:51 pm:

I honestly don't know what-should a true Trek fan not watch Voyager out of protest and hope later on it starts showing better stories or should they watch every week and hope for the best?

By weirddave on Wednesday, June 09, 1999 - 8:34 pm:

everybody-

Watch what you enjoy.