Maybe they need to put some new blood behind this series as it really was uninspired this last year. While I commend the Roddenberry vision, I have to question if following that vision at this point is worth it...

Posted by Tim on Wednesday February 02, 2005 at 7:57 PM at 7:57 PM

Unfortunately BG has terrible actors, I can't get past it. I know that ST:TOS had weak actors too, for some reason I forgive it.

This season was the best yet, I thought. I'm dissapointed they are dropping it. Moving it to the bad timeslot didn't help.

Posted by Scott on Thursday February 03, 2005 at 2:23 PM at 2:23 PM

I agree this was the best Enterprise season. The influx of new blood (Manny Coto, Judith Reeves-Stevens & Garfield Reeves-Stevens) made a significant impact. I'm still trying to figure out what UPN thinks would draw better ratings in the Friday 9:00PM slot than Enterprise?

I know it's a long shot, but here's hoping a miracle occurs and the 5th season of Enterprise shows up on Sci Fi (or Spike) this fall.

Posted by Patrick on Thursday February 03, 2005 at 2:48 PM at 2:48 PM

I'm sorry, BG has terrible actors? I'll agree the mini-series wasn't the best, but they've certainly grown in the series itself. Olmos is terrific as Adama, Callis does great work playing Baltar on the edge of sanity, McDonnell's portrayal of Laura Roslin is spot on, and Sackhoff has is much better as Starbuck than in the mini-series. Even the supporting cast is stellar, with nary a clunker in the bunch. Just ask Tim about Boomer. I'd put any of the characters against any from Enterprise. Any of the stories too.

Maybe you're actually watching the original BG series Scott...

Posted by jp on Thursday February 03, 2005 at 9:36 PM at 9:36 PM

So far, I like the new BG too. I haven't really taken note of the acting, which means that it is not superb, but neither is it so bad as to remove me from the story. I like BG for the grittiness, the stories and the space opera quality. It drew me in almost immediately whereas Enterprise failed to impress from the get-go.

Besides, we all know that Enterprise was killed by the theme music.

Posted by John on Thursday February 03, 2005 at 10:20 PM at 10:20 PM

Well, I'll have to say that I wasn't interested in the remake of BG...until I saw the cast. Olmos and McDonnell not good actors? They've got to be among the best that we've ever had in a SF series!

Posted by Fred Kiesche on Friday February 04, 2005 at 6:41 AM at 6:41 AM

Three reasons I never got into Enterprise, the first two aesthetic and the last practical:

Lame Theme Song - like a finger in the eye, except in the ears (how's that for a failed simile?) It gave me no reason to want to watch. No Trek feel to it at all.

Horrible Ship Design - there are about 30-plus years of backstory, Starfleet "Handbooks," blueprints, timelines, and novels to help one design a ship that plausibly could have looked like an ancestor to the original Pike/Kirk NCC-1701. Instead, they used the same fluid, molten-metal-CGI-looking ship designs that have characterized all StarFleet vessels since TNG. I'm not asking for slide rules and analog computers (a couple of painful - if charming - anachronisms from TOS), just something that looks more primitive than the Enterprise of the 1960s and 70s. (Antennae, docking ports, rocket nozzles, etc.)

Time of Night - I've got three young kids, and it's hard to watch a show during the dreaded "arsenic hour." We don't have TIVO, and I only remembered to record it on VHS one or two times before I realized it wasn't worth the trouble.

Posted by JohnL on Friday February 04, 2005 at 10:29 AM at 10:29 AM

I'm talking about the non-big-name actors. Olmos is good, sure. But 1 actor does not a show make. I also liked the Baltar actor.

But I've only seen the first part of the mini-series. I thought it was really bad. Maybe I'll have to see it again, but the actors who play Starbuck, Boomer, and Apollo seem like kids pulled from Barbazan Modeling School and given a crash course on acting by Will Wheaton. They look good, just don't let them speak.

Of course, perhaps the bar for TV SciFi is so low that almost anything looks good. You'll not convince me that BG is near Babylon 5 (the best TV SciFi, IMO.)

This show isn't really even SciFi, sadly. It's more of 'Wagon Train in Space.' There's no reason why this should couldn't be set in the old west, or a group of boats in the north Atlantic even. SciFi means that the science fiction elements are integral to the story - that without it the story doesn't work. This show has none of that (at least not according to those who've seen it lately.)

Posted by Scott on Friday February 04, 2005 at 2:47 PM at 2:47 PM

Not that I have seen the entire list of shows, but I am going to ask the question (which I am sure has been raised before). I guess my problem with your definition is that it really restricts what can be accomplished with a scifi theme. Scifi is the technique of telling a story using futuristic or fantastic elements. The story can be current, but placing it a far away time and space - it gives unique perspective to the narrative... JP added the fact you can discuss things that would be considered uncomfortable or terrible when discussed elsewhere. Such as Genocide or CarrotTop as President. And I guess I would accept this attempt at SciFi given the relative crap that has been presented lately in the form of movies and other series. I would prefer lesser actors and might I remind you that B5 was really very stiff for much of the first season. It really improved in season 2 as the characters became accustomed to thier roles and really shined....

Posted by Tim on Friday February 04, 2005 at 3:35 PM at 3:35 PM

As I pointed out, the actors have become much better. I'm not saying award-level acting, but at least they've climbed past the Keanu Reeves Plateau. Starting with about the 4th episodes, things get really cranked up and every seems to have come into their own. You owe it to yourself to watch them, especially if you liked Enterprise.

As far as Scott's SF definition, to me that sounds a lot like Hard SF. I'd argue that definition would leave out many of Le Guin's books (Left Hand of Darkness for instance) or Where Late The Sweet Birds Sang. These are SF, but concentrate on the characters and story, while the SF is used as a setting and to posit the aforementioned 'uncomfortable' situation. In fact, B5 is nothing more than a UN in space, only with cool space weaponry. There is no reason you couldn't remove the science from it and place it somewhere else. The strength of B5 was the storytelling.

Of course, we could argue forever about what 'is' SF. I think its broader than most people might think. And if I need more definitions, I'll just crack open John's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction...

Posted by jp on Friday February 04, 2005 at 3:52 PM at 3:52 PM

I agree the definition is fuzzy, but I just can't stand the thought of Buffy the Vampire Slayer getting to be SciFi. If we say just any element of alternative or future science is SciFi, then Buffy gets in. Magic does not equal SciFi for me (although Jack Chalker's books push that boundary.)

I guess I feel that the truly alien non-human species (and their point of view) in B5 make it pure SciFi to me. Are you saying that what happens in Season 4 could somehow have happened on Earth?

Posted by Scott on Saturday February 05, 2005 at 12:55 AM at 12:55 AM

I don't think thats what we are implying, but if you change out the aliens for alternate nationalities - you can definitely draw some comparisons. I don't see Buffy as Sci Fi - I see it as Fantasy. They are different genres which may cross the lines at times, but I personally hate seeing them all lumped together. I like them both, but claiming that you something is not scifi since it could be removed from space and put someplace else is the almost as bad.

I still think you should give the show a shot and think that maybe these guys are looking pretty bad now, but if they get enough viewers - they will grow and become that much more believable...

Posted by Tim on Saturday February 05, 2005 at 1:30 AM at 1:30 AM

Scott, SciFi is running a mini-marathon of the first 5 eps. of the new BG on the 8th. Why not Tivo those and check them out? Or, alternately, I have a few episodes as mpgs you can watch to see if it'll grow on you.

And Buffy is not SF. Its fantasy. And it doesn't appeal to me. Oh, and if you want a space western, check out Firefly. Heck, check it out anyway. Its a great show.

Posted by JP on Saturday February 05, 2005 at 9:06 AM at 9:06 AM

One actor on Enterprise was one that I always looked for--I made it a point of making sure not to miss any of his episodes. That was a recurring secondary character, that of Shran, played by Jeffrey Combs. I thought he always did a great job at the character. It was nice to have a recurring character that was sometimes an ally, sometimes a adversary. As I recall, Gene Roddenberry had plans to make one of the Klingon captains (either from "The Trouble with Tribbles" or the episode about the Organians) a semi-regular that the Enterprise would keep running into.

Oh yes, confession time, I **like** the theme song. I also liked the theme songs that appeared in "Star Cops" and "Firefly". Nah-nah-nah!

Posted by Fred Kiesche on Sunday February 06, 2005 at 3:23 PM at 3:23 PM

OK I know I liked Enterprise and all, but this campaign to save the show is bordering on histeria. I have a LOT better things to do with my money than contribute $32 million to fund a 5th season! Seesh people, in the immortal words of William Shatner - "Get a life!"

Posted by Scott on Sunday February 27, 2005 at 7:30 PM at 7:30 PM

They don't have lives, that's what makes them "Trekkies." If they had lives, then they would just be normal SF fans. By the way, its "hysteria."

At least they're not sending in thousands of bottles of tabasco sauce to save the show (a la Roswell, which died the season after that...). They're not, are they? I didn't really read that linked article.

Posted by Peter on Sunday February 27, 2005 at 7:51 PM at 7:51 PM

Apparently there are ulterior motives at work here. This article lists that several large donations were made by some folks who are working on commercial spaceflight. They indicate that the point of the saving the show is that this show inspires folks to reach for the stars. At least one of the donaters claimes that Star Trek was what brought them into this industry and we should continue to support shows of this nature.

Posted by Tim on Wednesday March 02, 2005 at 9:36 AM at 9:36 AM

I know i'm going to reget this but everyone has read that UPN was shifting it's focus to the young urban "black" crowd. Seems the drug dealers and welfare recipiants have more money to spend.

Posted by Christopher Allen on Friday May 13, 2005 at 8:39 PM at 8:39 PM

Wow! You ignorant piece of white trash! You give your race a bad name and I REFUSE to group any other intelligent member of it in with you!

So we are all drug dealers and welfare recipients? (Not "recipiants" as your dumb non spelling @$$ put it.) That is what catering to the urban black crowd means to you? God you should be shot on the spot just to keep you from procreating and furthering your lineage.

That being said. Why couldn't they cater to the urban crowd (black or otherwise) and still keep Enterprise on. I live Enterprise as I do the all of Star Trek and hate that it is being cancelled. I would give up any other show, be it geard towards the urban black crowd or otherwise, in order to keep it on the air.

Signed,
An educated, non-drug dealing, non-welfare "recipiant", of a black man.

Posted by The Blackman on Sunday May 15, 2005 at 2:54 AM at 2:54 AM