:: Captain's Personal Blog ::

Stardate: Monday, January 28, 2002

This is a copy of the exhaustive text which I sent to Mr. Altman. I suppose I was a bit out of line. Or was I?

Mr. Altman,

Let me first say that I am a big fan of FREE ENTERPRISE. I thought it was a very funny film with a good lesson to it. As a fan of Star Trek and a certain amount of Pop Cultural Sci-Fi, I appreciated the film on a great many levels. I don't quite get the opportunity to read Cinescape very much, but when I do I am always interested in your articles. A particular assertion you made has stayed with me. You remarked something to the effect that you are so tough on the Star Trek series' because you are a fan and need to be critical in order to maintain quality. If I misinterpreted, I am sorry, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me anyway. Please correct me if I am wrong.

With that said, I would like to address your recent article regarding ENTERPRISE. Let me first say that despite many attempts at alienation by Rick Berman and those working on the show, I watched it anyway. What alienation am I referring to? The one in which Rick Berman and co. stated that they would more or less be ignoring the original series and creating this as a backstory for The Next Generation and all that followed.

Am I wrong in sensing alienation at this? As a fan of STAR TREK is it not extremely confrontational to try to contradict all of that? The STAR TREK films (I-VI) more or less kept a certain amount of continuity. Even to the bell-bottomish pants of the original series. The pants in the films kept a baggyish quality to the bottom which seemed like a natural progression. The communicators, phasers, tricorders, insignia, uniforms, starships, etc., all (for the most part) kept a continuous look that lent to the credibilty of the productions. (Exceptions being the props from The Motion Picture.)

Is continuity the absolute of STAR TREK? Of course not. The Original Series contradicted itself more often than anyone can remember. How many agencies did they work for? The United Earth Space Probe Agency? The United Federation of Planets? How long did we finally settle? How many crew members aboard the Enterprise? Chekov met Khan when? The Shuttlecraft couldn't pick up Sulu and co. on the planet in The Enemy Within for what reason? For the most part, one could come up with semi-reasonable canon-based explanations for this stuff (I mostly have) but instead it was just ignored.

Continuity with the original show seemed less important in the shows that ensued. Paris and Tuvok show up at the Griffith Observatory in the late '90s. In one of the scenes there is a DY-100 class ship sitting on one of the desks, which is a nice touch. However, there did not seem to be any indication of the Eugenics Wars that Khan was a member of. After all, he escaped in 1996 at the height of the war. Also, do I have to go into Zephram Cochrane? Whatever happened to Zephram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri (as reffered to in the episode METAMORPHOSIS?) It's this last sleight of continuity that begins the myriad of problems with ENTERPRISE.

My dad once made a criticism of the film version of LOST IN SPACE. He asked why they found it necessary to redesign the Robot. His point was a simple one. Does a robot exist today that can do the things that it can do? No. Does the technology even remotely exist? Barely. Therefore, what's the point? There really isn't a NEED to redesign it, just a want. I can understand the want, and so could he, we just agreed that it wasn't necessary.

ENTERPRISE is the same way. They had to make the communicators smaller because we have cellphones that are smaller than the original communicators? That's bull. After all, can we call up to the moon on our cellphones? No. I have a hard enough time getting a signal in my office building, let alone one that reaches to the moon, or beyond. And look how many satellites that takes? Forget that. Forget all of it, how about this: Doesn't Earth get into the Eugenics War and/or World War III? One would wonder if a global catastrophe like that wouldn't set us back a little bit technologically. And that those setbacks could also account for why things aren't as small as we would believe them to be, as well as a change in aesthetic style.

We have "Phase Pistols?" Is that supposed to be a nod to phasers? They had Lasers on the series before phasers. Again, until we have a portable laser unit that can do the things that it did on the show, there is no reason to replace the old stuff.

And what about the ship itself? Was the original Enterprise (and other like ships of the time) the ONLY ones in Starfleet history to not have blue neon on the sides of it's engines? And the only ones not to have visible deck-plating?

In the Original series, Vulcans and Humans were equals. How does that happen if the Vulcans started out so much more advanced than we are? How could we ever be equals? If you want to talk about relations, who is ever friends with someone who is so terribly condescending all the time? I know I wouldn't be. It makes you wonder how Spock was EVER accepted.

If I haven't lost you yet, let me now get to the whole point of this letter. I'm actually surprised that you liked ENTERPRISE. It seems to me that all the things that were good about the original show have been lost along the way.

I contest the assertion that there was no conflict on the original show. Kirk must have yelled at McCoy more than a few times. Spock and McCoy did go at it a few times at well (in addition to their frequent banter.) The thing that throws everyone is that these people are actually friends. Between the performances and writing this came across very strongly. STAR TREK II, III, & IV, were emotional films because they demonstrated the cameraderie of these people. The way the care for each other and would sacrifice anything for each other. STAR TREK IV was also poignant because of the return of the Enterprise. The fans demanded it! After 1701-D was destroyed there was no tremendous cry for them to return the ship.

Again, I am straying. As that this is an e-mail, I could simply edit that out, but I won't because it is another point that I am trying to make.

For a man who claims he liked the show, I did read quite a bit of criticism in your article. About how Archer is like Uhura in that he mostly sits on the Bridge communicating with what is going on. About how the teasers are not really constructed to bring the audience begging for more. The fact that ENTERPRISE (when did we drop the "The" before Enterprise, anyhow?) investigates things not out of a sense of heroism but because they just feel like going there to check out what's what.

These are important things. As you know, I also believe in bowing your head to what came first. I don't think that Fonts and little color bars on the uniforms is enough. I've counted a few nods. T'Pol's viewing station, the actual SLIDES on the Transporter controls, the flip-open top of the communicator (which seems to flip open automatically at the press of a button?) and what else? Could this ever progress into STAR TREK? Admittedly by the producers, no. And that's the problem. Maybe taking STAR TREK out of the title was not because they wanted to prevent comparison, but more because they never meant for it to be STAR TREK. After all this time, I am left to wonder if these people are simply lazy. They are using established continuity so they don't have to build their own foundation. Why does this have to be STAR TREK?

The fans know what they want. They asked for The Adventures of Captain Sulu because they wanted STAR TREK to be what it once was. Not the skewed version it is today. DS9's TRIALS AND TRIBBLEATIONS was a bone. It was the bone that they threw to the fans, giving them what they wanted. Why couldn't they have stayed with it? Couldn't ENTERPRISE have been the adventures of Captain Robert April on NCC-1701? The First Adventures of the Starship Enterprise? Sets that evoked a strong sense of familiarity, but with subtle differences? A ship that is quite familiar, but still in it's infancy? Uniforms almost, but not quite what we know? Technology that is almost there, but still working out kinks? (Remember the Transporter initially needed TWO operators?) Would it have been so bad? Would it have even hurt to have the last episode of THAT series show Captain April handing command over to Captain Christopher Pike and a young Mr. Spock (after all, they did serve together for 11 years before Kirk came along.) Wouldn't the fans have been happier?

I've noticed lately that STAR TREK has none of the power it once had. Names like DC Fontana (who had her start with Star Trek,) Theodore Sturgeon, and Harlan Ellison would do work for Star Trek. They were some of the most acclaimed in the field of Sci-Fi. With The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine (TWO STAR TREK Shows) on the air, where were they? DC Fontana and Harlan Ellison were working for the little engine that could, otherwise known as Babylon 5. Is it any wonder that they will have nothing to do with STAR TREK? What does it mean?

I can't even agree with the argument that there are no more stories to tell. How many years have Star Trek novels, comics, etc. been printed? I know they aren't all winners, but they don't all stink either. STAR TREK isn't dying of old age. It's being assassinated.

My last point before I mercifully end this is back to continuity. Michael Okuda and company went about the task of creating many substantial texts for the STAR TREK universe. Not the least of which being the CHRONOLOGY and the OMNIPEDIA. My question is thus: If you are going to take the time to fill these substantial texts with facts of canon, why would you go about creating films and shows which contradict the WRITTEN RECORD of what has come before it? Is this not the ultimate of revisionist history? I suppose it would be easier to understand if people were just doing this from memory, but I can't believe that with all of these written accounts of what has happened before, they still can't get it right.

I suppose that in the final analysis this e-mail was more about my disgust towards ENTERPRISE than your article directly. My intention was to tell you that I can't understand why you, of all people (the gatekeeper,) can like it so much. You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. I am just hoping that if you could explain it to me, maybe I might be able to accept it. If you've made it to the end of this e-mail, I thank you for your patience, and for taking this little journey with me.

Thank you,




:: J 12:08 PM [+] ::
...