Hudlin Entertainment Forum

Quote from: Emperorjones on August 31, 2018, 04:47:28 pm

At the time ENT was on (and after its cancellation) there was a lot of talk of Trek fatigue on some Trek message boards and railing at Braga and also Rick Berman, who oversaw all of Trek after Roddenberry. So yeah, there was a fatigue issue there, a lack of creative juices, but also I think studio interference with VOY and ENT. DS9 was mostly left alone because the suits were more concerned about VOY, which was a gift for the DS9 writers who had some flexibility to go into arc-based storytelling, etc.

I do think ENT was set in an interesting time period. We didn't know much about the pre-Federation Earth or how the Federation was formed. There was also the Earth-Romulan War they could've played with, but didn't do much with, and the show was canceled before they went there. Trek novels did cover the war, though I couldn't get into that two-book series. I did read some of the run-up books, The Good Men Do and Kobayashi Maru. I The Good Men Do better than Kobayashi Maru. Though my favorite ENT novel is Last Full Measure, which takes place during ENT Season 3.

Unfortunately for ENT it had a lot of competition that the other Treks didn't. It came out at a time when TV dramas/genre shows were very strong and ENT looked behind-the-times, with poorly developed characters. I couldn't stand ENT at first. It was nowhere near as exciting as 24, or when Battlestar Galatica came out, it blew ENT out of the water. Even the Stargate shows at the time were better than ENT. I don't think ENT ever figured out how to write for an ensemble show, though they did a good job with Trip the most. I did like the darker Archer from Season 3 though. And just when the show was getting better, and becoming a true prequel to TOS unfortunately it got canceled.

I don't know if it was intentional, or just my imagination, but I felt there were some parallels with Archer and George W. Both had chips on their shoulders over the treatment of their fathers. Both lived in the shadows of their fathers. But ENT didn't lean into that enough IMO. Season 3 had to have been inspired by 9/11 and there was the occasional episode that touched on a contemporary social issue, but not enough.

Yeah... that sounds accurate.

Hated the Trip character because he resembled dubya and I couldn't stand dubya at the time.

Funny you say that because he actually played George W. in a brief scene in the Tom Cruise movie American Made.

I do think Trip was the best developed character on ENT, so killing him off in the series finale in a way made sense-even if the execution was bad-since in many respects ENT was his story. He got over some of his biases, he found love with T'Pol, he suffered the most personal loss during the Xindi incident, and he lost a daughter along the way. With the show ending, I guess it made sense to end his arc if it was going to be anyone.

^
Brannon Braga, one of the ENT producers has said that they wanted to have the first season of ENT completely on Earth, but the studio nixed it. I think it would've set ENT apart even more. And I think it would've allowed us to go places we really haven't. We haven't seen that much Earth in Star Trek or the politics and bureaucracy of Starfleet, United Earth, or clarifying the whole United Earth Space Probe Agency thing, which ENT could've done. I wish Braga had been able to create the show they wanted to. I'm not going to say it would've been good-I think ENT often had a staleness or blandness to it in the earlier seasons-but it would've been more unique to the show.

Thanks Battle, but I can't take credit for that shorthand. They had the "DISCO" shirts in the show. I was trying to paste some pictures of it, but I'm not able to. CBS is also selling the shirts.

>>>Emperor

Just thought about somethin'...


You mentioned ENT.  I'm assuming you meant 'Enterprise'...?  completely forgot about that one. 

'Enterprise' was the worst out of the entire series.   

Yes, 'ENT' is my shorthand for 'Enterprise'. I wasn't a fan of ENT until the third and fourth seasons. I did think the pilot was the best Trek pilot though.

A lot of discussions on when various Trek series improved is subjective. There were at least several other VOY episodes I enjoyed that third season (especially "Unity" which presaged "Scorpion") which shows the quality was on the upswing, like with TNG Season 2, which was an improvement over that show's first season, though it hadn't quite knocked it out of the park. That being said, Season 2's "Q Who" is one of the best Trek episodes period, even though that season was hampered by a writer's strike. And similarly, ENT's second season finale set in motion a stronger third season. So when does the quality raising start or is it a matter of when does a show become consistently 'good'? Even some of the worst seasons of Trek will have some gold among the dirt when it comes to episodes.

I think you're looking for a fight here where there is none. I think whenever you see one of my post you automatically are predisposed to dispute it. But a lot of this Trek discussion is based on personal taste where I'm concerned. My listing here is of some of the criticisms I've read or heard when looking at You Tube reviews/discussion or going to Trek message boards. I haven't watched much Discovery so I can't say from looking at it from acting, story, or writing standpoints and making judgments. I've watched a lot of You Tube reviews on the episodes and read some of the press. I intend to buy the Season 1 DVD/Blu-Ray and watch it myself and then I can determine what worked and what didn't.

I will say though that I don't think Trek needs nudity or cursing. Yes, it might adhere to 21st century entertainment and CBS definitely wants a show that people will be talking about the day after it airs, but I think  it could ultimately hurt the brand in the long-term. Trek got by for almost 50 years with minimal cursing and even less nudity. (They didn't show a backside until ENT Season 3). So, that made Trek more of an all ages kind of show, and was a way to inspire kids to get into science. But if you make it R-rated you are cutting out that audience and so that audience won't be there to support the franchise in the following decades. For example, I got into Trek when I was a teen and I've been supporting it going on 30 something years now. But that's because it was on network television, easily accessible and PG. I do get why CBS has put it on All Access (though I didn't agree and will not buy All Access) and why they are going the more 'adult' route but I don't know if it will be enough.

Netflix's Lost in Space, while darker likely than the original show (guessing here, I didn't see the original, only the '90s movie), it didn't go completely '21st century' when it came to sex yet and it got renewed. If some You Tube reviewers are correct about Discovery's financial situation, Discovery might not make it to a third season. If you make the stories good enough, the characters engaging enough, and the FX cool enough, then I don't think you need to resort to graphic violence , heavy cursing, or nudity at all.  From what I've read of Discovery they haven't done heavy cursing or excessive nudity, though the show does appear to be more violent than other Treks. To a larger point, that kind of stuff can just become shock for shocks sake.

The one thing Discovery has done very well is the FX from what I can tell. The cast looks talented, though I wasn't super impressed with the writing or acting when it came to the pilot episode, the only one CBS showed for free on it's network. Production values are good for it. And that helps, but I do think if the characters don't catch on, if the writing doesn't 'improve' then the show might be in trouble. ENT was dogged with cancellation at least since the second season and unfortunately got the ax just when it had really hit its stride in season 4. I also have an issue with the canon. I wished that they show looked more in line with what had been established in previous shows when it comes to the Klingon appearance and technology. Discovery is too much of a radical departure from that. I also didn't care for the Sarek as adoptive dad angle for Burnham. It doesn't bother me as much as it does for some fans, about why Spock never mentioned her before, but still it just felt shoe-horned in when you could've had Soval or T'Pol (both from ENT) be the adoptive Vulcan. I also didn't care for the advanced looking Starfleet uniforms and ships, though I am pleased that from the Season 2 trailer the TOS aesthetic-to some extent-looks to be back. I'm also not a fan of the name "Michael" Burnham. Yes, there are women named Michael, and the show's original creator, VOY vet Bryan Fuller, has a thing for giving female characters masculine names, but for me, it reminds me too much of Hollywood masculinizing (sp) black women. From what I've seen in interviews, etc. Martin-Green is a great ambassador for her show and Trek, but I still don't care for the masculine name, or the trend of the black woman/non-black man romance.

Some of the legal stuff is interesting because it impacts the show. It affects the creative decisions.

From those interview snippets I'm surprised Lee didn't also say 'all lives matter' or 'what about Chicago'. Just kidding, almost. But he's entitled to his view. He's earned that right, even though he can and should be critiqued like anyone else. As should Riley. His work stands to be critiqued as well. I don't think the question about whites being centered in the civil rights movement at the end of the film was a fair question.
And Spike's comments about police seem to lack a systemic look at the overall criminal justice system more so for a bad apple approach. Which is also Lee's right to do. It's an idea held by many. And I think that's okay for him to hold that view, just like it's okay for someone to come along and criticize that view because we need to see various viewpoints. Lee is right, we are not 'monolithic' though whenever I heard black people in the media saying that I feel they are about to start tap dancing or something ("See, I'm not like the rest of the Negroes"). I don't think Lee did that here with this film, though it is a film that will not ruffle white liberals. Conversely, some white liberals are also praising Riley's film. Arguably, while Riley acknowledges racism he also centers class, and a transracial struggle-along the Bernie Sanders side of the game.

I still haven't finished the memoir, but to me, Perhaps Lee thought it heightened the stakes, but they didn't need to be heightened, in that way at least.  The KKK are the acknowledged white racists in America, so mocking, pillorying them is also safe.

I checked this one out. While the film is good, don't believe the hype that it's the best of the Impossible films or that it's the best action film of all time. I saw a You Tube comment that the film reminded them of SPECTRE and I can see that. I mean the trailer-which I really liked and made Fallout the most anticipated movie this summer for me-did have a SPECTRE vibe, and similar to SPECTRE, Fallout did not live up to that trailer. That being said, I liked Fallout more than SPECTRE.

In this film, Hunt and his Impossible Missions Force team are trying to stop the sell of nuclear weapons to a shadowy group. The film is a sequel to Rogue Nation. It's not necessary to see Rogue Nation first, however if you have seen that movie it helps. Rebecca Ferguson and Alec Baldwin, both introduced in Rogue Nation return. New to the franchise are Angela Bassett's Sloan and Henry Cavill's Walker, who Sloan places on Hunt's team to help them get the weapons.

The action was solid, but there wasn't any major stunts or action sequences that could top what was seen in Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation. Still, they were well made action scenes, but not anything much different than other action movies in terms of creativity, though likely better executed than many other action films. Cruise continues to be an iron man, breaking an ankle while filming, and that shot is in the film. There is some humor, and some character moments, though character development has never been a strong point for this franchise, and that remains so the character moments don't completely connect.

A big part of the promotion IMO is Cavill and I thought he did well as Walker. I'm not gushing about his performance. I still see that same stiffness there like in the DCEU films and in Man from UNCLE.

I thought the story was confusing, and the action wasn't wowing enough to make me ignore some of the issues I had with the story. The long run time didn't help either. If this had been a 90 minute or even two hour film it could've zipped by and perhaps I wouldn't have been thinking about what doesn't make sense even as much.

If you already like this franchise I think you'll like Fallout. If you are new to the franchise I would not start out with Fallout. I would start with Mission Impossible 3, which is my favorite, or Ghost Protocol because I feel Protocol, Rogue Nation, and Fallout look and feel more cohesive than the first three films, those had more distinctive styles and looks.

I didn't stay all the way to see if there was an end credits scene, but usually there aren't.

My rankings for this franchise:
MI3
Ghost Protocol
Rogue Nation
Fallout
MI
MI2