Text 641, 168 rader
Skriven 2005-02-05 10:36:00 av Tony Underwood (1:278/230)
Ärende: Was it just me?...
==========================
At 02:09 hours 02/05/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>No one mentioned the latest episode, yet. Was it just me or was that
>one of the best Enterprise eps in quite a while? It *HAS* been getting
>better, but this past "Part One" was, for me, really good. Not going to
Yes it's just you. Or is it... ...?
Actually, the show across the board has gotten considerably better.
Just figgers... as soon as ENT gets its space legs UPN dumps it on the
scrapheap of weeknights. Then they tell everybody that the show's
cancelled due to low ratings.
I see that nothing has changed on Melrose Ave... they're still headed by
the same pack of buck-squeezing beancounters as before.
>get into it because I'm waiting for Kevin, whose great reviews I rely on
>to catch what I missed onscreen (and between the lines), but I wondered
>why there's been no comment from anyone on it?
Irritation and dismay from the earlier announcement from UPN...?
I'd send them a poison pen letter if I thought it would do any good...
Hell, I'd send one anyway if I thought anybody higher up than somebody's
secretary working for Union minimum wage might read it without just giving
it a glance and sailing it into the circular file.
It's fairly obvious that UPN wasn't all that interested in catering to the
Trek fanbase with ENT. If they had ben, they'd have paid more attention
to story, pacing, etc and they'd have done more to promote their flagship
concept (and is there a more well known show concept floating around
today?) and kept its head above water, rather than just let it wither.
....it's not that ENT was handled all that poorly; it's just that it could
have been handled so much better IF someone higher up had actually cared
enough about the franchise to stand by it and actually DO something with
it.
It's been pointed out before that UPN is NOT the best place from which to
launch (no pun) Trek... their demographics tend to lean towards a
different culture, and added to this is the simple fact that UPN is
generally relegated to UHF broadcast channels since it's the "new kid" on
the block and most of the spectrum in larger metro areas is already
accounted for... so UHF it is. And UHF broadcasting generally tends to
cost a little more (more expensive and less efficient transmitter and the
biggest expenditure a TV station incurs after payroll is its electric
bill)... thus a typical UHF station often is saddled with a limited
budget... and it sometimes shows in the finished product via a not quite
as clean and sharp of an image as a more lucrative slotted affiliate on
VHF somewhere. The stuff coming down from UPN looks fine... it's what
happens to the material by the time it leaves the affiliate station's
transmitter that affects the "product". This is the case with the local
UPN affiliate in my area... fo5r the longest time, they "slid" Trek (VOY
and then ENT) to a different time slot on a different day via taping the
feed and replaying etc... which is fine IF they have up to date videotape
gear. Evidently they did not. The colors were muted and the video image
was low in contrast and the sound was noisy... for that matter, early on
the sound was mono... evidently taped on a videotape machine which didn't
support stereo audio (meaning it likely went back a few years). Then
there was the "hiss" in the sound in the first season episodes of ENT...
and I had a guy snagging Canadian NTSC raw feeds for me as they came down
from UPN directly... and those same episodes which sucked so badly on the
local UPN broadcast looked feature-film perfect; not unexpected since if
I'm not mistaken, ENT is shot on high rez digital videotape and is to be
HD-Ready via the standard progressive scanning tricks etc when it's
released on DVD.
Now, regarding hi-rez videotape of Trek:
Good: It's quicker and cheaper than film by some margin and wastes NO
recording media along with being extremely sharp and detailed in hi-rez
form and easily edited and F/X'ed. This is why we see such great CGI on
the tube these days.
Bad: Since errors and blown takes are on tape which is reusable, there's
much less incentive to save such goofs for a blooper reel unless somebody
specifically goes to the trouble to do so and sometimes shooting schedules
don't allow this luxury; before, when such shows were shot on film, the
"blown takes" footage of film already on the reel in the camera simply
remained there during shooting, and the entire reel got "processed and
printed" whether it was all a keeper or not, to be culled in editing, hence
the blown takes ending up "on the cutting room floor". It's easy to
stick this goof film footage aside during cutting, and on the editors
lunchbreak relatively easy to piece together into a "blooper reel" which is
how TOS's blooper reel came to pass.
It's not as likely that we'd see an ENT blooper reel simply because the
medium (digital videotape) doesn't get cut and tossed like film used to be.
And, it takes someone in the circle with the time and intent to go to
the trouble to save and assemble these goof takes... something which didn't
happen much in post-TOS such as TNG and DS9 etc. Maybe there *is* a humor
inclined sort in the editing booths who culled/copied and saved blooper
footage from ENT... maybe.
>Also, I agree that SF and Fantasy are well-represented on the small
>screen right now,
Well... kinda. I suppose it depends on ones tastes etc. There's the
almost-sci-fi Dead Zone which is excellent, and Stargate which I never
really warmed up to, and of course the new Battlestar Galactica which is SO
much evolved and ahead of its original parent that it may as well not even
associate itself with the original. And, of course Trek in the form of
ENT.
At least this is my field of interest, regarding the sci-fi that I watch
regularly on the tube. Other offerings which might be out there simply
haven't landed on me with the "authority" of shows like DZ, BG, and of
course Trek/ENT.
>but how's a guy like me supposed to get thru the next
>few years without new Trek!?!
....to predispose a bit... it sucks, huh. We can at least wait to see
what this next Trek film offering that Berman is talking about might be,
although frankly I'd imagine that if UPN/Paramount was wise (which they are
not) and Berman was on top of the franchise (which I doubt) that, seeing as
how UPN has decided to axe ENT, the next film would likely be about events
leading to the Romulan War etc, which perhaps might be anticipated by the
closing swansong episodes of ENT... unless UPN already has the remainder of
this season in the can and doesn't intend to spend a nickel on any reshoot.
Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if Paramount would just tell their
little boy UPN to simply run the season and leave it hanging... I
personally don't know what they have in mind, but it would be a pleasant
surprise if somebody somewhere were to still see merit in Trek with its NEW
basis (producers, writers) and shop it to first-run syndication or sell the
franchise off altogether to a network which would support it. Not real
likely though... Paramount is based upon greed (as demonstrated numerous
times and not just by their handling of Trek) and if the franchise can be
milked for anything more sometime in the future they're not likely to let
it "get away" and have someone else hold that trademark. They'll sit on
its corpse, just so they won't have to see the Trek trademark on someone
else's plate. And THAT is the saddest part.
Then again... word here and there is that a few people who represent other
networks which are partnered with Viacom have expressed interest in ENT and
that they have hinted that ENT may have a (remote) shot at returning
elsewhere... likely on cable.
Again, remote. But one never knows.
>I did it in the 70's but I was a lot
>younger, then!! This really sucks (as we used to say)!!!
We *still* say it... ;)
tony..
----- OK class, conjugate the verb "to suck". Anyone?
---
* RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
* RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 2/5/05 10:36:46 AM
* Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)
|