Enterprise cast

[prometheus 0]

I have found from a lot of interviews i've read recently that the cast of Enterprise are somewhat bitter about the roles that they have had over the last 4 years and the lack of development regarding their characters. I would be the first to admit that to an extent they all have a point but i feel that some cpould handle it with a bit more dignity, and stop trying to grab some flailing attempt to make headlines bu controversially knocking what they had and basically having a good b1?c# to themselves... i mean, come on grow up Blalok!

[gul_nodrog 2]

I guess some of them should just be glad that they were working for four years! Why be bitter ... I'm sure that Trek paid the bills at least for a while. And I really think they should think twice about "burning their bridges" with people who are in a position to possibly hire them again for something else.

 

Bakula obviously will go on to other things ... he's been around forever. Wasn't he the father of Murphy Brown's baby? The ex-husband of Mary Jo on Designing Women? The dude from Quantum Leap?

 

As for the rest, I'd never seen any of them prior to this show. Most of them we'll probably never see again. You couldn't pay me enough to be in the acting profession ... no job security no matter how good you are. It's all luck.

[Takara_Soong 4]

For the most part, Jolene Blalock is the only one I've heard critisizing the development of her character although she was more "approving" of season 4 T'Pol than previous seasons.

 

From some of the recent comments I've read from John Billingsley I don't think he understands what Star Trek is. This is from TrekWeb.com:

 

The latest issue of TV Zone magazine, just out in the UK, features an exclusive interview with STAR TREK ENTERPRISE actor John Billingsley...

 

"One thing that's always bugged me about TREK is this conceit that one day we're going to become better than human. I remember [a line about that in ["Broken Bow"]. I've found that to be a slightly invidious theme in TREK, and one that's either too 'Pollyanna-ish' or arrogant."

 

Better than human? Trek has always been about humanity that has bettered itself.

 

Presenting the future as better than today is arrogant?! Give me a break!

[Kor37 9]

For the most part, Jolene Blalock is the only one I've heard critisizing the development of her character

 

I don't know why Blalock is complaining. She has a bright future ahead of her posing for Playboy and possibly soft-porn movies. The skys the limit for her!...

[MrPsychic 1]

I personally would have liked to see more development in a triangle friendship with Hoshi, Travis, and Malcolm. Those three looked like they would have had a good friendship together. Since it was cancelled early, there's always going to be what-if's out there.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Over the past few years I've begun looking at Trek differently as well - more like Billingsley - it's extremely unrealistic to think that human nature will somehow just change in the next 150 years when we've been this way for thousands of years.

 

As for Blalock - she's complaining they wrote her character to match the way she advertised herself?.

[HRH The KING 0]

I'll comment on this because it relates to Star Trek in a wider context than simply ENT.

 

I've never been a big believer in Star Trek representing a "hope for the future of humanity", since I would think that we need to deal with problems like disease, war, poverty, crime etc and that we need to develop medical, scientific and defence technology anyway. I would think that with or without Star Trek.

 

I regard Star Trek as just a TV show. Just entertainment.

 

It's good thoughtful storylines and drama I want to see in Star Trek. Not some "grand vision" of the future that Roddenberry may have had, since I'm not a great believer in everything he believed in.

 

I tend to agree with Billingsley to a certain extent.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

Over the past few years I've begun looking at Trek differently as well - more like Billingsley - it's extremely unrealistic to think that human nature will somehow just change in the next 150 years when we've been this way for thousands of years.

 

As for Blalock - she's complaining they wrote her character to match the way she advertised herself?. 

328181[/snapback]

I don't think its too unrealistic. Mostly because we totally screw ourselves over in WWIII. I think that's the kind of thing we NEED to have happen. The current system doesn't work and it won't be until we get a kick to the sides of our collective heads that we will change.

[HRH The KING 0]

The thing is, most of world's problems could be solved now, if people were willing to take action and make the important decisions.

 

You don't need to wait 150 years.

 

It just takes resolve and a willingness to do whatever is needed.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

The thing is, most of world's problems could be solved now, if people were willing to take action and make the important decisions.

 

You don't need to wait 150 years.

 

It just takes resolve and a willingness to do whatever is needed.

328185[/snapback]

Oh definitely, we just need to realize that we have to think about 'the other' like we do ourselves. I'm just saying that's going to take a catastrophe, it shouldn't but it will.

Edited June 1, 2005 by Jack_Bauer

[HRH The KING 0]

I don't think another World War would happen, not in the way it's portrayed in Star Trek. Generally I regard the Cold War as being "World War III" (IE: a war fought by proxy with the two main sides never actually meeting in full combat) and the current war against terrorism is "World War IV" (IE: A war fought between government and paramilitary terrorist groups through covert means and so forth).

 

Many of the world's problems can be solved now, but it's simply a matter of governments and politicians not willing to act boldly or even speak their opinions openly for various reasons. Mainly because many problems in the world require solutions that are dismissed far too easily. Also things like political partisanship and so forth block such solutions from being implemented or even proposed.

[gul_nodrog 2]

Many of the world's problems can be solved now, but it's simply a matter of governments and politicians not willing to act boldly or even speak their opinions openly for various reasons. Mainly because many problems in the world require solutions that are dismissed far too easily. Also things like political partisanship and so forth block such solutions from being implemented or even proposed.[/b]

328190[/snapback]

 

So it has been, so it shall ever be.

 

Change is very slow ... look how long the U.S. Civil War took to come to a head. It really began before the U.S. was independent of England.

 

Civil Rights movement in the U.S. ... likewise. That was well over 200 years in the making.

 

Today, I think that science is the only thing that can take the wind out of the politicians sails and strip them of their power. Imagine what something like hydrogen powered cars would do to the power struggle going on today.

 

I rather enjoyed the DS9 version of Roddenberry's future, as I know you did, too, King. It was so much closer to the truth of humanity, Bajoran mysticism and Captains who were really Gods aside.

[HRH The KING 0]

I rather enjoyed the DS9 version of Roddenberry's future, as I know you did, too, King. It was so much closer to the truth of humanity, Bajoran mysticism and Captains who were really Gods aside.

 

Absolutely. I agree completely.

 

For me, Trek is at it's best when it simply focuses on drama and also on applying real world situations like war, politics and conflict into it's fictional setting.

 

I don't subscribe to this "give peace a chance" vibe that some may like. It might work well for a John Lennon song (imagine no possessions, imagine no Yoko Ono...) but for Star Trek? Nah not me for.

 

For example, there are two ways to look at a story:

 

1- The Enterprise encounters a sick patient marooned in space with a deadly medical condition. They develop a cure and send him on his way back to his people and we all feel happy because humanity has evolved to the point where we work to cure all diseases.

 

or

 

2- The Enterprise encounters a sick patient marooned in space with a deadly medical condition. They develop a cure but the culture of his people prevents certain medical treatments to be administered to their people on religious grounds. The captain of the Enterprise supports their decision and refuses to allow the treatment, but the doctor doesn't follow the order and administers the treatment anyway and sends the patient on his way back to his people. But they reject him and he becomes a pariah in his society and eventually takes his own life.

 

Which is more dramatic?

Edited June 1, 2005 by The King

[prometheus 0]

Wow - it's amazing how threads evolve.

[gul_nodrog 2]

^^"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, stepping out your door. If you don't keep your feet, who knows where you'll end up."

Edited June 3, 2005 by gul_nodrog