Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Star Trek’

Thoughts on the 2009 Star Trek Movie

May 13th, 2009

This past Sunday afternoon, I watched the new J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. From the hype leading up to its release, I understand this was intended to be “Star Trek for the rest of us”, meaning that it was intended to be a version of the Star Trek story that would be accessible to those who aren’t Star Trek fans. It’s also intended to “reset” the original Star Trek universe by placing it in an alternate reality. Thus, what we should expect from it is a universe that’s similar to what we’re familiar with, but different in some ways. I think it’s fair to say that the movie succeeds on both fronts. Its box office success seems to indicate that a lot of people were intrigued by it, and the story is definitely different from the universe of “Star Trek: The Original Series” (as it’s referred to today).

Looking at this installment of Star Trek as a movie, it delivers a lot of excitement and action, backed by a lot of interesting visual effects, and punctuated by moments of humor. If you’re a science-fiction fan who looks for a great story, lots of character development, and an interesting message, you’ll be disappointed. In order to pack as much action as possible into the movie, the writers took a lot of liberties with the story and characters. In fact, apart from the use of phrases like Federation, Romulan, Vulcan, warp drive, etc., and the setting in space, this could have been any big-budget action film. It could have been “Die Hard in space” with very few changes. It bears little resemblance to the Star Trek movies of the past.

For example, in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, we learn that Captain Kirk is the only Starfleet Cadet ever to beat the Kobayashi Maru “no-win scenario” test. We’re told that Kirk “changed the conditions of the test” so that it was possible to rescue the crew of the Kobayashi Maru. In the end, he received a “commendation for original thinking”. Based on this description, we can infer a few things. First, Kirk’s modifications were probably very subtle. Had Kirk made very blatant, obvious changes like having the Klingon ships crash into each other and become disabled, his tampering would be easily detected and would hardly be seen as clever or original thinking. Second, Kirk would not have wanted to get caught, so while his modifications made it “possible” to rescue the Kobayashi Maru crew, it shouldn’t have made it “easy” to do so.

In the J.J. Abrams Star Trek universe, Kirk has apparently lost quite a few IQ points. Not only do his modifications make it “possible” to save the crew, they practically make it impossible not to. And, far from trying to conceal his tampering with the test, the “new” Kirk loudly munches an apple during the test, practically ignoring everything that happens around him until the lights go out and his “cheat code” takes effect. Then, he suggests they check the Klingon shields, which just so happen to be down at the moment and allow for a devastating attack. He then half-heartedly makes the attack and rescue orders to the crew. It’s an amazingly cocky, stupid, unoriginal, and inelegant way to “beat” the “no-win” scenario. It’s no wonder that this Starfleet doesn’t award him a commendation for original thinking but instead puts him on trial. More than anything else, it shows that “new Kirk” is first and foremost a stupid, cocky, overly-confident ass. He doesn’t deserve the respect of his peers or his superiors.

But there’s more wrong with this movie than that single scene. I also found myself wondering what the heck was wrong with the new Spock. Leonard Nimoy’s Spock was logical, tormented by (and ashamed of) his feelings, and very much a “by the book” guy most of the time. The new Spock openly falls in love, becomes enraged, and lets his feelings control him. In a sense, everything that made Nimoy’s Spock an interesting, compelling character was tossed out the window for an awkward love scene in a turbolift and a make-out session on the transporter pad with a character the original Spock never showed an interest in. Why did the writers feel the need to shoehorn a love scene into this film? Is that supposed to make it appeal to women? Are women so easily entertained that a couple of quick romantic scenes in an action film are supposed to appease them? I think not. The women I know are smarter and more sophisticated than that. I’m married to one of them.

But Spock’s love life wasn’t the only bit of nonsense surrounding that character. When placed in charge of the ship, Spock and Kirk are at odds over what to do about Nero. Spock wants to follow orders and reconnect with the fleet. Kirk thinks this is suicide and wants to go on the attack. Kirk attempts and fails at a mutiny. Rather than place him in the brig, Spock orders him tossed off the ship. Excuse me, but even in an “alternate” Starfleet, aren’t there rules about locking up prisoners first so they can stand trial? Maybe if Kirk escaped from the brig you might toss him off the ship if you think he’s a threat to the safety of the crew, but only then. And marooning him on a planet so dangerous that the escape pod recommends staying put seems just short of sentencing him to death. I know Spock was supposed to be distraught because of the destruction of his home world, but that’s no excuse for him to virtually kill a fellow crew member.

Nero’s motivations and actions are questionable as well. Romulus is destroyed (in the future) by a supernova. That’s not the Federation’s fault. Spock even attempts to save Romulus, even though they’re enemies of the Federation, but fails. Instead of focusing on taking that supernova out of commission centuries before it can do harm, Nero decides to blame Spock and go on a rampage against the Federation. He waits decades to catch Spock and his ship full of “red matter” (whatever that is… wouldn’t the more-real “dark matter” have made more sense?). When he has Spock and the red matter under his control, his plan is later reported to be to have Spock watch helplessly as Vulcan is destroyed. How does Nero achieve this? By releasing Spock on a nearby planet with a Federation outpost! Not just any planet, but one so dangerous that it’s not safe to travel around outdoors. What if Spock is so busy fighting for his life that he doesn’t even see Vulcan destroyed? So much for Nero’s “clever” revenge. What if Spock makes his way to that outpost and manages to stop Nero (since, after all, Spock apparently knows how to transport across vast distances with a “common” transporter now)? Wouldn’t it have made far more sense for Nero to have kept Spock aboard his ship, chained up next to a viewport, under heavily armed guard to prevent his escape, to ensure that he has nothing else to do but watch as his world is destroyed? Dropping Spock on the planet was nothing more than a device for the writers to explain how Kirk would rejoin the Enterprise crew when doing so should have been impossible.

How that little miracle was accomplished was nothing short of ridiculous as well. We’re led to believe that Scotty has known for years how to beam someone across vast distances in space onto targets moving at warp speed. If that’s the case, why go back to the Enterprise where you might just be tossed out again or slapped into irons? Why not beam to Spock’s ship in Nero’s hold, and use its weapons to destroy Nero’s ship from the inside? Why go back to the Enterprise, waste time getting Spock to show his emotions, and then play catch-up to Nero? For that matter, if we can beam across the universe, why is it we need starships at all now? Why not just beam from planet to planet? It’s like the writers wrote themselves into a corner and pulled this magical tech out of nowhere to save themselves. It’s poor writing if you ask me.

We have to wonder about just how Nero figured out how to carry out his plan., too By his own admission, he was a mining ship captain, not a scientist. So exactly how did he know how to work with “red matter”, how to get the right amount to implode a planet without getting his ship sucked into it, etc.? The story just doesn’t seem that well thought out.

I’m aware this little rant has likely painted me in the role of “typical fanboy”. So be it. The problem with many recent science fiction shows and movies, this film included, is that Hollywood executives want to make science fiction appeal to a wider audience so they can make more money from it. To do this, they think it’s necessary to shun career science fiction writers in favor of people who have no interest or experience in the genre. Being unaware of what makes for good science fiction, they cram their shows full of action, one-liners, and special effects… While this may sell, it’s not science fiction, and it’s not Star Trek as far as I’m concerned.

admin Movies

System Administration Lessons Learned from Star Trek

November 25th, 2008

1. “You have to know how things work on a starship…” (Star Trek II)

Kirk’s old enemy, Khan, took command of the Reliant, a Federation starship.  When the Reliant approached the Enterprise, Kirk hesitated to raise his shields.  This gave Khan the opportunity to attack and severely damage the defenseless Enterprise.  Kirk retaliated by using his superior knowledge of Federation technology to remotely order the Reliant to drop its shields, allowing Kirk to launch an effective counterattack.  When asked how he knew the strategy would work, Kirk remarked that (if you’re the captain) you have to know how things work on a starship.

Similarly, if you’re a Windows System Administrator, you have to know how PC hardware works and how Windows itself works if you’re going to be very effective.  Since becoming a Windows administrator, I’ve had to dig deeply into the Registry, crash logs, technical references, and programming guides to solve some of the more challenging issues to come my way.  The more I know about how things work (or how they’re supposed to work), the more effective I tend to be.

2. “A no-win situation is the possibility every commander may face.” (Star Trek II)

In Starfleet Academy, the Federation tests potential officers by putting them in a simulated situation that they cannot win.  This is done to see how they react to the pressure and inevitable defeat.  Having just “failed” this unpassable test, a cadet asks Kirk why they are put through it.  He says that a no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face at some point (though Kirk himself cheated his way out of it and won the “no-win” scenario).

In system administration, there are problems that will come your way that you simply can’t fix.  Maybe it’s a system that’s been hit by too many viruses, a Registry that’s too corrupted to be sorted out, or hardware that just doesn’t work.  You can spend hours or days trying to fix a problem like this without ever really solving it.  You have to know when you’re facing a “no-win scenario” and cut your losses by walking away from the problem.  That might mean wiping the system and reinstalling everything instead of spending hours correcting a series of problems, tossing out a piece of hardware that “ought to work” but somehow doesn’t, or giving up on software that simply doesn’t do what it’s advertised to do.

3. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one.” (Star Trek II)

Spock gave up his life at the end of Star Trek II to save the Enterprise and her crew.  When asked by Captain Kirk why he did it, Spock replied that the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few, or the one.  In other words, Spock knew that by giving up his life he could save many others.

In system administration, you’re probably not going to be faced with a “life or death” choice like this, but almost daily you’re faced with situations where the needs of your end user community (”the many”) dictate actions you (”the one”) take.  For example, you may find yourself at the office after hours, sacrificing your personal time in order to complete a software upgrade, patch a server, or otherwise do something that would inconvenience users if you tried to do it during the work day.  Chances are, you’re also probably “on call” to help those same users if they have problems late at night or on the weekend, and you’re expected to help them.  The needs of the many, in this case, outweigh your own needs.

4. “Mr. Scott, have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of four?  Certainly, sir. How else can I keep my reputation as a miracle worker?” (Star Trek III)

Mr. Scott admitted to Captain Kirk in Star Trek III that he had always multiplied his repair estimates by a factor of four.  This gave him the opportunity to take all the time he needed to solve a problem, while still completing the task more quickly than the captain had expected.  As a result, he was seen as a miracle worker by Captain Kirk.

In system administration, you’re often asked how long something is going to take.  While I don’t recommend multiplying your estimate by four, I do believe that you should always practice the principle of “underpromise and over-deliver” when dealing with others.  A task that looks like it should be a one-hour job can easily become a 2-3 hour job if things go wrong, the system begins responding too slowly, an emergency arises that you need to address first, etc.  If you tell someone something will take an hour and you aren’t done two hours later, they’re angry.  But if you tell them it will take two hours and you’re done in 90 minutes, you’re a miracle worker.  I’m not suggesting that you make a habit of lying, but rather that you give yourself a little breathing room to allow for things you might have forgotten, things that take longer than expected, or unexpected circumstances.

5. “The fancier the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.” (Star Trek III)

In Star Trek III, Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise essentially “stole” the ship in order to save Spock and Doctor McCoy.  Mr. Scott expected the Federation’s newest, fastest, fanciest ship (the Excelsior) to be given the task of pursuing the older, slower Enterprise.  He removed a handful of critical computer chips from the Excelsior’s system while working on it, preventing the ship from being able to give chase.  When asked how he managed to sabotage the Excelsior in a way that they didn’t detect, he replied that the fancier the plumbing was, the easier it was to stop up the drain.  In other words, the systems on the Excelsior were so complicated that it was easy to screw them up.

System administrators often have several ways to deal with a situation.  Some ways are simpler than others.  You should always be wary of any solution that has too many potential “points of failure”.  While an elaborate Perl script might push out an urgent security patch to 10 systems simultaneously from the comfort of your desk chair, you could over-think the script and end up accidentally applying that patch to 100 systems you didn’t want to apply it to.  Sometimes it’s better to keep things simple, because it can reduce the chance of failure or allow you to respond more quickly.  Similarly, you can “over engineer” a solution to a problem and spend more time architecting a clever solution to something you could fix manually in a few minutes.

6. “Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” (Star Trek III)

When asked why the crew of the Enterprise risked their lives and their careers to save Spock in Star Trek III, Captain Kirk told him that sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.  In other words, Spock was their friend and they were willing to risk themselves because he meant more to them than their lives or careers.

In systems administration tasks, sometimes you have to do things that make a lot of people very unhappy.  For example, when pushing out security patches it is often necessary to reboot someone’s PC to complete the installation.  Naturally, if that person has documents open in Microsoft Office when you reboot them, they’re not going to be happy about it.  Multiply that over a large organization, and that simple reboot action can upset a lot of people.  However, as a system administrator, you’re responsible for protecting your network from malware.  While “the many” users’ needs may dictate that their PCs not be rebooted, your responsibility as “the one” who protects the network must outweigh theirs.  This is not to say that you’re more important, or that you should be fine with mid-day reboots as a matter of practice, but rather that there will be times in the job where you’ve got to risk the wrath of the users for a greater good.

7. “Perhaps ‘because it is there’ is not sufficient reason for climbing a mountain.”  (Star Trek V)

In Star Trek V, Captain Kirk is attempting to climb a mountain when he slips and begins to fall off.  Spock saves him at the last second.  Later, Spock tells Kirk that perhaps “because it is there” isn’t a good enough reason to risk your life climbing a mountain.

There are times in system administration where there is something that you can technically do, but which isn’t a good idea when examined more closely.  Maybe you have a script that could update all the company’s computers with the latest Windows Service Pack overnight.  You might even be tempted to do it, since your management’s asking you about when you’re going to get the job done.  However, just because you can roll that Service Pack out in a heartbeat doesn’t mean that’s the right thing to do.  You could come in the next morning and find out that the Service Pack you pushed out last night broke the salespeople’s contact management software, the accountants’ general ledger program, and the CEO’s favorite screensaver.  Suddenly, instead of being the miracle worker you thought you were going to be, you’re on everyone’s hit list.  There are times in system administration when caution is needed, and experience will often help you know when climbing the proverbial mountain is a good idea and when it isn’t.

8.  “An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible,whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” (Star Trek VI)

In Star Trek VI, when attempting to figure out who assassinated the Klingon Chancelor, Spock began investigating his shipmates to identify the assassins.  When he came up with a seemingly incredible solution, he uttered the famous line above (which is paraphrased from Sherlock Holmes).

System administrators are often called upon to troubleshoot the strangest problems.  Sometimes the solution to those problems can be counterintuitive, and may even sound “impossible”.  Here’s a real-life example from my Windows 98 days.  The company had just implemented a new application in the Marketing and Finance areas.  For some reason, the laptop users in Marketing were getting a lot of “out of memory” errors when trying to use the application.  They requested more RAM.  We installed it.  The out of memory errors became even more frequent.  I started doing some research online and learned about a table kept by Windows 98 that was used to manage the available RAM.  My research indicated that the table had a fixed size and under certain conditions could “fill up” on the user.  One way you could free up space in this table was to remove some RAM.  I tried this on the Marketing laptops and, sure enough, the “out of memory” errors went away.  So, as impossible as it might seem, removing memory from the machines cleared up an “out of memory” error.

9. “People can be very frightened of change.” (Star Trek VI)

In Star Trek VI, the Klingons suffered an environmental disaster that threatened to destroy their civilization.  As a result, they sought peace with the Federation, a change from their long-standing policy of conflict and subjugation.  In both the Federation and the Klingon Empire, there were people who had hated their rivals so much, and for so long, that the prospect of peace between the two governments was something they couldn’t stomach.  It was said that such people were frightened of change (the coming peace).

This is very true in the Information Technology (IT) world.  When system administrators are about to make any kind of a signficant change, they’re often required to document, justify, explain, and test the change well in advance of making it.  Inevitably, you will eventually change something that causes a problem.  Perhaps some Excel macros quit working after you upgrade Microsoft Office, or the new version of Internet Explorer doesn’t work with an application used in Human Resources.  Those unfortunate consequences tend to make organizations as a whole resistant to change, even fearful of it.  As a system administrator, one of your responsibilities is to introduce change in a manner that allows you to control the potential negative impacts.

When we planned to roll out Windows XP Service Pack 2 (a while ago), I helped test as many of the applications used around the company as possible.  I would try to identify if Firewall changes would be needed, if the application required one of the “compatibility mode” options, if it would need to be patched, etc.  The point of all the hours I put in doing those things was to minimize the disruptive effects of upgrading to Windows XP Service Pack 2.  By all accounts, our hard work paid off and there were few, if any, complaints once the software began rolling out across the organization.

10. “One of the advantages of being a captain, Doctor, is being able to ask for advice without necessarily having to take it.” (ST:TOS “Dagger of the Mind”)

In the original Star Trek series, Captain Kirk often sought the advice of his senior officers.  Even though he sought their advice on how to deal with a problem, he did not always heed it.

Systems administrators typically work in teams.  Members of teams typically have one or more areas of expertise, and other areas where their expertise may be less extensive.  As a member of the team, you should always be willing to seek the advice of your teammates when you’re about to do anything that might reflect negatively on the team if it goes wrong.  Just because you ask for a teammate’s advice, however, doesn’t mean you have to follow it.  Sometimes your own expertise or experience may “trump” the advice of a teammate, however well-intentioned and intelligent the advice might be.  The key lies in knowing when to take advice and when to ignore it, which is something you learn with time and experience.

11. “Power is danger.” (ST:TOS “Balance of Terror”)

A commonly uttered security mantra is that you should give users only the amount of administrative ability necessary for them to do their jobs, and no more.  If users don’t have a business need for administrator access to their systems, they shouldn’t have it.  In this way, if those same users introduce malware to your network via an infected floppy, CD, USB key, etc., that malware will have a hard time spreading.  Having no administrator access will also prevent them from installing unauthorized or pirated software, shutting off their computer’s firewall, or doing other things that could compromise the security and stability of your network.

Similarly, as a system administrator you should always be careful and deliberate with your actions when you’re using administrator permission on a machine.  Don’t do indescriminate web browsing with the administrator account.  Don’t run untested scripts against lots of end user machines.  Don’t delete files you aren’t sure about.  In short, recognize that your “godlike” powers over the computer make you dangerous, and always use those powers sparingly and carefully.

12. “Leave bigotry in your quarters; there’s no room for it on the bridge.” (ST:TOS “Balance of Terror”)

System administrators tend to be the kind of people who like to tinker with things.  Even though we may be Mac administrators, we dabble in Windows or Linux.  If we’re Linux administrators, we can’t resist the urge to fiddle with a script on OS X or a batch file on Windows.  Because we have a lot of experience, we can sometimes become opinionated about technology, to the point of bigotry.  In a corporate setting, this kind of bigotry can be suicidal.  If your response to every Windows problem you’re asked to resolve is to launch into a missive about how this wouldn’t be a problem on the Mac, you’re in the wrong job.  Unless they happen to ask for them, users don’t want your opinions about the technology they’re using.  Most of them could care less whether they’re using Windows, OS X, Linux, or something else.  They just want to do their jobs, and they need you to fix the problem that’s keeping them from working.  You may have a long list of reasons why the company should dump Windows and move to Linux or OS X. They might be very intelligent, objective, and thoughtful reasons.  But if you’re being paid to administer Windows, you should keep those opinions to yourself unless asked for them. You’ll just create unrest and friction with your co-workers, and that doesn’t help anyone.

13. “The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play.” (ST:TOS “Shore Leave”)

Most people adorn their offices with a few well-chosen artifacts.  Perhaps they’re pictures of loved ones, awards they’ve won, or souvenirs from their travels.  System administrators have those things too, but they also tend to like little toys.  For example, I’ve often got a netbook, an MP3 player, and some other gizmo keeping me company.  They might be expensive gadgets to other people, but they’re fun toys to me, and it helps me to reduce my stress to play around with them occasionally… such as on my lunch hour.  Systems administrators tend to be fun, playful, and funny people (once you get to know them).  The complex web of information we have to master and use on a daily basis tends to make us seek out “fun” when we’re not working or need a break.

14. “Insufficient facts always invite danger.” (ST:TOS “Space Seed”)

In the original Star Trek, Captain Kirk freed Khan Noonien Singh and his crew from an extended hibernation.  Khan and his crew were evasive about who they were and what they were doing on the ship they were rescued from.  Both Spock and Kirk did their best to extract information from them, but got very little.  Kirk noticed that Spock seemed uncomfortable with their new guests.  When asked why, he explained that they knew little about them, and that this lack of knowledge could be dangerous.  Later, Khan and his crew attempted to take control of the Enterprise.  Spock was right not to trust them.

System administrators who are willing to jump in and start working with something they know little about often learn through (bad) experience to become more cautious.  In handling security patches, for instance, I’m very careful.  When a new patch comes in, I have no way of knowing if that patch will break a critical business system, prevent systems from booting up, or force a reboot in the middle of the CEO’s presentation to the executive board.  Before I release the patch to anyone else, I try it on my own system first to see how it behaves.  I then try it on my teammates and nearby co-workers.  If it doesn’t cause a problem for them, I begin slowly fanning it out to the rest of the company.  Once I learn that the patch seems harmless I will then allow it to make its way on to large numbers of computers.  I make every effort to learn as much as I can about the patch before letting it “run loose” on the network.

15. “Either one of us, by himself, is expendable. Both of us are not.” (ST:TOS “The Devil in the Dark”)

It’s not uncommon in system administration for there to be one person who handles a specific task, with another person serving as backup to that person.  The logic is to ensure that if the primary person gets sick, goes on vacation, takes a job elsewhere, or is hit by a bus, the team can continue to do the things it is responsible for.  It’s a bad idea for the primary and the backup to be out of the office at the same time, and should be avoided if at all possible.  Inevitably, the day you’re both out of the office there will be a major crisis in your area of expertise, and no one there who can resolve the problem.

16. “If I can have honesty, it’s easier to overlook mistakes.” (ST:TOS “Space Seed”)

Sooner or later, you’re going to make a mistake.  Maybe you accidentally deleted some critical files from a server.  Maybe you meant to adjust the firewall settings and ended up turning it off.  It might be something relatively minor, or heart-stoppingly major.  Whatever mistake you make, be willing to own up to it.  There’s nothing to be gained by lying to your teammates or management to cover up a mistake.  If you own up to your mistakes, people will respect and trust you.  If you lie about them, they soon realize they can’t rely on you and begin to resent you for the time they spend uncovering the truth.  Demand honesty from your coworkers, but deliver it in return.

17. “No one can guarantee the actions of another.” (ST:TOS “Day of the Dove”)

As part of system administration, or indeed any job, it can be necessary to make assumptions about how people will react to something and predict how they’ll deal with it.  But just because a particular reaction seems logical, reasonable, and expected, don’t assume everyone will do it.  Always make allowances in your plans, your scripts, and your procedures for your end users to do the illogical, unexpected, and “wrong thing at the wrong time”.  Build in the safeguards you can to prevent as many problems as you reasonably can, but realize that no matter how hard you try, there’s likely to be someone who does something you didn’t plan for.

admin Windows Administration , ,

Star Trek Meets Monty Python

July 29th, 2006

Some clever YouTube person has created a video that mixes the original Star Trek series footage with music from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  It’s quite well done:

 

admin television , ,

Why Star Trek: Enterprise Failed

September 2nd, 2005

As many of you know, the UPN series “Star Trek: Enterprise”
was taken off the air earlier this year, never to return. 
Paramount tells us that they don’t plan to introduce a new Star Trek
series for at least a couple of years.  Reasons I’ve seen given by
the Paramount executives for the series’ failure include:

  • Competition with four previous series running in syndication
    (1)
  • There’s some “erosion” of interest in the
    franchise (1)
  • Low ratings (2)
  • There’s no longer an
    audience for science-fiction (3)

Though I am not
convinced that anything other than the “low ratings” have
anything to do with the real reason the show was canceled, the reasons
themselves show some surprising lack of touch with the Star Trek fan
base.  If people really are watching re-runs of the four older
series instead of the new one, that should tell you that the new series
isn’t “reaching” the hearts and minds of your audience. 
If there is an erosion of interest in the franchise, then you must be
doing something wrong.  Consider Doctor Who on the BBC, which has
managed to deliver what its audience has wanted for decades without any
such “erosion”.  And if there was no longer an audience
for science-fiction, why has the Sci-Fi Channel found such success with
Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and Battlestar Galactica?  Why
are audiences still watching Star Trek: The Original Series, etc.? 
No, it wasn’t competition with other Star Trek series, erosion of
interest, or the lack of an audience for science-fiction that caused the
low ratings for Enterprise and its subsequent demise.  It was the
lack of a vision.

Read more…

admin television , , , , , , ,