I've watched almost all of the episodes of Enterprise (the newest Star Trek TV series), and have been wildly disappointed in most of them. However, the most recent episode I watched, ``Cease Fire'', was pretty good. I came to this conclusion before, and this episode confirms it; Rick Berman and Brannon Braga should not be allowed to write episodes of Star Trek.

Of the forty-one episodes of Enterprise aired thus far they have written or co-written all but thirteen: ``Breaking the Ice'', ``Civilization'', ``Fortunate Son'', ``Cold Front'', ``Silent Enemy'', ``Dear Doctor'', ``Sleeping Dogs'', ``Minefield'', ``Dead Stop'', ``Singularity'', ``The Catwalk'', ``Dawn'', and ``Cease Fire''. While some of these are stinkers, too, I believe that the vast majority of the good episodes are in this list of thirteen. Which is not to say that all of the B&B episodes are stinkers, but few of them are good.

In particular, I believe that the best episodes of Enterprise, the ones I feel stand head and shoulders above the rest, of which I count only two, are all in that list: ``Dear Doctor'' and ``Cease Fire''. On the other hand, B&B have written the ``Tucker gets stuck alone with X'' episode, I believe, three times (of which the first, in all honesty, wasn't bad), followed once more by ``Dawn'', in the list above.

Why can't they let other people write episodes? There's no excuse for writing three-quarters of the episodes when most of them are bad.

You may ask why I continue to watch it, and that's a good question. It's because it does have a lot of promise. They obviously have a lot of money to throw at the show, and despite some of my misgivings about some of the show's premises, it has a lot of promise, if only they would exploit it or allow it to happen.

Sorry for the rant.

I've watched almost all of the episodes of Enterprise (the newest Star Trek TV series), and have been wildly disappointed in most of them.

He never leaps out at the end. I'm so confused.

I have a lot of friends who watch the show, but I just can't get into it. Admittedly I've only tried two episodes, but they were both fairly boring. I suppose it just left a bad taste in my mouth. Of course, I didn't like DS9 or Voyager either . . .

Yeah I noticed that too. And why don't I ever hear them talking to ziggy?

As I said, most of the episodes are bad. The only reason I watch it is because I desperately want it to be good, and have been rewarded once or twice.

Voyager also stank, at least based on the episodes I watched.

DS9, however, is one of the better science fiction TV shows ever broadcast. But you couldn't just watch one or two episodes, as there was character and plot development, and the character development is arguably the point of the show.

I kind of got that about DS9, but I didn't really have a consistent enough schedule to catch every episode. I heard that Babylon 5 had an excellent story if you followed the show, and I may check that one out when I finish getting all of TNG DVD's.

As for Voyager, I saw a couple of episodes I liked, I just couldn't stand Janeway. Star Trek in general has difficulty writing strong women characters, and Janeway was one of the worst. I liked 7 of 9, but people never take me seriously that I thought she was an interesting character (they tend to emphasise other things). Janeway killed it for me though, no matter what the other characters or plot were like.

Babylon 5 was also excellent, especially if you just don't watch the fifth and final season.

DS9 is about to come out on DVD, at least in the states. Maybe your local video rental store will carry it. The first season is not particularly good (it's not bad), but force your way through it. There's a lot of setup in there for later seasons. Actually, the same could be said for Babylon 5, too.

DS9 is still my favourite of all the spinoffs. This is, as you point out, because it actually has a plot (several, in fact), and develops this plot pretty successfully and consistently over the series. All the other trek shows were very episodic, with nothing much ever happening that affected future events or referred to past ones.

Babylon 5 is like this as well, but even more so, to the point that you pretty much HAVE to start at the beginning and watch them all in order or it doesn't make any sense. Farscape also both suffers and benefits from this.

Enterprise is in some ways fairly plot driven in its own right, but definitely suffers from pretty bad writing much of the time. It could be so much better, which is the depressing thing about it.

pca

And why don't I ever hear them talking to ziggy?

That would have been Al's problem, but I'm told he was on, and didn't...

You know, I loved TNG, one of my favorite shows of all time. I tried to love DS9, watched something like three seasons before I had to give up on it for good. Voyager lasted a season, Enterprise lasted about 5 episodes. I blame Berman, his vision sucks.

Babylon 5 was a great show, And for most of the run I thought it was perhaps better than TNG even, but when they resolved the Shadow War in such a terrible way, I got disgusted and never went back. To this day I don't know what eventually happened.

Since then, I keep waiting for another good sci-fi show. X-files is too fantasy based, Sliders was too badly acted, Space Above and Beyond had promise, but went unfulfilled, Stargate was too silly, and I don't get the Sci-fi channel.

What happened to that new show Firefly? I saw the pilot, and it didn't suck, but I never saw any reference to it again.

The pilot was the last episode of ten or so that they showed. There might be a few more shown, but Fox declined to pick it up for next season. Supposedly, they're still working on trying to get someone else to produce it. It was often excellent. Unfortunately, the first few episodes of it that they showed were just kinda boring.

I tend to agree with you about all of those show except DS9.

The best science fiction TV show of all time, though, was Max Headroom.

Space Ghost, ohh yeah

I like the X-files, in fact I'm colleting those DVD's too. I can't even think of it as a rival to Star Trek, however; I like the shows for different reasons.

I've watched almost all of the episodes of Enterprise (the newest Star Trek TV series), and have been wildly disappointed in most of them.

Thunderous roar of Applause

I'm glad you're prepared to say something that I have been unable to say so far, for fear of a lynch mob. It seems to criticise this series is to commit sacriledge: I've been watching Star Trek in it's many forms since I was a 7 year old, hiding behind a settee from the monsters, back in 1968. I think I am something of a big fan, and yet - this "back to the roots" series has been pure, untold, disappointment. Why?

Am I being a TOS purist? Am I being a movie monster? Am I being an NG nihilist? Why am I not allowed to say that I found DS 9 to be mystifying crap, and Voyager pure BOOOORRRRREDOMMMMMM? Now hang on, before you all dive in, I have been a science fiction fan (in it's many forms) since I picked up and devoured Heinlein's "Space Cadet" at the library in '68. I have around 2,000 SF novels lining the walls here and elsewhere: I have videos of some of the most impressive SF movies ever made: and yet, whilst I can see they have made an effort with Enterprise, I am disappointed, 'cos they have gone wrong. No one agrees with me.

Consider: the greater majority of the creative crew behind TOS were called back for NG. Although a slow starter, it grew (episodes like "Best of Both Worlds", "Tapestry" and "All Good Things" among others stick out in the mind) and maintained continuity with TOS. DS-9 and V were obvious technological progressions from the first two series, but were not creative progressions. The difference? Rick Berman had become the "Keeper of the Flame" following Roddenberry's death rather than the obvious choices of Harve Bennet/Leonard Nimoy.

With the need for a new franchise series becoming rapidly apparent with creaky viewing figures for DS9 and V, given the increased technological complexity generated by the expansion of the ST universe forced by these two series' need to maintain "backwards compatibility" (visions of DOS and W95 spring to mind here), they took the inevitable choice to reduce the problems of historical and technological complexity by positioning the new series earlier in the chronology of the ST universe. Good idea, bad execution

The breaks in continuity created by the insertion of this series before TOS to me are obvious, and less so to others. Things as simple as bringing the Voyager/DS9 "door chime" noise back to pre TOS times (where it didn't exist) irritates me since it shows no-one either noticed, or could be bothered to check, that this was the case. Although you don't knock on a sliding door in a spaceship, why was no careful thought put into this tiny subtlety, in order to win over existing fans to the fold? The bosun's whistle sound from TOS (used for inter-ship paging) was carefully modified for NG, discarded for DS9 and V, and ignored in Enterprise. Why? If that ship predated TOS, and it was maintained from sea-faring traditions in the TOS period, why not in the "earlier" Enterprise?

I'm sorry: when I first viewed the Enterprise pilot, I really wanted it to be good, I really did. But when I did see it (and the following 8 episodes) I felt overwhelming disappointment that the attention to detail required for this series to accurately predate TOS had not been put in.It's too slick for it's own good: it's hide bound with jargon (a RB/BB characteristic), it uses visual and dialogue shortcuts that rely on the audience's knowledge of the "later" series before they have occurred chronologically. Instead of enjoying the program, I ended up extensively nit-picking it for trivial detail faults (and yet - there were certain details that showed they had put in some effort - the officer's mess, the size of the quarters, other things - that would have "evolved" out of fleet practice by the time of TOS and later movies).

It is my opinion: the producers thought that they were smart by trying to reduce their production problems by stepping back in the chronology of the concept. By doing this, they reasoned that they could "establish" concepts and details without having the "history" of an already established, complex universe to comply to. However, it is my assertion that this reasoning is incorrect since if they were trying to do this, they were therefore establishing the foundation of the very continuity problems they were trying to avoid - every detail, every storyline of every following episode and movie pointed back to the beginning - "Enterprise". It was therefore prevalent on the producers and the creative team to be 10, a 100 times more rigidly constrained by existing "future history" than if they had simply created yet another follow-on series.

Sorry guys (at Paramount). You failed to convince me. You've lost part of your audience...

God knows what they're gonna do for the next movie....

Things as simple as bringing the Voyager/DS9 "door chime" noise back to pre TOS times (where it didn't exist)

Rob, the empeg door bell makes exactly the same chime and this is only the 21st century! Perhaps the fashion for chimes runs in cycles?

Ha ha! Dammit, you are right, maybe I should give "Enterprise" a second chance after all.....

The pilot was the last episode of ten or so that they showed.

You know, I am surprised they made that many, 'cause I never heard about any of them. It seems Fox hyped the pilot up big time, and then hid it from view therafter. I would have watched more if Fox had ever mentioned that it was still on.

The best science fiction TV show of all time, though, was Max Headroom.

I watched quite a few of those, but it was such a long time ago that I don't remember much of it. I did remember liking it though.

Anybody remember a series called "The Tommorrow People", about a bunch of kids with psychic powers? It was a British show that made to the states on Nickeldeon. It was geared towards kids, but very intelligent, and was the first sci-fi show I ever watched. I don't remember much of it either, but I remember that I really really liked it.

Yup, I've even got a couple of the episode novelistations on the shelf here. It was ITV's attempt to match Dr. Who around the Jon Pertwee phase. They unashamedly nicked the concept of "Jaunting" from "The Stars My Destination" - 5 points if you can get the author of that masterpiece. Read it recently?

> Stargate was too silly

That's why I like it. Richard Dean Anderson's influence is all over that show and it makes it much more fun to watch.

The Stars My Destination - Alfred Bester, 1956ish I think.

Haven't read it in years, but I'm pretty sure it's around here somewhere. I don't have your easy system of only around 2000 books so things get misplaced

pca

My vote goes to Futurama. Now that it's on Adult Swim and I can finally watch it, it's got to be one of the funniest shows around. Too bad Fox never gave it any attention...

Fox panned it (Futurama) because it was forced on them along with the Simpsons. I guess somebody (probably not Groening) got "creative" with the contract.
I really enjoy it but the shoddy time slot Fox gave it made it unwatchable.
Hear hear! for Adult Swim.


Z~

With TiVo / ReplayTV, it really doesn't matter what time slot it is in, or even if it changes week to week. Just a thought...

-Biscuits

Why am I not allowed to say that I found DS 9 to be mystifying crap

DS-9 and V were obvious technological progressions from the first two series, but were not creative progressions. The difference? Rick Berman had become the "Keeper of the Flame"

I'd like to reiterate my earlier statement that DS9 was mostly excellent. And the reason for this, IMO, is, even though Rick Berman's name appeared as Executive Producer on every episode, DS9 was Ira Steven Behr's baby, and Michael Piller's to a lesser extent, IMO. I actually bought and read the DS9 companion when my local station was showing reruns, and it's amazing how infrequently Berman is mentioned. It's usually only in ``can we do this'' instances. The majority of the production staff on DS9 were writers, and it shows. Not to mention that they managed to get a hold of most of the good writers from TNG (Behr, Rene Echevarria, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Ronald Moore, Hans Beimler), while the simpletons went to Voyager. Importantly, Brannon Braga never touched DS9 with his stupid one-trick-pony writing. He was on TNG until it ended and then went to Voyager.

Another point is that there were a good number of excellent actors on the show: Avery Brooks, Rene Auberjonois, Armin Shimerman, Michael Dorn, and Colm Meaney. Of course, the rest of the leads weren't exactly great, but they grew into their roles well. But the supporting actors were often phenomenal: Max Grodenchik as Rom, Andrew Robinson as Garak, Jeffrey Combs as several characters, J.G. Hertzler as Martok, Louise Fletcher as Kai Winn, and, especially, Marc Alaimo as Dukat.

Anyway....

Can you tell I like the show?

I have to agree with the DS9, I loved the series and have been waiting for a followup for that finale!
Voyager was OK, just a bit lame.
But Enterprise breaks so many concepts that the other series had established.
Face it, T'Pol only wears that catsuit for the ratings, every other Vulcan before and after, male or female wears either a starfleet uniform or body hiding robes. The only thing more blatant was that infamous wrestling episode with the Rock in Voyager.

It is fun seeing Jeffery Combs (Brunt/Wayoon in DS9) yet again though.

I think I can give them this series to get it right but thats about the limit.

edit
Actually, Jeffery Combs reminds me. He was also in the Ferengi episode. Where they encounter the Ferengi long before the TNG make first contact with Ferengi. In fact in the TNG episode, they don't even know what Ferengi look like.
Berman needs to remove himself as the 'Keeper of the Flame' he is just to crap at it.

In reply to:

---

But the supporting actors were often phenomenal: Max Grodenchik as Rom, Andrew Robinson as Garak, Jeffrey Combs as several characters, J.G. Hertzler as Martok, Louise Fletcher as Kai Winn, and, especially, Marc Alaimo as Dukat.

---

Dukat and Garak were/are two of my all-time favourite trek characters. I'm not entirely sure why. Dukat was at best amoral and at worst actively evil, but somehow worked as a character far better than the vast majority of trek people. Garak was just damn good fun. In fact, thinking about it most of the opponents to star fleet were both more interesting and more believable than many of the 'good guys'.

Sisko was a much more human character than Picard was most of the time, flaws and all, and Janeway just makes me want to hit her. The only characters on Voyager I ever really found interesting were the Doctor and Seven (and not just for the two most obvious reasons )

I've been watching the original series recently, and the thing that stands out compared to much of the later efforts is that, despite Shatner's acting and the by todays standards rather sad sets and production, the stories were well worth watching. Some of it is a bit laughable, but that is largely 30 years of hindsight. At the time, I remember being quite impressed.

Looking at the list of authors who wrote for the original series, it's striking how many either were or became respected SF writers. Richard Matheson, Robert Bloch, Theodore Sturgeon, Fredric Brown, Harlan Ellison (The City on the Edge of Forever, possibly the best episode of all), Norman Spinrad, etc. They are all now considered some of the best. In thirty years, how many of the current crop of writers will be known in this way?

pca

I knew about the rest, but I didn't realize Spinrad wrote ``The Doomsday Machine''. Neat.

While CotEoF is a great episode, probably the best episode of TOS, and one of the best episodes in all Trek, DS9's ``The Visitor'' is probably the best episode of Trek ever.

I have to say I think the acting and characters on TNG was a lot of what made the show work for me. Especially if you watch the first season and realize how completly stupid some of Stewart's lines were that he pulled off, I really think the cast is what made that show work so well. There wasn't a character I didn't like (except for Yar and Polaski, who fortunately didn't last long enough to count).

I don't dislike Sisco, but he didn't do much for me either. I gradually just got too busy to watch DS9, so if some of the characters improved I didn't notice. I completly agree about Seven, she was one of best Star Trek characters ever.

Babylon 5 and Farscape seem to be my current favorites right now.. Farscape had a problem with wandering into the totaly wierd sometimes.. It didn't seem like they had a story arc in mind the way JWZ did for B5.

The story arc is a great thing, as long as there is a breather every once in a while. where newbies can hop on. I have several anime series that are great this way.. Off the top of my head, Trigun, Outlaw Star, Lain, Evangelion. All of them seemed to have atleast some start, middle, end in mind.

the way JWZ did for B5.

Um, I think you're confusing J. Michael Straczynski with Jamie Zawinski...

In reply to:

---

I don't dislike Sisco

---

I'm going on record saying that Avery Brooks is one of my favorite actors. I think I can watch him in anything. I mean come on, he's Hawk..

The amazing thing about him in DS9 is that he can go from Hawk-like intensity as the captain to remarkable tenderness with Jake, and all the range in between, in the blink of an eye, and it's all believable as the same character.

And I somehow managed to forget Brock Peters as Sisko's dad in my list of amazing supporting actors.

DS9's ``The Visitor'' is probably the best episode of Trek ever.

I'm not much of a Star Trek fan... but nonetheless I must take issue with your assessment, above. Best ever episode has to be this one.

tanstaafl.

Hmmm. Themes of brotherhood and betrayal. (Plus, in the guise of the ever popular ``torture O'Brien'' theme.)

Ever seen any John Woo movies? Or Reservoir Dogs? How about DS9's Sons of Mogh?

I'd totally disagree, but maybe you have brother issues where I have father issues.

Where they encounter the Ferengi long before the TNG make first contact with Ferengi. In fact in the TNG episode, they don't even know what Ferengi look like.

My contention exactly - I only saw about 8 episodes and I can't call other incidents to mind, but this is a prime example of what causes me to loose interest - they didn't do the job properly.

Of the forty-one episodes of Enterprise aired thus far

God, I hope they've changed the title sequence and shite music since the first few episodes, that alone has put me off watching.

We don't want retro-style intros to our Sc-Fi, we want fast gadgets & things that go "ping" & "swoosh" and lots of strobing (gets the adrenaline going you know ) and not forgetting a worthy uplifting musical score to top it all off.

Cheers, Sim

Nope, but since I record it on the TiVo, I've managed to hear it only once or twice.

It makes me very sad to hear they haven't changed it ,......but on the other hand, very glad that I've just bought a TiVo

Cheers, Sim

I never had a problem with the acting in DS9. And some of the characters were very well written. The problem is the show was just plain hateful. Was anyone really friends with anyone else? It seemed the show focused on cast members fighting amongst themselves most of the time, and I am sorry, I just don't want to see that. Of course we need conflict, but DS9 decided all the conflict should come from within, in contrast to TOS or TNG where it comes from without. It was a soap opera, in every sense of the word, and I hate soap operas.

That was why I didn't like TNG that nuch. Everyone was perfect all the time except for the occasional episode where someone was taken over by an external force. That's not interesting. No one ever grew. They were basically the same characters at the end of the series tha they were at the beginning.

On the other hand, DS9 people were, in many cases, very different. Things that happened to them affected them and their views of other people, and not just for that one episode.

Was anyone friends? Sure, but not all of them. You had different people brought together that had wildly opposing ideals, and the show was about how that worked, or didn't. In addition, I don't know that people in a military situation of varying ranks become friends. It's hard to view someone as your friend who might order you to your death tomorrow. And it would be pretty dumb for that commander to become your friend, as he might have the need to order you to your death. Respect is the name of the game.

As for all the conflict being internal, there was some of that, certainly more than on TNG, but there was also an invading force that was the driving force of the last four or five seasons. There were recurring characters from the enemy's side, as well, but I don't see how making them different characters each time would have helped.

As to your appelation of ``soap opera'', while I understand where you're coming from (that much of the action was internally driven), I totally disagree. Soap operas are usually defined by their high melodrama, and DS9 was hardly melodramatic. Actions had real consequences, not just immediate temporary peril, and the characters, again, grew and changed, something that soap operas tend to avoid.

Well, let me dig this one up from the grave, now that Enterprise is in it.

This last season was not bad. It had a few clunkers, but it was largely entertaining. In all, what an average season of a Star Trek show (or any show, for that matter) should be like.

First let me comment on one thing before I get to the finale: the two-part mirror universe story. Or should I say "story"? What the hell was that? It had none of the "real" universe characters, and more importantly, had basically no plot, and certainly no resolution. Can anyone fill me in on why this thing existed? On the other hand, it was still wildly better than all of the other episodes due to the lack of the theme song.

Now, onto the finale. As you can tell, I've never been a big fan of the show, despite my masochistic desire to watch every episode waiting for a good one. But you could at least have the decency of making the last episode of Enterprise be an episode of Enterprise instead of a thrown-away plot element of a minor episode of Next Generation. What was with that? So Riker is watching this historical footage to determine whether or not to tell Picard about the cloaking device? What was it he saw that led him to any sort of conclusion? And why did they have to kill off someone to fend off the same attacks that the Enterprise has withheld dozens of times before? At least we didn't get to see a funeral, or really even anyone being upset over it, at least any more than being forced to tidy up his quarters. And then they cut short the whole beginning of the Federation thing as if to say "That crap isn't important. What's really important is this other show we worked on fifteen years ago. This minor plot point is much more interesting."

Augh! This is what frustrated me about the show. The fact that Berman and Braga just didn't care about it or the Star Trek universe at all.

I read that Coto had plans to continue the mirror universe story in the 5th season. They found out that they were canceled during the filming of the second to last episode and had rewrite some of it.

As for the last episode Bevis and Butthead (Berman and Braga) only know how to F'up start Trek. The only season to be remotely any good was this one and they weren't involved until the final episode.

One interesting possibility, though, is in the fact that there seems to be quite a large gap (years, I guess), between the last real episode of series 4 and the kill off the series episode. So, in theory, if at some point someone wished to go back and do it right they could presumably insert more episodes, or even series, in before that last one without breaking anything.

pca

The point is, I don't care about the mirror universe except as part of the antagonism of a regular show. I suppose that you're right that there couldn't have been any regular characters in it so that Kirk will have been the first person to see the mirror universe. But to me, that's just a reason to not make the episode. The fact that the closest real Star Trek thing it ties to is from another series, just like the finale, is another dismissive swipe at Enterprise, in my opinion.

Add on to that that the story was dull, which may, in part, be due to the fact that I don't care about any of the characters, but more likely due to the fact that the plot was overwhelmingly simple and lacking in actual intrigue, especially considering that it was two hours, and I think you've got a bad episode of Star Trek. Then there's the fact that there were basically no science fiction elements to it. This could just as easily have taken place on an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger, or whatever other CBS show your grandmother is interested in, with exceedingly minor changes. (Now I'm not saying that every episode of Star Trek has to be a SFX extravaganza or deal with Einsteinian physics, but this was a mirror universe episode, and any character development is pointless due to the fact that they're characters we'll never see again.)

Argh. Can you tell that story made me angry. Oh, here's a way to tie it back to the "real" universe without having anyone in the show know about it. Have one of the mirror universe characters become stuck in the real universe. Heck, make one of them part of the show's regular cast. Anyway, I'll let it go now.

In regards to the Xindi soap opera thing: I disagree. The Xindi storyline sucked because it sucked. The fact that new viewers can't get into it is a problem, but it's irrelevant. Babylon 5 was tremendous (well, at least the first four seasons), and it was much more integrated than the Xindi story was. Here's an example of why Enterprise sucks from that very storyline. In one episode, Archer is forced to decide whether to turn to piracy in order to save the Earth and, by so doing, committing a ship and her innocent crew to death. He chooses to save the Earth and kill them. This is a great setup, I think. Archer might become conflicted about all sorts of decisions in the future; he might turn completely cold-hearted; he might start to reconsider Humanity's place in the Universe, and whether they should be exploring. There are a lot of things that could develop from that. What do the writers do instead? They completely ignore it, as if nothing had happened -- as if Archer hadn't sentenced dozens of innocent people to their deaths. What is the point of putting him in that situation if it doesn't have any ramifications? It's basically the psychological side of Trip making the engine do things that it's not supposed to be able to do -- Treknobabble when you get down to it. It's just a conflict that we don't understand that will be dismissively resolved without any sort of ramifications. (They did a much better job with the first season episode of "Dear Doctor", which raised similar points and actually dealt with them in some way.) This sort of complete lack of character development is what killed the show for me. Things got better when they hired Manny Coto as showrunner, but they still didn't give him much of a chance.

Anyway, apparently Berman and Braga saw that people actually liked shows with long storylines, so they created one themselves. But the reason that the long storylines work isn't because the story is long, but because you get the opporunity to throw away one of episodic TV's prime tenets, namely that every episode must end with the characters being exactly like they were at the beginning. It was a plot-oriented long storyline, but what they needed was a character-oriented long storyline. What I'm getting at is demonstrable through this exercise, I think: Pick a main character from Enterprise and tell me everything you can about them, and I don't mean a litany of events in the episodes. Then do the same thing with a major character from Babylon 5 or Deep Space 9. I think you'll find that the description of the Enterprise character will be fairly short and succinct, whereas a character from one of those other shows will be long and full of contradictions. They have actual conflict in their lives, not just a series of obstacles to overcome.

Again, sorry. This stuff just gets me frustrated. This is why science fiction TV will never be well accepted; the vast majority of it is just blowing stuff up. Of course, lots of non-SF TV is exactly the same.