Why was the 4th season so much better than the rest?

I've seen this sentiment all across the internet, as well as heard it from friends. Did UPN stop trying to throw their two cents in on every story or what? Season 4 seems to be what I had originally thought Enterprise would be. I'm just wondering if Berman and Braga finally got more say or if producers realized they'd pissed off the fans to the point that they had to try to appease them.

 

It was due to Manny Coto, and no thanks to B&B.

Unfortunately, Mr. Coto was stuck cleaning up a lot of nonsense from the mediocre first three seasons. (i.e. the Vulcan arc)

And the Friday night time slot didn't help. Not enough people noticed that the show was finally starting to get good, so it was cancelled.

Kor

 

That makes a lot of sense. To be honest, I blame Braga for a lot of problems in Star Trek but I've tried to convince myself that I'm being too hard on him. Berman pisses me off too but from what I can tell, he was heavily involved in DS9 and I love it to bits. That just leads me to believe Braga is the main issue but it's hard to tell.

It's too bad it was cancelled. I think it would've been interesting to explore the arc of T'pol being half Romulan, although I really dislike them.

 

IMHO, season three was superior to four. Unpredictable and exciting.

Four is fun, but it's mostly continuity porn aimed at die-hards.

 

It's my understanding that Berman was relatively "hands-off" when it came to DS9. That was much more Behr and Moore's show.

DS9 was kind of the "black sheep," and Berman was more involved with the frontline Star Trek stuff - TNG, the TNG movies, and later Voyager. This allowed DS9 the freedom to be more of its own thing.

So, yeah - even more evidence that Berman wasn't the creative force that you believed him to be.

 

Berman was a suit, never a creative artist in the usual sense of the term.

 

Thank you! I'm still struggling thru a rewatch of TOS. It's not as great as I remebered from my childhood. (But then, what is?)
There is a lot of inconsistency within that series, yet so many people seem to elevate it as a great paragon , while demonizing inconsistencies in ENT. I loved the unpredictability and darkness of S3, but I did enjoy some of the mini arcs of S4.

 

It's interesting how people react differently to the same things. I liked TOS as a kid, and I also slavishly watched just about every single episode of every spinoff, and enjoyed it.

But as I've gotten older, the more I watch TOS again, I come to love and appreciate it even more, and the less I can stand most of the spinoffs.

Kor

 

If every season had been like season 4, think the series would have run for a full 7 seasons. I did like season 3 though, and the whole Xindi arc. I thought it was a story well told - except for maybe a few miscues. TOS is still, by far and away, my favourite - probably because I grew up with it. It is still as good as I remember it - but maybe that's because I refuse to acknowledge what flaws it has.

 

Probably a balance of Third and Fourth seasons would have worked. A continuing season arc story thread that while not always at the forefront was still there from the beginning to the end, mixed with a set of smaller story arcs (two to four part stories).


Though I suppose that would be a bit like mixing modern Doctor Who with its series long plots mixed with its 20th century season pattern with multiple part stories that lasted a month.

 

You aren't helping my nerd rage here! Although I guess I can ease off Braga a little bit and send some of it Berman's way.

As far as the rest of the Enterprise seasons go, I by no means dislike them. There's just weird stuff going on there with lack of continuity there - but again, there's not all that much continuity in Star Trek in general when you look at the entire franchise. I think a lot of the issues I had in the first couple seasons were based on my expectations of what Enterprise was going to be. Season 4 is more like what I had in mind. I wonder if the series would've fared better by having season 4 as season 2 instead (obviously minus the references to situations/aliens encountered in the actual seasons 2 and 3). Of course it doesn't really matter now as there's not anything that can be done, and speculation doesn't count for all that much.

The only thing I'd really change about season 3 is perhaps use less violence. Sometimes it felt like I was watching an action movie. Obviously I don't mind action since there's plenty of that in Star Trek but it seemed like overkill sometimes. I would've also loved if after dealing with the Xindi, the Enterprise came back and helped out the people whose warp coil they stole. I need that kind of redemption!

I will say in regard to TOS, I didn't like it much when I initially saw it. After watching DS9, then TNG, then Voyager, I really came to love it.

 

I personally liked the action/violence and darkness of season 3. It really tested the strength , determination and morals of the crew. It was a stark contrast to season 1 Archer who was all "let's make new friends!" before realizing the world, well in this case, the universe, is a scary place with bad people. I don't mind seeing death. It's like real life. You go to battle, or into dangerous situations, and you sometimes lose people.

But I really would have liked to see some resolution to Damage and how the species fared, being 3 years from home. I believe one of the post Enterprise books may have addressed it, if I recall correctly.

Spoiler: just in case

they were never heard from again, and it was unknown if they ever made it home

 

That's a really depressing ending and basically my worst fear about it. I do like the darkness angle and I understand it given the circumstances. Some parts of it reminded me of the "War on Terror" stuff in the US, which profoundly disturbed me. I'm really glad they found a balance after the Xindi were no longer a threat. Season 4 Archer managed to meet seasons 1-2 Archer and season 3 Archer in the middle, I think.

 

It's easy to overlook this, but ``suits'' are very necessary people: managing the organization of writers, directors, actors, production teams, and support staff is essential to getting anything done. Star Trek is a particularly demanding production, by every account, and to get shows made, on budget and on schedule, for eighteen years, seven of them with two shows due every week, plus four movies on the side, is outstanding.

 

I am one of those who think that season four is a decrease in quality from season three. In fact in some ways I like big sections of seasons 1 and 2 more then the whole of season four.

Seriously if I could cut 4 episodes each out of seasons one and two I am pretty sure i would like those seasons more. Season 4 just had terrible pacing, told stories not relevant to the show or characters we were watching.

 

Another thing, we will never know how much of his influence is on any episode of modern Trek. Heck a lot people don't even know that in Trek usually the head writer does an uncredited final rewrite of each and every episode. But those head writers are also given solo (even though they still aren't) episodes for us to judge. Herman add plotting and structure influence on almost all of modern Trek, certainly from season 3 and later of TNG. Not to mention being a filter from higher ups (be it Roddenberry and his lawyer, or the network and studio. I don't think we will ever get a real concept of how much of the final product we judge is shaped from Berman's influence. That of course goes both to the positive and the negative, so it makes it very difficult to rationally judge his efforts on the franchise.

 

As we get further and further from the 60s, people lose sight of the context of TV and film productions of that time, and they just write TOS off as "cheesy" and "cheap."

The TOS special effects may look primitive to us today, being accustomed to hyper-realism half a century later, but TOS was by no means a cheap, low-budget show.

TOS was actually one of the most, if not THE most, expensive network television shows of its day due to the constant need for visual effects, not to mention sets and costuming. The average cost per episode was $185,000, which is about $1.3 million in today's money. The pilot episode "The Cage" alone cost $615,751 to produce. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $4.6 million.

And for a television production of that time, the visuals were groundbreaking. Seriously, try to think of another show of the mid to late 60s that matches the quantity and quality of TOS visuals. Most shows on television at that time needed maybe one visual effect once per season, but TOS had to have four special effects companies on rotation due to the constant need for effects shots.

Also, acting at that time was expected to be more grand, theatrical, and bombastic. Ever seen anything with Charleton Heston in it? This is a long tradition inherited from stage productions.

Kor

 

I was with you up until this part of your post. Ever seen anything with Steve McQueen in it? He was one of the most economical and effective film actors ever, and his career ended back in the 80's. Paul Newman, Robert Redford, all old time actors who had no trouble underplaying it. Guys like Marlon Brando, Dustin Hoffman, among others, could go either way.

Star Trek was a show that many times required a fair amount of "carrying on". Even TOS' best actor, Leonard Nimoy had to on occasion, throw his arms about and mug for the camera. Though it's hard to tell with the likes of William Shatner (who began the tradition), Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Avery Brooks, 4 of THE most over the top and theatrical of actors, even Star Trek had some room for understated performances at times.

Your blanket statement is simply inaccurate. It depended then, as it does now, on the particular production, director, script, and most importantly, the individual actor.