And the one thing you are missing is the DS9 ep I mentioned which I am sure you will enjoy very much when you get to it
I really wish that ENTERPRISE had let the Klingon forehead explaination alone. It was bound to be cheezy, whatever explaination they offered, for one thing. For another, they did seem to be aware of this and wanted to make the episode alot edgier, with the inclusion of the Human augments. It made the pill go down alot easier, but it was still an awkward explaination. I didn't really care about the Klingon foreheads until B'Elanna Torres, though. Such a beautiful, sexy woman as Roxann Dawson should've been able to pull off any prosthetic prop, right? Or would be, if it were a competent design. It looks so awkward and lame that I would've been happier, really, if they'd just ignored the whole make-up update thing and just made her up like a swarthy TOS Klingon ...
I wish they'd done an arc explaining why Klingons use the same ships in ENT as they do in DS9 225 years later, and why they're all (with the single exception of STIII) complete rustbuckets. In short - adapt the backstory from the novel Ishmael, that ancient tribal Klingons were enslaved by the Karsid Empire, which mysteriously vanished 600 years ago leaving their Klingon slaves with fleets of ships, which they've been using (and presumably upgrading to match weapons with the Federation) ever since. It not only explains the ships, but why such a people as the Klingons would ever make it into space.
I do like the explanation of Klingons using alien tech. It does strech credibility that they'd advance so well as they do considering how engineers and scientists would get no respect in their society, and thus many promising tech people would've instead been soldiers, since that's the only line of work with any "honor" or respect in their society. It also makes me think of that bit about how the Klingons killed their gods. Possibly that's the story of them rising up against their alien masters.
The Klingons are always a "Work in Progess," aren't they? Never really worked out, except for their made-up language which never got used past TUC, because it became so complicated ... HA!!! Personally, I liked them better when they and their motives were mysterious and almost completely unknown ...
I thought it would have been cool if after the Defiant traveled back in time if Worf's forehead was smooth and no one commented upon it. When the Defiant returned to the 24th century Worf would have his usual forehead once more, and again on one would have commented on it. YMMV.
I thought the story arc in Enterprise re the Klingons and their foreheads was pretty good, a decent attempt to bring together all the theories and fanwankery of decades past. However, normally I just groan with boredom at Klingon storylines, no matter what incarnation of Trek, they are so fucking tedious, from their moronic honour code to their heavy metal hairdos and their cranial ridges. The old school TOS dudes with the slightly swarthy features and the gold tunic over a black nylon polo neck, were infinitely better. I bet Star Trek writers, make up guys, producers etc rue the day that they put bumps on those Klingons foreheads at the start of The Motion Picture. A can of worms indeed, good enough for your average latterday Klingon to eat.
It is implied that the Klingons stole all of their technology from the Hur'q (their former masters), and that's why it takes them so long to make any advancements. Kind of like the Kazon, who nicked everything they have - up to and including their ships - from the Trabe, and since the Kazon appear to have the technical skills of cement, well, that explains that. @Therin: The ridged Trill appearance had nothing to do with any conscious action on the Trill's part. It was just due to a Trill colony being visited by Klingons and the virus just happened to infect the Trill there. Nothing more than that.
The more I thought about their explanation in the episode the more it didn't make sense. There is no reason for Star Trek Klingons to lack forheads based on the Enterprise episode. And the episode gives the reason why. The Klingon comments that he will have to make prosthetic. Well every Klingon affected by the virus will get a prosthetic rather than look like a puny human. And certainly no Klingon with a plain forehead would get to the rank of Star Trek Klingons. There has to be a reason for the plain forhaeds to be honorable during the time of Star Trek and embarrassing later. They also have to be changeable so that an individual can have no ridges and then later have ridges during their lifetime. My idea is that it was actually part of a spying project to infiltrate humanity. Certainly this would be considered embarrassing by later Klingons. "Imagine, Klingons altering themselves and sneaking around with human scum. How dishonorable." It would also fall in line with the plot from Trouble With Tribbles in that one of the men was secretly a Klingon and had infiltrated a human facility.
My 'explanation' is that Klingons always had forehead ridges, we just didn't see them in TOS because they didn't have the makeup budget. The TOS Klingons are simply Klingons depicted in short-hand. In my opinion, "Trials and Tribble-ations" did more harm than good in opening the book on this thing. I think before that episode came along most of us simply accepted that Klingons 'really' look the same in all eras, it's just that the makeup was simplier in TOS... that is, until that episode had to go and suggest that, canonically in universe, they do look different between the eras. So everybody then expected it to be explained... and ENT obliged with an explanation.
The TOS Klingons vs the Later Klingons. It's like the difference between a hirsuite man, and one who shaves everything from top to bottom. And I mean everything. The TOS Klingons who pop up in DS9:"Blood Oath" are all wearing elaborate merkins on their heads. Especially camp Koloth.
Or, if the difference in the Klingons' appearance was to be acknowledged in-universe, the final word on the subject should have been Worf's. It's something Klingons never discuss with outsiders. That would have opened the door for all kinds of fanfic explanations.
Why? To the Ent writers who were, afterall, writing a prequal to TOS and therefore TNG, Worf's statement was but a jumping off point for stories on how the mysterious change occurred and why. That is how we got most of the Ent stories, in particular the excellent Mirror Universe exploration of what happened to the Defiant after it was captured. We didn't necessarily need these stories, but they were there waiting to be told. I don't have to need a story to be told, but if one is told and told well, then I don't have a problem. For every fan who wondered about the Klingon forehead question or the the Defiant issue, there are others who never gave either a second thought. But how many wondered and how many didn't care about these two issues is irrelevant. The only concern should be whether or not the story is well told. As disappointed as I was in much of what happened under the Beebs, I can certainly sympathize with them in one respect; they were vilified when they wrote prequal stories and vilified when when they came up with new stuff. There was no winning with this show.
I think there could have been winning with this show. - Use the ringship - UESPA not Starfleet - Lasers or guns not "phase pistols" - Contact with Klingons/Ferengi/etc didn't happen so early. - Catsuited Vulcans? - Soft porn decon - Scott Bakula, just say no. - Eliminate TNG story telling techniques - Shoulder emphasizing uniforms, again just another TNG connection. Why not try something new? - Temporal cold war, just say no. (any temporal war would have been resolved already) - Etc. The show could have been a huge success. But they decided to screw up every thing they possibly could.
Or if the temporal cold war was going to be shove upon the shows producers (as the story goes), then figure out a way of doing the TCW in a interesting, exciting and consistent way. Instead of "we don't want it and aren't going to even try." They weren't simply "vilified" for all their ideas across the board, but they were for their bad ideas. The way they expanded on the Andorians and the Vulcans (I thought) were quite good. The Sulban outside of the TCW were an interesting people with their own motivations. The boomers were a nice idea, they should have mentioned them a few more times. Hoshi was a great character up until they made her too capable. But not all their ideas worked. Having the "Vulcans held us back a century" I thought was the worst idea, instead of Humanity having nearly two centuries to achieve what we saw in TOS (tech development, colonies, expansion) it had to of somehow all happen in one century, which I have a problem with. Kirk: "We're on a thousand worlds and moving out." The show should have been set a few decades at most after Cochrane first flight.
Speaking as a viewer who only bothered watching five or six complete episodes of ENT, I can honestly say none of the above mattered to me one bit. I simply found the series dull and the stories unimaginative. I watched "Broken Bough" when the series premiered. That was their chance to hook me. They didn't. Over the next couple seasons I checked out about another four or five episodes, but it was just more of the same. I caught bits and pieces of season three and four, but nothing ever caught my interest. I don't think the above list had anything to do with why ENT wasn't a huge hit. I mean, you really think ENT lost viewers by not mentioning the United Earth Space Probe Agency?
I think my "Eliminate TNG story telling techniques" covers your point. Watching Enterprise was just like watching TNG-VOY only with different uniforms and less skilled actors. There wasn't anything different or unique. And yes, Enterprise lost me as a viewer because of the above reasons. I only later watched the series after it was cancelled through means that did not contribute to the series. Seriously, there was no Starfleet before 2161. Earth's space operating agency was UESPA. Starfleet was part of the Federation.
Well, okay, I'll concede that. That was my feeling, too, although I had no problem with the acting. What failed to hook me were the stories. Not according to any canon source.
My biggest acting complaint is Scott Bakula. I just can't take anything he says seriously. Any emotion he tries to convey screams "fake" to me. Yeah, I suppose the series Gene Roddenberry created isn't canon enough. All kidding aside, what sort of stories would you have prefered to see?