Beautifully stated. If you asked me if I preferred ENT or DIS, I'd have a preference, certainly. But that's just my personal opinion.
Of course it is a preference. People can like all kinds of things regardless of the quality (and I think there is such a thing as quality in writing). I like a lot of things were I know they're trash, and I love them anyway for various reasons. But I do think there is a difference in quality (story writing, plotting, characterization, world building) between ENT and DISC. And it's probably no surprise that I think DISC is of higher quality than ENT, as are pretty much all the other Star Trek shows, except TAS. From the very first time I ever saw ENT, I just had this impression of "we're trying to achieve something with this show but we just don't manage to do it", you know kinda like shows such as Xena; Warrior Princess or Hercules: the Legendary Journeys, this aura of "we made half and effort and didn't even mange that", or, in the worst cases "WTH am I watching??". And those other shows, I think, at least knew they were dump, so they played up the camp.ENT took itself seriously. The stories were often very awkward, the characterization derivative or very artificial and the characters, in my opinion just came across as incredibly dumb (and though this is of course subjective) unlikeable, especially Archer. It had the, by far, the stupidest Prime Directive episode, and that was even before the PD existed, and more than any other Star Trek show frequently failed to grasp and think-through the concepts it tried to present (not that there weren't stinkers in the other shows, just that ENT, in my opinion was the most consistent at failing logic and solid storytelling) and when they tried to inject philosophy well...do I have to say anything more than "Gazelle Speech"? Then the third season tried to ride the the trend of "dark" television that was so big during the early 2000s and no. No. nooo. In contrast with DISC I think that, whatever you might say about it, it's at least better at characterization and plotting and telling a story than ENT was. And I actually like a lot of the characters and find them very natural in the way they talk, behave, interact with each other etc. However it's still a show that I have little interest in due to the specific storytelling format it employs, but I'd at least call it better than ENT (and most of VOY)
I am not saying Archer should have publicly showed signs of weakness, but you could see that privately he struggled. And yes, there were protocols in place by the 23rd, and 24th century, but that doesn't make command any easier. Even kirk was unsure of his decisions once in a while.
That I definitely agree with. The characters have a draw to them, rather than being off putting, like I felt with ENT.
Burnham is perfect and never struggles? She sure struggled during "Project Daedalus" over Airiam and especially "All In" over Book. I think that qualifies as "once in a while". She also definitely regretted her actions in "The Vulcan Hello" & "Battle at the Binary Stars" where her regret defined her character arc through the rest of the first season. As far as showing weakness, if Burnham never showed weakness or vulnerability, we wouldn't have The Fandom Menace blowing up her "crying" to epic proportions. Quotations deliberate because, most of the time, they've distorted the meaning of the word to fit their purposes.
Which is better? I don't know. The only season of "Enterprise" I had really enjoyed was Season Three. And the only season of "Discovery" I had enjoyed was Season One. I do like Season One "Discovery" more than I liked Season Three "Enterprise". But if I must be honest, it's a toss-up between the two shows for me.
Both are Star Trek. Both have good episodes and bad episodes. Both have 4 seasons, but DISC isn't cancelled at 4.
I mean, TOS was cancelled at 3. Cancellation is not a good stick to beat Enterprise with because loads of great shows get cancelled. This thread is ill conceived though and considering the OP admitted he fast forwards through 50% of every DSC episode then it's not even a good faith argument. It's a trash topic. The funniest thing is that folks thought this whole idea might gain more traction in the Enterprise forum, which the OP tried only to have it closed within 2 pages. I said it before and I'll say it again, it's not necessary to pull one thing down in order to build another up.
You'd think most people could figure that out. There's a right way and a wrong way to encourage people to say which Trek is their favorite. Saying "X Trek is better than Y Trek"... do I have to tell you which that is?
The best way is someone presents their case in good faith and compares and contrasts the two series, then there's point-couterpoint debate between the two sides.
Episode count is a better guage. 96 episodes on ENT. If ENT was a modern show that would be 8 to 9 seasons.
And? Enterprise was a network show, Disco and the other modern shows are streaming shows. If Enterprise were streaming, or the others were network shows, you might see the episode counts switched. Regardless, not sure what episode count has to do with quality.
You fast forward through 50% of every DSC episode. You said that yourself. You have no substantive points to make and nothing intelligent to say on this matter. What's more, due to your idiotic way of consuming media, you have nothing informed to say.
Sorry, but what show are you watching? Burnham has very frequently made the wrong decision and been affected by it. Burnham's entire character arc has been due to a very bad decision she made in the very first episode