Filming out of sequence is bound to be a factor, among others.John replied “well, I don’t remember anything about that.”
Filming out of sequence is bound to be a factor, among others.John replied “well, I don’t remember anything about that.”
Counterpoint: I never thought the 9/11 metaphor was overdone. Certainly there were clear allusions to it, and the subsequent wars, such as when Archer crossed the line when he tortured that pirate for information, or the bit where he bombed the Xindi moon at Azati Prime, or arguably the episode when he raids that ship.Got to disagree, I hate ENT season 3 with a passion.
It's a reflection of the ugly, militaristic and xenophobic post-9/11 mindset that took hold of the US at that time and resulted in two unnecessary wars that damaged the standing of the entire West in the rest of the world up to this day. Which were both lost. ENT season 3 was a pro-George Bush propaganda show, a kind of "24 in space". Archer became basically a FOX News talking head, with foam around his mouth. Contrast that with "Battlestar Galactica's" much more differentiated approach, which ran at the same time.
The premise is absurd from the beginning: Why would the Xindi test their weapon on Earth of all places? Mankind was unaware of them, so they gave up their momentum of surprise and gave mankind the opportunity to stop their plans. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, the introduction of the Xindi and Sphere Builders was a slap in the face of Enterprise's prequel premise. A prequel is supposed to show how all the familiar things from later series fell into place, which ENT marvelously did in season 4. Instead showing an entirely new race in the 22nd century we have never even heard the tiniest bit about in the 23rd-24th century shows is like admitting the showrunners felt the prequel concept was a failure.
There might be more boring seasons in the history of Star Trek, but there is not a single other season I hate as much as ENT season 3.
Counterpoint: I never thought the 9/11 metaphor was overdone. Certainly there were clear allusions to it, and the subsequent wars, such as when Archer crossed the line when he tortured that pirate for information, or the bit where he bombed the Xindi moon at Azati Prime, or arguably the episode when he raids that ship.
But none of that were considered 'good' things. They were either as a result of the impossible situation they were in, or, more importantly, a stain on Archer's character. Archer himself was depicted as showing great regret over his actions in subsequent episodes such as Damage and Home - he knew he had failed to live up to what he wanted to be, and what he previously thought he actually was. I doubt Picard would have made such grievous errors, but that's why I like Enterprise (and DS9) so much; the characters are flawed and make disastrous mistakes, just like in real life, but still make something good come from those mistakes.
Indeed, the 9/11 metaphor is explicitly subverted in some places by having Commander Dolim, the main villain of the season, saying 'you are either with us, or against us' - a statement famously used by George Bush, and much derided for its simplistic worldview. This is compounded at the end of the season where Earth wouldn't have been saved if it wasn't for both sides laying down their weapons and negotiating a solution that benefitted humanity and Xindi alike.
@SCE2Aux, both your last posts reflect my own view of Season 3 (my favorite). Well said.It would be foolish of me to say that season 3 was entirely divorced from some of the more gung-ho impulses of that time period, but I nevertheless can't reconcile what you're saying with my viewing experience. Take for example Trip's dialogue in The Expanse - "I can't wait to get in there Captain, and tell me we won't be tiptoeing around, none of that non-interference crap...", then throughout the third season he comes to an understanding with the very man that built the weapon that killed his sister, even expressing some measure of regret that Degra was subsequently murdered. That doesn't come accross as particularly ugly or militaristic.
Likewise, Archer goes out of his way to protect civilians from his intended plan to destroy a refinery by setting up blast suppressors, and even junked that plan and simply chose to trust Gralik, over the objections of the more militaristic impulses of Reed and Hayes.
Plotlines like that are baked into the structure of the season just as much as the occasions where the characters fall short of what we would wish them to be. So maybe we're arguing two sides of the same coin? Maybe the way to interpret the season is that it embodies the spirit of the time that it was produced, but nonetheless has enough going for it to comment on ways people should and shouldn't act and react in such unprecedented times?
I'll be honest season 3 is the only season of any Star Trek I have watched end to end more then once. I absolutely love it. Some of those decisions Archer made like the one with the warp coil. That episode really is a good one and it was a no win situation for Archer. Might be time for another rewatch soon.
What I like about that season is if you watch Anomaly and then watch Damage and saw that the Pirates were right all along, it's hard to really judge Archer's decision considering the situation he was in. The ship was battered, and he was desperate. Desperate people throw values out the window most of the time, and while you may not agree with his choices, you understood why he made them. It's that character development that I really liked about the season. This mission changed everyone and to see that progression is what good story arcs do.
It wouldn't have just been made after Enterprise, it would've been made after a season and a half of Battlestar Galactica... the series that turned Stargate into Stargate Universe. There's no way Voyager '05 wouldn't have been very different to Voyager '95.Exactly right... If Voyager had been made after Enterprise I wonder how much of the show might have changed its overall tone.
True story, and a reminder that Trek actors often don’t watch their own show.
I was talking to John Billingsley once about how much I enjoyed Season 3. He expressed his concerns about the change in direction, the 9/11 metaphor, and so forth.
I told him one thing I really appreciated was that the Enterprise and Xindi figured out the were both being manipulated by a third party, and worked together to defeat the Sphere Builders.
John replied “well, I don’t remember anything about that.”
![]()
I don't know if it was a case of the actor not watching the show. I think it's more a case of the actor considering his work to be just another job and not his entire reason for existing, like so many Star Trek fans like to think about these people.
I don't know if it was a case of the actor not watching the show. I think it's more a case of the actor considering his work to be just another job and not his entire reason for existing, like so many Star Trek fans like to think about these people.
John is a friend of mine.
He didn’t watch the show.
![]()
Sorry, I wasn't referring to Billingsley specifically. I was just making a point that not every Star Trek actor is going to remember every little minutiae from the show years after the fact, like some fans tend to think they do.
Sorry, I wasn't referring to Billingsley specifically. I was just making a point that not every Star Trek actor is going to remember every little minutiae from the show years after the fact, like some fans tend to think they do.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.