Agony Booth takes on "Two Days and Two Nights.:

[Gepard]

Since we all remember how much fun we had the last time AgonyBooth.com recapped an episode of Enterprise, they've put up another one, for "Two Days and Two Nights." (To be fair, the webmaster's goal was to skewer two episodes of every series, so this is just them finishing up the set, rather than picking on ENT specifically.)

One other thing: I guess forum is the "mysterious corners of the internet."

Enjoy!

 

[Spanky]

I could of written that same review by copying and pasting what most Trek fans have already wrote about Enterprise, excluding the horrendous parts where he thinks he's being funny.

 

[the agony booth]

I could of written that same review by copying and pasting what most Trek fans have already wrote about Enterprise, excluding the horrendous parts where he thinks he's being funny.

If you're going to imply the recap is plagiarized, the least you could do is provide some concrete examples of lines you think were copied from other sources. Not liking the recap is one thing, but suggesting the whole thing was copied and pasted from other sources is pretty insulting to the people who worked hard on this.

Regardless, if you honestly think you can be funnier than the recap, why don't you give it a shot? There's a link right at the beginning of the article, telling you how you can submit your own recap to Agony Booth. I mean, if it's really that easy, you should have no problem putting together something that's just as funny, right?

 

[SFRabid]

B&B discussed the problems of the ships in Enterprise looking more modern than the ships from TOS and trying to achieve a happy medium without making the Enterprise ships look outdated by today's standards. They also discussed the intent of making NX-01 smaller than the large ships of TNG, giving it a more "submarine" feel. Combine stuff like this with the parts referring to public opinion on the various forums and the complaints from the anti-Enterprise crowd and it is hard to find anything new in the write-up. I wold not call it plagiarism in any way, just nothing new. In a franchise as popular and discussed as Star Trek it is hard to come up with new information. Thus, you have to repackage common knowledge in a new and entertaining way. Unfortunately, the "rant and complaint" descriptions of episodes is used excessively on the official Star Trek forum by griefers trying to race to 100,000 posts. That makes it even harder to be entertaining in a critical review.

 

[Gepard]

Of course, rant-and-review is the style used on all the Agony Booth reviews, no matter the subject, so it's not like they're trying to piss off the die-hard Trekkies by uncreatively doing what whiny fanboys here have been doing all along.

I also think it's interesting that the reviewer, buy his own admission, stayed away from ENT episodes and discussion during its run; yet by coming at the show fresh, he still found the same flaws that all the other critics here have noted. Makes you think, doesn't it?

 

[jgdst]

To put it in a nutshell: This review is about 6 years too late.

I found it mildly irritating to be honest. The review in itself was like a clichéd rehash of past reviews (something I believe reviewers accused Enterprise of doing). "I haven't watched the series, but I'm a total authority on how it should have been done. It made me feel like <cute newborn animal> had been covered in <less cute animal's faeces> after having <name a limb> amputated by <orphans/Santa Claus/God>" *yawn*

Personally? I kinda like Enterprise, tho I'll be the first to admit that they didn't always get it right (Precious Cargo anyone? ). Just a bit bored of the constant bashing the entire franchise (not just ENT) seems to take these days...

If it had been for These Are The Voyages... print me off a copy and laminate it in gold

 

[SFRabid]

... yet by coming at the show fresh, he still found the same flaws that all the other critics here have noted. Makes you think, doesn't it?

That's the problem. It is not fresh. It is a repeat of "the same flaws that all the other critics here have noted".

 

[Gepard]

To put it in a nutshell: This review is about 6 years too late.

Then the VOY reviews are 12 years too late, the DS9 reviews are 18 years too late and the TOS reviews are 40 years too late. And Albert's review of Night of the Lepus? Should have been posted in the 1950s. Oh, WHY can't they only stirke right at the moment something is new? I say they should just dismantle the whole site!

If it had been for These Are The Voyages... print me off a copy and laminate it in gold

They may well get to it--at this point (as the agony booth pointed out), they're accepting reader recaps. Heck, write TATV up yourself and turn it in. I've been giving some thought to ripping Nemesis a new one myself...

... yet by coming at the show fresh, he still found the same flaws that all the other critics here have noted. Makes you think, doesn't it?

That's the problem. It is not fresh. It is a repeat of "the same flaws that all the other critics here have noted".

You may not find the review fresh, but the reviewer approached the show that way. And that's my point--maybe the things that people keep saying over and over and over again are wrong with ENT are not said because they're all rehashing each other but because those things really are wrong with the show.

 

[chancellorjake]

I have always enjoyed the Agony Booth's recaps, but this one just feels wrong. This is the episode that they chose to complete their "Worst of Trek" section? I can think of several episodes from the first two seasons that were much, much worse.
Heck, I actually enjoyed this episode enough to incorporate it into the fic that is in my signature. Of course, I've always found Dey Young to be incredibly hot , so I'm probably biased.

 

[jgdst]

To put it in a nutshell: This review is about 6 years too late.

Then the VOY reviews are 12 years too late, the DS9 reviews are 18 years too late and the TOS reviews are 40 years too late. And Albert's review of Night of the Lepus? Should have been posted in the 1950s. Oh, WHY can't they only stirke right at the moment something is new? I say they should just dismantle the whole site!

I knew as soon as I wrote that it'd get mis-interpreted You've got to be more careful than a politician in forums with how you phrase things What I meant was there's something about the review that just too try-hard and tired... Like chancellorjake, I usually do enjoy their reviews, but this one just missed the mark.

I can't write a TATV one There aren't any letters in the alphabet that adequately describe the copious amounts of Exorcist style vomit that I produce every time I think about it. If there were it would probably look like K, ¬ and @ all merged into a kind of satanic shape. Between that and the weeping, there wouldn't be much to read

 

[SFRabid]

I would not get too defensive. He is a critic. Critics have to be able to take criticism. Otherwise, they are hypocrites. What we say may seem a bit harsh or hurtful, and creative people are sensitive to that, but I’m sure Michael Dorn and Jolene Blaloc have the same feelings. If you are going to make a career on hurting people then thick skin is a requirement.

I cannot think of a single popular composer, author or comedian that doesn’t occasionally miss the mark. It hurts for a while, you finally accept it, and then move on to the next project.

 

[the agony booth]

B&B discussed the problems of the ships in Enterprise looking more modern than the ships from TOS and trying to achieve a happy medium without making the Enterprise ships look outdated by today's standards. They also discussed the intent of making NX-01 smaller than the large ships of TNG, giving it a more "submarine" feel.

I was actually asking Spanky what he thought in particular was copied from other sites, but he/she has yet to chime in. But I'll answer your comment above with this: do you honestly think someone who doesn't know who the Suliban are would be aware enough of the ins and outs of Enterprise to know what B&B have said in various interviews?

Combine stuff like this with the parts referring to public opinion on the various forums and the complaints from the anti-Enterprise crowd and it is hard to find anything new in the write-up. I wold not call it plagiarism in any way, just nothing new. In a franchise as popular and discussed as Star Trek it is hard to come up with new information.

Well, I would point out that lots of people are still reviewing old Trek episodes. Jammer was doing TNG reviews less than a year ago, and Treknation's own MEG was doing a TNG review a month ago. So just because Trek is widely discussed and there's no new information to reveal doesn't mean there's no point in evaluating older episodes.

Thus, you have to repackage common knowledge in a new and entertaining way.

I feel we did that. I think the recap is funny and entertaining. If you don't agree, I don't really care. But to suggest that the recap was "easy" to do, and just "copied and pasted" from other sites is flat out wrong, and I won't stand for it.

 

[the agony booth]

I have always enjoyed the Agony Booth's recaps, but this one just feels wrong. This is the episode that they chose to complete their "Worst of Trek" section?

I don't who this "they" are that you speak of, but there's no editorial board at the Agony Booth that decides en masse what gets recapped. Most of the submissions are provided by volunteer writers, and each person decides on his/her own what they want to write about. In this case, I gave the writer a list of about 10-15 episodes I thought were pretty bad, and this is the one she picked. If someone had submitted an equally funny recap of another Enterprise episode before she did, I would have posted that instead.

Having said that, I think "Two Days and Two Nights" is pretty representative of what a first season Enterprise episode is like.

 

[the agony booth]

I would not get too defensive. He is a critic. Critics have to be able to take criticism. Otherwise, they are hypocrites. What we say may seem a bit harsh or hurtful, and creative people are sensitive to that, but I’m sure Michael Dorn and Jolene Blaloc have the same feelings. If you are going to make a career on hurting people then thick skin is a requirement.

Who, exactly, are you referring to when you say someone is "making a career out of hurting people"? Because if you're referring to me or the author of the recap, that statement is totally off base in about 20 different ways.

 

[SFRabid]

T'Pol comes across as nothing more than a stone-cold bitch most of the time

And if anyone should have been aware of the pitfalls of doing a Risa episode and been able to avoid them, it's Dorn. Instead, he and the writers really went that extra mile to remove all excitement from the concept, making this "pleasure planet" seem about as exotic and sensual as a church picnic.

and accompanying theme tune, which make all the joy and the hope in me shrivel up and die. It takes rainbows and kittens and ice cream and replaces them with rotting corpses and cockroaches and the Westboro Baptist Church.

So you don't think statements like these are hurtful to the actors, composers or singer? I'm not denying your right to publish them, but don't kid yourself. Most critics also cover good, and can deliver compliments as well as insults. But that is not the purpose of the site, And when you only focus on the bad, yes, it is making a career of hurting the people who worked hard and put a lot of themselves into the series.

Off my soapbox now. I didn't really mean to get into mud slinging. Not sure why I expected a critic to understand and accept criticism.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

I found the review somewhat entertaining, though I don't think the episode in question is a particularly bad one. "Terra Nova" and "Precious Cargo" are much worse. However, I can imagine someone who does not know the characters and setting will find little to enjoy in this episode.

It seems a bit unfair for someone who admits to not having seen much of the show to criticize the general quality of Enterprise or its features. There have been many good episodes, and the show is praised for it's third and fourth seasons. Popularity? Ehm, 'The larger audience' hasn't been into Star Trek since TNG ended. But popularity polls on this BBS show Enterprise scoring better than Voyager. I thought the writer of the article was a bit too negative about the show.

 

[the agony booth]

So you don't think statements like these are hurtful to the actors, composers or singer? I'm not denying your right to publish them, but don't kid yourself. Most critics also cover good, and can deliver compliments as well as insults. But that is not the purpose of the site, And when you only focus on the bad, yes, it is making a career of hurting the people who worked hard and put a lot of themselves into the series.

Off my soapbox now. I didn't really mean to get into mud slinging. Not sure why I expected a critic to understand and accept criticism.

I have a feeling trying to reason with people in this Enterprise forum is going to be like reasoning with a stick of chewing gum, but here goes...

Lots of people make careers out of poking fun at real people. Just off the top of my head, I can think of Best Week Ever, TMZ, The Soup, and Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Just as an example, The Soup has described Britney Spears as a fat, overeating pig, Paula Abdul as an alcoholic, and the Kardashian sisters as dead behind the eyes. MST3k has poked a lot of fun at the people involved in movies they've riffed on, including saying that Arch Hall Jr. has "a face like a canker sore".

So, three questions. Please try to answer these honestly.

1 - Do you really believe all of the people behind those shows are deliberately trying to hurt people, or is it more likely that it's all good natured ribbing, not to be taken seriously?

2 - Do you really believe anything in the "Two Days and Two Nights" recap is as mean-spirited as what the shows I mentioned air on a daily basis?

3 - If your answer to #2 is "no", as it should be, then why do you believe that the Agony Booth should be held to a higher standard than the mainstream media?


I could go line by line over what you quoted, but for the most part those comments are pretty fair and accurate. Dorn and the writers actually did make the episode as exciting as a church picnic. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. Do you really think Michael Dorn is going to a) read that, and b) subsequently cry himself to sleep over it?

And if you think the Agony Booth is anybody's "career", you're sadly mistaken. As I said in a previous post, all submissions come from unpaid volunteers. And I earn nothing from the site. In fact, it's costing me money to keep the site going. My career is software development. Poking fun at movies and TV shows is just for fun.

As I said above, I don't care if you like the recap or not. Back when my "Night in Sickbay" recap was linked here, you'll notice I didn't bother to go into that thread. That's because people were merely expressing opinions. They didn't like the recap, and I didn't see any reason to argue over it.

But when you insinuate things that are completely untrue, such as the recap was "easy" to put together, or "copied and pasted" from other sources, or that Agony Booth writers are evil people deliberately trying to hurt others, that's where I draw the line. That's not "criticism". That's childish slander.

 

[Spanky]

I could of written that same review by copying and pasting what most Trek fans have already wrote about Enterprise, excluding the horrendous parts where he thinks he's being funny.

If you're going to imply the recap is plagiarized, the least you could do is provide some concrete examples of lines you think were copied from other sources. Not liking the recap is one thing, but suggesting the whole thing was copied and pasted from other sources is pretty insulting to the people who worked hard on this.

Regardless, if you honestly think you can be funnier than the recap, why don't you give it a shot? There's a link right at the beginning of the article, telling you how you can submit your own recap to Agony Booth. I mean, if it's really that easy, you should have no problem putting together something that's just as funny, right?

Whoa, defensive. En guard?

 

[SFRabid]

...

But when you insinuate things that are completely untrue, such as the recap was "easy" to put together, or "copied and pasted" from other sources, or that Agony Booth writers are evil people deliberately trying to hurt others, that's where I draw the line. That's not "criticism". That's childish slander.

I went back in read my post believing what you wrote, but I did not find where I said any of those things. I did say

it is hard to find anything new in the write-up. I wold not call it plagiarism in any way, just nothing new. In a franchise as popular and discussed as Star Trek it is hard to come up with new information. Thus, you have to repackage common knowledge in a new and entertaining way. Unfortunately, the "rant and complaint" descriptions of episodes is used excessively on the official Star Trek forum by griefers trying to race to 100,000 posts. That makes it even harder to be entertaining in a critical review.

and

That's the problem. It is not fresh. It is a repeat of "the same flaws that all the other critics here have noted".

I do admit to saying "If you are going to make a career on hurting people then thick skin is a requirement." and stand by that.

I cannot judge you by the other critical satire places you mentioned because I don't follow them. Personally, I don't have any desire to read a satire that compares someone's face to a canker sore.

As I said above, I don't care if you like the recap or not.

Obviously you do, and that irony gives me a bigger chuckle than anything in the review that started this thread.

 

[SFRabid]

The person writing the critique made it obvious that she does not like Enterprise and does not watch the show, suffering through it only to do the review. I do the same thing but with the review as my focus, and wow, what a reaction I get from the person publishing the review.