Who would you have killed off?

[Daneel]

In the finale? Oh, I don't know. I would have suggested killing off Travis at some point in the show's run, if only to trim some of the deadwood. For the grand finale, though, I'm not quite sure: one could suggest Archer, although they did (sort of) kill off the captain in the finale for DS9, so it could seem a tad familiar in that respect.

Honestly, if the death was compelling and made sense from a narrative viewpoint (so, basically, the opposite of what happened to Trip in "TATV"), then I would be okay with them killing off anybody. For the maximum dramatic effect, it might help if it was one of the characters that actually got some decent screen-time, which is pretty much just Archer, T'Pol, and Trip. If the other characters had been developed better, then maybe Reed would be the best option (perhaps sacrificing himself in the line of duty, which would be fairly in character); Hoshi might work, if only for shock value; Phlox I think would be the oddball choice. And then there's Travis, of course, but would anyone really care?

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

I don't believe Star Trek was ever supposed to be about a hero's journey (that's Star Wars). The way I see it, it's an ensemble show.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Sure, Star Wars fits Campbell's classic myth structure, but the hero has friends and mentors who help him on his journey. If you call the series Enterprise one journey, Archer would be the "hero," the main protagonist.

And since this was a TV show, different characters could take turns being the "hero" of separate storylines or episodes. Travis was the hero of "Horizon," Phlox was the hero of "Doctor's Orders," and so on.

I can certainly agree with that interpretation of a hero's journey, but to say that "Enterprise" is no more than a "Jonathan Archer Show" with others reduced to supporting cast... I mean, is the show in question really the same "Enterprise" I've spent four years watching with commitment and (mostly) joy?

I didn't say that Enterprise is no more than a Jonathan Archer show.

I said, "If you call the series Enterprise one journey..." It was a hypothetical comparison of the show to classic mythology structure. I don't think episodic television fits perfectly into that mold, though.

I wouldn't characterize the Star Wars series as the Luke Skywalker show, either. But Luke is the heart and soul of the (3-film) story, the energy that drives it forward.

IMHO, Archer is the main protagonist of Enterprise in the same way that Kirk is for TOS or Picard is for TNG. They're all The Captain, the guys in charge. They drive the stories forward. But the other characters in all these series weren't put there to be window dressing, any more than Han and Leia and Ben Kenobi were window dressing for Star Wars. Being "supporting characters" isn't a bad thing, when you're talking about story structure. They all played vital roles.

Porthos

 

[Reanok]

Since I like the the Enterprise crew. I think V'Las should've been killed off He was a spy for the Romulans.And after he lied to Archer & T'Pol about Blaming the syrannites for the attack on Earth's emabassy and attacking the syraanites at the Terkarath sanctuary and nearly causing an interstellar war.

 

[Mach5]

I didn't say that Enterprise is no more than a Jonathan Archer show.

I said, "If you call the series Enterprise one journey..."

Apology for vagueness, I share your views on this. I was merely commenting on something previously stated by someone else.

It was a hypothetical comparison of the show to classic mythology structure. I don't think episodic television fits perfectly into that mold, though.

Actually, It hardly fits at all IMO. To me, Captain is a leader, a father figure, an elder brother, and a shepherd of sorts. He is no frakkin' King Arthur, Joan of Arc, Robin Hood, 'Kal-El the Last Son of Krypton' or Flash friggin' Gordon. Star Trek is not a bed time fable. At least not to me (although I did fall asleep watching "The Seventh" ).

I wouldn't characterize the Star Wars series as the Luke Skywalker show, either. But Luke is the heart and soul of the (3-film) story, the energy that drives it forward.

Agreed. Star Wars is a Skywalker family saga, but Obi-Wan, Yoda or Han Solo are not just mere helpers or sidekicks. They are each a force of its own kind, and an important peace of the mosaic.

 

[commodore64]

Apology for vagueness, I share your views on this. I was merely commenting on something previously stated by someone else.

For the record, I think Enterprise is the Jonathan Archer show in the same way that Stars Wars New Hope - Return of the Jedi is the Luke Skywalker show. Doesn't mean Han Solo and others aren't important, but to HR's point, it's the classical structure of writing. There has to be a POV, a journey and a main character that the action centers around. Trip is a fun character, but not the main character. He's a hero, but not the Hero.

To HR's point about episodic television -- I agree. The POV shifts around. So, for example, a character might be the Hero in an episode like Trip in Precious Cargo or Oasis. I think Enterprise is a major story-telling arc where in general, from beginning to end, it's from Archer's POV. It begins with him in Broken Bow and ends with him in TATV.

That's in sharp contrast to TGTMD. In that story, Trip is the main character and undergoes the Hero's Journey, which might be why you like it. (I'm assuming you do.)

 

[Mach5]

That's in sharp contrast to TGTMD. In that story, Trip is the main character and undergoes the Hero's Journey, which might be why you like it. (I'm assuming you do.)

I guess they deliberately made TGTMD Trip-centric to compensate for the rape of this character in that TNG parody that got aired by mistake after *the* finale.

 

[Penguin]

Mach5, you might look in on Commodore64's thread "Hero's Journey.

Interesting discussion.

Your bright ideas could liven up the thread.

 

[JiNX-01]

That's in sharp contrast to TGTMD. In that story, Trip is the main character and undergoes the Hero's Journey, which might be why you like it. (I'm assuming you do.)

I guess they deliberately made TGTMD Trip-centric to compensate for the rape of this character in that TNG parody that got aired by mistake after *the* finale.

Margaret Clark, the editor of the Enterprise novels, decided even before she learned of the fan backlash over TATV that she wanted to "unkill Trip." TGTMD does in fact feature Trip for that express reason. She even got the Paramount suits to OK contradicting what occurred on screen (which I read somewhere was a longtime "no no" for the ST novelists).

 

[Red Ranger]

You know, I originally thought Archer, then hovered over Malcolm, but I voted for T'Pol. Her character was mishandled badly, so going out with a bang, with no Genesis Planet to revive this Vulcan, would've been more dramatic. We could've seen Trip anguished over lost love and opportunity. -- RR

 

[commodore64]

That's in sharp contrast to TGTMD. In that story, Trip is the main character and undergoes the Hero's Journey, which might be why you like it. (I'm assuming you do.)

I guess they deliberately made TGTMD Trip-centric to compensate for the rape of this character in that TNG parody that got aired by mistake after *the* finale.

Margaret Clark, the editor of the Enterprise novels, decided even before she learned of the fan backlash over TATV that she wanted to "unkill Trip." TGTMD does in fact feature Trip for that express reason. She even got the Paramount suits to OK contradicting what occurred on screen (which I read somewhere was a longtime "no no" for the ST novelists).

I think it's because the contradiction is explained away. For example, we know Spock doesn't have children and yet Yesterday's Son, a novel, depicts a son for the Vulcan from All Our Yesterdays.

I'm not surprised a writer wanted to unkill Trip.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Margaret Clark, the editor of the Enterprise novels, decided even before she learned of the fan backlash over TATV that she wanted to "unkill Trip." TGTMD does in fact feature Trip for that express reason. She even got the Paramount suits to OK contradicting what occurred on screen (which I read somewhere was a longtime "no no" for the ST novelists).

I think it's because the contradiction is explained away. For example, we know Spock doesn't have children and yet Yesterday's Son, a novel, depicts a son for the Vulcan from All Our Yesterdays.

I'm not surprised a writer wanted to unkill Trip.

The Pocket Books writers have always been told to stay as consistent with established canon as possible, because there would always (well, until 2005) be future TV episodes that might contradict some huge character or plot change. And we've seen onscreen canon turn already-published books into AU stories.

Spock did have a liaison with the Mariette Hartley character (name escapes me at the moment) in "All Our Yesterdays," and nothing onscreen indicated that no children would have resulted. So Yesterday's Son worked at the time it was published. Theoretically it still works, if you ignore Spock never talking about kids in the movies.

The Relaunch books (for several series) have consciously styled themselves as the "official" (different from canon) continuation of the storylines for their respective series, which had all ended when their print Relaunch was...launched. That would account for more leeway given to the authors with regard to plot and character developments.

I thought the idea of "reinterpreting" TATV for The Good That Men Do was a clever way for the 3 M's to stay consistent with onscreen canon, while taking the story in a different direction than the show did.

 

[Mach5]

There were many valid reasons to unkill Trip.

First and foremost, the fact that he was by far the most popular character on the show and having an Enterprise relaunch without him would have made no sense. I doubt It would have been worth reading.

TATV devalued Enterprise and disgraced Star Trek, ergo a *finale* fix was a must. And from what I've seen on forums (this one and some others), people who actually liked TATV, only did because they disliked Trip and his popularity, and were glad his fans got middle-fingered.

 

[JoeZhang]

Yeah, if Travis would die at least he would do something.

yes, it's horrible, but so true.

Then they could have a funeral like for Ray Grimes on the Simpson.


Archer: Let me tell you a story about em.. er.. Travis, yeah that's the guy. Anyway, one night I was up late and turned to him and said "Can you get me a coffee?" and he said "sure thing Captain". That's the sort of guy he was.

 

[Penguin]

Mach5, So true. I would say that most who liked TATV are what are sometimes termed as A/T-Pol's. Trip stood inthe way of an Archer/T-Pol romance. so they were happy to see him offed.


Pity that Coto was not given a chance to fix TATV it would have been so easy. For instance Daniels simply snatching Trip away to the 31.st century where the doctors there heal him and return him to his condition before the explosion and Daniels returns him to T-Pol.

I like the relauch stories and am eargerly waiting the new one "the romulan Wars.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

And from what I've seen on forums (this one and some others), people who actually liked TATV, only did because they disliked Trip and his popularity, and were glad his fans got middle-fingered.

Mach5, So true. I would say that most who liked TATV are what are sometimes termed as A/T-Pol's. Trip stood inthe way of an Archer/T-Pol romance. so they were happy to see him offed.

Conclusions such as these are neither accurate or fair. I have seen plenty of posts by people who like TATV, and it has nothing to do with shipping or a perceived dislike of Trip.

This type of wholesale negative branding of certain factions of viewers, simply because their views don't line up with yours, is not a good idea. Let's not go there anymore.

 

[Reanok]

Margaret Clark, the editor of the Enterprise novels, decided even before she learned of the fan backlash over TATV that she wanted to "unkill Trip." TGTMD does in fact feature Trip for that express reason. She even got the Paramount suits to OK contradicting what occurred on screen (which I read somewhere was a longtime "no no" for the ST novelists).

I think it's because the contradiction is explained away. For example, we know Spock doesn't have children and yet Yesterday's Son, a novel, depicts a son for the Vulcan from All Our Yesterdays.

I'm not surprised a writer wanted to unkill Trip.

The Pocket Books writers have always been told to stay as consistent with established canon as possible, because there would always (well, until 2005) be future TV episodes that might contradict some huge character or plot change. And we've seen onscreen canon turn already-published books into AU stories.

Spock did have a liaison with the Mariette Hartley character (name escapes me at the moment) in "All Our Yesterdays," and nothing onscreen indicated that no children would have resulted. So Yesterday's Son worked at the time it was published. Theoretically it still works, if you ignore Spock never talking about kids in the movies.

The Relaunch books (for several series) have consciously styled themselves as the "official" (different from canon) continuation of the storylines for their respective series, which had all ended when their print Relaunch was...launched. That would account for more leeway given to the authors with regard to plot and character developments.

I thought the idea of "reinterpreting" TATV for The Good That Men Do was a clever way for the 3 M's to stay consistent with onscreen canon, while taking the story in a different direction than the show did.

I think Margaret and Andy & Micheal did a great job when it came to reinterpreting Tatv in the book was one of the things I really liked about TGTMD.when it comes to the relaunch books and storylines I look forward to seeing what happens in the Romulan war miniseries.

 

[Middleman]

Margaret Clark, the editor of the Enterprise novels, decided even before she learned of the fan backlash over TATV that she wanted to "unkill Trip." TGTMD does in fact feature Trip for that express reason. She even got the Paramount suits to OK contradicting what occurred on screen (which I read somewhere was a longtime "no no" for the ST novelists).

I would like to give you my opinion why Margaret Clark "unkilled" Trip and reinterpreted canon. Enterprise books would not sell any significant volumes without either Charles Tucker or, to a lesser extent, his romance with T'Pol. It all comes down to what appeals to the buyers most and to the money it generates, which is what Star Trek is really all about. As we will learn tomorrow, canon is secondary to cash. (not that I have a problem with that).

 

[Middleman]

Conclusions such as these are neither accurate or fair. I have seen plenty of posts by people who like TATV, and it has nothing to do with shipping or a perceived dislike of Trip.

This type of wholesale negative branding of certain factions of viewers, simply because their views don't line up with yours, is not a good idea. Let's not go there anymore.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. It has been my experience that, more often than not, a fan's dislike for Tucker was directly tied into that person's "ship". I don't think those fans would admit it right away, but as you get into longer conversations, you usually find that it does come up. But, as I said, it doesn't apply to everyone.

 

[Praetor]

Archer, in a self-sacrificial way, during Romulan War, maybe at the Battle of Cheron. That would be his 'great importance' to history.

 

[Penguin]

Hopeful romantic what I posted was just an opinion.

Actually, I have ventured into some Archer/T-Pol Fanfic sites.

Their hatred of Trip is terrifying and their love of TATV is directly tied to that hatred.

I have seen Avatars they have made ripping trip apart implying that he was a lousy lover and that T-Pol becomes violently ill when she remembers the night in Harbinger. that Archer was a better Lover than Trip although Archer never made love to t-Pol in the series. It goes on but the outright hatred of Trip is too obvious.

I have not seen the same in any Trip/T-Pol fanfic site I hav visited. Archer is rarely mentioned and if he is it is with courtesy.

Please excuse me for my observation and opinions they were not meat to offend anyone.

also, please don't slap me down for this post.