ENT or ST XI - which one was better recieved?

[Luther Sloan]

ENT really never could have succeeded, it needed to come years after VOY instead of right after, it needed a new writing staff (which Berman wanted, but was denied), and maybe to try out new music and camera techniques (which Paramount wouldn't have allowed them to do).

Anwar:

I don't think time or a new writing staff would have mattered. B & B still would have basically created the same flawed product. I mean, as grateful as I am to what Berman has contributed to Trek over the years, I believe his current perception of reality or any sense of taste is seriously flawed now. He still believes Nemesis is a great movie and that Enterprise did not break canon at any point.

As for new music, and camera techniques: that really wouldn't have made a difference in improving the horrible cast of actors, the uncanny resemblance of this century in relation to the 24th century, the improperly explained story arcs, broken canon, vulcan sex suits, and lack of character development.

NuTrek was allowed a lot more freedom mainly because Paramount's prior conservatism had failed so they didn't have much to lose this time around. It had a real budget, was allowed creative freedom, and newer more modern filming techniques that the other shows were denied.

No. Berman had the creative freedom to make this show feel like a prequel series from the beginning, cast a better selection of actors, make the 22nd century look and or appear like the 22nd century, plan out in significant detail his over all story arcs better in the first two seasons, investigate and adhere to canon, resist in copying Voyager, and write complex and interesting characters (that grow and change as the series progressed) with rich back stories and or history.

Otherwise Berman would have come clean with the mistakes he made on Enterprise by now and would have wished he done things drastically different. In other words, he basically created the product he wanted to create and is blindly happy with it (the way that it is). In fact, critics had blamed his unimaginative "play it safe" style over his last few years before he stepped down, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Berman

 

[Anwar]

Not really, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Paramount and UPN would've allowed them to do something really that difference from prior Trek shows. They were too heavily entrenched in "Milk the Cash Cow" mode at the time. Ron Moore or JMS would've done the show and it wouldn't have been any different (except maybe they'd have quit sooner).

By NuTrek's time, they weren't in cash cow mode anymore and WERE willing to allow changes to be made since they're simply following the general "reboot" trend in franchises these days. Don't count on Paramount to ever make the pioneering changes in media.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Not really, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Paramount and UPN would've allowed them to do something really that difference from prior Trek shows. They were too heavily entrenched in "Milk the Cash Cow" mode at the time. Ron Moore or JMS would've done the show and it wouldn't have been any different (except maybe they'd have quit sooner).

Anwar:

Need an article to prove your point. I never read anywhere that it was the studio who was to blame for the show being the way that it was. As a matter of fact, everything I read so far has made it pretty clear Berman didn't have any problems with the studio in creating a 22nd century prequel show that looked like the 24th century and broke canon. In fact, evidence suggests that Berman was quite happy with Star Trek: Enteprise. Especially seeing Enterprise has been reported as being his second favorite Star Trek show.

http://www.trekspace.org/profiles/blogs/rick-berman-exclusive

The Temporal war was a UPN edict, not something the writers wanted to do. They also were the ones pushing for iconic trek tech like Transporters, phase weapons, iconic trek aliens, etc.

 

[Michael]

You know, Luther Sloan, for a guy who allegedly doesn't want to debate the whole "Is Enterprise Canon?" thing, you sure bring it up rather frequently, don't you?

 

[Anwar]

Not really, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Paramount and UPN would've allowed them to do something really that difference from prior Trek shows. They were too heavily entrenched in "Milk the Cash Cow" mode at the time. Ron Moore or JMS would've done the show and it wouldn't have been any different (except maybe they'd have quit sooner).

Anwar:

Need an article to prove your point. I never read anywhere that it was the studio who was to blame for the show being the way that it was. In fact, everywhere I read it was pretty clear Berman didn't give any hint or indication to any problems (involving the studio) with creating a 22nd century prequel show (that broke canon) and looked and felt like the 24th century.

The Temporal war was a UPN edict, not something the writers wanted to do. They also were the ones pushing for iconic trek tech like Transporters, phase weapons, iconic trek aliens, etc.

With all that baggage, I don't blame them for the show looking like the other ones. People keep saying it should've looked like NuBSG, but Paramount wouldn't have allowed them to make the show that different looking. That's not how a cash cow franchise operator works. NuTrek came along when Trek was no longer a cash cow and thus Paramount was willing to shell out the cash and back off creatively.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Anwar:

Still need an article to prove that point. I never heard of that being said anywhere.

Now, lets say for the sake of argument that Berman was forced by the studio to put lasers and advanced looking ships within the series. Well, why didn't Berman just make this a prequel series that happens a few years before Kirk was born or something?

 

[Luther Sloan]

You know, Luther Sloan, for a guy who allegedly doesn't want to debate the whole "Is Enterprise Canon?" thing, you sure bring it up rather frequently, don't you?

NCC-1701

I know that debating canon is futile. People are going to believe what they want to believe based on their love of the show and their interpretation and or adherence to the previous Trek shows.

Now, debating on the matter of why Enterprise wasn't as well received is another topic entirely. Just because canonical errors just happens to be one of the reasons to support my argument in this case doesn't mean I want to debate the other topic needlessly or that it is wrong (or unreasonable) of me to do so.

 

[Anwar]

Anwar:

Still need an article to prove that point. I never heard of that being said anywhere.

Now, lets say for the sake of argument that Berman was forced by the studio to put lasers and advanced looking ships within the series. Well, why didn't Berman just make this a prequel series that happens a few years before Kirk was born or something?

It's from one of the DVD interviews done for the Enterprise DVDs.

Why didn't they set it sometime else? Because the audience would still be bitching about how it all looked too advanced. ENT was doomed from inception. They do that, we're still here having this same talk. And I'm willing to bet it was a Paramount/UPN order for the time period as well. I could be wrong though.

But enough, I've had my say over why NuTrek was better received and that's that.

 

[Luther Sloan]

It's from one of the DVD interviews done for the Enterprise DVDs.Why didn't they set it sometime else? Because the audience would still be bitching about how it all looked too advanced. ENT was doomed from inception. They do that, we're still here having this same talk. And I'm willing to bet it was a Paramount/UPN order for the time period as well. I could be wrong though. But enough, I've had my say over why NuTrek was better received and that's that.

Anwar:

Cool, I will have to go thru my Enterprise DVDs and check that out. Thanks man.

As for the 22nd century looking too advanced: they could have explained the TCW better and or pointed out that Enterprise was some kind of alternate time line (like JJ Abram's had done). But unfortunately, Berman was not that clever to pull such a concept off. In other words, I believe there was a way for Berman to make a quality prequel series (despite the restrictions).

 

[Anwar]

Well, I don't think it could've worked anyways (I don't like prequels, but since NuTrek is a reboot I'm okay with it). But I stated my opinion on the matter so I shouldn't go on about it.

 

[Anji]

Canon-obsessed fan chiming in here.

As I recall in my area Enterprise was not met with any kind of contempt. And neither was Abrams Trek.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Yes. There was heavy canonical criticism by the fans concerning Enterprise.

Brannon Braga is tired of fans complaining about continuity:

http://talk.trekweb.com/articles/2003/08/21/1061438460.html

Enterprise Background and Cancelation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_the_Voyages...#Background_and_cancellation

The concern of canon is mentioned in Enterprise's Memory-Alpha page:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise

Actress Jolene Blalock complains about character continuity:

http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=41428744f349d

Criticism mentioned on english speaking India based site:
http://www.indopedia.org/Rick_Berman.html#Criticism_by_Trekkers


As for JJ Abram's Star Trek...

True. There didn't appear to be any major criticism from any of the fans concerning the 2009 film. In fact, reviews were quite positive from both the critics and movie goers (of which a good percentage were fans).

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/startrek2009?q=Star Trek

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809752801/info

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/

 

[Nerys Myk]

Canon and continuity aren't the same thing.

 

[BillJ]

I think Star Trek 2009 was probably better received, but let's not forget that Enterprise debuted with almost 13 million viewers.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Canon and continuity aren't the same thing.

Nerys:

Technically, they are one and the same.

In fiction, continuity is consistency of the characteristics of persons, objects, places and events seen by the reader or viewer. The term is taken from the mathematical sense of something being smooth and without break. In some forms of media, such as comic books, continuity has also come to mean a set of contiguous events, sometimes said to be "set in the same universe.

A canon, in terms of a fictional universe, is a body of material that is considered to be "genuine" or "official", that can be directly referenced as, or as if it were, material produced by the original author or creator of a series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Continuity_(fiction)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)


In other words, canon is just a fancy word for letting you know that the fictional continuity or events are official. However, that doesn't mean that using the word continuity is any less official when being used within a sentence (unless stated otherwise of course).

In fact, Brannon himself uses the word continuity in reference to canon within this article...

http://talk.trekweb.com/articles/2003/08/21/1061438460.html

 

[Luther Sloan]

I think Star Trek 2009 was probably better received, but let's not forget that Enterprise debuted with almost 13 million viewers.

Bill:

Enterprise's 2001 premiere episode, attracted 12.5 million viewers in its first broadcast, but ratings quickly dropped to a low of 5.9 million viewers. In fact, it's final season continued to drop to a range from 2.9 million viewers to 2.5 million and was eventually canceled. Although, there were die hard Enterprise fans raising a significant amount to continue the show, Enterprise was not an overall TV numbers winner. Also, the show was generally not considered favorable by the critics until the final season either. But by then, it was little too late. The damage had been done and the numbers were too low for the network to justify it's air time or long term profit plan involving the franchise.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_the_Voyages...#Background_and_cancellation

 

[Luther Sloan]

The Temporal war was a UPN edict, not something the writers wanted to do. They also were the ones pushing for iconic trek tech like Transporters, phase weapons, iconic trek aliens, etc. With all that baggage, I don't blame them for the show looking like the other ones. People keep saying it should've looked like NuBSG, but Paramount wouldn't have allowed them to make the show that different looking. That's not how a cash cow franchise operator works. NuTrek came along when Trek was no longer a cash cow and thus Paramount was willing to shell out the cash and back off creatively.

Anwar:

My apologies. You were correct, my friend. I just watched the featurette as you described it on Enterprise's last disc of Season 1. In fact, I had no idea that B & B were under such restrictions when creating Enterprise. That is totally uncool.

However, as I mentioned before, I still think they could have made a better prequel (no matter what type of limitations that was set upon them). In fact, I believe various fans had every right to get upset with the way Berman & Braga handled the series. At least, in my opinion, anyways.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Canon and continuity aren't the same thing.

Nerys:

Technically, they are one and the same.

In fiction, continuity is consistency of the characteristics of persons, objects, places and events seen by the reader or viewer. The term is taken from the mathematical sense of something being smooth and without break. In some forms of media, such as comic books, continuity has also come to mean a set of contiguous events, sometimes said to be "set in the same universe.

A canon, in terms of a fictional universe, is a body of material that is considered to be "genuine" or "official", that can be directly referenced as, or as if it were, material produced by the original author or creator of a series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Continuity_(fiction)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

But something thats part of the canon doesn't have to share 100% continuity with all parts of that canon.

 

[BillJ]

I think Star Trek 2009 was probably better received, but let's not forget that Enterprise debuted with almost 13 million viewers.

Bill:

Enterprise's 2001 premiere episode, attracted 12.5 million viewers in its first broadcast, but ratings quickly dropped to a low of 5.9 million viewers. In fact, it's final season continued to drop to a range from 2.9 million viewers to 2.5 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_the_Voyages...#Background_and_cancellation

Yes, all true. But with a weekly series the lackluster follow-up episodes led to the audience erosion. If we had only seen an Enterprise episode every two years, people may have reacted differently to it.

 

[Luther Sloan]

But something thats part of the canon doesn't have to share 100% continuity with all parts of that canon.

Nerys:

There are many examples of similar words that essentially mean the same thing but can also be used to describe something more specific, too.

The point you are getting at is that the word canon can also be used to describe works within a certain field of study and not each of those pieces of fiction don't have to refer or connect with one another.

Another way of putting it is that "canon" can be a group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: "the durable canon of American short fiction" (William Styron).

However, that doesn't mean that canon cannot be a collection of one big continuous piece of work or connected as a whole either (like within the world of Star Trek).

In fact, the words "canon" and "continuity" have both been interchangeably used in many cases to describe nitpicks as a whole or within a particular chapter or story line (not just within Star Trek, but within other series, as well).

Sure, the word "canon" can be used in a unique or specific way to better describe or explain a particular sentence. However, there are a ton of words out there that basically have the same meaning and have a more added particular definition attached to it.