Which thing annoyed you the most on Enterprise?
- Thread starter Luther Sloan
- Start date
I voted for tech too similar to 24th century. I loved the spacial torpedos but then they had to go and replace them with "photonic torpedos." I wish they would have stuck with the pulse pistols instead of phase pistols. The phase cannons didn't bug me too much until the Xindi arc where all of a sudden Enterprise seemed to have a dozen of them instead of the original three. I guess they had to buff up to go into unexplored hostile territory but I still miss those spacial torpedos.
At the risk of pissing off HopefulRomantic, I have to say Trip and his bigotry. Also, Archer and his. I've been watching alot of TNG recently, and I find it funny that by Picard's time, Starfleet has adopted as standard procedure, and in some cases, General Orders, alot of what T'Pol tried to teach Archer's crew. I have no doubt that this would stick in both Archer and Trip's crawl if they had lived to see it.
They both seem to grow and change through their interaction with T'pol and other Vulcans. By series end both have had experiences that "mellow" that attitude. Given Archer's supposed future he may be instrumental in making what T'pol taught part of Starfleet's General Orders.
It might not have been Archer's idea. There seemed to be a lot of wheeling and dealing going on between Starfleet and the VHC to get Enterprise the starcharts and the Vulcan database. Plus, there's Vulcan rank vs Starfleet rank. Maybe SF and the VHC agreed T'Pol was senior to Tucker.
I did notice that Archer continually referred to her as his Science Officer rather than his First Officer, for Season 1 at least. Maybe he didn't like the idea either.
I have no problem with anyone expressing their opinion, as long as they don't diss other posters, or try to tick them off by the manner in which they express that opinion. (Rules 101.)
Wow.
If Archer and Trip were truly bigots, they would be treating all alien species with suspicion and contempt. They reserve it for the Vulcans because the Vulcans have been holding humanity down for decades and they're fed up with it. I suspect if you lived in that era and the human species was being treated like children, you would be, too.
Archer didn't have to ask T'Pol to remain on board at the end of Broken Bow. And considering his attitude toward Vulcans in general, that was a pretty big leap for him. He could have easily dumped her into the nearest Vulcan airlock and gone on his way.
In Breaking the Ice, Archer attempts to get acquainted with Vulcan Captain Vanik, who goes out of his way to be rude and dismissive (not to mention that nasty parting shot at T'Pol).
But then I suppose he is justified in treating the humans as inferiors and T'Pol as some kind of traitor to her "race."
Later in the episode, Trip has T'Pol's back when he encourages her to choose the path she wants to take (which obviously is to remain on board or she wouldn't have been torn over what to do).
Shadows of P'Jem: Archer has T'Pol's back when the Vulcans try to recall her. He'll do the same in Stigma.
Fallen Hero: Ambassador V'Lar refuses to trust Archer, which is just as bigoted as anything Archer does (especially in light of of the fact that he's risking his ship to help her and in light of T'Pol's endorsment of the captain as deserving of trust).
number6
Vice Admiral
The whole idea of Archer and Trip's predjudices was that they would overcome them over the course of the series..much like the attitude of the Vulcans toward humans..
You take that away and there isn't much growth for the characters over the course of the series.
And then you have even more fans whining about lack of character development.
You take that away and there isn't much growth for the characters over the course of the series.
And then you have even more fans whining about lack of character development.
Which is another thing that annoyed me. Travis and Hoshi were both largely ignored. I would much rather have gotten to know more about them than Trip.
number6
Vice Admiral
They were minor characters and we got to know them plenty. I do think Travis could have had a bit more "fun."
They were kind of the Uhura/Sulu of this series and we didn't get nearly as much character development from them in three years of TOS as we did with Hoshi/Travis in four years of ENT.
They were kind of the Uhura/Sulu of this series and we didn't get nearly as much character development from them in three years of TOS as we did with Hoshi/Travis in four years of ENT.
Where is the "Nothing" option?
Okay I am still annoyed by Archer telling T'Pol he will knock her on her ass during a diplomatic meeting. I kind of found my way around it eventually though, by seeing him as being rather TOS era in his behavior.. who knows maybe men devolved because of all that WWIII radiation.
But that's it, nothing else annoying.
Okay I am still annoyed by Archer telling T'Pol he will knock her on her ass during a diplomatic meeting. I kind of found my way around it eventually though, by seeing him as being rather TOS era in his behavior.. who knows maybe men devolved because of all that WWIII radiation.
But that's it, nothing else annoying.
Yeah, but TOS was never meant to be an ensemble show. Nichols and Takei were never in the main credits (only Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley were). Park and Montgomery were.
My problem with Enterprise? Familiarity.
When the series was being made, the pre-publicity suggested that everything would be different. Technology would be much less advanced to anything we'd seen in Trek. Things taken for granted in later (chronologically speaking) series would be new and unusual. And what did we get?
A Starfleet ship called Enterprise. A command trio of an all American Captain, his old friend from the deep south, and a Vulcan first officer, who doubles as a science officer. Klingons. Time travel. Non-human crew members who comment on the human condition. Weapons that can stun or kill. The last minute use of the transporter to save someone's life.
All Trek staples.
And all seen in the very first episode.
I was disappointed from the start. Let's face it, saying 'hull plating at 57%' is not that much of a difference from 'shields at 57%'.
Gawd bless you sir! It's always nice to know someone's reading it.
When the series was being made, the pre-publicity suggested that everything would be different. Technology would be much less advanced to anything we'd seen in Trek. Things taken for granted in later (chronologically speaking) series would be new and unusual. And what did we get?
A Starfleet ship called Enterprise. A command trio of an all American Captain, his old friend from the deep south, and a Vulcan first officer, who doubles as a science officer. Klingons. Time travel. Non-human crew members who comment on the human condition. Weapons that can stun or kill. The last minute use of the transporter to save someone's life.
All Trek staples.
And all seen in the very first episode.
I was disappointed from the start. Let's face it, saying 'hull plating at 57%' is not that much of a difference from 'shields at 57%'.
Gawd bless you sir! It's always nice to know someone's reading it.
Considering the question was asked to each of us in this topic and considering we're all speaking our honest opinions on what annoyed us about the show, you can argue and justify your position all you wish..... these are the problems L.Sloan and I had with the show and we're stating our individual, subjective, personal opinions on what we didn't like about the show.
Some in here described that they didn't like the stories, or the acting, or the intro.
I never had an issue with the stories, or the acting, and I can deal with the intro.... but I'm not going to get up on my high horse and try and trivialize their views or the things they find annoying.... because they're well within their right to not like those things, just as we are justified in not liking the things we don't like.
You want to get up on your soap box and defend your position by calling our views as being those of "Anal Retentive Fanboys" ~ Yet at the same time we could call the things you and others found annoying that we don't as being equally anal retentive fanboy crap too.
But that is an exercise in wasting time.
I still like the show, I still enjoy the stories, and I am growing to accept some of the things I originally didn't like.... but that doesn't mean I still don't find flaws and that there aren't things that bug me.
There are things in the other shows that bug me too, but this thread isn't the place for me to list off all those things, because this thread is about Enterprise.
That's your opinion, not fact.... an opinion I don't agree with. I had no issue on how they made the stories..... but you do..... to each their own. I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong and then list the ways like you did.... I'm just going to leave it as your opinion which I don't agree with.
AKA: "The Actual Problem for Me with the Show...." is not the same thing as "The Actual Problem".... one is an opinion, the other is attempting to state a fact.
I and others were stating our opinions on what we didn't like personally.... you however are trying to dictate what is fact based on your own opinions, which I don't agree with.
That's the problem, that's the difference.
Once again, that's your assumption..... I have no issues with the things you had issues with.... you are continually trying to tell me the reasons why I didn't like the show and trivializing my real reasons for not liking the show at one time as some fanboy hangups.
If you had issues with the show for the above reasons, then so be it..... I'm not about to tell you why you should like or not like something.... so don't try and tell me how I should like or not like something.
You didn't like how they written the stories cuz you felt they were old fashion.... I didn't like how they tossed this show in out of the blue in which is never had any connection to the overall saga until now..... to each their own as we all like things for our own reasons and focus on different things compared to the next person.
NM:
Firstly, I want to be clear: that I am not gaining up on you. That is not my intent. I have enjoyed our previous posts here at Trekbbs. So please don't think that I am group attacking. I didn't get a chance to reply until now because I have been busy. But please know, that this reply (or the previous one) is or was not an attack on you as a person, but just a clarity of information being presented and an expression of my opinion. Okay. So now that has been said, here is my reply to your previous post to me, my friend...
Yes. Very true.
No I wasn't. I was simply being thorough or trying to be clear in my discussion. I am not a mind reader. I don't know what you know or don't know. Besides, we are not talking about simple words like dog or cat here. And you can't assume that everyone here at Trekbbs instantly knows the difference between the two words retroactive and retcon. Sure, some people here might. But I am sure there are quite a few here who don't, too. Plus, at one point you had to learn the differences between the two words retcon and retroactive at some point, right? Which means there was a time when you didn't know what those words meant. I was simply expressing that point as a matter of clarity. Nothing more.
Which proves nothing but the pointing of facts. And yes... I did bring up Urban Dictionary up as point of fact to begin with. But that doesn't mean that creators behind Enterprise didn't retcon within the series, though. At least in my opinion, anyways.
I already have. And I am not buying it. The point I was trying to make was a visual one in this ONE example. It doesn't mean I am ignoring what has been said (on an auditory level) on Enterprise in other examples, though.
Well, there must have been a good percentage of new potential viewers who were about to tune into Enterprise (or had watched one or two episodes) that had at least seen a TOS and a TNG movie at some point in their lives and probably had a concern with one of the following problems below...
1. What are the odds of another Captain having a ship named Enterprise having yet another important impact within the Trek-verse?
2. What are the odds of an almost identical triumvirate (White All American Captain - Vulcan First (Science) Officer - Southern Type Officer) actually happening almost twice in a row?
3. What is so different about this series that makes it a prequel series to the rest of the Trek shows? It still has the same recognizable phasers, transporters, and other concepts that the other series has. So if this show is not any different at first glance... Then why do a prequel then?
Now, this doesn't mean that I can't enjoy the show. It just means I wish they had done certain things differently to make the show a true prequel. At least in my opinion, anyways.
Last edited:
Exactly. They were nothing but Uhura and Sulu in reverse.
Yes, but you are responding to me. Its my name in the "___wrote" and I'm the "NM" being addressed by you. You've talked to me enough to know that I have a good grasp those terms. Including definitions in your response can only be taken one way by the recipient. (me)
If someone needs clairity, I think you should wait for them to ask. Automatically assuming that people are unfamilar with these terms is still a bit insulting. Comes across as talking down to them (IMO)
And what is the "difference"? A retcon is a type of "retroactivity" specific to fiction. Thats about it. Not sure how retroactive can be applied otherwise when discussing fictional continuity.
Of course they retonned. Its not a negative thing. Its what you have to do when dealing with unknown elements of the past in a fictional world. Every time they refer to a element in the past that was not previously mentioned its a retcon. Kirk or Spock's brothers: retcons. First time Cochrane is mentioned: retcon. NX-class Enterprise: retcon. It doesn't matter if its the second episode of a franchise or the thousandth. Its a retcon.
You buying it is irrelevent. As is me accepting it. It is because thats what it is. A cat doesn't become a dog because you dont like how a particular cat looks.
A "good percentage"? Based on what?
1. Same question can be asked about TOS and TNG.
2. It was a deliberate attempt to capture the magic of TOS. A back to basics approach.
3. "Prequel" has nothing to do with being different. You could set a prequel ST show a second chronologically before TOS . The main difference between ENT and TOS ( and TNG and TOS ) is the time period. And in the case of ENT those difference are actually more significant that the ones between TOS and TNG. Not sure why people get so hung up on the technology.
As I just said all you need in a prequel is for the book,show or film to be set prior to the other ones chronologically. Thats a "true prequel".
That's different from what you were previously saying.
You didn't say this might be a reason, you said this was THE reason why the show failed (bad stories).... you provided no statistical study or other forms or sources to back up your claims, the way you worded yourself previously made it sound like what you were stating is fact and that fact applies to all.
The problem with trying to debate each person's subjective opinions in a subject like this one, is that it can't progress very far, nor will it solve anything.
In my first post in this topic, I stated right off the bat that not only was I aware many may not share my opinion and reasons, but that the things I was explaining were the "Original" reasons why I never gave the show a chance when it first aired.
That doesn't mean what I was explaining is the same mentality I have today towards the show. I have given it a chance, I'm watching the episodes now and I plan on watching it all the way through.... but for now, I like the show and I can put my past hang ups on the show aside and enjoy the show for what it is.
But no matter how much you and I debate over the reasons I explained, those reasons I had in the past are not going to change in the slightest, because it's the past and it was/is all based on my own personal subjective likes and dislikes..... just like you finding the stories flawed in their approach, even if I don't agree they were flawed...... ie: everybody's interests are completely different and can not be changed unless the individual wishes to change them.
Fair enough.
There are certain things I can understand and personally allow being added to the past of a fictional universe.... add different aliens, add different planets, add different scenarios.... sure... there's room for flexibility for those things to a degree.
But when the core of the series is revolved around a key figure to the overall universe, such as a starship with the same name as other starships and vessels with huge historical impacts in that fictional universe and was never once mentioned or brought up before anywhere in the saga (going on the premise that time moves forward)..... or any other really big key factors in that fictional universe that make it what it is to the majority of the fan base..... those type of things are noticed more and tolerated less.
Now to clarify this... once again, this is not what I think today.... as I can see where Sloan is coming from when speaking of an "Alternative" timeline.... as I saw up ahead in Season two, there's an episode called "Regeneration" that introduces the borg much sooner then TNG's first contact with the borg..... thereby directly tying in this NX Enterprise existing and thus being valid to the rest of the Saga because Picard and Crew were directly involved in time being altered an thus justification for the NX-01 Enterprise existing.... since apparently those borg came from the sphere the Enterprise E blew up in the past.
In other words, there is a legitimate explanation as to why and how this NX-01 Enterprise came to be which does tie into the rest of the ST Saga.
But back when the show began, me as a regular Star Trek Viewer/fan never had this explanation, the reasons why this Enterprise existing was never clearly explained in any valid manner.... it somehow didn't tie into everything else when everything else ties into one another.... it felt disconnected and not until I read about this episode I have yet to see, did I see a connection to the rest of the ST Universe.
Which makes me only wonder now about exactly how much did Picard and Crew affect the timeline when they got back (Insurrection/Nemesis era)
The perplexity I am left with is that either Picard and Crew were always meant to go back and time and start this ball rolling, thus the NX-01 should have always existed in their timeline (should have been a model with the rest of the ships, etc.), just like Sisko going back in time and being Gabriel Bell, or Sisko and crew going back in time to save Kirk during the Tribble incident...... or when Data went back in time to the 1900'th century and losing his head......
..... Or..... Picard and Crew were never originally meant to go back in time, patched up the problems the Borg started, and their own timeline was altered in some way that was never mentioned, which thus created the NX-01 Enterprise, which eventually connected to the future where the Romulan's encountered the Super Nova and Nero went back in time with Spock to mess the timeline up even more..... as not only did the NX-01 look more advanced then kirk's original Enterprise.... but the new Enterprise in the last movie (1701) looked even more advanced, even more so.
While one can easily argue that they were all made advanced looking to appeal to current generations viewing start trek.... the biggest trick is to tie it into the existing history and information everybody already followed through the years..... and accomplishing this trick is imo the key to a very well thought out and successful story/saga.
^ That is where I currently stand..... in that I am currently stuck between one explanation or another.
And while the above may sound a bit fanboy'ish, one of the reasons why I got into Star Trek in the first place was because it made you think deep about these type of things and if they can't explain how the dots actually connect in a clear manner like they always could.... then neither can I and when that happens, I feel a bit detached from the whole experience and it seems flawed.
Anyways, if when Enterprise first aired and they took the time right off the bat to explain exactly how it all started and how it tied in with everything else, I think that not only would I have given it a chance early on, but many others might have as well.
No, I didn't. The stories were fine. It was the way they were presented that ( probably ) did not appeal to the modern audience. I based this on what has been proven popular over the past ten to twenty years. Heavily serialized, arc based story telling is the dominate form of drama on TV. Episodic done in one drama is not.
Well I happen to think that is being overly picky. We knew next to nothing about the 22nd Century/pre TOS history of the Trek Universe. And what we did know could barely fill a page. It was for all intents and purposed a blank slate.
Guys like Cocharane and Garth came up "out of the blue" with no mention previously. They are pivitol and important figures in "history' just like Archer. The Enterprise C is an important ship in the "history" of the UFP and the Klingon Empire and even with a Klingon serving on board a Federation ship, there was no mention of it until "Yesterday's Enterprise.". We know it exists because the letter C comes before D and after A. Yet of its service at Narandra III, not a word is spoken. Then there is the Enterprise-XCV. Worthy of inclusion in TMP Enterprise display, but absent afterward until it shows up again in ENT. No mention of it's exploits in any show (shouldn't TOS have mentioned it?), but based on a single shot in TMP its part of "history". Yet four seasons of ENT isn't?
Seven of Nine in VOY shows that the Borg were known to at least certain people in the UFP prior the the E-D meeting them. Picard was not in the loop for some reason. The Borg might have been classified "need to know" and Picard didn't need to know.
Now that is an example of a retcon that actually changed what we thought we knew. "Mishandling Canon" if you will.Memory Alpha said:
Similar threads
