You seem to be the exact opposite of your average "ENT SUX!!1!!" fanboy. I guess that makes two of us.
Three of us.
('cept I'm a fangirl 
)
What is your honest opinion of Enterprise?
- Thread starter indolover
- Start date
Three of us.
('cept I'm a fangirl )
There are actually very few continuity issues that can't be massaged to fit in, depending on how hard you want to work at it.
For me, I was excited about Enterprise. I liked the uniforms, the time frame, the characters, but not the total look. It looked too much like DS9, TNG, and Voyager. I really wanted it to look more like TOS. It didn't have to be a carbon copy, but it'd have helped if it looked just a little more like the original series. Better yet, like The Cage.
Had its ups and downs. I really liked the first batch of episodes when the show started. There seemed to be a lot of enthusiasm present in the series and I liked how, at times, it seemed to almost go out of its way to stand apart from the others.
I never cared for the Xindi arc. It didn't feel like a prequel to me at that point. I realize the show was in trouble and it had to be shaken up, but I didn't think that was the best direction to go in. Earth was in danger of being destroyed. Well, we knew it was going to be destroyed (since it was a prequel), but we also knew that it couldn't be destroyed anyway. Berman and Braga would never have done that -- just in an alternate reality.
Obviously, because Enterprise was produced AFTER the other series, but takes place BEFORE, realistically, you couldn't reference a yet-to-be-created story, but you'd think the Xindi incident, as big and pivotal as it was, would somehow have crept into the other shows in some sort of reference, even if it were as vague as "Earth was in danger of being destroyed in the mid 22nd century." You know what I mean?
I didn't like how they, sort of, danced around the cannon. In other words, by getting around the Ferengi encounter in the first season by only having Trip, Archer, and T'Pol see them, and not even have the Ferengi identify themselves, thus they never finding out their species. I just got the notion they were dancing around the franchise cannon.
One episode I was ready to hate, but ended up REALLY liking was the Borg episode, "Regeneration," from the second season. I remember coming here to TrekToday and reading the article that the Borg were going to show up. I thought, "How... is that even possible?" I thought it was really a cool idea to have the events in this episode, more or less, set the rest of the Borg encounter on other series in motion. It's fun to imagine that the Borg cube Q flung the Enterprise into the path of in "Q, Who?" could very well have been on course for Earth after just receiving the distress call from the Borg in the 22nd Century.
When season four started, I thought, "Now THIS is a prequel!"
Season four should have been season one. Keep "Broken Bow" as the series pilot, of course, maybe have one or two stand alone shows, but then go right into the mini-arcs that we had in season four. I often wonder how the show would have been perceived had it started like that. Mentally, I pretty much wiped out seasons one, two, and three and treated season four as the start of the series. I just felt that that's what the show should have been. To me, that's when it really felt like a true TOS prequel and not TNG prequel.
I never cared for the Xindi arc. It didn't feel like a prequel to me at that point. I realize the show was in trouble and it had to be shaken up, but I didn't think that was the best direction to go in. Earth was in danger of being destroyed. Well, we knew it was going to be destroyed (since it was a prequel), but we also knew that it couldn't be destroyed anyway. Berman and Braga would never have done that -- just in an alternate reality.
Obviously, because Enterprise was produced AFTER the other series, but takes place BEFORE, realistically, you couldn't reference a yet-to-be-created story, but you'd think the Xindi incident, as big and pivotal as it was, would somehow have crept into the other shows in some sort of reference, even if it were as vague as "Earth was in danger of being destroyed in the mid 22nd century." You know what I mean?
I didn't like how they, sort of, danced around the cannon. In other words, by getting around the Ferengi encounter in the first season by only having Trip, Archer, and T'Pol see them, and not even have the Ferengi identify themselves, thus they never finding out their species. I just got the notion they were dancing around the franchise cannon.
One episode I was ready to hate, but ended up REALLY liking was the Borg episode, "Regeneration," from the second season. I remember coming here to TrekToday and reading the article that the Borg were going to show up. I thought, "How... is that even possible?" I thought it was really a cool idea to have the events in this episode, more or less, set the rest of the Borg encounter on other series in motion. It's fun to imagine that the Borg cube Q flung the Enterprise into the path of in "Q, Who?" could very well have been on course for Earth after just receiving the distress call from the Borg in the 22nd Century.
When season four started, I thought, "Now THIS is a prequel!"
Season four should have been season one. Keep "Broken Bow" as the series pilot, of course, maybe have one or two stand alone shows, but then go right into the mini-arcs that we had in season four. I often wonder how the show would have been perceived had it started like that. Mentally, I pretty much wiped out seasons one, two, and three and treated season four as the start of the series. I just felt that that's what the show should have been. To me, that's when it really felt like a true TOS prequel and not TNG prequel.
It's easier to deal with after knowing how it all works out.
At the time, however, yeah, I admit it, I was leading the jihad. It wouldn't be exaggerating to say that I'm one of the reasons Brannon Braga changed his email address on AOL.
At the time, however, yeah, I admit it, I was leading the jihad. It wouldn't be exaggerating to say that I'm one of the reasons Brannon Braga changed his email address on AOL.
*facepalm*
Reed was my main annoyance with the series, felt the way he pranced about with his "phase pistol". It just annoyed me as it just wasn't real at all, he looked more like a 5 year old with a water pistol than a security/tactical officer.
In terms of Enterprise in general, it took me a while to warm to it. The theme music put me off from the start, and the southerner in Trip took a bit of getting used to.
But I felt it came into its own with every passing episode and I am disappointed it came to an end, and I came to liking Trip as one of the better characters in it. I also liked Archer and Phlox.
I had a lot of trouble with Reed being security chief. After getting a look at the muscles on Travis I became convinced that Mayweather should have been security chief while Reed remained as tactical officer (all he has to do is push buttons). And that brawl with Major Hayes in "Harbinger..." talk about straining credibility.
That doesn't really bother me. For instance, how often do you talk about the Franco-Prussian War?
I recently watched the MU eps again and noticed that Reed is exactly the same person in the MU. Understated, darkly repressed, gets off on blowing things up.
ColeMercury said:
I don't know, man... were either of those two sides hellbent on launching a weapon of mass destruction that was poised to annihilate the human race?
I consider it the biggest contribution to the series not feeling like a prequel at that point.
This storyline could have easily been the Earth-Romulan War that we heard so much about, or at the very least, the prelude to it. Not to say, a war story is something I strive to see on Star Trek, but it would have been something far more familiar and in-line with the established history.
And did any of you feel like the NX-01 was a fragile ship? Ever since that episode from season one, "Silent Enemy," where Archer states that the ship isn't built to handle the threats they are coming up against, or maybe even before that, from "Fight or Flight," where Enterprise is in a sticky situation with an alien ship and are faced with sure doom, I just was never able to view it as a capable vessel, despite any upgrades it was given later on.
The only issue I have with the Xindi arc is this:
Xindi attack: 7 million dead (never mentioned in the future).
Boston Massacre: 5 dead. (still taught in American history classes more than 200 years later).
With four previous Trek series (three of which lasted 7 seasons), it seems to me that Bermaga could have assigned some unpaid intern to look for a passing mention of a catastrophe involving humans that could have been tied into the Xindi arc).
Thank you, JiNX-01. That is exactly my point.
Yer welcome!
I loved the show, it had its good moments.
Taiping Rebellion: 20 million dead. It happened in the 19th Century in China. When was the last time you mentioned it in a conversation?
Given it's established that the Federation's founded in 2161, soon after that war ends, and the beginning of the third season was set in 2153... yeah, unless the war is meant to be eight years long I don't think so.
The prelude to the war, maybe. There should have been more building up of tension between the humans and Romulans over the course of the whole show. But what they were trying to do with the third season's writing was basically give the show a kick up the pants and see if they could make it exciting -- and I think they succeeded there.
OK. I am not thoroughly acquainted with Chinese history. I admit it is a failing of the American education system that we tend to concentrate on American and European history.
