Top Ten Reasons I Hate Enterprise

Let's just hope that he never goes so far as to go out of his way to write a program that is specifically designed to cheat on an internet poll (and then takes the time to encourage others to help him cheat), all the while expecting us to believe him when he tells us that the poll is meaningless and that we should not waste our time on it -- or its results. Self-glorifying nerds, indeed.

 

Must... ResISt... SARcasTIC... RESPonse... TO... urghhhhhh... ORIginaL... POST!!!

Dude, Lighten up.

 

Funny, I would have listed that as my Only Reason for Liking ENT. I just watch ENT as the necessary price of participating in the festivities here.

Okay, I get your point. I remember the olden days at Psi Phi and our DS9 discussions. We bitched about stuff we didn't like a-plenty (I sure did ) but there was also enough good stuff that made great fodder for intelligent discussion that the tenor of the BBS was positive in balance.

Farscape provided some of that same grist, as did Firefly for its short run, but neither VOY nor ENT seems capable of generating the kind of intelligent, interesting speculation that, say, "Treachery, Faith and the Great River" did. Discussion going beyond just what we saw on the screen is what I mean. For that you need a series that conveys the feeling of a complete, rounded universe that could exist beyond the borders of the TV screen. That's what VOY and ENT are missing.

But there's nothing wrong with a BOTF series. It doesn't matter if we know how the meta-story ends. "Gone With the Wind" and "Band of Brothers" are still fascinating stories, even tho we know how the Civil War and WWII turns out. The crucial thing is, we don't know how the stories of the few little people we're seeing in those particular stories turn out. BOTF would work for the same reason all historical fiction can work.

And I'm far from convinced ENT was ever intended as BOTF in the first place. In fact, at this point I'm pretty sure it wasn't. Shouldn't we have seen some tiny indication of it by now? I sure hope that Vulcan-Andorian stuff wasn't supposed to be a "lead-up" to the Federation. Mighty thin material to create such a huge thing as the Federation.

Plus you forgot a couple important points to hate about ENT:

-The hypocritical treatment of sex in general and T'Pol in particular. Sex, my ass! She's just a frigid bitch in the Seven mold, only sans the acting talent, and we've had enough of Seven and her godawful exploration of "emotions" (written by people who think the only emotion in existence is "lust").

A truly sexy female character would be more like Aeryn Sun -someone who is honestly just HORNY (not "exploring her emotions" ) and has actual sex in as explicit a manner as Farscape could get away with on basic cable - or Chiana, who was a perpetually horny slut constantly getting everyone into trouble with her antics, but who also managed to be an interesting, fully rounded (no pun! ) character in her own right.

My objection to the catsuit stems entirely from the fact that a character who lacks interest in sex wouldn't wear clothes that parade her interest in sex. Chiana would wear a catsuit, and did. If T'Pol doesn't realize she's dressed like a streetwalker, then she's an utter moron. Clothes should fit the character.

-The Temporal Cold War. So far, it's just an excuse for random shit happening with no rhyme or reason. It's a plot device, and a piss-poor one at that. Either this plotline needs to get some logic and direction (how are the varying sides defined, who wants what, what strategies might they use to get what they want, and what CAN'T they do?) or it needs to just stop.

-Lame-ass villains. Future Guy is a plot device, not a character, and Silik is a prancing queen. Not exactly my idea of "scary."

If you're asking, does the Internet generate overwhelming hatred of every TV series, regardless of quality, my answer would be "no." I've been kicking around here and Psi Phi for more than four years now (geezus, what a scary thought), and I've observed the following:

-Horribly bad series, like Andromeda, have a very small cadre of supporters and a huge number of bashers; as Andromeda got worse and worse, the proportion of bashers increased exponentially.

-Mediocre-to-bad series like VOY and ENT have a split population of bashers and defenders. Complaints about the series tend to be "big-picture" stuff - the entire direction of the series is wrong.

-Good series like Firefly, Farscape, and DS9 have lots of supporters, with the occasional basher wandering in to stir up the pot. Complaints tend to be focused on specific aspects of the series, eg, Firefly's Western theme or Farscape's occasional crazy incoherence.

I'm pretty sure that TOS would have fit the latter definition: mainly liked, but still subject to valid complaints and occasional mindless bashing.

 

Lol. It was fun entertainment. It wasn't like I was touting I had the Key to Trek and all its wisdom. Plus, it riled up guys like you who stress out over a TV show they don't like. I'm wildly entertained you're still upset about it.

 

Again, I'll agree with most of that. It's hard for me to imagine them getting it together to launch another Trek tv series close on the heels of "Enterprise's" end, given the current difficulties, so I think that issue may be moot. I think making specific predictions is a mark of hubris -- so I'll undertake it : at least a couple of years to sort out what they want to do, a decision made by executive fiat somewhere near the top of the corporate foodchain that cuts through all the dithering, and a year or two to mount and find a place for the new production. Three to five years at least, and probably longer.

That's true -- they could have kicked over the chessboard of that 24th century (or the 23rd) and recreated it in a more contemporary and entertaining style; they could have broken all the stultifying "rules" that first GR and then Berman set up for the thing.

That's where the attempt to have it both ways was problematic: given an unwillingness to simply break with the past and reboot, the compromise was to move to another era and attempt to start over. But the essential problem, as you way, is really the unwillingness to break with the way things were done in the past.

I suspect that to the extent that this was Berman's idea (I don't know) it was a symptom of the old "sell them the pilot syndrome" -- the principle that you can often sell a story to a show by pitching them one which is essentially the one they used in their pilot episode (the thinking being that producers love their successful pilots). In this case, he goes back to his own earliest experience with how Trek was revived: Roddenberry decided to essentially redo the original series with new characters by moving the era in which it putatively took place. Everything else flowed from that initial conception.

For my taste, given the decision to move Trek to a new era moving it backward is the better choice; I know that some folks vociferously disagree, but I don't think that any of what's holding the show back from succeeding is really the result of the era in which it's set. Moving it backward provided the potential publicity and story value of associating it more closely or at least as closely with the source of Trek's strongest characters and stories -- TOS -- whereas continuing to move it further away into the future buys them nothing except the curiosity of the relatively small fan base that has held on through the later DS9/VOY years.

 

My biggest beefs with ENT are T'Pol and the general lack of TOS-style exploration,wonder,fright and awe. Early episodes like "Fight or Flight" and "Civilization" had a very TOS feel to them but the Temporal Cold War(a concept I genuinely enjoy and will---hopefully---be resolved very sharply and intelligently)has enveloped a large part of the overall ENT vision. When the NX-01 has to regularly run off on a special,classified mission to find a temporal thingamabob or rescue Archer from a Klingon penal asteroid and not spend time exploring(which is what the damned ship was built for! )it can get annoying. Plus,space isn't made to be scary and wondrous enough. There are times these guys respond to outer space like Picard on painkillers.

 

This post is an example of saavik's point about the state of the forum. It doesn't contribute at all to the point of the thread, and is really only meant to insult the thread starter.

If you don't like the topic Xenoclone, and don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, don't drop by with an irrelevant, nasty comment. If you do it again, you'll get a warning.

***

On topic--despite the fact that I do enjoy Enterprise, I do agree somewhat with saavik's initial post. I enjoy Enterprise, but I'd really like to see more depth from the show. It would give us a hell of a lot more to discuss in here--far beyond "fav character/fav ep" topics and the like.

 

In agreement with Dennis, above, but something I've been saying for a long, long time, it's not the era which is the problem. I said exactly the same thing about this Delphic Expanse business.

These are all smoke screens, and false idols, if you will. The real problem is the writing and the ability to tell a decent story. It really doesn't matter if the darn thing is set now, or a thousand years from now.

Depth of characterization is part of the problem - there is very little. Depth of storytelling is also another. These stories have no layers, no nuance, no broader message, no deeper thought. They are in as close to WYSIWYG drama I've ever seen, and that in the long run isn't satisfying.


As far as character is concerned they simply don't seem to know how to do it - a all. They dramatize nothing.

Did they dramatize trip's sister in The Expanse? Did we see the house, see her? No way - we got the cool FX but no substance. That's the problem.

 

I don't just like Enterprise, I love it. I love the cast and the characters. I love the premise and the execution of that premise. Maybe others would like to have seen two seasons of sitting round a table deciding every comma in the Federation charter, but I wouldn't.

My problem with both TOS and TNG was that boldly going where no-one had gone before seemed to always mean visiting Federation planet X or going to starbase Y. Enterprise has always given the impression that it is out there alone, from First Flight to Fallen Hero, even through the needed, but not ready NX02 in The Expanse.

I agree that Archer's characterisation has been patchy, but he came on in leaps and bounds in season two and that seems to be continuing in season three. I think Jolene Blalock is doing fine in getting into the difficult job of being a female Vulcan, especially a young, female vulcan. Connor Trinneer has been the find of the show, wonderfully playing Trip. Billingsley has also been wonderful. We've not seen enough of Reed, Mayweather or Hoshi to really be able to judge Keating, Montgomery or Park, but having agreed that Montgomery was only slightly better than the scenery, I was agreeably surprised at how well he took his chance in Horizon.

There has been a lot of talk of the lowest common denominator, but the decon scenes aren't a problem for me and, although I didn't like the Pon Farr thing, so what? It was part of one show which showed considerable growth for Trip in the big Command chair, showed new lights for Phlox, previously all for the mating ritual, but in reality not so keen!

I like the family of crew the show has created, I like the way it's set, the humour, the interaction and, yes, even the goddmamn ship . There could be a lot more danger in the mix, but that's being addressed in series three, there could have been higher stakes to play for, but that too has been dealt with, and how, with the Xindi threat.

I have a favourite TV show. It's called Enterprise. I will continue to fight for it and refuse to apologise for being an unabashed fan of it.

 

Yes, it is. That is why I say that everything which is wrong with "Enterprise" creatively can be solved in a week, or for a week.

Unfortunately, that's not the problem as the people who own "Star Trek" seem to see it.

It's also one reason that I lose patience with nitpicking criticisms of this-and-that about "canon" and the way the ship looks -- some people view such things or view specific aspects of the format as "symptomatic of the problems with the way the producers approach 'Star Trek'". I just don't. I view the complaints themselves as symptomatic of a central dissatisfaction with the drama of the series -- which, if it were possible to satisfy, would obviate the other complaints (if not for the most vehement complainers, then for most other disgruntled fans who chime in and "attaboy" on the nitpicks).

My favorite tv series of the last decade is one that revolves around a young woman repetitively stalking critters (in very cheesy rubber makeup with arbitrary histories and powers) through a phony graveyard and killing them. Once a season, the Apocalypse would come up and be defeated. The show could never make the rules of its "universe" completely clear or stick to them. Actions might have consequences from episode to episode, but one could never even be certain of that because a character could sacrifice his/her life and be back a couple of weeks later. Many weeks the production creaked at the seams -- it had more than its share of caves with flat floors and well-lit, airy tombs. It retold the same basic plot revolving around the same basic chain of events dozens and dozens of times.

Yet that show was smarter, better-written and more fun than the last decade of modern Trek.

 

^^ Dennis, I completely agree.

 

Sometimes it feels like people are complaining about the wallpaper, when it's the walls that are crumbling.

 

Upset? Hardly. I couldn't care less about it. I realized the poll was meaningless and I ignored it.

I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy here, specifically, calling where'sSaavik? a nerd and suggesting that he should have better things to do with his time, when your actions demonstrate that you should follow your own advice.

Trust me, you'll know when I'm upset. And this ain't it.

 

You wouldn't like him when he's Ang Lee.

 

Actually, the self-glorifying part was the insult, not the nerd part. I'll freely admit I have more than my own share of nerd-isms (it goes hand in hand with having a web-job that offers much spare time... last weekend's web bot craze, I'll admit, was deeper in the nerd rabbit hole than I've ever gone).

It is a waste of time, however, to spend it ranting and being miserable and 'clarifying opinion status' on ENT. At least spend your time being happy, no? Don't let a friggin' TV show pull ya down.

Since I don't want to derail the thread, I'd better make an opinion. I think ENT does have a problem with consistently creating stories that offer more than meets the eye. I blame part of it on the fact that they have only 40 minutes to tell a story and like to avoid 2-parters, which would have drastically improved many episodes. I hope this years arc fixes some of that, allowing for issues and themes to stretch across longer periods of time.

 

I think it´s quite cowardice of where´sSaavik to start this thread and just disappear afterwards. What´s the point with that. I thought you should follow up this discussion and explain furthermore. Or is this some hoax to bring some chaos amongst the members, or what?

Resign!

 

The first thing I notice about your Top 10 reasons you hate Enterprise is that most of them deal with the premise of the show and the people who create it. It seems like the issues of acting, storytelling, and character developement are after thoughts. My question of most of the people that hate Enterprise is that if the first things you mention about the show are how you hate the premise and the Beebs, then how in the world can you expect to like the show?

As far as Smallville is concerned, I feel about it the way you feel about Enterprise. The only thing that is different is that it has perceived good ratings and Enterprise has perceived bad ratings. Both shows will finish 4 and 5 for the night, in other words light years behind the Big 4. I don't care what anyone says Smallville totally kills the legend of Superman, which is far longer and more involved than Star Trek. It is just a modern version of the Superman legend much as LIS was suppose to be. It is also the exact same premise as Enterprise which you just said you hated. We know Clark will not be with Lana , we know Lex will turn out to be evil, and we know Clark will become the greatest superhero ever, so how is any of this different than Enterprise.

As far as the forum being nasty, all message boards are nasty. Also I don't know how old you are but ever since TNG came out the fandom has been split. I mean there was nothing but hate and anger over TNG. To this day the orginal Star Trek fans will not acknowledge TNG, DS9, or VOY. Some like ENT others don't. So to say that Enterprise split the fandom is just false.

I want to know where this thought that Enterprise was suppose to be a BOTF show? I don't read spoilers and steer clear of them, but since the show started I have never seen this stated anywhere. If it was please refer me to the source, if not I will say it was just one of an infinite number internet rumors.

I just want to say that I like Enterprise but like all shows it has its problems. I think it gets an F for details and background story. The show could have been so much better, but like Dennis said TPTB tried to ride the fence betweeen breaking away and holding on to the past, trying to make longtime fans happy and also attract new ones. Since they have been slapped in the face, I bet they wish they would have just broke away clean.

Enterprise was the perfect vehicle to just do a Zero Hour effect and just start the franchise over again, which is long over due. This would have angered longtime fans but so what they are angry already. Everytime someone brings up reboot or reimagine they get blasted. There are people still trying to bring Shatner back for goodness sake.

Dennis is right the time for reboot will come sooner or later so fans should just get ready for it. I just hope my ideas get chosen when it happens.

 

1. The Birth of the Federaton really had no limitations. It isn't the destination that is important, but how you get there. An exploration of Earth's culture, the Romulan War, and Vulcan/Andoran/Human interaction would have taken years to flesh out. And I for one would have been glued to set to see this.

2. Truly, I think the producers don't really know what they wanted. They don't have any idea (at least in seasons 1 and 2) of the destination or even the route they want to take.

3. And as others have noted, because the producers didn't commit to the Birth of the Federation, they fall back on what they know best. TNG and Voyager. Thus we've gotten the random alien of the week episode that really could have been set in the 23rd or 24th centuries.

4. The writing in many episodes is so boring that I don't really feel compelled to watch Enterprise. Why is it boring? Because it is so meaningless. Now if every encounter added something to the Federation birth, then it would be interesting. If every episode added one more brick to the foundation of the Federation it would be interesting. Instead of a mosaic, we get unforgettable episodes that ignore the story before and contribute nothing to the story after it.

5. Space should be big, bad, and scary. The one time Enterprise gets blown up, they find a magic repair shop and everything is just fine. Archer should be scared. He should be seeking allies for Earth. Hell, you'd think he'd call the Vulcans for help more often.

6. Either Bakula can't act or what they write for him is so bad that he is portraying the character exactly the way it is written. Either way, this needs fixing.

7. Continuity errors galore. I think these though relate the fact that the producers don't know what Enterprise is supposed to be.

One thing that I strongly disagree with though is the criticism of Blalock portrayal of T'Pol. Of all the Enterprise characters, she seems to be the only one that is believeable. And this is in spite of the catsuit.
For the producers, Blalock would look good in a Potato Sack. Maybe you need to leave Hollywood for awhile and realize that sometimes women are more sexy when something is left to the imagination.

Maybe the Expanse will be finally be the "meaning" Enterprise has lacked.

Anyway, my 2¢ worth....