Top Ten Reasons I Hate Enterprise

Love you too, LC, even when you're wrong.

Between 1973 and 1976 there was a true phenenemon where Star Trek got its fire that spread across the planet. It was never really covered in the content of what appeared on screen. It was a social movement that I pity the younger generation for having missed. Those of us who lived through the days when anyone could say "Beam me up, Scotty," and it resonated in popular culture ... those were the glory days of Trek. Nothing Enterprise is doing even comes close to the mass appeal that TREK was able to generate back then.

 

Sorry, John, I've been a Trek fan since 1966. I'm older than dirt -- Hell, I'm actually old enough to remember when the GOP was run by conservatives instead of neo-fascist Right-Wing twits.

 

You remember Abe Lincoln??!! Or is it Teddy Roosevelt?

 

I remember Barry Goldwater.

 

Join the club...

No, really, check out my sigline.

 

John, I've watched Trek first run since 1969; and I like Enterprise and think it fits into continuity just as well as its prdecessors. ALL Trek series have had major continuity gaffs, and TOS had some of the most egregious within itself.

The fact is - there has been great material, good materiel, and utter CRAP material written throught the 37 year history of the Trek franchise. TOS had the best written first season of any show up to that time in TV imo, but that's because GR had actual science fiction writers pen those scripts, OR he plagerized some of the best short science fiction stories out there, and adapted them to Trek. By the second season, after he drove all those writers away with his hamfisted re-writes, the quality started to dip, and by the 3rd season, instead of the occasional clunker, we had the occassional good episode.

So, I think again that you tend to look at TOS with very Rose Colored Glasses (tm). As to comparisons with later Trek series:

ENT's first two seasons are WAY better written and acted than TNG's first two seasons; are about on par with DS9, and are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the crapfest known as Star Trek Voyager.

It's funny that everytime someone brings up the:

The younger fans don't know better because they never really had a chance to see classic Trek in the context of when it aired. ENT is driving the older fans away because of this...

arguement, they fail to notice the number (and it's quite high) of old fans who chime in with:

It's not perfect, but I still like it.

comments. It's just amazing how detractors love to stratify the fanbase, and make general assumptions like:

If you were born after <insert favorite year here>

or

If you became interested in Trek because of <Insert any Trek Series EXCEPT TOS here>.

then you must not be aware of the earlier 'quality level' of TOS.

That's just total BS. The fact is that the writing quality of the Trek franchise has been all over the spectrum (good to bad) from day one. It has the distinction of being one of the earliest examples of intelligent science fiction, although I hate to burst your bubble, but the FIRST TV shows to treat Science Fiction with respect were The Twilight Zone followed by the original Outer Limits (watch The Galaxy Being and when you do realize that was produced in 1963).

So, in the end Star Trek was the 3rd show to treat science fiction with some intelligence from the writing perspective.

What I don't understand of many rabid fans these days is why they have the need to think that Star Trek always has to be:

totally serious (remember TOS' The Trouble With Tribbles?)

socially relevent (remeber The Corbomite Manuever? Here was just a classic science fiction story. No social commentary anywhere and it worked well imo).

written as if it were some sort of litteray classic, or on the same level as say Shakesphere.

In the end, it's entertainment, pure and simple. If they choose and are able to sneak some sort of social commentary in, fine; but this was NEVER even Gene Roddenberry's stated purpose for the show (at least not while he was sane, and before he started believing his own hyped up press after he started taking credit for Gene L. Coon's and everyone else's contributions to Trek).

In short, I will never understand the need to turn Trek into a pseudo philosophy of life or the need to rank everything produced in its name up there with the greatest works of literary fiction; and whenever something doesn't live up to that standard, it's automatically crap.

In the end, Trek is just a collection of entertaining television shows, movies and books. It's neither a philosopy nor a religion.

 

^Nice post, noname! I may not have watched much DS9/VOY, but I watched as much TOS/TNG as the next Trekkie and I happen to like ENT as well.

I still will never understand how people can get so worked up over TV.

 

^Great post Noname

 

It is a very good post. But it will fall on deaf ears, like good posts always do.

 

Such melodrama.

 

Nice post Noname. It certainly have some effect around here, since the Star Trek "Elite" remain silent.

 

I´ve always wondered about that. Me also
Maybe certain people just have too much sparetime or something.

 

To be honest, I decided not to respond to it because it is a sloppy argument, and it wanders all over the place.

It's more an essay about his feelings than it is a directed response to anything in this thread.

But I'll give it a go, just so you don't think we have all been "stunned" into silence.

 

My responses to this will be short because I'm only responding for the reasons I listed above:

John Sullivan's comment was unnecessarily dismissive. You don't have to have lived through Star Trek to be able to fairly comment on it, but your perspective on it will likely be different if you did watch it "live."

John's argument wasn't really about continuity. He doesn't realy get hung up on that stuff, so your response to that isn't really appropriate.

Yes, all the series have had errors, although I disagree that Star Trek's were the most egregious. Star Trek was literally making this stuff up as they went along. Later series have had time to reflect on this stuff, and scores of reference material to help them get it right.

Agreed, but what is your point? Where are you going with this? This doesn't address the two posters you are responding to in any way.

I'm sure the sci-fi writers helped, but the stories on Star Trek were simply structured well, sci-fi elements or no.

This is debatable, but I see your point. But again, where are you going with this? What is your argument?

Some people, maybe, but not myself. I watch Star Trek with my eyes wide open. I just watched an episode today. I make fun of it all the time. There are a lot of flaws, but the flaws are far outweighed by the things that it got right.

This is subjective, of course, but I disagree.

As for the first two seasons of each show:

The Next Generation was choppy, but it took some risks. Deep Space Nine was a little slow, I'll admit, but they needed time to figure out where they were going with Straczynski's premise. "Voyager" was highly polished, but took no risks.

"Enterprise" takes no risks, tells no stories, develops no characters, and is very, very slow.

This entire argument is specious. You take some general claims that aren't even specifically tied to any posters, and then you refute them with more general claims off the top of your head. If your argument is, "Some people feel one way, some feel another," then you are correct. Of course, this is an obvious statement and needs no proof.

It's true that when you joined the fanbase or which series hooked you is no reason to discredit your opinions. However, I almost never see anyone do this convincingly, and I think Sullivan's comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, so again, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here, other than what is common knowledge and common sense.

Your argument keeps switching from whether one is qualified to talk about the quality to whether there was any quality. Your structure makes it difficult to respond in any meaningful way.

The quality on Star Trek was very strong in the first two seasons, and less strong in the third. The Next Generation was at its best in its third and fourth seasons. Deep Space Nine got better towards the end of the series, after it finally decided what it was going to do with itself. "Voyager" meandered for seven years. "Enterprise" has had two dull years so far. It may get good at any time in the future, but so far, we can only talk about what has been shown on screen.

These are subjective opinions, but I've seen them echoed enough that I don't think I'm wildly going out on a limb here.

The Twilight Zone was a better show than Star Trek. The others you mentioned were not so good.

Again, where are you going with this? You are making a string of interesting assertions, but what is the focus? Is it, "Other shows have fucked up or weren't perfect so you can't say anything bad about Enterprise"? Is that it?

I disagree with your ranking, but even if I didn't, what does the order of "treating science fiction with intelligence from the writing perspective" have to do with anything?

The Twilight Zone was a great show. Star Trek was a great show. What does one have to do with the other? What does the order that they were aired have to do with anything? Whose post is any of this in response to, anyway?

Who thinks that? I loved the comedy episodes. So Star Trek did comedy and drama well. What's your point?

I haven't seen "Enterprise" do comedy or drama well yet.

Who said it has to be socially relevant all the time? Not me.

I loved the science fiction episodes. So Star Trek did comedy and drama and science-fiction well. What's your point?

I haven't seen "Enterprise" do comedy or drama or science-fiction well yet.

On Shakespeare's level? No. Again, who is making these claims that you are refuting? You've defeated a thousand straw men with your post so far, but I need to see some actual names if we are to believe that you are refuting any actual claims.

Many Star Trek epsiodes are classics, by television standards -- which I think we can all agree is a much lower standard. Is there any doubt about this? The products and episodes are still selling forty years later. Star Trek is referred to constantly in every other movie or t.v. show I watch. Kirk and Spock and Scotty are cultural icons. Is there any doubt about this?

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, other than taking a few potshots at Roddenberry.

Who is doing this? Name some names? Until then, you are just crashing into windmills.

Agreed. Was there ever any disagreement about this? Ending an essay with an statement that is obvious sounds profound, but if it doesn't jibe with your central argument -- what was your central argument? -- then it's just hollow words.

Seems a few people liked the sound of them though, so keep it up.


(I have no beef with Noname Given or his words, but I don't want people thinking that he floored us into silence with his brilliant argument.)

 

Noname, you'll find Cogley has a tendency to take a sentence or two out of context from your argument, dance all over it, dismiss its clear function in the overall post, and then declare it had no point. It's one of many debate tricks middle-schoolers use. (Hey, I was in middle school debate, I should know!)

In short, Sam, he says that the other series have in common with ENT the same flaws every ENT-hater dances over. To list examples: continuity; writing; drama; acting; et al. And that therefor he expects somewhat deeper arguments than, "It makes me feel guilty to watch Smallville because it sucks." Where's the harm in that? I mean, it "bashers" call out "gushers" to back up why they like the show with more than one-liners, why can't the reverse also happen? Simply because his argument isn't structured to match your optimal comprehension level doesn't mean it's invalid.

Yes, TOS ripped lots of other SF. The only reason you notice with ENT and not TOS probably has something to do with exactly what SF you've been exposed to. I personally have watched/read primarily 50s/60s SF, so I have a tendency to notice TOS's thieving over ENT's own.

No, but Noname isn't going out on a limb either. I'd argue there's just as many who relate with him as there are with you. So what's your point?

 

I addressed everything he said in the exact order in which he said it, asking every step of the way what his argument is. How is that out of context? Only Noname can respond to the questions I asked him, and if and when he does, we'll take the next step from there.

That must be where you learned the cheap insults.

That's not at all what he said. You bring up several points he never did, and you paraphrased it all in your own words. There's nothing wrong with that, assuming your goal is to make an original contribution to the discussion, but if we are focusing on Noname's argument, you are baiting and switching. (In which grade did you learn how to do that? )

Another cheap shot? And here I thought you were going to get to the substance of the argument.

And your comment makes little sense in a thread in which both "bashers" and "gushers" have expounded many sentences both for and against their particular causes -- and since Noname doesn't address this issue at all, I'll assume that this is your concern, not his.

How is ripping off Sf or "thieving" in any way relevant to either Noname's argument, or either of the posters' comments that Noname was responding to?

Remember what Kirk said about poor marksmen...

Oohhh... You got me!

I said in my response to Noname that he made a string of interesting assertions, and I am quite sure that people can relate to those assertions. There was never any doubt about that.

The problem is that his assertions form no overall point, and they have nothing to do with the posts that he quoted and is purportedly responding to.

He constructs a bunch of outrageous straw men that bear no resemblance to anyone in this thread, and then he tears them apart in a manner that has no rhyme or reason.

If you and others find that entertaining, then by all means, carry on. However, Noname is not really making any kind of point at all. I could make a snide comment about how that type of fractured reasoning is probably "structured to match your optimal comprehension level," but I think I'll abstain. (Are we up to the high-school level yet? )



Oh, and you forgot to put my name in bold letters. I would think that such a mature debater would be above such pettiness.

 

uh....back to the thread....

1. Hoshi's character sucks
2. Mayweather's boomer experience gets no "play"
3. Pothos really shouldn't be there...it's cruel
4. We never get to see Chef
5. There's no consequences from one ep to the next
6. There's no character development from one ep to the next
7. Some of the stories are awful (ANIS, Dawn, Canamar, Precious Cargo, Booty...uh, Bounty)
8. Some of the continuity errors are in the show itself (Fusion v/s Stigma)
9. Star Trek isn't in the title
10. They're abandoning T'Pol and Archer to "SEX" it up with the young hot-bodies that have no sensual background at all and were presented as adverarial competitors for Archer's attentions until...they changed their minds and decided ratings would change if the mucked this up


You can pick the ones I really mean and the ones that are pure sarcasm, as is your want.

 

I kind of regret the fact that I wasn't born to witness the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, or the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s. I guess I never thought of Trek as a "social movement."

Silly me.

ENT fits right it because it's the same damn show, over and over again. VOY never ended. We're currently entering season 10.

Couple of things. People search for a guiding meaning in things like Trek because they're searching for meaning, period. People search for meaning in entertainment media, in physical fitness, in sex, in religion, in political activism, in material success, in just about everything. Part of how our culture is set up is that we've got all this information being thrown at us, but it means nothing. So we are on a perpetual, although often subconscious, desperate search for meaning. That's why people dress up like Starfleet officers and tranlate Shakespeare into Klingon. It's not about being a fan of a tv show. It's about not finding meaning in the rest of life, and so they find it here. One may find that sad or funny, but it's just the nature of how things work.

Secondly, even if we grant that ENT is not great art on the same plane as "The Godfather" or Jackson Pollack or Yo Yo Ma, that doesn't give it an excuse to be crappy. There's lots of perfectly passable television out there, all over the dial. It's that mediocre stuff that makes up 100 out of the 115 or so shows that typically beat ENT on any given week. My objection is that ENT is actually crappier than most of the other stuff on television. No, not "Good Morning Miami" level bad, but "According to Jim" level bad. And I'm saying that we shouldn't let B&B off the hook for spending so much time and energy to give us something so bad.

TNG was spotty, but it did take risks, but for me, more importantly it was consistently entertaining.

DS9 did have trouble finding its way, but found it in about season 3 and never let it go. Whether or not the premise belonged to JMS is debateable, but not necessarily for this thread.

VOY? Agreed.

ENT? Oh, yeah. You nailed it.

Huh. I didn't learn that till high school.

Ok, I feel inadequate now.

(and remember not to make this thread personal folks)

 

I thought Noname's post was very good and said a lot of what Ent fans think. This is a forum for opinions Sam, there's nowt in the rules says he has to argue any point with you or to your satisfaction.

Re: Odie

I think I held out with her for a time, mainly because of the strong and loyal way she corrected Travis in the mess-hall scene in Shockwave. Then she put her and Trip's life in danger farting about having a panic attack over the transporter in Vanishing Point and I gave up trying to like her. She needs a damn good slap. Write her a character with some guts or give her a good death scene.

Mayweather's existence gets no 'play'. Other than Horizon, he's broken the same leg twice and damaged his ribs throwing melons! His most effective scenes, Acquisition, Dead Stop, Singularity, have all come when he was out cold/dead!

The guy was conceived, born and spent all his formative years in space! Use that!

Agreed. The poor little blighter must starve for days when Archer is off ship. Should have left him with Admiral Forrest. That way the dog would get some screentime and can pee where he wants without causing a galactic incident. (Unless he takes a slash up Soval... )

So what? This one I really don't care about. There have been eighty-three folk on that ship and only a dozen or so have a job of work! I want to see Lieutenant Hess, who was mentioned as the one in command of Engineering when Trip was off ship. She's never been seen, or mentioned again.

Apart from the mind meld giving Tippy the Penarr thing? A lot of people say there were no consequences for Trip after Cogenitor, but if you watch his command of the ship in Bounty, he's a very different person. And we know the consequences of the Xindi attack will echo throughout season three, so I don't agree with this point.

Again, I think this is wrong. If you look at Broken Bow and then watch The Expanse there is a great difference in nearly all the characters. They've all come a long way. Archer is more willing to listen, has been growing steadily more disillusioned. Trip is darker, more aware of his command, less open. Reed is more open, he's found in Enterprise the family he never had. T'pol has gone from a ice-bitch, looking down at the primitive humans from her lofty Vulcan height, to someone who has cut off virtually all ties with her race to stay with, and help those Humans. Even Hoshi chose to stay on Enterprise this time and didn't have to be coerced like in Broken Bow. Only Mayweather is the same. Just a cypher.

That's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it. I liked Dawn and Canamar. Precious Cargo wasn't so bad, just ruined by the talent free actress playing Kiatama and leaden direction. Bounty I watched but neither liked nor really disliked. Having T'Pol in the decon room meant we got to see more of Trip in the big chair, which I liked. Her breasts and Archer's capture were the price paid for that and I willingly paid it. Only ANiS and The Seventh have, for me been genuine stinkers. But all opinions vary on this.

You see, I find this interesting. No-one but Tippy and the Vulcan guy were in the room when the meld took place. Instead of it being a continuity error I see it that, maybe, Tippy told the other's the meld was forced, maybe even has made herself believe it. As for only a few Vulcans being able to meld, we were told only a few Trill could join until we found out they all could. Maybe saying only a few Vulcans can meld and they're nasty, dirty people is the Vulcan way of controlling the practice and the spread of the disease?

Not yet....

Well, I'm one of the people who saw zero romantic chemistry between Tippy and Archer anyway. And the idea of any captain of a starship being so foolish as to muck around withi any of his crew I find deeply wrong. I don't mind Trip and Tippy becoming friends, but wouldn't want a romance or sex between them. But that's my personal view. If it happened it wouldn't make me hate the show. I'd like to see a relationship between Hoshi and Mayweather. At least it would give them something to do!

-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepting the mantle. Continuing the adventure. Star Trek:Enterprise

 

And ...

Well, my apologies. Even though I'm not any kind of "Elite" anything, my Spex Supervan has decided to overdose on viagra. It won't shut off. Just keeps going and going. Put it in "park" and the key won't turn off. First time just disconnected the ECC1 circuit breaker, which causes engine to die. Turned the key to Start, and key returned to "off" position. Keys come right out. Now that trick doesn't work, so my keys are stuck in the ignition, in the "On" position, and I have to pull off the battery lead when not using the van. Not really an excuse for being late, but anyone who knows how to fix this, please e-mail me with your insight. By morning I'm going to be finishing the packout from Pensacola that should have happened today, including this computer, so you won't be hearing from me for a while, anyway.

Now, to my answer. NoName's post was actually well crafted. (as are most of these). Again, my post doesn't necessary reflect upon "Enterprise," although I do have several key problems with the show. Overall, I did enjoy Season One, I really enjoyed Season Two (once I saw it after the season ended) and I am ambitously looking forward to Season Three - although I do believe I'll be catching the first few episodes in reruns because of my busy schedule. Actually, I do think this Season Three is going to be far better than Season Three of TOS could ever have been, even if GR wouldn't have bailed out by this time in his series. Like TNG, this Season Three may be the breakthrough season where it gains a foothold (finally) in popular culture, like TNG did.

"Make it so." "Resistance Is Futile." "Beam Me Up Scotty."

You could go just about anywhere, even today, and popular culture would resonate like a wind chime when you say those things. TOS never gained its foothold until after the series was off the air, and TNG was lucky enough to have been on the air when the fire was lit in the general public.

Don't know what Enterprise needs to do to light that fire out there in the public, but point is, they ain't doing it. What DOESN'T work is to recycle old stuff that caught on, riding the backbone of earlier successes. "Beam me up, Geordi" never worked with TNG. "Resistance Is Futile" did. But, as you can tell by the backlash from the Borg episode on Enterprise, "Resistance Is Futile" won't help as a recycled item to help this show, either.

So what will it take to light that fire out there in the general public who is NOT watching Enterprise yet?

Big boobs and Quantam Retread aren't going to work. Has to be some phrase ... something unique to this show. Has to be done. That's the missing "magic pill" that Enterprise needs to bring out and get out there.

So again, my comments on the failure of the Enterprise shows, or the success of the Original Series aren't really about the subjective quality of the shows themselves. As I tried to explain to LC, it is more than what is on the DVD's ... that SOMETHING MORE transcends the shows themselves. Enterprise needs to find it - quickly - or pack in the tent.