Alternative ENTERPRISE Series Concepts
- Thread starter Arpy
- Start date
First off, that makes this show even more insular and self-referential to the point that casual fans may not be able to access it. I don't see the value in taking this show in to the past and then involving everyone else but the main characters of the new show. It strikes me as "These are the Voyages" sidelining of this whole premise.
Sorry, this fan would have thrown the spoon out.
ENT would be easier to justify if the novels Daedalus & Daedalus’s Children were made canon. Therefore establishing that the Daedalus class technically came first before Enterprise and the other NX ships - and the Daedalus was originally intended to be the flagship of Starfleet first - and would have explored half the quadrant by the end of ENT’s S2 of were it not for its warp accident. Which works as a backstory to “First Flight”, gives further context as to why human were resentful of Vulcans, and how Enterprise became the flagship of Starfleet.
I will concede that when watching ENT on tv and seeing it only go four seasons before looping back to the beginning again, while TNG, DS9 & VOY go the full seven before looping back, feels off. Like there should be more here.
No time travel, no cameos , just a fresh start.
Tng, ds9, voyager never relied on looking back (yes occasionally ,but rare) they done there own thing, went on there own voyage without baggage of previous series.
Tng, ds9, voyager never relied on looking back (yes occasionally ,but rare) they done there own thing, went on there own voyage without baggage of previous series.
While I loath the Daedalus design I do think the idea of the NX as the first ship to really venture out as far as it did is a mistake. I think Earth having a few other ships that are warp capable makes more sense, but the NX series being an opportunity to go out and venture, perhaps unaided by the Vulcans. And then have some sort of accident that forces them to ramp up the NX speed to investigate fully.
This is my view as well. Star Trek is too self-referential. Cochrane's appearance at the beginning was sufficient. No Borg, no time war, etc. Just new frontiers.
The rest of the series were exploring the edge of the federation, earth was barely visited.
Enterprise had a good idea to explore the core federation, the big 4 andorians,vulcans, tellerite and humans.
Vulcan have had only a few examples, mainly Spock and tuvok . I liked the way they did there story on Ent.
Andorians, and tellerites same, never really explored who they are, so happy with Ent. Exploring them.
My thoughts are only to clear up some useless baggage and make the characters more interesting.
Enterprise had a good idea to explore the core federation, the big 4 andorians,vulcans, tellerite and humans.
Vulcan have had only a few examples, mainly Spock and tuvok . I liked the way they did there story on Ent.
Andorians, and tellerites same, never really explored who they are, so happy with Ent. Exploring them.
My thoughts are only to clear up some useless baggage and make the characters more interesting.
That's always my thing. If they had cleaned up the plot by discarding the Temporal Cold War and just have some aliens either tired of Earth's nonsense, or attempting to remove an upcoming competitor that would have been just fine for a plot. The characters needed to be better utilized, Archer needed to feel more confident rather than a guy with a raging chip on his shoulder, and the Vulcans needed to be actual allies.
They could have done what Babylon 5 did and have everyone change from beginning of the series to the end. The Vulcans could have started more as baddies (different political factions therein vying for power) and evolved into the ones we knew. They’d just need to add the signal in earlier that these Vulcans are not our Vulcans and not tried to use them like previous Trek series did until the shift — Delenn of the Minbari.
It might have been interesting to see what they could have come up with with for different voices within founding members. The same species characteristics expressing in wildly different directions. Ethnic wars between the Andorians, Luddies vs. Trans-Tellarite-ists, pre vs post Reformation Surakites. And a non-humanoid CG Founding Member from Alpha Centauri? Maybe one humans don’t initially recognize as sentient for how alien they are.
It might have been interesting to see what they could have come up with with for different voices within founding members. The same species characteristics expressing in wildly different directions. Ethnic wars between the Andorians, Luddies vs. Trans-Tellarite-ists, pre vs post Reformation Surakites. And a non-humanoid CG Founding Member from Alpha Centauri? Maybe one humans don’t initially recognize as sentient for how alien they are.
For me I am always opposed to reframing the Vulcans. I don't mind the Andorians or the Tellarites being initial hostile, or having the various factions around the quadrant fighting and Earth ending up in the middle. For the Vulcans, I wouldn't mind a small faction being opposed to humans participating, or even having their "Vulcan Prime" type movement, which would lead to even more discomfort with the Terra Prime faction. But, I would prefer Vulcans to be overall helpful, and a bit protective, and involve the humans due to ongoing conflict with other powers.
The pursuit of the casual fan at the expense of the core audience is the reason why Trek is in the state it's in.
Mike McMahan > J.J. Abrams
Lower Decks > All J.J. Trek
Picard and Janeway would only have had to be on the show as much as the Mystery Man from the Temporal Cold war episodes. Seven would only have to be on as much as Daniels.
I wouldn't even have them make a big appearance until the end of Season 3 at the earliest. They should be left as the "final boss" of the series. Like, maybe in the series finale Archer goes into the post-TNG future to find Admirals Picard and Janeway have worked together to take over Starfleet and rebuild it along the lines of their anti-Borg paranoia. That's a first thought, but IMO it's already far better than the way Enterprise actually ended.
That's not hard to do.
So, pumping out multiple Trek shows to appeal to a wide variety of audiences? That's a terrible state...
And give me Abrams any day over McMahan. Sorry, self-referential small world syndrome is irritating.
You mean the audience that wasn't big enough to sustain a show in 2005? And the JJ Abrams whose movies led to Discovery and Trek's current TV boom which includes Lower Decks??
Just making sure.
Who knows if that excuse would still be valid if Enterprise continued on and aired on CW for S6 & S7 after the WB/UPN merger?
Especially since Enterprise would have being airing on syndication by that point. Since being able to be aired on syndication was why ENT even got a fourth season in the first place.
Oh I dunno. ENT seemed to try to take in the casual fan with a lowest common denominator appeal, with decontamination gel rubdowns, a W.-sounding chief-engineer, and a anti-terrorism “let’s go gittim” storyline. The baddies were literal lizard people and evil women from another dimension.
The JJ movies were fun as long as you didn’t pay too close attention, or minded billions of people dying, multiple significant planets tossed away, and the good guys sharing a laugh at the prospect of murdering an unrepentant baddie who was a working class stiff until his entire planet was destroyed.
I’m all for appealing to general audiences, but doing so with STAR TREK. The idea should be to up the ability to tell a story, to dazzle the senses, not toss out the heart.
That said, Lower Decks is fine, but it’s a bit too esoteric. As a hardcore fan I get literally every reference, but I can’t say I understand how others are supposed to. Or that it doesn’t feel a bit like having a pixie stick. It’s too much of a certain (yummy) thing, but not fully satisfying if I’m looking for something more substantial.
The JJ movies were fun as long as you didn’t pay too close attention, or minded billions of people dying, multiple significant planets tossed away, and the good guys sharing a laugh at the prospect of murdering an unrepentant baddie who was a working class stiff until his entire planet was destroyed.
I’m all for appealing to general audiences, but doing so with STAR TREK. The idea should be to up the ability to tell a story, to dazzle the senses, not toss out the heart.
That said, Lower Decks is fine, but it’s a bit too esoteric. As a hardcore fan I get literally every reference, but I can’t say I understand how others are supposed to. Or that it doesn’t feel a bit like having a pixie stick. It’s too much of a certain (yummy) thing, but not fully satisfying if I’m looking for something more substantial.
I must have watched a different movie. I love paying attention to it and have for the past decade. I think, especially in 09, the heartbeat of Trek was strong.
Agreed. This is my biggest thing. I know Trek inside and out but guess what? I'm not the only audience member and appealing only to me is asking for the franchise to die.
If Enterprise hadn't been cancelled, Trek would be very different today. But it was. Why? Not enough eyes on the product. The "core audience" wasn't enough to sustain it. Hence the reboot, to bring in new viewers. And now we have a spamload of new Trek shows.
I’m sure a lot of that had to do with the era ENT was in, where such stuff was acceptable.
Who looked like W. too. And the actor played W. in a movie even.
And an alien species that rhymed with Taliban.
The Jem‘Hadar are technically a reptilian species. Yet DS9 is a high praised series.
It also shook things up in a way we were never going to get from Berman era Trek.
Can you point to examples in JJ Trek and Kurtzman Trek where the heart has been tossed out?
Which, again, may have happened if the series was in syndication while also still producing new episodes for its remaining seasons. TNG and DS9 did not become popular by being on an obscure channel. Syndication had a lot to do with it
That's not hard to do.
So, pumping out multiple Trek shows to appeal to a wide variety of audiences? That's a terrible state...
And give me Abrams any day over McMahan. Sorry, self-referential small world syndrome is irritating.
Was it irritating in DS9 too?
McMahan is doing a killer job with a cartoon no one wanted (including me). Picard's Riker cameo was o.k., but the Lower Deck's cameo was epic.
You mean the audience that was big enough to sustain TNG, DS9, and Voyager? We didn't all die between Voyager and Enterprise, nor did we lose interest in good Star Trek. The problem is that the first seasons of Enterprise weren't good, and the TNG movies weren't good either (although First Contact had its moments).
That was the strongest of the three, and my personal favorite. But the point was a rip roaring roller coaster ride, and it accomplished that. The opening was among the best any Trek movie, and it hit key shall we say heart beats. But it also genocided the Romulans and the Vulcans, making both perhaps “endangered species.” And, well, look at my signature below. If possible, that is how you “kill” the baddie.
I suspect the spamload has to do as much with the success of the Star Wars model than JJ. Berman’s BS about there not being enough stories to tell doesn’t track with the 10 Wars shows in production and how many movies? Similar with the Marvel universe.
ENT’s problem wasn’t that it didn’t add more casual viewers, not only that, but that it lost core ones as well. It got some new folks, some of whom are still here, and it kept silly diehards like me, but it wasn’t pleasant for some of us nor popular with many others.
Nah, I think that’s an excuse. nBSG was also on at the time, and it was brilliant. Cutting edge in a way TOS was in its own, with interracial kisses and Ruskkies on the bridge of the Enterprise at the height of the Cold War.
Another show I admired was Torchwood which did what Trek should have at the time and made an LGBTQ captain the lead. Cut to fifteen years later and Trek still hasn’t done that, though it’s missed its chance at this point. No credit where none due, Stamets doesn’t count.
Not as highly by me, and the first time I saw a Jem’Hadar I rolled my eyes. Still, they weren’t mustache twirling, or should we say live-mice eating, one-note cheeseball literal lizard people.
Credit where due. I liked the first one alright despite its modest flaws and that was fine by me.
Mentioned some above, but also I don’t find modern Trek always as, I dunno, thoughtful(?) overall as previous incarnations. It’s got a more frenetic pace, telling the story at you than telling it to you for you to contemplate. There’s less time to think, and that’s fine for the occasional movie or episode (most of us love the occasional adrenaline pump) but not all the time.
Done better, smaller and less obtrusive.
Lower Decks is good because of the characters, not because of self referential jokes and self congratulatory for being so clever.
Good is subjective. I think Abrams is as good of Trek as any other installment.
Similar threads
