ENT or ST XI - which one was better recieved?

[Mach5]

Remember back in 2001 when all those canon-obsessed fans cried foul over Enterprise? More or less the same thing happened when the news about Trek getting rebooted spread over the internet...

But somehow I feel that ST09 got a lot less hate then ENT did...

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Anwar]

NuTrek, mainly because by the time of ENT people were really burnt out on Trek. NuTrek had enough time for the burn-out feelings to mostly fade away.

Plus, Abrams had a better reputation with Genre fans than B&B did (though most of B&B's bad reputation in undeserved).

 

[Sector 7]

Star Trek, the movie, was well received by critics, fans and non-fans. Enterprise was not as well received.

The franchise in general was in decline with much of the credit due to Berman & Braga. Abrams & company gave the franchise the shot in the arm needed for revitalization by returning to TOS roots: action, adventure and the unknown dangers of space. It worked, both financially and critically.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Which question are we supposed to be answering? Star Trek (2009) was far better received than Enterprise, but I don't know whether it got less hate. A lot of people didn't even bother with Enterprise, so I reckon a lot of people don't even have an opinion of it.

 

[RyuRoots]

NuTrek, mainly because by the time of ENT people were really burnt out on Trek. NuTrek had enough time for the burn-out feelings to mostly fade away.

Plus, Abrams had a better reputation with Genre fans than B&B did (though most of B&B's bad reputation in undeserved).

I do think that's a big part of it, but there were a lot of people who tried ENT and just didn't like what they got (me, for instance. This year and last year are when I've watched it).

And I do think they get more hate than they deserve, but they're not completely free of any ties to bad Trek. They're both to blame for some terrible decisions and episodes.

There's really no question, Star Trek XI was far better received than ENT, and IMO, rightfully so.

 

[DevilEyes]

NuTrek, mainly because by the time of ENT people were really burnt out on Trek. NuTrek had enough time for the burn-out feelings to mostly fade away.

Plus, Abrams had a better reputation with Genre fans than B&B did (though most of B&B's bad reputation in undeserved).

I do think that's a big part of it, but there were a lot of people who tried ENT and just didn't like what they got (me, for instance. This year and last year are when I've watched it).

ENT had a lackluster season 1 and 2 that played safe, brought very little that was new and fresh, and were generally not that good (particularly season 2). By the time they started doing something interesting and that the show become good - seasons 3 and 4 - it had already had a bad reputation, and many people had probably already given up.

It doesn't seem right when one thinks of what the first couple of TNG seasons were like, particularly season 1, but that was another time, when people were willing to give a new ST series a lot of chances.

 

[RyuRoots]

NuTrek, mainly because by the time of ENT people were really burnt out on Trek. NuTrek had enough time for the burn-out feelings to mostly fade away.

Plus, Abrams had a better reputation with Genre fans than B&B did (though most of B&B's bad reputation in undeserved).

I do think that's a big part of it, but there were a lot of people who tried ENT and just didn't like what they got (me, for instance. This year and last year are when I've watched it).

ENT had a lackluster season 1 and 2 that played safe, brought very little that was new and fresh, and were generally not that good (particularly season 2). By the time they started doing something interesting and that the show become good - seasons 3 and 4 - it had already had a bad reputation, and many people had probably already given up.

It doesn't seem right when one thinks of what the first couple of TNG seasons were like, particularly season 1, but that was another time, when people were willing to give a new ST series a lot of chances.

That's where the franchise burnout comes in. During TNG, I think more people were willing to come back onboard for its second/third season, and the name didn't have as much of a stigma attached to it when it did honestly get good, and DS9 and VOY started off better than TNG S1.

 

[The Wormhole]

It doesn't seem right when one thinks of what the first couple of TNG seasons were like, particularly season 1, but that was another time, when people were willing to give a new ST series a lot of chances.

I hate the "it takes a Trek show three seasons to become good" line. Especially when it's used to defend Enterprise's lackluster first two seasons.

Fact: if any other show produced bad episodes for its first two seasons it lose viewers and lead to cancellation. Trek should not be exempt from this. TNG got lucky that it wasn't canned during its first two seasons, and fortunately it actually got good in its third. Unfortunately that set an unfortunate precedent, and there were times when I think they were complacent in Enterprise's first two seasons, believing they were guaranteed seven years and that no one would care until its third.

 

[-Brett-]

I mistakenly voted XI assuming that the poll was the same as the thread title, rather than the reverse.

XI was better received than Enterprise, and Enterprise got more hate.

When Enterprise started there had been at least one Star Trek show on the air for 14 years straight. XI came out after a much needed break.

For another thing, Enterprise was just bad. It seemed lazy and half-assed in every single department. Like it or hate it, with XI it was clear they were at least putting their whole asses into it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think the hates about the same ( and from a lot of the same people). The difference is the people who never bothered with Enterprise, like ST09.

 

[Anwar]

Yes, a motion picture is also more accessible to the general public than a TV show on a small and notoriously BAD network.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I personally received Enterprise much better than XI.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Yes. This shouldn't be a contest. Granted, I personally don't like Enterprise, but this TV show lost a lot of viewers from the very beginning. The majority of the cast (Besides Connor Trinneer) was horrible, the stories were repetitive or unimaginative, Vulcan's could wear tight sex suits (like Seven of Nine), it seemed more like the 24th Century than the 22nd Century, it either broke or raised major questions on pre-established canon, important story arcs were not explained properly, and it had no descent character development, as well.

Now, the Star Trek 2009 film actually did well at the box office and was well received by both critics and movie goers.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809752801/info

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/startrek2009?q=Star Trek

Also, I have never noticed any giant waves of bashing of this film like I have for Star Trek Enterprise on any forums, either.

Furthermore, the film had descent acting, a proper explanation of what it's time line was, character development, and it made you feel like you were in the 23rd Century and not the 24th Century.

Now, granted, it didn't help that Enterprise was on a bad network and was eventually moved to the death slot in it's final season. However, if the show had a fraction of the quality and brains that JJ Abram's movie had, it probably would have done much better.

 

[muldwych who]

I personally would have thought the movie as i know people who dont even like Star Trek at all watching the movie and liking it.

 

[RandyS]

I personally would have thought the movie as i know people who dont even like Star Trek at all watching the movie and liking it.

Yeah, this was my take too. Also, everybody hated ENTERPRISE when it was first announced, and pretty much all through it's run. Then, after four years without any new Star Trek, XI was praised, and was widely anticipated for two years before it came out.

 

[sbk1234]

People are STILL arguing about how much they hate Enterprise. (Personally, I like it, but facts are facts.) However, there has never been a single person in the history of the world who didn't like Abrams' Star Trek XI!


Maybe a bit of an exageration....

 

[Mach5]

However, if the show had a fraction of the quality and brains that JJ Abram's movie had

Brains? Star Trek XI had almost everything - superb cast, great dialogue, insanely high production values (hell, I've found it twice as spectacular as Avatar)... But brains?

I thought that the general consensus was that we all love this movie despite its dumb story and countless plot holes...

 

[Luther Sloan]

Star Trek (2009) had brains and quality in comparison to Enterprise. In fact, what I mean by brains is that there is some kind of admirable thought behind it. In other words, JJ Abram's Star Trek actually had a well thought out plot, descent character development, and an acceptable or proper explanation behind the alternate time line we were given. Now that doesn't mean the film is not flawed in some ways. In fact, every movie has it's weak spots or errors. However, it is still probably the most entertaining and re-watchable Star Trek movie in my opinion, though. And that tells me that there was quite a bit of thought and care that went into this film. It just wasn't slapped together mindlessly like Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis.

As for Enterprise: Well, it didn't have any brains because there was no thought or care behind the character development, the casting choices, the majority of the story lines, the canonical errors, and the TCW (Temporal Cold War). It was just completely a brainless show in my book. Sure, the creators tried to make improvements in Season 3 and 4. But by then, it was little too late. Plus, there was still a ton of things that needed to be addressed or corrected that went undone, as well.

Side Note:

Oh, and why would the creators need to go to such great lengths in re-writing a show in such drastic ways if it wasn't working from the beginning? I mean they tried the first two seasons with it being a Voyager carbon copy. Strike one. Then they tried the third season by writing story arcs in a 9/11 theme. Strike two. Then they tried to make it a prequel show. Strike three.

Sure, the show was doomed by the network. But if the series had a good cast, and it didn't lose a certain number of the Trek fan base it did from the beginning and it wrote original, intelligent, and inventive story lines in proper consideration or respect to previous Star Trek shows. Then the show might have had a shot at lasting on the network.

 

[Anwar]

ENT really never could have succeeded, it needed to come years after VOY instead of right after, it needed a new writing staff (which Berman wanted, but was denied), and maybe to try out new music and camera techniques (which Paramount wouldn't have allowed them to do).

NuTrek was allowed a lot more freedom mainly because Paramount's prior conservatism had failed so they didn't have much to lose this time around. It had a real budget, was allowed creative freedom, and newer more modern filming techniques that the other shows were denied.

 

[Mach5]

it needed a new writing staff (which Berman wanted, but was denied),

I agree. Mike Sussman wrote some good stuff, Braga wrote maybe two or three good episodes, but the rest should have been better. Sad thing is, there's tons of creative people out there, coming up with great ideas (just look at Trek lit and some fan fiction), but Trek was doomed to more of the same...

I liked ENT's cast a lot, BTW. Sure, Archer was sub par compared to Kirk, Picard and Sisko, but I think he really stepped up in season 3. I also think he was pretty awesome in "Broken Bow," but the writers failed to keep him that way in what was to come.

As for the others, Trip Tucker's awesomeness sure made up for everyone else's flaws... Bt that's just IMHO.

and maybe to try out new music and camera techniques (which Paramount wouldn't have allowed them to do).

Yeah, ENT suffered from some serious lens flare deficiency!

BTW, I generally like those lens flares, just in smaller amounts...