I fully realized how truly in-bred all this Star Trek stuff had become when I seriously tried to explain what was going on in IAMD to my niece. Oof, madon', as Paulie Walnuts might say.
Enterprise Marathon on Sci-Fi
- Thread starter nx1701g
- Start date
When I first saw "In a Mirror Darkly" last year... I knew nothing about what changed in S4, I didn't know where this was in the season... but I just knew, instinctively, this episode was made shortly before the show was cancelled. It was just so utterly dense with pure fan service - Mirror Universe, Tholians, Gorn, USS Defiant, et cetera - and so gleefully indulgent I couldn't see it as comprehensible to a casual viewer.
I loved the hell out of it, though. It was empty self-referential fun, but it knew that.
I loved the hell out of it, though. It was empty self-referential fun, but it knew that.
A die-hard TOS fan, I never saw Enterprise during its initial run but have been sporadically watching it on the SciFi channel on Monday nights. I especially enjoyed the marathon and thought the episodes shown were far superior to most of the Enterprise episodes I had seen. Now I really want to see more of the episodes I missed the first time.
However, rather than debating quality and preference, I have another question. Often cable networks will do a marathon to either initiate or conclude a series' run on their channels, as G4 did with TOS last year. My TiVO does not find any additional episodes of Enterprise airing in the next two weeks.
Anyone know if Enterprise is moving from SciFi or if its reruns are now off the air?
Thanks in advance for any assistance!
However, rather than debating quality and preference, I have another question. Often cable networks will do a marathon to either initiate or conclude a series' run on their channels, as G4 did with TOS last year. My TiVO does not find any additional episodes of Enterprise airing in the next two weeks.
Anyone know if Enterprise is moving from SciFi or if its reruns are now off the air?
Thanks in advance for any assistance!
Kegek said:
When I first saw "In a Mirror Darkly" last year... I knew nothing about what changed in S4, I didn't know where this was in the season... but I just knew, instinctively, this episode was made shortly before the show was cancelled. It was just so utterly dense with pure fan service - Mirror Universe, Tholians, Gorn, USS Defiant, et cetera - and so gleefully indulgent I couldn't see it as comprehensible to a casual viewer.
I loved the hell out of it, though. It was empty self-referential fun, but it knew that.
Yep. It's one of my favorite ENT episodes but good tv drama (or good SF) it ain't.
Cool -- thanks, Pike!
^ No problem. Even when the marathons do end, it'd be nice to think Sci Fi will slot in the odd episode each week. Despite the reputation some have given ENT, I find the show endlessly watchable (due to the cast rather than the plots admittedly).
Allow me to say, I love your User Name!
Yes, as I said in my earlier post, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Star Trek is an imaginary world. We know everyone is wearing make-up. The purpose of Affliction/Divergence wasn't to explain anything. It was presented as a story about why we saw Klingons with smooth foreheads in TOS and bumpy foreheads in the moviers and subsequent TV shows. Its no different from any other reason for a story. In terms of a Trek story; the question is not whether or not a question needs an answer, its whether or not you liked the answer (story) that was presented.
I didn't need to know the story of why the Klingons changed, I knew about the make-up thing, but the story was presented in an interesting and creative way. I didn't need the story but I'm glad I got it.
The thing about ENT is that it tried all sorts of things to varying degrees of success.
In its first two seasons it wasn't a prequel per se but a Star Trek series set in the 22nd century. I found those seasons problematic because the characters weren't very interesting and the plots were predictable and recycled.
In season three the show tried to be its own series separate from seasons one/2 and season four. It really didn't fit in with Trek history all that much but it did have elements the first two seasons lacked. There was debate over whether it was really the first Trek series to do an arc given what DS9 had done but I really could have cared less.
In some ways it seems now to have been a liter version of the format shows like Heroes have adopted. Namely a bunch of unanswered questions and a Puzzle slowly filled in as the season progresses. It was uneven and I felt the arc could have been told in half the time but when it focused on the core material it was quite involving.
Season Four was more consistent and did try to be more of a true prequel tying itself into the backstory of the Trek universe. Yes there was a lot of Trek namedropping but I always felt that the writers were using those elements to service the story and not vice versa with the exception of IaMD.
I felt and still do that the season four arcs worked as solid stories on their own for a viewer with no knowledge of Trek. For those well-versed it was that much more of a richer viewing experience.
As for the Klingon arc it wasn't perfect but it had less to do with the fanwank than just the storytelling in the second half. No one needed an explanation as to why the Klingons lost their ridges but that shouldn't make one immediately penalize it for doing so.
It was hardly contrived and the way Coto used the earlier Augment arc really provided a cleverly satisfying answer. Also the idea of tying in Section 31 into the story made a lot of sense too despite how they looked inept in the second half but that again had to do with writing.
Both seasons three and four really told epic stories and were more plot-driven whereas the first two seasons were more focused on the crew. I think in a lot of ways that helped because for those who didn't care for the ENT main cast they could enjoy the story and guest stars.
In its first two seasons it wasn't a prequel per se but a Star Trek series set in the 22nd century. I found those seasons problematic because the characters weren't very interesting and the plots were predictable and recycled.
In season three the show tried to be its own series separate from seasons one/2 and season four. It really didn't fit in with Trek history all that much but it did have elements the first two seasons lacked. There was debate over whether it was really the first Trek series to do an arc given what DS9 had done but I really could have cared less.
In some ways it seems now to have been a liter version of the format shows like Heroes have adopted. Namely a bunch of unanswered questions and a Puzzle slowly filled in as the season progresses. It was uneven and I felt the arc could have been told in half the time but when it focused on the core material it was quite involving.
Season Four was more consistent and did try to be more of a true prequel tying itself into the backstory of the Trek universe. Yes there was a lot of Trek namedropping but I always felt that the writers were using those elements to service the story and not vice versa with the exception of IaMD.
I felt and still do that the season four arcs worked as solid stories on their own for a viewer with no knowledge of Trek. For those well-versed it was that much more of a richer viewing experience.
As for the Klingon arc it wasn't perfect but it had less to do with the fanwank than just the storytelling in the second half. No one needed an explanation as to why the Klingons lost their ridges but that shouldn't make one immediately penalize it for doing so.
It was hardly contrived and the way Coto used the earlier Augment arc really provided a cleverly satisfying answer. Also the idea of tying in Section 31 into the story made a lot of sense too despite how they looked inept in the second half but that again had to do with writing.
Both seasons three and four really told epic stories and were more plot-driven whereas the first two seasons were more focused on the crew. I think in a lot of ways that helped because for those who didn't care for the ENT main cast they could enjoy the story and guest stars.
Ended up catching about half the episodes in the marathon at one point or another. Seems they were all from Season 4 and were two-parters or arcs, which I much preferred to random-ass "meh" episodes from earlier seasons.
The programmers were smart. They didn't insert crappy standalone episodes like "Doctor's Orders" or "ANiS" into the mix last Friday.
Well, they DID show the 3rd season episode Azati Prime where at the end, the NX-01 is being blasted to pieces; venting crewmen into space, and tumbling out of control; and DIDN'T show the following episode which continued and somewhat concluded that issue, Damage. Instead, they jumped right to the 4th season episode Borderland.
they should have shown Damage, instead. it's far superior to a whole lotta S4 eps.
I did watch the last 5. good stuff.
btw, what's happening tonight? isn't there supposed to be an ENT run on Monday nights on the SciFi Channel? they seem to be showing the Matrix instead. ho hum.
EDIT: never mind, I read upthread.
I did watch the last 5. good stuff.
btw, what's happening tonight? isn't there supposed to be an ENT run on Monday nights on the SciFi Channel? they seem to be showing the Matrix instead. ho hum.
EDIT: never mind, I read upthread.
