For some people, "shiney with more buttons" equals more advanced.
How can it retell something that has never been told? The information about the 22nd Century presented in Star Trek prior to Enterprise wouldn't even fill a page.bigdaddy said:
Grade "ENTERPRISE"
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
I like Enterprise, only TOS is better and that is only because all the stories and technology was truly original. All you negative posters need to remember ENT happened before all the other series, so off course the tech is not as advanced, which I think is what gave it character. It was very interesting to learn how humans first started venturing into deep space BEFORE The Federation. It happens only 150 years from now which makes it more believable. Just think, about 100 years after Jules Verne wrote "From the Earth to the Moon", it actually came true. I can see humans at least going to nearby stars in 100 to 150 years, this is what makes Enterprise so compelling.
I could have done without the "Temporal Cold War" which was an idiotic distraction, but I thought everything else was good to great.
My rating of Trek's:
TOS
ENT
VOY
TNG
DS9 (very boring, didn't watch much of it)
I could have done without the "Temporal Cold War" which was an idiotic distraction, but I thought everything else was good to great.
My rating of Trek's:
TOS
ENT
VOY
TNG
DS9 (very boring, didn't watch much of it)
Enterprise was pretty bad.
I give it a C compared to television in General, and a D compared to the other trek shows.
I give it a C compared to television in General, and a D compared to the other trek shows.
From what I've seen of Enterprise, I don't like it much. Most of the episodes I've seen have been uninspiring and I don't really care about the characters. That said, I've not seen Seasons 3 and 4, which many people say are better than the first two, so I shall refrain from rating the show for now.
However, I really don't get the people who criticise the design for looking "more advanced than the original Trek". Seriously, this show represents a 21st century vision of the future, whereas TOS represents a 1960s vision of the future. There really was no way to avoid some sense that the technology looked "more advanced", simply because of how far we'd come in the interim. For me, the ship interiors for Enterprise were one of the best parts of the show.
However, I really don't get the people who criticise the design for looking "more advanced than the original Trek". Seriously, this show represents a 21st century vision of the future, whereas TOS represents a 1960s vision of the future. There really was no way to avoid some sense that the technology looked "more advanced", simply because of how far we'd come in the interim. For me, the ship interiors for Enterprise were one of the best parts of the show.
In 2001?
It's on the B- end for me. I loved the third season and a handful of episodes from the rest... but a lot of it is mired in mediocrity.
I liked it fine.
Enterprise had so much potential and I don't understand how the writers didn't see it. Lord knows all of us on the BBS did and we posted regularly after every episode trying to assist them.
For what it's worth, here's where I thought it went wrong:
1. Scott Bakula - not strong enough to be the lead. Although I will give him a lot of credit for developing Archer at the end of Season 2 or 3 (I can't remember which one anymore) where Archer's optimism was put to the test.
2. Connor Trineer/Dominic Keating characters should've played off of each other as an odd couple. The two proved they had great chemistry with Trineer's Tripp being so mischevious and Keating's Reed being so cautious.
3. Too much focus on sex rather than romance. You'd think the guys that wrote those episodes never went on a date in their life! Trineer and the girl who played the Vulcan were robbed from a lot good banter before they were to hit the sheets.
4. Set design. Dear God, that set was too dull and too dark! Everything was gray. You couldn't determine the sets from the walls. I know that in reality that's probably how a spaceship really looks, but, this isn't reality, this is television. It has to be a little bit warm and inviting otherwise the viewer isn't gonna want to come back.
But the concept was solid and it should've worked.
For what it's worth, here's where I thought it went wrong:
1. Scott Bakula - not strong enough to be the lead. Although I will give him a lot of credit for developing Archer at the end of Season 2 or 3 (I can't remember which one anymore) where Archer's optimism was put to the test.
2. Connor Trineer/Dominic Keating characters should've played off of each other as an odd couple. The two proved they had great chemistry with Trineer's Tripp being so mischevious and Keating's Reed being so cautious.
3. Too much focus on sex rather than romance. You'd think the guys that wrote those episodes never went on a date in their life! Trineer and the girl who played the Vulcan were robbed from a lot good banter before they were to hit the sheets.
4. Set design. Dear God, that set was too dull and too dark! Everything was gray. You couldn't determine the sets from the walls. I know that in reality that's probably how a spaceship really looks, but, this isn't reality, this is television. It has to be a little bit warm and inviting otherwise the viewer isn't gonna want to come back.
But the concept was solid and it should've worked.
Similar threads
