TATV--what were they thinking?

[SantaEddie74]

The least they could have done is set the episode's 24th century scenes AFTER the tenth movie, with Riker and Troi married aboard the USS Titan circa 2380. Sirtis and Frakes have aged a little too much since Season 7 of TNG to effectively pull off looking like their characters from that year. And since a lot of Trekkers were mad we didn't get to see the new Titan at the end of NEMESIS to begin with that would have been a nice gesture.

 

[KayArr]

Now that I agree with 150%! And why not do a script about a captain's decision instead of an engineer's, since Riker is now a captain? Oh well, they'd really have had to work on that script.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I think it's because of the special changing room with the whole bored into the wall that B'n'B just wanted to watch Frakes undressing one last time.

 

[SantaEddie74]

Part of me thinks since NEMESIS flopped at the theaters and wasn't too well received by the fans that the Beebs pussed out and didn't want to resurrect the USS Titan concept in the finale. Wussies. It was a better idea than the crap they ended up using.

 

[MattJC]

Part of me thinks since NEMESIS flopped at the theaters and wasn't too well received by the fans that the Beebs pussed out and didn't want to resurrect the USS Titan concept in the finale. Wussies. It was a better idea than the crap they ended up using.

I believe that's the same reason they used for why they did the Xindi storyline instead of the Romulan War. They blamed Nemesis's failure because "nobody wanted to see the Romulans".

 

[RandyS]

Hi,

This is my first post here so hello everyone

I liked Ent, but was very disappointed with TATV. I read the book 'The Good that men do' and this has become my official ending to Enterprise...

I wont say anything about what it tells other than the Synopsis"Commander Charles 'Trip' Tucker was not killed in an explosion, but rather, his death was staged. With the assistance of Captain Archer and Doctor Phlox, Trip is swept up by the shadowy organization that was employing his best friend, Lieutenant Malcolm Reed, and sent deep under cover. After discovering that the Romulans have a new warp drive, faster than any vessel, Starfleet sends Trip to determine if this will be a threat to the new fragile alliance."

I really recommend this to anyone that wasn’t happy with the way the series finished.

Hey Foxy, welcome.

I agree completely with you. THE GOOD THAT MEN DO went a VERY long way toward making up for the utter shit that TATV was. It brought logic to an illogical story. I second your recommendation.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

The finale sure was a head scratcher. Head scratcher as in, "Wtf were you guys thinking?!" For me, seeing Riker and Troi didn't add a thing to the episode. The application being made about the Pegasus incident just barely fit. Killing Trip was totally unnecessary. Nothing was going to inspire more emotion in the viewers then the fact that this was the last episode of ENT.

 

[Captain X]

The least they could have done is set the episode's 24th century scenes AFTER the tenth movie, with Riker and Troi married aboard the USS Titan circa 2380. Sirtis and Frakes have aged a little too much since Season 7 of TNG to effectively pull off looking like their characters from that year. And since a lot of Trekkers were mad we didn't get to see the new Titan at the end of NEMESIS to begin with that would have been a nice gesture.

That would've been somewhat better, as setting it during Pegasus didn't make any sense and it's impossible to reconcile the TNG portions of TATV with that episode. It would've been even better to do something with the Romulans to tie both series together instead of some random aliens of the week and Shran the jewel thief. After all, ENT was supposed to have taken place during that era, because the war was supposed to have lead to the founding of the Federation. In that context, killing one of the characters would've even made more sense, but it would still suck if the same indifference was shown toward it as was shown toward Trip's death in TATV.

I don't think I'll really ever understand why they picked that particuliar TNG episode to do this in. If they were going to, something involving Reed and S31 would've been a lot more appropriate as far as having his loyalties torn. But it still would've have made sense to have Riker doing holo-adventure to make a decision, because we actually saw what the turning point was (Riker seeing his dead crewmates on Pegasus), and we already knew that the last straw was the fact that Pressman was willing to place all their lives in danger again to protect his secret when they could actually use the cloak to get out of the situation they were in. To be honest I can't think of any episodes where this idea would've been appropriate, because for the most part all of them were well-plotted out enough that it just wouldn't make sense.

 

[commodore64]

KayArr, no. I doubt we'll ever agree on this, as per my answer to the shipper thread (Trip/T'Pol - what the hell were they thinking). And on with the discussion .....

 

[Lady Conqueror]

Lady Conq, the script was written at the end of season 3/beginning of season 4. And the script - why it was created - didn't have anything to do with Trip/T'Pol. You already know this, but I think it needs to be said: Enterprise wasn't about Trip/T'Pol -- it was larger than that. It was about humans learning to expand their horizons (in searching the stars and through meeting aliens). Through the series, the humans become less naive and more experienced.

Didn't say it was about Trip & T'Pol (the series or the script for TATV) - just trying to give KayArr a reason for them maybe not having TnT together in the script.

As to why they didn't tweak that part of the script - well I'd probably agree with you commie why would they necessarily bother. Since it takes
place years in the future they doubtless didn't really need to change much from when they first wrote it in their eyes. After all they have a large gap with which pretty much anything could happen to explain away any differences with Season 4 events.

As for Trip's death - BAH!! - Personally I don't care how well they did or didn't do it. He was my fave character and I didn't want to see him die period. In fact I didn't want to see any of them die in the finale - I like my finale's happy and with a sense of hope for the future, not bleak and tinged with sadness. They had the hope and goodness of the Federation being formed, why ruin that by making me sad that a beloved character had to kick the bucket to make it happen.

 

[Anna Yolei]

The real shame was cutting the season short by two episodes. they could have done a proper last 2 episode arc and still done TATV--which i didn't hate.
I sorta liked it.

I get the sentiment, but Paramount isn't directly responsible for how the allotted episodes are split up. Manny Coto wanted to make Terra Prime a three-part finale. B&B said no, they wanted to write the finale (Because it was such a hit when they did it four years ago with Voyager ) and he let them have it.

Personally, Terra Prime was fine with its two parts. I'd gladly given up an episode of the Soogh snorefest for a two-part finale.

But Paramount was determined to slap Ent in the face by cutting two episodes out, so they wouldn't get the 100 episodes that are a TV milestone. who ends a part of the trek franchise which has earned them billions on episode 98?

People who are tired of losing more money. And the only reason ENT wasn't canceled outright after season three WAS because it was part of the Trek franchise that earned them billions and could possibly re-coup most of their losses in a syndicated run.

If anything, the cutback to 22 episode like every other TV show was a blessing in disguise--a cut from 26 to 22 meant four less episodes that the writers/producers could waste on filler like what happened with season three (which was scheduled for 26 episodes, but got a cut-back notice eleven episodes in, IIRC--by then they'd already pissed away three episodes with shit like "North star," "Exile" and the one about the evolving into aliens fucktarded crap).

They had the hope and goodness of the Federation being formed, why ruin that by making me sad that a beloved character had to kick the bucket to make it happen.

Except that Trip never had to die....I always got the sense that all the hard work was done, and Archer's presence was more historical than of any true necessity. If Archer had bit it and the Federation had done all this work to unite for years...I just really can't see that collapsing over any one person. Even him.

 

[KayArr]

Except that Trip never had to die....I always got the sense that all the hard work was done, and Archer's presence was more historical than of any true necessity. If Archer had bit it and the Federation had done all this work to unite for years...I just really can't see that collapsing over any one person. Even him.

That's what made TOS such a success as a tv show, and the movies so bombastic--on the show, Kirk was just a man--a great captain, but a representative of the federation, not THE represenative of the Federation. In the movies, he was the savior of the universe. Sure Archer was the first Captain, but in terms of founding the Federation itself, a lot more people went into that then just one captain. Archer is more movie-style Kirk than tv series-Kirk (not that he's anything like Kirk at all, but you know what I mean).

And really, thanks for this discussion! Most of the comments have indeed answered my question rather than just expressing anger. I never believed the writers just didn't care, now I can see how they might have planned it. Seeing those plans...it's even sadder that they didn't pull it off. I agree with the poster who suggested a Titan-era version instead, and I'd add that basing it on Riker watching an Archer decision would have made a hell of a lot more sense.

Great discussion, I really got a lot out of it!

 

[commodore64]

That's what made TOS such a success as a tv show, and the movies so bombastic--on the show, Kirk was just a man--a great captain, but a representative of the federation, not THE represenative of the Federation. In the movies, he was the savior of the universe.

I disagree. Many of the movies were awesome -- TWoK, SfS, VH and UC! Mr. Spock is my favorite character - both of TOS and in Star Trek as a whole. I'm fine that Kirk is the main character. I was never envious of that or believed that Spock sacrificing himself for Kirk was the wrong thing to do. Kirk is the hero. Everyone else is a hero, too, but to a lesser degree.

This was true in the series though as well, by the way. Kirk was the main character and saved the day 90% of the time.

Sure Archer was the first Captain, but in terms of founding the Federation itself, a lot more people went into that then just one captain. Archer is more movie-style Kirk than tv series-Kirk (not that he's anything like Kirk at all, but you know what I mean).

ENT, I would argue, always focused on Archer's contribution ... really since Day 1. Daniels stopped by often to remind Archer (and the audience) that he was *the guy*. Trip understood it, but Archer was too humble to really ever understand it, which is why he was always sacrificing himself. It's also why Trip laid down his life.

And since Kirk was the main character in the TOS series and frequently saved the day (even out smarting Spock in lots of cases -- chess, etc.), I'd say they were a lot alike. I think it's just a device of writing -- someone has to be the hero. Kirk and Archer be them.

 

[Captain X]

Which is stupid and an example of what not to do while telling a story. Instead of having daniels or anyone else tell us that Archer was this great person, they should've shown it, and while you and several other people think they managed to do that, there are plenty of other people who think they failed miserably, and if anything showed us the opposite.

 

[commodore64]

You know to a certain extent I agree with you, Captain X. They did a lot of telling versus showing in Enterprise -- a real weakness. I would say that's part of the dumbed down writing.

I did think they also showed Archer a hero and important (all of season 3, the Vulcan arc, the Andorian arc, etc.), but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

 

[Captain X]

Like I said, some of us feel the opposite way, that if anything Archer was shown to be unfit to command, let alone to be the big hero that he was touted to be by Daniels.

 

[SantaEddie74]

"The Pegasus" wasn't even well-known and popular enough when TNG was huge boffo business for many to care about or much remember. It's always seemed like one of the oddest ways to link the Archer era to Picard's.

 

[Captain X]

I actually kind of liked that episode. It was still preachy like every other TNG episode, but it showed a dark side to Starfleet that we didn't see all that much of - like a foreshadowing of the Section 31 stuff that would come up later in DS9.

 

[SantaEddie74]

Oh, I like the original 1994 story. Not saying that.

But it was such an oddball, out-of-left-field choice as a link between the Archer and Picard eras. Not a super well-known episode...from the final year...not much action or a memorable plot. Just weird as a choice.

 

[Captain X]

Plus it just plain didn't fit with the cotnrived plot they came up with. The cynical part of me wants to say they picked it because it was written by RDM, but who knows what they were thinking.