Top Ten Reasons I Hate Enterprise

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Enterprise' started by where'sSaavik?, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. iTako

    iTako Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Location:
    Virginia
    Look back to the first and second seasons of TNG. IMO, they were the most cheaply-done episodes of Star Trek that I have seen since TOS' "The Apple." TNG didn't even get good until season 3. So, just let ENT take it's course this year and have faith that it'll improve.
     
  2. Raz

    Raz Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Holy shit, I agree with everyone!

    But seriously, there are some damn good points being brought up. I'm finding it bloody interesting reading, keep it up.
     
  3. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Story arcs are totemic these days among sf media fans, but simply put: if this week's story is really good, and next week's story is really good, and etc etc then overarcing stories or their absence is beside the point.

    One can point out that TOS had no such story arcs and people will say "yeah, but that was thirty years ago" -- and that misses the forest. Given scripts that were (on the whole) as imaginative and well-structured as TOS' were, that show would be just as satisfying if it were being done as a series of stand-alones today as it was then. A really good story that has its own beginning, middle and end is worth watching.

    IMAO, obviously. :D
     
  4. 8-4-7-2

    8-4-7-2 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    Fluidic Space
    Oh this silly myth again

    TNG improved because there were substantial changes in the staff. Roddenberry was pushed back (and his health forced him to do so) and people like Mike Piller were hired. They toned down the extreme utopianism a little bit and went into another direction with the story. Back then people knew that things needed to change.
    Such a change won't come for ENT and it won't become magically better

    The truth is that most shows don't get 3 seasons time. Either they deliver or they get cancelled
     
  5. Odie

    Odie Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    ^^^Well, it did actually. Thanks. :lol:
     
  6. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    That's true, but by the same token a "Star Trek" show doesn't get three seasons or more for "magical" reasons either. Everyone involved has sound business reasons based on experience and current returns for continuing to invest in it, and when those cease to be in force is when you'll see it pulled.
     
  7. James Dixon

    James Dixon Rear Admiral Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Location:
    Westwood, NJ, USA
    You mean...she's Not?
    Then what's with that sexy little avatar she's always got there? The one that turns me on all the time...
     
  8. iTako

    iTako Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Location:
    Virginia
    You have a point. Trek did get alot better, mostly because of Piller. And that's just it, TNG wasn't great right off the bat, it got better. I'm not saying ENT's going to get better just because it has a third season, but it just might get better as time passes.
     
  9. James Dixon

    James Dixon Rear Admiral Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Location:
    Westwood, NJ, USA
    That's just it though... Checkout TOS episodes: they didn't Waste time like that... Instead, they'd have this sort of "checklist" dialogue going on in the background (the intercom chatter)... WHILE the main characters did their thing which was relavent to the main plot...
     
  10. James Dixon

    James Dixon Rear Admiral Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Location:
    Westwood, NJ, USA
    Oh, come on... I really don't see why people put down TNG's early seasons... In retrospect, they feel more TOS-like than many of the later episodes... And they frequently said something... They get knocked because 1. Wesley and because 2. the visual effects weren't up to par with later episodes, and I'm including the fake TOS-like planet sets which seem to upset everyone...

    But the Characters were still There... And TNG was doing things which them from the getgo... Unlike E with it's fanboy FX taking center stage in episode after episode, coupled with tired technobabble...

    TOS hit the balance of characters, action, drama, and storytelling right on the head from Day 1... I really Don't think that we have to Wait YEARS for each new series to "adjust"...
     
  11. Pavlova

    Pavlova Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2001
    Have resisted answering this post because, frankly, I am incensed that a moderator in the Emterprise forum should post such a biased piece of vitriol. If that title isn't flame bait, I don't know what is.

    Everyone talks so loudly about wanting new ideas, fresh plots, wanting the writers to push the edges of the envelope. That is not at all what you people want. When you get something truly different, like ANiS you screech to high heaven that it isn't Trek or that it's crap.

    You want ONLY what conforms to whatever your own personal idea of what Trek SHOULD be and that is usually slanted toward whatever series you happen to revere (always of course viewed through the rosy haze of the past).

    Surely it wasn't necessary to blazon your opinion on this board. And FYI, NOTHING has happened to Scott Bakula. The man is making the best of the scripts he is being given. He is bringing life, humanity, dignity and strength to a character who was meant to have a steep learning curve over the course of the first couple of years in space.

    No wonder this place is such a cesspool of negativity when even the mods who are supposed to keep things civil, take pot shots at this show.

    Color me disgusted. :mad:
     
  12. reno floyd

    reno floyd Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Location:
    They'll never keep me down.
    ^^ that's the best laugh I've had all day :lol: Obsession is a curious thing.
     
  13. Stewey

    Stewey Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom, Wales
    I can almost hear the whispering in this thread. Where’s Stewey, why hasn’t he posted his usual anti Enterprise dogma? Well, I have answered your question, I am right here. You should be ashamed of yourselves in thinking I would ignore a thread that has the words Enterprise and hate in the same sentence. I’m like the old British Rail; I always turn up in the end.

    Brace yourselves people I think this is my longest post yet, and a bugger it was to write too, as it was written in bits thanks to RL interruptions.

    The premise is fine, in theory and if handled with care and attention.

    The problem is in the execution of the premise, from the moment B&B envisioned this series it was destined to fail and the reason for that is the people above B&B handing out directives such as “Put the show on the Enterprise” seemingly not caring how it is done. Their failed logic is that the decline the franchise is facing is related to having shows not about being on a Starship Enterprise, this is simply untrue because if they were listening to fans instead of PR people, they would have realised that the fan base as a majority were becoming increasingly frustrated and disillusioned by the lack of quality from the B&B era of Trek. Few franchises are blessed with an inbuilt fan base, but Paramount and B&B threw this advantage after the years of neglect in the quality department.

    Thanks to a policy of maximising profit over quality, they made the following decisions:

    · Dropping of the title.

    The dropping of the title was decided so that it would somehow cure the stigma that they though trek was suffering from. They believed in their infinite stupidity that Trek is uncool and scaring away any potential viewers simply because of its title, so it was dropped. Of course, there was no real reason to drop it’s title; now B&B will claim that it’s to attract new viewers, however this is very wrong, the way I see it and most fans that agree with me think it’s a very clear message that they believe that WE the fans are somehow to blame for the supposed “stigmatisation” of the franchise, they are practically calling us freaks or nerds for enjoying the show(s). Don’t they understand that Trek is a cult sci-fi phenomenon? Why do they conveniently forget that Trek was saved by the persuasiveness of the same type of dedicated fans that have been loyal to the franchise since it began? It’s a smack in the mouth to fans like Bjo Trimble and her efforts to show the then producers that there actually is an audience for trek, and it was growing. The real blame lies solely with the media for this stigma surrounding the Trek brand, with their constant association of Nerds with Trek, and with mockumentaries like “Trekkies”.

    · Decision to make a Prequel.

    They had three choices open to them; one was to make a show right after Voyager, but this was immediately rejected because we already had an Enterprise in that particular era, and as the Enterprise E was exclusive to film, and too young to blow up, it simply was not viable to be used. So they were left with another choice, go in the future on a new ship, however they felt the setting would be no different to what they were doing right now, except the ship would be sleeker and the tech even more developed. So finally we come to the third option, the prequel, which of course is yet another example of following the bandwagon that typically happens in the entertainment industry.

    A prequel offers a unique opportunity to tell the types of stories that offer immediate conflict. A time where there is no Federation yet, a time where Humans are not the perfect super beings that they are portrayed in Voyager and TNG, (I deliberately left DS9 out because that show had more realism, note the lack of B&B) where technology would be more primitive, and importantly a huge chunk of the Trek universe that was both unexplored and also free from the “constrictive” Roddenberry rules that they seem to think they are ruled by.

    Of course looking back with hindsight after seeing what they have actually done with this prequel, it makes me wonder why they even went to the trouble of using the prequel idea if they were going to write the same type of shite that has been written in the late seasons of Voyager, it very much defeats the purpose of the premise, and undermines the decision to use it in the first place.

    · Decision to use a ship setting, specifically the Enterprise.

    First of all, Trek fans are not stupid; they understand what Star Trek is. It is a cult show that appeals to a very specific group of people, and it is something that we go out of our way to watch. You put a Star Trek episode on in the middle of the night, or at some silly time of the day, and I guarantee you that Trek fans will watch it, heck when you see the pissing about the BBC made with the scheduling of DS9 and Voyager and look at the viewing figures it is evident that there is an audience. There was no ship called Enterprise starring in those two shows at all, except the odd rare mention of it, so there must be some reason why they were tuning in. That does not tell me that the reason for the alleged drop off in interest of Trek has to do with the fact that there was no Starship Enterprise in any of those shows.

    TPTB were thinking far too simplistically by deciding that the next series MUST be on a sip called Enterprise, probably because they saw the viewing figures of TNG compared to Voyagers, and decided that must have been the problem. They didn’t seem to be bothered by the fact that Voyager was on a Network show, and that their creative team were dumbing it down, and they had just slapped every genuine fan of the franchise in the face with Endgame. They also didn’t seem to notice or care that the truly creative writers and other production members of TNG and DS9 were leaving the show, thanks to the uncomfortable situation that arose from Brannon Braga’s continued rise through the ranks. Of course not, they looked at the bottom line, thus continuing the onward march of greed.

    So what the hell turned a great opportunity into something that is now hated by more and more people than loved, well for a start it was the set-up of the show, and the laziness of the production department.

    Ship Design

    The first thing they screwed up was the design of the ship, it’s an upside down Akira, a ship that was originally seen on episodes of Deep Space nine, a design that is typical of Star Trek incorporating the Nacelle and Saucer configuration that is part of the look of Trek. So already they have wasted a great opportunity to take advantage of the setting by designing something that actually fits the time period but also gives us some clue to where this era will eventually lead us: TOS. I am not advocating the usage of 1940’s ships design to make a convincing pre-TOS vessel configuration, which is just plain stupid. Nor am I advocating using fewer details on the hull because the ORIGINAL enterprise did on TOS. I understand full well that production values are more sophisticated that that of the 60’s, TOS was first made before Man landed on the mood for goodness sake; Trek deserves nothing better than high production values. But I see no reason why you cannot incorporate elements of an already established design and project that design backwards. I also see no reason why we cannot incorporate contemporary thinking regarding ship design in our own future. Trek is all about depicting one possible future, and I simply find the idea that the first starships to go out into space looks almost like everything else in Modern Trek. To believe that we have always had the same configuration of the saucer/nacelles combination ever since the start of Human endeavours is simply absurd.

    I would have liked to seen something a little more contemporary incorporated into trek, and Ptrope has hit the mark right in the middle with his Endeavour design in this thread (Be sure to read all pages, as the thread documents all of the stages of design so far), and he also documents his reasoning behind some of the design aspects too, for example, he hasn’t just put a saucer on the ship because it is kool, he has speculated that the saucer is there because there are particle accelerators onboard the ship, and the saucer is the best layout to accommodate them. Due to the time period, there is automatically a relaxation of design constrictions on the ship, yet B&B failed to take advantage of it thanks to their own incompetence, and lack of vision.

    Continuity

    The second thing they screwed up was the continuity of the franchise, which is by far the most important thing to protect, given that the franchise is 37 years old. This is really the nexus for my outrage towards the show, and it is not so much related to internal continuity, for which I call continuity with a small “c”, it is more related to continuity with the other shows for which I call continuity with a large “C”. It is continuity with a large “C” that has been violated, and this affects the very foundations of the show, so much so that the entire series would have to be rebooted or cancelled in order to restore the Trek franchise to some kind of believability again.

    The major continuity violation lies with the ship’s name, which contradicts the everything since 1979 where there is hard visual proof there was no Enterprise other than the ring ship pictured on the observation lounge on the Refit Enterprise in the Motion Picture. It would have been cured by either using the ring-ship design for NX-01, or using a ship with a different name altogether. Either way my suggestions would have solved the most glaring continuity violation that this show has created.

    The next one is the Klingons, they are suffice it to say not appropriate, or necessary in this time period. They have been introduced 70 years too early to this Trek universe, and add another layer of implausibility to this already implausible (within the context of the Trek universe) show. Of course, the real reason for using them is down to the bad logic surrounding the grabbing of its audience. Since they took the stupid decision to no longer call Star Trek by it’s rightful name, they needed to set up the premise to make it look visually Star Trek so in addition to the unnecessary name and design of the ship, they used the Klingons because they are recognisable straight away as being part of trek. That decision has nothing whatsoever to do with creativity, as the Klingons were already fully developed before Enterprise got it’s continuity destroying hands on them, so really I cannot see any reason to justify their inclusion.

    The Romulans, I have no problem including since they are destined to participate in a war with humanity prior to the formation of the Federation. I do have a problem with their ability to cloak 100 years before Humans have encountered the technology. Up to Kirk’s era, cloaks are only theoretical, and Romulans did not use them up until that point.

    Vulcan's are another race they have managed to screw up. Now we are told that only certain Vulcan's can mind meld, and they suffer from a disease transmitted through them, even though we know full well there is not one shred of information proving that this disease once affected Vulcan’s. Even if knowledge of this disease were to be lost over time, I hardly think it would in as little as 100 years, given they have more than double the lifespan of Humans. The same Vulcan's living in Enterprise’s time would be living in Kirk’s time. And there is no way I am going to believe that Vulcan females can experience Ponn Farr, when Saavik in TSFS says “Vulcan males must endure it every seventh year of their adult lives”, if both female and male Vulcan's can experience it, she wouldn’t have used the word males.

    The Ferengi, there is no way in the name of hell I am going to accept Ferengi in this era at all, much less actual bloody contact. What’s worse is the continuity violation was attempted to be explained away by simply saying that the crew didn’t catch their names, which added to the insult.

    The same is true of the BORG debacle, trying to justify their appearance on this show by making Picard and his crew look incompetent for not accounting for the debris is simply absurd. They returned to their own timeline intact, which means there was no change to begin with, proving that nothing to prove the Borg’s brief presence had any impact on the history of the Federation? Of course B&B now want us to believe that entire chunks of that Sphere crashed intact complete with the dead Drones, and not only that, they can be defeated by this incompetent crew yet they nearly wiped out ships 200 years in the future that have long surpassed the technology on Enterprise. Again, they never caught the name of this cybernetic race, how frigging convenient,

    I remember Berman saying once that fans are going to get a kick out of seeing things that are well known to them but unknown to this crew, well he was halfway right, I nearly kicked the frigging television. That must have been a primitive spasm of ecstasy moment from Berman, it seems this phenomenon of stupid quotes do not lie solely with Braga, not that it surprises me much.

    The writing.

    Ever since B&B took creative control of Voyager, the quality of the stories has declined drastically. Decent writers left the show, and the show lurched more towards gimmicks and cheap ratings stunts. Suddenly we found characters that failed to grow or change from one week to the next. They became like cardboard, usually shaped to fit whatever mindless script that was used each week. Suddenly we found characters disclosing previous interests or desires seemingly from nowhere, just to suit the story, rather than writing a story and allowing the existing character bounce off it. Characters no longer seemed to be affected by the consequences of their actions, with each and every episode written with no lasting damage for the crew to contend with. Stories would often be reset, which frustratingly erased any consequences the character developed in favour of maintaining the status quo of life on the ship.

    This continues on Enterprise with a vengeance. To me Enterprise in its entirety represents all of the very worse aspects of the Trek franchise all in one show. I have seen the general dumbing down of television and film steadily increase in the last 10 years, and I was quite proud and happy that this phenomenon had not hit Star Trek. Trek was one of the few shows that were not dumbed down in favour of ratings grabbing gimmicks, and pointless situations. Star Trek has been to me of a high standard, and I expected it to be, so when I saw Endgame and now Enterprise it really angered me.

    For the first time I turned my back on something I had loved for many years. Thankfully it has not stopped me enjoying the previous shows, because I find it much easier to simply accept that this show thanks to it’s lack of continuity and plausibility that it is simply not trek.

    Trek used to say something to me once, but sadly it has lost its voice. Trek used to represent mankind’s potential, to show how good it could be to live in a world where most of our petty squabbles were gone. To show mankind united and actually living, instead of living out a meagre existence in a world blighted by the irrational lust for power or money, in a world where disease, war and bigotry exist.

    To tell us that in our own future, our newly united mankind are to be represented by these fools onboard mankind’s first real venture into space on a mission of exploration is quite frankly insulting. Are we to really believe that in the years of transition from being a people a devastated planet ravaged by a brutal and costly war to being a people that have eliminated all of the world’s major problems that they have forgotten the ability of common sense?

    Are we now also supposed to believe that Vulcan's are not as logical or stoic as that appear on other Trek shows? These Vulcan's almost act like Romulans, spying on other races, continuing petty squabbles with races like the Andorians and showing emotions. Instead of portraying Vulcan's like this, they should have had them as the intermediately between the Andorians and us. The Andorians are a lot like Humans, savage, but with the capacity to change and evolve. A much better way of approaching the issue of the three founding members of the Federation creating an alliance is the discovery of common ground and earning each other’s trust. Vulcan's value IDIC, so I believe that they would be the natural choice for intermediaries, since I believe the main reason that Humans are so perfect in the 23rd century and the 24th century is the influence of Vulcan philosophy on our attitudes.

    They should be telling us the story of how we humans arrived at these perfect people instead of showing us the finished article more or less from the word go. Where is the conflict?


    Characters.

    Archer, how in the name of hell are we to believe that a man like him can get into the position of captain in an organisation like Starfleet (which is another screw up since it’s supposed to be UESPA), and given command of the worlds first and most advanced spacecraft?

    T’pol, why make her a seven of nine clone? Well we know the real reason, but from a story point of view it is simply absurd for a female first officer to walk around the ship in a frigging cat suit. Furthermore, we are told that she is to experiment with emotions, why, why frigging WHY????? Haven’t we seen enough of the stoic character turns human story angle? We’ve had this since Data 17 years ago, and I am tired of it, in fact it makes my eyes bleed through the frustration of seeing another character doing this.

    Can’t B&B just for once use a more original idea?

    Trip, he’s an incompetent jackass who likes to collect advanced technology and keep them in storage for long periods of time, because he would much rather research it in the five minutes he is allocated during an emergency.

    Reed, the typically American stereotype of a Brit. Don’t the Americans realise that Brits don’t talk like they do in old 40’s war movies? He should be more relevant to modern Brits. We wanted cool Britannia, not Old Britannia, which died along with the Tories’ (Tory is a member of the conservative party) chances of getting elected to power.

    Hoshi, I can’t say too much about really, she’s a silly scared little cow that hates the phone and has a liking for slugs. That’s all I can say about her as there is not much to go on.

    Mayweather I can’t say a lot about either, he’s black and likes to smile and sit silently at his post.

    Phlox, is about the only half decent character on this show, and it is quite obvious he was created first. How can I tell, because B&B burned themselves out after Phlox and that’s how we got the rest of the characters? I think this is mainly down to the talent of the actor, who somehow makes the character more bearable.

    Oh and how can I forget that cute little doggie Porthos? Aww bless him, he likes cheese and sitting quietly in his quarters while his master likes to watch his girly sport of water polo. I ought to thank this little mutt for pissing on that sacred tree, because without him, I would have had fewer things to slag off after I made my eyes bleed watching ANISB, which was not only the worst piece of what allegedly passes for Trek these days, was the worst piece of Television I have EVER seen.

    ---------

    So you see, I have many reasons and justifications for hating this series so passionately, and if there is the slightest chance that those two boneheads are informed to opinions on this BBS then I am glad that they will at least know how I feel about how they have screwed with the franchise, which is the main reason I post here.

    I’d rather be a gusher of series 5 instead of a basher, but B&B and their attitude and actions turned me into a basher. That’s not to say that I only know how to be negative, there is still a flicker of positivity in me, but I don’t think a lot of people on this board will agree with what I consider positive. I do not come here to spout my mouth off about wanting Enterprise cancelled for no reason. I simply want Star Trek back where it belongs again, at the top, one of the best examples of science fiction. If that means the death of one bad show, then that’s what it takes.
     
  14. Captain Spot

    Captain Spot Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Bah, continuity in Trek has always been full of holes, going back to when TOS was the only show in town. That is NOT the most important thing about Trek.

    Trek should be about good stories. ENT has, on the whole, delivered that but hasn't quite lived up to its full potential. It is the most TOS-ish of any of the modern Treks, IMHO; since the first couple seasons of TNG anyway.

    I think the most important thing is connecting with the characters and good stories. Unfortunately, either a lot of you AREN'T watching for these things, or the characters and stories just haven't worked for you. I think the latter is the more likely; if the characters and stories work for you, nothing else would seem important.

    TOS had great characters and stories. TNG had phenomenal characters and many great stories. DS9 had good characters and riveting stories. VOY had... umm. ;) (Seriously, I just haven't watched enough Voyager.)

    ENT has a good trilogy of main characters, and solid if not spectacular story lines. I'm hoping season 3 will improve on both counts.
     
  15. Stewey

    Stewey Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom, Wales
    Since the original Series was written under very unique and dificult circumstances, it's a lot easier to forgive errors in continuity.

    The reason for the ferosity of opposition to continuity screwups, is that once they were honest mistakes, now it's down to sheer laziness and dis-respect of the audience. Good continuity, especially with other show's demonstrate the respect that writers and producers have for the audience, this is no longer the case.

    I couldn't agree more, good stories make a series great, not the superficial thinks like explosions and tits. But I don't really agree that it's "TOSish", I would give that description to DS9, I find Enterprise too much like Voyager, too politically correct and too afraid to exploit it's premise.

    I feel the same way, in order for us to care about our characters, they must convince us that they are real people. However to me they are cardboard cutouts, like templates to attatch any character trait for each week. And because of this, whenever their lives are threatened we simply couldn't give a crap.

    I agree, TOS and TNG were fantastic, and for me DS9 was teh greatest, but the problem with B&B is that instead of finding a new voice for Trek or something that sets it apart from other series, it's just rehashing what worked once in the past. I don't think this works, and the proof is in the ratings.

    I disagree, like I mentioned in my post above, i find them too two dimensional to be proper characters. And like I posted immediatley above this quote, I think they are trying to re-create past sucesses by emulating the Kirk Spock mcCoy relationship with Trip T'pol and Archer, which to me is another sign of B&B's lack of real creativity.
     
  16. Galactus

    Galactus Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Location:
    The High Father
    Stewey
    I agree with a lot of things you said about the ship design (it seems like we are in the minority here and I disagree with you in that no matter the justification or reasoning there was no need to have a ship with a saucer section) and even the UESPA thing (I would have changed the name a little though so it would not be so goofy) along with other things like having an all human crew and such. But I just about disagree with everything else you said. I really don't see how you could ever have liked the show when you hated everything about it from the start. Enterprise had an impossible mountain to climb for you because you hated everything about it before it was ever on.
     
  17. John Sullivan

    John Sullivan Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2001
    I sound like a broken record here, but a lot of why Hollywood does what it does now has to do with the SAG rules for voiceovers and extras. Another thing they did a lot in TOS was run a tape loop of those background voices over and over again, as well as the same "theme" music that would repeat itself over different episodes as a canned score - that would never be allowed today in Hollywood. Believe me - I know what I'm talking about - those Unions have become something of a thorn in my side, if only because they make it IMPOSSIBLE to do what they did in TOS - unless one wants to pay an awful lot of the budget pie to do it.
     
  18. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Hadn't given you any thought at all, actually.

    Bullshit. Aside from one instance, they've made choices you don't like regarding a lot of ambiguous stuff, and they've contradicted the prejudices of a lot of fans (we call this "fanon"). To quote a mysterious source, "Who cares, Baby?"

    If continuity is that important to you, I guarantee that the next version of Trek will make you beg for the return of anything produced so far. ;)
     
  19. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.


    I think we can assume that it is implicit in the requests for change that this change must also be good or entertaining or dramatic.

    No one here is clamoring for change simply for the sake of change. We want change that makes the show better.

    Putting Archer in a hot pink dress and having T'Pol walk around using only her hands is change -- but it is not good change.

    We need not reward B&B for simply throwing a monkeywrench into the engine. The resulting disaster must also make the show better somehow.

    "A Night in Sickbay" was change. But it was not better. It was simply a disaster.
     
  20. The Ultimate Trekker

    The Ultimate Trekker Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    1. The ship is just an upside down Akira. They should have made something original.
    2. T'Pol is just the 7 of 9 for this show. Her sole purpose is sex appeal for all thehorny losers out there.
    3. Tripp's sole purpose is sex appeal for the ladies and the few tays who watch the show.
    4. Merryweather is just a token. He is not needed.
    5. Backula sucks. He reminds me of Alan Alda, a wimp.
    6. Boring ass story episodes.
    7. Continuity is ruined.
    8. Klingons with ridges.
    9. Way more modern than Kirks era.
    10. The whole show just plain SUCKS!