Top Ten Reasons I Hate Enterprise

[The Poisoned Elf]

Posted by T'Bonz:

Um, let's see, it has not even been up for 24 hours and you think wS? is doing a hit-and-run?

Honestly, no. However, since it´s been 18 hours ago. I thought it might be some response from wS? I simply put out a question. Whether or not this thread were reliable or not. Oh, I put it out quite harshly, mostly to get wS? attention. But then again, it´s difficult to make myself understandable when I only have less then 250 posts on this BBS. Maybe I should come back when I have reached several thousands or so. I certainly don´t have a clue about every single unwritten laws around here.

Did it ever occur to you that some folks might have to work and have real life before coming on for computer play?

Of course I do. I got a wife and a kid and a full-time job as a medical nurse. I know exactly what real life means. But I also know that a lot of us are living in different countries. The time difference is quite annoying sometimes, but I will put that in mind next time.



[/QUOTE]

 

[Htown]

Alllrighty then! Here we go!

10. It Makes Me Feel Guilty Watching Smallville.
This Year with WB moving "Smallville" opposite ENT it's not much of a contest for me. "Smallville" is much more consistant and entertaining. I'll catch ENT on its Saturday re-run, if at all. And it makes me feel guilty. Not about my Mod duties, but because over the years I've gotten so much enjoyment out of Trek. Particularly the TOS films and TNG series. I feel like I owe the franchize something. Consciously, I understand that it's the other way around and tptb owe me something for expecting me to be loyal. But there's still an irrational part of my heart that will feel guilty on Wednesday nights when I'm actually enjoying what I'm watching rather than sitting through ENT.

You don't owe the franchise anything. Nor, however, do TPTB owe YOU anything. Last time I checked, Enterprise wasn't pay-per-view.

. The Premise.
BOTF (Birth of the Federation) was the Series V concept I lobbied hardest against. Hell, a Starfleet Academy series about a bunch of 90210 rejects sounds more interesting than this. We know that the Fed will be formed. We know that the Vulcans will ally with the humans and become logical and not as paranoid of mind melds. We know all this. There's no real suspense to anything that happens. The Temporal Cold War was inserted methinks to cast some doubt as to the outcome of the series because it supposedly raises the possibility that history won't turn out the way we've learned it. But it's not a real possibility. I'm not saying that it's not theoretically possible to set ENT on an alternate timeline from the rest of the Trek Continuity Universe, I'm just saying that Berman and Braga lack the balls to actually do that. And so they try to have they play-it-safe BOTF cake and eat it too. Why did we get a BOTF series? Because tptb were under the mistaken impression that by setting the show in this era they could recapture the magic of TOS. TOS's magic had to do with chemistry and daring writing and a truly ground breaking fun spirit. Things that tptb have time and time again demonstrated no talent at recreating. It's not about the time setting boys, it's about your crappy writing.

Are you, then, one of the kind of people who couldn't enjoy Apollo 13, or any movie based on a historical context, because you know how things are going to turn out? And as for Starfleet Academy being a better idea?
No. Not at all. You do realize, don't you, that a Starfleet Academy series set in the 24th century may have included people like, I don't know, Icheb and Nog in its main cast? Are you really willing to take that chance?

8. The fact that after they picked this crappy premise, they refuse to even exploit it.
WTF is up with that? We have a perfect opportunity to do the kind of morally ambiguous political episodes that DS9 was great at. Looking at the workings of the Vulcan gov't and the Earth gov't and the Andorians and how they relate to each other and how the Fed will eventually be formed. But that's not what we're getting. We're getting planet-of-the-week episodes that have nothing to do with the BOTF concept. Almost all of them, you can change the names, and do it in a TNG setting. What's the point? And season 3 with the pre-occupation with the Xindi looks no better. But more on that later.

Again, Enterprise isn't quite a BOTF series, it's a prequel series; there's a big difference. While the series is likely to include BOTF-themed episodes (which I think it already has, with the Vulcan-Human and Vulcan-Andorian stories), all that a prequel series theoretically has to do (apart from quality issues) is:
1. Occur before the series later in the timeline
2. Fit with the established timeline in some manner, including taking into account technological and organizational differences
and
3. Not directly contradict major events in the timeline.

7. Listening to Berman and Braga Bullshit.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!! I swear I'm going to start tearing my hair out if I have to listen to them try to spin the disaster that is this show into something positive. It's not that they're idiots, because I know these are smart guys. It's not that they're untalented because back during TNG Braga had some great writing credits and Berman did a terrific job behind the scenes. But obviously, they're not capable of recapturing their former glory. I don't know if its the Paramount suits, or that they're just tired, or if Brannon just can't get his mind off of Jeri's body (not that I can blame him), but whatever it is the work is suffering. It's been suffering since the dawn of the VOY era and it's only been getting worse. Listening to them try to cover up their lack of ideas by saying they're going to sex up the series is just so frustrating. And the whole "spasms of exctasy" comment will haunt Braga for years to come.

Pbbfft. I like the show, and I don't see the comments by B&B as anything more than spin. Don't pay attention to them. And by the way, I don't really see that what they, as producers, say about enterprise is really that much different than what other producers of other shows say about their product, assuming they speak at all.

6. The poor acting.
What happened to Scott Bakula? I had real hope when he was named to the cast. With a few notable exceptions he's mostly dialed it in. His take on Archer is simplistic and two dimensional. Granted, he's not given much to work with, and maybe this is the best anyone can do with it. But still. As for Blalock, I just don't like her character or the choices she makes. She's a pretty face. But she's annoying as all hell and I've yet to really feel like actually rooting for her character in two whole years. For one of the principle heroes of the series that's not a good sign. Not all the actors are bad, Park and Keating and Billingsly have been diamonds in the rough. But they're criminally underused.

I just disagree here. I like the acting in Enterprise. Granted, the actors don't get NEARLY enough to work with, but that's a writing problem more than an acting one.

5. The Obsessions with Cheap Stunts and Sex.
And this relates to my B&B ranting, but if there was actually a worthy product under there, then we wouldn't need to sex anything up with pointless and gratiutous decon scenes. And ridiculous stunt episodes like meeting the Ferengi or the Borg, but more on them later.

Okay, I agree that the decon scenes are gratuitous. I don't think their "stunt" episodes are really any worse than those in any of the other Trek series. DS9 pulled out the Q card fairly early in its run, and TNG found ways to bring back characters from TOS at least three different times. And the Borg episode was really entertaining, by the way, if you can get past the fact that "OMG B&B R USING TEH BORG THEY SUXORS!"...
As for the Ferengi, I can't defend that at all. That was dumb.

4. The Lack of Good Character Development.
Season 3 might turn it around with the expected darkening of Archer and Trip's characters and the possible romance between Trip and T'Pol. But I've had my hopes up before. And I will wait to be convinced. Thus far we know very little more about our characters and what makes them tick than we did at the beginning of the series. The stories are not character driven by and large, I mean how many hostage/escape-from-prison episodes can you do? And Hoshi and Mayweather still feel like occasional contributors.

I'll agree with this somewhat. I do feel that T'Pol has been developed well, and to a lesser extent Trip and Malcom. (I like the fact that they've got that whole Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn vibe working.) Hoshi and Travis, are criminally underused. ESPECIALLY Travis.

3. The Overall Lack of Originality.
The BOTF concept itself evidences B&B's inability to truly come up with an original idea of their own. But once they committed to doing a pre-TOS series, they still wanted to pull in the Borg and the Ferengi and all that 24th Century crap. Now you can make good arguments for and against whether showing these species was technically a continuity violation. For me it's beside the point, because once we're there we've already lost the battle. If B&B need these cheap excuses for ideas in order to make their show float, why put it in the 22nd Century in the first place? And why insult our intellignec by putting those shows out there? Yeah, it's nice they can demonstrate how clever they are by writing around continuity errors, but what I want to see is originality, not the continuous recycling of ideas. I got more than enough ferengi in DS9 and more than enough borg in VOY. Why the hell did we need more? Are there no other stories to tell? And if not, why are we even here?

I know, right? And don't you just hate how TNG brought in the Klingons so much? We had enough of them in TOS. </end sarcasm> But really, I don't mind the presence of the Borg, since it makes SOME sense due to First Contact and was a well-done episode. The Ferengi I've always had limited use for, so I can't disagree with that. I think episodes like these, so long as they're well-written and EXTREMELY RARE (read: once or twice a series, max), are just fine. I actually think Enterprise is better when it somes to stunt episodes and seeing-races-and-characters-where-we-shouldn't than many of the other Treks. Scotty-stuck-in-a-transporter anyone? (Before I get flamed, I did like that episode, so back off. )

2. The Death of the Franchise.
This becomes more and more of a possibility with the same lack of luster in the film series that's being exhibited in the tv show. As costs rise for ENT production (sallary and other expenses necessarily goes up as the years pass) the likelihood of cancellation grow higher. Once Paramount has got its magic 100 episodes (in year 4 or 5) when the sydnication comes into play, I will not be surprised if ENT gets the ax. The ratings are awful. The critical response is worse. If ENT goes out before finishing 7 years it'll be perceived as going out with a wimper. The Trek films can't go on with TNG and there's no other feasible vehicle. And I doubt Paramount will want to invest the money in a series VI unless there's a compelling business reason to expect some success. A business is in business to make money, not lose it. And without a film or television franchise out there, Trek will eventually shrink. Fewer fiction novels. Fewer video games. And eventually the whole market will be in collectables at conventions. I see a very sad day coming. Brought closer and closer by ENT's current course.

I don't think this is quite an Enterprise-specific problem. The franchise has been in a slow downward spiral since the peak of TNG's popularity. Nemesis - well, I haven't seen it, but releasing it between Bond and Two Towers was DUMB. DUMB DUMB DUMB. And while originality in the franchise may not be where it used to be, there is something to be said for the fact that there are HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of episodes of Trek out there. A dropoff in interest after MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS of ANY franchise, Trek or not, should be EXPECTED. And for many of those years, there were two Trek series on at any given time. What, you think there will be the same level of interest in the Sopranos or the West Wing fifteen years down the road (assuming they're still on the air) as there is now? Nuh uh. And add to that another twenty-plus years of TOS reruns and ten motion pictures. Perspective, people. The fact that there's even a QUESTION as to whether Trek is dead now is remarkable.
And I can really do without the fiction novels, honestly. I'll stick with the Star Wars books. (Thrawn STILL owns joo all!)

The Effect it has on this Forum and the BBS.
I love the BBS. It's why I'm an Admin. I've made friends here and had a lot of fun. To give back to that is why I agreed to be a Mod and then an Admin. But neither of those volunteer activities are as fun as they used to be. Why? Berman and Braga and their handling of ENT. By assaulting Trek fandom with ENT they divide us and discourage us and that has a negative impact on all the forums here, and really, all Sci-Fi fans everywhere. And by providing such a crappy product, they force us in this forum to go over and over their piece of crap. There's lots of smart people in this forum. Lots of people of good character. But you can't make a Filet Minot out of rotting beef chuck. No matter how smart and dedicated our members are, ENT is simply not capable of inspiring (on a consistent basis) the type of interesting and compelling and fun discussion that our members deserve. It's like letting a bunch of Shakespeare scholars loose on Roger Coreman movies. For a while they can stretch and have good discussions, but after awhile the material simply won't support intelligent discussion. And so we're left with a forum divided, a public disgruntled, and a bad situation for everybody. And there's nothing we can do about it.

I don't think it's TPTB's fault that the board has deteriorated. (DISCLAIMER: I wasn't here before ENT started up, so take this with a grain of salt.) Bottom line, even if B&B stunk up Enterprise until it was the worst show on TV (which it isn't, by FAR), people still have the ability to choose NOT to become bitter and hostile over a TV SHOW.

Peace...

 

[jkladis]

Me head go boom reading all this.

To address original topic, I don't hate the show.

However, if I can come up with ten reasons to hate it, I'd probably just use the ten worst episodes as the example. Some of which are probably the worst Trek ever made.

To the poster above me who says we don't owe Trek and they don't owe us.....No way! This is a business and we are the customers. It's a mutual agreement in which our presence in front of the TV is enough for advertisers to pay. Long term investments in the syndication and after market video and blah blah blah...this has all been said before.

Enterprise Rocks!!!

 

[Htown]

Posted by jkladis:

To the poster above me who says we don't owe Trek and they don't owe us.....No way! This is a business and we are the customers. It's a mutual agreement in which our presence in front of the TV is enough for advertisers to pay. Long term investments in the syndication and after market video and blah blah blah...this has all been said before.

Nope
Actually, UPN is the business and the advertisers are the customers. They buy the ad time, hoping that enough people will tune in to justify the cost. That, or the advertising companies are the business and we are their customers. No direct business relationship exists between ENT and the fans, unless you're talking about video/merchandising sales. All that Enterprise, or any TV series, consists of is free entertainment providing incentives to buy merchandise associated with the series or to sit through free commercials for other merchandise or services.
We are the capitalists. Resistance is futile.

 

[where'sSaavik?]

Wow. Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful replies. And because y'all bring up so many good points, this post will be a littl long . . .

Dennis Bailey
The truth is that DS9 and "Voyager" marginalized Trek -- neither were good enough to hold onto their audiences,

I'd agree that neither held their audience, but I wouldn't say that both weren't good enough. VOY certainly wasn't. But DS9 was actually a good show. Smartly written and well acted I think it just got lost in the glut of sci-fi/fantasy shows in the mid-90s and with either TNG or VOY going on at the same time there was a significant Trek-fatigue. If TPTB had held off Series IV, or made DS9 the linchpin of the UPN network it might have fared better. Maybe.

Lady C
If you're catching it anyway and you don't have a Neilson box then what does it matter?

I'm not actually supposed to talk about the box (actually boxes) hooked up to my tv. At least not publicly.

Sam Cogley:
I think Viacom's best bet at this point is maximizing any future syndication value that "Enterprise" might have, and then forgetting that the show ever existed.

I would concur. Best to start from scratch, or pick up on TOS/TNG continuity in a later era. I'd like to see a 25th C show myself.

Vestboy:
I find it really disheartening that a show lasting "only" four or five years would somehow be perceived as a failure. Given the number of shows that barely make it out of the gate, I would think a four or five year run would be considered respectable. But, you're right, given the seven-year track record of the other Treks, that is how it would be seen.

And that's what I mean. A normal network show lasting 7 years would be great. I was glad to get 7 years of my beloved Buffy and will be very happy if Angel lasts that long. But considering that low rated series like DS9 and VOY both lasted 7 years the expectation from the outset of ENT was that it would last that long. From a symbolic sense, pulling the plug before then would be like Viacom crying 'uncle.'

Kor'Vok:
Bakula, who should be able to carry the whole show is pretty much a sissy and a waste of pixels.

And this is so surprising. It doesn't help that in every interview it seems, at least it used to, that he couldn't get past harping on how he'd be the "first" captain out there with the "first" crew. Who cares? What matters is making it an interesting captain with an interesting crew. I know he's got the acting tools, but I can't understand why he can't use them.

The Mule:
given TPTB's talents and interests, i, too, am believing that an Academy 90210 might have been the route to go. Will the basic idea sounds horrifying to me still, it could have been chinsy and fun in a low kind of way, and would work "lowballing" it, unlike the "Prequel" premise.

My preference would've been a 25th C show, but I'd have settled for Starfleet Academy 90210. While it sounds crappy, I think it may have at least forced the writers to do some character based stories rather than planet-of-the-week stuff. Then again, with B&B in charge, it might not have mattered what the premise was. Sigh.

Xenoclone:
Oh my gosh that is funny. What kind of self-glorifying nerd has to post his top ten reasons of hating a show at length on an ENT fan forum? Dude, go outside and get some fresh air.

Y'know, everyone here is a registered member of a Star Trek Discussion Board. We're all nerds here my man.

Welcome to the Nerd Club.

Sam Cogley:
"Yes, BOTF is coming soon." Instead, we get a cryptic denial that translates roughly to, "Maybe we will. Maybe we won't. Don't you dare try to pin us down. We are two years into our show and we still haven't decided what it's about."

You nailed it. Two years in and they haven't decided what it's about. Good Genre shows like Farscape or Buffy or whatever all else were good because they had a strong creative voice behind it all who knew what the show was about. They made a decision. They didn't always do right by their decisions, but they had a core mission that they could come back to. ENT's writing feels listless because it lacks this. Or at least this is a significant contributing factor.

Temis:
Farscape provided some of that same grist, as did Firefly for its short run, but neither VOY nor ENT seems capable of generating the kind of intelligent, interesting speculation that, say, "Treachery, Faith and the Great River" did. Discussion going beyond just what we saw on the screen is what I mean. For that you need a series that conveys the feeling of a complete, rounded universe that could exist beyond the borders of the TV screen. That's what VOY and ENT are missing.

Exactly. Smart, compelling stories. Relative to 60s tv and 70s sydnication that's what made TOS stand out. That's what built the fanbase back then. It's the core of what made it great and what makes any great franchise great. It's absent from ENT and it's like a gaping hole in the soul of Trek.

Temis:
Plus you forgot a couple important points to hate about ENT:

-The hypocritical treatment of sex in general and T'Pol in particular.

Excellent argument. Call this Reason #11.

Temis:
-The Temporal Cold War. So far, it's just an excuse for random shit happening with no rhyme or reason. It's a plot device, and a piss-poor one at that. Either this plotline needs to get some logic and direction (how are the varying sides defined, who wants what, what strategies might they use to get what they want, and what CAN'T they do?) or it needs to just stop.

I think TCW is a pretty wanky premise as well. But it didn't make my top ten because while I don't like the idea of it, the TCW episodes tend to be superior to the rest of the show. "Cold Front" in particular is the kind of smart and suspensful stuff that Trek should be. I think that Brannon was really pushing for a TCW series, kind of like the adventures of the "Relativity." I think he got overruled and what we have now is a compromise between him and the senior partner, Berman. So when Brannon is set loose on a TCW episode he can actually put his mind to good use.

Poisoned Elf:
I think it´s quite cowardice of where´sSaavik to start this thread and just disappear afterwards. What´s the point with that. I thought you should follow up this discussion and explain furthermore. Or is this some hoax to bring some chaos amongst the members, or what?

Not my intent, my man. I only come online once a day though. Y'know, IRL, a job, trying to have a life.

Htown:
Are you, then, one of the kind of people who couldn't enjoy Apollo 13, or any movie based on a historical context, because you know how things are going to turn out?

I enjoyed Apollo 13, it was well written and well directed and well acted. Three things ENT rarely can ever claim. My basic objection to the premise isn't that it can't be executed well (becuase if it was then I wouldn't be complaining about it) but that there were better choices out there. And when the show was announced i got the impression from B&B that the premise of the show was going to carry them rather than the writing. Which is how we got seasons 1 and 2. Without the good writing the flaws of the premise just come into starker relief.

Htown:
I know, right? And don't you just hate how TNG brought in the Klingons so much? We had enough of them in TOS. </end sarcasm> But really, I don't mind the presence of the Borg, since it makes SOME sense due to First Contact and was a well-done episode. The Ferengi I've always had limited use for, so I can't disagree with that. I think episodes like these, so long as they're well-written and EXTREMELY RARE (read: once or twice a series, max), are just fine. I actually think Enterprise is better when it somes to stunt episodes and seeing-races-and-characters-where-we-shouldn't than many of the other Treks. Scotty-stuck-in-a-transporter anyone? (Before I get flamed, I did like that episode, so back off.

I didn't object to TNG using the Klingons because they were used in interesting ways. Exploring Worf's heritage was one of the greatest things about TNG. The Klingon episodes were always events to be savored. The Klingons seemed to fire the imaginations of the writers and they were able to come up with great vehicles like "Sins of the Father" and "Redemption" among many others.

I don't mind re-treading as long as it's done well and actually adds something to the series. "Relics" was not something I looked forward to in TNG's time, but it was very well done. It told a very nice story about Scotty, incorporated a cool sci-fi premise, and also had some great character moments for Picard and Geordi. It actually added something to the show. It was character driven.

Now, when we go to VOY and their use of the borg we have a more problematic situation. Being in the Delta quadrant the borg couldn't be avoided, particularly when you incorporate a former drone into the cast and basically make the show revolve around her. The problem comes when the re-treaded element, the borg, aren't used to improve the show. Instead they were used as 'events.' The lessons that 7 would learn would always be the same, she'd just learn it over and over again, like Data caught in a feedback loop. And by using the Borg so often they lost the scary-coolness that made them great. TNG only used the borg four times in its run. Who can count with VOY?

 

[Xenoclone]

Y'know, everyone here is a registered member of a Star Trek Discussion Board. We're all nerds here my man.

Welcome to the Nerd Club.

Yes, but how many of us have delusions of superiority over the show's producers and feel we understand what's Best for Trek?

 

[newbie]

Posted by where'sSaavik?:

10. It Makes Me Feel Guilty Watching Smallville.
9. The Premise.
8. The fact that after they picked this crappy premise, they refuse to even exploit it.
7. Listening to Berman and Braga Bullshit.
6. The poor acting.
5. The Obsessions with Cheap Stunts and Sex.
4. The Lack of Good Character Development.
3. The Overall Lack of Originality.
2. The Death of the Franchise.
And my #1 Reason for Hating Enterprise:
The Effect it has on this Forum and the BBS.

10.This is a joke, right?
9.TCW is in the pilot. Like most arcs, it has to be stretched out, lessening impact and artificially delaying resolution. (Why are arcs considered good?) When (or if) the TCW storyline is finished, the series should be finished, or fade into ignominy like Wiseguy. BOTF is not indicated in the pilot. The pilot is the first place to look for the premise.
8.It can't be a failure to use the premise if BOTF is not the premise.
7.Another joke?
6.If you say so. I've missed it so far.
5.This one's laugh out loud funny, every time.
4.Considering the bizarre ideas of character development floating around, this one needs more amplification.
3.There's not much science in this fiction. Somehow I'm convinced that this is not what you mean.
2.Do you own stock or something?
1.FIAJAGH!

10, 7, 2 and 1 are actually completely extraneous to the show, which is really strange. It suggests a peculiar emotional investment that prevents an objective look at the show.

 

[reno floyd]

Posted by Xenoclone:

Y'know, everyone here is a registered member of a Star Trek Discussion Board. We're all nerds here my man.

Welcome to the Nerd Club.

Yes, but how many of us have delusions of superiority over the show's producers and feel we understand what's Best for Trek?

Anybody with at least one good eye?

 

[Guest]

Posted by Dennis Bailey:

Posted by where'sSaavik?:
2. The Death of the Franchise.
This becomes more and more of a possibility with the same lack of luster in the film series that's being exhibited in the tv show. As costs rise for ENT production (sallary and other expenses necessarily goes up as the years pass) the likelihood of cancellation grow higher. Once Paramount has got its magic 100 episodes (in year 4 or 5) when the sydnication comes into play, I will not be surprised if ENT gets the ax. The ratings are awful. The critical response is worse. If ENT goes out before finishing 7 years it'll be perceived as going out with a wimper. The Trek films can't go on with TNG and there's no other feasible vehicle. And I doubt Paramount will want to invest the money in a series VI unless there's a compelling business reason to expect some success. A business is in business to make money, not lose it. And without a film or television franchise out there, Trek will eventually shrink. Fewer fiction novels. Fewer video games. And eventually the whole market will be in collectables at conventions. I see a very sad day coming. Brought closer and closer by ENT's current course.

This is something that I quite like about "Enterprise": whether it succeeds or fails, it brings the devolution of Trek since 1993 to an end.

The truth is that DS9 and "Voyager" marginalized Trek -- neither were good enough to hold onto their audiences, the Trek audience shrank year after year despite "course corrections" introduced into both, and both were thus abandoned by Viacom as viable futures for the Franchise by the middle of their respective production runs -- there won't be new "Voyager" or DS9 movies or tv shows because the studio is glad to be quit of both of them. A small core of dedicated Trek fans hung onto both shows until their ends, but that was it.

Frankly, I was glad to see the end of that somnabulent 24th century continuity and the dated, stultifying creative cul-de-sac into which it manuevered "Star Trek" .

The thing is, if "Enterprise" succeeds that whole 24th century edifice is dead as a doornail. Future Trek productions by new producers and writers (I don't see Berman going on beyond "Enterprise") will be based on the 22nd century continuity and characters introduced by "Enterprise". The tiresome legacy of "Voyager" and DS9 will be kaput.

That doesn't seem very likely, this year.

So, let's say it fails -- well, all that where'sSaavik says about studio perceptions is true. The old "Star Trek" -- the one that deteriorated into DS9 and "Voyager" -- will be dead forever. I don't doubt that Viacom will then resurrect Trek in some form but it's an iron-clad certainty that no new creative people who are willing to take a shot at reviving a property which is then perceived as having failed will do it by going back and treating the minutae of its previous incarnation as holy writ. Quite the contrary -- they'll slice and dice the thing with some abandon. They'll cherry-pick what they consider to be the good parts, in order to create something fresh that all the people who tired of "Star Trek" after TNG might be curious enough to take a look at. Again, no love for those pseudo-Treks of the last decade.

Since TOS is the creative foundation of the Franchise, the post-"Enterprise" revival of Trek -- however long it might take -- will very likely be a "re-imagined" version of TOS, oriented toward more modern aesthetics, storytelling style and mores.

So, from my POV it's a win-win for "Star Trek". My favored resolution, of course, is for "Enterprise" to succeed because I like it...but if it fails, Trek's still better off for it.

Your kidding right?

DS9 marked the end of Trek and not Voyager?

Do you even know what you are talking about anymore?

 

[Xenoclone]

Anybody with at least one good eye?

Dang it Reno. If you weren't funny I'm sure I..... bah, never mind.

 

[reno floyd]

Posted by Xenoclone:

Anybody with at least one good eye?

Dang it Reno. If you weren't funny I'm sure I..... bah, never mind.

you're welcome

 

[Cyrus]

Posted by where'sSaavik?:
But considering that low rated series like DS9 and VOY both lasted 7 years

DS9 & VOY were not low rated, that's why they lasted 7 years. If ENT can get the same kind of ratings it would have no problems going 7 years.

 

[Volpone]

Y'know, a chimpanzee and two trainees could produce a better series than B&B have turned out.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I love ENT but I really wish that they had just done it as a complete reboot of the Star Trek universe. It would've pissed off a lot of the "old" fans but it may have sparked a lot of interest in the show in casual and non fans (it certainly would've killed the non stop continuity topics for sure). As it is is kind of walks the middle of a reboot and being faithful to continuity. And we all know what happens in the middle of the road...you get *SPLAT*!!! Smallville would be a model as the way to go. It's esentially a reboot of the Superman mythos with some twists to it. It's mainly faithful to the premise but not the continuity of the comics. A new Trek series with that approach might do well. It would royally piss off many long time fans (way more so than ENT, Just see the current uproar in Battlestar Galactica fandom for a taste of that) but it may be time to do so...get rid of the deadwood of fandom so to speak. If ENT lasts 7 seasons Paramount may take a break of a year. If ENT is cancelled before 7 seasons then it will be a long time before it returns.

 

[Miss Thang]

I don't hate Enterprise, but I do find myself disappointed with it for many of the reasons Where'sSaavik lists. There's tons of potential there, yet we get "Precious Cargo"s and stuff like that. Berman was there during TNG. Fine. So why have we gotten rehash after rehash of stuff that, by the time it appeared on VOY, had been done--and done better--at least twice before on other series?

I, for one, wish they would do the BOTF stuff. I wish they'd jump ahead a few years, perhaps after they get out of the Expanse (presuming they do). I think Archer might come into his own as a diplomat/politician on earth, pining to get back out into space, but aware that he's needed on earth. It could split up the crew and follow them in their new positions, but ultimately bring them back together after the Federation is established and well on its way. Something like that. That could provide tons of opportunity for character development back home. Separate Trip from Archer and see if Trip comes into his own as a diplomat or administrator or, hell, as a scientist. Give Hoshi something else to do besides open and close hailing frequencies, something that was new when Uhura did it, but was so done by the end of TNG's first season that Denise Crosby left the series. Make Travis an essential part of something.

This whole planet jumping thing is old. They did it a lot on TNG, and they did it A LOT on VOY. Why, if they want to be so bloody innovative, are they revisiting the same old ideas: Approach planet. Visit planet. Deal with problem. Be moral, or morally edified. Say g'bye. Move along to next week's planet. (You can also put "ship" or "alien visitors" in the blanks where "planet" appears.)

On the sex issue, I think Temis is absolutely right, and Dorian Thompson has said essentially the same thing: if you're going to do it, then bloody well DO IT! You can only tease the audience with Hoshi and Polly's tits for so long. That, mes freres, ain't sexing it up. Men in their briefs is an interesting phenomenon once or twice. When you keep whipping that one out (oh, shut up, you! ), it's not sexy. In part because THERE IS NO POINT TO IT! Oooh, Trip in his drawers. Oooh, Malcolm in his drawers. Yes, nice eye candy. But old eye candy. If it doesn't actually do something, it just starts to rot your teeth. Or brain. This doesn't mean that every single scene or naughty bit has to have a point, but, geez, if you've spent any extended amount of time around a man you don't tend to find his briefs, in and of themselves, sexy. ('specially if you're the one who washes them, but that's another thread for another forum. )

If they're going to have this newly sexied-up show, then, y'know, people having sex might be a good idea. Hell, Sam Beckett got laid more than Archer does, and when he did it was in part to tell us something about Sam or another character.

For example, Sam had sex with a war photographer in Vietnam because he was desperately trying to keep his brother Tom from getting killed and she both wanted him and didn't believe he'd do her a favor without something--her--in return. He had an interesting ethical choice to make there. He wasn't going to request sex in exchange for the favor, but he knew if he didn't do it with her Tom might still die. Sex would buy him time and access. In fact, he probably toyed with the idea that he might be taking advantage of her, and all the while the same argument could be made about her. This created an interesting gender dynamic, as he was arguably prostituting himself--and the body of the man he leaped into--to save his brother. And all of this happened in about a minute. Big impact. Something to think about. No smirking, no giggling. No Don Bellisario giggling through a press conference, saying, "Yeah, we're going to sex up QL in a few episodes. Sam's going to run into a war photographer who wears string. It'll be an opportunity for some light, humorous moments during the Vietnam War. We're all very ecstatic." Why can't ENT do that?

And if the reason they don't is that they're targeting fourteen-year-old boys, then I say they're a bunch of sexist, ageist idiots. Fourteen-year-old boys don't want good storytelling? Why? Because they're male? Bullshit. What a very flattering view they seem to take of their male viewers. Anyway, you can get female (or male totty) anywhere on TV; just turn the thing on and you'll find it. Why's the totty on ENT any more interesting than the 58,000 other places they can get it?

 

[ecky]

Posted by Dennis Bailey:
I'm surprised by that, considering your supposed familiarity with the business -- remakes and "re-imaginings" and minings of old pop-culture product are a ridiculously common practice (it's not at all difficult to understand -- partly because "perfect pitch" consists in a lot of people's minds of sitting down at the meeting and saying "Tom Cruise, 'Mission Impossible'" or "Will Smith, 'Wild Wild West'" because what they're selling is the deal with the star and they don't have to explain the vehicle).

its going to be immensely difficult to try the same thing with trek sice it'll just suffer from exactly the same problem as VOY, ENT, INS and NEM - namely pissing the fans off.

both 'wild, wild, west' and MI were cult classics and had left a the public conscience to a degree with just a few core fans knocking around. i remember when MI came out and those core fans were up in arms about the remake, jim phelps goes bad?! we're not having this! and its nothing more than a cheap shot to get money. all effects and little story!!

can you imagine the equivalent with trek? it'd be dead before it was released, much as NEM was once that hackenyed script was leaked.

trek is both a blessing and an albatross in that its a guaranteed money maker but comes with a much higher level of expectations than almost any other series.

they seriously need to take a look at what works in other successful series like buffy, stargate and smallville and see what they can apply to trek.

and before certain trolls start whining, no, i dont mean make then into those series, but see what they have that may be relevent to both trek and those shows successes and see if its suitable.

 

[Chrism]

My main objections are #s 4 and 5, plus of course the complete disregard for continuity.

#5 often links in with the continuity problem, what with the Borg and Ferengi appearing simply as stunts. I'll gladly admit that the actual Borg ep was in itself well done, but it completely rips to shreds large parts of Trek history, simply to get ratings and in this respect it mirrors Voyager (The Raven ).

#4 is my main problem though. What exactly is the point of having Hoshi and Mayweather as main cast? They get no development whatsoever.

Sometimes ENT really does come up with some good episodes and when it happens I'll quite happily watch. However most of the time watching ENT is for me like having a nagging toothache. It's unpleasant and it gives you a headache. Having been a Star Trek fan since I was very young, it pains me to see how a once mighty franchise has fallen.

 

[Vestboy]

they seriously need to take a look at what works in other successful series like buffy, stargate and smallville and see what they can apply to trek.

Not just those, but other lauded shows that aren't necessarily "genre" shows-- West Wing, L&O, Six Feet Under, Sopranos-- and see what they can use from that.

I think a big part of the problem is they're still tapping into a formula that's been obsolete for ten years.

 

[Galactus]

Posted by ecky:

Posted by Dennis Bailey:
I'm surprised by that, considering your supposed familiarity with the business -- remakes and "re-imaginings" and minings of old pop-culture product are a ridiculously common practice (it's not at all difficult to understand -- partly because "perfect pitch" consists in a lot of people's minds of sitting down at the meeting and saying "Tom Cruise, 'Mission Impossible'" or "Will Smith, 'Wild Wild West'" because what they're selling is the deal with the star and they don't have to explain the vehicle).

its going to be immensely difficult to try the same thing with trek sice it'll just suffer from exactly the same problem as VOY, ENT, INS and NEM - namely pissing the fans off.

both 'wild, wild, west' and MI were cult classics and had left a the public conscience to a degree with just a few core fans knocking around. i remember when MI came out and those core fans were up in arms about the remake, jim phelps goes bad?! we're not having this! and its nothing more than a cheap shot to get money. all effects and little story!!

can you imagine the equivalent with trek? it'd be dead before it was released, much as NEM was once that hackenyed script was leaked.

trek is both a blessing and an albatross in that its a guaranteed money maker but comes with a much higher level of expectations than almost any other series.

they seriously need to take a look at what works in other successful series like buffy, stargate and smallville and see what they can apply to trek.

and before certain trolls start whining, no, i dont mean make then into those series, but see what they have that may be relevent to both trek and those shows successes and see if its suitable.

Hire me and I will have the franchise on top in 3 months. I would piss off the long time fans but so what it would be a successful show. Batman did it with the movies, Smallville is doing it now, and Battlestar Galactia might pull it off.

What do they have to lose? Can the fans be anymore upset than they are now? What would happen is that it would prove if people truly wanted good stories, like they often say or if they want continuity in Trek forever more. I think most people would be ok as long as it was good and it might bring in a lot of non fans. Those are all pluses to me.

 

[ecky]

Posted by Galactus:
Hire me and I will have the franchise on top in 3 months. I would piss off the long time fans but so what it would be a successful show. Batman did it with the movies, Smallville is doing it now, and Battlestar Galactia might pull it off.

What do they have to lose? Can the fans be anymore upset than they are now? What would happen is that it would prove if people truly wanted good stories, like they often say or if they want continuity in Trek forever more. I think most people would be ok as long as it was good and it might bring in a lot of non fans. Those are all pluses to me.

ENT is pissing off the long time fans and they have tried to being in non-fans. the result is underwhelming.

trek has a great deal of 'geekyness' attached to it, its regard as the domains of nerds. look at ws?'s avatar...

they really need to go back to what made TOS an attractive show to the demographic they wanted. it wasn't kewl exploshuns, it wasn't mini skirts. it was a strong lead, a group that had conflicts but were nonetheless close.

you could've set TOS in a bar and called it 'cheers' (although carla wouldve had to be friendly with diane at times ) because it wasnt the locations, it was the chatacters and their interaction. all the action, lovely ladies, and explosions were the marzipan, cream and cherry on already exceedingly well made cake.

i think they first lost sight of this in DS9, however some superb writing and characters like garak and dukat made up for that.

VOY and ENT have strayed even further away from this, they keep trying to improve the marizpan, cream and cherries but fail to see its the cake mix that they've fucked up.