Top Ten Reasons I Hate Enterprise

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Posted by ConnorLass:
I thought Noname's post was very good and said a lot of what Ent fans think.

As is your right.

And I think "Starry Night" is pretty, but I can't really tell you why.

This is a forum for opinions Sam, there's nowt in the rules says he has to argue any point with you or to your satisfaction.

Agreed. Let's find the person who originally suggested that the rules said he had to argue any point with me to my satisfaction, and you and I will show that person the error of his ways.

 

[Xenoclone]

^Okay, well, once again Sam flashes his ability to dance around debate and focus on an insult. Look, I seem to recall demanding someone else stop dancing around the topic awhile back. It was you, wasn't it?

And, sheesh, stop freaking out every time I say you use middle-school debate tricks. It's not an insult to you. It's an insult to your arguments.

I took NoName's point to be all the shows are flawed, no? And that his "Trek experience" was equally valid to make a point as was the original TOS viewers who bash ENT. I simply elaborated upon that. Had I not I have a feeling you'd been asking why I didn't contribute to the discussion.

See, Sam, you have the perfect list of responses you use every time there's a debate to dance around arguing.
_______________________________________
Stock responses such as:

*"What's your point?"
*Harping on an implied insult
*Taking a quote out of context and asking how it applies to the whole (i.e., can't follow implied logic)
*"Why haven't you added anything new?"
*"Why are you off-topic?" (this and the one above can interchange for any argument)
*"Is that all you got?" (Playground level of debate, if you're so fascinated with what grade each argument theoretically corresponds to.)
_____________________________________

Anyway, to follow your style, what's your point? That Noname's post was insufficiently constructed to present his point clearly to you? If so, then how can you tell me that my interpretation of his post is invalid? I was attempting to clarify and expound upon his post for your benefit, since you apparently struggle to follow his argument.

Lots of words and pretty verbal dancing doesn't make an argument. I honestly found a point to his posts. I'm still scratching my head about yours.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Posted by Xenoclone:
Lots of words and pretty verbal dancing doesn't make an argument.

Agreed. Yet I found Noname's post interesting, nonetheless.

I honestly found a point to his posts.

A skill you use equally well with "Enterprise" each week. I am in awe.

I'm still scratching my head about yours.

Stop before you get to the skull.

 

[Jack Bauer]

NoName, great post. I agree with just about every word.

 

[spocklives]

Posted by Noname Given:

Posted by Dennis Bailey:

Posted by John Sullivan:
...born in 1978 or later, who (God love 'em) are too young to know any better, and great market material for this blasphemous derivative that they are trying to pass off as "Trek."

Sorry, John, I've been a Trek fan since 1966. I'm older than dirt -- Hell, I'm actually old enough to remember when the GOP was run by conservatives instead of neo-fascist Right-Wing twits.

John, I've watched Trek first run since 1969; and I like Enterprise and think it fits into continuity just as well as its prdecessors. ALL Trek series have had major continuity gaffs, and TOS had some of the most egregious within itself.

The fact is - there has been great material, good materiel, and utter CRAP material written throught the 37 year history of the Trek franchise. TOS had the best written first season of any show up to that time in TV imo, but that's because GR had actual science fiction writers pen those scripts, OR he plagerized some of the best short science fiction stories out there, and adapted them to Trek. By the second season, after he drove all those writers away with his hamfisted re-writes, the quality started to dip, and by the 3rd season, instead of the occasional clunker, we had the occassional good episode.

So, I think again that you tend to look at TOS with very Rose Colored Glasses (tm). As to comparisons with later Trek series:

ENT's first two seasons are WAY better written and acted than TNG's first two seasons; are about on par with DS9, and are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the crapfest known as Star Trek Voyager.

It's funny that everytime someone brings up the:

The younger fans don't know better because they never really had a chance to see classic Trek in the context of when it aired. ENT is driving the older fans away because of this...

arguement, they fail to notice the number (and it's quite high) of old fans who chime in with:

It's not perfect, but I still like it.

comments. It's just amazing how detractors love to stratify the fanbase, and make general assumptions like:

If you were born after <insert favorite year here>

or

If you became interested in Trek because of <Insert any Trek Series EXCEPT TOS here>.

then you must not be aware of the earlier 'quality level' of TOS.

That's just total BS. The fact is that the writing quality of the Trek franchise has been all over the spectrum (good to bad) from day one. It has the distinction of being one of the earliest examples of intelligent science fiction, although I hate to burst your bubble, but the FIRST TV shows to treat Science Fiction with respect were The Twilight Zone followed by the original Outer Limits (watch The Galaxy Being and when you do realize that was produced in 1963).

So, in the end Star Trek was the 3rd show to treat science fiction with some intelligence from the writing perspective.

What I don't understand of many rabid fans these days is why they have the need to think that Star Trek always has to be:

totally serious (remember TOS' The Trouble With Tribbles?)

socially relevent (remeber The Corbomite Manuever? Here was just a classic science fiction story. No social commentary anywhere and it worked well imo).

written as if it were some sort of litteray classic, or on the same level as say Shakesphere.

In the end, it's entertainment, pure and simple. If they choose and are able to sneak some sort of social commentary in, fine; but this was NEVER even Gene Roddenberry's stated purpose for the show (at least not while he was sane, and before he started believing his own hyped up press after he started taking credit for Gene L. Coon's and everyone else's contributions to Trek).

In short, I will never understand the need to turn Trek into a pseudo philosophy of life or the need to rank everything produced in its name up there with the greatest works of literary fiction; and whenever something doesn't live up to that standard, it's automatically crap.

In the end, Trek is just a collection of entertaining television shows, movies and books. It's neither a philosopy nor a religion.

TRUE

 

[Vestboy]

That must be where you learned the cheap insults.

It's a time-honored technique, dating back to Socrates.

 

[Jonesy]

You know, Xenoclone, as a strict lurker to this thread I still feel that I have to comment on one specific point. I don't think that Sam danced around any point, nor did I feel he was trying to focus on insults.

I feel that you've decided to criticise his posts strictly because his viewpoint differs from yours, not because of the content of his post to Nonamegiven was lacking.

 

[Odie]

Response to ConnerLass :

from Odie
4. We never get to see Chef

So what? This one I really don't care about. There have been eighty-three folk on that ship and only a dozen or so have a job of work! I want to see Lieutenant Hess, who was mentioned as the one in command of Engineering when Trip was off ship. She's never been seen, or mentioned again.

This was the one I threw in for sarcasm. Guess it wasn't as obvious as I originally thought!

from odie
5. There's no consequences from one ep to the next

Apart from the mind meld giving Tippy the Penarr thing? A lot of people say there were no consequences for Trip after Cogenitor, but if you watch his command of the ship in Bounty, he's a very different person. And we know the consequences of the Xindi attack will echo throughout season three, so I don't agree with this point.

Not just the P'Nar Syndrome, which has never been mentioned again, nor do we see any degenerative affects on her. There were no consequences to Trip and Archer's relationship after Cogenitor. Trip's command style really isn't a point here. The point is that the show ended with a very poignant scene between the two, frought with disappointment, disapproval, shame, ect. Yet next episode they're perfect pals again. There was no punishment for Trip's behavior and no affect on his relationship with the Captain. there was no consequences after SNW, when Archer ignore's T'Pols advice to scan the planet further before setting a shuttle down, almost gets her and the whole landing party killed....and nothing happens. No apology, no admission that he was wrong, no policy changes...its the same thing again we he decides to take a shuttle down to the planet in Minefield just before they hit the mine. They haven't scanned it or done anything new because of the lessons they should have learned in SNW. Did you see any of T'pol's new struggles to deal with her newly remembered memories after the Seventh? Me niether. Archer never seems to draw conclusions and learn lessons. This is unforgivable. It's okay that he's green and that they make mistakes, but we're missing the part where they learn from them and make policy changes or personal changes. Trip's suspicians against t'pol and all other Vulcans are displayed in SNW. It's implied that he will challenge his preconceptions from these horrific events. Hell, he almost killed T'pol in cold blood. They're back again in Breaking the Ice and again in Shockwave II (the bridge scene rant). Does he learn from his mistakes?

from odie
6. There's no character development from one ep to the next

Again, I think this is wrong. If you look at Broken Bow and then watch The Expanse there is a great difference in nearly all the characters. They've all come a long way. Archer is more willing to listen, has been growing steadily more disillusioned. Trip is darker, more aware of his command, less open. Reed is more open, he's found in Enterprise the family he never had. T'pol has gone from a ice-bitch, looking down at the primitive humans from her lofty Vulcan height, to someone who has cut off virtually all ties with her race to stay with, and help those Humans. Even Hoshi chose to stay on Enterprise this time and didn't have to be coerced like in Broken Bow. Only Mayweather is the same. Just a cypher.

I agree that there has been some character development, expecially with T'Pol. She has changed the most and we know much more about her now than in BB. Yes, there have been some changes, but what have we learned about these people? What are the challenges they struggle with, the life changeing events they've endured, the losses and loves, etc? What makes them tick? We still don't even know WHY T'Pol is even on the Enterprise after two full seasons. Why is Hoshi still such a whiney bitch? Why is Travis so undefined? How come Archer keeps making the same mistakes and keeps getting captured? The development I'm looking for is a fleshing out of these characters so that we feel like we know them and care about what happens to them. The changes we've been shown are largely superfcial and don't go to the heart of the character. Malcolm's growing attachment to Trip is the closet to this that I can see and some of the backstory we've gotten on T'Pol. That's it. I think it is a problem that they better recognize and resolve in S3. a lot of the fans just can't identify with this crew because we don't really know them that well.

from odie
7. Some of the stories are awful (ANIS, Dawn, Canamar, Precious Cargo, Booty...uh, Bounty)

That's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it. I liked Dawn and Canamar. Precious Cargo wasn't so bad, just ruined by the talent free actress playing Kiatama and leaden direction. Bounty I watched but neither liked nor really disliked. Having T'Pol in the decon room meant we got to see more of Trip in the big chair, which I liked. Her breasts and Archer's capture were the price paid for that and I willingly paid it. Only ANiS and The Seventh have, for me been genuine stinkers. But all opinions vary on this.

It's all about opinion here, of course. I liked The Seventh because it revealed a lot about T'Pol and the struggles she faces and some of her background was fleshed out a little. But the ratings don't lie. too many of these shows are rehashes of other shows: Dawn/Enemy Mine, Canamar/Con Air, etc. Some are just too sloooow and dull. These should be exciting and scary adventures, full of awe and expectation. Do you sense any of that? Shouldn't we?

from odie
8. Some of the continuity errors are in the show itself (Fusion v/s Stigma)

You see, I find this interesting. No-one but Tippy and the Vulcan guy were in the room when the meld took place. Instead of it being a continuity error I see it that, maybe, Tippy told the other's the meld was forced, maybe even has made herself believe it. As for only a few Vulcans being able to meld, we were told only a few Trill could join until we found out they all could. Maybe saying only a few Vulcans can meld and they're nasty, dirty people is the Vulcan way of controlling the practice and the spread of the disease?

Are you arguing that she "forgot" she elected to try the mind-meld even after advice from the Doc to go slow, even after Tolaris explains the intimate nature of the meld, even after he offers a guided meditation in lieu of the meld? that's a lot of forgetting for such a bright gal. I think that they could have written a story in Stigma about the consequences of unwise choices (too many people are still having unprotected sex, this is topical). Instead they needed to portray T'pol as a victim (just like the aids victims that received their death sentences from transfusions or tainted blood were pitied, while aids from gay sex was considered a God given punishment, somehow deserved). So they concocted the forced meld. Remember the scene in Fusion when Archer confronts Tolaris? Tolaris pratically screams that no one forced T'pol to try the mind meld. It was her choice. So did Archer forget this, too, in Stigma? Did the doctor forget what T'Pol told him had happened? We know she did, because Archer mentions it to Tolaris. So everyone forgot the one thing that would make T'pol even slightly responsible for the risk she willingly took. She's a rebel. There should be consequences when unwise choices are made. There are in real life, so wwhy not here?

[

from odie
10. They're abandoning T'Pol and Archer to "SEX" it up with the young hot-bodies that have no sensual background at all and were presented as adverarial competitors for Archer's attentions until...they changed their minds and decided ratings would change if the mucked this up

Well, I'm one of the people who saw zero romantic chemistry between Tippy and Archer anyway. And the idea of any captain of a starship being so foolish as to muck around withi any of his crew I find deeply wrong. I don't mind Trip and Tippy becoming friends, but wouldn't want a romance or sex between them. But that's my personal view. If it happened it wouldn't make me hate the show. I'd like to see a relationship between Hoshi and Mayweather. At least it would give them something to do!

Here we can agree to disagree. I saw loads of chemistry. I also saw the symbolism of these two people representing a growing mutual trust and respect between their peoples that will be needed for the BOTF. To me Archer/T'Pol are Human/Vulcan. They start off so criticala nd suspicious of each other and are growing over time to trust and respect each other. I don't want T'pol boinking anyone on this ship. But as a closer, at the end of seaason seven, I'd love to see A/T'P end up discovering a need for each other that mirrors the need the humans and Vulcans will have for each other in the future. We'll see. this could still go my way.


PS. I love a good debate and, while I expect we will find much we do agree on in future threads, this has been fun. you are quite the wit and i enjoy your posts.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepting the mantle. Continuing the adventure. Star Trek:Enterprise




[/QUOTE]

 

[Pavlova]

Posted by Samuel T. Cogley:

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.

(snip)

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

Against my better judgment: good, interesting, entertaining and disaster are wholly subjective concepts. You state your opinions as if they are accepted fact or, more to the point, law handed down to the patriarch, Cogley, on the Mount. Easy to do when your venue is this crowd who hate ANiS either becasuse their manhood won't abide a Captain who can show concern and deep affection for his damn dog, or because they were thrown into spasms of panic because they thought the ep might portend a romantic relationship between Archer and T'Pol.

The fact of the matter is this episode DID work on many levels. Their were scenes bright with whimsy, and exceptional physical comedy. Their were moments that held poignancy and introspection and, in the end, great character growth for the Captain, who came to understand that acceptance of cultures - especially ones that are prickly and that he doesn't particularly like - is sina qua non for an explorer and ambassador to alien societies.

The episode not only received a Hugo nomination but was a favorite among more casual, less professionally Trek viewers. No matter how many times you blazon your negative opinions about ANiS, those facts remain.



Have a nice day!

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Posted by Pavlova:
The fact of the matter is this episode DID work on many levels. Their were scenes bright with whimsy, and exceptional physical comedy. Their were moments that held poignancy and introspection and, in the end, great character growth for the Captain, who came to understand that acceptance of cultures - especially ones that are prickly and that he doesn't particularly like - is sina qua non for an explorer and ambassador to alien societies.

The episode not only received a Hugo nomination but was a favorite among more casual, less professionally Trek viewers. No matter how many times you blazon your negative opinions about ANiS, those facts remain.

You state your opinions as if they are accepted fact or, more to the point, law handed down to the [m]atriarch, [Pavlova], on the Mount. Easy to do when your venue is this crowd who [loves] ANiS either becasuse their [wo]manhood [will] abide a Captain who can show concern and deep affection for his damn dog, or because they were thrown into spasms of [ecstasy] because they thought the ep might portend a romantic relationship between Archer and T'Pol.

 

[Pavlova]

Posted by Samuel T. Cogley:

... or because they were thrown into spasms of [ecstasy] because they thought the ep might portend a romantic relationship between Archer and T'Pol.

Despite your attempt to trivialize my reasoning, Sam, you're wrong. I'm not on the edge of my seat watching for any little intimation that Archer and T'Pol are going to hook up. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't particularly like to see that happen.

Now if we're talking about giving Archer a passionate, adult relationship with a female of whatever species... then you got me. 'Cause if the writers don't make that happen PDQ, I'm going to be one very tee'd off camper!

Oh and btw, thanks a lot for having the respect to argue on the merits of the case, rather than resorting to the sarcasm for which you are so reknowned.

 

[Xenoclone]

Posted by Jonesy:
You know, Xenoclone, as a strict lurker to this thread I still feel that I have to comment on one specific point. I don't think that Sam danced around any point, nor did I feel he was trying to focus on insults.

I feel that you've decided to criticise his posts strictly because his viewpoint differs from yours, not because of the content of his post to Nonamegiven was lacking.

Well, I disagree with that... but that much is given.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Posted by Pavlova:
Despite your attempt to trivialize my reasoning, Sam, you're wrong. I'm not on the edge of my seat watching for any little intimation that Archer and T'Pol are going to hook up. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't particularly like to see that happen.

Nor would I. I couldn't care less who gets together with who on "Enterprise." I have never cared about that. Yet you tell me above that one of my problems with "A Night in Sickbay" was that I was part of a group that "[was] thrown into spasms of panic because they thought the ep might portend a romantic relationship between Archer and T'Pol." You've got me confused with somebody else.

You then allege that I'm one of the people whose "manhood won't abide a Captain who can show concern and deep affection for his damn dog." Again, you are wrong.

I am a man. I have a dog. I love my dog and would do anything for her. I would consider Archer a bastard if he didn't "show concern and deep affection" for Porthos.

However, as captain of this ship, his primary duties are to his crew and to Starfleet. He placed his concern for the dog (and, really, what he did was place his stubborn and misplaced pride above even the concern for his dog) above both the concern for his crew and Starfleet. This is unacceptable.

If he wants to put snuggling with his dog as priority number one, send him back to Earth so someone capable can be the captain.

Now if we're talking about giving Archer a passionate, adult relationship with a female of whatever species... then you got me. 'Cause if the writers don't make that happen PDQ, I'm going to be one very tee'd off camper!

I don't give a shit about the romantic relationships. Star Trek never does them well. Do it, or don't do it. I don't care. My problems with "Enterprise" are elsewhere.

By the way, the writers aren't going to make that happen PDQ, so you might want to let that go.

And why does his love interest have to be female? She can be "whatever species" but she still has to be female? Interesting.

Oh and btw, thanks a lot for having the respect to argue on the merits of the case, rather than resorting to the sarcasm for which you are so reknowned.

Don't talk to me about respect. You came charging at me with both condescending guns blaring. You denounced my words as opinions (which they obviously were) and then tried to refute them with nothing but your own opinions (which you called facts). My reply to you was meant to be nothing more than the obvious comment that your opinion carries just as much weight as mine. If you want to call that sarcasm, then so be it. Besides, if you think I'm so "reknowned" for sarcasm, than you should have expected it.

Because I'm one of the so-called "bashers" around here, I often get called upon to defend some kind of collective basher argument that the "gushers" have formulated.

I have very specific problems with "Enterprise," but my issues are very different than the issues that others have with the show.

Now, I don't expect you to follow me around and memorize which arguments are mine, and which belong to others. But on that same point, I'm not going to defend every other "basher" argument that someone mistakenly attributes to me. I would be here all day. Besides, how can I argue someone else's opinion for them? (Unless they are paying me to, of course. )

I'll argue my own beefs with the show, but not other people's. I can't help it if people want to attribute to me a bunch of things that I never said or cared about. That's not my problem. The only times I'll sidestep an argument is when someone falsely describes my position and then expects me to defend it anyway (which you did), or when someone tries to distract discussion away from the actual argument with theatrics that have nothing to do with it (as Xenoclone attempts to do above).

Was that sarcastic enough for ya?

 

[Xenoclone]

The only times I'll sidestep an argument is when someone falsely describes my position and then expects me to defend it anyway (which you did), or when someone tries to distract discussion away from the actual argument with theatrics that have nothing to do with it (as Xenoclone attempts to do above).

Oh, the irony...

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Posted by Xenoclone:

Posted by Jonesy:
You know, Xenoclone, as a strict lurker to this thread I still feel that I have to comment on one specific point. I don't think that Sam danced around any point, nor did I feel he was trying to focus on insults.

I feel that you've decided to criticise his posts strictly because his viewpoint differs from yours, not because of the content of his post to Nonamegiven was lacking.

Well, I disagree with that... but that much is given.

Jonesy's a lawyer... Don't trust him!

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Posted by Xenoclone:

The only times I'll sidestep an argument is when someone falsely describes my position and then expects me to defend it anyway (which you did), or when someone tries to distract discussion away from the actual argument with theatrics that have nothing to do with it (as Xenoclone attempts to do above).

Oh, the irony...

See what I mean?

 

[Jonesy]

Posted by Samuel T. Cogley:

Posted by Xenoclone:

Posted by Jonesy:
You know, Xenoclone, as a strict lurker to this thread I still feel that I have to comment on one specific point. I don't think that Sam danced around any point, nor did I feel he was trying to focus on insults.

I feel that you've decided to criticise his posts strictly because his viewpoint differs from yours, not because of the content of his post to Nonamegiven was lacking.

Well, I disagree with that... but that much is given.

Jonesy's a lawyer... Don't trust him!

LOL

Naw, not a lawyer - but I do sound like one in that post, eh?

Too polite..

 

[Jonesy]

Posted by Xenoclone:

Posted by Jonesy:
You know, Xenoclone, as a strict lurker to this thread I still feel that I have to comment on one specific point. I don't think that Sam danced around any point, nor did I feel he was trying to focus on insults.

I feel that you've decided to criticise his posts strictly because his viewpoint differs from yours, not because of the content of his post to Nonamegiven was lacking.

Well, I disagree with that... but that much is given.

Of course you do!

But I still think that's the core reason why you dismissed/ricdicule Sam's post.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Posted by Jonesy:
LOL

Naw, not a lawyer - but I do sound like one in that post, eh?

Too polite..

Sorry, Jonesy. I could have sworn that you said you were an attorney at one point.

(Which we all know is solid proof on the internet, right? )

EDIT: I must have been thinking of Joisey! My mistake! Never mind.

 

[Jonesy]

Posted by Samuel T. Cogley:
Sorry, Jonesy. I could have sworn that you said you were an attorney at one point.

(Which we all know is solid proof on the internet, right? )

EDIT: I must have been thinking of Joisey! My mistake! Never mind.

S'o.k. I didn't know that there was someone else on ths bbs with a "name" so similar to my own.