uncomfortable w/ ENT

[shatastrophic]

why could they just not have done a post-VOY series?

What does the fictional timeframe has to do with anything?

I agree with you.

I don't.

I know...

Anyhow, I'm not saying I hated the show. For one thing it's Star trek so I'm gonna like it even if I don't like it! It's just I knew everything was going to be fine. Enterprise can't be an alternate timeline either, I've heard that excuse. If it's onscreen it's canon so therefore every other series did, or will happen. IMO, I was satisified with what TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY had already inferred concerning the beginning of the Federation. For those who weren't, well you got your show.

 

[MPH]

I had no problem with the premise but I think it took too long to hit its stride and by then the ratings fell through the roof and cancellation was inevitable. S1 was okay buy S2 half of it was unwatchable, that the season that killed this show.

 

[The Sneeze Police]

I liked TOS, loved TNG, tried my best with DS9 but never cared for it, and didn't have time to watch VOY. Now I watch the occasional episode of VOY on cable TV and find it entertaining.

I intended to watch ENT, but after 911, I didn't have the taste for much TV watching. I stumbled back across ENT after seeing a rerun of The Expanse and fell hard for it. I think it is my favorite series just behind TNG.

 

[pookha]

we actually knew very little about the beginng of the federation from the other shows,'
shrug

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

I think that Enterprise was like a gazelle. When it's first born it has trouble getting up and walking on it's own...as Enterprise did during seasons one and two. But eventually that gazelle learned how to run and produced seasons three and four. Then Paramount shot it and put it's antlers on a plaque in some waiting room or another.

 

[SFRabid]

I think that Enterprise was like a gazelle. When it's first born it has trouble getting up and walking on it's own...as Enterprise did during seasons one and two. But eventually that gazelle learned how to run and produced seasons three and four. Then Paramount shot it and put it's antlers on a plaque in some waiting room or another.

 

[bluedana]

I think that Enterprise was like a gazelle. When it's first born it has trouble getting up and walking on it's own...as Enterprise did during seasons one and two. But eventually that gazelle learned how to run and produced seasons three and four. Then Paramount shot it and put it's antlers on a plaque in some waiting room or another.

You know, coffee coming out through your nose HURTS.

Not everybody is going to like every show. For me, ENT has it all over the other 4 series, hands down, for various reasons. Personally, I liked the flawed characters - it made for interesting growth. I liked not knowing whether the characters would make the "right" decisions (whatever those were), and liked it even more when they didn't (imo). I think the prequel idea was terrific; in particular, the low tech solutions (like the grappler - I love that!) and the touches of realism (like using actual blowtorches to repair the ship) made it accessible to me. The other 4 shows, as a whole, contained way too much magical technobabble, as I think any way-in-the-future Trek show would.

I do think the writing was uneven. Frankly, I wish the writers had been even more brave, with more high-stakes, no easy answers storylines. I wish they'd let the characters fail more often. I think ENT writers fell into the "you have to love the characters all the time, and therefore they must be morally right all the time" trap of the previous Treks, without realizing that TV viewers had moved on to stuff like BSG, 24, and The Wire, where the main characters were more ambiguous. Not that Archer and co. had to be corrupt, but just think of the amount of discussion the episode "Damage" or "Cogenitor" provoked. That was some good writing right there, and definitely deep-end situations.

TNG and DS9 didn't hit their strides until a couple seasons in, either.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

I enjoy Enterprise; I didn't watch at first and something a friend said to me got me watching it and buying the dvds. The only thing I can't get by is Bakula as Captain; whenever he gives an order its like ok that didn't really sound real to me at all. I guess use to captains like Kirk and Picard and Sisko and maybe Janeway but just ARcher was not believeable at times; ok sometimes he was but I felt at times Trip made a more believable Captain when he took over especially in S4 when he was in charge of the ship while ARcher was away with Tpol. Other then that I enjoy watching eps of Enterprise and this week is Shuttlepod One where the two characters which I thought would have been a friendship worth showing more Trip and Malcolm is fun to watch. Guessing they would have thought have next Bashir and Obrien but even those two for me were fun to watch. TMO.

Archer reminds me of George Bush for some reason. His mannerisms, the decisions he makes, etc.

 

[JiNX-01]

I enjoy Enterprise; I didn't watch at first and something a friend said to me got me watching it and buying the dvds. The only thing I can't get by is Bakula as Captain; whenever he gives an order its like ok that didn't really sound real to me at all. I guess use to captains like Kirk and Picard and Sisko and maybe Janeway but just ARcher was not believeable at times; ok sometimes he was but I felt at times Trip made a more believable Captain when he took over especially in S4 when he was in charge of the ship while ARcher was away with Tpol. Other then that I enjoy watching eps of Enterprise and this week is Shuttlepod One where the two characters which I thought would have been a friendship worth showing more Trip and Malcolm is fun to watch. Guessing they would have thought have next Bashir and Obrien but even those two for me were fun to watch. TMO.

Archer reminds me of George Bush for some reason. His mannerisms, the decisions he makes, etc.

Oh, now, that is really low!

 

[suebsg9]

I enjoy Enterprise; I didn't watch at first and something a friend said to me got me watching it and buying the dvds. The only thing I can't get by is Bakula as Captain; whenever he gives an order its like ok that didn't really sound real to me at all. I guess use to captains like Kirk and Picard and Sisko and maybe Janeway but just ARcher was not believeable at times; ok sometimes he was but I felt at times Trip made a more believable Captain when he took over especially in S4 when he was in charge of the ship while ARcher was away with Tpol. Other then that I enjoy watching eps of Enterprise and this week is Shuttlepod One where the two characters which I thought would have been a friendship worth showing more Trip and Malcolm is fun to watch. Guessing they would have thought have next Bashir and Obrien but even those two for me were fun to watch. TMO.

Archer reminds me of George Bush for some reason. His mannerisms, the decisions he makes, etc.

Oh, now, that is really low!

Sorry that is just my opinion; I just never really got into ARcher as a believable Captain; at times he was and other times it was like Bakula was doing lines. I like watching the other players in the cast. I would have liked to seen more of the other players do more; like we could have had more Malcolm and Trip; or even cast interacting outside of running the enterprise like meeting in mess hall or such. DS9 they had more of the cast doing stuff; I mean they were at Quarks or in holoprogram and such. I have always been a DS9 fan and I ddn't think when I was watching that show how they were going to make the show intresting and they did. But again sorry thats my opinion on ARcher. He's the hardest one to watch on the show at times.

 

[Hoshi's sis]

Archer reminds me of George Bush for some reason. His mannerisms, the decisions he makes, etc.

Oh, now, that is really low!

Sorry that is just my opinion; I just never really got into ARcher as a believable Captain; at times he was and other times it was like Bakula was doing lines. I like watching the other players in the cast. I would have liked to seen more of the other players do more; like we could have had more Malcolm and Trip; or even cast interacting outside of running the enterprise like meeting in mess hall or such. DS9 they had more of the cast doing stuff; I mean they were at Quarks or in holoprogram and such. I have always been a DS9 fan and I ddn't think when I was watching that show how they were going to make the show intresting and they did. But again sorry thats my opinion on ARcher. He's the hardest one to watch on the show at times.

I think she was replying to the poster who said Archer reminded him of George Bush

 

[archeryguy1701]

I personally enjoyed Enterprise, and it was only second to DS9. Personally, I would have loved to see a longer, darker Xindi arc that had a lot more to do with the Xindi, and the season four setup of long arcs work incredibly. I was really hoping that the series would make it to the Romulan/ Earth Wars, but that never happened.

 

[Pensive]

For me, ENT has it all over the other 4 series, hands down, for various reasons. Personally, I liked the flawed characters - it made for interesting growth. I liked not knowing whether the characters would make the "right" decisions (whatever those were), and liked it even more when they didn't (imo). I think the prequel idea was terrific; in particular, the low tech solutions (like the grappler - I love that!) and the touches of realism (like using actual blowtorches to repair the ship) made it accessible to me. The other 4 shows, as a whole, contained way too much magical technobabble, as I think any way-in-the-future Trek show would.

That is precisely why I love ENT, and precisely why the prequel idea was much better than some post-VOY series. One of the ENT producers (Manny? Brannon?) said that the further into the future a series gets, the less plausible it is due to the magic-technobabble.

 

[DarthPipes]

I think they made the right decision by doing Enterprise and setting it in the 22nd Century. The fact of the matter was that the 24th Century was pretty much played out. Between TNG, DS9, and Voyager, they had done over 500 episodes in this time period. Not to mention the fact that the last two shows failed to capture the success of TNG. I love DS9. It was a great show and has a strong cult following. But it was always regarded as the black sheep of the Trek TV series. Voyager last seven years but wasn't exactly a classic. It didn't break any new ground. So the move to the 22nd Century was a good one.

The problem was that once they got there, it turned out to the same old Trek they'd been pushing out for the past 15 years. The reasons...

1) The same old guys were in charge. Berman and Braga. No one's doubting their earlier success but the show needed new blood badly. Berman was a producer who didn't like to take any chances and Braga was too much of a gimmicky writer. Yet as showrunners they either wrote or re-wrote most of Enterprise's scripts the first season-and-a-half. Not a good sign to say the least.

2) As a result of this, you got a lot of the same old story themes and plot elements. The move to the 22nd Century was supposed to free Star Trek from the story elements of the 24th Century. But four episodes in, we get an episode that deals with the holodeck. We got another holodeck episode before the end of the season. We also got the Ferengi and Risa in Season 1 and the Borg, staples of TNG and Voyager making an appearance in the 2nd Season.

We got a rehash of one of Trek's most overused storylines. T'Pol. The alien discovering their humanity. And like Seven of Nine, she was put into a cat suit. They thought (and said as much) that showing the crew in baseball caps and their underwear was a change.

3) TPTB. Namely UPN. When Berman and Braga did attempt to go out of the box in Dear Doctor by having Phlox disagree with Archer's final decision, the powers to be put a halt to that. Basically, the said the crew was there to agree with all the captains decisions and they didn't want any conflict. So there went conflict within the crew.

4) In 2001, there was an influx of entertaining, innovative, and arc-centered shows like 24 and Alias. These shows represented 21st Century television while Enterprise was stuck in 80s and 90s-era television.

 

[suebsg9]

Oh, now, that is really low!

Sorry that is just my opinion; I just never really got into ARcher as a believable Captain; at times he was and other times it was like Bakula was doing lines. I like watching the other players in the cast. I would have liked to seen more of the other players do more; like we could have had more Malcolm and Trip; or even cast interacting outside of running the enterprise like meeting in mess hall or such. DS9 they had more of the cast doing stuff; I mean they were at Quarks or in holoprogram and such. I have always been a DS9 fan and I ddn't think when I was watching that show how they were going to make the show intresting and they did. But again sorry thats my opinion on ARcher. He's the hardest one to watch on the show at times.

I think she was replying to the poster who said Archer reminded him of George Bush

I saw my quote in there thought it was also about me whoops sorry!

 

[JiNX-01]

Sorry that is just my opinion; I just never really got into ARcher as a believable Captain; at times he was and other times it was like Bakula was doing lines. I like watching the other players in the cast. I would have liked to seen more of the other players do more; like we could have had more Malcolm and Trip; or even cast interacting outside of running the enterprise like meeting in mess hall or such. DS9 they had more of the cast doing stuff; I mean they were at Quarks or in holoprogram and such. I have always been a DS9 fan and I ddn't think when I was watching that show how they were going to make the show intresting and they did. But again sorry thats my opinion on ARcher. He's the hardest one to watch on the show at times.

I think she was replying to the poster who said Archer reminded him of George Bush

I saw my quote in there thought it was also about me whoops sorry!

No problemo!

 

[commodore64]

Good thoughts Darth Pipes and Pensive. I wasn't a fan of Voyager, partly because it had nothing new to offer. I don't think we needed that.

I also agree with Pookha -- there was lots of opportunity with TOS and uncovered territory. In addition, TOS is the reason there is a Star Trek universe ... including Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, etc.

Unfortunately, ENT failed in some of the wide open opportunities they had. And the failure had nothing to do with Archer, who I thought was a great character. I think it had a lot to do with rehashed topics, stale ideas, lack of consistency with itself, unclear character motivations (I chalk up people not liking Archer to not understanding him), poorly done romance in pretty much every way imaginable and no structure in which to grow from (a solid character bible, clear plot points, etc.). I also think the process of Star Trek itself helped doom the show. When you have a director, writer and actors who don't speak to each other as part of the creative process, the process is shoddy. I'm surprised it worked for TNG so effectively. DS9 had clear plot points. Voyager was definitely hampered with that. I think it was the death knell for ENT.

Of course having said all that, I liked ENT and think it had a lot of heart. It's my second favorite of the Star Trek universe.

 

[KayArr]

there were some great eps, but overall i felt like we didnt need to see ENT nor did ENT wanted to be watched, why could they just not have done a post-VOY series?

Watch something else.

 

[Timewalker]

Oh, my -- these smileys are wonderful!

My own 2 credits: I loved Voyager. I would have liked it to continue, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted it to be concluded in the ham-handed Deus ex Machina way it was, with everything nicely wrapped up with a pretty bow and fireworks. I haven't actually seen any Voyager fan who expressed satisfaction with the way the series ended.

Regarding Enterprise: I liked Bakula in Quantum Leap. I think he does have the ability to pull off a "Captain" role. But I just didn't like the Enterprise series for a lot of reasons. It's like it was a prequel to TNG, not TOS.

Oh, and the Andorians were also in the Animated Series episode "Yesteryear." In the alternate timeline where Spock died as a child, Kirk's Science Officer was an Andorian named Thelev.

 

[JiNX-01]

Oh, my -- these smileys are wonderful!

I got lots of 'em!

My own 2 credits: I loved Voyager. I would have liked it to continue, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted it to be concluded in the ham-handed Deus ex Machina way it was, with everything nicely wrapped up with a pretty bow and fireworks. I haven't actually seen any Voyager fan who expressed satisfaction with the way the series ended.

I like Voyager. I like Janeway. I know there are a lot who don't. And I don't hate Endgame so much. I hate the end of Endgame. No emotional payoff at all. They just open the front door to the Alpha Quadrant, Janeway calls out, "Honey, we're home!" and the credits roll... Bleah.

Regarding Enterprise: I liked Bakula in Quantum Leap. I think he does have the ability to pull off a "Captain" role. But I just didn't like the Enterprise series for a lot of reasons. It's like it was a prequel to TNG, not TOS.

Actually, Enterprise is a prequel to all of the other Treks. Not just TOS/TAS. The problem was that the writers only sporadically mined the opportunities to connect to them.

Oh, and the Andorians were also in the Animated Series episode "Yesteryear." In the alternate timeline where Spock died as a child, Kirk's Science Officer was an Andorian named Thelev.

Only saw a couple of eps of TAS.