I felt it was like watching the History channel except that it was Star Trek. Yeah I can kind of know what's happening, but it was fun.
What is your honest opinion of Enterprise?
- Thread starter indolover
- Start date
I love TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9 and like VOY and ENT. I think I like Enterprise a bit more than Voyager because I think the writers would not write Janeway in a consistent manner (that's not the same as boring and predictable). Males often have trouble writing good female characters, nothing new.
By the time B&B got to Enterprise, I think they were somewhat burned out, but having said that, it's more fun for me than Voyager, yet I enjoy both. However, Enterprise and Voyager could have done without the catsuits, as could TNG - Troi should have remained in a uniform after the pilot.
By the time B&B got to Enterprise, I think they were somewhat burned out, but having said that, it's more fun for me than Voyager, yet I enjoy both. However, Enterprise and Voyager could have done without the catsuits, as could TNG - Troi should have remained in a uniform after the pilot.
Mixed opinions.
When I first watched Enterprise I enjoyed it. But after watching TOS, TNG and especially DS9 over the past couple of years, I find Enterprise to be somewhat... less enjoyable. I still think Enterprise good, just not as good as those series.
Season 4 was the best season for me, followed by season 1. Despite popular opinion here, I wasn't keen on the Xindi war. I just didn't like some of the recurring themes, such as the Trip/T'pol neuropressure scenes and the MACO rivalry.
Biggest gripe for me is the way the show tried to emulate "The Big 3". I'm sorry, but Archer, T'Pol and Trip don't have half as much chemistry as Kirk, Spock and Bones did and after watching the entire series, I just ended up wishing the remaining cast had more to do. I just don't think there's any natural chemistry between them and most of the time they were together, it seemed forced. Enterprise should have been an ensemble show. But despite my gripes, I do think Enterprise deserved a full run of episodes and seasons.
When I first watched Enterprise I enjoyed it. But after watching TOS, TNG and especially DS9 over the past couple of years, I find Enterprise to be somewhat... less enjoyable. I still think Enterprise good, just not as good as those series.
Season 4 was the best season for me, followed by season 1. Despite popular opinion here, I wasn't keen on the Xindi war. I just didn't like some of the recurring themes, such as the Trip/T'pol neuropressure scenes and the MACO rivalry.
Biggest gripe for me is the way the show tried to emulate "The Big 3". I'm sorry, but Archer, T'Pol and Trip don't have half as much chemistry as Kirk, Spock and Bones did and after watching the entire series, I just ended up wishing the remaining cast had more to do. I just don't think there's any natural chemistry between them and most of the time they were together, it seemed forced. Enterprise should have been an ensemble show. But despite my gripes, I do think Enterprise deserved a full run of episodes and seasons.
This. The show had a great concept that interested me so i was very disappointed in it.
Saquist
Commodore
They didn't make T'pol intuitive like Spock.
She was a broken record at times about the time travel issue. and that just goes with the whole vulcan problem in ENT the way they made them so belligerent.
Tbh, the belligerent Vulcans on the show didn't bother me really. In fact, I liked it when the Vulcans started to warm up to humans towards the end of Season 4.
I have three issues with T'Pol:
1) The obvious intention to make her appeal to male audiences, from neuropressure scenes, decon, the catsuit and emotional problems.
2) Her position as XO. I can't take her seriously in that role. She doesn't strike me as having any command presence.
3) Her chemistry with Trip. Trip is perhaps my least liked character in the show so it stands to reason why I don't like this pairing. It just seemed... unnatural.
I liked T'Pol early on in the series, but gradually started to dislike the character from Season 3 onwards.
I have three issues with T'Pol:
1) The obvious intention to make her appeal to male audiences, from neuropressure scenes, decon, the catsuit and emotional problems.
2) Her position as XO. I can't take her seriously in that role. She doesn't strike me as having any command presence.
3) Her chemistry with Trip. Trip is perhaps my least liked character in the show so it stands to reason why I don't like this pairing. It just seemed... unnatural.
I liked T'Pol early on in the series, but gradually started to dislike the character from Season 3 onwards.
This.
There was no federation at this point, how exactly would her being a Vulcan sub-commander make her the next in line for command after a Human captain, aboard a Human ship. T'Pol could be a Vulcan twenty star admiral and not be in line for command of a Human ship. Can you imagine the captain of a Vulcan ship dying and the command of the ship being given to Trip? Simply because his rank was higher than the next Vulcan officer?
I liked the show, I certainly found the cast the most enjoyable since TOS. However, it was overburdened with the sensibilities of the previous TNG ere shows. The creators just didn't seem to want to let go of the TNG-verse (Borg, Ferengi, TNG Prime Directive, and more.) I do wish they'd never done the Temporal Cold War, or introduced the Klingons so quickly. Not wanting to delve into personal wish lists, the show had promise and the cast is my favorite next to TOS, I just wish the execution had been better. Earth stumbling out into the galaxy and making mistakes, exploring TOS-verse (Andorians, Telerites, Medusans, there was a host of cool alien races that were only heard of, seen one off or just glanced at.) So much promise...
Her appointment to Enterprise was at the request of the Vulcan High Command, who got Starfleet Command to agree to it. I may be mistaken, but wasn't her position as XO part of that arrangement?
It's been a while since I watched the first episodes of Season One, but I do remember the crew being very hostile to her until they warmed up to her. I like the idea of an XO being forced on Archer and everyone else against their wishes, only for them to come to accept that person as an XO and friend.
No.
There is no where in the script that indicates she's aboard as the XO, just science officer.
So just science officer officially, at least in Broken Bow. Honestly, it seems Archer was leaving Spacedock without a designated XO.
Unless Berman and Braga thought thay because Spock was the science and executive officer that all science officers must be XO's.
Last edited:
There was tremendous potential in doing a prequel set a century earlier and they squandered it on the same old same old. It was just TNG lite and VOY redressed.
Absolutely, that about sums it all up for me too.
Where everyone had gone before....
in TOS TAS TNG VOY, but with more primitive treknology.
T'Pol had her quirks to be sure, much like Spock's quirk of ALWAYS calcukating the odds for whatever was going on in an episode. If anything I was happy they did just make her a close of a previous character (one of my largest issues with TNG was its second season attempt to outright clone Dr. Leonard 'Bones' McCoy as a woman - aka Dr. katherine Pulaski - right down to the 'old country doctor line, and absolute distrust of Transporters.)
Saquist
Commodore
I don't think many people drew that conclusion considering how short Polasky's time was on the series was. If any it was negligible as comparisons go. Not that it's not legitimate but she wasn't close to Captain Picard and she never tried to be. The relationship with Data being similar is understandable for any curmudgeon style character and TNG has had more than a few with similar reactions to attitudes toward Data. I'm not dismissing the observation. I just don't see it an issue.
As with most character casting there is a lot of actor personality even in vulcan characters. Tuvok, Saavik (both) Valeris, Spock, Sarek, and Sellar all had distinctive personalities and they were all particularly good actors to varying degrees. T'pol was odd. She was wooden in her acting and her character was written in a way that antagonistic to the concept of the story. But more than that she was written as an intelligent character which is odd for a vulcan. The Catsuit made it worse, she was horny and I couldn't ever take her seriously.
Only DS9 beats it as my favorite modern Trek series. The less than perfect characters really made the show for me as was the case with DS9. Plus the portrayal of Vulcans was very well done and it was cool to see the Andorians get to shine for the first time in decades.
I agree with the less than perfect characters making for a good show. And I also liked how the Vulcans were portrayed. For me it provided some comic relief, as it would have been easy to play these characters in a very boring manner.
I only just finished watching ENT on DVD (never had the chance to watch it on TV) and, while seasons 1 and 2 were lacking, I mostly enjoyed seasons 3 and 4, and am sorry that the show never moved beyond season 4. It's my favourite Trek after DS9.
My honest opinion of Enterprise?
Good idea spoiled by a poor execution, particularly regarding the writing and the casting of Mr. Bakula. I'm sure he's a very nice man, and a fine actor within his range. But starship captain was way outside his range. Sorry Mr. Bakula.
Good idea spoiled by a poor execution, particularly regarding the writing and the casting of Mr. Bakula. I'm sure he's a very nice man, and a fine actor within his range. But starship captain was way outside his range. Sorry Mr. Bakula.
Anytime you decide you're going to go back in time and create familiar things we're used to seeing in a later context, you have the unenviable responsibility of deciding of where to introduce tension that doesn't exist in the later context AND to decide what that tension should look like. It's easier to change the apparent less-advanced technology to make it look simpler or less capable.
It's harder to do that sort of retrofusion in characterization. I'm unsure why you would want T'Pol to be intuitive "like Spock". That removes more of the tension from the character, and makes it less relevant and less necessary. By crafting a Vulcan leadership that was not connected in any real way with the teachings of Surak, it introduced a tension that allowed conflict to exist where none had in the later contexts. And, by later smartly resolving this (by having sort of a Vulcan Reformation with the discovery of the Kir'Shara) later in the series, it made the Vulcans seem more like people and less like caricatures.
So, about T'Pol - to me it seems clear why she was like a broken record, because a lot of her growth was indicative of the growth of the Vulcan leadership (both at the High Command and the Science Directorate/Academy).
