Why does ENT bring out such strong opinions?

[Captain X]

Honestly, I could have overlooked some of the visual aspects of the show if it would have had good storytelling. I used to refuse to have anything to do with ENT, and I started watching because someone here talked me into it, and the first episode I caught happened to tell a fairly compelling story. That got me interested. Unfortunately as I have gone back and watched the entire series beginning to end, I find myself extremely disappointed, because in my view they took a lot of really good concepts and had a lot of good opportunities to do something with them, and completely pissed them away.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

because in my view they took a lot of really good concepts and had a lot of good opportunities to do something with them, and completely pissed them away.

IMO, that was the biggest problem with VOY as well. Great concepts that started off fantastically and should have been either multiple ep. arcs or 2 hour ep.s but instead they obviously tried to tidy things up and squeeze the crap into 41 minutes and what seemed like it was going to be great, fizzled out at the end.

Truthfully, though, Season 4 (excluding TATV) makes up for Seasons 1 and 2 (Season 3 wasn't so bad, just kind of pointless).

-Shawn

 

[The Sneeze Police]

Given that I enjoy ENT, I am not convinced that it is the problem myself, but I respect those who dislike it for whatever the reason.

I like to read about the opinions, nitpicks, criticisms, dislike and praise about ENT here at the BBS. It is uncommon for me to share my interest in Trek offline. I am a little bemused about that unpleasantness that is sometimes generated, but grateful for the ongoing passion & interest in Trek.

I also happen to enjoy nuBSG & Firefly for different reasons... I like Trek to be ultimately optimistic without the sarcasm & grittiness of Firefly or the near hopelessness & apocalyptical nature of BSG.

 

[commodore64]

Truthfully, though, Season 4 (excluding TATV) makes up for Seasons 1 and 2 (Season 3 wasn't so bad, just kind of pointless).

I think along with Trinneer being overly praised, so is season 4. There were some terrible episodes -- imo -- in season 4: Home, Bound, Storm Front I and II, Daedalus, Demons .... Making it more like TOS was probably a good idea, but trying to make pointless ties for no apparent reason - not cool.

 

[Smiley]

The prequel premise, along with taking the Trek name off the show the first two seasons, were an initial turnoff to many. There were also some Trek burnout going on, the lack of a long-term plan by the showrunners, and very few standout hits in the early run of the show.

 

[ChristopherPike]

I absolutely love Enterprise and think it showed improvement year on year... yes, even Season Two! The studio wanted something safe and typically Star Trek, since it was going to be flying the flag solo. A retread of the exploration themes of TOS, TNG and VOY. Hardcore fans seemed to want the kind of dark character exploration DS9 indulged in and given the time period ENT was set, a look at the politics of Earth, Vulcan etc forming the Federation. Maybe even a drama set on Earth itself, treading ground never done before with any Trek show. Trouble is, DS9 only got to be experimental because the limelight of TNG and VOY diverted Executives' attention... So its middle-child status was an advantage and dare I say, gave it an easy ride.

 

[DrGojira]

The show was deriative, poorly written and put Trek in a moribund state.

Even worse were the disturbed individuals who mounted campaigns to "save" Enterprise and harrass Paramount and CBS employees.

 

[Captain X]

The first part I'd agree with, the second is somewhat personal. Nothing wrong with liking something and trying to save it.

 

[MANT!]

I don't often post here, but my problem was with the prequel concept and the fact that the producers/writers didn't follow that concept. My friends wanted to see "How the Federation Was Won" and instead we got retreaded stories from TNG and Voyager..We got Borg..Ferenigi and other 24Th century races in stories that didn't engage us and seemed just solved with technobabble by the end of each episode...

Season 3 started to re-engage me but many of it's stories again fell into the technobabble trap that ensnared TNG, DS9 and Voyager..Season 4 showed promise, the stories were improving and my interest soared, ENT finally had found it's voice, and was then silenced and staked with the crapfest that was "These Are The Voyages" (The worst final episode since "Turnabout Intruder")...I'm glad it came about, but saddened by the fact that it could have been so much more than the mediocre series it ended up being...

I do own season 4 and will purchase season 3 soon...but that's probably enough for me...

Such potential...wasted...

 

[poundpuppy29]

Shipping is sin.

LOL no it is not but I get your point

 

[Ssosmcin]

I remember really looking forward to Enterprise for a number of reasons:

1. I thought Bakula was a great choice for Cap'n.
2. I loved the idea of going backward since Trek got more and more sterile as it went forward in time. And the idea of a prequel to bridge the gap was too enticing to ignore.
3. I was dying to see new weekly adventures of a ship called Enterprise again.

But too many decisions were made which turned me off initially (I have since found many reasons to enjoy all 4 seasons). In the first place, the choice to not include the name "Star Trek" in the show's title was a misstep which served to alienate many fans. Then, of course, I remember my jaw dropping at the placement of an easy listening song as the main title. It was an appropriate song (lyrics-wise), it was just not the adventrous sort of "to adventures bold" kind of music I was expecting. That damned song got the brunt of criticism from day one.

Like most latter day Trek shows, the pilot episode was great and not reflective of the season to follow. There's something about the dozen episodes following a Star Trek pilot that is just amazing to see. The concept in the pilot is beautifully rendered and great fun. Then, it goes into slow, meandering and tech-heavy exploration. Plots were taking the form of gimmicks (Trip gets Pregnant! The crew turns paranoid!) and the really poorly done and very dull teasers didn't help either (Archer falling down in the shower is not my idea of an exciting situation). Voyager lost me early on this same way ("there's coffee in that nebula" says the addicted Janeway). There was little energy, but this show should have had it in spades. It was about astronauts truly going where no one had gone before and all we worried about was Hoshi being afraid and what Malcolm's favorite birthday cake was.

That, to me, is what killed the fanbase. A great start and then a dull thud. It took too long for the show to deliver on its promise. And the whole "it takes three seasons to get good" crap is just an excuse. Not only had this producing team been making Star Trek for 14 years and should have had it down pat, it didn't take TOS three years to get good. It was good from the start.

By the time Enterprise found its voice, it was too late. But it was soooo good by then.

 

[KendraW]

you know i think for me it has something to do with the fact that the show really did have to win me over in the beginning and there had been such anti ent chat before and after, myself included that now i feel almost protective over it and want to defend the good points and the bad points really agrivate me because i see it as ammo for the haters.

 

[DanCPA]

Enterprise brings out such strong opinions because after the disaster that had been Voyager, people were promised a return to the original...
And sadly, it can't be done.
We look back at TNG and more so TOS with nostalgia and affection, and we destroy Enterprise for not meeting those impossible standards... and sadly, for a while it was just more Voyager on a different looking ship

 

[Penguin]

Unfortunately, Enterprise was just TOS in different clothes. The main one" Vulcan First Officer, Science Officer, Sidekick of Captain. Worked in TOS becasue Vulcan was a male didn't work in ENT because vulcan was female.

Bragga and Co could not make up their mind what to do with any of the characters exept Archer.

For the most part Trip, T-Pol, Hoshi, Reed and Travis were around just to make Archer look good.

They should have either left the relationship between T-Pol and Trip as
a professional one or let it blossom into a full blown romance. but this on again, off again,stuff got really annoying.

Feel that series should have been an Ensemble series not a lone "Hero" series. Too much Archer and he was too Heroic to be believable.

I believe that Bakkula's acting was far too wooden in this series. apparently in quantum Leap he was much better.

Flame away

 

[Skywalker]

I agree with you on some points, Penguin. I realize TPTB were trying to harken back to TOS with their Big Three focus, but despite the fact that it was set a century before TOS, ENT was a post-TNG series, and post-TNG series work best as ensemble ones. Perhaps if it had been like that, the hero worship of Archer would have been dialed back a bit and all seven characters wouldn't have suffered from too much focus or not enough.

 

[Gagarin]

1. It's always fun to 'fill in' the wholes in a Universe with imagination, fandom, and books. Enterprise probably blocked a lot of that.

2. Every fan had a conception of Pre-TOS.

3. It was a prequel but used current-Trek races, etc.

I agree with the poster above 'how the Federation was won' was what we'd expect, but we didn't get that, we got the same kinds of shows with different technobable limitations.

 

[Penguin]

In Enterprise as in the other Trek series there are three elements:

The character(s) created by writers and TPTB

The enterpretations of the character(s) (acting) by actor interpreting the character as written

The (Invdividual) audience perception of the character as written and interpreted.

As in the case of an accident you can have 10 witnesses and get 10 versions of the accident or ten people seeing man committing a crime and get 10 different descriptions of the man.

So you can have two viewers of an episode and get two different versions of the episode and a third person hearing would wonder if the two had viewed the same episode.

I have had someone say that at end of Broken Bow that Archer asked T-Pol to remain on board Enterprise as Science and First Officer but if one views that, Archer asked t-Pol to stay on board as Science Officer, first Officer was never mentioned. Perception.

So, perceptions could account for the strong vivews of Enterprise.

Some Like Archer as an Officer and Commander and as aperson

Others dislike him as an officer and commmander but like him as a person

I dislike him as an Officer and a Commander and as a person.

Again it is perception which s based on the viewers experience, biases, preconceptions, etc.

 

[Penguin]

Is Enterprise a Mlitary Ship? YES.

Captain Archer (= full col.)

Coomander Tucker (= Lt Col.)

No Lt Commander (rank used uin all other Trek Series not in ENT)

Lt Reed (= Captain)

Lt J.G. (rank never used on Trek series)


Esign Sato and Meryweather (= second Lt.)

Other crew memebers are either officer or enlisted ranks.

Therre is ample precedent for this most notable the Lewis and Clark Expedition "The Corps of Discovery)

Lewis and Clark were both Captains. The rest Enlisted Ranks SGTs, Pvts. except Clarks Slave, York, charbeneu and Sacajawea.

Their orders were to explore. Meet new Peoples (Species) establish some kind of relations and find ot if freindly or hostile. Bring back samples of Flora and Fauna or sketches of them. Map, find fastest and easiest route to the Pacific Coast . Reach Coast and return as soon as possible.

This was a full Military expedition. military discipline was kept. military punishment handed for infractions. E.M.'s saluted the Officers and addresssed them by either their Rank or as Sir.


There were other examples: Cooks two circumnavigations of Earth were both Military as they were on a Royal navy ship and Cook was an Officer in the Royal Navy both were explorations.

Anyway, Yes, the Enterprise was a military Ship. With orders to explore the galaxy and the rest of it.

This type of expedition would be far easier in a military vessel because discipline could be kept far easier than on a civlian vessel.Chain of command would be established and rankings known. Orders would be obeyed completely as possible, promptly.

 

[Unicron]

because in my view they took a lot of really good concepts and had a lot of good opportunities to do something with them, and completely pissed them away.

IMO, that was the biggest problem with VOY as well. Great concepts that started off fantastically and should have been either multiple ep. arcs or 2 hour ep.s but instead they obviously tried to tidy things up and squeeze the crap into 41 minutes and what seemed like it was going to be great, fizzled out at the end.

Agreed. At least in VOY's case a fair amount of the blame can go to the UPN executives, who wanted the show to be TNG Lite essentially because TNG did well. I sometimes wish that Michael Piller had gotten his way and been allowed to show more of the survival aspect of the premise that he wanted to. Perhaps not as grim as what happened to the Equinox crew, but more realistic.

ENT did some things well, and had a good concept. It just wasn't executed well.

 

[I am not Spock]

ENT's fourth season was great, but by then, the damage had been done and it came off looking like too little, too late. B&B should have stepped aside in their day to day production role earlier on (say, in season 2 or three) and left the reigns in the capable hands of Manny Coto.

I think ENT will not age very well. The theme song will look terribly dated in about twenty years, and the programme itself seems to be trying too hard to be 'cool' and 'edgy' and trying to capture the non-Trekkie audience, who, let's face it, were never going to watch ENT anyway.

Season 4 was like B&Bs effort to apologise to the fans, and flatter them with continuity porn and TOS references.