Why was the 4th season so much better than the rest?

[Kor]

Well, of course not every single actor was bombastic, but in general, I tend to see a lot more complaints about "overacting" in older movies and TV shows (especially from the 50s), since today's audiences are used to a lot more subtlety.

I'm just trying to say that there was a reason why those actors did that. It wasn't "bad acting," it was just "different acting."

And which is more "realistic" anyway? In real life, there are people who are very expressive and melodramatic (and annoying), and there are people who are more low-key and subtle.

Kor

 

[Lance]

Berman was a suit, never a creative artist in the usual sense of the term.

It's easy to overlook this, but ''suits'' are very necessary people: managing the organization of writers, directors, actors, production teams, and support staff is essential to getting anything done. Star Trek is a particularly demanding production, by every account, and to get shows made, on budget and on schedule, for eighteen years, seven of them with two shows due every week, plus four movies on the side, is outstanding.

Another thing, we will never know how much of his influence is on any episode of modern Trek. Heck a lot people don't even know that in Trek usually the head writer does an uncredited final rewrite of each and every episode. But those head writers are also given solo (even though they still aren't) episodes for us to judge. Herman add plotting and structure influence on almost all of modern Trek, certainly from season 3 and later of TNG. Not to mention being a filter from higher ups (be it Roddenberry and his lawyer, or the network and studio. I don't think we will ever get a real concept of how much of the final product we judge is shaped from Berman's influence. That of course goes both to the positive and the negative, so it makes it very difficult to rationally judge his efforts on the franchise.

The making of Deep Space Nine gave me something of an appreciation of what Berman's actual job was. I gathered he was very much an ''overseer'', somebody whose role was to essentially protect the overall consistency of the franchise. No episode of Star Trek between 1988 and 2004 made it to our screens without his input (even though some have tried to downplay his role on DS9 over the years, in reality he retained creative control over *all* aspects of Star Trek -- even Ira Behr and Ron Moore still had to run their ideas through him.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I've seen this sentiment all across the internet, as well as heard it from friends. Did UPN stop trying to throw their two cents in on every story or what? Season 4 seems to be what I had originally thought Enterprise would be. I'm just wondering if Berman and Braga finally got more say or if producers realized they'd pissed off the fans to the point that they had to try to appease them.

Although the essential change was the creative input and control of Manny Coto in the fourth season, the attitude of the executives at UPN made a profound impact on the show. Viacom restructered UPN, putting it under the control of CBS' Leslie Moonves, who was less attached to Star Trek as the emblem of the network than in the show's profitability. He directed Berman and Braga to change the direction of Enterprise, leading to the Xindi arc. Although season 3 produced modest improvements, the show would have been cancelled had not the television division of UPN agreed to further reforms of the show, which included replacing Berman and Braga as producers.

 

[K'Toska]

Personally I think we take it too far with making things look beyond realistic these days. Overuse of CGI in a lot of movies puts me off completely. As for how Star Trek TOS looked, check out the episodes of Doctor Who during that same time period. My God, they looked absolutely horrible. I still love classic Doctor Who but the lighting seems to always leave something to be desired and the plot lines are soo slow. It's still worthwhile but I was really surprised at how much better quality TOS was compared to it.

 

[eyeresist]

I am one of those who think that season four is a decrease in quality from season three. In fact in some ways I like big sections of seasons 1 and 2 more then the whole of season four.

Yes, I think season 4 represented a decline too. The early seasons obviously had a few misfires, but they were aiming high, trying to create a sense of the huge scale of space, deal with issues arising from humans' unfamiliarity with space travel, and do some original world building. Season 4 felt much smaller in scale, and the stories tended to be simple adventures rather than explorations of character and theme.

 

[Relayer1]

The first couple of seasons were patchy, and even the better episodes weren't that good. Season three just didn't work at all for me, so season four was a real surprise - I loved it.

Didn't the Reeves-Stevens have something to with season four ?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

It's easy to overlook this, but ''suits'' are very necessary people: managing the organization of writers, directors, actors, production teams, and support staff is essential to getting anything done. Star Trek is a particularly demanding production, by every account, and to get shows made, on budget and on schedule, for eighteen years, seven of them with two shows due every week, plus four movies on the side, is outstanding.

Another thing, we will never know how much of his influence is on any episode of modern Trek. Heck a lot people don't even know that in Trek usually the head writer does an uncredited final rewrite of each and every episode. But those head writers are also given solo (even though they still aren't) episodes for us to judge. Herman add plotting and structure influence on almost all of modern Trek, certainly from season 3 and later of TNG. Not to mention being a filter from higher ups (be it Roddenberry and his lawyer, or the network and studio. I don't think we will ever get a real concept of how much of the final product we judge is shaped from Berman's influence. That of course goes both to the positive and the negative, so it makes it very difficult to rationally judge his efforts on the franchise.

The making of Deep Space Nine gave me something of an appreciation of what Berman's actual job was. I gathered he was very much an ''overseer'', somebody whose role was to essentially protect the overall consistency of the franchise. No episode of Star Trek between 1988 and 2004 made it to our screens without his input (even though some have tried to downplay his role on DS9 over the years, in reality he retained creative control over *all* aspects of Star Trek -- even Ira Behr and Ron Moore still had to run their ideas through him.

Berman was more involved with the purse strings than the creative decisions, and ISB, by his own admission, got away with a lot. For instance, Berman wanted the Dominion War to end by the fourth episode of season six. It didn't end until the next season.

 

[gblews]

Well, of course not every single actor was bombastic, but in general, I tend to see a lot more complaints about "overacting" in older movies and TV shows (especially from the 50s), since today's audiences are used to a lot more subtlety.

And I trust that you realize that just because you "hear complaints" about it doesn't mean necessarily that those complaints have any basis in reality.

I'm just trying to say that there was a reason why those actors did that. It wasn't "bad acting," it was just "different acting."

The reason "it" was done (in old movies) was probably because the role called for a more demonstrative performance, not because more "bombastic" performances were expected back then.

What you may be confusing with overacting is an acting style that by today's standards, might be described as more "formal" or even "stilted". But that style wasn't necessarily "bombastic" or over the top, unless the role or situation called for it, or perhaps because a particular actor might not be able to do it in any other way. But again, bombastic or "theatrical" performances weren't necessarily expected in the old day.

I'd advise that you watch more TCM.

 

[Harvey]

A lot of the premises of TOS are good ones, but the special effects aren't so good (budget and technology, understood), the acting is often over the top, and a lot of the details are maddeningly inconsistent.

TOS was actually one of the most, if not THE most, expensive network television shows of its day due to the constant need for visual effects, not to mention sets and costuming. The average cost per episode was $185,000, which is about $1.3 million in today's money. The pilot episode "The Cage" alone cost $615,751 to produce. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $4.6 million.

Star Trek was an expensive, prestige show for NBC and Desilu, but it wasn't the most expensive show on the air, and the budget was slashed each season It went along.

 

[Kor]

I'd advise that you watch more TCM.

Actually most of the movies I own are from the 40s through the 60s. I've been watching these for years and I'm so used to the older styles of acting that I scratch my head at other peoples' reactions to it.

A case in point: Compare the contemporary acting on "Mad Men" to just about any movie with a similar setting actually made in the late fifties or early sixties. Nobody talks the same! "The Best of Everything" is one example.

Kor

 

[Lance]

As for how Star Trek TOS looked, check out the episodes of Doctor Who during that same time period. My God, they looked absolutely horrible. I still love classic Doctor Who but the lighting seems to always leave something to be desired and the plot lines are soo slow. It's still worthwhile but I was really surprised at how much better quality TOS was compared to it.

A network based TV series shot on film and paid for with money gathered from advertising dollars, versus a show made by a BBC which shoots all its scenes on videotape "as live" and relies on the public purse to satisfy its budget, being made at a time when the UK government was already dealing with crippling economics and strike action up and down the country. Gee, I wonder which one is going to end up looking better?

It's like comparing apples to oranges, but TOS was a much, much more expensive and glossy show than the equivalent Doctor Who episodes of the time, because it had much, much more money spent on it. Those results show on screen. Not to mention Doctor Who from 1966-1969 was still shot in black and white, where TOS was glorious colour. It's a curb stomp battle, with the deck stacked firmly against Doctor Who.

 

[Ithekro]

I went and watched all (the possible anyway) episode of Patrick Troughton's Second Doctor from that time period. While I didn't have all that many problems with the show (the Second Doctor has become my favorite I think), I had trouble thinking "This was made at the same time as Star Trek?"

 

[K'Toska]

A network based TV series shot on film and paid for with money gathered from advertising dollars, versus a show made by a BBC which shoots all its scenes on videotape "as live" and relies on the public purse to satisfy its budget, being made at a time when the UK government was already dealing with crippling economics and strike action up and down the country. Gee, I wonder which one is going to end up looking better?

It's like comparing apples to oranges, but TOS was a much, much more expensive and glossy show than the equivalent Doctor Who episodes of the time, because it had much, much more money spent on it. Those results show on screen. Not to mention Doctor Who from 1966-1969 was still shot in black and white, where TOS was glorious colour. It's a curb stomp battle, with the deck stacked firmly against Doctor Who.

I was merely trying to compare two sci-fi shows taped in the same time period but different countries. I wasn't aware of the differences in filming other than that one looked excellent and one looked pretty crappy. The funniest/worst part though is how the BBC apparently just taped over some of the classic Who episodes they had saved because they needed to store other shows. I guess no one thought they'd be worth much. Hindsight is 20/20.

I went and watched all (the possible anyway) episode of Patrick Troughton's Second Doctor from that time period. While I didn't have all that many problems with the show (the Second Doctor has become my favorite I think), I had trouble thinking "This was made at the same time as Star Trek?"

Exactly! I was into Doctor Who before I got into Star Trek so I figured Trek would be of similar quality. No way.

 

[IrishNero]

It has always troubled me how good Enterprise seemed to get before it went off the air. S3 and S4 were so exciting, and the show began to click.....right before UPN pulled the plug. It's one thing to watch a tired old show limp off the air when it's grown stale, but to see one finally catch it's groove right before it gets yanked is just a kick in the groin. I've watched the series end to end 3 times now and I get suckered in every time, only to watch Trip get zapped and the Enterprise get turned into a VCR highlight reel for Riker and Troi at the end. Anyway, suffice it to say that we'll never know what could have been, had they had another couple of seasons to sort things out, but some of the shows in that final season were among the best that Trek has ever produced, IMO.

 

[fonzob1]

It was due to Manny Coto, and no thanks to B&B.

Unfortunately, Mr. Coto was stuck cleaning up a lot of nonsense from the mediocre first three seasons. (i.e. the Vulcan arc)

And the Friday night time slot didn't help. Not enough people noticed that the show was finally starting to get good, so it was cancelled.

Kor

^This

 

[K'Toska]

Agreed, IrishNero. I get that a lot of season 4 was fan service but the Vulcan story arc was AWESOME. It was also great to see Brent Spiner again although his character angered me quite a bit. And I just loved the Terra Prime story arc too. A lot of Trek makes comments about xenophobia being eliminated amongst humans but doesn't delve too much into how humans felt about alien species suddenly being around all the time. It was fantastic to see that perspective.

 

[Willow]

Agreed, IrishNero. I get that a lot of season 4 was fan service but the Vulcan story arc was AWESOME. It was also great to see Brent Spiner again although his character angered me quite a bit. And I just loved the Terra Prime story arc too. A lot of Trek makes comments about xenophobia being eliminated amongst humans but doesn't delve too much into how humans felt about alien species suddenly being around all the time. It was fantastic to see that perspective.

^this

 

[Long Syntax]

The Vulcan arc was received well by the fans because it was well written and produced, which was a theme throughout the 4th season.

I know many fans were down on ST:ENT on season 1 - 2, and many didn't like the long Xindi arc of season 3. My take on that was seasons 1 - 2 had some weak episodes here and there - however the same can be said of TOS, TNG, Voy, DS9. Each of those series had some real stinkers (come on, re-watch them - you know there are). But taken as a whole the stories still fit to provide color and background in many cases, so for that reason I still like watching them. Season 3 of ENT... well it seems you either love it or hate it - I for one am in the former camp and enjoyed it (well minus the cliff hanger with alien Nazi's which could be argued as part of season 4).

ST:ENT was and continues to be my favorite of the series, although I know I'm in the minority opinion with respect to the membership of trekbbs (present company excluded I'm sure). I've given some thought as to why this series is so special to me and have decided it's at least partly because of the time it was produced. I had just purchased my first house and moved in with my wife of 9 years (at the time). In a nearly empty living room with only a TV and a card table (we were waiting for furniture to arrive) we watched Broken Bow. The theme song spoke to us and we identified with it. My wife was never a Star Trek fan, but to this day she loves that song - as do I, and maybe for all these reasons and more I love ST:ENT.

(Ok, shoot me for the theme song ;-))

 

[hux]

The whole series was poor really. I was genuinely surprised (and disappointed) with how little originality there was in the first couple of seasons. I honestly expected them to take a few more risks or try some new ideas but nope, it was just the same rehashed Trek stories. A lot of people say the season three arc was great but I just remember thinking it dragged on and on (this feeling only increased with later viewings)

Four is fun, but it's mostly continuity porn aimed at die-hards.

Which is why I didn't care for it. It felt like they were trying to squeeze thirty years worth of Trek mythology into one season. Too rushed, too blah. They obviously knew they were on borrowed time at this point and threw everything at it

Probably a balance of Third and Fourth seasons would have worked. A continuing season arc story thread that while not always at the forefront was still there from the beginning to the end, mixed with a set of smaller story arcs.

That would have been preferable but they also needed fresher episodic ideas too. Plus they needed to think about a wider audience and not just a "Trek" audience

 

[IrishNero]

The Xindi arc wore on me. I don't mind a good two or three-show arc, but much longer than that and I get a little restless for conclusion. I understand that there were shows in the third season that didn't much involve the Xindi, but the overriding theme was there and I would have liked it resolved a little quicker. IMO, arcs of that length prevent people from tuning in because they feel they've missed something. In retrospect, it probably wasn't the best idea.......in retrospect.