Would Enterprise be a better show...

[DarKush]

I wonder how much thought was really put into what to do with the Romulan War. Especially since they started the show in 2151. I wonder if B&B intended to shorten the length of the war, which was conjectural at that time anyway, so that it didn't consume the show or that it wouldn't end on a cliffhanger. Or maybe it could've ended in the midst of the war which would serve as a springboard to movies. Interesting time to start the series in any event.

I do think there was a lot of good in ENT, but like others have said, they wasted or misused a lot of it. Or ignored it until it was too late. I wish they had had in mind to flesh out the Tellarites, Orions, Tholians, and Andorians (more than they did) because there was little that had been done with them since TOS. It could've been something that might have interested both new and old fans. Building up the Orions would've been more interesting and tied into the prequel concept moreso than making up the Suliban for example.

 

[ColeMercury]

Or maybe it could've ended in the midst of the war which would serve as a springboard to movies.

That's how I would've done it. I would have ended the series by destroying the Enterprise NX-01 in a major battle with the Romulans -- the crew would then be split up and reassigned to different places, and the subsequent movie or movies would follow all of them to give the war a much broader scope. (Plus, this would solve the whole "The-Enterprise-from-TOS-was-the-first-one" issue: the NX-01 being destroyed before the Federation is founded makes more sense than decommissioning it after ten years for no apparent reason.)

 

[Skywalker]

Who says the NCC-1701 was the Federation's first Enterprise?

And there's nothing wrong with decommissioning the NX-01. Maybe by 2161 she was already made obsolete by all the new technologies developed during the war (and by the addition of the Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites to Starfleet) and instead of putting unnecessary money and time into an extensive refit, they decided to retire it instead.

 

[Anwar]

It was a mistake to set it in the 2150s, it would have been better if they set it in the 2130s or earlier. That way it wouldn't seem like the Humans were able to bring ancient enemies like the Vulcans and Andorian together in only a few years.

I do like the idea that the Vulcans were pretty much the Big Men in space with the Andorians as their main rivals. Perhaps they would at open war when the show starts, and this would be the reason the Vulcans don't want the humans running around in space mucking things up.

If the Klingons are mentioned at all, it should be as some minor fringe group no one pays any attention to.

 

[Captain Robert April]

After having to rewatch the entire run as research for the new Concordance, I have to say that aside from the Temporal Cold War, there weren't that many missteps from an overall strategic standpoint. Tactically, i.e., the writing, that's another matter.

Ron Moore said in an interview while ENT was still in development that B&B needed to have a come-to-Jesus moment (my words, not his) and decide just how dedicated they were to TOS, because unless you're ready to hold up the original show as the Holy of Holies, then any attempt to do a prequel to that is doomed to failure, or at least some very damaging criticism. And that's pretty much what happened, with the result being that by the time the show found its footing and folks were in place who did have the right amount of adoration for TOS (with the ingrained knowledge of where they could and couldn't cross certain continuity lines), the damage was already done and the audience wasn't there in big enough numbers to keep the show on the air.

 

[BillJ]

After having to rewatch the entire run as research for the new Concordance, I have to say that aside from the Temporal Cold War, there weren't that many missteps from an overall strategic standpoint. Tactically, i.e., the writing, that's another matter.

They had the wrong lead actor... not much you can do, except sink, when you attach yourself to an anchor.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Who says the NCC-1701 was the Federation's first Enterprise?

NCC-1701-D did.

In the TNG episode "Relics," the Enterprise-D's computer informed Scotty that "There have been five Federation ships with that name." This would fit with NCC-1701 being the first, NCC-1701-A being the second, and so on...

 

[Anwar]

After having to rewatch the entire run as research for the new Concordance, I have to say that aside from the Temporal Cold War, there weren't that many missteps from an overall strategic standpoint. Tactically, i.e., the writing, that's another matter.

They had the wrong lead actor... not much you can do, except sink, when you attach yourself to an anchor.

You didn't think Bakula could pull off the Archer role?

 

[Skywalker]

Who says the NCC-1701 was the Federation's first Enterprise?

NCC-1701-D did.

In the TNG episode "Relics," the Enterprise-D's computer informed Scotty that "There have been five Federation ships with that name." This would fit with NCC-1701 being the first, NCC-1701-A being the second, and so on...

Cool! I actually didn't know it was ever explicitly stated on-screen. I haven't seen "Relics" in probably ten years, at least. Thank you for the information.

 

[ColeMercury]

Knowing Braga and his prickish vengeful streak, he was probably aware of the fact that DS9 was always more popular than Voyager and had no intention of mimicking its war-time storytelling run.

[...]

What baffles me is that they obviously didn't plan to do anything very compelling, then. Invent an alien race we've never heard of or seen before that threaten Earth's existence? YERP A DERP ROKAY.

I thought Voyager got better ratings than DS9 did. DS9 just has a more committed fanbase.

The Xindi storyline was quite obviously a case of "Shitohshitohshit we're getting cancelled at the end of the year, the only chance we've got of being renewed is to shake up the whole show and do something cool." I think it worked.

It was a mistake to set it in the 2150s, it would have been better if they set it in the 2130s or earlier. That way it wouldn't seem like the Humans were able to bring ancient enemies like the Vulcans and Andorian together in only a few years.

I disagree. If you set it too early then you lose the groundwork-to-forming-the-Federation stories, the tensions-leading-up-to-the-Romulan-War stories, etc. Enterprise was set at the perfect time, it's just that it didn't do anything with what it was given until the fourth year.

 

[Anwar]

If all the Founding Fed members had been enemies for so long, then it really makes little sense for the humans to get them to work in a Federation in only a few years. Have it take longer, like decades, is far more believable.

Also, nothing says the Romulans came out of nowhere for their major war, maybe they were the major power in space at the time secretly playing the others against one another to maintain their power until the war trapped them behind the Neutral Zone.

This could be done with a show in the 2120s/2130s.

 

[BillJ]

You didn't think Bakula could pull off the Archer role?

No. I got this bad feeling in my stomach when they announced he was going to be the lead. He's a fine actor... but I didn't think he was a fit for the leader type role. He's not the type that when he walks into the room, all eyes immediately go to him... he lacked the presence that Shatner, Stewart, Brooks and even Mulgrew had.

Even in season three where I think he was his strongest, you could simply tell that Bakula didn't have the chops to pull off that type of character convincingly.

I don't blame Bakula. I blame Berman and Braga for choosing the 'name' actor without any real evidence that he could pull it off. Berman made the same mistake with Voyager, but got lucky because Bujold decided that it wasn't a good fit. Enterprise may have been a better series if Bakula had made the same realization.

 

[Jetfire]

Could you imagine if Scott Bakula had ended up on Smallville as Jonathan Kent and John Schneider was Jonathan Archer!?!?

Captain Bo Duke would have been far more interesting. I think Bakula could have been a compelling Pa Kent.

 

[Joe Washington]

I think you may be right, Jetfire. I can actually imagine Scott Bakula as Clark's father. He did a great job being a father in Chuck.

 

[JiNX-01]

After having to rewatch the entire run as research for the new Concordance, I have to say that aside from the Temporal Cold War, there weren't that many missteps from an overall strategic standpoint. Tactically, i.e., the writing, that's another matter.

They had the wrong lead actor... not much you can do, except sink, when you attach yourself to an anchor.

I don't think Scott was necessarily wrong for the lead. He is in fact, a very good actor. I think the problem was a combination of bad writing and poor direction.

Case in point: Writing:

When T'Pol arrives on board in BB, Archer makes it clear she is not welcome. She makes it clear she doesn't want to be there.

At the end of the episode, he asks her stay on board as science officer. He doesn't want to ask Soval for a favor, so she offers to make the suggestion for him.

And despite this apparent truce, he repeatedly disregards her advice despite her long experience in space, and crabs at her when Vulcans turn up on their radar -- as if it's her fault. JERK!

Two cases in point re: Direction.

Archer's pacing.
Anybody with half a brain cell can tell you that someone who is pacing back and forth and looking at the floor while speaking to you is being RUDE.


Archer's crabbing when someone tells him something he doesn't want to hear:

In the episode The Xindi, Reed wonders whether they should trust the unsavory character who provided the information where they could find a Xindi.
Archer bitches him out and says they don't have time to take precautions.* Reed is tactical officer and security chief. It's his job to raise questions concerning the safety of the ship and crew. Actually, this one also goes to bad writing.

*Yet, Archer had time to play cowboy in North Star just a few episodes later.

 

[BillJ]

I don't think Scott was necessarily wrong for the lead. He is in fact, a very good actor. I think the problem was a combination of bad writing and poor direction.

I think he was the wrong actor to lead a show like Enterprise.

I spent most of the time laughing when Bakula was trying to play serious. You could just tell he wasn't playing within his comfort zone.

 

[xortex]

The pain on his face alone of trying to look like a 35 year old all the time was excruciating.

 

[Skywalker]

Bakula was good when they had him playing the naive, idealistic, in-over-his-head guy, but not so good when they had him playing the angry, coldblooded man-on-a-mission guy. I like Bakula a lot, and I don't think all of Archer's problems were because of him (inconsistent writing/directing also played a large role), but sometimes I wish they'd chosen an actor with more range.

 

[BillJ]

Bakula was good when they had him playing the naive, idealistic, in-over-his-head guy...

Which is just plain wrong for a starship commander.

 

[Skywalker]

Bakula was good when they had him playing the naive, idealistic, in-over-his-head guy...

Which is just plain wrong for a starship commander.

I agree, but that's a different subject altogether.