_Enterprise_ and the HTF's naysayers... (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

How many episodes have been aired so far? Five?
And what about the conventional wisdom among diehard fans of the Star Trek franchise? It goes like this: TNG didn't "really take off" until Season Three (though I beg to differ). DS9 didn't get its act together until late into the second season. The casts and crews of both series needed time to develop into true ensembles. By the end of both, fans and outsiders alike praised the two series for their consistence of excellence.
Voyager, however, put the fans on red alert. As a result, they emerged from the debacle of the third spinoff series disgruntled and cynical (and rightfully so).
Yet, some of us here are sparing Enterprise no room for misfires. By the second episode, HTFers were posting that they were ready to up on the series.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's give the program a chance. We are at the beginning of the first season. The show is off to a successful start, IMO. There will be starts and stops and restarts before it all comes together.
In short, it's too soon to write the series off.
No?
------------------

 

[Jason Seaver]

I'm not writing it off, because it has been middlin-decent, if not spectacular.
However, I also refuse to accept the excuse that the other Treks took time to get off the ground. Remember, back in 1987, TNG was it, once ABC killed "Max Headroom" (well, aside from the local PBS station maybe airing "Dr. Who" and... was "StarCops" out then?). If we wanted to watch SF on TV, we didn't really have a choice in the matter. The landscape wasn't exactly crowded for DS9, and it was good from hour one.

no room for misfires. By the second episode, HTFers were posting that they were ready to up on the series.

How is this different from any other TV series, though? I bailed on "Wolf Lake" after the pilot, for example. I hung around "First Wave" a little longer, but not noticeably.
There's too much TV and other entertainment options out there to commit to a series on the chance it will get better, "Star Trek" or not. Indeed, when you consider it's "Star Trek by Berman & Braga", it makes a certain sort of sense to cut your losses early if you're not enjoying it, because the odds aren't really in favor of it getting better.
I ask you, Jack: If this show did not have the Star Trek name on it, if it were another spaceship-based adventure show, would you be making this post? Did you champion "Farscape", "Andrommeda", or even "The Babylon Project: Crusade" (ptui!), despite each of those having people on staff who really cared about making a great show rather than a brand name?
I'm still watching - "Broken Bow" bought my interest at least until the new year, and the show has been decent, if not exceptional. But, let's face it, I've got five remotes on my coffee table, a metric ton of unwatched DVDs, and a ReplayTV full of other shows that I could be watching. I (and other audience members) expect exceptional, right off the bat. Would I be watching this show if it aired Tuesday nights, where I'm figuring on using the Replay and a VCR to keep up with "Buffy", "Roswell", "24", "Smallville", "Gilmore Girls", and "Undeclared"? Or Sunday at 9, against "The X-Files", "Alias", and "Law & Order #3"? Much as I like Star Trek, probably not.

 

[Rob Willey]

...a metric ton of unwatched DVDs...

Wow, and I thought I had a lot.

Rob
------------------
"That suits me down to the ground."

 

[Rain]

Jack,
I can appreciate your perspective. You are obviously a dedicated Trekkie (or Trekker, if you prefer ).
However, while I agree that the other ST series got off to rocky starts of their own, this is the first one that has literally bored me to the point of changing the channel. Somehow, it just doesn't feel like Star Trek to me.
Nonetheless, I intend to check it out again. Perhaps eventually I will make it through an entire episode.
Unfortunately, I missed this week's episode as I was out seeing Nosferatu with live orchestra.
------------------

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon
Any smokers who want to accept the challenge of joining me in quitting? If so, click here

 

[Norm]

I'm still with the show, but my Mother left it after #3. But I'm starting to feel, this show is becoming what the other's were. I think in the end we will need new Blood in this Franchise, that means maybe its time for Berman, Braga too go!
------------------

Link Removed
Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation

 

[Dan Paolozza]

Thanks much Jack. Seaver and I went a few rounds on this exact same topic in the "Death of the Franchise" thread, so I'll refrain from repeating myself (even though I love to do it).
However, I will take this opportunity to bait Seaver

NO WAY did TNG launch cleanly, without awkwardness or any sense of true "quality." The fact that it was the "only thing on TV in the genre" is not an argument for it's strength of character. Sure, it may have helped it lock down some sci-fi and Trek starved viewers, but it was downright embarrassing at many points in the first season, and only marginally better in the second.
Yes, Enterprise doesn't have the luxury of being the only game in town. And yes, you are absolutely right with the Babylon, Andromeda, etc analogies. However, what I am getting at (and I think Jack as well) is from a "Trek Fan" point of view. Those past Trek series were by no means "quality" right out of the gate; furthermore, I'd assert that they were on par (give or take various aspects) with what Enterprise has cranked out.
The best argument you've made is the "how different is it, really, from reruns of the Treks we know we like." That's a good one. And again, I think in time, this series will show us.
So when we see "trek" fans all in a huffy and crying foul, I think we can't help but wonder...
[Edited last by Dan Paolozza on November 01, 2001 at 06:23 PM]

 

[Anthony Hom]

Even though it is using names and references to the Star Trek Series, it technically does not have the Star Trek moniker on it. It's simply called Enterprise, not Star Trek : Enterprise, like the last 3 series.
So you can't really say it bears the Star Trek name, if you want to be accurate, just it's basic premise and reference points to places and names.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Jack, that was a great point. I have to add to it that it's like a CD. For example - a new group comes out so you buy their CD, and it's great.
The second one is even better, and third, well you just can't believe that this group is still cranking stuff out that is past your expectations.
Skipping the fourth, which was even better, you go to pick up #5. Overly critical comes to mind. They've been good in the past, so this one has to be good too, right? But then we didn't like some parts of the first few songs.
At least that's the way that I take it.
Glenn

 

[Patrick Sun]

At the quarter turn mark, Enterprise is a toss-up. It's not a "must-see" for me anymore, but if my schedule permits, I will give it look on the weekends (via tape).
------------------
PatCave; HT Pix; Gear; DIY Mains; DIY CC; Sunosub I + II + III; DVDs; Link Removed

 

[Patrick_S]

I actually have enjoyed Enterprise so far and will definitely catch the rest of the season.

 

[Dave Barth]

I'm enjoying it much more than I did Voyager, although I could see why some people wouldn't.
I would hope that at some point there are a string of episodes that do not involve the crew investigating caves. Just because they are early explorers doesn't mean they have to go below ground every new place they arrive.

 

[Don Peskin]

I like it. I watch it. Nuff said.

 

[Jesse Leonard]

I am not what you would call a Star Trek fan. I have seen most of TOS episodes and when TNG came out I watched it on and off. I never watched a single episode of Voyger or DS9.
When I heard about this new series coming out that was a prequel to TOS, it got my interest. Then I heard Bakula was going to be the Captain (that even sounded more interesting). Suddenly I was very pumped about this new series (it was actually the only new show this season I was really interested in). I don't think it is because of the Star Trek name but because of the premise and the cast.
I have seen every episode so far and have really enjoyed them. I know I miss out on alot of the "in" jokes/plot-lines because I don't know much about the other series but Enterprise works for me. I am looking foreward to seeing where they go with it. Seeing how the crew interacts for the first time with new things interests me much more than watching another super-futuristic sci-fi series.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I'm enjoying it much more than I did Voyager, although I could see why some people wouldn't.

Dave... This is called "damning with faint praise."

 

[Leroy]

Well, I'll give a slightly different perspesctive. I for one really enjoy the show. I think I am in the demographic that this show is really trying to hook-the casual sci-fi fan. The hardcore fans will generally be there simply because it's ST, but it's the casual fan like myself that will make the ratings difference. I know quite a few non trek fans who enjoyed Voyager quite a bit, if ratings were based on the opinions of Trek fan, Voyager would not have been around for 7 seasons.
Myself, I've never been anything but a casual Trek viewer. But, with Enterprise, I'm hooked. It has a sense of fun that's been missing for a long time, heck it even seems that the people who are in it are having a good time.
But that's just me. YMMV.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Jack, you're a cool guy to give the show some slack - and, of course, you have impeccable tastes in sci-fi, and there's nothing I've enjoyed more than some of our 2001 discussions.
But I've given 3 hours of my life to this show already. The formula is by now so hackneyed that even eye-poppin' shower scenes can't overcome the overwhelming sense of deja-vu mediocrity that infects this program. There's just too much other good stuff for me to waste my time on a second-rate program like this.
I just can't lock in to this "allow it to hit its stride" perspective. It's all rote, formulaic, Trekkie stuff done better before. There's been nothing good from this franchise in years. Forcing myself to watch it is not unlike being forced to listen to the same mediocre pop song because of media saturation until you find yourself involuntarily humming along. It's like that song "All Star". It's as utterly lame as anything I've ever heard, but goddamit, "hey now, you're an allstar, getcher game on..."
Fuck I hate that song, but I'm so brainwashed from overexposure that I can't forget it if I tried. Geezum crow, someone might actually hear me humming it...

 

[Dan Paolozza]

Forcing myself to watch it is not unlike being forced to listen to the same mediocre pop song because of media saturation until you find yourself involuntarily humming along.

Hardly. Firstly, the school of thought behind the "give it time" thing has nothing to do with forcing one's self to watch it. Secondly, it isn't about desensitization or a lowering of standards from overexposure.
Provided it improves and "hits its stride," you're not "singing along" due to over exposure - the product has actually become higher quality. I don't think anyone on the "give it some time" side is saying, "Hey, even if it settles into mediocrity, just stick with it until you get used to it." Rather, we're saying "Give it a chance to get better, in as much as the other series were given that chance." If it doesn't get better on a similar basis, then yeah, the series is mediocre, and I doubt any of us would say otherwise.
Now you may have good reasons why the show doesn't deserve a chance to get better, outside of the previous Trek series sphere. Just read the exchanges surrounding Mr. Seaver for that digression.

 

[TheoGB]

Hmm. It raises an interesting point of why should it be necessary to give it time?
I wonder, for example, if the other ST series really did get better over time or it was just that we got used to them.
I think they've definitely made a mistake with Enterprise by providing some really uninspiring episodes early on but I think really we *will* just get used to it.
I never really liked that much of DS9 and stopped watcing after episode 1. Years later my mate assured me that Season 6 was really fantastic and lent me the first six episodes. What I found were the same ST plots I'd always seen but 'dressed up' in a slightly fancy outer arc. I wasn't very impressed, though in truth there were better episodes in that season.
With time people will get to like Enterprise. It's pretty much certain that it will go the whole seven series and end up with people thinking fondly of it.

 

[Patrick Sun]

When ST:TNG first burst on the scene, I was excited, but as I watched the early episodes, I simply got tired of watching Wesley Crusher save the day ad nauseum, so I simply tuned out, and from what I can tell, I might have missed some good stuff, but overall, I don't feel like I missed much. I am getting that same feeling with Enterprise.
------------------
PatCave; HT Pix; Gear; DIY Mains; DIY CC; Sunosub I + II + III; DVDs; Link Removed

 

[Jason Seaver]

All I mean is any consistent fan from the previous series. If you can defend the merits of those shows in the same time frames, then I can't see bashing Enterprise like it's the death of all things Trek.

But, see, it's not the same time frames.
In 1987, there was no "franchise" to endanger. If TNG had bombed, it wouldn't hurt the movie series or video/syndication sales of the original. TNG would have been a footnote and curiosity; folks would have shook their heads and said, man, it's too bad Roddenberry only had that one idea.
Instead, Paramount found an audience for a science-fiction show with high-production values, a lead actor who would be great if they'd give him lines worth reading, and the occasional idea buried under the laser shootouts. It wasn't great yet, but the audience was willing to give it time because, shoot, ABC just cancelled "Max Headroom", what else is there to watch? Fortunately, TNG did get good. Over the next five years, TNG made Star Trek into a steady revenue source for Paramount, enough for them to be afraid of not having Star Trek in production. Thus, DS9.
Creatively, DS9 was riskier - where TNG had basically put a new coat of paint onto TOS, DS9 would by its very nature be more continuity-oriented, and it wasn't set on an itinerant spaceship. However, it was much easier to launch - TNG was at the peak of its popularity, The Undiscovered Country had just come out on video and I believe the sell-through tapes had a DS9 trailer, and the three series could cross-promote each other. If DS9 had tanked, there was still TNG, which Paramount probably would have extended past its seventh year, rotating new cast members in.
Then, two years later, came "Voyager". That one sort of came about by necessity - Paramount was launching a new network, and wanted a Trek show as its centerpiece. The risks were much higher there, though not necessarily for the franchise - if "Voyager" tanked, DS9 could also have run longer than 7 years, but UPN would have been toast (premiering in January 1995, "Voyager" was the only original UPN program on the fall '95 scheudle. Heck, a mid-season replacement died, too).
Everything went wrong with "Voyager". It was pushed through too quickly, with most everyone involved having just wrapped TNG and some of them simultaneously working on Generations. They had to recast their lead actress after filming began on the pilot (in a portent of things to come, Genevieve Bujold refused to be remembered for that writing), they had a bunch of TV journeymen but all the TNG staffers who had loved sci-fi and Trek had gone over to DS9.
If "Voyager" tanked... Well, it might have been a good thing. Picture Brannon Braga going off to really concentrate on Jason vs. Freddy, and Ron Moore given the chance to build a new Trek/DS9 spinoff. Unfortunately, Paramount couldn't cancel it, since it was UPN's most popular show (not saying much, but still something).
This doesn't even begin to take into account what was happening in SFTV outside of Star Trek. TNG had a clear field, and so did DS9, for the most part, but soon after it started, "Babylon 5" happened.
Love it or hate it, B5 made science fiction, and specifically outer-space science fiction, viable without the Star Trek brand name. Its extended plotlines appealed to the sf fanbase that will buy multiple hardcover books in a series over years, and also coincided with the more serialized direction television was moving toward, even in sitcoms, while TNG and early DS9 tended to feature self-contained stories. And Joe Straczynski was an affable sci-fi fan who knew the field. After Gene Roddenberry's death, Trek had been in the hands of Rick Berman and Michael Piller, competent TV producers, but not really one of us the way Gene and Joe were. And then when DS9 and B5 looked similar enough for accusations of plagiarism to be thrown around, it got ugly.
Understand - Gene Roddenberry was flawed in many ways, and there's no evidence Berman and Piller (or, later, Ira Behr) ever knew anything about B5, though Straczynski had pitched it to Paramount. But once it premiered, Trek fandom changed. A number of people abandoned Trek in favor of what they saw was a more mature program, and the radical fringe became more vocal. Meanwhile, "Voyager" premiered without a soul, and never gained one. Adding Jeri Ryan seemed like an obvious least-common-denominator move, and the population as a whole was more Hollywood-savvy.
Also, Paramount didn't hedge its bets with the franchise like it traditionally did. From the start of TNG, there had always been at least two seperate threads running - TOS movies/TNG, TNG/DS9, DS9/TNG movies/Voyager... The TNG movie series languished after Insurrection wasn't a hit and the studio didn't want to compete with Star Wars. Over the last two years, all we've had was "Voyager", and it sucked. Folks didn't necessarily abandon "Star Trek", but we weren't watching any any more...
Which brings us to now. A shrunken fanbase, many still bitter from "Voyager", the other series available in reruns, other good options for space-adventure series (as able as it is, "Enterprise" still lags behind "Andromeda" and "Farscape"), and a single option for new Trek which is saddled with producers who, if they ever had anything, are pretty much tapped out and are serving up pretty bland fare.
So, yeah, if "Enterprise" fails, it could be the end of Trek, especially if the folks at the studio overreact and misconstrue the reasons for its failure.