Star Trek Enterprise and Braga comments (1 Viewer)

[Nelson Au]

I haven't seen any new discussions about Enterprise, so I thought I'd risk the "bums rush" and start one.

Two interesting events. New "Star Trek Enterprise" promos airs last night for season three. Bakula is doing a Captains Starlog regarding the new mission to the unknown Expanse and finding the Xindi. The traditional Starfleet arrowhead logo is now used to promote the series as well as the "Star Trek" name.

Also interesting story excerpted and summerized on Trekweb which Brannon Braga is interviewed by another site and discussing how he is tired of fans criticizing him for playing fast and loose with continuity. He admits to bending the rules, but never did he show a Romulan or said that Kirk never existed. He challenges the fans to cite examples, He wants to know where did he break the rules.

Interesting he is doing this. Is he in touch or out to lunch? I would only suggest that the biggest continuity issue is how the Vulcans are portrayed. We'll see how this Xindi business and TCW is handled, and how it could affect Kirk's time. Read the Braga interview here.

Nelson

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The fact that you can't play the "we never CALLED them that" game?

 

[TheLongshot]

Well, I'll give him one: "Stigma", where mind melding is only able to be done by a minority of the Vulcan population, and is frowned upon. Damn, things changed a lot by Spock's time. All of this for a lame AIDS parallel episode.

Mostly his treatment of Vulcans are just bad. Course, the biggest problem is the show is now going where every Trek has gone before. Nice to have an interesting premise, then just go ignore it, just like Voyager. Sorry, Brannon, but you bore me.

Jason

 

[TheLongshot]

The fact that you can't play the "we never CALLED them that" game?

Talking about the Romulans? Yeah, that was kinda cringeworthy, knowing that the Vulcans would probably never had called them that. (Since that was an Earth reference) Probably about as bad as the "Remians" in Nemisis.

Jason

 

[Jason Seaver]

Great. I've been backed into the position of defending Braga.

Mostly his treatment of Vulcans are just bad.

Actually, it's one of my favorite parts of the show. The Vulcans of this time would prize a stable world because logic rapidly becomes useless when more unpredictability is introduced into the system. That they would try to hold humans, Andorians, etc. back, or at least maintain the status quo, is perfectly reasonable. T'Pau is on the ship to represent Vulcan growing, if not more comfortable with humanity's intuitive and emotional approach to the galaxy, at least willing to accomodate it.

Vulcans are arrogant jerks. The half-human Spock was always the exception; even when we first met Sarek in "Journey To Babel", he and his son were estranged. Their society based upon logic gives them very little ability to admit that they're wrong.

Now, if Berman & Braga (or whoever we appoint after the revolution) would really do something with this...

 

[Jack Briggs]

In a Los Angeles Times piece that ran two days ago (can't link you; subscription site), Braga expressed further puzzlement over Enterprise's declining ratings and promised that in Season Three Archer would be "more rigid" (exact words) and that T'Pol would "loosen up" (exact words). Braga also said that there would be "more action" (exact words) and "lots of interesting new aliens" (paraphrase).

The heart races with excitement.

 

[Richard_D_Ramirez]

Grrrrrr, Braga and Bermen, you've devolved the ST universe, and now you're mucking with iconic characters and challenging fans to boot?!? What a way to drive an even bigger wedge between the franchise and the fans! Have they not learned with Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Nemesis, and now Star Trek: Enterprise?!?! Mr. Roddenberry is rolling over in his grave!

Brrrraaaaagaaaahhhh!!!! Berrrrrrmaaaaaannnnn!!!

8^B

 

[PhilipG]

All I care about is watching 40mins of well-written, well-acted, imaginative science fiction. Continuity is nice to have, but let's get the basics right first. Beavis and Butthead should take a good look at some eps of DS9 and Farscape.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

This guys ego and pompous attitude are two reasons why I dont like the guy, the other reason is he doesnt know how to write good characters that you like.

Nuff said.

 

[Parker Clack]

Forget about the Vulcans and Romulans. What about the Klingons? The very first episode of Enterprise showed a future day Klingon (Next Generation era) with the long hair, uniform, etc. before the ship ever took off into space and we are supposed to be meeting the Vulcans for the first time, etc.

In the days of TOS the Klingons looked a lot like the Romulans and this was explained away in TNG and DS9 with Worf talking about the cloning that went on with the Klingon Empire. This changed their looks.

Enterprise has been full of all sorts of bad stories, poor writing and more. The should have stopped the series about Voyager and given it a rest for a few years.

Parker

 

[Mike Broadman]

I just think it's sad that the producers of the show and its "fans" are hostile toward each other. The idea that Berman is challenging fans... ugh. Kind of goes against the very nature of Trekdom.

 

[Kwang Suh]

In the days of TOS the Klingons looked a lot like the Romulans and this was explained away in TNG and DS9 with Worf talking about the cloning that went on with the Klingon Empire. This changed their looks.

Worf did not explain why Klingons looked different back then.

 

[BobV]

A Star Trek walking encyclopedia will be able to correct me ... but I believe Worf said that it was a "period in their history that they don't [like to?] talk about". From those comments, the Klingons very well could have looked as is orginally (Enterprise)... then had these 'issues' or whatever later (TOS)... only to later overcome/change/renew/fall-back-to/correct/whatever the 'issue' later in TNGs time.

I see no continuity problems there. That and I accept that we have better makeup technologies and budgets nowadays that they can be made to look 'more correct'. The same reason why I have no problem that the interior of the current Enterprise looks a-way more hi-tech than Kirks piddly cardboard-and-etch-a-sketch-like sets.

 

[Rollie]

He admits to bending the rules, but never did he show a Romulan or said that Kirk never existed. He challenges the fans to cite examples, He wants to know where did he break the rules.

It's called NX-01. :p)

 

[Jason Seaver]

A Star Trek walking encyclopedia will be able to correct me ... but I believe Worf said that it was a "period in their history that they don't [like to?] talk about".

And even that was meant as a joke, in "Trials And Tribble-ations" (on the next set, isn't it?) after the other characters had rattled off the various fan explanations for why Klingons looked different in TOS and everything else. The official explanation, so much as there is one, is that Klingons have always looked like Worf and they just didn't have the budget and technology to show 'em that way in 1966.

 

[Will_B]

"Just to give you a hint, the first episode of next season doesn't even open on Enterprise. It opens with the Xindi, in a very strange, mysterious place, with insectoid people."

This sort of storytelling, where the first act is not with familiar characters onboard the Enterprise, worked great in that Borg-in-the-Arctic episode. So perhaps he is allowing the writers to be more imaginative after all. That would be good. The problem with Voyager, and increasingly Enterprise, was that everything was so predictable, unlike Next Generation, which was not afraid to have different kinds of episodes.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

"In terms of the alternate timeline, I don't understand why people think that. I'm not exactly sure. What's changed? What's so different that they think this must be an alternate history? In terms of the Temporal Cold War stuff, I don't really think anything has happened to change history. With the Borg, some people said, 'Oh my God, Archer was not the first person to encounter the Borg. Picard [Patrick Stewart] was. You've changed the timeline.' My answer to that was, 'Well, that got changed in the movie First 'Contact'."

So...there is an alternate timeline. Personally, I care a lot about continuity, but I'm actually not as worried about it as I thought I'd be. What really concerns me is how disinterested I've been in this series. I wanted so much to like it, but it just hasn't grabbed me. I hardly saw any of the 2nd season episodes (just a few near the beginning, and a few near the end, including "Regeneration" and "The Expanse"), so I'm really unqualified to comment on the overall quality, but it's just that most of the episodes I've seen just have been rehashes of what has gone before. The problem I had with "Regeneration" in particular was not so much the continuity issues as it was the fact that it was just plain boring. The Borg were cool on TNG, a good way to kick off DS9, and then were run completely into the ground on Voyager. The only interesting idea left was Hugh's renegade Borg, which is ironically the only idea they never went back to.

At any rate, the above is just an example, but it pretty much sums up what I feel about most of the Enterprise episodes I've seen. Been there, done that, discovered this. (Again, though I missed most of the 2nd season, which I heard had some decent episodes.) However, I am going to give the new season a chance, because I really do believe there's some potential. If nothing else, there's the opportunity for some interesting stories paralleling post-9/11 feelings and ideas. Trek needs to get back to being topical and provocative, and this is a chance for it to do that, along with provide something for the action fans as well. I guess we'll see what happens.

Although I can't back this up, it does seem like some fans are rooting for this show to fail, which is the wrong attitude, I think. I really want it to get better, though. I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Although I can't back this up, it does seem like some fans are rooting for this show to fail, which is the wrong attitude,

No, we're rooting for B&B to be fired, so that someone who isn't burned out can take over

 

[Jason Seaver]

I wouldn't even mind if Berman & Braga somehow miraculously started writing good television again. I'm just not going to accept mediocrity any more, and I don't see much evidence that B&B are capable of anything better right now.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Hence the need for the revolution.