Enterprise grounded next year? (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

In other words, they aren't watching it. There have been some very good episodes this season. The characters are coming into their own, and the plotline is getting interesting.

While it started off ok, this season is starting to go down into mediocrety. At least the last few episodes have been yawners.

I have a friend of mine who has stopped recording Enterprise, because she found that she has a stack of tapes that she hasn't watched, and doesn't really have a desire to watch. She was a huge fan of DS9, too.

To be honest, after Voyager, I would have liked them to give it a rest for a while, since it seemed pretty obvious to me that the formula was tired. The problem is, when a new idea isn't working to their satisfaction, they fall back to being "Star Trek". That isn't what I want. I don't want them to keep repeating themselves over and over again.

Jason

 

[Alvin.G.]

Actually, that's when Trek is at its worst. It tends to be heavy handed and clumsy when trying to deal with problems in the hear and now. It also doesn't date well. I prefer episodes that are pretty timeless in their appeal, that isn't rooted in the times which it was made.

BTW, they have been doing that, not with just the time travel episode, but the AIDS episode last year. Both were pretty bad.

The piont I think Jason_Els is trying to make is that ST and sci-fi in general is really good at dealing with issues that contemporary society also deals with, ie. prejudice, problems with technology, war, "progress" for progress' sake, etc. Can ST get too contemporary? Of course. I hated the time travel/bioweapons/Xindi episode on Enterprise. But, I think episodes dealing with ethical/moral quandries would come a long way in helping this current iteration of ST.


acg

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Whenever they try to do comedy in a Sci-fi it always makes the materal look silly and corny.

Except in Galaxy Quest where it worked very well.

Hey maybe they should stop making Star Trek for a while and do a Galaxy Quest series!

 

[Nelson Au]

This may be obvious to most of you, but Gene Roddenberry created the original Star Trek with the notion that he could tell stories about contemporary issues with the guise of silly green pointed eared people in an action adventure format set in space so he could sneak these issues by the suits and censors at the network of 1966. At that time, TV could not get into these moral and ethical questions too heavily. They did do stories about Vietnam and race relations and war.

In a way, it's traditional for the Star Trek Universe to do a story or two about contemporary issues. And so did a few of the TOS films. Notice I'm not saying that it has to be that way to be good or that the recent shows do it well. It was just done.

 

[TheLongshot]

Except in Galaxy Quest where it worked very well.

Same with Farscape.

Jason

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Whenever they try to do comedy in a Sci-fi it always makes the materal look silly and corny.

Same with Red Dwarf

 

[James Gumbart]

I would be happy to see them get away from the ship formula with the next series (please let there be a next series). There's lots of other stories to tell in the Star Trek universe.

Of course with good writing, I don't really care where it takes place. But fresh ideas may be easier to come by at, say, Star Fleet Academy.

 

[Chris]

The only trek series where characters truly were forced to change, had life altering consequences and had to follow up on it was DS9. Which is partly why DS9 remains my favorite of all Trek.

The problem with enterprise isn't really the stories or the actors; I really do like a lot of the actors on Enterprise.. and the problem really isn't a failure to be current, the problem is that Enterprise doesn't seem to have any sort of focus that highlights the "this is important"

Trek needs about a 5-6 year break, and some new thinking. The shows are failing to capture broad imagination of being something different, a new perspective. DS9 started to hit a stride when it came up with the concept of: hey, maybe not everything about the federation is great & good.

Enterprise is too trapped by history; in some way, it has to "work" within the framework of TOS/TNG etc. And in that kind of environment, it's hard to succeed as "new" and "fresh" ideas.

 

[Nicodemus]

I truly liked the first season of Enterprise: there was really a feeling they were in the outer space for the first time. The crew was unfamiliar with life on starship and everybody had some fears and expectations. It was a good premise.

In season 2 it all crumbled and resulted probably the worst season of Trek since TNG's 1st season. There were only a handful of watchable episodes (Minefield/Deadstop, Judgment, The Expanse and First Flight) while the rest was just deadly boring and predictable.

Season 3, I think, has started strong. I've seen seven episodes from the start and I'm quite happy with narration. It's a shame it lacks the feeling of the 1st season (everybody's just too familiar with the way space works) but I quite like it - it's not on the level of DS9 or TNG, but it's decent and I can watch it regularly.

But something must happen after the Xindi arc to keep the audience interested. There's no returning to brainless writing of season 2.

 

[Nelson Au]

From a source at UPN:

A source for SyFy Portal at UPN said that the Star Trek spinoff is not in any immediate danger of cancellation after this season, although there is always a small chance it could be cancelled until the network makes official announcements.

"The ratings for the show are above expectations," the source told SyFy Portal. "Critics can attack us against Superman all they want. But we're holding our own."

And it looks like the rampant rumours were wrong, the show is not moving to Fridays. They say anyway.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Put me down for another vote against contemporary storylines.

Take a look at the "best" (concensus) episode of TOS: CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER. Kirk faces the timeless conflict of choosing between the woman he loves and doing his duty. I'm sure this theme had been done to death on westerns and other shows, but it was done with an interesting twist in this case. The most contemporary episodes, LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD and THE OMEGA GLORY, are considered among the worst of the series.

In TNG's "best" episode, THE INNER LIGHT, features a career officer who gets a taste of the family life that he gave up in order to have his career. Another timeless theme. The episodes based on contemporary problems were hit and miss. THE OUTCAST works well, but the sledgehammer "just say no to drugs" message in SYMBIOSIS is unbearable.

DS9: IN THE PALE MOONLIGHT: What would cause a good man to betray his principles? Another timeless question. Contemporary issue episodes such as the homeless 2-parter seem preachy by comparison.

Then again, the writers of DS9 were prophetic in that they wrote a Patriot Act story years before the 9/11 attack. Remember the end of PARADISE LOST when Sisko says (paraphrasing): "If the Dominion want to destroy the paradise we've created here, they'll have to do it themselves. We're not going to do it for them." Whether one agrees or disagrees with this, it does indicate thoughtfulness of the writing staff that seems to be lacking now. Then again, Ben Franklin said, centuries ago, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" so I guess this would be another TIMELESS issue as well.

Overall, I think Trek excels at stories dealing with universal issues of right vs. wrong, rather than "what do we do about the communists", or "...drugs", or "...homosexuals."

The writers/producers of ENTERPRISE have a lot to work with! 21st century humans are presumably still violent, greedy, barbarians who somehow evolve into the enlightened, utopian folks of TNG. ENTERPRISE has the opportunity to show how we develop from Point A to Point B. It makes absolutely NO SENSE for Archer to uphold The Prime Directive (in DEAR DOCTOR for example) when no such concept exists in his time period. What would make ENTERPRISE worth watching would be to see the crew make the same types of mistakes that we make today, learn from them, and improve themselves as a result.

EDIT: By keeping Trek on the air continuously since 1987, Paramount have broken the first rule of show biz: ALWAYS LEAVE THEM WANTING MORE. Nowadays, die-hard fans like myself are calling for the cancellation of the show. They should leave it off the air for some time and MAKE US WANT IT AGAIN. Star Trek survived just fine, in fact it flourished in the 70s, when there was no new material coming from Paramount.

 

[Jack Briggs]

That's one hell of a good post, Rob. I agree with you completely. Especially with your examples of what goes wrong when Trek gets too contemporarily oriented in its morality plays (also loathed "Symbiosis").

 

[John_Berger]

Sadly, this Trekkie couldn't care less if Enterprise goes off the air. Berman and Braga have made it clear since "Voyager" that they're more concerned with making unbalanced, accusatory political statements (more often than not with no attempts to integrate their views into a coherent story, I might add) rather than making good stories.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Rob, excellent, excellent points.

Perhaps the problem is, for want of a better way to put it, modernisation in taste of the audience, and consequently the suits making the decisions?

To explain: in the 60s, perhaps audiences weren't ready to be confronted on TV with hard-hitting stories about the modern issues confronting society, in particular perhaps, racism. Instead, they focused on the "timeless" issues such as the ones you've raised, which went down very well with most viewers. (As for racism, Roddenberry simply played it down by implicitly showing it was no longer an issue, with a multi-racial crew, but I suppose one could argue it was translated into "specieism" instead.)

Nowadays, it is very common for TV shows to address very specific contemporary issues (e.g. Boston Public and the infamous episode on the "N" word). Star Trek has followed suit. The problem is that specific contemporary issues have contemporary and opposing mindsets, and depending on the viewer's mindset with respect to the issue, he/she may or may not enjoy how the issue is dealt with in the show. I'd give more specific examples but that might violate HTF rules or set off unnecessary flame-wars, but I think you get my drift.

Perhaps if they returned to broader general themes, the stories might resonate more with viewers?

 

[John_Berger]

Perhaps if they returned to broader general themes, the stories might resonate more with viewers?

When it comes to Enterprise, it goes beyond that. Although there are (as can only be expected from the current writers) blatant "in your face and f**k all who disagree" episodes of Enterprise, I personally don't like some of the ways that they're playing with the Star Trek timeline.

Finding the Borg -- okay -- that's understandable since the Borg are the ones who tried to screw up the timeline in First Contact.

But ...

They meet the Ferengi? Certainly Archer would have mentioned "little orange trools who are out for profit" to his superiors. Yet TNG is where it is made very clear that the Ferengi are newly-encountered.

The Romulans did NOT have cloaking technolgy until shortly before TOS. This was made evident in "Balance of Power" as well as the episode (the name of which escapes me) where Kirk pretends to be losing his mind so that he can steal the cloaking device, both of which are fantastic episodes by the way.

Vulcans in northern Pennsylvania in the 1950s? It was a cute story with a lot of humor to it, I have to admit. I have no problems with the story itself. But from a timeline perspective would not a doctor have had really huge questions when a man lives for over 100 years, has pointy ears, and green blood? After all, he had to die eventually.

Of course, we have the Klingons with ridges. This variety of Klingon was unknown at any time prior to and including TOS. Before you say, "It was due to the costs of makeup when the original series was made", the existance of the non-ridged Klingons was confirmed in DS9's "Trials and Tribbleations" when Worf admits "They ARE Klingons ... and it is a long story." That immediately confirmed that the non-ridged version were a legitimate Klingon species.

Enterprise has a sh*tload of potential. What I really was interested in seeing is the founding of the Federation and the encounters with those species that we know so well from the other series. Even the potential to briefly encounter ancestors of characters that we know and love could be humorous.

But between the blatant "in your face" political rhetoric of the writers and the games that are being played with the Star Trek timeline, my interest has completely waned ... even with T'Pol's new "uniform".

 

[Jason Seaver]

To be honest, I think the issue that needs to be addressed is personnel. I'm not saying "hire Ron Moore and Ira Behr and everything will be OK again", but some people with passion and new ideas and no fear are needed.

I've said before, there were times when Berman and Braga were just what Trek needed. They stayed in the same jobs too long, though, got too conservative, and now everything is market-researched to death and too carefully considered before anyone gets to see it.

Anyway, I don't think there's one specific thing, or path, that Paramount needs to do in order to get Trek back on track. Indeed, I think trying to guess what the audience wants and then trying to deliver it ("ooh, they like time travel! and wars! and let's make it more serial, that seems to be what they like! Let's try something a little different, without the 'Trek' name...oops, bad idea, let's add 'Star Trek' back into the name!") is leading to stuff that just isn't coming from within, and feels manufactured.

What Paramount needs to do is find out who in Hollywood has a great idea for a new Star Trek series, shoot some money their way, and let them work. I think people will respond to passion, and even if they don't, then the result will probably have more long-term value on DVD than Voyager, in the same way Deep Space Nine has grown more popular over the years - Ira Behr loved his work, hired other folks who loved the job, and told the stories he wanted to tell, doing an end run around Berman and the other executives when necessary.

Heck, just compare the 30th anniversery episodes - the love is all over "Trials And Tribble-ations", where as the best Voyager could come up with was that nonsensical thing with Sulu, which played like any other Voyager episode except with a different guest star.

Anyway, that's my position - we won't know what Star Trek needs until it gets it... But the franchise is controlled by small-minded men who are far more concerned with retaining their jobs than doing them well.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Of course, we have the Klingons with ridges. This variety of Klingon was unknown at any time prior to and including TOS. Before you say, "It was due to the costs of makeup when the original series was made", the existance of the non-ridged Klingons was confirmed in DS9's "Trials and Tribbleations" when Worf admits "They ARE Klingons ... and it is a long story." That immediately confirmed that the non-ridged version were a legitimate Klingon species.

Um, I'm pretty sure the DS9 writers/producers have consistently said not to take that episode, and that scene specifically, too seriously. It was an in-joke at all the ways Trek fandom has tried to rationalize the differing makeup applications over the years, not something to be considered holy writ.


Besides, continuity should, to a certain extent, be fluid enough to adapt. The DS9 folks pretty much re-invented the Ferengi, but did it well. Khan was the product of "eugenics" in the 1960s but, IIRC, this was changed to "genetic engineering" for TWOK (or at least when he was referenced on a DS9 episode). The apocalyptic events that were supposed to have traumatized Earth in the 1990s are mostly ignored now, although I believe Khan was pushed forward into the 21st century at some point.

 

[todd s]

John Berger brought up my biggest complaint about Enterprise. I was really hoping we would get more involved with the founding of the Federation. We see this best with the one of the few episodes that actually did this...The ones with the Andorians. We should be introduced to the founding members or at least species we know from the other shows. Instead we keep meeting species we never have heard of. Which is fine if it is in the TNG timeframe.

 

[David Judah]

But fresh ideas may be easier to come by at, say, Star Fleet Academy.

I have always thought that would be a good idea, ever since I got the video game. It would certainly be a change of pace which might encourage those who have become bored with the last few Trek series, to tune in again. It would also be tailor made for that younger demographic that networks strive to capture.

DJ

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

It's hard to imagine a TV season without a Trek show.

Even Ron Moore said he thought it should be given a rest for a few years.
The writers of this show are depending on people who watch just to watch no matter how good it is.
Theres plenty out there that probably more worthy of all of our time.
I dont even consider it Trek anymore really. Its using some of the same ideas but in all reality Trek died quite a while ago.

I too agree that they introduced a premise and didnt follow through with it. They did this with Voyager too. Clean slate, the potential for new ideas and then they fall back on the same old stuff.
This could have been a great show about The Beginnings of the Federation. Instead we get a war that we have never heard of and the introduction of species that...werent suppose to be introduced yet.
Lazy writing and a lack of vision.