Enterprise: Not as bad as it could be (1 Viewer)

[MichaelClark]

I know this show is pretty disliked in this forum, but I personally thought the first season was decent. After all, TNG sucked for the first 2 seasons. DS9 sucked for the first season. Voyager sucked from beginning to end. So Enterprise having an "average" year is actually quite an accomplishment for its first year.

My concern, however, is the fact that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are both idiots. I'm thinking that if we could get both of them to take up time consuming hobbies that would distract them, maybe John Shiban could take over as head writer.

I do fear that if "Star Trek: Nemesis" is successful, then Enterprise will be featuring the Romulans in every other episode. This was the result for Voyager after the success of "First Contact." If it hadn't been for that movie, I don't think "Seven of Nine" ever would have joined the crew, and the Borg episodes would have all but disappeared.

Also, to Enterprise's credit, they have the advantage of an "arch villain." Next Generation started with Picard vs Q and it ended with Picard vs Q. DS9 started and ended with Sisko vs Dukat. Voyager had Janeway vs Her Own Inability To Command and ended with it as well. I think if they don't overuse the Suliban (no more than 3 episodes per year) then the main Suliban could still carry the story arc to the end of the series.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

 

[CaptDS9E]

I agree as I think Enterprise's first season was pretty good. Lots of rewatchable episodes in my opinion of course.

As for the Borg on voyager. They would have shown up wether FC was a success or not. They were in the Delta Quadrent and all fans knew they would have to hit the borg eventually

capt

 

[Will_B]

I'm a fan of Romulans, always thought they had great potential that was never used, so I wouldn't mind an encounter or two. But I'd prefer they get more involved with the blue antennae'd ones.

 

[Peter McM]

I like Enterprise, but as a continuity buff, I'm extremely worried. We have to be able to know of the Romulans without ever seeing what they look like. The Ferengi was awfully thin ice, time-line wise.

I like the treatment the Andorians are getting. They are established in pre-Federation time, and they are generally considered to be one of the founding members of the UFP. I say, use them more. Let's see some Tellerites, as well; they have never been seen in modern Trek, except as extras in a movie or two.

 

[Jack Briggs]

The first season started promisingly, stumbled in the middle, and almost collapsed by the end. My interest levels for the next season are minimal, but I will watch.

I do not think the first two seasons of TNG "sucked"—"The Measure of a Man" and "Conspiracy" come to mind. You could certainly say the first two seasons were uneven, and that the first season was particularly "Roddenberryesque."

• If Nemesis is indeed the final outing for the TNG cast, my fear is that the following feature (should Paramount continue with this) will be based on Enterprise.

 

[Jeff]

IMO, the show is a take no chances, rehash of other Trek shows, mess! And this is coming from a guy who has been to numberous Star Trek conventions.

I really thought Enterprise would be bold, different and original. But sadly this is not the case.

Ten episodes later, I gave up on the show and will probably never watch it again.



Jeff

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I've only watched a total of about five or six episodes; I meant to watch it more, but I kept getting sidetracked. I think the show has enormous potential, and I'm interested in seeing where it goes. Voyager lost me about half-way through, so I'm hoping that this could be a return to form for the TV franchise (Nemesis sure looks like a return to form for the movie franchise, BTW).

I know everyone has harped on this elsewhere, but I've got to mention the theme song. I don't mind them using a song instead of an instrumental composition, but I think it should have been an original song, so it could be "The Enterprise Theme." I know TNG used the theme from the first movie, but at least it was still in the family.

Anyway, despite some shakiness, I'm optimistic about the show. I liked the season finale, and I'm looking forward to next season.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

I like Tripp, he's very much like McCoy in personality, dialect, the things he says, etc., without being a true McCoy impersonation.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Enterprise: Not as bad as it could be

See, there's the problem. Our standards are too low. We shouldn't be defending shows because they don't suck, but championing them because they're great.

As to the "slow start" argument, I don't buy it. DS9 was, IMO, pretty great from minute one. It evolved into something different, and perhaps better, but it was never poor. Likewise, TNG's first year or two had their own charms, even if the middle years were superior.

Besides (people who've read this from me before, feel free to tune out), why should we afford a show a mulligan year just because it's got the "Star Trek" brand name on it? Other shows don't get one - they have to connect with their audience from the start or not reach their sixth episode.

 

[Michael Reuben]

See, there's the problem. Our standards are too low. We shouldn't be defending shows because they don't suck, but championing them because they're great.

Agreed. Every time I see this thread title, I'm reminded of the famous line from Pope about "damn with faint praise".

M.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jason Seaver wrote:

Correction: Make that "See, there's the problem. Your standards are too low..."


Both TNG and DS9 had a "sugar problem" to begin with. As they got rid of the excess "sugar" ("Wesley Crusher", overemphasis on Bajoran religion & politics), much of it supplied by Michael Piller and his influence, they got progressively better.

Enterprise, for all its other faults, has no "sugar problem". Its problems are probably more fundamental and less tractable:

• It takes a whole "mythology" with a 30-some year history and attempts to re-write it.
• It has nothing new to add to that history, so it can only "trash" that history to no better effect. Whether one is talking politics or technology, I think the format boxes in what the writers can do without a betrayal of all precedent and plausibility (dramatic or scientific).
• The format doesn't really allow for the new protagonists to stand out from their earlier counterparts. A Vulcan is a Vulcan is a Vulcan. A horny young hothhead is a horny young hothead is a horny young hothead. Etc., etc., etc.[/list=a]
  
  
  I HOPE the producers find decent ways around these obstacles, but I doubt that they will. The first pre-condition to doing so is to care about what you're dealing with, and, in Berman & Co., I just don't see it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Agreed.

And Berman and Braga have absolutely no incentive to improve this show, as they have another six years of guaranteed air time. Mediocrity rules, and the hell with the hell with how none of Enterprise fits in with the established Trek backstory.'

Who really cares how the Season One cliffhanger is resolved?

I'm looking forward more to my TNG Season Four boxset than to anything concerning Enterprise.

 

[Jason Seaver]

And Berman and Braga have absolutely no incentive to improve this show, as they have another six years of guaranteed air time.

But, of course, there's no guarantee that Berman and Braga will have anything to do with the show by the time it finishes. The thing is, Paramount won't exactly have much incentive to improve the show until early '04 when (hopefully) they'll see a tremendous drop-off from DS9 DVD sales to "Voyager" DVD sales.

Which brings up the question - what would have to happen before Paramount decided to put competent people in charge of "Enterprise"? Would it have to fall behind "Farscape" and "Firefly" in the ratings? Would ancillary merchandise sales have to dry up?

It's amazing, really - "Voyager" and "Enterprise" (and, yeah, later years of DS9) have ratings/popularity that are but a fraction of TNG's, but the people in charge haven't been turned over. Just who does Braga have naked pictures of, anyway?

Ah well. Somewhere out there, there's a parallel universe where Paramount and/or Berman let Ronald Moore be the head honcho of Series #5. Lucky them.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I Don't think Enterprise is a Bad show. It's clearly an entertaining series. Where the dissapointment with Enterprise comes in is that it could be so much more. With the producers desire to attract a 12-25 demographic we get simplistic storylines that feature alot of adolescent sex crap. People in underwear, decon scenes etc. And it's true all the series got better in their later years, well all but Voyager that is. But think about this. This is the forming of the Federation. A Huge event in the annuals of Trek Lore. It should reflect the dangers of the first flight, this crew acts like their old space hands.

Also Read Starfleet Year One the novel if you want to see how it should be.

 

[Will_B]

Enterprise at the very least (and I think there is much more to it than this!) is a beautiful looking show. DS9 looked very much like the "promenade" was a soundstage, and Voyager began low budget and stayed that way. Enterprise in contrast is near film quality - the sets and the whole look is slick and real looking.

It takes a whole "mythology" with a 30-some year history and attempts to re-write it.

It's a prequel, they're creating stories about a part of the history that was never explored or thought out in any detail. If one put together every line of dialogue from TOS that mentioned early Federation history, it wouldn't amount to much - just a rough outline, a sketch.

They've already introduced new concepts to the Trek universe which I am very comfortable with because they feel perfectly at one with Roddenberry's ideas - the entire history of the "romance" between humans and vulcans could become even a stronger story than the Kirk and Spock friendship.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

So far my take on Enterprise is: Morons in Space.

That's great that they want to make this crew "regular guys/gals" in their first deep space outing, but for the love of pete Archer and crew look like wimpy dorks. I think they need to make at least the captain seem more like, well... a captain with a bit more starch in his shirt (especially on a possibly dangerous mission into the unknown). Not stuffy and pompous like Picard and not necessarily testosterone driven, Alpha-male like "ug, me shoot bad guys first, talk cheap" Kirk (of the old TV show).

I also understand why they have T'Pol. She's quite the looker (va va va voom!), but so far I find her dull with very little of the hidden spark that once was infused into Spock (she is, afterall, the tolken "Spock" of the series, like Data was for TNG). I blame either the writers and/or the non-actress (she's a pin up model, not a seasoned actress) for the problem.

The only two characters I really enjoyed from Voyager were The Doctor (Robert Picardo was great and I liked him as the comedy relief) and um, Seven of Nine (yowza!). Seven of Nine (although the requisit eye candy) did have a personality.

I wonder if the seventh season's last episodes will have a rushed conclusion just like Voyager... as if they pulled the plug and hurried to get some sort of ending shoved down our throats. God, how I love Bragga and Berman! (yes, that was sarcasm).

What Enterprise and any other shows after that need is a return (or a beginning depending on how you look at it) to solid science fiction foundations (dealing with -gasp!- science and exploration of the human condition and how science and technology interacts with it). Of course, that would call for smarter writers, producers, actors, and a, dare I say it, smarter audience than what's going on right now with Star Trek in movie and television forms.

Also, some of the character interaction is just plain pathetic. At least the fun banter, arguing, and bi-play between Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty helped the weaker classic episodes and Ep 1-6 of the film franchise. This seems to be lacking with a lot of the movies after that and the TV shows.

Dan

 

[Joseph Young]

I'm reminded of the famous line from Pope about "damn with faint praise".

Funny you should mention that, Jack. I was thinking of that exact line when I read some of the dry, uninspired plot synopses for Enterprise's Season 2 the other day.
My opinion is, they need to be striving for great television here, and it sounds like they're just going through the motions. I just got finished watching the full 17 episode The Prisoner arc for the millionth time, and I was reminded of how television can be cerebral, entertaining, controversial and socially relevant all at once.
The last time I checked, the appeal and expectation of Star Trek is that it simultaneously:
1) probes the human condition
2) meditates on the potential of humankind and of life in general
3) entertains
Enterprise does none of these things... it doesn't even try. And what it does do, it does poorly. Never watching it again.
~j

 

[TheLongshot]

I was watching a repeat the other day, and one problem this series has, and Trek in general has had a problem with, is portraying Vulcans. I think it is kinda a sign when Spock was the only major Vulcan character for many years, until Tuvok. The reason is, there haven't been very many actors that can pull of Vulcans, who are supposed to have tight control over their emotions and act in a logical manner.

The problem is, this series is very focused on Vulcans, and no one who has more than a minimum role playing a vulcan has even remotly resembled one. I'm thinking of the episode where the Enterprise has to deliver an embassitor to the Vulcans, and the actress playing her was displaying far too much emotion.

Jolene Blaylock is very uneven in her acting, which hurts the character. I think it is one of the major problems with the show. It takes a good actor to pull off a vulcan.

Jason

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Well Nimoy and Tim Russ were very good vulcans. The Problem with Tuvok was not with Russ's Portrayal, but in how underwritten the character was. They gave him nothing to do.
THe Enterprise Vulcan are far too surley. Also would any Race that empraces the concept of infinate Diversity, be complaining that Humans stink and asking how doe's T'pol stand the smell. THe same vulcans that made first contact with Cochrane, are these the same vulcan's that now conspire to keep human beings from space? These are the same vulcans that look bad for being duplicitous with the Andorians and spying on them.

And I don't buy the "It's 200 years earlier" augument. Surely this cultural refinement did'nt evolve between the time of Enterprise and TOS.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Love these comments.
Also, Mark Lenard's Sarek was an excellent Vulcan portrayal.
So, are we razzed for the season opener or what?
Will Star Trek survive Enterprise? Is the end of the franchise just six years away? Are there no executives at Paramount even questioning why post-DS9 Trek is so damned stale?
And what about the ratings? UPN's limited reach aside, Enterprise rarely does any better than the 90s in the Neilsens. Lately, it has been in the 100s.
Paramount finds this profitable?