****Official "Enterprise" discussion thread (1 Viewer)

[Tiffany A]

I really enjoyed this week's Enterprise episode! I am becoming more fond of the character's on a weekly basis. However, I am a major fan of the original Star Trek and all following series.

My question is: Is Enterprise stong enough to pull in new veiwers that are not fans of the previous series. The characters, although fine to me, may not peak the interest of veiwers that have not been aquainted with the other shows. Any opinions?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, the answer to that would be in the show's Nielsen ratings. Anyone care to clue us in on how it's doing?

Remember, the idea behind leaving out the words "Star Trek" in the show's title was an effort at piquing the interest of non-fans.

 

[Jason Seaver]

BEGIN DAMNING WITH FAINT PRAISE!
Well, the characters are certainly better than "Voyager"'s!
END DAMNING WITH FAIN PRAISE!
I think "Enterprise" is, in general, a reasonably decent show. As to its appeal to someone without previous exposure to Star Trek, well, it kind of cuts both ways. On the one hand, they won't have seen some of these stories before on TNG and "Voyager"; but on the other hand, they'll (a) likely have even less interest in the temporal cold war than I do (I, at least, have some affection for the Trek timeline they'd be fighting over; what does a time war story set entirely in the future mean to a newbie) and (b) find it sort of lacking compared to other sci-fi/fantasy/action/adventure hours.
(Jack and Dan, at least, know what's coming here )
Because, really, as polished and pleasant as "Enterprise" is, it's not really much beyond polished and pleasant. And while the argument can be made that "Star Trek" shows have always started slowly, how much weight should that hold with someone used to 21st Century TV? The style of writing on "Enterprise" is positively primitive compared to modern SFTV benchmarks ("Farscape", "Babylon 5", "Buffy", "Andrommeda").

 

[DaveF]

The style of writing on "Enterprise" is positively primitive compared to modern SFTV benchmarks ("Farscape", "Babylon 5", "Buffy", "Andrommeda").

Though this is a dangerous statement I've never understood the acclaim for Babylon 5, especially compared to Star Trek. The few episodes I saw had terrible writing and acting (over-the-top pompous soliloquies by over-the-top cheesy actors). Perhaps I saw just the few bad episodes, and the rest are stellar. On the off-chance I ever come upon B5 again, what episodes exemplify the quality writing, esp. compared to Enterprise?
For that matter, I'm not persuaded that Andromeda is better written than Enterprise, though I see there's a case to be made for that.
Anyhow, so far I enjoy Enterprise, and at the outset, is far better than ST:TNG and DS9 started, and comparable to the start of Voyager (which unfortunately never went much past that). If they follow the development arc of ST:TNG, then it could be tremendous in a few years. Here's hoping.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Okay, here's another way of saying the same thing over again. But I like to hear the sound of my voice.

Here's how I rank Enterprise in its current state of development to where the previous four series were at their equivalent states of development (i.e., a couple of months into their first seasons):

* TOS: behind--way behind

* TNG: about the same

* DS9: a little bit ahead (sorry, Jason)

* Voyager: infinitely ahead, so much so...

 

[Patrick Sun]

At the chance of a thread hi-jack: B5's 1st four season represent some of the finest sci-fi drama ever on TV. You have to take note that it's like weaving a huge tapestry where earlier stories build on to make great television in seasons 3 and 4. There's are points in the episodes that just send chills down your spine as pivotal point unfolds and the ramifications on the characters' actions determine their fate down the line.

I watched the entire run of B5 when TNT ran them in order on the weekdays, and it was truly compelling TV viewing once the show got going, and you get a sense/grip of the characters and their strengths and weaknesses as they are thrown into situations which called upon many times for them to compromise their beliefs and honor. Some do, some don't, and that's where much of the drama is derived.

Now to bring this back to Enterprise, time will tell if they'll be able to tie any of this season into the future seasons in a cohesive manner. But I don't get the sense that the writers have a grand plan, like JMS did when he plotted out B5 for a 5 year run.

 

[Mike St.Louis]

I watched 4 seasons of B5 straight. I liked it at first and absolutely hated by the end of season 4. I never did go back to see season 5. I think it would have been better if they had gone for 3 seasons instead of 5. I really don't think they had enough material.

I am currently enjoying Farscape very much. I have seen up to the middle of season 2. Farscape has a lot of imagination and great visuals. They also have some of the most interesting looking aliens of any SF show. In contrast Enterprise aliens always look the same to me - which is surprising considering the technology and budget that Paramount has.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Okay, here's another way of saying the same thing over again. But I like to hear the sound of my voice.

Here's how I rank Enterprise in its current state of development to where the previous four series were at their equivalent states of development (i.e., a couple of months into their first seasons):

Comparing "Enterprise" to what was new 7+ years ago (at the very least) is kind of silly, though. Why not compare it to other recent TV shows aiming for the same audience?

* "Farscape": "Enterprise" is probably ahead. Truth be told, "Farscape" looked great and had a few standout episodes, and was prepped to launch after a couple months, but didn't really hit its stride until around mid-season.

* "Roswell": About the same. "Roswell" started out mostly doing character stuff, and didn't really hit the sci-fi stories until the audience had a stake in what happened to the characters.

* "Andromeda": Behind. Robert Wolfe's characters may have been broad, but his world was vast and there was generally at least one neat idea, one good action sequence, and one good character storyline per episode.

* "Angel": Well behind the other recent spinoff, which admittedly had a head start because the audience had known two of the three characters for three years.

 

[Will_B]

Saw the last episode kind of late, I just want to chime in with a quick: What a pointless episode. "The time traveler alien might be bad or might be good." Ok, fine, sure, whatever. And then a Voyager(yawn)-like subplot about the religious festivities. I expected Neelix to walk through the set at any moment.

Nothing was accomplished in this episode at all. I'd loved all the episodes up until this one.

I don't think they really care about this time travel plot, they just are doing it because they think viewers are easily intruiged and so this is an easy, lazy way to fill up episodes. But viewers aren't intruiged unless the creators of the show are genuinely intruiged - and this looked to me like they didn't give a hoot one way or the other. The alien suliban also reminded me a bit too much of the bad guy from one of the worst Trek movies: Insurrection.

And moreover, villains are supposed to be interesting. Mysterious is not the same as interesting.

Whoever wrote that episode shouldn't be invited back!

 

[Tino]

FWIW, My Star Trek series rankings are:
1.Star Trek: The Original Series
2&3 (tie) Star Trek The Next Generation
and Star Trek Deep Space Nine (highly underrated imo)
4. Star Trek Voyager
A Distant 5 (so far) Enterprise.
Well, There you have it.

 

[RickSelvin]

I've been watching Star Trek since it debuted in the late '60s (1967?). Loved 'em all (Deep Space the least), and I agree, the "Enterprise" theme will take a lot of getting used to.

 

[RickSelvin]

Sorry. HOpe I've adjusted the size of my replies.

Rick

 

[DaveF]

At the chance of a thread hi-jack: B5's 1st four season represent some of the finest sci-fi drama ever on TV.

Thanks (I don't want to hi-jack either). Several friends have extolled B5's virtues, so I'll give it a chance, if ever the opportunity arises.
As for Andromeda, I watch it occaisionally and find it surprisingly good. I should see if there is an Andromeda thread. I've got a few questions, since I've many episodes. (But mainly, does it fit into the Star Trek universe at all? And how did Dylan become a futuristic Rip Van Winkle?)
This last Enterprise episode seems to have been a litmus test for tastes. I really enjoyed it; I felt it did a couple of things. It expanded, yet complicated, the Temporal Cold War concept. It revealed some character details. I like this uneasy-ending style (partly why I used to enjoy X-Files so much). Used rarely, I find it very effective.
DS9 -- I started watching when the Dominion was introduced. For me, it wholly took off; the characters and their relationships gelled as they had on TNG. the last few seasons had some of my favorite TV episodes, ever.
But I'm a sucker for Warp Nacelles and freaky foreheads

 

[Sean Laughter]

Anyone extolling the virtues of Andromeda based on Robert Wolfe's contribution may find it of interest that he has been booted from the show. Here's a link to the story at TrekWeb for anyone that's interested. I've only seen a few shows so it really doesn't mean much to me, but those that like the show may find it interesting.
Link Removed
However, I do have to say that I find this quote from the article rather humorous:

Kevin Sorbo praised Wolfe but explained the problems like this: "Robert is a genius, but was developing stories that were too complicated and too clever for the rest of us to understand," he said.

Oh my, don't strain your brain Kevin!

 

[Jeff]

This show is formula all the way. I used to be the biggest trek fan. I've seen all the movies on the opening days, I used to go to conventions (Yes, conventions! 10 of them!!), I have bought tons of merchandies. But I'm just not into Trek anymore. Voyager is mostly responsible for that and I don't like Enterprise any more.

Berman and Braga are bad writers and are the kings of recycling. I really hope the ratings on this show hit rock bottom and they are fired. This whole time traveling bad guy, tinkering with the timeline, is a horrible attempt at keeping viewers tuned in. Does anyone really care about who this is and why he's doing it? Do we really need more time travel?

I was really hoping they would throw out the Cliches of Star Trek book and do something fresh and original with this series with top notch writers but all I'm seeing is TNG/DS9 and Voyager roled into one.

Oh, and here is my ranking:

TOS

DS9

TNG

I won't bother with the others.

Jeff

 

[Jason Seaver]

As for Andromeda, I watch it occaisionally and find it surprisingly good. I should see if there is an Andromeda thread. I've got a few questions, since I've many episodes. (But mainly, does it fit into the Star Trek universe at all? And how did Dylan become a futuristic Rip Van Winkle?)

It doesn't fit into the Star Trek universe; it's basically the result of former DS9 writer Robert Wolfe taking a failed pilot and an unused pilot script of Gene Roddenberry's, banging them together, and adding a lot of his own (he really should have creator credit rather than Roddenberry).

Interestingly, there are probably parallel universes where it does. Wolfe mentioned online that if he had been given the chance to build Series 5, "Andromeda" would have been the Enterprise-G (or so), using the familiar Federation races (I'd guess Magog->Borg, Nietchiens->Vulcans, etc.). But he never proposed it because he figured Ron Moore would be the one building Series 5. Wolfe was also leaving DS9 at the time, since he was running out of good DS9 stories and figured hanging around would do more harm than good to both Trek and himself (Berman, Braga, listen up).

As to how Hunt wound up in the future, "Andromeda" was crippled near a black hole. Most of the crew were able to escape, except for Hunt, his Nietzien XO, and the navigator. The XO killed the navigator, and as he fought Hunt, they drifted close enough to the black hole's event horizon that gravitational time dilation reared its ugly head. What seemed like twenty minutes in Hunt's frame of reference was 300 years for the outside world, at which point Beka & co. tried to salvage "Andromeda".

As to the future of that show... Grrr. I'll stick around for a while after "Ouroboros", since Captain Hercules and co. could still come up with a fun action/adventure show, but part of the appeal for me was the rich world Wolfe built up.

 

[DaveF]

Wolfe mentioned online that if he had been given the chance to build Series 5, "Andromeda" would have been the Enterprise-G (or so), using the familiar Federation races

Thanks, that helps a lot! The uber-story of Dylan rebuilding his beloved world-unifying, peace-loving Federation (or whatever it's called) was very post-apocolyptic Trek. And given the intro monologue and the Gene R. credit, it really felt like I should understand where it fit into the Trek universe. (And I think the Nietzchiens => Klingons; warlike races and all )
Ah Enterprise, tonight. Time for me to ignore this thread for another five days, since I don't see it until the Sunday re-run :frowning:

 

[Jason Seaver]

Yeah, but the Nietziens are smart, which leaves the Klingons out, and aren't really "warlike", just extraordinarily proactive when they feel their survival is threatened. Besides, Wolfe also mentioned that Vulcans had renounced logic and merged with the Romulans in his vision.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Uh, I think it's valid to compare Enterprise to the series that preceded it. They established the benchmark--or, at least, the first three series did.

 

[Jason Seaver]

It's valid, sure, but kind of pointless - "Enterprise" is being made under different conditions than TOS, TNG, or DS9, so it's probably more useful to compare it to its contemporaries.