Star Trek Enterprise - Is it that Bad?

Myrddin · 05-07-2016 8:54pm #1

Just finished a run through of all four seasons. In the past, I've been defensive of the show, feeling that it was finding its feet by the end of season 4....this time however, for whatever reason, I'm of the opposite opinion.

It was painfully slow to get started, plot recycle after plot recycle, boring characters, boring antagonists, boring stories, etc etc. This continued mostly up to the end of season 2. There were a few episodes of note from the first two seasons, (namely Minefield, Dead Stop, The Catwalk, Dawn, Regeneration, and The Expanse, all from Season 2), but mostly, the first two seasons are a complete slog.

Things pick up for Season 3, with the Expanse arc. It however, runs on painfully long really...the entire season is taken up with it, & by the end, I just felt I couldn't wait for it to end. Episodes of note in Season 3 are Extinction, Impule, Exile, Twilight, Simultude, Carpenter Street, and Stratagem. It was an improvement over Seasons 1 & 2, but again, it dragged on way too long, & the ending felt rushed and hastened. It's as if they padded the season out too much, forgetting they had to end it at some point!

Season 4, christ almighty what were they thinking with that two part opener - Nazi aliens....again??? We've already seen the Hirogen do this, but this took things to an almighty low. The season definitely didn't kick off well. You could kind of tell they wanted to fit in as many good scripts as they had left though, there were some good arcs in this season. Borderland, Cold Station 12, & The Augments is probably the best three parter of the whole show (it had Brent Spiner in it, which is always a plus). It was very good, & I liked the pacing and acting. Babel 1, United, & The Aenar form another good trio arc, with the Romulans conspiring to prevent an alliance.

Affliction & Divergence was another enjoyable arc, explaining the whole Klingon ridges thing (or lack thereof, in TOS). While this was completely unneccessary, I actually enjoyed the explanation and execution of the episodes. In a Mirror Darkly then was also very enjoyable, exploring the mirror universe and the fate of the TOS Defiant.

That's pretty much all there is though. The series finale was nothing short of a kick in the teeth to the show, and the actors themselves. Absolutely dreadful stuff, the biggest damp squib of any finale, & it's more like a lost TNG episode than a fitting end to Enterprise.

So yes, I'll say it now, and while my opinion may change in the future, for now I feel Enterprise is that bad. The characters are never engaging, they got the Vulcans so unbelievably wrong that it ruins any scenes with them in it, it kept changing its focus from season to season, never really finding a consistent groove, and being a prequel, it was always going to struggle. A lot of the CGI is truly awful too, it has not at all aged well.

I liked Archer, Trip & T'Pol (T'Pol only got decent from Season 2 onwards...before that she was like the rest of the Vulcans, played all wrong). I loved Shran (Jeffrey Combs, you can't go wrong really), and I liked Hoshi too...she was well played I thought. Honestly though, I'm delighted it's over & I can move on to greener pastures...

degrassinoel · 06-07-2016 12:22am

I think at the time Enterprise was being filmed and airing was a dreadful time for the US historically and the events of the real world impacted severely on some of the entertainment industry. That's not to say i hated the show, i quite liked it and watched it again recently too.

The whole Xindi thing was imo an attempt to show empathy with the nation after 9/11 and possibly justify the conflict in Iraq.. Or maybe they just wanted to curry favour with current events-like story arcs - i think the entire Xindi plot was precisely that, and ye know, it wasn't a bad plot but it was overbearing to have it in the forefront and background for so long and have no mention of that species in any of the other shows. (or at least very little if at all)

I'd have preferred a 'birth of the federation' show rather than what we got in the end. Even so, i did like some of the characters and Archer was a decent captain when he was playing the explorer rather than the military captain.

Myrddin · 06-07-2016 9:09am

Indeed, I never got the dislike for Archer, & still don't.

LeinsterDub · 06-07-2016 9:22am

Enterprise's issue for me was it was neither a continuing story arc nor one off episodes.

Compare Enterprise and BSG .

Each episode of BSG was important hinting at the overall plot building tension you couldn't miss one.

With Enterprise you have time war, day trip to a moon , time war , day trip to flu planet , the Expanse,.... . The one off episodes felt like filler and the arcs felt undeveloped and not committed too enough. By the time they got around to the arc again you'd forgotten half the stuff it was about.

Myrddin · 06-07-2016 9:25am

^^ fully agree. It was hugely inconsistent, & doing a fairly full on run through, this becomes abundantly clear. For me, ultimately, it was the writing that failed the show...it didn't know what it was, what it wanted to be, where it wanted to go, and how to get there...and that showed through to the viewer.

I often felt one more season could have saved it, but now, today, I feel the cancellation came at the right time. Another season would have been yet another new arc...the viewers were well & truly lost by the end.

seamus · 06-07-2016 9:36am

^^ Writing and structure I think let it down. I never really felt like I had any real grasp on WTF was going on, what the major plot arc was and what stage it was at. There was something a bit Lost-esque about the major arc; that there was nobody with a grand plan in their head, just putting it together as they went along.

I think it tried to merge the long-running and complicated arc format of its contemporaries like 24 with the traditional Trek format of self-contained episodes. And in doing so it failed in both.

Sci-Fi has for the most part been all about the one-off episodes and the most successful ones are the ones who stick to it. Just as Enterprise deviated from the format, so too did SG:U, and both fell flat on their face.

Myrddin · 06-07-2016 9:43am

seamus wrote: »

I think it tried to merge the long-running and complicated arc format of its contemporaries like 24 with the traditional Trek format of self-contained episodes. And in doing so it failed in both

Perhaps so, which is all the more disappointing because DS9 nailed it several years beforehand.

Sci-Fi has for the most part been all about the one-off episodes and the most successful ones are the ones who stick to it. Just as Enterprise deviated from the format, so too did SG:U, and both fell flat on their face.

Hmm, not sure I'd competently agree there. Battlestar Galactica and Deep Space Nine spring to mind. Hell, even with Stargate SG1 & Stargate Atlantis there were long running arcs. The difference within these though, is the structure as you say...the writers understood their direction better, & could write accordingly. With Enterprise, it was chopping and changing the whole time. Season 4 is rife with mini arcs (the augments, the Vulcan coup, the Romulan drone ship, the Klingon ridges, the baby of T'Pol & Trip...)

ItHurtsWhenIP · 06-07-2016 10:02am

Myrddin wrote: »

...
Hmm, not sure I'd competently agree there. Battlestar Galactica and Deep Space Nine spring to mind. Hell, even with Stargate SG1 & Stargate Atlantis there were long running arcs. The difference within these though, is the structure as you say...the writers understood their direction better, & could write accordingly.
...

Agreed about BSG, DS9, SG1 and SG:A. However I think the best long-arc Sci-Fi series ever was Babylon 5. J. M. Straczynski held that one tightly together, I think perfectly.

MisterDrak · 06-07-2016 10:17am

Agree that the series was not that bad, and like previous posters, I did enjoy the Xindi / time war stuff. But; and its a big but, that opening theme song

, the visuals were again relatively OK...

Myrddin · 06-07-2016 10:18am

I actually really enjoyed the opening theme from seasons 1 & 2....they completely butchered it for seasons 3 & 4 though, while trying to introduce some forced beat to it.

LeinsterDub · 06-07-2016 10:25am

Myrddin wrote: »

Perhaps so, which is all the more disappointing because DS9 nailed it several years beforehand.

Hmm, not sure I'd competently agree there. Battlestar Galactica and Deep Space Nine spring to mind. Hell, even with Stargate SG1 & Stargate Atlantis there were long running arcs. The difference within these though, is the structure as you say...the writers understood their direction better, & could write accordingly.

That and a focused approach.
BSG : Cylons are fraking going to kill us all.
SG1 : Goa'uld are going to kill us all best Macgyver us out of this situation, arguably SG1 went down hill after the Goa'uld weren't the many threat anymore.
SGA : Wraith are going to kill us all eh? Once again , once the Asurans were introduced it lost focus.

MisterDrak · 06-07-2016 10:29am

Slightly off topic, but just watched the TNG "Best of Both worlds 1,2" again at the weekend, as part of Sy-Fy's best of Star Trek weekend. Some standout TV right there, IMDB score (9.3, 9.2)

The best scores for Enterprise are an 8.9 for Twilight (S3.E8) and then down from there.

Cookie_Monster · 06-07-2016 10:45am

I run through it every now and again and despite plenty of flaws overall it remains my favourite series. I particularly like the tech level and development. It's a pity TNG just that 5-10 years more recent, would have gotten much better background effects and consoles etc.
And while it has a fair number of poor episodes, there are no unwatchable ones IMO, unlike any of the other series which have some howlers, Voyager in particular.

It's such a pity it didn't get series 5-7 as I really think we would have seen some good early Federation development.

helimachoptor · 06-07-2016 4:43pm

Myrddin wrote: »

Indeed, I never got the dislike for Archer, & still don't.

Me too, i though Archer was pretty good.

He for me was what i'd expect a captain to be like in a hundred years or so

Myrddin · 06-07-2016 6:49pm

helimachoptor wrote: »

He for me was what i'd expect a captain to be like in a hundred years or so

I think we'd be lucky to have someone like him tbh

If it ever happens for us, it'd be more military-like I imagine...nuclear wessels in space.

Just getting back to the show, for the augments trilogy in season 4 was the highlight of the show, thanks in no small part to Brent Spiner. He's a class act. The acting of the main augments was very good too.

Blazer · 08-07-2016 7:50pm

For years I was saying we needed a show that followed the birth of the Federation and the ensuing Kllingon War and the setting up of the Neutral zone etc..but then I hear the major enemy was the Xindi..I was like...who the fcuk are the Xindi???
Archer was excellent though in fairness.

Sparko · 08-07-2016 8:07pm

I think it shifted in the correct direction in season 4 but unfortunately it was too little too late.

I'll still happily watch season 3 & 4 anytime I see it on though.

ondafly · 18-07-2016 3:22pm

first off - this is my first ever viewing of Enterprise - and I've skimmed through the posts above to avoid spoilers. I know I'm very late to the party also

I inhaled the original series in the 80s along with the movies, loved NG and clearly remember watching the first ever episode (double) on RTE when it premiered. Took awhile to get into it, but was hooked. Then came DS9 and again, loved it. At some stage during this period NG was re-shown twice daily on Sky around 5pm and 11pm ? and I remember that Summer fondly. I honestly tried to like Voyager but it never fully clicked with me, and by the time Enterprise appeared, I think I watched the intro, heard the music and didn't give it a chance.

Many moons later, its appeared on Netflix and I have zipped through the first and nearly all of the second season at warp speed and I love the intro music. I would currently rank it higher than Voyager (bear in mind I've haven't finished it yet however). Perhaps I'm getting a buzz of nostalgia from the show by watching it during the summer, but I have to say I'll be disappointed when its over.

imitation · 18-07-2016 3:32pm

It didn't feel like star trek at all to me. You had this series with a huge background of history and races and it utilised none of it. Maybe it was the time they decided to set it in, but you had all these random races like the xindi who were a massive threat but obviously are never mentioned in any other show again. It just doesn't fit in.

I still found it watchable sci fi, but it was only really.

Oh and the last episode was just awful.

Myrddin · 18-07-2016 3:45pm

ondafly wrote: »

Many moons later, its appeared on Netflix and I have zipped through the first and nearly all of the second season at warp speed and I love the intro music. I would currently rank it higher than Voyager (bear in mind I've haven't finished it yet however). Perhaps I'm getting a buzz of nostalgia from the show by watching it during the summer, but I have to say I'll be disappointed when its over.

If you're still hanging in there by the end of Season 2, prepare to like it even more as it gets significantly better from here on

I also really warmed to the intro theme, but that said, they butchered it for seasons 3 & 4 (listen for the new edgy 'beat' to it

). As above, I didn't enjoy this recent re-watch of mine, & couldn't wait for it to end!

Contrast that with me watching Firefly for the first time straight after Enterprise. Now that's how you do it! Wow, what a truly quality little show. More charm, wit, & thrills in 14 episodes, than Enterprise managed in 4 full seasons!

ScumLord · 18-07-2016 3:59pm

ondafly wrote: »

Many moons later, its appeared on Netflix and I have zipped through the first and nearly all of the second season at warp speed and I love the intro music.

I absolutely hated enterprises music, I had to skip it every time. What makes it worse is that it gets stuck in your head.

Enterprise was all right, decent sci fi show almost held back by the star trek box.

I've gotten as far as season 3 of DS9 now, I'm watching star trek series in order. I hadn't watched enterprise so I watched that first, followed by the 60s version, then tng and now ds9. The big problem for me is how militaristic the federation is. The show is sort of chained to violence and war because the federation is a military organisation. I didn't notice it as much when I was growing up and it's really becoming apparent in DS9.

Real life technology is also overtaking star trek technology in a lot of ways. Watching them go to a wall when they get a phone call is a bit daft. We'll probably have a data before we even get as far as mars.

The whole franchise could do with a pretty major shake up or the stories could run into all sorts of problems trying to ignore the fact the people watching the futuristic show will have more useful technology in their pockets than the crew of the enterprise have. We're also overlapping star trek history at this point aren't we?

They make good TV shows these days though, I'm hoping for good things but I'm expecting a cash in.

kierank01 · 18-07-2016 4:11pm

Enterprise definitely lacked overall direction, which I think affected the writing & plot lines.

I'm not sure if TNG or SG1 were on/off cancelled after each season, but they went to 7 & 10 seasons & some of the early stuff form them was pure crap.

I can't help but think if enterprise was to have been done, without the threat of cancellation, the good stuff could have been expanded upon, without being shoehorned into a few episodes.

I do agree that throwing a load of random new species at it was never going to work, because you would have to engineer a complicated series of events to remove them for the later series...temporal cold war anyone?

AtomicHorror · 19-07-2016 1:02pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I absolutely hated enterprises music, I had to skip it every time. What makes it worse is that it gets stuck in your head.

I think the closing music was significantly worse. There was some sort of guitar solo in there, iirc.

Bleugh.

imitation · 19-07-2016 3:25pm

I've gotten as far as season 3 of DS9 now, I'm watching star trek series in order. I hadn't watched enterprise so I watched that first, followed by the 60s version, then tng and now ds9. The big problem for me is how militaristic the federation is. The show is sort of chained to violence and war because the federation is a military organisation. I didn't notice it as much when I was growing up and it's really becoming apparent in DS9.
.

Well its one of the main points of DS9 and why its so well liked. Its a more natural conclusion to having a galaxy full of threats and star fleet are the only guys with guns at the end of the day.

I liked it, it felt more natural than 400 people on a jolly through space. At the same time the bad guys were more compelling than the usual star trek baddies too, and after a the heaps of self contained episodes in TNG, Voyager and the first seasons of DS9, the story arc and continunity were really nice.

ScumLord · 19-07-2016 4:25pm

imitation wrote: »

Well its one of the main points of DS9 and why its so well liked. Its a more natural conclusion to having a galaxy full of threats and star fleet are the only guys with guns at the end of the day.

I liked it, it felt more natural than 400 people on a jolly through space. At the same time the bad guys were more compelling than the usual star trek baddies too, and after a the heaps of self contained episodes in TNG, Voyager and the first seasons of DS9, the story arc and continunity were really nice.

Don't get me wrong it's a good show, it's just far removed from the intentions of the original star trek and even tng. It doesn't really make much sense for there to be so many violent cultures in space, what are they fighting over anyway? The galaxy is full of resources, there's literally nothing to fight over.

The cultures are very one dimensional too. DS9 probably expanded the most on a species in the cardassian. But even then the characters don't live up to their cultures.

Humans take to much of a central role to, we seem to be the only decent species out there and everyone should be learning from us.

Myrddin · 19-07-2016 4:48pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans take to much of a central role to, we seem to be the only decent species out there and everyone should be learning from us.

I doubt that's to sing the praises of humanity, but more so to highlight our own individual inner exploration of the human condition. When a human character acts a certain way, we can explore that & contrast it with our own selves, our perspectives, and judgments. We do this because we know humans, we know humanity, and we can easily put ourselves into that characters position.

Doing that with an alien species though, we just know far less about them culturally, which makes it harder to relate. Unless you live in a caste system, it's hard to relate to how Klingons truly feel, and why they feel so. Same with the Romulans, unless you live in a very militaristic/totalitarian society, it's hard to get a true grasp of how the average Romulan feels, and again, why they feel so.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a series set around alien cultures, something like the rebuilding of Cardassia after the Dominion War...I think it's too risky for the average executive suit to put pen to paper on though.

ScumLord · 19-07-2016 4:52pm

I'd like to see star trek completely reimagined from the ground up. It's basically a 40 year old sci fi concept now, it's outdated in many ways.

Myrddin · 19-07-2016 4:55pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd like to see star trek completely reimagined from the ground up. It's basically a 40 year old sci fi concept now, it's outdated in many ways.

At its heart, it's about humans overcoming their differences, uniting themselves, eradicating war, poverty, greed, and hunger, and sailing off into space in search of the new & unexplored. I don't know if I'd call it outdated, unrealistic maybe (:D), but certainly something for us to aspire towards.

There's enough of the dark, grim, & 'gritty' stuff out there imo, which makes the idealism of Star Trek that bit more appealing at times.

ScumLord · 19-07-2016 5:14pm

Myrddin wrote: »

At its heart, it's about humans overcoming their differences, uniting themselves, eradicating war, poverty, greed, and hunger, and sailing off into space in search of the new & unexplored. I don't know if I'd call it outdated, unrealistic maybe (:D), but certainly something for us to aspire towards.

But just humans, not them klingons. :pac:

We should be a bit past that by that stage though. THey shouldn't be dealing with normal everyday problems, just in space. Most our everyday problems will be gone by then. And I know this was a problem for TNG, in that it was supposed to be that show but they found it completely lacked drama. There are real problems to face in space, explore those rather than just setting a standard drama in space and ignoring the sci fi aspect.

I'm just finding most scf fi these days to be extremely lazy, they're going through the established motions and have completely stopped exploring the boundaries of possibilities. It's basically today, in space, with some slightly more advanced than today technology. It's not the future.

Myrddin · 19-07-2016 6:49pm

ScumLord wrote: »

But just humans, not them klingons. :pac:

Well of course, we're human, & Roddenbery's vision was that one day things for us would be better

Cookie_Monster · 20-07-2016 12:15am

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd like to see star trek completely reimagined from the ground up. It's basically a 40 year old sci fi concept now, it's outdated in many ways.

isn't that basically what ST2009 is?

Any more of a re-imagination and it's just not Star Trek but some other franchise...

ScumLord · 20-07-2016 12:23am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

isn't that basically what ST2009 is?

Not really, it's exactly the same but with better effects and less story.

I'm talking about a complete reworking of the star trek universe based on what we know now. How everything works, the behaviour of all the different species, all the technology needs an update.

imitation · 20-07-2016 8:57am

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd like to see star trek completely reimagined from the ground up. It's basically a 40 year old sci fi concept now, it's outdated in many ways.

Ah but would be star trek then? The problem with sci fi now is that people are alot more knowledgeable and by tye time you have satisfied the modern requirements for a TV show, its hard to make a space based show.

People love dark violent plots now, doesn't sit well with Star Trek, although the way they were never too put out by a few redshirts getting blasted every episode seemed pretty sociopathic.

AtomicHorror · 20-07-2016 9:00am

ScumLord wrote: »

Not really, it's exactly the same but with better effects and less story.

I'm talking about a complete reworking of the star trek universe based on what we know now. How everything works, the behaviour of all the different species, all the technology needs an update.

I love Star Trek, but I often wonder whether updating now it is akin to trying to update Jules Verne. You can either try to make it relevant by stripping away much of what makes it recognisable, or you can embrace it's nature and hope that the audience follows you.

I think perhaps a TV adaptation of The Culture would do a better job of exploring some of the concepts Star Trek used to tackle, but without having to contend with explaining away a big messy canon.

Bacchus · 20-07-2016 11:16am

I'm not onboard with wholesale changes to Star Trek but the new series need to freshen things up. For a start, the history of humanity according to the show needs to account for where we are now and stop basing things off of what was imagined in the 60s. In the same vein, the technology of Star Trek needs to be reimagined based off of the advances in technology we've seen in the past 50 years. To do this means separating from the established Star Trek universe as everything has to remain consistent with the different time periods there. If it were me in charge, I'd keep the themes, the spirit, the classic alien cultures and just set it in a world 200 years from now that feels like it would be 200 years from now. Also, new characters. I don't want to see a reimagined Kirk, Spock, Picard, Data, etc. Keep the Enterprise though

ScumLord · 20-07-2016 3:07pm

imitation wrote: »

People love dark violent plots now, doesn't sit well with Star Trek, although the way they were never too put out by a few redshirts getting blasted every episode seemed pretty sociopathic.

I don't know about that. TV producers latch onto trends and ape what's popular. the problem with doing that is they end up making a show of the moment that doesn't stand the test of time.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I love Star Trek, but I often wonder whether updating now it is akin to trying to update Jules Verne. You can either try to make it relevant by stripping away much of what makes it recognisable, or you can embrace it's nature and hope that the audience follows you.

They sort of did it with the movies and TNG, the movies changed the entire ethos from exploration to a military show. There's no reason why they couldn't go back to that earlier version of star trek.

It makes no sense that the entire human culture has been taken over by the federation and it's the only vehicle for scientific exploration, or pretty much anything.

Bacchus wrote: »

If it were me in charge, I'd keep the themes, the spirit, the classic alien cultures and just set it in a world 200 years from now that feels like it would be 200 years from now. Also, new characters. I don't want to see a reimagined Kirk, Spock, Picard, Data, etc. Keep the Enterprise though

200 years probably isn't long enough to be much beyond the Enterprise time.

But humans will be radically different in 200 years and development will probably speed up once we go through things like the singularity and start becoming part machine.

We probably won't need to fly our space ships as they'll be automated, there would probably be no need to manage the ship at all, just tell it where to go. Probably won't need doctors or engineers, but I could see people learning all these things anyway just as a back up to the automated systems.

Cookie_Monster · 20-07-2016 9:56pm

Bacchus wrote: »

For a start, the history of humanity according to the show needs to account for where we are now and stop basing things off of what was imagined in the 60s.

why though, there is canonically a nuclear WW3 in the ST universe which acts as a very large tech reset button. It's not unreasonable to assume huge swathes of knowledge were lost.

Besides we still don't have the slightest clue on how to make a warp drive work

Bacchus · 21-07-2016 9:13am

ScumLord wrote: »

200 years probably isn't long enough to be much beyond the Enterprise time.

Which is exactly why I think a new series should be completely separated out from the Star Trek we know. A complete fresh start, a fresh take on the idea. Look at the rate of advances in technology now. Yes, a few leaps in tech/science are needed to get to warp, transporters, hand held lazers etc. but giving a bit of artistic licence, 200 years is plenty of time for us to become a space exploring society. Also, it should be back to TOS mantra of exploring strange new worlds so the series should have a similar setup to that. The federation is in its early days, the new crew of the Enterprise is off on its own 5 year mission.

ScumLord wrote: »

But humans will be radically different in 200 years and development will probably speed up once we go through things like the singularity and start becoming part machine.

We probably won't need to fly our space ships as they'll be automated, there would probably be no need to manage the ship at all, just tell it where to go. Probably won't need doctors or engineers, but I could see people learning all these things anyway just as a back up to the automated systems.

And all those things would be great to explore in a new series. However, you can't do that if it's tied to the old series.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why though, there is canonically a nuclear WW3 in the ST universe which acts as a very large tech reset button. It's not unreasonable to assume huge swathes of knowledge were lost.

Besides we still don't have the slightest clue on how to make a warp drive work

Well WW3 was originally in the 90s and later moved to the mid-21st century. The series is weighed down at this point by the "history" it has created. Culturally as well, while the old series did great work in bringing diversity to the screens, it's behind the times now. Also, there's a great opportunity to hold a lens up to what is going on in the world now (with ISIS for instance) through a fresh take on Star Trek.

As I said too, the whole technology of Star Trek needs to go back to the drawing board. TOS was based off of the (visionary) imaginings of Roddenberry in the 60s. TNG in the 90s added a bit to it but now all the tech in those series (with the exception of the obvious) seems dated even for 2016.

I'm all about a fresh start

ItHurtsWhenIP · 21-07-2016 11:05am

Bacchus wrote: »

Which is exactly why I think a new series should be completely separated out from the Star Trek we know. A complete fresh start, a fresh take on the idea. Look at the rate of advances in technology now. Yes, a few leaps in tech/science are needed to get to warp, transporters, hand held lazers etc. but giving a bit of artistic licence, 200 years is plenty of time for us to become a space exploring society. Also, it should be back to TOS mantra of exploring strange new worlds so the series should have a similar setup to that. The federation is in its early days, the new crew of the Enterprise is off on its own 5 year mission.

Errrmmmm ... we kinda already are an space exploring society.

We have exploration craft in interstellar space and we have recently planted another such vehicle in orbit around the biggest planet in our solar system. (although I might be worried if V'ger shows up ina few years :eek::P)

Just saying!

ScumLord · 21-07-2016 3:24pm

Another thing I'm finding with star trek is that space is just to small. They seem to be able to explore the frontiers of space (and find a lost human expedition), then pop back to earth, go over the the Klingons, scan an entire region of space as if it was no thing.

I realise warp means they can pop from star to star, but they never really give the impression the bits inbetween are vast and dangerous. When something goes wrong there's always a planet near by that's perfectly suitable.

AtomicHorror · 21-07-2016 7:33pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Another thing I'm finding with star trek is that space is just to small. They seem to be able to explore the frontiers of space (and find a lost human expedition), then pop back to earth, go over the the Klingons, scan an entire region of space as if it was no thing.

I realise warp means they can pop from star to star, but they never really give the impression the bits inbetween are vast and dangerous. When something goes wrong there's always a planet near by that's perfectly suitable.

I think it suffered from a severe lack of consistency in that area. Some episodes were very good at getting across the vast times and distances, using proper orbital mechanics, plausibly depicting truly alien life. Others were all alien forehead prosthetic of the week, plot factor 9, miraculous crash landings and starships that fly like fighter jets.

I'd blame the writers bible, if I knew what was in it.

Cookie_Monster · 21-07-2016 8:59pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Another thing I'm finding with star trek is that space is just to small. They seem to be able to explore the frontiers of space (and find a lost human expedition), then pop back to earth, go over the the Klingons, scan an entire region of space as if it was no thing.

I realise warp means they can pop from star to star, but they never really give the impression the bits inbetween are vast and dangerous. When something goes wrong there's always a planet near by that's perfectly suitable.

well no-one wants to watch the 2 days of tedium as they cruise between systems...

Voyager was terrible for it but I think most other series were pretty good, it was easier to follow in ENT with the proper date system still in use. You got a feel that chunks of time had passed unseen and they explored longer term travel with Travis' family freight er too

_Kaiser_ · 22-07-2016 8:41pm

Well this thread has convinced me to give it another go so I've compiled a list of the episodes that I think should avoid most of the shyte - I liked the whole Temporal Cold War idea so those, the Klingons/Duras episodes, Regeneration, the Shran/Andorian episodes, the Augments, the Xindi season, and most of season 4 as it turns out from reading Memory Alpha

Will kick off later tonight and update periodically as I go

_Kaiser_ · 23-07-2016 4:29pm

So didn't get a chance to start till today but watching Broken Bow as we speak. Archer comes across as a strong and optimistic leader (albeit with a blind spot where Vulcans are concerned), and overall it's a pretty decent start to the series.

But jaysus... that de-con scene.. WTF where they thinking?

helimachoptor · 24-07-2016 9:29pm

that scene should have won an emmy tbh

_Kaiser_ · 29-07-2016 9:35pm

So I've been watching several per night and I'm into the Xindi arc at this point and the step up in quality is noticeable from the first and majority of second seasons (which I skipped lots of). It really starts to come together after Azati Prime though, much in the same way as the final series episodes of DS9 were outstanding.

Rawr · 30-07-2016 4:18pm

Blazer wrote: »

For years I was saying we needed a show that followed the birth of the Federation and the ensuing Kllingon War and the setting up of the Neutral zone etc..but then I hear the major enemy was the Xindi..I was like...who the fcuk are the Xindi???

This was something that regularly annoyed the hell out of me with ENT. (So much so, I think this alone made me stop watching.)

Broken Bow got me excited from the get-go. A Klingon crashed on Earth? This must be that occasionally referenced 'Disasterious First-Contact with the Klingons' that causes the Klingon/Federation War! Awesome!

But then no...that war doesn't happen. Instead we get weird sponge-skinned Xindis with their Temporal Waste of time Cold War.

There-after whenever we got Klingons...there would be a threat of violence...some hintings at a maybe war...but in the end of the day the Enterprise would save the day, reset relations, and leave the Klingons wagging their fists like cartoon villains.

"You may have peace today Enterprise crew! But next time we meet, there will be WAR! Mark my words! Next time!!!!"

Rinse and repeat.

So much potential pissed away until it was too late. I'm hoping that ST-D might fix that.

14-08-2016 12:23am

Myrddin wrote: »

^^ fully agree. It was hugely inconsistent, & doing a fairly full on run through, this becomes abundantly clear. For me, ultimately, it was the writing that failed the show...it didn't know what it was, what it wanted to be, where it wanted to go, and how to get there...and that showed through to the viewer.

I often felt one more season could have saved it, but now, today, I feel the cancellation came at the right time. Another season would have been yet another new arc...the viewers were well & truly lost by the end.

Actually I think that season 4 was planting the Romulans to be the primary antagonist for the remaining seasons, culminating with a season 6/7 Romulan war and subsequent BotF

14-08-2016 12:33am

Rawr wrote: »

This was something that regularly annoyed the hell out of me with ENT. (So much so, I think this alone made me stop watching.)

Broken Bow got me excited from the get-go. A Klingon crashed on Earth? This must be that occasionally referenced 'Disasterious First-Contact with the Klingons' that causes the Klingon/Federation War! Awesome!

But then no...that war doesn't happen. Instead we get weird sponge-skinned Xindis with their Temporal Waste of time Cold War.

There-after whenever we got Klingons...there would be a threat of violence...some hintings at a maybe war...but in the end of the day the Enterprise would save the day, reset relations, and leave the Klingons wagging their fists like cartoon villains.

"You may have peace today Enterprise crew! But next time we meet, there will be WAR! Mark my words! Next time!!!!"

Rinse and repeat.

So much potential pissed away until it was too late. I'm hoping that ST-D might fix that.

IT was never an Earth V Klingon war though was it? It was a Federation V Klingon war no?

I always thought that the only interstellar war, which Earth fought alone, was the Earth V Romulan war

The_Valeyard · 15-08-2016 12:06am

Deleted User wrote: »

IT was never an Earth V Klingon war though was it? It was a Federation V Klingon war no?

I always thought that the only interstellar war, which Earth fought alone, was the Earth V Romulan war

Think thats correct. Read in some novel that the Earth V Romulan war, may have helped speed up the creation of the Federation.

Rawr · 15-08-2016 9:52am

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Think thats correct. Read in some novel that the Earth V Romulan war, may have helped speed up the creation of the Federation.

From what I have read over the years, I believe you are both right. Earth went up against the Romulans alone, and the original pre-Neutral Zone border was made up of Earth Outposts straddling Romulan Star Empire space.

In the first few minutes of Broken Bow, it didn't know it was pre-Federation and thus my mistaken hope to see the Klingon War start up.

But since early Earth exploration was probably so marked by the Romulan War, I'm wondering why there wasn't more focus on that in ENT. They could have spent the early seasons leading up the War itself (with a theme of war-hysteria, arrogance & militarist politics) , spent 1-2 seasons in the actual war (DS9 has shown us that they can pull this off), and then rounded off the series with the establishment of the Federation. By that stage, scarred by all of the war and hatred, they would have started to resolve to try and promote the peaceful exploration of space with a newly reformed Star Fleet and a better sense of how the Galaxy works.

They could have then ended the show with the cliff-hanger of the disastrous first contact with the Klingons, and maybe a feature film covering that conflict (ala ST:Axinar)

Star Trek Enterprise - Is it that Bad?

Comments