Peoples Beef with ST: Enterprise

Johnny Storm

Sorry fellas, speaking as someone who has seen every ep of Trek ever, starting in 1968, IMHO the sad fact is that 90% of Voyager and 99.5% of Enterprise was total ****e. To put it in context only about 60% of TNG eps were ****e and about 5% were awesomely great. (Similar ratio for TOS)

Jack B. Badd

Johnny Storm wrote:

speaking as someone who has seen every ep of Trek ever, starting in 1968

I bow before you, oh great one!

Johnny Storm

Jack B. Badd wrote:

I bow before you, oh great one!

Now we're gettin' somewhere!

mcgarnicle

Johnny Storm wrote:

Sorry fellas, speaking as someone who has seen every ep of Trek ever, starting in 1968, IMHO the sad fact is that 90% of Voyager and 99.5% of Enterprise was total ****e. To put it in context only about 60% of TNG eps were ****e and about 5% were awesomely great. (Similar ratio for TOS)

That's funny cos by my calculations 100% of TOS episodes were total ****e. I actually thought Enterprise was decent, especially the fourth season. The third was pretty rubbish, massive, spherical planet killing weapon... give me a break, they may as well have painted death star across the thing. It was so corny and simplistic, the "parallels" to the real world were so see through and unconvincing that I genuinely cringed on a regular basis. Season 4 was excellent though, a real shame that Berman and Braga had well and truly poisened that show and its reputation by then.

Johnny Storm

mcgarnicle wrote:

.....100% of TOS episodes were total ****e.....

Hmmm. Well, that would explain how Star Trek came to be a global phenomenon that has lasted 40 years. :rolleyes:

toomevara

The problem with Enterprise is that TV sci-fi and its audience have become far more sophisticated, discerning and demanding. When you look at the unalloyed excellence of say BG or Firefly and then you plonk yourself before yet another highly derivative, lazy ,sloppily characterised hackneyed, Enterprise episode it's hard not to despair. It lives off past glories and the Star Trek name.

DS9, for me, paradoxically, after a very shaky beginning became the best thing since Next Gen, even eclipsing it at times particularly during the Dominion Wars story line. It was actually, Shock! Horror! gritty and realistic in parts, not the usual sachharine sweet plot resolutions, to the point that it almost, at times threatened to leave the Trek universe and transfer inter-dimensionally to the fabulous Babylon 5.

As for Archer, the guy is actually a thinly veiled cipher for Gerorge Dubya Bush, i.e a big, hopeless, idiotic shank of all american beef whose ignorance of the universe he traverses is matched only by his inablity to deal with 'revelations' that the universe is *boo-hoo* a violent, wicked place full of nasty space aliens who want to kill him. God be with the days of kirk and his genius 'fight it or fu*k it' attitude to space exploration....

mcgarnicle

Johnny Storm wrote:

Hmmm. Well, that would explain how Star Trek came to be a global phenomenon that has lasted 40 years. :rolleyes:

Well I would consider myself a pretty avid trek fan and I absolutely hate TOS, so much so that I find it hard to watch an episode. Believe me I wish I did like it, four more seasons of trek to enjoy would be great, but they just don't do it for me and most of my friends that love trek feel the same way. I certainly would not credit TOS for the 40 years of trek, the films are totally different to TOS and it was TNG that really got the ball rolling, leading to constant trek for well over a decade. Are you implying that it was repeats of TOS that kept the franchise so popular over the past 40 yrs?

bizmark

mcgarnicle wrote:

Well I would consider myself a pretty avid trek fan and I absolutely hate TOS, so much so that I find it hard to watch an episode. Believe me I wish I did like it, four more seasons of trek to enjoy would be great, but they just don't do it for me and most of my friends that love trek feel the same way. I certainly would not credit TOS for the 40 years of trek, the films are totally different to TOS and it was TNG that really got the ball rolling, leading to constant trek for well over a decade. Are you implying that it was repeats of TOS that kept the franchise so popular over the past 40 yrs?

I find cardboard sets crap starship models dodgy acting and technology that’s laughable for today make's it very hard to suspend disbelief while watching tos .....I mean id watch it but im not bothered if i miss an episode like i would if i missed deep space nine or tng even today years after they where new.

mcgarnicle

toomevara wrote:

The problem with Enterprise is that TV sci-fi and its audience have become far more sophisticated, discerning and demanding. When you look at the unalloyed excellence of say BG or Firefly and then you plonk yourself before yet another highly derivative, lazy ,sloppily characterised hackneyed, Enterprise episode it's hard not to despair. It lives off past glories and the Star Trek name.

DS9, for me, paradoxically, after a very shaky beginning became the best thing since Next Gen, even eclipsing it at times particularly during the Dominion Wars story line. It was actually, Shock! Horror! gritty and realistic in parts, not the usual sachharine sweet plot resolutions, to the point that it almost, at times threatened to leave the Trek universe and transfer inter-dimensionally to the fabulous Babylon 5.

As for Archer, the guy is actually a thinly veiled cipher for Gerorge Dubya Bush, i.e a big, hopeless, idiotic shank of all american beef whose ignorance of the universe he traverses is matched only by his inablity to deal with 'revelations' that the universe is *boo-hoo* a violent, wicked place full of nasty space aliens who want to kill him. God be with the days of kirk and his genius 'fight it or fu*k it' attitude to space exploration....

I really hate this attitude that BSG is somehow more sophisticated than trek. A show that's claim to sophistication is its willingness to show death and destruction, yes very sophisticated. I really love those Arnold Schwarzeneger movies, very "sophisticated". How can you possibly say that BSG is more sophisticated than trek, a franchise that over the years has dealt with many philosophical and moral issues in extremely engaging ways. But i guess it doesnt show ships blowing up and their pilots fly out of the cock pit, or feature made up curse words and cliched military types living "on the edge". Enterprise is certainly not the crowning glory of trek, but i blame that on Berman and Braga who were trying to force it onto new demographics, I think season 4 shows what enterprise could have been and watching them re-run on sky at the moment I can honestly say it is some of the best trek I have ever watched.
BSG is aimed squarely at American teenagers, you can throw out all the buzz-words in the world to describe trek but they could just as easily be applied to BSG... honestly derivative? you do realise there was a previous series of BSG that went along pretty much the same lines, even though i guess it didn't have quite the same "sophistication" ie. cursing and killing.

bizmark

toomevara wrote:

The problem with Enterprise is that TV sci-fi and its audience have become far more sophisticated, discerning and demanding. When you look at the unalloyed excellence of say BG or Firefly and then you plonk yourself before yet another highly derivative, lazy ,sloppily characterised hackneyed, Enterprise episode it's hard not to despair. It lives off past glories and the Star Trek name.

Seen a few bsg eps lately its awful i sweared i wouldnt watch it due to them replaceing the male leads with women as it smacked of pc and would look stupid ......i was right and honestly what the hell is sophisticated about it? its nothing but a depressing action tv show set in space.

Johnny Storm

I suppose what I'm saying is that if you would have watched TOS 40 years ago in the context of other SF TV shows that were then current (Lost in Space, Invaders, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea etc ) then it would be (IMHO) unarguably clear to you that TOS was an exceptionally innovative show with (believe it or not) very high production qualities and adult story lines.

OTOH Enterprise considered in its context is at best mediocre.

EDIT: Here's an interesting Wikipedia link.

toomevara

mcgarnicle wrote:

I really hate this attitude that BSG is somehow more sophisticated than trek. A show that's claim to sophistication is its willingness to show death and destruction, yes very sophisticated. I really love those Arnold Schwarzeneger movies, very "sophisticated". How can you possibly say that BSG is more sophisticated than trek, a franchise that over the years has dealt with many philosophical and moral issues in extremely engaging ways. But i guess it doesnt show ships blowing up and their pilots fly out of the cock pit, or feature made up curse words and cliched military types living "on the edge". Enterprise is certainly not the crowning glory of trek, but i blame that on Berman and Braga who were trying to force it onto new demographics, I think season 4 shows what enterprise could have been and watching them re-run on sky at the moment I can honestly say it is some of the best trek I have ever watched.
BSG is aimed squarely at American teenagers, you can throw out all the buzz-words in the world to describe trek but they could just as easily be applied to BSG... honestly derivative? you do realise there was a previous series of BSG that went along pretty much the same lines, even though i guess it didn't have quite the same "sophistication" ie. cursing and killing.

Lots there Mcgarnicle and alot I'd agree with. I wasnt referring to Trek in general, merely Enterprise, and trying to account for its unpopularity even among die-hards. I'm following the series again on Sky myself and i'm enjoying the Xindi stuff and the opening episodes of season 4. No doubt they upped their game a little here. There are also some excellent characaters for the Trek pantheon. Phlox is fantasticly written and so is T'pol

But when I talk about sophistication, I'm not employing it as metaphor for violence. That isn't my concept of sophistication or yardstick for judging it. BG's characters and storylines are, for me, in the main (and yep your right there have been some dogs! no argument)much more believable and fleshed out, much more 'real world' than their Enterprise equivalent (again i'm talking about enterprise, not Trek in the main). just as an example think of Adama and the complexity of the character as played by olmos, absolutely genius and the byzantine political machinations, personal tribulations and the ambiguous grey areas that he's forced to operate in. Nothing in Enterprise comes close (although at times DS9's Sisko did)

I do agree with you that Enterprise was hamstrung from the start by a populist attempt to broaden its appeal. Having said all that I still watch the thing! But given the choice, i'd plump for BG every time. Oh and I'm about as far from the alleged target demographic of an american teen as its possible to get.

triple h

first of all i agree with everything Kaiser2000 said (on the first page)
muckwarrior- wrong answer. deep space 9 was the best star trek, laguna is right.
this is my top 5 of star treks (and what i would rate out of 10)
----1---deep space 9

---

10/10----(only 2 episodes i hate)
----2---the next generation---7/10
----3---kirk and his gang

---

5/10
----4---enterprise

---

5/10--(i loved season 3)
----5---voyager

---

2/10--started off great but got worse and worse and worse-- i did not even watch the last season.

enterprise was ok. i tried to watch it a few years ago and could not find the time to watch it, now thanks to sky+ i am recording it these days and am watching season 4 for the first time ever. i found myself looking foward to coming home to watch season 3, but not so in season 4.

FutureGuy

Season 1 of Enterprise was good, 2 was rubbish, 3 was awesome, and 4 was excellent. When Many Coto came on board I was really excited to see Enterprise becoming a real prequel show to TOS. Guess we'll never know now lol.

You could go and play the Star Trek card game and make up your own episodes as you go along. Harvesting 7 of 9s *expletively deleteds* to score the final ten points for the win...priceless . We have been making up so many ways for Wesley Creusher to die during a game, it has become an art form! Too bad he's such a good card!

Justice

toomevara wrote:

As for Archer, the guy is actually a thinly veiled cipher for Gerorge Dubya Bush, i.e a big, hopeless, idiotic shank of all american beef whose ignorance of the universe he traverses is matched only by his inablity to deal with 'revelations' that the universe is *boo-hoo* a violent, wicked place full of nasty space aliens who want to kill him. God be with the days of kirk and his genius 'fight it or fu*k it' attitude to space exploration....

personally i almost resent that. he did his job brilliantly, and that was to convey the imprssion that humanity hadnt a fecking clue (as the vulcans said).
im no big fan of TOS, but to my limited knowledge it was the trinity of spock kirk and mcCoy who gave TOS the enduring appeal that it still enjoys. not kirk alone. i would accept that your point does have some relevance to season 3 of ENT. but not to the other seasons.

also all the series of Trek took time to find their grove, season 1 of TNG just aint great, season 2 aint the best either but theres a marked improvement.

DS9 didnt really get its grove till season 3 and the brining in of worf.

voy probably started off best (in that its early seasons werent much worse than the later ones) but then i know its also not appreciated either.

as has been stated before ive yet to see any SF other than trek that even attempts to grapple important social, moral and phisophical issues that trek does time and time again. personally i think there are too many people who view ST thru a distorted memory lens. All star trek has quality, and crap as well, but the quality is so far ahead of the competiton that i dont think need be argued.

toomevara wrote:

fabulous Babylon 5

i think fandom has cast its vote. when was the last babylon 5 convention?

im not trying to dis your favourite programs, all im trying to do make you realise that cause u thinks its A1 or shoite it matters not, the majority of peeps dont agree with you (and if you still think your right, look in the mirror (not darkley tho) before you call anyone a GW Bush clone)

enterprise was not well recieved, but hell its much better recvieved nowadays than when it first came out (i liked it the too). its quality SF, and it will win the fans over when they give it a chance IMO.

egon spengler

I saw an episode of BG and thought it was crap. The camera style annoyed the hell out of me and while I found the seriousness of it cool initially, I soon became agitated at the fact that the characters always seemed intense and brooding, it just seemed silly to have (what seemed to me) an enforced 1 dimensional depressing atmosphere, it was spelt out in big capital letters "this show is trying to be sophisticated by being really obviously serious and depressing in a simplistic way). Now TNG was really dark at times but it was done much more subtly- the episode after The Best of Both Worlds for example. I havent seen any sci fi series hold a stick up to TNG. It has dealt with serious issues best imo,the over arching theme of humanity on trial and its resolution in the series finale, it touched on really deep philosophical issues which are really significant but not in a hamfisted obvious way, there was colour and variety to it.

Anyway, given the universe in which its set and the visual style (ie no silly documentary style camera work in a fiction series) I prefer Enterprise to BG. The character development wasnt great but I enjoy the series. In fact I enjoy it more these days than Voyager which was just tired with 7 of 9 being really irritating. T'pol was much much cooler. Enterprise isnt the best and it committed some grave errors but its an entertaining and pretty decent sci fi show imo.