Anybody ever watch Enterprise?

POSTED BY: truk
UPDATED: Sunday, January 25, 2004 09:58
VIEWED: 17621
PAGE 3 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

CAITLYN

Monday, January 19, 2004 8:41 PM

Worst thing lately about Andromeda (other than horrible stories) was that the one actor I actually liked, Keith Hamilton Cobb (Tyr) left. I've given up on it completely.

"Jayne is a girl's name"

AX

Monday, January 19, 2004 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by geordiesteve2003:
Yawn. Its so dull I think it might be worse than Andromeda, or Farscape, or Mutant X and they are all terrible!

Wait one gosh darn minute there! What do you have against Farscape? Farscape was probably the best science fiction show after Firefly in my opinon. You had complex characterizations, an imperfect crew that doesn't always get along, long woven plots, off the wall humor, moving drama. In otherwords Farscape has most of the aspects that I love about Firefly.

Okay, now that I've defended Farscape back to the main point of this thread. Enterprise is a flawed show. This I will grant anyone without argument. But it does have some things that I think makes it at least worth watching. The first is the character of Phlox--he's probably the most alien alien Star Trek has ever had, and an interesting character to boot. The actor playing him brings the most to his performance even when its only two minutes in an entire episode. The next is the character of Trip--on the surface I'll admit there doesn't seem to be much to him. But he has a good natured charm that I've always liked, and his relationship with everyone else is fun to watch. Even better since loesing his sister there's been a darkness that has added depth to his character. Anyone who needs proof of this should see the episode 'Simlitude'(I'm proabably spelling this wrong)which aired earlier this season--its one of the finest hours of TV that I've seen in quite awhile(at least since Firefly). The captain is in some ways my favorite character just becauuse of how utterly flawed he is. Here is a guy who screws things up a lot and then has to put them right. Its a refreshing change from earlier Star Trek shows and fits with the premise of him being the first captain to brave the greater universe. He's also benefited this season from a new darkness and drive. As for the show itself, it is always well produced. Easily one of the best looking shows on TV(which I think counts for a small something). And when it does a good episode, it does a really good episode(once more, everyone should see 'Simlitude'). And sometimes even when it does a bad episode theres at least a redeeming quality to it(last weeks episode comes to mind for me).

The shows main flaw is consistency of the writing. I think that there is a lot of potential here and am going to keep watching to see how it develops.

"Time is a face on the water."
-Stephen King, The Dark Tower Book 4: Wizarid and Glass-

LADYJAYNE

Monday, January 19, 2004 10:24 PM

Oooooo...I'm a HUGE DS9 fan. That was the last time the franchise ever went out on a limb and did daring story lines. Even toward the end of TNG the writing got a little too "safe" for my taste. But then the same thing happened to DS9, too, I suppose. I've never cared much for how commitment-phobic Star Trek writer's are. They are so terrified of long-term relationships, it's not even funny.

I agree with Caitlyn that DS9 had two or three really awesome seasons. I also adored two out of the three story arcs they did for the end of the series: Kai Winn's crisis of faith and Odo's return to his people. Hated the lame-ass idea they had for Cisco, but two out of three isn't bad, I suppose.

I have the first 3 seasons and have rented the 4th. I hadn't seen "The Visitor" since it first aired. It still just gives me chills.

And Nana Visitor just rocks. 'nuff said.

--Kala

HUMBLE

Monday, January 19, 2004 11:42 PM

The crew of Enterprise couldn't find their a**'s with both hands, a map, and a seeing eye dog. It's flat out awful.Archer is a putz! I hope they do a time-travel where Kirk comes back and b***h- slaps him into submission! Andromeda is the worst series since Starhunter. It should tell you something about the show when cast members start to jump ship. Sorbo, you're getting old. Time to head to the retirement home, hoss! Mutant X had some improvement in writing and stories, but when Lauren Lee Smith left, I lost interest. Why, oh why, don't they bring back FIREFLY?

LJC

Monday, January 19, 2004 11:53 PM

From what I've read, the dramatic increase in ENT's writing is solely due to Manny Coto (who joined the writing staff this year, after Odyssey 5 was cancelled).

Having just seen and fallen madly in love with O5, I'm almost tempted to start giving ENT a chance. After all, TNG was wretched until midway through it's third seaosn at least--tho it never reached the heights DS9 did in quality, the eps of TNG that were excellent were all written by DS9 staff writers. So if ENT actually has better scripts, then it might turn out to be worth watching.

As it is, I usually caught the last few minuets while waiting for Jake 2.0 to start. Now that UPN has cancelled Jake I will probably just not watch the network at all...

ETA: If you loved DS9, the producers have a 6 hour mini-series they're making for USA Network called 4400, I read today. That sounds hella cool.

--
Some take the high road. Some take the low road.
And some just go screaming down the highway, dropping flaming bits of wreckage.

LADYJAYNE

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:05 AM

LJC, I have found that the quality of the Star Trek franchise has a direct link to one thing and an inverse link to another.

Michael Piller is highly involved: Quality increases dramitically.

Rick Berman is given creative control: Quality drops quickly.

Michael Piller came onto TNG at the beginning of S3 and stayed through S4. He was also one of the driving forces in the creation of DS9. He left as Exec. Producer after S3 and worked as a creative consultant through S4 of DS9.

There's a pretty funny bit in the interviews on the S2 DS9 disks. Piller talks about how DS9 was the first time ST incorporated religion into its characterizations. He goes on to say that "I think Gene would have loved it..." I laughed so hard, I had to pause the disc when. Roddenberry would have DETESTED the religious aspects to DS9. He was old-school sf who believed that we'd have grown "beyond religion" by that time. A rediculous assumption, I think. The spirituality of the Bajorins is one of the crucial aspects that made DS9 cutting edge. No other sf series, including the ST franchise had ever dealt so intricately with religious issues.

The only hope for Enterprise is if Berman and Bragga leave. They are too comfortable resting on the weight of the name Star Trek to do anything interesting.

--Kala

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:19 AM

Worse than FarScape? FARSCAPE?

Okay, Enterprise has its faults, granted. And very little has been done in the current season was so much as hinted to in the original. Not to mention the technology is not what it would have been had this show been aired before the original.

NEWSFLASH - the original was aired in the 60s, in a time when they had just started broadcasting in color. They might have had one-tenth of the technology we have now. The craft John Glenn used to orbit the earth had only one computer - ONE!! And given the computers of the day, it's a miracle of human engineering the man made it back at all (the remaining space shuttles, by the way, have six supercomputers each - you do the math). Based on what the producers had to go on at the time of the original, they created certain technological advancements. Based on the technology we have now, Enterprise is doing the same thing - in keeping with Star Trek tradition.

I'll admit I can pin a prior story line or theme from the original to Enterprise - just did it last night in fact (yes, still watching it). But again, still in keeping with Star Trek tradition - taking current headlines and placing them in a futuristic setting. Take away everything else, and that is basically what Star Trek has been - a study of the human condition.

Now to say T'Pol's wardrobe isn't exactly designed for optimal efficiency would be a HUGE understatement. Nor does it have much in the way of Vulcan cultural influence at all - how can it? There isn't enough of it to give it any. However, as a Vulcan, she's holding her own - gratuitous decon chamber scivie scenes and fight sequences notwithstanding. She's even learned how to "exaggerate."

Bottom line? I'm having a love-hate relationship with the show. I love the ship, and I'd give much to see the drawings in the captain's ready room. I've enjoyed most of the episodes thus far, although I could see improvements in about a third. I enjoy the ensemble cast, and in particular Connor Trinneer - that man can do more with an expression than Kirk...ever...did while he...was trying to...remember his...lines. I'm a Scott Bakula fan from way back, but I'm not entirely pleased with what he's done with his character. Then again, I'm more used to him as Sam Beckett in Quantum Leap.

But saying it is worse than FarScape is like comparing tangerines to watermelon. FarScape is one of the most innovative and entertaining science-fiction programs ever developed. And even though you disagree with me, and maybe even dislike Muppets (*GASP*) at least you can say that FarScape didn't rely on nose bumps and turtle shells or grease paint and really bad wigs to create new aliens every week. My apologies to Michael Westmore, but honestly, a little more creativity would have been appreciated.

Now as to Andromeda and Mutant X being stink-o-rama, on that I SO completely agree with you. I should have seen the signs when Trance lost her tail - that was the beginning of the end. And of the two episodes I did see of Mutant X, I found it painfully formulaic with really strong doses of overacting. I won't even mention the effects - why bother.

FarScape and Enterprise shouldn't have even been in the same sentence together, and if you had watched all four seasons, you'd understand why. And if you're ever interested in really good Star Trek, find the Deep Space Nine series - now THAT's science fiction!

All opinions my own - any and all feed back welcomed. I'm a Gemini, it's in my nature to see two sides of things.

I draw, therefore I am
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

LJC

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:23 AM

heh. see, replace "berman" with "Braga" and you've got my Trek rant almost verbatim. To this day, I'm amazed at the criminal waste of potential that was VOY. The Maquis added one of the very first shades of grey to that universe, and VOY dropepd the ball just about every way one show *could* creatively. What made me so giddy about Ron Moore's Battlestar galactica was the fact that in a lot of ways, BG is VOY done right.

--
Some take the high road. Some take the low road.
And some just go screaming down the highway, dropping flaming bits of wreckage.

STEVE580

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 3:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ax:
The captain is in some ways my favorite character just becauuse of how utterly flawed he is.

Flawed? You can say that again.

I saw this one episode. Two ships were coming to steal a passanger from his ship, and then leave. The captian knew all this. However, even with his huge crew, and superior spacecraft, they managed to do exactly as they intended, flying off unharmed. He saw the ships fly in, watched them dock, and was aware of their departure. The captian hardly did a thing.

What a dumbass. If that's all the better he can protect his crew...

What kills me is when he tries to act tough. Like, threatening prisoners and the like. It's as if the writters wanted him to have a dark side, but the result is just him looking like a fool.

With Mal, I could actually beleive he would kill prisoners or enemies if they didn't do what he wanted. Indeed, he did this in the very first episode aired!

But with this guy? No.

You know what I've always hated about every Star Trek series? How the captain always goes on the missions with the crew. He'll be there, with one of those damned foolish laser pistols in his hand, in an intense shoot-out with the enemies. And I'm like, "You wanna know where a responsable captain would be at this point? On the fucking bridge!" On Navy aircraft carriers, the ship's captain doesn't take F-14s out for bombing runs! That's what a crew is for. Do these Star Trek captians mop the damned floors, too?

Eh-hem...sorry - just had to rant. What were we talking about? Right -- Star Trek...it sucks.

DESIGNFLAW

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:47 AM

Enterprise defintely has some problems and I almost gave up on it until this season. I think it's finally getting a little better with its continous plot and what not.. It sure has a long way to go but I'm giving it a chance as it's one of the only prime time sci fi show left.

As far as the whole first people to meet the borg thing everybody seems to get upset about.. I think you should definitely read BOOMERGOODHEART post and then what I have to say about it. The TNG crew were the first to meet the borg.. until they went back in time in First Contact. It would stand to make sense that if a ship got downed over Earth in the movie(which it did) and the TNG crew didn't go clean it up(which they didn't) that eventually somebody would find whatever remained from the crash(which happened in the borg episode of Enterprise).

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE