Megatron

Gah... Enterprise did nothing but piss me off... I've since stopped watching it.

Besides, there are <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=48&t=001626" target="_blank">much better things to watch...</a>

Autonemesis

It's pretty awful at times, but not as bad as Voyager. I realize that making the look of the show more retro than the original series is superficially appealing, but not practical or dramatically necessary, yet I can't shake the awareness that this Enterprise seems far more advanced than NCC-1701 ("No bloody A, B, C, or D."). That subtext seems to always be working to "break the spell" for me. Not using the transporter for people and carrying the phasers around in a case like they were collector firearms helps in this regard, but everything looks so next-generation. I do like the old-school-style lights in the nacelle domes, that's a nice homage to the first series. And they do seem to have more primitive uniforms that fit even less well than Kirk's did.

Archer is a total bore, and I agree that Porthos needs more facetime. I hate shows about dogs but I'll take that over shows about Archer. I agree with everything negative everybody said about the character, and I'll add that Scott Bakula as Archer makes Michael O'Hare's wooden performance as Cmdr. Jeffrey Sinclair in Babylon 5 seem warm and natural by comparison.

The worst I have seen is the episode where Trip gets pregnant. Boy did that stink. Did someone's 3rd grade kid come up with that dialog and characterization? There's the bit when Trip calls in to the ship sounding obviously like he is unable to communicate or think clearly. Archer, oblivious, dismisses him with a "Have a good time" remark and cuts of the transmission, and resumes playing with the dog. Any other Starfleet captain would have taken notice of Trip's distress and at least inquired about his condition. This is a first contact situation and Archer is just so detached from what's happening to Trip that it defies suspension of disbelief on a purely dramatic basis, never mind any sci-fi implications. Then there are all the juvenile man-experiences-pregancy-side-effects gags that make me want to do nothing but.

But however ridiculous they are in premise, I do enjoy the detox gel scenes on a certain level.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

HeatherD

Oh yes, you people with better taste�Hmm, oh you mean you pre-wrestling fans?

I'll stop calling for the cancellation of Enterprise when Farscape gets renewed.

Crap like Enterprise gets to stay on the air because of the franchise and not the quality of it's stories. Paramount will keep that dreck on the air as long as they can make a buck.

Farscape was getting awards, critical accolades and large viewer numbers for a cable series. It was in fact the highest rated sci-fi series on cable. Sci-Fi Channel cancelled it because they couldn't afford it, amongst other things.

Paramount has large pockets and will probably keep Enterprise on the air even when you are the only person watching it.

Shadowy Man

Heather:

I checked out that web page of Enterprise reviews that you referenced in the other thread. He's spot on with some of his analysis about what they could have done and how they screwed it up.

The concept of Enterprise really could have had a lot of promise, but I don't think they were daring enough to really go with it.

The whole Star Trek universe seems tired.

FloatingEgg

I must be the only one that still finds value in Star Trek, and I'm really surprised that so many are so critical of Enterprise.

All the criticisms I've read have either reflected problems that never bothered me, or faults that I'd consider advantages.

I'm far more interested in this batch of characters than what I encountered on Deep Space Nine or Voyager, but those shows were still pretty good.

I guess I'll just have to be happy with my bad taste, while you guys are depressed with your good taste

HeatherD

Since the criticisms are what this thread are all about, could you be more specific?

What are the problems that never bothered you?

What are these faults that you see as advantages?

As for me, I still find Star Trek to have value but Enterprise isn't really Star Trek. Sure it looks like ST but even the producers/writers are distancing themselves from Star Trek. They have said that's why they dropped the Star Trek from the name. In there words this is ST for the non-trek crowd.

I'd hate to cast such a large net but the producers are after young males in the 12-25 y.o. category. They really do want the pro-wrestling crowd. These are the same guys that put 7 of 9 in a catsuit to raise ratings.

In 7 of 9's case the writers rose above that at least a little. Her character development, her regaining her humanity was a good long-term story line. I think Voyager had it's problems but some of the stories were good. Some of them just stunk, although not much more than the 1st season of TNG.

So far I've watched the pilot episode of Enterprise. That I thought wasn't too bad but it had problems. I thought they would outgrow them. I watched a few more episodes and dropped it. I tried later to pick it up near the season 1 finale and into the 2nd season. It just stinks. Okay, if nothing else is on, I have nothing else to do and it's raining outside, then maybe I'll watch it.

Oh BTW, T'Pol is really ugly, Hoshi looks much better than she does! She should have those swollen lips looked at by the doctor. Some anti-histamine might help. She also needs to wear clothes not catsuits, when would a catsuit ever be regulation attire on a starship? At least 7 of 9's excuse was that it was medical support gear designed by the doctor.

FloatingEgg

Could you be any more hypocritical? You criticize a show for blatantly appealing to the younger crowd, with tight and revealing clothing, and in the same breath comment on Jolene Blalock's (T'Pol) physical appearance. Since when did you become the great purveyor of taste in the Universe?

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: jsimmons ]</p>

HeatherD

I'm missing your point here. Please explain this instance of hypocrisy for me in more detail.

Yes, I do criticize Enterprise (and Voyager) for pandering to young males. That pandering is to get viewers and does nothing to advance the show or it's writing. Even TOS pandered sometimes, but Enterprise has nothing of real value, no real writing to back it up.

In the same vein, I criticize Jolene Blalock's appearance. She can't act...hmm, I wonder why they chose her? They chose her because they know 15 year old boys get all wet looking at her.

Sorry but my tastes are my own. You are entitled to your tastes. The whole point of forums like this is to discuss these differences. If your going to get all hot and bothered maybe you should ignore my posts.

FloatingEgg

The �pandering to young males� is typically shallow behavior. Your response to an actress�s physical appearance is also shallow.
You mean they aren�t pandering to the older males? Now I feel guilty for having hormones
What do you mean by �real� writing?
In your opinion, she can�t act, so you immediately draw a parallel to her looks as being the reason for hiring. You�ve already expressed that she�s �ugly� so are you concluding that she was hired because of her ugliness? Perhaps you�re assuming that only a 15 your old male could find her potentially attractive?
Why do you assume that because I�m criticizing your statements that I�m mad at you? If you�re not comfortable with having your statements examined, don�t make them.

HeatherD

The pandering to young males is called targeting the key demographics. That has been plainly stated by the producers on a number of occasions. I call it pandering and it shows that the producers are more concerned with ratings than story quality.

So I don't think that she's attractive, maybe you do. I don't find either opinion shallow. If I were to say that I hated the show but would watch it just because of her appearance, that would be hypocritical. Apparently many viewers watch for just that reason.


Well you may not be in the "key demographic" but if she is the only reason you watch then the producers pandering is working. Putting a sex pot in a catsuit is a poor substitute for good dialogue and storyline.

I would consider the writer and creator of Babylon 5 to be one of the best when it comes to "real" science fiction writing on television. The show wasn't perfect in many ways but the overall storyline was great. JMS never had to pander to get viewers. Of course because he didn't pander, the show had ratings problems.

Since I've looked at your profile and noted that you are interested in filmmaking and writing, please do me the courtesy of actually addressing what it is about Enterprise that you like. So far, other than countering my statements, all you have really stated is that you like the show.

That's great you like Enterprise. Could you please answer:

What are the problems that never bothered you?

What are these faults that you see as advantages?


I don't think she can act because I've seen her in other shows, mostly bit parts. She gets work because of her looks, regardless of my opinions of her.

I'm sure that many males might find her attractive, potentially hot. That is not a reason to hire a major actor. Proper casting could have found an attractive woman to play the part who was a competent actress.

Oh, I don't have any problems with having my statements criticized. I assumed you were upset because you called me hypocritical and asked me "Since when did you become the great purveyor of taste in the Universe?"

That last bit didn't seem to be a serious question.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: HeatherDonahue ]</p>