What is 'Enterprise' missing?

[John Crichton]

Look, maybe it's still too early to tell. After all, it took me quite a while for the little ship USS Defiant on DS9 to grow on me. Initially, I could not stand for the design, but like the A-10 Warthogs, I can see how well it performs.

While not the main point of your post, I think this is fair. I can't say yet if I like ENT more or less than any of the other shows so far. I loved TNG & DS9 while I loathed VOY. The first 2 seasons of TNG & DS9 weren't exactly all that strong if you recall. Especially DS9! The final 4 seasons were awesome but the first 3 were rather weak and resembled ENT now: Some good, some bad. And as for the meta-plots of both series (TCW vs. Emissary) I actually prefer the TCW.

ENT needs some consistancy. If they follow suit with last season than the rest of the eps from here on out should be good. They just seem to save the best for last and flounder at the start of the season.

But all that said, it's way too early for me to decide if this show will hold up to other good Trek series (VOY is exempt because it stunk, IMO ). It's still very watchable and until it ceases to entertain, I'll be there every week.

 

[Mark CMG]

Look, maybe it's still too early to tell. After all, it took me quite a while for the little ship USS Defiant on DS9 to grow on me. Initially, I could not stand for the design, but like the A-10 Warthogs, I can see how well it performs.

IIRC, they introduced the Defiant to the show because early ratings were lacking and they felt they may have made a mistake by "immobilizing" the show and setting it on a space station rather than a spaceship. Is this not the case?

As to the "Heroes" debate, they say that "Time loves a hero" and sometimes it is hard to define what has been heroic until you can look at the circumstances retrospectively. At that point, the person's flaws (that had made them interesting characters, in the moment) can be set aside so that the hero's deeds can rise above the person's otherwise common existence.

 

[John Crichton]

THANK YOU! It is forgotten by so many that people what a hero really is. I think ENT does show that each member of the crew is an exployer, pushing understanding and kowledge in dangerous enviroment.

I'm glad we agree. It's best to keep shows like Trek in context. TOS was aired at a time where space travel was something new and exciting. It captured the exploration aspect of humanity and gave it a positive spin. It was idealic and full of optimism. If you put ENT in the same context, it is easier to enjoy. I like the submarine-style of the ship, it makes things feel not so foreign, like it could almost happen. I like the fact that they get their butts handed to them on a weekly basis, while still getting a chance to shine in their own way.

If none of that does it for you (the people who don't like the show's style/direction/feel, etc.) then how would you handle it? It's not enough to just say: Make it more like DS9 or any of the other series. What kind of plots would you introduce, what actors would you have chosen and what storyline would not only work within the timeframe, but make sense for Star Trek as a franchise? Keeping in mind that not every episode will contain a historical event, what can the crew do on an episode by episode basis that would be entertaining? I think they have started to go in the right direction (we saw how Red Alert started, they are fleshing out the Andorians and Vulcans). What else can they do?

Note: This is in the spirit of the thread, meant to continue a rational conversation about the show, not to slam people who aren't satisfied with it.

 

[John Crichton]

IIRC, they introduced the Defiant to the show because early ratings were lacking and they felt they may have made a mistake by "immobilizing" the show and setting it on a space station rather than a spaceship. Is this not the case?

Sounds about right. It's the same reason why they brought Worf on: to boost ratings.

As to the "Heroes" debate, they say that "Time loves a hero" and sometimes it is hard to define what has been heroic until you can look at the circumstances retrospectively. At that point, the person's flaws (that had made them interesting characters, in the moment) can be set aside so that the hero's deeds can rise above the person's otherwise common existence.

Agreed. It's still to early to judge the events that have conspired on the show so far.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sounds about right. It's the same reason why they brought Worf on: to boost ratings.

Hmmm... I'd almost forgotten about that aspect, and that of Miles and Kaiko O'Brien.

 

[Ranger REG]

Perhaps they did do so, but I never thought they were immobile because the main stage happened to be a stationary space station. They have those runabout shuttles.

Then again, the viewer's first impression about Star Trek is about travelling through space. For me, it is a different interpretation: the human adventures.

And probably that's what I want to see in ENT. This is Earth's first deep space exploration ... albeit with a Warp 5 engine.

 

[Mark CMG]

Perhaps they did do so, but I never thought they were immobile because the main stage happened to be a stationary space station. They have those runabout shuttles.

Then again, the viewer's first impression about Star Trek is about travelling through space. For me, it is a different interpretation: the human adventures.

And probably that's what I want to see in ENT. This is Earth's first deep space exploration ... albeit with a Warp 5 engine.

Yeah, I think (IIRC) that was one of the selling points when they pitched the series DS9. They were making it not about space travel and exploration, but focusing on one particular location (the station and it's nearby surroundings.)

As to what the Enterprise should do, they are limited by their technology (as far as where they can go over the course of a seven year series) and limited by the history that has already been written (any break in canon obviously rubs people the wrong way.) So where to go within those limitations and what to focus on?

Here's a link to a "Federation Galaxy Map" that might help some folks select some options. There's a lot more that is written canon from novels that I have no knowledge of, so I am not sure what sort of facts and timelines may be untouchable as to who is first contacted, when, in what order, etc. I can only speak to what I know from the various television shows and movies.

 

[WayneLigon]

... and limited by the history that has already been written (any break in canon obviously rubs people the wrong way.) So where to go within those limitations and what to focus on?...

The canon, I think, is one of the biggest drags on Trek right now because of all the rotating writers they've had. At some points in TNG I was wondering if they made new writers even read the show bible. Some times, I think the best thing for Trek would be to toss everything except for the very basics and start over.

I think the biggest drag on Trek is the handlers and upper management at Paramount, who have to be some of the most craven greedy weasels I've ever heard about.

 

[John Crichton]

The canon, I think, is one of the biggest drags on Trek right now because of all the rotating writers they've had. At some points in TNG I was wondering if they made new writers even read the show bible. Some times, I think the best thing for Trek would be to toss everything except for the very basics and start over.

Can't agree, there. Any writer that comes on to the show doesn't have to know everything about the history, all they need is an overview. It's up the to editors and the producers to catch the continuity gaffs and modify them so they fit (which can be hard, but it doesn't have to be). There is much about the Trek universe and history that hasn't been explored or fleshed out. People above mentioned the show being about the characters on the show and their adventures rather than the universe as a whole. I agree with this. Yes, there are events that have already happened that have somewhat shaped what this show is restricted to. But that does not completely limit what the writers can do. I hardly recall anything in any of the previous series mentioning the specifics how the Federation was formed. There is alot of breathing room there!

The people who make the show have already proven to me that they can make excellent episodes. At this point I can count them on one hand. All they need to do is have some consistancy.

And as for canon, I don't mind a liberty here and there as long as it isn't a huge change. History books never tell the whole story anyways...

:: edited for spelling and grammar ::

 

[Hand of Evil]

My issues with ST:TNG was the shear number of shows that were the same basic theme, 22 shows a season, you would get 5 time, 5 holo, 5 mind shows leaving only 7 shows of something else.

ENT so far has been playing it safe, going down the path most travelled BUT it is still being devoloped. Maybe it will grow.

A show that has was taking the path less travelled that changed to the path most travelled has been Adromada (sp) which I think has gone downhill. It has a few good shows but many are weak.