Options
A Newbie to Star Trek: Enterprise
LM
Posts: 63,605 Forum Member
✭✭
I am currently watching Enterprise at the moment. I am nearly half way through season 1 but would like to know
Does it actually become any good?
11 episodes into season 1 and only three of those have been any good (Unexpected, The andorian incident and Breaking the ice). I am holding out as not every show is perfect in the first season.
Does it actually become any good?
11 episodes into season 1 and only three of those have been any good (Unexpected, The andorian incident and Breaking the ice). I am holding out as not every show is perfect in the first season.
0
Comments
Just like DS9, Enterprise found it's voice at the very end of Season 2 and improves greatly. It's no DS9, but after Season 2 it's a pretty decent show.
Turns out the entire show is one of Riker's holodeck programs - a 24th century interpretation of what the 22nd century was like (and not a very good interpretation).
If you look at the number of Trek cons the main cast make appearances at, it's only Connor Trinneer and Dominic Keating that still seem to want to be associated with Enterprise or the Trek franchise.
I find Blalock to be the strongest actor on the show. While some may see it as a poor acting, i see it as a monotone expressionless portrayal that fits into a Vulcan, adjusting to being around humans.
I find Bakula a bit too cheery and jokey for my liking. Like he wants to be all the character's and even the viewer's best friend. He lacks that stern leader quality that Janeway, Kirk, Picard and Sisko all have and what I believe for a captain should display.
I love theme song but it is was radical departure to what a star trek show theme style normally has. I also find it odd the show isn't titled as Star Trek: Enterprise until season 3. The show was simply Enterprise until the start of the season 3.
Yeah, that's just not accurate at all.
The first couple of seasons have a handful of really good episodes. There's an awful lot of 'meh' as well though.
In terms of cast, I liked Blalock. John Billingsley as well. Trinneer and Keating are probably the pick of the bunch, but there's a lot of dead wood as well, and unfortunately the main culprit is the show's lead, Scott Bakula. I don't really know what went wrong there, he was great in Quantum Leap, but in Enterprise, flat as a pancake.
Then there's some of the stupid decisions they made around what SHOULD be a series arc, and what SHOULDN'T.....
I kinda can't help but wonder of Bakula's work on enterprise was purely for how his character was written and how the show really was. Quantum Leap was a show he could really get his teeth into. He could be a woman in episode, about to give birth in another and loads of crazy things. I don't think Enterprise challenged him as an actor which might be why he seemed like a weak link.
I never hated Bakula in Enterprise (and I do think he gets better as the seasons go on), but he really wasn't showing the skill he did in Quantum Leap. I mean, yeah, QL could be quite cheesy at times, too, but we never see Bakula pull off the sort of acting he did in QL's "Shock Theatre" (that being the one where he undergoes electro-shock therapy and the personalities of his past leaps start randomly taking over his mind). There was never that range to his character, for the most part. But then an actor's performance is often tethered by both the character as written and the director's decisions.
Heck, look at Natalie Portman in the Star Wars prequels. There's no doubt she can act, but you wouldn't know it from some of her scenes in those films (and I say that as someone who generally enjoys all the prequels!) Her poor performances were clearly all Lucas (and I say that as someone who enjoys most of his work).
Voyager remains the only Trek show that I haven't seen every episode. I gave up on that after the ridiculous Warp 10 episode when they turn into lizards. Really.
I don't recall any episodes involving Shran that I didn't like but that's probably down to 'grouch' appeal (c.f. Oscar, best character in Sesame Street).
There's the slight oddity that the tech looks almost too fancy - but on the upside it goes wrong often enough to compensate, and I find it part of the appeal that when bits fall off their ship they can't magically replicate some new ones. If a hole is blown in the side and they have to nail some planks over it, that stays visible and relevant until it gets repaired.
As for the theme tune, I thought it was OK but for the end of episodes they should have chosen something different because it spoiled a whole load of fairly decent endings that should have had at least some kind of dramatic pause or silence or a slow buildup or really anything that didn't involve a sudden bashing of drums.
I used to dislike series 1 to 3 (especially 3 because of the stupidest villains in Star Trek history), but watching them more or less back-to-back I can see now more of the character development and what Berman and Braga were trying to achieve.
I think, first time through, I was looking for plot driven action and not paying attention to the performances of the actors and the nuances of their characters' development. When you watch them close together that aspect really comes through. Archer is really energized and driven by the threat from the Xindi in series three.
Now, I think the worst you can say about series 1 and 2 is that they were, in the end, just a little dull and predictable, and that was due to the aimless wandering of the ship. The best parts of those seasons were the developing relationships with the Vulcans and Andorians. And that Borg story (I will forgive the deliberate omission of the Borg stating their name
First time through I also didn't like that they'd made the Vulcans somewhat hostile to humanity's exploration of space and something of the "bad guys". No problem second time through.
Season 3 - kicked off by the stupidest attack in Star Trek history - was actually an improvement overall, due to the driven nature of the plot which forced the characters, principally Archer, to their limits and made them question what they were there for.
I used to blame Brannon (and Berman) for all the problems with Enterprise and Voyager, but now I think better of them.
Still hate the theme song, though.
Waiting for my series 4 Blu's to be delivered now.
I think the show lacks in character development as well. I feel in most of the scripts, the writers clearly focus too much on Archer, T'pol and Trip, therefore leaving the other four characters as untouched a lot of the time but maybe allowing one episode to show a tiny glimer of growth.
I am half way through season 2 and still only enjoyed the three episodes i previously mentioned. I think it is fair to say I gave it a good fair chance and stop watching. Many members say the show becomes better in season 3 but I think realistically, a show shouldn't become good that late into a show's run. I'll happily accept a poor season 1 but if the second season isn't up to scratch, then i will bail, as i do with television shows of today.
TNG.....:p
But even the early episodes are watchable. I could easily count on both hands the episodes from the first two seasons i could happily watch over and over. Especially the Q episodes.
The thing that TNG was fortunate to have going for it, even from the start, was a very talented cast, and some rich characters. Even when the basic premise of the episode at hand was guff, there were usually little nuggets of brilliance.
Enterprise, I would agree, had far too much 'meh' about it during its first couple of years. There are a few standout episodes and a handful of standout characters, but there's just far too much dead wood.
The irritating thing is, when you come across one of the (much) better episodes, it just highlights that there's potential there, it was just never realized due to the plethora of fundamental flaws discussed.
Did you watch any of the star trek shows when originally airing? Or were you a late fan? If so, would you say your views on enterprise have changed from then to now.
TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT I watched as they aired.
TNG - Loved from the get go. Sure, takes a while to get going, but as stated above, if you're into the characters then there's rich pickings from the start. I know a lot of people thought the final season was a step down in quality, but I don't buy that. After the start of the third season it's incredibly consistent, and consistently strong.
DS9 - I loathed for the first season. A couple of standout episodes, but this WASN'T TNG, which at the time, was a problem for me and a strike against the show. The second season improved, particularly the latter half of the season. The finale sealed my reversal of opinion and the show went on to be every bit as consistent and brilliant as TNG had before it. The cast, was simply fantastic, across the board, and they broke a number of Trek taboos - utilising religion as narrative vehicle, having a Captain (or Commander) with responsibilities, featuring a galactic war, and showing the Federation in a less-than-perfect light. DS9 was IMO, still the last time that Star Trek dared to be bold.
VOY - Loved the premise. I was a huge fan of the Maquis/Cardassian story arc in TNG and DS9 and the prospect of a mixed crew in the far reaches of the galaxy figuring out how to get home while working through their differences, sounded like a solid basis. Sadly, it was all swept under the carpet by the time the third episode had aired. Way to go.....Then Jeri Taylor proceeded to work her 'magic' and the show was doomed. In retrospect I actually find that the series works a lot better if you completely disregard the central premise of the show, the voyage home. If you concentrate on the standalones then Voyager tells a lot better standard of story. The arc shows, and the Borg episodes are strikes against it IMO rather than any particular highlights.
ENT - Again, loved the idea. The first couple of seasons, I found a chore. Brief highlights which were few and far between. They changed things up for the third year, and things improved. Not enough, but it was still better than the first two seasons. Year four, was much better again and showed the series at its height and signalled what might have been. In hindsight, the series is just a massive missed opportunity. Like Voyager before it, it was blighted with some woeful miscasting and tired storytelling. I can watch the third series repeatedly, and the fourth, but the first two are a struggle and I usually cherry-pick the handful of episodes that are actually good.
DS9 was always the least loved when it aired. Many TNG fans resented it and B5 fans scoffed at it. Despote being so widely dismissed at the time, it did eventually receive its rightful recognition though. (I have to say I was both a resenter and scoffer at the time).
They're two fantastic shows, and it's a great shame that there's an amount of bad blood between the fans.