Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
The Founder

Should Enterprise be given another chance?

71 posts in this topic

No more rehashes please. Trek needs to reinvent itself from the ground up if it intends to continue as a franchise.

Agreed.

ST is always best when it moves forward; enough navel-gazing into the past. ST is supposed to be a show about going forward into the future, not waxing nostalgic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No more rehashes please. Trek needs to reinvent itself from the ground up if it intends to continue as a franchise.

Agreed.

ST is always best when it moves forward; enough navel-gazing into the past. ST is supposed to be a show about going forward into the future, not waxing nostalgic.

I agree with you. As a longtime fan, *of course* I wouldn't mind some truly well made nostalgia stuff ... such as ENT season 4. For the same reason, I wouldn't mind an ENT miniseries, or a TNG/24th century wrap up miniseries ... it could be a true fangasm.

But on the other side, I know very well that it wouldn't be good for the franchise on the long run. It would hardly attract new fans, it wouldn't really speak to people who aren't longtime fans yet anyway, and it might even damage ST's image of being "daddy's thing". It might contribute to killing off the franchise on the long run.

And then, for hardcore fans, there is still enough material to continue the 24th century (and ENT) with the novels. I am so deep into the post-NEM relaunch novels and their continuity, that part of me even hopes there will be no more new 24th century canon material that might contradict it.

So yes... first priority should be a bold restart for the franchise. Why not a series situated in the 26th or 30th century?

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you all think there is anything a future t.v. series could learn from what happened to ENT, though? Is ENT now a cautionary tale for future Trek writers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think so. Don't look back and don't contradict established canon, at least not unless you come right out and say that, e.g. ENT was a sequel of First Contact in a parallel universe rather than a direct prequel of TOS. Now, if an ENT miniseries did that, I might be willing to wax nostalgic for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that I like the show, I still think Enterprise was fundamentally misconceived. Making a prequel to TOS was a stopgap, not a way forward. It was reactionary rather than progressive, nostalgic rather than original and any show requires an unfailing forward momentum - especially Star Trek. Don't get me wrong - at times, it was very creative and very enjoyable in terms of the stories it told within its given remit, but even at its best, Enterprise was about filling in the narrative gaps, filling in bits of history and explicating moments that probably should have remained obscure.

Go forward. Go sideways, even - reimagine, redefine. But don't look back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that I like the show, I still think Enterprise was fundamentally misconceived. Making a prequel to TOS was a stopgap, not a way forward. It was reactionary rather than progressive, nostalgic rather than original and any show requires an unfailing forward momentum - especially Star Trek. Don't get me wrong - at times, it was very creative and very enjoyable in terms of the stories it told within its given remit, but even at its best, Enterprise was about filling in the narrative gaps, filling in bits of history and explicating moments that probably should have remained obscure.

Go forward. Go sideways, even - reimagine, redefine. But don't look back.

^

And this sums up one of my biggest issues with most (but not all) prequels; the format is usually straightjacketed into rigidity before a single scene is shot.

With a show like Star Trek, where the continuity is so complex and the history so well documented, their isn't a lot of wiggle room for a new series sandwiched between "First Contact" and TOS. The closer you are to the FC-era and their isn't much of a space-opera story just yet (humans can't be rushing off in space fleets so soon after the discovery of warp drive) and too close to TOS and it becomes a carbon copy of the original series. Filling in gaps becomes your story, and frankly that isn't the mission of Star Trek...

I think, considering its limitations, ENT could've been much worse. At least we didn't have an 8 year old Kirk tinkering with pod racing on the farm in Tatooi-er, Iowa. Or "Star Trek 90210," with Kirk and the gang as teenagers at the academy (which was actually pitched as a concept for TAS back in the '70s). At least ENT tried to make its own mark with a new ship and crew, even if many of the episodes came off like 5th year Voyager episodes. Despite all of the odds against it, it's actually a bit impressive that ENT had as many good episodes as it did; I consider myself a solid fan of about half of it (a much higher ratio than VGR for me).

But whatever comes next? ST really needs to stop feeding on its own entrails and trying to plug up gaps in its complex (often contradictory) canon. It needs the freedom to go forward without worrying about it's big feet tripping over its own pant legs. Set it in the 29th or even the 33rd century, where memory of TOS and TNG are now truly ancient history; as far away to that era as the days of the Byzantine Empire are to us now. Maybe super warp ships, making exploratory trips to the Magellanic Clouds surrounding our galaxy, or even Andromeda (say 'hi' to the Kelvans!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any ENT fan, and I am one, wants a new ENT series. I would like a more satisfactory ending to wrap up the threads that were being woven in season four. I actually don't mind prequels filling in the gaps but than I am a historian/student of history and love having the gaps filled in!

Frankly, despite my love of Trek, I feel it has begun its voyage into legend. It is hitting the stage of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers from the early 20th century. I don't envision a new series. That is why I am trying to get back into the books. I just hope for a good run of films - even if they are Abramsesque.

Edited by kc1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that I like the show, I still think Enterprise was fundamentally misconceived. Making a prequel to TOS was a stopgap, not a way forward. It was reactionary rather than progressive, nostalgic rather than original and any show requires an unfailing forward momentum - especially Star Trek. Don't get me wrong - at times, it was very creative and very enjoyable in terms of the stories it told within its given remit, but even at its best, Enterprise was about filling in the narrative gaps, filling in bits of history and explicating moments that probably should have remained obscure.

Go forward. Go sideways, even - reimagine, redefine. But don't look back.

^

And this sums up one of my biggest issues with most (but not all) prequels; the format is usually straightjacketed into rigidity before a single scene is shot.

With a show like Star Trek, where the continuity is so complex and the history so well documented, their isn't a lot of wiggle room for a new series sandwiched between "First Contact" and TOS. The closer you are to the FC-era and their isn't much of a space-opera story just yet (humans can't be rushing off in space fleets so soon after the discovery of warp drive) and too close to TOS and it becomes a carbon copy of the original series. Filling in gaps becomes your story, and frankly that isn't the mission of Star Trek...

I think, considering its limitations, ENT could've been much worse. At least we didn't have an 8 year old Kirk tinkering with pod racing on the farm in Tatooi-er, Iowa. Or "Star Trek 90210," with Kirk and the gang as teenagers at the academy (which was actually pitched as a concept for TAS back in the '70s). At least ENT tried to make its own mark with a new ship and crew, even if many of the episodes came off like 5th year Voyager episodes. Despite all of the odds against it, it's actually a bit impressive that ENT had as many good episodes as it did; I consider myself a solid fan of about half of it (a much higher ratio than VGR for me).

But whatever comes next? ST really needs to stop feeding on its own entrails and trying to plug up gaps in its complex (often contradictory) canon. It needs the freedom to go forward without worrying about it's big feet tripping over its own pant legs. Set it in the 29th or even the 33rd century, where memory of TOS and TNG are now truly ancient history; as far away to that era as the days of the Byzantine Empire are to us now. Maybe super warp ships, making exploratory trips to the Magellanic Clouds surrounding our galaxy, or even Andromeda (say 'hi' to the Kelvans!).

Agree with you and Robin ... and I'd like to add, one lesson to be learnt, production-wise, is: "Don't try to make another 90s' show in the 00s".

ENT, at very least in its first two seasons, was same old same old concept-wise: A new story every week, similar production values, and a couple of episodes per season at best which addressed a larger arc. Even DS9 had been more advanced already.

And that at a time when HBO had basically reinvented tv series entertainment with an entirely new concept of strict serial storytelling and a "quality over quantity" approach -- "Sopranos" were on air already, so were "Six Feet Under" and "The Wire". Only two years later, NuBSG would apply this approach to the SF genre. And although I hate that series, "24" soon became another example for "unusual new" storytelling -- they too tried to depart from the standard pre-00s format.

But B&B had no better idea that just making another 90s' series.

They even went so far making some characters similar enough superficial VOY fans mind find substitues (T'Pol's "Baywatchyness" for Seven, the oddness of Phlox for Neelix fans). And I'm pretty sure that several season 1 and 2 episodes had originally been written for VOY and were just slightly altered for ENT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at WonderCon in Anaheim, and today I went to the Star Trek panel "It's Really Not Dead, Jim"; with "Free Enterprise" filmmakers/writers Mark Altman & Robert Meyer Burnett, ST-TMP directors' cut supervisor/FX artist Darren Dochterman, Chase Masterson and others. Burnett had a great idea of modernizing ST by doing season long arcs of a single mission each. Not like the Xindi or Dominion wars, but a complicated first contact mission or some other ST-style mission, but explored in season long detail each mission. I found that idea interesting. Maybe a limited season of six or eight episodes; with different arc each set.

Chase Masterson suggested another 'retro' series (ala ENT) but the others on the panel didn't really care for that idea. But she also had the best quote of the panel when she said, "It doesn't really matter what era Star Trek is set in, just as long as it has something important to say."

True dat, Chase! Met with her (and the Free Enterprise guys) after the panel. A great bunch! Also met (later on today) Dochterman and told him how much I loved the directors' cut of TMP.

I'll report on all of the convention shenanigans as soon as I upload all of my pics and collect my thoughts (still kind of pooped from today...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at WonderCon in Anaheim, and today I went to the Star Trek panel "It's Really Not Dead, Jim"; with "Free Enterprise" filmmakers/writers Mark Altman & Robert Meyer Burnett, ST-TMP directors' cut supervisor/FX artist Darren Dochterman, Chase Masterson and others. Burnett had a great idea of modernizing ST by doing season long arcs of a single mission each. Not like the Xindi or Dominion wars, but a complicated first contact mission or some other ST-style mission, but explored in season long detail each mission. I found that idea interesting. Maybe a limited season of six or eight episodes; with different arc each set.

Chase Masterson suggested another 'retro' series (ala ENT) but the others on the panel didn't really care for that idea. But she also had the best quote of the panel when she said, "It doesn't really matter what era Star Trek is set in, just as long as it has something important to say."

True dat, Chase! Met with her (and the Free Enterprise guys) after the panel. A great bunch! Also met (later on today) Dochterman and told him how much I loved the directors' cut of TMP.

I'll report on all of the convention shenanigans as soon as I upload all of my pics and collect my thoughts (still kind of pooped from today...).

I am of the opinion that Trek needs to venture further into the future and leave the past in the past, but Chase is right..as long as it does have something important to say, that is all that matters. I also love the idea of a series that gets into more details of a mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at WonderCon in Anaheim, and today I went to the Star Trek panel "It's Really Not Dead, Jim"; with "Free Enterprise" filmmakers/writers Mark Altman & Robert Meyer Burnett, ST-TMP directors' cut supervisor/FX artist Darren Dochterman, Chase Masterson and others. Burnett had a great idea of modernizing ST by doing season long arcs of a single mission each. Not like the Xindi or Dominion wars, but a complicated first contact mission or some other ST-style mission, but explored in season long detail each mission. I found that idea interesting. Maybe a limited season of six or eight episodes; with different arc each set.

Chase Masterson suggested another 'retro' series (ala ENT) but the others on the panel didn't really care for that idea. But she also had the best quote of the panel when she said, "It doesn't really matter what era Star Trek is set in, just as long as it has something important to say."

True dat, Chase! Met with her (and the Free Enterprise guys) after the panel. A great bunch! Also met (later on today) Dochterman and told him how much I loved the directors' cut of TMP.

I'll report on all of the convention shenanigans as soon as I upload all of my pics and collect my thoughts (still kind of pooped from today...).

So are they talking a 24 approach where the whole season was about a single day? (Although that is the way I understand it. I never watched the show.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at WonderCon in Anaheim, and today I went to the Star Trek panel "It's Really Not Dead, Jim"; with "Free Enterprise" filmmakers/writers Mark Altman & Robert Meyer Burnett, ST-TMP directors' cut supervisor/FX artist Darren Dochterman, Chase Masterson and others. Burnett had a great idea of modernizing ST by doing season long arcs of a single mission each. Not like the Xindi or Dominion wars, but a complicated first contact mission or some other ST-style mission, but explored in season long detail each mission. I found that idea interesting. Maybe a limited season of six or eight episodes; with different arc each set.

Chase Masterson suggested another 'retro' series (ala ENT) but the others on the panel didn't really care for that idea. But she also had the best quote of the panel when she said, "It doesn't really matter what era Star Trek is set in, just as long as it has something important to say."

True dat, Chase! Met with her (and the Free Enterprise guys) after the panel. A great bunch! Also met (later on today) Dochterman and told him how much I loved the directors' cut of TMP.

I'll report on all of the convention shenanigans as soon as I upload all of my pics and collect my thoughts (still kind of pooped from today...).

So are they talking a 24 approach where the whole season was about a single day? (Although that is the way I understand it. I never watched the show.)

Well it wouldn't have to be a single day, just a single mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I could get into that, I think. (Although I meant 24 was about a single day with my post, not the proposed Trek show.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Burnett's idea a lot - letting the drama arise out of the minutae of a situation, bringing believability to a modern Trek by focusing on detail. You wouldn't have to make it procedural, but you wouldn't have to shoehorn a "morality play of the week" in which I think was what was making Enterprise seem a little old-fashioned even in the early 00s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Burnett's idea a lot - letting the drama arise out of the minutae of a situation, bringing believability to a modern Trek by focusing on detail. You wouldn't have to make it procedural, but you wouldn't have to shoehorn a "morality play of the week" in which I think was what was making Enterprise seem a little old-fashioned even in the early 00s.

That's exactly what I was thinking; it would greatly enhance the realism of Star Trek and kind of modernize it a bit to make say, a first contact mission, play out over a 12 episode arc (a first contact mission was Burnett's example; which I liked). It would also make each mission feel more important and epic. Maybe a race that, like Earth in 2063, was on the verge of warp flight but who's readiness is in question. A detailed mission into finding out just who these people are. It would be sort of an 'intra-view' of a real alien culture. The season ender could have Starfleet playing the role of the Vulcans in "First Contact"; descending on the alien civilization and 'welcoming' them to the greater galactic neighborhood...

I'm not saying this is exactly how a new ST series could go, but it would definitely fascinate me. And the ideas of ST would still be very much there. It would also have some of that wonderful 'committed' feeling that served DS9 so well; the chance to stay in one place for awhile and let an epic storyline play out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Burnett's idea a lot - letting the drama arise out of the minutae of a situation, bringing believability to a modern Trek by focusing on detail. You wouldn't have to make it procedural, but you wouldn't have to shoehorn a "morality play of the week" in which I think was what was making Enterprise seem a little old-fashioned even in the early 00s.

This is a very intriguing idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Burnett's idea a lot - letting the drama arise out of the minutae of a situation, bringing believability to a modern Trek by focusing on detail. You wouldn't have to make it procedural, but you wouldn't have to shoehorn a "morality play of the week" in which I think was what was making Enterprise seem a little old-fashioned even in the early 00s.

This is a very intriguing idea!

I think audiences today crave a deeper commitment to their TV shows; one of the reasons why arc shows are so popular these days. The arc plots of current shows are able to exploit TV's biggest advantage over feature films; the luxury of time. Time to fully explore a situation, time to grow and develop characters, relationships, etc. It's ultimately more satisfying than standalone stories where everything is status quo by the end of the hour. An ongoing mission/issue/crisis etc. keeps an audience coming back for more. That is the single biggest strength of television over feature films, and it's perhaps one of the reasons that DS9 seems to resonate better today than it did back in the '90s. Look how much better "Walking Dead" is doing than say, a George Romero movie at the box office: Romero pioneered the zombie format, but WD gives us that deeper emotional investment that keeps us coming back...

Besides, when people want a standalone story? They can rent a movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Burnett's idea a lot - letting the drama arise out of the minutae of a situation, bringing believability to a modern Trek by focusing on detail. You wouldn't have to make it procedural, but you wouldn't have to shoehorn a "morality play of the week" in which I think was what was making Enterprise seem a little old-fashioned even in the early 00s.

This is a very intriguing idea!

I think audiences today crave a deeper commitment to their TV shows; one of the reasons why arc shows are so popular these days. The arc plots of current shows are able to exploit TV's biggest advantage over feature films; the luxury of time. Time to fully explore a situation, time to grow and develop characters, relationships, etc. It's ultimately more satisfying than standalone stories where everything is status quo by the end of the hour. An ongoing mission/issue/crisis etc. keeps an audience coming back for more. That is the single biggest strength of television over feature films, and it's perhaps one of the reasons that DS9 seems to resonate better today than it did back in the '90s. Look how much better "Walking Dead" is doing than say, a George Romero movie at the box office: Romero pioneered the zombie format, but WD gives us that deeper emotional investment that keeps us coming back...

Besides, when people want a standalone story? They can rent a movie.

Yeah, the effect of a lot of modern TV shows is cumulative. Sure, it always was, to a degree, but dovetailing one episode into the next and another beyond that (and so on) makes an audience invest emotionally a little more in the arc, so it feels like it has more layers to it. I long for a modern Star Trek that had this kind of depth. I think if you got the right kind of writers on board, who progressed the drama via character and situation rather than the morality play format, it could be huge. And, to paraphrase Chase Masterson's observation, very relevant. Such a format could also preserve that aspect of Star Trek - the SF parable - without seeming old-fashioned. It's definitely a way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Burnett's idea a lot - letting the drama arise out of the minutae of a situation, bringing believability to a modern Trek by focusing on detail. You wouldn't have to make it procedural, but you wouldn't have to shoehorn a "morality play of the week" in which I think was what was making Enterprise seem a little old-fashioned even in the early 00s.

This is a very intriguing idea!

I think audiences today crave a deeper commitment to their TV shows; one of the reasons why arc shows are so popular these days. The arc plots of current shows are able to exploit TV's biggest advantage over feature films; the luxury of time. Time to fully explore a situation, time to grow and develop characters, relationships, etc. It's ultimately more satisfying than standalone stories where everything is status quo by the end of the hour. An ongoing mission/issue/crisis etc. keeps an audience coming back for more. That is the single biggest strength of television over feature films, and it's perhaps one of the reasons that DS9 seems to resonate better today than it did back in the '90s. Look how much better "Walking Dead" is doing than say, a George Romero movie at the box office: Romero pioneered the zombie format, but WD gives us that deeper emotional investment that keeps us coming back...

Besides, when people want a standalone story? They can rent a movie.

Yeah, the effect of a lot of modern TV shows is cumulative. Sure, it always was, to a degree, but dovetailing one episode into the next and another beyond that (and so on) makes an audience invest emotionally a little more in the arc, so it feels like it has more layers to it. I long for a modern Star Trek that had this kind of depth. I think if you got the right kind of writers on board, who progressed the drama via character and situation rather than the morality play format, it could be huge. And, to paraphrase Chase Masterson's observation, very relevant. Such a format could also preserve that aspect of Star Trek - the SF parable - without seeming old-fashioned. It's definitely a way forward.

Time to summon the Star Trek powers that be...

"Hail, hail, fire and snow..." :giggle:

thechildrenshall_129.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Burnett's idea a lot - letting the drama arise out of the minutae of a situation, bringing believability to a modern Trek by focusing on detail. You wouldn't have to make it procedural, but you wouldn't have to shoehorn a "morality play of the week" in which I think was what was making Enterprise seem a little old-fashioned even in the early 00s.

This is a very intriguing idea!

I think audiences today crave a deeper commitment to their TV shows; one of the reasons why arc shows are so popular these days. The arc plots of current shows are able to exploit TV's biggest advantage over feature films; the luxury of time. Time to fully explore a situation, time to grow and develop characters, relationships, etc. It's ultimately more satisfying than standalone stories where everything is status quo by the end of the hour. An ongoing mission/issue/crisis etc. keeps an audience coming back for more. That is the single biggest strength of television over feature films, and it's perhaps one of the reasons that DS9 seems to resonate better today than it did back in the '90s. Look how much better "Walking Dead" is doing than say, a George Romero movie at the box office: Romero pioneered the zombie format, but WD gives us that deeper emotional investment that keeps us coming back...

Besides, when people want a standalone story? They can rent a movie.

Yeah, the effect of a lot of modern TV shows is cumulative. Sure, it always was, to a degree, but dovetailing one episode into the next and another beyond that (and so on) makes an audience invest emotionally a little more in the arc, so it feels like it has more layers to it. I long for a modern Star Trek that had this kind of depth. I think if you got the right kind of writers on board, who progressed the drama via character and situation rather than the morality play format, it could be huge. And, to paraphrase Chase Masterson's observation, very relevant. Such a format could also preserve that aspect of Star Trek - the SF parable - without seeming old-fashioned. It's definitely a way forward.

Time to summon the Star Trek powers that be...

"Hail, hail, fire and snow..." :giggle:

thechildrenshall_129.jpg

No good can come of this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to echo what Sim said a page back about how ENT could teach us not to try and do anymore 90's television anymore. I'd kind of narrow that more to TNG. The biggest criticism I have of VOY and ENT is that they kept desperately trying to be TNG. It shouldn't be that anymore. Especially in this day and age. That time has come and gone. TNG was lightening in a bottle. Trying to repeat it will lead to failure. I really hope that should a future show zip around the corner, we don't see more TNG-knock offs. Let ENT be our cautionary tale on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the late 1990's the only tv shows that had ongoing plots were soap operas. Whenever a show started to have ongoing plots or character development it was called a soap opera. Being called a soap was considered an insult. The first show that I can remember that broke out of the label was Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Now ongoing plot lines are the standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you know I sometimes get tired on the ongoing story line the way it is executed in the States. DS9 did it best in my opinion. Have the overall arc but have plenty of stand alone episodes that have little or nothing to do with it as well. I hate missing an episode and some major development occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you know I sometimes get tired on the ongoing story line the way it is executed in the States. DS9 did it best in my opinion. Have the overall arc but have plenty of stand alone episodes that have little or nothing to do with it as well. I hate missing an episode and some major development occurred.

Very fair point. I agree. DS9 struck the right balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you know I sometimes get tired on the ongoing story line the way it is executed in the States. DS9 did it best in my opinion. Have the overall arc but have plenty of stand alone episodes that have little or nothing to do with it as well. I hate missing an episode and some major development occurred.

Very fair point. I agree. DS9 struck the right balance.

I agree as well; sometimes when watching some of my favorite new shows such as Mad Men or Walking Dead, the 'previously on...' segments take up so much time they almost constitute a single act of the show (!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0