dblozebn

Why do people hate Enterprise?

265 posts in this topic

I always assumed (?) that Alpha Centauri was an Earth Colony, and not a new alien species.  I remember in TOS' Metamorphosis, Kirk says "Zefram Cochrane... of Alpha Centauri... the discoverer of the space warp?"  I think, at the time, it was meant to imply that Zefram (an odd name, granted) was a native of that planet, but it wasn't clear if it was an alien species or 'parallel development' (which is highly unlikely; given that the Centauri system is a trinary system with a differing age and heavy elements composition than our own), but the novel "Federation" by Judy & Gar Reeves-Stevens made it clear he was an Earth native who only lived on Alpha Centauri when he retired.    "First Contact" also reaffirmed his Earthling status.  

For my personal 'head canon' the only native Alpha Centaurians are either plants or lower animals (if any), but the only sentient Centaurians are the colonists from Earth.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed (?) that Alpha Centauri was an Earth Colony, and not a new alien species.  I remember in TOS' Metamorphosis, Kirk says "Zefram Cochrane... of Alpha Centauri... the discoverer of the space warp?"  I think, at the time, it was meant to imply that Zefram (an odd name, granted) was a native of that planet, but it wasn't clear if it was an alien species or 'parallel development' (which is highly unlikely; given that the Centauri system is a trinary system with a differing age and heavy elements composition than our own), but the novel "Federation" by Judy & Gar Reeves-Stevens made it clear he was an Earth native who only lived on Alpha Centauri when he retired.    "First Contact" also reaffirmed his Earthling status.  

For my personal 'head canon' the only native Alpha Centaurians are either plants or lower animals (if any), but the only sentient Centaurians are the colonists from Earth.... 

In my "head canon", it's the same ... I take the explanation from Martin/Mangels' ENT relaunch novels that Alpha Centauri was colonized by humans, and that there was even a political quarrel among the future UFP member races whether or not AC should receive the full status of an independent founding member, as Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites feared this would give the humans too much influence.

It's a bit annoying that so many novels give different explanations what AC is about. IIRC, I read three or four different ideas on AC in off-canon works so far... the TOS novel "Crisis on Centaurus" gives a detailed description that doesn't match the idea from Judy & Gar Reeves-Stevens in "Prime Directive" (there, the ACs apparently are an alien race), and I think there were more.

I like the idea that Zefram Cochrane later retired on AC, if we take that line from TOS seriously. Though I'm not sure how the very different depictions of that character on TOS and FC can be reconciled... but okay, IIRC, Cochrane said in "Metamorphosis" that the companion restored his youth. At any rate, it's very unlikely Cochrane was born on Alpha Centauri, if he later became the inventor of the warp drive for humans: IIRC, even at the speed of light, it takes four years from earth to AC. So it's unlikely that humans had colonized a planet there before they invented the warp drive. And FC doesn't evoke the impression that earth in 2063 had the resources for establishing an interstellar colony at sub-light speed (IIRC, there weren't even permanent moon bases in FC yet).

So maybe colonizing AC was the first big project after Cochrane's success in 2063, and perhaps he was among the first colonists?

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(...)
However... another reason people might hate ENT is due to the fact it repeated plot lines from the other shows. A "bankruptcy", as you stated, of ideas.

 

Sorry if you got the impression I was attacking you or your points in particular, that was not the case... I should have made more clear that I do agree with many of your points. And that I was under the impression you were directly arguing my statement above that I think 99% of "continuity errors" actually aren't any, but that I do very much think ENT's writing was often uninspired (which IMO is not semantics, but a *huge* difference).

When I made some of these points (such as the attack on "retro look" criticism), I didn't have your points in mind (which is why I said "to those people who take this very seriously"), but I remembered some things I read several times back on TrekWeb and even here on this board a while ago, when some fans actually claimed it was a "continuity error" that ENT didn't look like pre-1960s tv, down to buttons, mechanically speaking computers, special effects or the Klingon forehead issue.

Now what you explain makes a lot of sense and I agree it would have been a better, more appealing creative choice to go more into the "Interstellar" route, but the way I understood several other statements by some people just appeared silly to me. There simply is no way to make a 00s' series look futuristic (which is necessary, unless you want to limit the audience on a couple of hundred hardcore nostalgics), yet at the same time pay tribute to 60s' production values (as much of TOS' tech was outdated by the 00s already and looked rather "steampunk").

My main point was neither that it's somehow illegitimate to dislike ENT (not at all, see my postings above), nor that many creative decisions were not uninspired or sloppy (if you've read my postings, you've noticed that I did say so in every posting I made in this thread). It was that I think -- just like you -- that the "canon violation" argument was exaggerated, most of the time, when it was brought up.

Maybe I was just tired of hearing it over and over again, because I found the examples mentioned in these regards in the past 14 years very anal most of the time. No, most of the time, it was simply not true that ENT directly contradicted previously established canon, in a strictly technical sense. Yes sure, other creative decisions may have made ENT more interesting or credible, but that's not "violating canon".

And perhaps I'm not such a diligent viewer as you were, but was Alpha Centauri indeed explicitly excluded in the UFP's formation in ENT? As I remember it from the top of my head, Alpha Centauri was just not mentioned. And the only time when the formation of the UFP was topic in ENT was in the final episode "These Are the Voyages" -- and IIRC, it was not obvious from this episode which races were present at the ceremony besides humans, Vulcans, and perhaps an Andorian and Tellarite somewhere in the background. Well possible that Alpha Centaurians were there too, and just looked like humans (like so many other alien races) -- or Alpha Centauri even was an earth colony, as the relaunch novels claimed later.

No, I wasn't arguing your points. I largely agree that the plot holes, though they do exist, were largely exaggerated. It seemed like there was a concerted effort to hate this show. I'm not sure if it was Trek fatigue, anger that the TNG-era treks (we had three of them) were tossed aside for a prequel, etc. etc. etc. Hell, I even recall a "complaint" - T'Pol's eyebrow's were curved like Spock's. I mean - it got to sheer insanity when I saw that complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they hate it because it impacts TOS and destroys continuity. While the script (and non canon stories) patch up the issues, there are still some glaring problems. I actually like Star Trek: Enterprise, but I think that this is one reason why people dislike it. I also think that post-TNG stories were getting really interesting when Enterprise started to air, and everyone wanted to see that. Heck, I feel the same way with Star Trek: Discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they hate it because it impacts TOS and destroys continuity. While the script (and non canon stories) patch up the issues, there are still some glaring problems. I actually like Star Trek: Enterprise, but I think that this is one reason why people dislike it. I also think that post-TNG stories were getting really interesting when Enterprise started to air, and everyone wanted to see that. Heck, I feel the same way with Star Trek: Discovery.

I just prefer to think of ENT as an alternate timeline that was created after the events of the movie "First Contact" which somehow segues into something resembling the prime timeline.  :happy:

And yes, I like ENT too.  Much more than I used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all an alternate timeline. It was the moment Janeway beamed down to California in the 1990s and wasn't in the midst of the Eugenics Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enterprise was not marketed well. The actual episodes do stand out and are not that flawed. Many diehard fans fuss over the minutia of early Ferengi or early Borg or Vulcans being wrong.

Having been there, the term franchise fatigue did not enter into it until 2005, after the show was cancelled, and was not originally anything Berman and Bragga initially said. It was in the fan zines then, and on sites like TrekWeb and TrekMovie, but was not commonly used.

The studio certainly could have kept going with new and original ideas and not all of the ideas were copies of Voyager or 'Voyager light' as they called in in 2004 and 2005 in the trades.

It did not help that Enterprise was the only Trek show on air then, post Voyager, and that it had to live up to so many expectations, and not actually be it's own show.

They were thinking of the Star Wars prequel that made a lot of money, TFM, 1999, which meant prequels were in around 2001, and the studio wanted the prequel idea, not the other way around. The temporal cold war idea, that was Berman and Braga. Originally the future guy was going to turn out to be Shatner, which would have been amazing but ultimately they passed on it.

The rise of internet boards meant that they got instant reactions to episode they wouldn't normally even hear about.

They may be making the same 'mistake' with Discovery being a prequel.

Ultimately it was in hindsight not a good idea to do an Enterprise prequel.

That episode finale is what made everyone, I mean everyone, mad because they decided on forcing TNG into Ent where it didn't belong. That is where this tired story idea emerged from, whereas the rest of season 4 was fan service, but fun.

Were it our say back then, after season 4 fans would have said, no we're not cancelling this. We're going to do a fifth season. Ignore that finale. It was the a bad holodeck fantasy.

The studio made it and the studio then drove it to cancellation because it was too soon, This was not fatigue. This was just a bad idea. The stories however do hold up and aren't that bad really. Once you get past the horrible marketing (steamy scenes and lasers, pew, pew), it was actually a decent show that broke free in season 4,. as TNG did, as DS9 did, and even Voy did. 

Times were changing for that formula though, and studios wanted episodic shorter seasons, cheaper reality TV shows, and less creativity in writing. You can kind of tell.

Creative stories will only die if we let them.

Vie is right though, Ent is not this timeline. It's another timeline created by First Contact, or even before it. Zeph doesn't even look right.

Rigel X (Rigel Kentaurus B, seen in Broken Bow, or Proxima) is part of the Alpha Centauri (with the worlds of A and B being livable planets), colonies first founded in the 2070s by Cochrane's first warp colony ships. In honor of his discovery, they made him an honorary first citizen, and hence he is honorarily called Zephram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri.

It cannot be the star Rigel, (over 860 light years off, a blue giant) as that is too far off at warp one (4.22 light years or four years and some weeks off). Most of the Rigels mentioned in the TOS era were probably in the Centuari system.

 

 

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all an alternate timeline. It was the moment Janeway beamed down to California in the 1990s and wasn't in the midst of the Eugenics Wars.

A problem with ST has so many timelines that by the midpoint of Voyager you can't even count how many there are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all an alternate timeline. It was the moment Janeway beamed down to California in the 1990s and wasn't in the midst of the Eugenics Wars.

A problem with ST has so many timelines that by the midpoint of Voyager you can't even count how many there are.

Yup.

It's all a mess at this point that you can pretty much say whatever you want is true, is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all an alternate timeline. It was the moment Janeway beamed down to California in the 1990s and wasn't in the midst of the Eugenics Wars.

A problem with ST has so many timelines that by the midpoint of Voyager you can't even count how many there are.

Yup.

It's all a mess at this point that you can pretty much say whatever you want is true, is true.

In that case, Janeway didn't destroy the Borg with future tech, These Are the Voyages.... never happened and McCoy remains married to that one chick from the asteroid!!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 These Are the Voyages.... never happened

That mostrosity never happened anyway. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 These Are the Voyages.... never happened

That mostrosity never happened anyway. ;)

 

What monstrosity? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 1:35 PM, Chimera82405 said:

Enterprise was not marketed well. The actual episodes do stand out and are not that flawed. Many diehard fans fuss over the minutia of early Ferengi or early Borg or Vulcans being wrong.

Having been there, the term franchise fatigue did not enter into it until 2005, after the show was cancelled, and was not originally anything Berman and Bragga initially said. It was in the fan zines then, and on sites like TrekWeb and TrekMovie, but was not commonly used.

The studio certainly could have kept going with new and original ideas and not all of the ideas were copies of Voyager or 'Voyager light' as they called in in 2004 and 2005 in the trades.

It did not help that Enterprise was the only Trek show on air then, post Voyager, and that it had to live up to so many expectations, and not actually be it's own show.

They were thinking of the Star Wars prequel that made a lot of money, TFM, 1999, which meant prequels were in around 2001, and the studio wanted the prequel idea, not the other way around. The temporal cold war idea, that was Berman and Braga. Originally the future guy was going to turn out to be Shatner, which would have been amazing but ultimately they passed on it.

The rise of internet boards meant that they got instant reactions to episode they wouldn't normally even hear about.

They may be making the same 'mistake' with Discovery being a prequel.

Ultimately it was in hindsight not a good idea to do an Enterprise prequel.

That episode finale is what made everyone, I mean everyone, mad because they decided on forcing TNG into Ent where it didn't belong. That is where this tired story idea emerged from, whereas the rest of season 4 was fan service, but fun.

Were it our say back then, after season 4 fans would have said, no we're not cancelling this. We're going to do a fifth season. Ignore that finale. It was the a bad holodeck fantasy.

The studio made it and the studio then drove it to cancellation because it was too soon, This was not fatigue. This was just a bad idea. The stories however do hold up and aren't that bad really. Once you get past the horrible marketing (steamy scenes and lasers, pew, pew), it was actually a decent show that broke free in season 4,. as TNG did, as DS9 did, and even Voy did. 

Times were changing for that formula though, and studios wanted episodic shorter seasons, cheaper reality TV shows, and less creativity in writing. You can kind of tell.

Creative stories will only die if we let them.

Vie is right though, Ent is not this timeline. It's another timeline created by First Contact, or even before it. Zeph doesn't even look right.

Rigel X (Rigel Kentaurus B, seen in Broken Bow, or Proxima) is part of the Alpha Centauri (with the worlds of A and B being livable planets), colonies first founded in the 2070s by Cochrane's first warp colony ships. In honor of his discovery, they made him an honorary first citizen, and hence he is honorarily called Zephram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri.

It cannot be the star Rigel, (over 860 light years off, a blue giant) as that is too far off at warp one (4.22 light years or four years and some weeks off). Most of the Rigels mentioned in the TOS era were probably in the Centuari system.

 

 

This is a pretty interesting analysis. I agree with a large part of it.

You're certainly correct that back in that day - prequels were all the rage thanks to The Phantom Menace. They were probably hoping they could jump onto that bandwagon. In theory - the idea isn't bad. There is a lot of rich lore to mine from before TOS, during it, and after it. I can understand the temptation, but there comes a responsibility that comes with it. They wanted to do their own thing without any of the "restrictions" that came with doing a pre-TOS-era show. It's why the NX-ENT looks barely indistinguishable from a ship in the 24th century. I understand that most of us are tired/exhausted of the canon arguments but .... it is important to a large chunk of fans. I will say that ENT did try to minimize any "damage". Such as the Ferengi not naming themselves for example. I didn't appreciate their efforts until after the show ended sadly.

Which brings me to another point - you make a really good argument about this was the first show to really suffer the full brunt of a dreaded .... forum. Dun dun dunnnnnn. :P Each trailer to a future episode was dissected before the episode could even come out. The moment they showed glimpses of the Borg or the Mirror Universe or whatever - there were people saying "I'm DONE with this show!". I think that hurt viewership because people didn't even bother trying to watch the said episode and see that it wasn't this canon train wreck.

Yeah - I can't say "fatigue" ever hit me with Star Trek. I love the franchise so much and politics and social events seem to always make Star Trek relevant. Well, the few times they focused on relevant things and not "Earth is about to be destroyed" episodes. I think the fatigue was more in the repetition of plots. ENT, in a lot of ways, was VOY-lite. And VOY was TNG-lite. So it was a watered down idea of another watered down idea.

But ENT should have done what it was meant to do - be a prequel. S4 may be derided as "fan service" but that is what ENT should have been from day one. We didn't need some temporal war or stuff like that. If you are going to make a show about the founding of the UFP - then focus on that. Focus on the building of the Prime Directive. Focus on the creation of much beloved tech of the late series. Etc. Not do episodes that would have been seen on VOY. I mean this one literally - they were copying episodes. There was an episode in ENT that was a direct copy of VOY (something about flying through a nebula while the crew slept and only one crewman was awake).

I never looked at it that way but you are quite right that a lot of pressure was on ENT because it was "alone". At least DS9 had TNG and VOY running concurrently for the Trek fans that wanted a show with an exploratory ship. And for those annoyed by VOY, they had DS9 to watch.

I'm not sure I am prepared to write off ENT as separate time line. I do agree that the constant meddling in the past probably altered some things and that is reasonable to say. Worf said phasers came much later than ENT. Maybe not? Maybe Chekov leaving that phaser in the "nuclear wessel" changed that. Who knows? I can't imagine Sisko replacing Bell during the Bell Riots had 0 impacts. Although, thanks to Abramsverse, nothing our heroes did in the past could affect the time line since it just made a new one. BLEH.

My point is - I think ENT did enough "damage control" that it still works mostly in canon. I can't think of anything that is so glaring that it causes the whole thing to collapse. The issue was - the show spent half of its writing in "damage control" in the first place!

But back on topic: You make a lot of good points on why ENT seems so uniquely hated. I chalk it up, partially at least, to the age of the forums. Would TNG/DS9/VOY have survived this much scrutiny of made today? Food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Founder said:

But back on topic: You make a lot of good points on why ENT seems so uniquely hated. I chalk it up, partially at least, to the age of the forums. Would TNG/DS9/VOY have survived this much scrutiny of made today? Food for thought.

If it were shown on a 'mainstream' channel, TNG would probably be cancelled after the first season. Even DS9, which is my favourite Trek, didn't really work consistently until it hit season four. (Although there were some good episodes before that, of course.) I don't know if it would have been cancelled or not, but I don't think those early episodes usually show how good the series could actually be.

The modern television landscape is also quite different now. I always hear people saying that we're in the 'golden age' of TV, so a franchise with a big name like Trek would probably have to meet high expectations. Viewers these days also seem to expect something with more edge to it than the usual stuff you see in Trek. Basically, like the new version of Battlestar Galactica or Firefly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Explorer3 said:

If it were shown on a 'mainstream' channel, TNG would probably be cancelled after the first season. Even DS9, which is my favourite Trek, didn't really work consistently until it hit season four. (Although there were some good episodes before that, of course.) I don't know if it would have been cancelled or not, but I don't think those early episodes usually show how good the series could actually be.

The modern television landscape is also quite different now. I always hear people saying that we're in the 'golden age' of TV, so a franchise with a big name like Trek would probably have to meet high expectations. Viewers these days also seem to expect something with more edge to it than the usual stuff you see in Trek. Basically, like the new version of Battlestar Galactica or Firefly.

Agreed. TNG/DS9/VOY would not survive beyond season 1. Although, to be fair, if made today ... I'm sure their season 1s would have been a lot different. :P 

That is another thing that "hurt" ENT too. It started to become arc driven rather than episodic. It tried to balance the two like DS9 but by season 4 - most of the episodes were connected and I think that was jarring to some fans.

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