ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Could'a, Would'a, Should'a

Middleman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3657

Report this Nov. 02 2009, 7:05 pm

Quote (Scoobydog @ Nov. 02 2009, 7:00 pm)
Enterprise could of made it more than 4 seasons if they would of followed canon.

:)

I don't necessarily buy that they violated canon in a major way.

TrekFan1701E

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14979

Report this Nov. 02 2009, 7:10 pm

Quote (Scoobydog @ Nov. 02 2009, 7:00 pm)
Enterprise could of made it more than 4 seasons if they would of followed canon.

Anymore would-could-should's of Enterprise?

:)

Oh no Scooby you brought up the canon debate again. :laugh:

All of you know my should'a, the Romulan War.

I wouldn't have minded a conclusion to the Future Guy story.

Middleman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3657

Report this Nov. 02 2009, 7:32 pm

Quote (honeybee1111 @ Nov. 02 2009, 7:11 pm)
But I think we can all agree that The Abomination was a big no no.

HEAR HEAR

grigori

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10463

Report this Nov. 02 2009, 8:16 pm

Quote (whyaduck @ Nov. 02 2009, 7:36 pm)
OK. I don't give a rat's a$$ about canon, but as far as I know, Enterprise did follow canon (or at least didn't contradict canon). Enterprise could have lasted more than 4 seasons if some fans didn't have such large sticks up their butts about what they perceived as canon violations. Just my $.02. :grr:

and there were quantifiably other elements at play, most of them involving viewers that didn't know or didn't care about canon.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Nov. 02 2009, 11:43 pm

Enterprise could have gone 7 seasons if it had been in syndication instead of a network that no one watched or cared about. But I guess UPN gave new age pirates something to do. Arr!!

ENT567

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5267

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 4:19 am

Quote
Anymore would-could-should's of Enterprise?


Enterprise could have made it more than 4 seasons if Trek fandom consisted of more of open-minded viewers who like things for their artistic quality on a higher and wider level instead of a blind adherence to some set "canonical" yet doubtful understanding of "what true Trek must be" or "what belongs in Trek history and what doesn't."

honeybee1111

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 880

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 7:31 am

Enterprise's ratings were better in its first three seasons than the SciFi channel's BSG reboot, which is considered a hit. But the idiots at UPN tried to compare themselves to the big 4 networks - even though they didn't have nearly the number of affiliates, didn't promote the show very well and never found it a good broadcast companion. UPN failed far more than the show did, as far as I'm concerned. If Enterprise had been on SciFi or in syndication, it would have survived its seven seasons. UPN was a bad idea.

As for the relentless complaining about the show by a small number of obnoxious, vocal "fans", I remember similar complaints about the early seasons of TNG and DS9 - loud ones. But those shows had a chance to win over people - especially in their middle seasons - and did. Enterprise was really kicking into gear in the 3rd and 4th seasons (though I liked the first two) - but it didn't get a chance to go further, which sucks.

ENT567

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5267

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 7:35 am

I agree, honeybee1111.

Praxius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 170

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 10:57 am

Quote (ENT567 @ Nov. 03 2009, 12:19 am)
Enterprise could have made it more than 4 seasons if Trek fandom consisted of more of open-minded viewers who like things for their artistic quality on a higher and wider level instead of a blind adherence to some set "canonical" yet doubtful understanding of "what true Trek must be" or "what belongs in Trek history and what doesn't."

So you're claiming it's everybody else's fault besides those working on the show that it never got as big as it "Should" have?

That's sorta an odd thing to say.

I personally never got into Enterprise for a number of reasons.

- As far as I always knew, Kirk's Enterprise was the first Starship Enterprise..... then suddenly we have this other Enterprise that nobody ever heard of.

- Star Trek Enterprise, while claiming not to be as advanced as Kirk's Enterprise era, sure looked a lot more advanced and in fact looked like a starship you'd see on DS9 or TNG.

- The intro

- The overall approach just didn't flow like other ST shows and seemed like just a minor tangent to the overall storyline. While they attempted to make their episodes somehow tie in with other episodes and events in other ST series, they were really grasping at straws.

I think the main issue I had with Enterprise was that the starship was called Enterprise..... if they pulled a Voyager and named the ship something else, then I think the amount of people who'd be more opened to the series would have increased a bit.

And as it goes for people being anal about "Canon" in Star Trek.... why is that such a big deal? There has already been a pre-set storyline that has been followed for like 40 years.... and somehow some think it's ok to just screw that all up with a show that calls itself a part of the Star Trek family, yet doesn't follow like the rest of the Star Trek Family?

To me, that's like claiming the Smurfs match up perfectly to the Snorkels, their differences are only minor and anybody who brings attention to their differences should be ashamed of themselves.

The fact of the matter is that it's not the audiences' fault (or lack there of) and you can't logically blame Enterprises failures on those who didn't want to watch it..... in real life, TV shows and the people who make them are responsible for their own failures and acomplishments and it's their responsibility to find out what people are interested in or not.

If they don't seek out input or any knowledge of what the fan base they are attempted to target are into, then when they start to tank in ratings and viewers because most simply don't relate or not interested in the show, they have nobody else to blame besides themselves.

Now I didn't come in here to bash the crap out of the Enterprise series, and I imagine that eventually I'll get into the series more then I have in the past, but I figured I'd share an honest opinion based on the above post..... and besides, I'm merely supplying constructive criticism, and if everybody just ignores all the bad and only focuses on the good, then you will never learn from past mistakes, nor are you getting the bigger picture in all of its truth.

grigori

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10463

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 1:01 pm

Quote (Praxius @ Nov. 03 2009, 10:57 am)
- As far as I always knew, Kirk's Enterprise was the first Starship Enterprise..... then suddenly we have this other Enterprise that nobody ever heard of.

- Star Trek Enterprise, while claiming not to be as advanced as Kirk's Enterprise era, sure looked a lot more advanced and in fact looked like a starship you'd see on DS9 or TNG.

Kirk's Enterprise WAS the first SS Enterprise. the NX-01 wasn't even a Federation vessel (there was no Federation)

and I would NOT have watched the show had it shackled itself to tech that APPEARED older than what we saw in TOS. that would violate all common sense for a show produced in the the 21st Century.

ENT found a nice middle ground in that arena, far as I'm concerned ( and every other topic you mention Praxius DOES get discussed seriously on other ENT threads! :) )

of all those who watched ENT, only a small percentage post here, and of those, they're MOST likely to be the ones even to HAVE "canon" complaints. I maintain there were a lot more fans out there who liked the show and didn't care about these issues--and weren't tuning out for these reasons.

I loved the show but UPN made it a misery to try to watch. couldn't even get the episodes in order, if I could find them at all.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 1:54 pm

Well said, grigori. I'm a canonite and I love ENT. I don't let canon get in the way of a good story and characters, but I'm certainly aware of missteps. ENT had good stories and characters, which motivated me to explain away any inconsistencies (The only thing never really explained was phasers being able to fire at warp speed). If one pays careful enough attention though one will see ENT actually solved and explained away a lot of the inconsistencies created by the other shows, especially TOS.

honeybee1111

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 880

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 2:50 pm

Quote

- Star Trek Enterprise, while claiming not to be as advanced as Kirk's Enterprise era, sure looked a lot more advanced and in fact looked like a starship you'd see on DS9 or TNG.


I'll say it again, of all the dumb-ass complaints about ENT this is hands down the dumbest. The notion that the future tech had to look like 1960s tech because the first show, made in the 1960s, envisioned it that way was and remains silly. The show began in 2001 - so the tech reflected that and it remains bewildering to me that people would insist that their tech should pretend the advances that occurred over 30 years didn't happen so they can pretend that Kirk's Enterprise, the one with women serving coffee in go-go boots, was an "accurate" vision of the future.

honeybee1111

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 880

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 2:57 pm

TATV= "The Abomination" or The Episode that Didn't Exist, since Terra Prime is the last episode of the series.

Praxius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 170

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 3:15 pm

Quote (grigori @ Nov. 03 2009, 9:01 am)

Quote
and I would NOT have watched the show had it shackled itself to tech that APPEARED older than what we saw in TOS. that would violate all common sense for a show produced in the the 21st Century.


Not exactly, as if they kept the layouts and overall "Feel" of the ships in TOS, but spiced them up just a tad and followed up with some more practical explainations on their functions that made sense for our era, it could have been done quite well.

The effects and ship models could of course have been more detailed then the 60's style, but I think they over did the design of the NX-01 to relate way too much to TNG/Voyager era.

Speaking of common sense, it doesn't make any sense to have the ST Enterprise era ships look the way they did, only to have the Kirk era look even cruddier and primitive, only to bounce back in TNG/DS9/Voyager style like ST Enterprise era..... it screws everything up.... time-wise.

:) )

of all those who watched ENT, only a small percentage post here, and of those, they're MOST likely to be the ones even to HAVE "canon" complaints. I maintain there were a lot more fans out there who liked the show and didn't care about these issues--and weren't tuning out for these reasons.


Oh I imagine there was a very good fan base.... back in TOS the series faced a number of cancellations but the fans backed it up and kept them going for as long as possible..... then they followed up by syndication of the show to keep it on the air, the first time anybody did this for a show as far as I was told. It's too bad the same thing didn't occur to Enterprise.

I imagine that if it went on for seven seasons, I probably would have gotten into it while it was still on tv and new...... cuz like Voyager, I never got into the series until late in the game when they finally tossed the borg and such into the mix.

Even though TNG is my favorite series, TNG, DS9, Voyager, all of them in my view had some crummy first couple of seasons until they got all the bugs worked out and it wasn't until I got into the later seasons that I began to appreciate the earlier ones...... and I think that's what crippled Enterprise for me.

And I only stated my arse coverage statement because I've seen a few threads in other sections where people who didn't have all positive things to say got bashed.... nothing more.

Quote
I loved the show but UPN made it a misery to try to watch. couldn't even get the episodes in order, if I could find them at all.

Well where I live we don't have UPN and the episodes were shown on Fox and Space channel here in Canada..... the episodes were always in order, but at some really screwed up times that didn't make it easy for me to watch.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 3:15 pm

Quote (honeybee1111 @ Nov. 03 2009, 2:50 pm)
Quote

- Star Trek Enterprise, while claiming not to be as advanced as Kirk's Enterprise era, sure looked a lot more advanced and in fact looked like a starship you'd see on DS9 or TNG.


I'll say it again, of all the dumb-ass complaints about ENT this is hands down the dumbest. The notion that the future tech had to look like 1960s tech because the first show, made in the 1960s, envisioned it that way was and remains silly. The show began in 2001 - so the tech reflected that and it remains bewildering to me that people would insist that their tech should pretend the advances that occurred over 30 years didn't happen so they can pretend that Kirk's Enterprise, the one with women serving coffee in go-go boots, was an "accurate" vision of the future.

If I were a 23rd Century Starship designer, I don't care how advanced the tech would be. I would go retro just because I could match it with the 1701. As long as the equipment functioned to specifications and nothing was compromised, which judging by TOS nothing was, all is good. Designer's preference. People build classic cars although electric engines have made those old cars obsolete (this analogy is not meant to be taken too seriously).

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum