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

The reason Enterprise died.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 07 2012, 5:18 pm

Quote: T'adam @ Jan. 07 2012, 4:53 pm

>

>How is having borg and ferengi damaging to canon?

>


Both were introduced through first contacts in TNG, which would suggest that they were never encountered before. But as I said on the first page, neither introduced themselves in their respective ENT episodes so canon is safe.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Jan. 07 2012, 6:29 pm

I personally don't subscribe to the whole theory that it failed because of anything to do with "violating canon."  Star Trek in general had been on a steady down trend since the middle of TNG.   Unfortunately Enterprise was part of this Trend and by the time it came around the ratings were low enough that it wasn't seen as worth having around anymore.  It really just ended up being more of a liability than an asset to Paramount at this point.  Enterprise, unfortunately, wasn't able to retrain viewers no matter what.  Honestly, the amount of people in the fanbase who care about such details about canon, etc, is a lot smaller than what some give credit for.

Ghostmojo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1826

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 2:58 am

Quote: WkdYngMan @ Jan. 07 2012, 6:29 pm

>

>I personally don't subscribe to the whole theory that it failed because of anything to do with "violating canon." Star Trek in general had been on a steady down trend since the middle of TNG. Unfortunately Enterprise was part of this Trend and by the time it came around the ratings were low enough that it wasn't seen as worth having around anymore. It really just ended up being more of a liability than an asset to Paramount at this point. Enterprise, unfortunately, wasn't able to retrain viewers no matter what. Honestly, the amount of people in the fanbase who care about such details about canon, etc, is a lot smaller than what some give credit for.

>


Yes exactly. This is a very good assessment and summation.


To be fair to poor old Enterprise - it had all largely been said and done before (four times!) and so where was there really for it to go? In order to succeed it really would have had to be mouldbreaking rather than merely just repetitive. I don't think anybody involved in Trek at that time could see that. You have to step outside of the box - they were all too close. They couldn't see the wood for the trees.


I suspect that fans of ST: Enterprise are generally of a younger generation who came to it first - or maybe had seen DS9 and Voyager. In many ways it was their introduction to Trek and therefore perhaps they can't see it from a broader perspective? Not their fault - just the way it is. They then had to backtrack to find out more about Trek history (and cannon).


Those of us who do see from a broader perspective (like a few decades) have watched the gradual dimunition of the great concept to the point it became just so-so and unremarkable - whereas once it had been truly unique in television and socially and culturally significant. That is no longer the case I'm afraid. It needed to be braver and bolder and it wasn't. It was pedestrian and formulaic. At best it was OK.


to boldy go where no man has gone before

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 10:10 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

class="MsoNormal">Well, if you are true to TOS “canon”, then our crew should have never seen a Romulan until AFTER the Romulan War. Remember Spock’s speech in BoT?

>


Let's break down Spocks's BoT speech:


"As you recall from your histories, this conflict was fought, by our standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels which allowed no quarter, no captives."


Note that he said "by our standards today". I think that here, "primitive" is a relative term. Spock just meant that the ships and weapons used in the war were less advanced than in the 23rd century. As for the "no quarter, no captives" part, we saw in BoT that the Romulans were willing to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner. Canon is secure so far.


"Nor was there even ship-to-ship, visual communication; therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other."


Spock probably just meant that Romulan viewscreen technology wasn't compatible with that of Earth ships (and their allies). And the ENT crew never saw any Romulans in the series, just heard their voices. Canon is still safe.


"Earth believes the Romulans to be warlike, cruel, treacherous... and only the Romulans know what they think of Earth."


I don't think that needs explaining.


So the Romulan-centric episodes in ENT didn't violate canon at all.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 12:40 pm

I think its simple: weak characters. I can forgive all of the other stuff fans have a hissy  fit about (theme song, continuity, blah blah blah) but the characters need to be good.


 


In Enterprise, they simply were not, and you can't overcome that.

Antoninus Pius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 131

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 3:06 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Jan. 08 2012, 12:40 pm

I think its simple: weak characters. I can forgive all of the other stuff fans have a hissy  fit about (theme song, continuity, blah blah blah) but the characters need to be good.

 

In Enterprise, they simply were not, and you can't overcome that.



Very true. I have stated elsewhere the reasons why I believe the show failed. The above comment sums it up aptly. I would add to it very poor casting. The only cast member I liked was the dog. I kind of hated that cast. Bacula was a disgrace. So were the rest of that sorry lot.

T'adam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 103

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 3:37 pm

I think Scott Bacula was a great Captain.  Personally i think the casting was spot on.  Although I did think the guy that played Travis Mayweather was a bad actor.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 3:43 pm

Quote: T'adam @ Jan. 08 2012, 3:37 pm

>

>I think Scott Bacula was a great Captain.  Personally i think the casting was spot on.  Although I did think the guy that played Travis Mayweather was a bad actor.

>


My thoughts exactly. It was a great cast; the biggest mistake they made was not developing Travis and Hoshi more. Otherwise they would've gotten more chances to improve their acting.


And I think Bakula did a great job as Archer. I don't want another Picard or Janeway, who always do the right thing and never make mistakes. I want somebody with flaws, who isn't always right and doesn't always make the right descision.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 3:46 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>I didn't say they violated canon.

>


I thought that was what you were implying. My mistake.


You did mention one canon violation, though. Was it the cloaking devices used by the Romulans and Suliban?


 


And sorry for double posting, by the way.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Antoninus Pius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 131

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 4:13 pm

I am quite willing to take on board the ideas of others. I have the day free, and all four seasons on dvd. My nephew just borrowed seasons 3 & 4. Can you recommend an episode from 1 & 2 where you think Bacula did fine work? I will watch it today. Thanks guys.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 5:09 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>No need to appoligize for double post here.... I got "page not found 5 times yesterday and when the last one took, there were 5 posts identical post

>Nope, no canon problem with Romulans or Suliban having cloaking devices.

>


I got 26 topic reply notifications in my email yesterday. When I followed the link, there were only two new posts.


So it's not the cloaking devices...hmm... Is it the phase cannons and photonic torpedoes comflicting with TOS's dipiction of lasers guns and nuclear weapons?


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 6:17 pm

First contact with the Klingons?


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Antoninus Pius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 131

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 6:37 pm

So, no fine performances then? Thought so.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 7:23 pm

@Yanks


Excuse me.........I do believe there is a canon problem with the Romulans having cloaking devices on their ships.............if there isint please explain it to me.


Photobucket

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 08 2012, 8:25 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Jan. 08 2012, 7:23 pm

>

>Excuse me.........I do believe there is a canon problem with the Romulans having cloaking devices on their ships.............if there isint please explain it to me.

>


That is technically a continuity error. Some possible explanations:


- the BoPs and mines seen in "Minefield" used experimental cloaking devices that later proved unreliable and/or dangerous


- Spock said in BoT: "Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain– selectively bending light. But the power cost is enormous. They may have solved that". This could be interpreted as meaning that the Federation (or at least Starfleet) has encountered cloaking technology before, but that it was very rare and difficult to operate.


- Spock was mistaken in BoT (unlikely, but still possible).


That's the kind of error that viewers have to justify for themselves using their imagination.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

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