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

Why all the negativity?

Maestro93

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Feb. 03 2013, 8:31 am

I really liked Enterprise. It gives a nice development from the peroid when Human kind had no warp space travel to the time when the first exploration vessel that could get around at a decent speed started exploring the galaxy. Tons of development on how the UFP formed, lots of in depth look at races other than Humans and Vulcans (like Andorians and Tellerites). It is also a series where the starship isn't this big invinceable fighting machine that kicks everyone's butt. Enterprise had itself at more than a match by a Klingon BOP, without the reinforcements from ESD they would have been toast. I like that kind of rough start, figuring out the whole run of how space travel will end up working for Starfleet - especially that there isn't a prime direcive yet. It's just a great series in general, and I was really upset when it didn't make it to 7 seasons. 

romulan fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Feb. 06 2013, 2:26 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Feb. 02 2013, 4:08 pm

Quote: romulan fan @ Feb. 02 2013, 3:49 pm

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:19 pm

>

>

>

>That's a hard point. The Wright Brothers were the first to successfully fly, and since the intro was about accomplishments not failures leading up to accomplishments, they just showed the first.

>The German Scientists made the Saturn V, for example, so that is kind of their accomplishment. Besides that, there's nothing you can really show other than their faces, which would be even more cheesy.

>

ever hear of Werner von Braun?

 

do some research, a german flew roughly the same time as the wright bros. he just didnt get the same press. of coarse the american history books dont say that. just like they american history books make it look like usa was the first to have indoor plumbing. or the first to invent the tv.

does "roughly the same time" equal before or after?

because if it was after....whats your point?

also, I know of no history book that makes the claim or even makes it look like the USA lwas the first to have indoor plumbing or the first to create the tv.


 


Karl Jatho. 4 months before, Vahrenwalder Heide bei Hannover.  thats my point...

PiercerChris

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Feb. 06 2013, 5:19 pm

I have always thought that more could have been done with the storyline to keep this show going for much longer than it did. It would have been great to see what the writers could have done with the Romulan War... although it was touched on in the books, it's not the same as it would have been in more episodes.

It's too bad that people are focused more on reality TV (which seems to lower my IQ anytime I even see a commercial for these shows) instead of something that actually was good quality. I never understood why it was looked upon negatively by anyone. 

Thot Pren

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16

Report this Feb. 06 2013, 10:23 pm

I think there are a number of fans that will always resist any changes to the franchise. As people get older they become more and more resistant to change and look at the past with more and more fondness. I thought the final season of Enterprise was brilliant and if B&B had brought Coto in in the first place, the series would have lasted seven seasons. I admit I gave up on the series in season 3 but Coto made a believer out of me. He managed to fix all the problems B&B created and told the story of the preliminary founding of the Federation and pre-Romulan War. The post Season 4 books are great stuff too. They even cancel the horrific B&B final episode.


"Repent your disobedience, and prepare for insertion of the instrument of obedience" -For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky (TOS)

flottanna

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 495

Report this Mar. 02 2013, 9:20 pm

i love the show. Everytime I rewatch it I like it more.


"Please Watch Our Films" Youtube.com

CriminallyVu1gar

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Mar. 10 2013, 11:23 pm

I think it was too different, right from the beginning with the theme and the appearance of the ship.  Plus there were a few characters that were a little irritating at the start and took a while to establish.


 


And the time slot didn't help.

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 11:45 am

Quote: Trekker95 @ Jan. 05 2013, 3:40 pm

>

>I've never actually seen more than two or three episodes max. of Enterprise, so I was wondering why so many Trek fans (Trekkies and Trekkers alike) seems to hate on this show so much.  Is it really that bad or was it just too much Star Trek?

>


The biggest reason it "failed" is the trekkies couldn't get past their preconcieved notions on what pre-TOS trek HAD to be.


And the writing was a little stale in the first 2 seasons.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 4:13 pm

There does seem to be a sort of selfishness about this series, on the part of trekkies, but I think it seems to be more directed at the first two seasons. It's almost like a lot of trekkies tend to be impatient with seasons one and two because they "stopped to smell the roses" so to speak, instead of providing non-stop world-shattering revelations.


If we were to compare the first two seasons of Ent with the first two seasons of DS9, I think we would actually find the two were very similar as far as story-telling. Anything that happened in the first two seasons of DS9 developed slowly and nothing truly major happened until the end of season two, just like in Ent. However, with DS9 the major event at the end of season two was only a few episodes long, whereas with Ent, the event turned out to be about 30 episodes long.


So, when I read Trekkies writing that Ent was bad because all it did was recylce stories and do character sketches for the first two years, it's confusing because DS9 did pretty much the same thing. Maybe that formula had just gotten too old; maybe it really was time for a break just like it was for Doctor Who in 1989.


Trekkies seem to enjoy the last two seasons of Ent because they were all about advancing the overall plot of the series. However, I wonder if the sort of non-trekkie average viewer enjoyed that as much. The show was, after all, canceled at the end of season four, not at the end of season two. Maybe as a result of that huge story arc there just wasn't enough variety. Maybe it became a bit too much like Xindi Trek instead of Star Trek.


Of course, to me most of the Xindi arc was brilliant. Notwithstanding, I was ready for a change by the time that arc finally came to an end. There's just too much that's great about Star Trek, I think, to focus and devote that many episodes in a row to one planet's worth of extra terrestrials. A 10-12 episode arc every now and then in four season series, maybe. But 28-30 episodes in a row?


Another possibility is that the concept behind Ent just wasn't interesting enough. I for one like Ent and found myself attached to its characters very quickly.


It's hard to say.

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3682

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 5:07 pm

Who knew T'Pau was such a CUTE pixie, in her day? Not I!
Could've licked that Vulcan Priestess from head to toe ...


kris.craig

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 8:59 pm

Enterprise was actually pretty awesome.  Most people who say they hated it never actually watched more than a few minutes of it here and there.  Here's a list of the top reasons I've seen people cite for not liking the show:

1. "The theme song had vocals!!  I changed the channel as soon as I saw that!"


 ....And then subsequently judged the entire series to be a failure based on that one superficial observation.  


This is the main reason cited by the purists.  Problem is, they tend to forget that the TOS opening theme had vocals, as well.


 


2. "It breaks canon!  There weren't that many Enterprises!"


These people don't realize that the Enterprise commanded by Archer pre-dates the Federation.  As I said, most of these people never actually watched the show beyond a superficial amount and thus make a lot of false assumptions about it.


You could use the same logic to say that the real-life U.S.S. Enterprise featured in, "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," was non-canon as well because it contradicted the idea that NCC-1701 was the first.  In fact, that ship was the first Federation ship to bear that name.  There were non-Federation Enterprises that preceded it.


 


3. "What about non-canon events like the Borg encounter?!"


What about them?  This was the result of time travel.  Of the few actual canon contradictions that occurred in the series, every single one of them can be attributed directly to the effects of reverse time travel.


Last time I checked, the TOS episode, "The Trouble With Tribbles," didn't actually feature Captain Sisko on the Enterprise bridge or Chief O'Brien lying to Captain Kirk about who started the fight with the Klingons.  Nobody complains about that breaking canon because it was the result of time travel.  Enterprise is no different.


 


4. "The stories sucked!"


I just don't get this one.  Though there were a few duds here and there (which all the Trek series had their fair share of), some of the best stories of the entire Star Trek franchise were for Enterprise.  I thought that the two-parter, "In a Mirror, Darkly," was particularly brilliant.


 


5. "The series finale was TERRIBLE!!"


I'd have to agree on that one.  It was terrible.  I'd say it was probably the worst Trek episode of the entire franchise, hands-down.  It still infuriates me how CBS and Paramount basically flipped the bird to fans on that one.  


Of course, I feel the same way about Nemesis.  They totally butchered TNG with that one.  The plot made no sense, the writing was awful, it looked like the director was asleep half the time, and they killed Data for no reason!  Seriously, couldn't he have just set the phaser to discharge in five seconds and beamed-out with Picard?  


And it's not like they were gonna do anything with TNG after that, anyway, so the "Spiner's getting old and wrinkly" excuse just didn't do it for me.  But I digress....

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Mar. 12 2013, 2:05 pm

Quote: kris.craig @ Mar. 11 2013, 8:59 pm

>

>Enterprise was actually pretty awesome.  Most people who say they hated it never actually watched more than a few minutes of it here and there.  Here's a list of the top reasons I've seen people cite for not liking the show:

1. "The theme song had vocals!!  I changed the channel as soon as I saw that!"

> ....And then subsequently judged the entire series to be a failure based on that one superficial observation.  

>This is the main reason cited by the purists.  Problem is, they tend to forget that the TOS opening theme had vocals, as well.

>2. "It breaks canon!  There weren't that many Enterprises!"

>These people don't realize that the Enterprise commanded by Archer pre-dates the Federation.  As I said, most of these people never actually watched the show beyond a superficial amount and thus make a lot of false assumptions about it.

>You could use the same logic to say that the real-life U.S.S. Enterprise featured in, "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," was non-canon as well because it contradicted the idea that NCC-1701 was the first.  In fact, that ship was the first Federation ship to bear that name.  There were non-Federation Enterprises that preceded it.

>3. "What about non-canon events like the Borg encounter?!"

>What about them?  This was the result of time travel.  Of the few actual canon contradictions that occurred in the series, every single one of them can be attributed directly to the effects of reverse time travel.

>Last time I checked, the TOS episode, "The Trouble With Tribbles," didn't actually feature Captain Sisko on the Enterprise bridge or Chief O'Brien lying to Captain Kirk about who started the fight with the Klingons.  Nobody complains about that breaking canon because it was the result of time travel.  Enterprise is no different.

>4. "The stories sucked!"

>I just don't get this one.  Though there were a few duds here and there (which all the Trek series had their fair share of), some of the best stories of the entire Star Trek franchise were for Enterprise.  I thought that the two-parter, "In a Mirror, Darkly," was particularly brilliant.

>5. "The series finale was TERRIBLE!!"

>I'd have to agree on that one.  It was terrible.  I'd say it was probably the worst Trek episode of the entire franchise, hands-down.  It still infuriates me how CBS and Paramount basically flipped the bird to fans on that one.  

>Of course, I feel the same way about Nemesis.  They totally butchered TNG with that one.  The plot made no sense, the writing was awful, it looked like the director was asleep half the time, and they killed Data for no reason!  Seriously, couldn't he have just set the phaser to discharge in five seconds and beamed-out with Picard?  

>And it's not like they were gonna do anything with TNG after that, anyway, so the "Spiner's getting old and wrinkly" excuse just didn't do it for me.  But I digress....

>


 


Well Brent Spiner helped to write Nemesis, and Brent Spiner WANTED Data to die. I think he felt it was a fitting end, and I don't think he wanted to take any chances that he might have to play the part again. I don't think he hated the part or anything, but I hear he was really tired of having to get the Data make up done.


Live Long and Prosper

luke94

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Mar. 12 2013, 7:31 pm

I just don't think as an idea it suited Star Trek, if you're gonna do a show about humans in the not too distant future using technolgy that's pretty much concievable today and try and make it modern then there are other shows that do it better. Star Trek works best when the writers aren't constrained by that and can go as far into the future as their imagination wants. I  think this shows in how Enterprise looks old today wheras TNG looks timeless.

kris.craig

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Mar. 12 2013, 9:17 pm

 


Yeah I heard that as well.  But just because the actor wanted the character to die, doesn't mean they had to accommodate him.  The Data character was played by Spiner, but the character does not belong to him.  He belongs to all of us; the fans, the writers, etc.


Killing Data did not contribute anything to the franchise.  It didn't make sense in the movie's plot itself because Data could just as easily have set the phaser on automatic before beaming out with Picard.  It didn't make sense in the larger production sense because this was the final installment of the TNG story, anyway.


As for Spiner being worried about having to portray the character again, killing Data in Nemesis didn't really prevent that possibility because of time travel.  A story could be set prior to the events of Nemesis; or, as I like to assume anyway, the events of Nemesis may not have taken place at all and were just the result of one of many temporal incursions.  Either way, it would simply come down to whether or not Spiner was willing to reprise the role.  Killing the character would have no impact on that.

caitlinbp

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Mar. 13 2013, 1:04 pm

Quote: luke94 @ Mar. 12 2013, 7:31 pm

>

>I just don't think as an idea it suited Star Trek, if you're gonna do a show about humans in the not too distant future using technolgy that's pretty much concievable today and try and make it modern then there are other shows that do it better. Star Trek works best when the writers aren't constrained by that and can go as far into the future as their imagination wants. I  think this shows in how Enterprise looks old today wheras TNG looks timeless.

>


This goes back to my feeling that they were trying to evolve the series. I disagree that it wasn't well suited for Star Trek but that's just my opinion, I really enjoyed the series after I let go of my attachments to what I thought it should be. Also, TNG looks timeless to us diehards because it was a highpoint for some many of us, but ask any non Trek fan and they'll tell you it looks pretty dated, especially the first few seasons. Just my two cents


I think a lot of the animosity directed to the show was really because it was trying to evolve the franchise, for better or worse, into something more marketable to the masses. The model had pretty much been the same since TNG with some divergence during (my personal favorite) Ron Moore DS9 era.


Ultimately, Enterprise was the end of an era (Berman and Braga). Yes, some diehards rebelled and ratings could have been higher had they tuned in. In reality, there weren't enough people interested in another familiar Trek series and there wasn't enough different about it to attract a new audience. We can go and forth about all the little nitpicky thing that upset people but that's not the reason the show failed. You can find a list of those complaints for every Trek series. 


Personally, there was a lot that I loved about the show. Archer was a very dynamic captain and he doesn't get enough credit. I would have loved to see the Romulan storyline with T'Pol.   There were some weak links, more than TNG and DS9 had, but I think it was of equal quality to Voyager, maybe even better.


 

tanner.cornwell.90

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Mar. 13 2013, 4:07 pm

Myself, I like prequals. And I thought Enterprise is an awesome series, as a matter of fact it's my favorite.


 

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: sonofspock1

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