The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/index.php)
-   Enterprise (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Why Was This Cancelled!?! (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=934)

Admiral Archer 03-03-2008 09:42 PM

Why Was This Cancelled!?!
 
Okay, I know I'm gonna piss some people off, but here goes:

I was just flipping through the channels today, and managed to catch a couple episodes of ENTERPRISE on Sci-Fi. And, after not having watched it in a long time, I can safely say I had forgotten how truly AWESOME it is!

Now to explain why I like Enterprise as much as I do, because after TOS and TNG, it is my favorite STAR TREK series ever made. And here's why:

THE CREW: OMG, they are PERFECT! A crew this good hasn't come out since TNG, and I mean that 100%. Archer is obviously an honest-to-goodness explorer, with the heart of Picard and the rough-and-tumble nature of Kirk. T'pol is pretty much a female Spock, which means she's a GREAT character. Trip, oh good Lord, is AWESOME, the best Engineer since Scotty, if only because of how much like Scotty he is, with all the loveable county humor of Bones. Everyone else is perfect merely for being new and fresh, after a series of not-so-fresh characters.

THE SHIP: IT'S THE F***ING ENTERPRISE!!! Finally, we have a show that brings back the big 'E'. True, the design is different (and a cool design I must say, despite sharing similarities with the Akira-class) but the name is the same. It fits, and to me, Star Trek isn't Star Trek without a starship named Enterprise.

THE STORY: I think the idea of a story about "how it all came to be" was incredible, very original, and better than any idea that either you or I could have thought up. No offense, but I was getting tired of the same old, same old. True, ENTERPRISE had it's slip-ups, but didn't every show, at some point or other? (And some more than others)

I must say, to me DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER are good concepts, but they are not good series, and they are NOT Star Trek. ENTERPRISE screamed true-blue Star Trek to me, in a way that Cardassian Space Stations and flying spoons didn't.

And at least ENTERPRISE had the humility to leave the title of TREK off, when the other two shows didn't. In my book, it deserved it ten-times better than the others.

Let the hate mail begin...:D

Chris Fawkes 03-04-2008 12:35 AM

I never liked it. Except for Jolene Balok but even she was not enough to hold me as a viewer.
That bad.

Saquist 03-04-2008 12:57 AM

You're wrong Archer...they put the title Trek on the show at the end because fans were saying that meant it wasn't actually Star Trek.The show was bland. All the characters were unintresting except for Mayweather and they never developed him

Livingston 03-04-2008 01:49 AM

The best thing about Enterprise, I thought, was Trip. I thought the actor was great and the character was loose. I always felt the others were trying to fill someone else's shoes, maybe Gene Rodenberry's, to try to give us a new crew worthy of a new Enterprise, but to me it never quite clicked. Trip was the only character that seemed his own entity. I thought Archer had potential but he just never connected with the rest of the crew. In fact, the crew never connected and I think that was its first fault. Perhaps it was miscast. The actors are really quite good, they just never seemed to gel as a crew to me, that may be direction, writing, or just bad casting, but I do firmly believe the show's primary failings are in the casting. I'm not saying Bakula wouldn't be a good Captain, he had potential, I just think the rest of the crew were miscast.

It's like a bad band. If you have a bad band with a good drummer, you can still pull it off. Even if you have a show with not so great writing, you can still pull it off with decent casting in my opinion. Enterprise just didn't seem cast right to me.

Saquist, you liked Mayweather best? Really?

TPutz 03-04-2008 04:53 AM

Admiral,
You may want to reference the thread "What went wrong!"

Saquist,
I am surprised about the Travis comment as well. Care to elaborate?
I thought the whole space boomer bit was interesting...but the weakest of the characters (....usually)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Archer (Post 21362)
Okay, I know I'm gonna piss some people off, but here goes:

I was just flipping through the channels today, and managed to catch a couple episodes of ENTERPRISE on Sci-Fi. And, after not having watched it in a long time, I can safely say I had forgotten how truly AWESOME it is!

Now to explain why I like Enterprise as much as I do, because after TOS and TNG, it is my favorite STAR TREK series ever made. And here's why:

THE CREW: OMG, they are PERFECT! A crew this good hasn't come out since TNG, and I mean that 100%. Archer is obviously an honest-to-goodness explorer, with the heart of Picard and the rough-and-tumble nature of Kirk. T'pol is pretty much a female Spock, which means she's a GREAT character. Trip, oh good Lord, is AWESOME, the best Engineer since Scotty, if only because of how much like Scotty he is, with all the loveable county humor of Bones. Everyone else is perfect merely for being new and fresh, after a series of not-so-fresh characters.

THE SHIP: IT'S THE F***ING ENTERPRISE!!! Finally, we have a show that brings back the big 'E'. True, the design is different (and a cool design I must say, despite sharing similarities with the Akira-class) but the name is the same. It fits, and to me, Star Trek isn't Star Trek without a starship named Enterprise.

THE STORY: I think the idea of a story about "how it all came to be" was incredible, very original, and better than any idea that either you or I could have thought up. No offense, but I was getting tired of the same old, same old. True, ENTERPRISE had it's slip-ups, but didn't every show, at some point or other? (And some more than others)

I must say, to me DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER are good concepts, but they are not good series, and they are NOT Star Trek. ENTERPRISE screamed true-blue Star Trek to me, in a way that Cardassian Space Stations and flying spoons didn't.

And at least ENTERPRISE had the humility to leave the title of TREK off, when the other two shows didn't. In my book, it deserved it ten-times better than the others.

Let the hate mail begin...:D


bintrepid81 03-04-2008 06:14 AM

Well said Admiral! It seemed to me to go back to the roots of Trek and it was original. Like you I agree that the series of moving forward ran out of gas and the only way to continue the series was going back and even with the rough beginning, it was coming into its prime in season 4 but then got canned. I would have loved to see this go one for a few more years and see more back story of how the early exploration and mingeling with other species came to be. There was another thread here somewhere about seeing the Earth/Romulan war take place which should have occured during Archer's time. That alone would be neat to see. I think it was called to early and should have been allowed to continue its reign at least to 7 years like the previous 3 other series.

Miguelito 03-04-2008 06:29 AM

To much star trek at one time.
The canon mistakes, like the lacking of Star Trek as a title, the xindi arc, few good stories
But mostley there was just to much star trek on.

Lady Vaako 03-04-2008 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Archer (Post 21362)
I must say, to me DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER are good concepts, but they are not good series, and they are NOT Star Trek. ENTERPRISE screamed true-blue Star Trek to me, in a way that Cardassian Space Stations and flying spoons didn't.

ENT was a good series but certainly not the best, although I did like it better than DS9 and Trip is one of my all-time favourite Trek characters. And if you're going to bash DS9 and especially Voyager by saying that they are NOT Trek, you've got to support your claim with some strong argument because to me, it's bull$hit. I think I can understand why you say that DS9 wasn't Trek (lack of space exploration being the main reason) but Voyager? Voyager was as much Trek as ENT ever was. In fact, they're probably the 2 Trek series which have the most aspects in common.

HokieinSC 03-04-2008 07:19 AM

Overall I found it enjoyable but it had it's very weak points in season 1 and into season 2. Not a good way to start off/attract a following. The biggest thing working against the show was most likely franchise fatigue. Star trek had been on the air since what, 1987? Too long a time in some respects. I'd have liked to see Enterprise move forward from the 4th season (excellent for the most part, imho) and explore the Romulan War, etc. Ah well....

VADBAXTER 03-04-2008 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Archer (Post 21362)
Okay, I know I'm gonna piss some people off, but here goes:


I must say, to me DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER are good concepts, but they are not good series, and they are NOT Star Trek. ENTERPRISE screamed true-blue Star Trek to me, in a way that Cardassian Space Stations and flying spoons didn't.


Let the hate mail begin...:D

Understand that I believe everone has the right to there own opinions.

So with that said let me begin.


I find it obvious with this statement that you have no clue as to what TREK is about.

TREK is about exploring new frontiers in ways that challenge the intellect. DS9 and VOY did that in an excellent manner while ENT basically ignored in principle a lot of what had already been established in TREK.

It wat NOT about using ones minds, rather ENT seemed to focus more on solving conflict thru anger than thru civil means.

Mind you I enjoy ENT to a great deal I just look at it from a more realistic perspective.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.