One of the better series. I likely particularly because it was close to home. You see it in the bare no frills ship. They were just getting started and it was cancelled.
Add a Review
-
woodwardrijsewijk15 October 2018
-
ENTERPRISE came out at a lousy time. Coming in the wake of four other Trek series shows and all the movies, the public never seemed all that stuck on the show. Plus, while I was a huge fan, I must admit that the series started slowly---very, very slowly. As a result, the show was canceled prematurely--after the show had greatly improved but lost its audience. It's really a shame.
The series is supposedly a prequel to all the Star Trek shows and shows the earliest journeys of mankind to the stars. I really liked what the writers did with the Vulcans, as in previous Star Trek shows, this race was super-noble. Here, however, they were less angelic--doing their best to keep humans on Earth as well as showing a deviousness that you only slowly came to realize. But perhaps the most interesting race on the series were the Andorians (who were only briefly seen on the original STAR TREK). These arch-rivals of the Vulcans seemed hyper-aggressive and unreasonable through part of the series, but after a while you come to see that the Vulcans really were jerks and dishonest in this series. While the Andorians were not the nicest of people, despite initial appearances, they could be reasonable and even allies. This plot element that was woven throughout the series was particularly effective and I loved how these beings were far more complex than you first thought (much like the Narn were on BABYLON 5).
The major plot running through most episodes involved a doomsday weapon that obliterated Florida when first tested and was destined to be used to wipe out the entire planet and this was an excellent and interesting plot idea. The voyage across unknown space to stop this carnage was kept my interest. Additionally, most of the crew members were interesting and well-written, though since it was made in the 21sst century, they tended to be sex perverts compared to earlier and more chaste series (including one episode where a male crew member got pregnant after making it with another species)! Still, there was a lot to recommend here--too bad it came on the heels of all this other Trek, as it couldn't help but fail due to audience overload.
By the way, there are MANY inconsistencies on the show if you compare it to the original Star Trek, such as the Enterprise looking far more high tech in this series (though it was set in an earlier year). Unless you are a major geek with no life whatsoever, this shouldn't be a major problem. If it IS, then you need to join Star Trek Anonymous! -
curtismarta20 May 2020This series was underrated and under appreciated in it's time. It's was getting into a good stride toward the end but unfortunately wasn't renewed for the full 7 seasons many other shows in the franchise got.
I found the show to be a compelling prequel to the original Star Trek. It was interesting to see humans as the newcomer to deep space; they were more than often met with aliens with far superior technology, a lot of them not so friendly. They had to be resourceful to achieve their goals and defeat stronger enemies. It was a refreshing change from the previous shows where the Federation was virtually the dominant faction with the most advanced technology and huge fleet.
Enterprise was about humans being the underdogs and still besting their foes. It was fun to watch! -
rob_moore845 January 2019I just finished binge watching all 4 seasons and i am happy to say i thoroughly enjoyed myself. I do remember seeing a few episodes when i was younger but i didnt pay much attention. I do agree with others when they say this show was a victim of its time. There was so many other shows on at the time it just got lost. I liked all the characters. I enjoyed most of the story lines. I would say 90% of the episodes are great. You always have some fillers in any tv show. One thing i did hate was not the original theme song but when they changed it. It was terrible and was really distracting. Many didnt like the original theme song but i thought it gave the show its own personality. Anyway i enjoyed. The show should of been at least 6 seasons. I just hope the actors know what a wonderful show they made and not remember all the idiot critics comments that plagued this show. I dont know why people listen to critics
-
ChristopherPike12 July 2009It is the mid 22nd Century: over a hundred years before Kirk and Spock. The crew of Earth's latest breakthrough Warp 5 starship; led by Captain Jonathan Archer, are making their first steps into the galaxy. Firmly believing humankind has been held back for too long by Vulcan interference, Archer is eager to embark on Enterprise's mission of deep space exploration. Survival proves perilous the farther from home they travel. Outmatched by superior aliens equipped with far more powerful weaponry, this first crew face a steep learning curve. Among their challenges will come Klingon aggression, militaristic Andorians, territorial Romulans and the Suliban; a race receiving aid from the future. This Temporal Cold War story arc heats up with the arrival of a probe sent by the Xindi and seven million people die in an unprovoked attack. With another more powerful weapon being assembled deep within the Delphic Expanse, Starfleet hastily curtails the Enterprise's assignment, sending their most experienced crew in a desperate attempt to save Earth. Along the way, we discover familiar trek-nology from future Star Trek series at a less advanced stage including a crew scared to use the transporter, so frequent use of space suits, decompression airlocks & shuttle-pods and instead of shields, polarised hull-plating. Those coming straight from JJ Abrams' 2009 movie will probably appreciate this uncomplicated style the most. The rest of us get to have fun spotting familiar elements from past series, especially by the fourth season - as we visit the Mirror Universe, encounter green skinned Orions, as the Vulcans gradually come to respect their illogical allies, as they make the very first steps toward uniting warring races.
Out of all the Star Trek series, I generally keep returning to Enterprise for more. I'd like to think that's down to something deeper than knowing the Original Series, Next Generation, Deep Space Nine & Voyager inside and out.
I love these characters and while they're definitely not the perfect, moral human beings Gene Roddenberry might have have created, they do in fact hold true to his ideals. They're ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, stumbling and making mis-steps along the way with best of intentions.
Archer, interested me from the outset (being familiar with Scott Bakula's previous work) his Captain out there alone with no support, no rulebook or role models to learn from their mistakes. His 'quid pro quo' relationship with Shran (a blue-skinned Andorian), both skeptics of the Vulcan's agenda and yet building bridges that will ultimately lead to an interstellar alliance known as the Federation. Trip, likable Southern Engineer who's deep friendship with his Captain, manages to survive his occasional bouts of insubordination. T'Pol, initially an observer from a Vulcan government concerned about the impact of humankind's deep exploration. Growing more accustomed to the crew and their perspective. Her relationship with Trip, which manages to rise above its somewhat exploitive origins and her struggle to maintain control over her emotions. At this point, I should also make it clear I loved what Enterprise did with the Vulcans and how they are every bit the race seen all the way back to the Original Series. I could continue to outline traits of the various other regulars, who are anything but cyphers in my opinion. Under developed in comparison to the big three for sure, but I feel that was changing... even Travis Mayweather got in on the action by the end.
I love the technology - a grappler instead of tractor beams, phase pistols and EM rifles, airlocks and shuttle-pods deployed from bomb bay doors underneath. When you're at a disadvantage, you have nothing but your wits to rely on and this show was about as far from Voyager's technobabble saves the day approach as it was possible for Trek to realistically get.
I still believe there is unexplored potential left in Enterprise and indeed it firmly has feet under the franchise table, as a prequel to both the 60's TV show and JJ Abrams' motion picture based in an alternate reality. 2 reasonably good seasons, 2 excellent ones kept me watching and yet still barely scratched the surface. Had I been in charge of CBS/Paramount in 2005, I certainly would not have cancelled this... not considering how well the stories were coming along in leaps and bounds. I hope they're looking at the popularity of Star Trek in cinemas at the moment, and think back to that day fans held a rally outside the studio, sent emails and letters... all protesting the loss of a show that had finally turned the tide into fan acceptance, only to be unjustly rewarded with the axe. Shame on the Executive who made that decision. -
brocious16 April 2005For the past year I've watched Enterprise hoping they would get better and quit being so doom and gloom. I was hoping for them to get back to basics and more of the original Star Trek. Well, finally after a so-so year, they get back more to the original and start getting good again. I get all pumped up about it, and what does UPN do; but, cancel it! Well, that settles it. I have no reason to watch UPN again. Too bad another network or syndication wouldn't pick up Enterprise. If it would continue as it's been this year alone, it could run many more years. The camaraderie's is back and it's getting more humorous. The stories are fantastic. And, we're seeing more of the beginning of the original Trek! The writers are getting imaginative again! Well, hopefully there will be a miracle and Enterprise will be saved, though I doubt it. Too bad! I really hope it's not the end of the Star trek series. I hope Enterprise makes a comeback, some how, some way! Someone please save this series!
-
Tweetienator29 September 2021This is in my opinion the last legit entry to the Star Trek universe: Discovery and Picard are just a travesty of Roddenberry's vision. The movies with Chris Pine are not bad but put by far too much focus on action and CGI-wonderland. Anyway, from time to time I put one of those shows back on my screen and Enterprise is the border for my travels back in time, after that just awaits the void of trash, which I carefully know how to avoid.
-
walsh-223 July 2009I was very annoyed when they cancelled Enterprise as I thought it was a really good series and deserved to be on a lot longer than it was.
I loved it from the first time it came on the TV till when it finished. If I have a criticism, I felt the last season particularly towards the end was rushed a bit so all the loose ends were tied up but on the whole, I really enjoyed watching the series.
It continued in the essence of the other Star Trek Series and was a very entertaining and unbeatable series. It was definitely not a weak series and I thought the writing and direction was brilliant but most of all it was the cast that kept me watching every week, they really did a good job and should be congratulated on continuing the spirit of what Star Trek stood for, so thank you Scott Bakula (Captain Archer), Jolene Blalock (T'Pol), Connor Trinneer (Trip), Dominic Keating (Malcolm), Linda Park (Hoshi), Anthony Montgomery (Travis) and John Billingsley (Dr. Phlox). -
mstomaso11 March 2007Unlike TOS-DS9, Voyager and Enterprise suffered, with some consistency, from franchise writing which, though occasionally brilliant, was more often than not formulaic and unimaginative. No longer was the franchise's goal to take viewers where nobody had gone before. With Enterprise, the goals seemed to become more obviously "milk this thing for all its worth" more than ever before. Enterprise's writing team had their work cut out for them. They had to satisfy people who loved the original vision of TOS - high quality story-driven sci fi with consistent and engaging characters; people who loved the extension and expansion of the ST universe in TNG; fans who enjoyed the intense characterization and serialized drama of DS9; and people who enjoyed the somewhat less intense but still interesting ship-based adventures of Voyager.
The second problem is the concept itself. Star Trek made its fan base by bucking trends, not buying into them. And yet, the franchise decided to jump on the prequel bandwagon by developing a whole series that looked back before TOS to the first human involvement in intergalactic travel. When I first heard of this, I didn't know whether to applaud the bravery of the franchise team, or to wonder (as I often did while Voyager wandered through its last three season) what the heck they were thinking (if anything). My main concerns - and it seems that the series did indeed have problems dealing with these - were: how are they going to make this as radically innovative as the later series without creating major continuity problems for those series? and given Voyager's formulaic approach to story-lines, how will the writing team make yet another ship-based adventure as innovative and imaginative as TNG and TOS? Impossible? No. Impossible for a centrally-controlled franchise writing team operating within a corporate studio framework? Yes, probably... unless you have writers who are passionately dedicated to pushing boundaries and political and philosophical buttons (i.e. Ron Moore, etc) or go back to the model used by TOS and (to a lesser extent) TNG - bring in outside writers with pre-established Sci fi credentials.
As much as I enjoyed many episodes of Enterprise, and felt that the characters were as likable, well-developed and interesting as most of the franchise's efforts, and as much as I consider Enterprise to have been a generally successful series, I wish the franchise had continued to push the boundaries of sci fi and imaginative fiction, rather than cannibalizing itself and sticking with the formula. Again, a prequel was a great idea - for a mini-series or a limited, carefully story-arced 2-3 season series.
As has been said, hindsight is 20/20. However, I honestly remember thinking, when I first heard about the concept of Enterprise, that it would be best approached as a mini-series, or planned for a very limited number of seasons. From a business perspective, I think this would have made Enterprise a much more successful enterprise, and not the threat to the integrity of the franchise that it proved to be. I have many more opinions about the operation of the franchise which I will withhold here - after all - as an outsider (like many of the people who wrote TOS and TNG's best episodes) - What do I know? -
twh-0028610 October 2020Was a great series. Watching it again years later, it was even more enjoyable and seemed to finally find its footing when it was cancelled. Would have really enjoyed a few more seasons. On a side note, if you watch it I strongly recommend NOT watching the final episode. It really can ruin the whole experience and seems like a half-baked idea from someone watching too much Indiana Jones or something like that. Worst way to end a show since Sopranos.
-
I_Ailurophile20 December 2020I watched all 4 seasons of Enterprise a couple years ago along with the other Star Trek series. As I began I recognized maybe a dozen episodes I'd seen before out of ENT's 4 seasons. Like Voyager, I recalled not liking ENT, but not necessarily recalling why. I started out with expectations at rock bottom--and was pleasantly surprised to find them far exceeded.
From what I had previously seen and recalled of ENT in the years before my completionist viewing, I wasn't particularly kind in my treatment of it. I had some issues with the series, then, that have rather been resolved in my mind. To wit:
It seems silly now, but I didn't like the way ENT was all bright and shiny in its production and special effects while previous series, that take place 100-200 years later in canon but aired 10-30 years earlier, boasted more modest visuals. That's on me. I can't even defend making that point previously. More importantly, I didn't like how ENT presented species and events that played a HUGE role in Earth's pre-Federation space exploration, but which in the time of TOS or TNG are of course not even mentioned (because in real life, such things weren't yet written into canon existence). But then I realized--with ENT we're talking of people, places, events that, again, take place 100 years before TOS, 200 years before TNG. How often in a given day do WE, in real life, talk of things 200 years ago in our nation's history? How many events/people can we name and discuss at length from that long ago? None of ENT's major events in canon ST history happened when the most beloved series had aired, but then, Kirk and Picard had plenty of their own history to make.
Moreover, having now rewatched ENT in full, I can honestly say I like it, despite its flaws. At its best it upholds classic Star Trek tropes of space exploration in the face of diplomatic challenges and powerful enemies, unique unforeseen issues that arise in encountering new worlds and species. And while introducing new proper nouns into a timeframe that takes place before previously established canon has its issues, I do appreciate that ENT shows a different time in Earth history--before the Federation. When humans were only just beginning to step out into deep space. I like how ENT presents the rough edges of an ambitious new endeavor: difficulties with language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, inferior space-faring technology, a complex relationship w/ the species (Vulcans) who helped Earth find its proverbial feet. A small cramped vessel.
In short, ENT at its best is classic Star Trek goodness, with the twist of (imperfectly) telling the story of humans getting out into space well before Earth became the powerhouse of the Alpha Quadrant that it is in the 24th or even 23rd centuries.
And while the cast doesn't have the same chemistry as other Star Trek series, I think the characters were (mostly) well written, and the cast does a good job of giving them life. Of course the real star in every sense is Scott Bakula as Archer; I wish we had more ENT for that reason alone. I don't like how Jolene Blalock's T'Pol was sexualized, recalling like treatment of Seven of Nine in VOY and even Counselor Troi in early TNG. Yet I think Blalock performed well, making T'Pol sympathetic and relatable even while humans otherwise had a complex relationship with Vulcans. It was a recurring delight to see Jeffrey Combs again; his portrayal of Shran is surely one of the highlights of ENT. Again, something ENT did well--just as humans had a rough start in space, we see the sordid history of Andorians, and Vulcans, before the Federation was built.
I could continue listing every little thing Enterprise did well--which was a lot, really--but I don't want to spend hours on this review. What were the series' failings? Where did it go wrong? Why is it remembered so poorly compared to every Star Trek series that preceded it?
There are three things that come to mind that specifically detract from what could have been another great success in the Star Trek franchise.
First and foremost, that theme song. WHY?! Watching ENT on Netflix, those little words "skip intro" were a blessing each episode.
Second, and much more substantially, one of the problems ENT had was simply biting off more than it could chew. This is a tricky one, because it tried so very hard, but results were mixed.
Self-contained episodes of classic Star Trek stories? Great. 1-2 episode arcs? Some were better than others. Very Big Ideas that spanned multiple episodes, a whole season, multiple seasons? That's where the wheels fell off. Above all else I of course refer to the Temporal Cold War.
The TCW is a Very Big Idea. Time travel is a very complicated thing to approach narratively; some fiction does it well, but Star Trek has a checkered history. To ENT's credit, it (almost entirely) avoids the bad story trope of "change the timeline, now the whole plot never happened." I can't pinpoint the exact issue. But with exceptions, Star Trek is at its best when the crew is dealing with crises Here And Now. The TCW is a cool idea, yet--factions from the distant future vying to change the past for more favorable timeline? That's a lot. And Enterprise just can't quite muster it.
Maybe the writers felt like they couldn't concoct a big enough threat, strictly in 22nd century terms, to precipitate the alliances underpinning the Federation--the eventual foundation of which is the bread and butter of ENT, and the whole reason for the Temporal Cold War. It's not that I think the Temporal Cold War narrative is handled *poorly,* I just don't find it entirely convincing. In my opinion it strays just enough from those stories that Star Trek tells best that it somewhat undermines the show. Credit due for taking a gamble--but it didn't quite pay off.
Third, and perhaps most significantly of all, though--worse than a terrible theme song, more disappointing than a narrative swing and miss--Enterprise tried far too hard to wink at the audience. Some episodes recalled established Star Trek lore and handled it well. Most did not. Most callback episodes smack of the same weak referential ploys that, say, 'Family Guy' often employs to elicit laughs without any effort: "Here's a thing! Recognize this thing? Isn't it great?!"
ENT takes place well before TOS or TNG. It stands to reason there'd be people, places, and events referenced that fans recognize from previous series. The issue is that Enterprise not only bends over backwards but attempts inhuman contortionist feats to shoehorn in whatever reference it can.
I've spent more time in this review talking about ENT's failings than its successes, but that's kind of the point: ENT is considered the ugly duckling of Star Trek, and it's not remembered well. That's unfortunate, because it had great potential.
Theme song aside, what I think it comes down to is Enterprise simply tried too hard. It attempted complex narrative arcs that went beyond the scope of what Star Trek excels at. It thrusted canon references at the audience with an obvious wink. All it actually had to do was Tell A Story. Had ENT been simply about humans getting off the ground--struggles w/ regressive elements on Earth, navigating complex interspecies relations, venturing into space for the first time, building core alliances preceding the Federation--it would've been remembered far better.
It's a shame--what ENT does well it does *very* well. I would've loved to see more stories with this cast and the difficulties the crew faced. Again, no one's more surprised than I am that I ended up liking it. I think Enterprise is worth watching. Just be prepared for some key disappointments.
Rating: 6.5/10 -
pi463014 February 2007I read a little about the history of Star Trek and wonder every time about the strange relation between cult status and commercial success. TOS was not a commercial hit back when it was aired. However, after decades, it reached that cult-status that led Hollywood to produce the movie series first, and TNG later. It would be nice to see a pattern, a cycle (or anti-cycle if you wish), in such Trek developments (not to forget about Voyager and DS9 of course) and maybe there is one: at the apex of amount of series, commercial flop once again seemed to have hit Trek universe. Oddly, I still encounter numerous fans of TNG and VOY today (less DS9 ones, but I always thought that one was not so bad at all).
I was not that much Trek fan at all to understand that a new, prequel series was on its way back in 2000/2001. My first "contact" with Archer and the crew of NX-01 was somewhere in 2003 or 2004, when a friend of mine was watching an episode on his laptop during some lab exercise at university. I saw Scott Bakula and my prejudice was there, pronto: "What? Quantum Leap is the captain of an Enterprise? Forget!". Now I don't have the slightest antipathy to Mr Bakula: I think he was great in Quantum Leap and I always tried to catch the show on TV. But to see him being captain on that ship, where I already had seen Kirk and Picard (I learned to appreciate Picard only a few years ago), two men of so different, but so shaped character, made my opinion be clear: no way this was going to work. And then: a prequel! Please, no more, after I saw what Lucas did to his fantastic space opera! Why was Hollywood always trying to follow tendencies... even if they were proved to be flops from a content point of view? I decided to skip this Trek travel and turned my interest elsewhere. After some more years I learned that ENT was dead just after four seasons, because of commercial flop. I took notice and I thought I was right from the beginning.
Last New Year's Eve, the Italian channel LA7 aired a "special Trek night", showing an episode from TOS, the movie "Generations" and finally the pilot (episode one and two) from ENT. I knew the first two that good, that I skipped them from time to time (helping with dinner preparations), but I watched the pilot in full. It was not enough to make me crazy about, but I was getting curious. I recalled from 2003/2004, that I found the blue outfit ridiculous in a way. And I couldn't understand why they had used a song theme instead of the classic, instrumental Trek theme, of course adapted in some way. So I got the DVDs and started watching...
I am almost at the end of ENT's season one and I wish I to put in words precisely what determined my change of mind. Let's start right from the beginning: the title score. Simply magnificent. I particularly like the scene where Alan Shepard is smiling ironically at the camera (I would like to know when that one was taken) and it stands, for me, as a symbol for all that sacrifices made by countless women and men since generations in air- and spacecraft: very often paying with their own lives. Then, Robert Goddad, as he is writing some formula on a blackboard. Chuck Yaeger and Amelia Earhart. The complete short title sequence perfectly grasps the endeavors made by mankind to unfold the unknown. As to the series: I found the pilot's plot not particularly overwhelming, but the subsequent episodes are intriguing. Besides the episode character of the series, I now like the prequel character and can't get enough to learn how they dealt with first beam transportation, phasers and the necessity of having some sort of "protocol" when leaving the ship, encountering new races etc. This is real dedication to details from the writers/producers! The ship is also more fragile than any other Enterprise we saw, it does not have the defense mechanisms we have on TNG. And then we have the not so easy relationship with the Vulcans and I must admit Mr Bakula does a masterpiece of interpretation when he plays the bullheaded captain, who slowly but constantly transforms into a responsible and open minded captain. Jolene Blalock is the most stunning female Vulcan I have ever seen. Her presence adds a certain eroticism and mystery to the show I have never experienced before in any other Trek show. Sure, there may be some continuity errors, some more evident than others. But we're all human after all, and I am not measuring ENT against TNG and TOS: I just want new stories from the Enterprise and her crew!
As you probably already have understood, today I ask myself why this show has been canceled after just four seasons (if I recall well, TOS was also canceled after four seasons or so). Again, commercial success is the measure of everything. But now, if take myself as unit of measurement and ask myself why did I contribute to let this fail, I feel that there are many, complex reasons. But, evidently, I needed time to appreciate. Time to pull my prejudices down. Time, to remember the "Trek that was" (I watched the movies again and the entire TNG seasons in the meantime) and that is gone for good. Today, if there was a petition to bring ENT back, I would sign it immediately.
Since time is my so recurrent reason for ENT being "my" flop, when it was aired, I wonder if Hollywood should not apply more flexible time spans when it measures commercial success. To the cast and crew of ENT, I wish you to come back either as series or as movie.
10/10 -
swordsnare16 July 2019Watched this in entirety on Netflix after overlooking this on its original release. At the time, the terrible theme song and the association with Scott Bakula and Quantum Leap, was a barrier for myself to give the show a chance.
Luckily, this has held up quite well with its production values being filmed in widescreen, unlike its predecessors filmed in 4:3. Seems timeless in retrospect without the distractions of dated set design, special effects and 90's haircuts.
Not without it's flaws, but enjoyable nonetheless. There is a shift from the first couple of seasons being standalone episodes to the following beings continuing narratives. -
theoldbull22 September 2002Easily the silliest and lamest of the Berman/Pillar/Braga Trek shows, not a mean feat after the way ST:TNG was conducted. Start with the theme song, a sappy Rod Stewart lite-rock ballad that would pass as deep for junior high. The school analogy is apt because in this show, the familiar faces of the soon to be born Federation are the cool older kids the silly, geeky sophomoric humans want to hang out with but have nothing to offer. Nonetheless, the human geeks show up everywhere and can't be ignored, so the older alien kids parcel out goodies (technology, crew, etc.) just to keep the sophomores quiet and occupied. Unlike the original Trek, in which humanity found its way in spite of itself and was an equal partner at the start of the Federation, the Enterprise Earthers must be shown how to be learned by the more sophisticated spacefaring peoples and really have nothing to offer the much more learned alien races, revealing more than a bit of anti-American & anti-Western political bias in the process.
Now about the plot lines. This Trek era should be a rich field of built-in scripts of a stumbling Earth making contact with other stumbling species, ultimately to band their strengths and weaknesses in common cause as the Federation. Instead, Berman and Braga lead off and keep resorting to the most hackneyed of all SF plot devices, time travel, ruining Enterprise the same way they undermined their other ST collaborations. There were some quality scripts in the first season (especially the introduction of the Andorians). That quality is destroyed by a Temporal Cold War story arc, in which two future races drop in on the Enterprise to raise havoc with the crew and allow the writers to artificially introduce conflict without needing to follow such simple rules as physics, plot continuity or character development. The glory of the original Trek came from the writers being forced to operate within a defined structure of circumstances, which limits the writer's options but at the same time provides built-in tensions a good writer can exploit. Yes, TOS used time travel sometimes, all exceptions (bad ones almost aways, with "City On The Edge Of Forever" a good Harlan Ellison story with Trek characters overlaid) and none being central to the development of the show. Like all bad sci-fi writers, the Berman/Braga crew leans on the crutch of time travel the way Sam wrinkled her nose on Bewitched to magically make things appear or reappear, or Bobby showed up in the shower to negate an entire season of Dallas.
For Berman & Braga, wave the magic wand of time travel and anything you want to happen can happen. Bad writers (like the Berman/Pillar crew) use such devices so they don't have to spend time crafting plots and characters. No need to actually work on plots when you can just drop new bad guys in and out with a time machine. No need to actually pay attention to series continuity as a writer, either, because time travel undoes it all anyway. Much like a chess game where you can move a piece (or multiple pieces) to any space on the board, or off the board, whenever you want, time travel relieves the sci-fi writer of need to structure a universe or episode because there literally are no rules, nor do the characters need to be developed because there are no rules for them, either. The structure of the show and its characters can change to fit the writer's needs to produce an individual script. With the time travel plot device, there are no consequences to character actions because they can all be undone magically instead of having to live with the experiences of previous episodes. Time travel makes for easy writing and bad episodes. As for me, give me a sci-fi universe where the characters have to make decisions and face the consequences of those decisions in the following episodes. Give me a reason to invest my time in the show and its characters instead of the episodes being cartoons where Wile E. Coyote always comes back intact from the fall into the canyon.
For my money, if you want Scott Bakula to time travel, be honest and make Quantum Leap II instead of renaming the Sam Beckett character as Jonathan Archer. Would somebody at Viacom please, please fire Berman, Braga and Pillar and order the Trek office to never again write a time travel script? They are making generic sci-fi with Trek names. I can see generic sci-fi on dozens of shows. Give me a reason to watch a Star Trek show instead of all the rest. -
LtTroy3 May 2005I have mixed feelings about this show. It probably has contained some of the best and definitely a lot of the worst Trek episodes ever. It was meant to re-invent Trek but all it did was re-use old plot devices. The best thing they ever did was replace Berman, because he had been working on the franchise too long. Trek needs new blood, and for the 4th season they finally got it. But of course it came too late and now the show has been cancelled after it just started to find its footing.
Contrary to some other comments I've seen, Enterprise did NOT use its cast to its fullest potential. Mayweather has been virtually ignored since the first and second seasons (he wasn't even in most of the 3rd season episodes) and when he has been around lately it has only been to lift heavy things or hit something. Reed was just starting to get some good stuff this season. Enterprise had a wonderful opportunity to connect every Trek series together and revitalize the franchise but all it did (and most people believe this) was bury it. Despite Enterprise's accomplishments, its failures reign supreme. As much as I love Trek, it needs a rest. Maybe after a few years it will be brought back by people who have new ideas to bring to it. Then, hopefully, we will truly go where no one has gone before. -
uncleclaw5 May 2020Seasons 1 & 2 had some interesting missions, and they explained the origins of certain Star Trek tech like phasers and the transporter -- and the understandable apprehension toward using the transporter. I loved the retro-feel, but the graphics are far from retro - top notch. Also, they explained first contacts with the blue-skinned Andorians, the Klingons, and others. Mostly mission by mission episodes.
But in the 3rd season, oh my, this show kicked into high gear with a riveting continuous story-line into the "expanse", complete with awesome rendered and practical-effects/make-up beings that some of us heard about from David Wilcock and Corey Goode on Cosmic Disclosure -- reptilians, insectoids, aquatics, and arboreal primate beings, as well as trans-dimensional beings.
All-in-all, the spectacular graphics, story lines, galactic dogfights, sexual tension, and humor make this show a gem. I've always liked Scott Bakula and he makes for a great captain. Linda Park is an absolute doll and Jolene Blalock is the sexiest Vulcan ever. Dr Phlox, played by John Billingsley, is a riot at times and a primary source of unexpected humor -- best Star Trek doc, imo.
So much going on in this show. Just starting season 4, and it's looking to be interesting and also seems based on something we heard from Corey Goode. Four seasons is not enough... I hope they pick this up again. -
What a shame that this series was ended so early. They did a marvelous job and I think things were only going to get better. I think that this show is becoming steadily more popular after cancellation-not unlike the original Star Trek I hope they have a chance to continue the series someday-there's so much more that they can do with it- they could do new episodes,straight-to-DVD movies-I'll take anything... Captain Archer's crew's adventures are only just beginning....I'd love to see them fight the Romulan War... ANyway-I can't recommend Enterprise highly enough-it's full of interest for both old Trek fans and new ones...
-
KoshNaranek29 February 2008If you view this show as a standalone, instead of trying to tie it into all of Trek canon, it's actually pretty good, and for the most part, got better as it went along.
I was *completely* outraged and turned off by the last 7 minutes or so of the Season 3 finale, and didn't watch the show again until this month (Feb. 2008). Didn't see how they'd ever be able to recover from those awful 7 minutes, but much to my surprise, they did. (Thumbs UP) :-D I've been watching Season 4 via NETFLIX since Feb. 5th, and for the most part it's been great. Last disc (#6) is due to arrive tomorrow. (Yeah, I heard that the Season 4 finale is bad.)
Didn't realize how much I missed the characters (actors), especially T'Pol (Jolene Blalock), Trip (Connor Trinneer), Phlox (John Billingsley), Vulcan Ambassador Soval (Gary Graham) and Commander Shran (Jeffrey Combs). I like it so much that I'm going to get Season 4 on DVD. Wish this show had been renewed, with Manny Coto in charge, and B&B gone.
Cancelled just as it was getting really good. :-( -
info-591825 June 2007While flawed in some ways, Ent has some qualities that make it one of the better series of Star Trek. The actor's, on the whole, are better actors, The story lines are a bit less fantastic than some of the unbelievable ones in the some of the other shows. Enterprise is often outgunned, and often the underdog. It has a grittier feel to it, somewhat more believable.
The steady evolution of T'Pols character is good too, it gives a view of Vulcan culture that adds some depth to the show. The long drawn out romance between T'Pol and Trip is more subtle than some of the others. Shame it only got to 4 seasons...it and TNG are my favorites. -
Nordicnorn10 July 2007I am watching rebroadcasts on Sci-Fi. I had lost interest during season 3 and quit watching (and I am a fan of all the others), but now I get a second chance to to watch - and with a fairly objective eye. There were so many foul ups on this one, it is no surprise whatsoever it was canceled.
1) Much of the bad acting was from otherwise historically good actors, which could point to bad directing/writing. However, of the regular cast, Anthony Montgomery tops the list of really bad actors. His goofy, "Leave it to Beaver" delivery is corny, and he is just to much of a cardboard personality. Fortunately he was given less and less to do.
2) The characters never developed and were inconsistent. Archer being the standout. In one episode, Archer behaves like a I'm-gonna-Kick-your-ass Cowboy in the true Kirk tradition. Yet in the very next episode, he goes all politically correct, admonishes crew members for meeting violence with violence, and pretty much acts like a poofy French diplomat. Make up our minds! One of the great things about all the Treks is their distinct Captains. One look at Janeway in a given situation, and you knew: "Boy, you are in trouble now." Picard reached a certain limit too. And that was the fun...You knew when the antagonist had crossed the line. Archer? One never knew what his action was going to be.
3) The Xindi Story arc. First, it was a weak story line, and suspension of disbelief was impossible for a real fan. Second - It was more than an arc- it was a flipping serial. Many fans like the stand alone shows. I hated that it turned into a soap opera, where is you missed one episode, you missed vital information. The standard Trek (DS9 being the exception) format was pretty much beginning, middle, end all in an hour. There was the occasional "to be continued" but not every week.
4) Horrible forced dialog, silly 1960's style banter, not one comic and not one beloved character (see #2). There was no Scotty... No Paris, No Neelix. Not one character the audience could count on to provide some fun.
5) Crappy sets. OMG! Whenever they were on a planet, the sets looked like they had been recycled from Xena the princess warrior.
6) Everyone/Everything was too clean. In a show that is supposed to be the "True Frontier" in the early days, I would expect more than a little fake dirt when they are crawling around the bowels of the ship. I suppose the writers have never been on a C-5 Galaxy. They are anything but clean. They could have taken a page out of Battlestar Galactica on this one. BG has the feel of a real flight deck and the maintenance area is just that.
If they wanted to make this Star Trek a stand out from the others, they should have gone little grittier...a little grayer. Not all pink, and fluffy, and soft. Overall: I was saddened by the direction they took this. I am a fan, and should have cared it was canceled. But I didn't. -
Daykthln9 June 2020This is the best of the series in my opinion after the original. (Though Next Generation has grown on me and the new Picard series is very good.) The writing is very good, the plots very good and the characters are very well cast and developed----much better than most of the other series. . The overarching plot, in addition to the plot of each episode, makes this more sophisticated and interesting than most of the other series. t"pol is by far the most interesting vulcan after spock (in all his incarnations). This is VASTLY underrated and I predict that over time with have more lasting viewers and fans than many of the other franchises.
-
kokorikos29 July 2021I ve watched it recently..its a very good series...TPal was its best asset..i was also touched by the cute biggle, porthos... Captain Archer was also good at times and Flox too... as for Trip, was a tragical charackter in my opinion.. anyway, the series had passion and enthusiasm but lacked of realism....an unexperianced crew and a weak vessel without serious sheilds at its first journey, had not even one chance against alien advanced civilaizations...but we can overcome it for the sake of the series..the Agent Daniels was also an unnecessery add to the show, allthough an interesting and original character.
I also found the relationship of Trip and TPal irritating...until the last 4-5 episodes, it wasnt clear if they had an affair or not..and the last episode was beautifully made and touching , but sad...the idea of commander Riker performing the last episode, was very good.....anyway the show was good. -
arcbeatle30 October 2006Enterprise became my favorite show as soon as I saw it, the opening song, the characters, the design... All ran through my mind every day after viewing it. Enterprise is at its core a show about exploration, about breaking the boundaries that other people have put on you. Its also about discovery, which as its turns out isn't always a good thing. The characters Don't start out set in stone, and then have problems thrown at them, the change over the course of the show, and the writers were not afraid to shake their lives up; sometimes is horrific ways.
We get to see Earth meet new alien cultures, go through its first interstellar war, and see it develop. The show doesn't pull its punches either, when things die they are dead, characters can be irrational, immoral, and generally very realistic.
Enterprise succeeds where much TV fails, it created a cast of interesting, developing characters while still delivering the action that makes TV fun. But without people, action is Empty. Enterprise is perfect in my eyes at least, and deserves to be seen. Even if you don't normally like Sci-fi, you might enjoy this show. A lot. -
snoozejonc7 January 2021The voyages of the first ever starship Enterprise.
I enjoyed Enterprise in moments, found it frustrating in others, but what sustains the enjoyment of a show for me is having interesting characters, and this is where it is not at the same level as other Trek shows.
The plotting of the series changes direction a number of times. It starts off one way: lots of individual stories with the occasional two-parter thrown in and a revisionist approach to the Vulcan race that doesn't really work. I found the episodes in the first two seasons pretty hit and miss, with some examples of rehashing plots from previous shows.
In series three it moves to a mostly serialised plot that has massive implications to the Trek universe. It is clear the show was at this point being influenced by events happening in post-9/11America. I found it a difficult concept to really buy into given there is (understandably) no reference to the storyline depicted in any other shows. That being said it does contains some good episodes and a compelling arc.
By the forth season the writers seemed to be trying to 'put right what once went wrong' (tee hee!) with the direction of the show and focus on being a prequel to the Original Series. It focuses on key events like the founding of the federation, the relationships between Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites and Humans, whilst at the same time trying to clear up some of the early mess it created with it's depiction of Vulcans
The characters have a mix of good and bad moments. Archer is probably the least popular of Enterprise captains, portrayed as an overly angry jock, who at times tries to be Jack Bauer and feels miles away from the lovable, disorientated time traveller Scott Bakula played in Quantum Leap.
T'Pol is a Vulcan science officer, which is not exactly an original idea, except Jolene Blalock was likely chosen for how she would look in the make-up and skin-tight uniform. The writing and portrayal of her character is quite inconsistent with emotion and she is at times overly sexualised.
Trip Tucker is about the best character and Connor Trinneer appears to be one of the most comfortable in the role. He is kind of a mix of Bones and Scotty, as a down to earth engineer with a Southern drawl. I kind of wished he was the captain, but then again he wasn't Sam Beckett before Enterprise.
John Billingsley as Dr Phlox works well but I would have liked to have seen him involved in more storylines as with The Doctor in Voyager. However, the Denobulan race has some very interesting culture clash moments that work very well.
Dominic Keating drew a pretty short straw as Malcolm Reed. He has plenty of screen time but the writers take many opportunities to assassinate his character with annoying personality traits and in the next breath expect you to take him seriously as a tactical officer.
Travis Mayweather and Hoshi Sato are the characters who really lose out as the show moves on. They are constantly there but given little to do of any significance, particularly Mayweather. Anthony Montgomery and Linda Park do their best with the material they have, but as main cast members they deserved better. (See 'In A Mirror Darkly' for their best opportunity to shine)
All the above characters are fine for the purpose they serve but they don't quite have the screen presence that we see in the other shows. Jean-Luc Picard is worth the annual fee of Netflix alone on The Next Generation, Seven of Nine and The Doctor frequently light up the screen on Voyager, Sisko and the Cardassians are always compelling on Deep Space Nine and the all time great trinity of Kirk, Spock and Bones goes without saying. The Enterprise characters are comparatively less memorable.
Most of my favourite episodes involved Jeffery Coombs as Shran who excels in pretty much all his cameos such as 'The Andorian Incident' and the series four trilogy 'Babel One', 'United' and 'Aenar'. Other standout episodes for me were 'Shockwave Part 1', 'Future Tense', 'Cogenitor', 'Twilight', 'The Forgotten', 'The Council', 'The Observer Effect', 'Affliction', 'In A Mirror Darkly 1 & 2' and 'Terra Prime'. I took the most enjoyment out of episodes that dealt with the beginnings of the federation and plots that were themed around the Starfleet Prime Directive.
There are a lot of missed opportunities in the other episodes and some weak efforts like 'Shuttlepod One', 'Extinction' and 'These Are The Voyages'. One to watch for being 'so bad its good' is 'Marauders', as it has to be seen to be believed as an A-Team inspired tribute to The Magnificent Seven. For me these are no worse than anything seen on the bottom end of the scale in all other Star Trek shows.
Overall it is a decent prequel that is worth watching if you like other Star Trek shows. -
bloopville26 June 2021I am a quarter of the way through the 4th and last season, so I have watched a sufficient amount of episodes to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of the show.
1. Lazy writing - The series is full of sneering villains who say obvious things about how they will destroy this or that planet, or kill this or that villain.
The shields, weapons and life support are always at some percent to indicate that the ship is about to be destroyed. We know it won't be, so there really is no drama.
There is always a known time limit for the bad thing to happen, but we all know that things happen when the writers want them to, so, again, no drama.
Deus Ex Machina solutions abound.
The Enterprise is always under powered and under gunned, yet always prevails because the foes always have a uniquely simple weakness to exploit which the crew of the Enterprise always knows.
One or two on the fly technical solutions are believable, but the crew always has instantaneous scientific, engineering and medical solutions that would take years of research by a team and testing to create.
2. There are few good actors. Only John Billingsley (Phlox) can carry a scene by himself. The rest range from adequate to terrible. I suspect Anthony Montgomery might be a better actor than indicated, but he isn't given sufficient chance to extend his character.
4. There are few non-regular characters that have a presence. TOS had a slew of fine actors that were villains, allies or foils to the crew. You had the dignity of Sarek, plus Khan, Mudd, or dozens of other fine stage actors. Next generation had Q, Deep Space Nine had had Garak and the three elderly Klingons, etc.
Unengaging actors and plots. It deserves to be the lowest rated Star Trek.