Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Why I won't watch "Enterprise"?

This is topic Why I won't watch "Enterprise"? in forum Other Television Shows at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/3.html

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

I am reading the opinions on the internet on the series. I have participated in giving an opinion.

The most important reason that I will not watch the new show is that the new show will be like the majority of the other Trek shows. Since the first show, the franchise has been consistent in the treatment of the characters and the plots. DS9 attempted to be a little different-this show deviated from the episodic approach of the first, second, and fourth shows. However, this approach was not fully successfully and may never be tried again. Furthermore, the stories are conservative as compared to other sci-fi on tv, for ex. Farscape and Lexx.

My mother, who has been a Star Trek fan since 1966 ("The Naked Time") and has watched the first, second, and third (third is her favorite), has stopped watching the shows. She feels the current Star Trek writing is very conservative and that the characters are not allowed to mature. She is simply bored of the franchise and will refuse to watch anymore.

For me, the choice is this-do I want to see 60's sci-fi, modified by PC, written in the early 2000s (Enterprise), or do I want to see 90's and early 2000s sci-fi, with story arcs and character maturity? I prefer the latter and this is why I have stopped watching Star Trek.

I will give an example of what our family now prefers. On the latest Farscape, "Out of Their Minds", the crews souls are transmigrated from one body to another. Crichton's soul is in Aeryn, and Aeryn is in Rigel XVI. While in Aeryn's body, Crichton experiences a female's body and finds the experience enjoyable. My mother and I discussed this. She referred to Nurse Chapel, who had an infatuation with Spock, being in a hypothetical situation being in Spock's body. She would want to experience something of his body. In the 60's, this type of experience would have been taboo. In the 90's and early 2000's, this is not so taboo. Yet the Star Trek franchise is entrenched in the taboos of a bygone decade. This is one example.

I have nothing against the new show. I think the potential exists for the show to be successful by entertaining the fans who liked Voyager and, maybe, bringing in converts to the Star Trek universe. The issue I have is a personnal one. I have matured beyond Star Trek. I go back there as one goes back home to family-I was raised on Star Trek. There is contentment there. Recently, before I began to like Farscape, I saw the early second season of this show and I didn't like it. My mother suggested that this show was alien to my senses for I was used to Star Trek. I dismissed this for I liked Babylon Five, a non-Star Trek show. A year later, I see that Babylon Five is a better "Star Trek" show and I have come to accept Farscape. This show is not so alien and I have come here to call this show my new "sci-fi" home.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

I didn't read all of your post, sorry, but I JUST had to reply to one line that you gave:

quote:
My mother, who has been a Star Trek fan since 1966 ("The Naked Time") and has
watched the first, second, and third (third is her favorite), has stopped watching the
shows. She feels the current Star Trek writing is very conservative and that the
characters are not allowed to mature. She is simply bored of the franchise and will
refuse to watch anymore.

This is SO True. There was always this 'the powers that be, don't like us doing episodes that can't be shown out of order' with VOYAGER. This was their excuse for not letting the characters grow, to mature. Paris/Kim/Tuvok/Chakotay/Belanna and Neelix are the same characters in season 7 as they were in season 1. even the ship hasn't 'changed' or 'grown' - it is as if you could watch 'Ex Post Facto' and then 'Extreme Risk' and see NO difference in the characters. The only character that has REALLY grown is the Doctor. And, well Seven. Janeway has just fluctuated between Strong Captain, to Female Captain, to vidictive Captain, to Tortured Captain, to unstable Captain and back again.

Voyager has had the 'big wigs's' finger's in the pie for the last seven years - and well they are ruining Trek. They want a series that they can just sell to any market for syndication - and not get good ratings the first time round - or scrapping that - make a consistantly strong, engrossing, growing, maturing drama/series. They want it for the average person who can just sit down and watch 'Favourite Son' and not worry about anything else.

Andrew

------------------
Homer: I'm gonna miss Springfield. This town's been awfully good to us.
Bart: No, it hasn't, Dad. That's why we're leaving.
Homer: Oh, yeah. [pokes his head out the window] So long, Stinktown!

[This message has been edited by AndrewR (edited May 20, 2001).]

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Well, it doesn't bother me if the characters don't "mature" as you put it. I don't think it is reason enough to boycott the series. And you have to admit, there is some level of character development in the series, albeit not a very high one.

I can't understand boycotting a perfectly watchable series just because everything doesn't go the way you want it to. I'd recommend you give the new show a chance before saying "I've matured beyond Star Trek", which, to me, sounds a bit pretentious. Star Trek has something many of the new series' can't offer, a wealth of history.

------------------
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen"
Samuel Adams

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Trinculo Johnson is right!

Very good points. I agree totally (with the proviso that TOS wasn't exactly big on arcs or continuity).

I don't think I can be bothered to try to follow this show, knowing full well what it's going to be like. "Give it a chance," people say. They said that for every one of the seven fucking years we put up with Voyager. I remember reading a review of "Caretaker" that highlighted certain problems which are stll valid seven years later.

quote:
I can't understand boycotting a perfectly watchable series just because everything doesn't go the way you want it to.

Define "perfectly watchable." And shouldn't we be wanting TV that's a bit better than just "watchable?" B5, Farscape, Homicide, they're all more than just "watchable."

quote:
I'd recommend you give the new show a chance before saying "I've matured beyond Star Trek", which, to me, sounds a bit pretentious.

It's called "growing up." It's perfectly acceptable to not watch the same TV you were watching when you were a child. Mind you, I'm trying to tell that to a bunch of people who still watch bloody Transformers. ..

quote:
Star Trek has something many of the new series' can't offer, a wealth of history.

Which the new show will ignore or contradict at every opportunity. And why should I watch a TV show just because it has a history? I don't watch "Coronation Street" or any of the long-running US daytime soaps, like, er. . . "All My Children?"

------------------
Phasers

Posted by Teelie (Member # 280) on :

I would give it a chance except they are already bending the timeframe with the Klingons as it is let alone some of the other continuity errors popping up and it's not even aired yet!
I don't want to watch the same boring characters doing the same boring things for years and years, I want to see them grow and change, kill a few off if and when needed, replace them (decently for a change mind you) and actually be *gasp* alive instead of Chuckles wooden Indian act.

------------------
�

Posted by crobato on :

Offering history? That's the problem. That's a pretty banal premise there.

Trek or Enterprise isn't a brand name anymore synonymous with creative boldness.

I don't advocate boycotting any show, but I don't want to be bothered watching it or religiously trying to catch it. If I don't have anything to do around Wed 8'oclock I may catch a glimpse of it if there isn't any other better show on TV. Otherwise I may just eat dinner, go out, do a fanfic or play some game---most likely Dominion Wars. The whole Enterprise concept simply doesn't excite.

Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :

yeah i agree,
not only is it not exciting me but also frightening me as well.

but nevertheless i will give it a chance--i wasn't too excited about DS9 eigther but it turned out pretty well.

unlike voyager which excited me at first but up till now became a let down.
as for the final episold--i'm eager to see it, and horrified at how the borg are gonna be butchered yet again.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Enterprise - you're right - its not exactly "bodly going" television - it sounds like a rehash - of everthing that has gone before. It sounds like secure television - something nice and safe for all the Berman and Bragas... It doesn't sound like they want to take a chance - do something risky - is it their fault? Maybe - but what about the suits... they didn't like DS9 - but it was FANTASTIC - it was in your face television - at the same time it had respectable, changing, growing intelligent, fascinating, REAL characters. We grew with them as people. They taught us about things. What has Voyager taught us? How to fight Macrovirii? The closest Voyager comes to that sort of TV is a few of the early Seven episodes and a lot of the Doctor episodes. What they want is EASY, SAFE television that the 'fans' will lap up for the next seven years. Why don't they just do a reality television show and be done with it.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

*Hopes the people posting negatively get together with the people who were clamoring for a "Birth of the Federation" series a few scant months ago, (if, indeed, they weren't the same people)and they destroy each other in a bloody graphic conflict with lots of special effects and flying body parts.*

I'd pay to watch that.

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :

yeah
i'll kill'em, bloody BOF lovers!

j/k
hehehe

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Bof lover. That name cracks me up. Sounds like norwegian dandruff deterrant.

------------------
"Babies haven't any hair;
old men's heads are just as bare;
between the cradle and the grave
lies a haircut and a shave."

Samuel Hoffenstein

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Sounds like something from Star Wars... Nerf Herder or something

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

I'm always open to new things, and since I can not see the future like you can, I guess I'll just have to give it a try.

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

All together now: "Shut up, Wesley!" 8)

Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :

I'll give Enterprise a chance. I could not ever become totally bored with Trek. I've been in love with this Universe since I was a child, and will never 'easily' walk away from it.

I will watch it until such a time it screws up and breaks Trek law (lore) completely, hence disassociating itself from the Star Trek universe. At that time I will stand up and say, 'that is not Star Trek'. I will then invoke the whimsical image of a wrathful Gene Roddenberry rising from the grave to firstly give Braga and Berman a swift kicking, and to then officialy de-canonize 'Enterprise'!!

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: The Red Admiral ]