quote:"We're very aware of that, and we try very hard. We have made a few mistakes but nothing major. I read all these things on the Internet, these 'continuity pornographers' as I like to call them, though I didn't invent the term. These people honestly think that Rick and I are morons! of course we know that the Ferengi didn't make first contact with Archer. They made it with Picard. The only people who see the Ferengi are Trip, T'pol and Archer, and they never find out who they were. They were 'those weird looking guys' and they never see them again, so you can have fun with continuity!"
I am more than angry about Mr. Braga's attitude and I wonder if he believes himself what he is writing here.
I believe him that they are at least trying to stick to continuity. I believe that he's working hard to come up with good stories. I could understand him if he just declared more or less conscious violations of continuity as "artistic license", because it would allow more exciting stories (although it still wouldn't be right to do this on such a regular basis). I never said he or Berman was a moron (although I was often tempted to). But by making up awkward explanations and insulting fans who care about continuity he certainly doesn't make many friends.
No one finds out about the Ferengi? Although Archer would have had all time in the world to scan their databanks after overpowering them? Although Archer threatened that he would inform SF Command of them he didn't even bother looking up how they are named? Although the Valakians mentioned them only a few episodes ago? Although the Ferengi already know the Bolians? Although Starfleet would have thousands of ships 100 years later, they still would never run into the Ferengi? Mr. Braga, better do your own thing and be otherwise silent than trying to teach us continuity!
And if not that, what in the world would Braga call a "major mistake"?
[ April 16, 2002, 10:33: Message edited by: Bernd ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
It's very possible the Enterprise's computers weren't able to access the Ferengi databanks. Therefore, Archer just passes on the description of their ship and their species descriptions as a warning.
Also, very possible the Ferengi make it a point to keep out of Starfleet's sight.
Besides, we've got plenty of contradictions within TNG alone about the Ferengi. Don't harp only on Enterprise for messing with Ferengi canon.
Besides, Earth knew about the Ferengi since 1947. I don't recall the episode very well, but didn't Nog, Rom, or Quark identify themselves as "Ferengi" at some point to the military (probably during the ruse at the end)? Why don't you go bitch about THAT? Or do you not think that Starfleet knows about the 1947 Roswell encounter with strange aliens with big ears calling themselves Ferengi?
Oh, right ... Braga didn't write that episode. Silly me.
[ April 16, 2002, 10:33: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I was not complaining about the continuity error itself, but about Braga's excuse. It's completely invalid with what has been established in the very episode. There have been mistakes before and there will always be mistakes, but even if Braga had mentioned "Little Green Men" (which I never saw as a true error because the files on that were and are always obscure), for instance, this still would be no excuse to exploit them even more. I maintain my statement that since the beginning of Enterprise the acceptance level for what may pass has dropped to an all-time minimum in Star Trek.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I was about to launch into a long argument about how the point of Enterprise is that they can't "assert" themselves once they overpower the Ferengi because a huge part of the series premise is that humanity are the new kids on the block and have to be careful not to tick off any would-be-bullies. (Which also is my answer to one of the more annoying complaints about Fortunate Son, namely why Archer "let the eeeevil pirates go") And how it would be a moral double standard if Archer stole from the Ferengi after taking issue with them stealing from him.
But instead I'll say this:
Phil Farrand basically laid down the law on Nitpicking in his guides, and pointed out that nitpicking is akin to telling your loved one that they've got spinach in their teeth. It isn't about taking issue with the episode on the whole or the people creating it. It's just pointing out little nits and giggling to yourself about how lame you are for noticing that and how the episode would be marginally better if they hadn't missed that.
But in the last few years, nitpicking <worf>has lost its way</worf>. It's now downright ugly. Still miniscule little problems in a script, but they're now being blown up into reasons to trash an episode and personally and viciously insult people I don't think we have any business insulting, based on how we pretty much don't know them.
Every time you take issue with something, say "so what?" And answer your own question. And then say "so what?" to the answer. And answer again. And again. If you get to the ultimate conclusion "this episode should never have been made+" or "this series should never have been made" or "this writer should never have been born" then you've lost any hope of being a grounded, objective, um, normal viewer. You've become a crazy psycho who Brannon Braga has most certainly every right to ignore entirely. And insult, even.
+:If an episode is so godawfulterrible that the nits are the straw that break the camel's back, then on the contrary I'd call it a reasonable conclusion to make. Star Trek V falls into this category, IMHO.
(Addendum)Oh, and to answer the question what Braga might consider a major mistake, how about if they goofed and changed the name of Starfleet Command next episode to "Space Central" and the one after that to UESPA? Or if they suddenly changed Archer's middle name? Or if they suddenly changed the year the series is set? Of if they made Archer capable of reading T'Pol's thoughts in the pilot and then forgot about it? (And called him "Bill," to boot.)
[ April 16, 2002, 10:52: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I'm more concerned with Berman and Braga's cavalier attitudes about abandoning themes and issues that are at the core of the Star Trek experience than I am with them playing with continuity points like dates and technology. I am a huge continuity and technology fan, but these things tend to work themselves out on their own (See TheTom's post), and there isnt much point in getting mad about it. What I reserve getting mad about is them turning Trek into a smutty shoot-em-up action movie (which thankfully they havent done completely, so I'm not panicking).
And Braga has a point.. i can see him being a little steamed about not being able to write his 'own' show the way he wants to, and we should keep in mind that when it comes to keeping continuity valid: > the suits at Paramount: don't give a shit. as long as it sells, theyll make it. > Braga and Berman: try to stay valid, but arent afraid to cross a line or two for their vision.
Im more than satisfied with indulging the latter rather than giving in to the former.
We should be bugging them to write better episodes and see what they can surprise us with, rather than bugging them to make everything unfold exactly as we say it should.
[ April 16, 2002, 11:27: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Every morning I ask, 'Do I have anything else to give to this franchise? Does this franchise have anything else to give to me besides money?' The day I wake up and answer 'yes' to either of those questions, I will quit."
There's an unfortunate misstatement, if ever I heard one...
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
There have been some stinkers, but there have also been some pretty good yarns in there. It's always rough the first season, right? Anyway, it is very easy for us to sit here and be armchair producers. It might be a job we all think we could do better, but as someone who is trying to produce his own show (even on a MUCH smaller scale) I can tell you there is A LOT of work involved. Story arcs need to be drafted, scripts need to be written and tuned, talent needs to be auditioned and rehersed, costumes need to be designed and made, make-up needs to be designed and applied, props need to be designed and built, sets need to be designed and constructed, etc. You add in music, special effects and editting and you have yourself a recipe for high blood pressure. He's got to coordinate all of that, and he still takes the time to give a shizznip about what we the fans think? I can't even imagine trying to do 26 episodes a season. Who does he think he is, Aaron Sorkin?
Of course, The West Wing isn't set in space, shoe-horned in between several thousand years of history and a couple hundred years of inflexible conjecture that rabid fans are carefully scouring for the smallest infraction. I'm willing to cut the guy a little slack.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Actually, I'd say Enterprise's first season has been very good ... especially considering TNG, VOY's or DS9's first seasons.
[ April 16, 2002, 11:31: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
IMHO, overall average quality's been better than the other first seasons, but hardly anything to write home about. What I have been quite impressed by is the complete lack of certifiable stinkers [so far]. I'd only venture to call two episodes ("Terra Nova" and "Rogue Planet") bad, and their crime tended to be being boring rather than sinking into the pits of knitting-needles-in-eyes awfulness of other first-year fare (at least a full third of season 1 TNG, no exaggeration; plus generous quantities of first-year DS9, I mean honestly did anyone like "The Passenger" or "Move Along Home"?). Even DS9 in its bestest most fanboy-pleasingest years still put out one or two entries in this category every year ("Ferengi Love Songs" "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." "Profit and Lace" and "Meridian" spring to mind), and so Enterprise's avoidance thus far is a worthy achievement.
Are there flaws? Yeah. But I'm excited about Trek for the first time in ages and I'm not about to start kicking up a tantrum over continuity for the sake of finding something to complain about.
[ April 16, 2002, 11:46: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: Besides, Earth knew about the Ferengi since 1947. I don't recall the episode very well, but didn't Nog, Rom, or Quark identify themselves as "Ferengi" at some point to the military (probably during the ruse at the end)? Why don't you go bitch about THAT? Or do you not think that Starfleet knows about the 1947 Roswell encounter with strange aliens with big ears calling themselves Ferengi?
"Little Green Men" one of my favorites from DS9, and they did ID themselves, but I suspect Starfleet knows as mush about area 51 as we do today.
quote: What I have been quite impressed by is the complete lack of certifiable stinkers [so far]. I'd only venture to call two episodes ("Terra Nova" and "Rogue Planet") bad,
I think I would add "Unexpceted" to that list.
Looks like Jammer didn't care much for "Acquisition". I laughed a lot.
I never really understood why the hardcore Trekkie nitpicks. Personally I thought myself as a hardcore Trekkie, but I stopped after one such Trekkie, who looked like the sterotypical one: fat, pimply, pale, ugly, whering super-tight and small T-shirts and asking this question: "Mr. Chekov, which ship did you like better?"
I never when I first watch a episode for the first time, nitpick, critique, etc. This why when someone said that a movie sucked big time, I never see being a sucky movie until I see it a second or a third time. Maybe its just me.
Enterprise is doing well, though in my opinion the Ferengi if they were going to appear, they have appeared a bit later maybe in the 3rd season. Because I doubt they are going to neglect the Ferengi as a species of the week variety. Every Trekkie and their mom knows what a Ferengi looks like, and can relate it to Star Trek.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Unexpected actually impressed me as far as the story was concerned. The episodes failings were in the use of the Klingons who, continuity problem or not, are just boring and stupid in the context of the show, and the fact that the Xyrillians were: a) idiots, b) unrealistic and c) annoying. The episode itself however, did a lot for Trip's character and the crew's relationships. (and after i saw it i didnt think it was such a dumb idea as when i first heard about it).. so basically they get an A for the story and an F for the plot devices, averaging to a C+. The real stinkers are the eps that dont have any redeeming qualities... Hmm.. redeeming qualities.. I liked the outdoor set in Terra Nova, and the pod VFX were good. The story was like something wet and orange i shat out after eating week old burritos, but at least they got all the costumes patches and pips right, huh? See how continuity doesnt make a perfect show...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I agree, Mike. To paraphrase a post made by an actually coherent individual at the TrekBBS, the Klingons in Enterprise are just a bunch of stupid thugs with no personality whatsoever, quite different from how they are depicted in TNG. And the "these are 22nd century Klingons" excuse doesn't hold water, IMHO. TNG established that the Klingons had an interesting, rich culture which dated back long before the 2150's. You see none of that here. In Enterprise, they're even more wooden and two-dimensional than the TOS Klingons were.
Re: Tucker: He is my favorite character, hands down. He should be in command of the Enterprise, not Archer. Trip seems to be developing into the pre-Kirk that TPTB thought Archer was going to be.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:In Enterprise, they're even more wooden and two-dimensional than the TOS Klingons were.
If you say so ...
... then again, we haven't seen as much of them as we did in DS9. I wouldn't quite agree with your grouping of them as "thugs" ...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
To be fair, I wouldn't call three Klingons (Klaang, Volok and Bu'kaH) with more than a pair of speaking lines a reasonable basis from which to develop a 3-D view of the race during this timeframe. Of course, I liked the more savage and thuggish but still unmistakably Klingon behaviour in "Unexpected."
That said, I think the Klingons have been shelved until next year at the earliest, so I wouldn't worry about them becoming moustache-twirling idiots just yet. Braga's biggest weakness, IMHO, is that he's yet to write a really good villain, aside, perhaps, from Annorax and the Hirogen in "The Killing Game".
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
The_Tom: I agree to some extent. Nitpicking once was fun, as there is nothing more fun than to care even more about a TV show one loves anyway. Something has changed that fans have begun bitching about each and everything. Blame the internet, blame self-complacent people with too much time on their hands, but I think there is more about it. I think there must be a reason why people (like me) frequently speak of "the episode/series that could have been" or "the error that could have been avoided". The complaints about continuity mostly go along with criticism of lacking ideas in writing, or lacking respect to the very idea of Star Trek.
(rant warning)
My idea of continuity is much more universal than the simple statement "that's impossible because...", even if it is a "hard error" (and I am sure the Ferengi in "Acquisition" are one). Continuity is always a sum of many events, and it is very much a matter of time as nothing can be seen isolated. As such, continuity *is* a quality criterion, especially in a series that has "...where no man (one) has gone before" as a catch phrase. In this respect, already the premise of Enterprise was problematic, as never missed to point out. The "Phantom Menace" syndrome threatens Star Trek, as the major players, the course of the stories and the technology are essentially the same as usual in the premise (and will become even more similar with every episode). But there were also the chances to show us fresh ideas (and I'm not talking of new alien make-ups here), something that is specific of the 22nd century, something that could not happen in any other time.
My preliminary conclusion after 20 episodes: Only 3 of 20 episodes were really convincing in this respect (these had errors too, but I nevertheless enjoyed them). There were some more fair episodes that presented at least some interesting aspects or insights. What is alarming is the extent of story recycling, already in the first season. Not only are the basic plots recycled, there is also hardly any effort to adapt them to the special setting of the show - as if the authors were still thinking they were writing for Voyager. This is also where holodecks, shapeshifters and other 24th century clich�s come from and unnecessarily gradually ruin continuity (as I said above, it's the sum and the development that counts).
Aside from that, to complete my rant, I am far from being the only fan who simply doesn't recognize the spirit of Star Trek in many Enterprise episodes - I usually discuss that off-forum because I know that this is what many fans simply don't want to hear. I see "The Andorian Incident" and "Shadows of P'Jem", to name the two most obvious examples, as dull writing without profoundness that is simply not worthy of Star Trek. Instead of clever plot develoment or only giving the viewer something to reflect about, they focus on the mere "action" in the form of excessive shooting and beating. Even the worst examples of "live action" in TOS were philosophic compared with that. The frequent use of T'Pol as an object of sexual desires (much more openly and frequently than ever with Seven) is another move in the direction of Dumb Trek. The questionable role model of Captain Archer who is full of prejudices, who never never listens to anyone else, who frequently makes wrong decisions, never needs to face consequences and is even proud about that is still another annoyance. Well, at least he fits into the series premise, but that doesn't make his character a good captain. Finally, I hate to see the Vulcans as the new recurring villains in Trek. It seems everything that is really different from other Trek series is a step away from the spirit of Trek.
I see that it's much a matter of opinion, but when I read statements like "the best Trek series/season ever" on message boards, I wonder if the person actually wants to see a series completely different from everything we loved about TOS, TNG, DS9 and, yes, also Voyager.
Of course, there are explanations and excuses for the road the show has taken (real life may be a bitch). It may have to do with the pressure to make 26 episodes a year that Braga mentioned in the interview too. I like this somewhat self-critical attitude. What they would urgently need is new ideas, and if I had too little time, I would probably fall back to old clich�s or conceive clumsy stories too. Maybe it would really help to produce only 13 episodes a year (or another 13 of a Trek series with a different premise :-)).
Finally, since fans are frequently claiming that they could do the show better (I know I couldn't, as I am an awful writer no matter how consistent it would be), it may be fair that Mr. Braga takes the right to tell us how we have to view the problems and errors he creates. But it would be still a lot better if he avoided the worn-out 24th century clich�s from holodecks to Ferengi in the first place, as they were absolutely without any merit in my view. I think that a simple "originality check" and "22nd century check" should be possible even with scarce time.
quote:Oh, and to answer the question what Braga might consider a major mistake, how about if they goofed and changed the name of Starfleet Command next episode to "Space Central" and the one after that to UESPA? Or if they suddenly changed Archer's middle name? Or if they suddenly changed the year the series is set? Of if they made Archer capable of reading T'Pol's thoughts in the pilot and then forgot about it? (And called him "Bill," to boot.)
Ironically, these are exactly the types of errors that never bothered me, and they wouldn't matter to me in Enterprise either. My mind is very forgiving. The above alluded errors (much like all the missing rank pips and other typical nitpicker items too) had a limited impact (on only an era of a few years or even only a single person). We can always ignore such little factoids, but hardly complete episodes like "Acquisition" or "Oasis" that deal with persons or things, respectively, that simply shouldn't exist.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
...I have no comment of the issue of what Braga considers a big mistake.
So far I ahve seen in Enterprise is that its nothing like the other series. Yes it has plot and story recycling, but how can you write a fresh new story without recycling the other episodes of arounf 600? You can't do a major war, can't do time travel to the current time, can't do Borg, can't do Species 8472, can't do time travel forward, can't do action, and it goes on and on. Its almost to a point where the only story they can do is that Cold Time War arc for the rest of 150 episodes but even that gets repetitive.
I ask to anyone to come up with an original story, premise that has not been used yet in Trek, and that reflects Trek, and can only be used in the 22nd century.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Points by and large well-taken, Bernd.
I think my big thing about continuity is not that errors in the past were "bigger" or "smaller" than those on today. It's that for 35 years the fact that all the facts don't compute has never seemed to stop people from enjoying Trek. TOS is rife with errors (I don't consider that the mark of an inferior series by any stretch of the imagination) and that never stopped people from immersing themselves in the universe. Similarly, TNG stepped on plenty of toes and people didn't let that bother them (with the exception of James Dixons and his crusade to rack Michael Okuda for chronologizing in a contrary manner).
The audience, intelligent lifeforms (like your quote says) that they were, were more than capable of understanding it was a TV show and filing the fact that occasionally the facts didn't square (like the idea of Data being unique and thus conflicting with Ruk & co.) in the same category as reasons why sometimes the aliens on TOS looked like sock puppets and why sometimes a boom mike crept into the shot and why most Excelsiors on TNG were NCC-2000.
It was for the same reason they accepted that the science was frequently out to lunch. Trek took place in TV-land, so the laws of the universe as we knew them didn't exist. There was such a thing as having "excess baryons" and Will Riker could be Bill Riker for an episode and the Battle of Setlik III could be referred to take place both in the 2350s and the 2360s.
And I just don't get what caused things to change.
Again, like you said, blame the internet or whatever, but people today, simply put, will dislike a episode from the depths of their hearts for making a trivial goof. And much as I'd like to chalk it up to just a few silly 12-year olds, the fact is that a lot of people who I mightn't consider screwballs are the ones being rather anal retentive about the issue.
Now, the rehash issue is a slightly different kettle of fish and deserves a bit more serious consideration than tiny trivia screwups. But the whole phenomena of "the episode was only slightly above average and rehashed episode X Y and Z but it also had a continuity contradiction therefore it sucks" is an altogether too-common practice of using silly continuity issues as a millstone.
And while a respect your right to review episodes how you see fit and draw conclusions as you will, Bernd, I'm afraid your Enterprise reviews thus far have struck me as being pretty unbecoming a bright guy like you. It seems as if you start with 10 points and deduct one for anything that rubs you the wrong way, be it a character reacting a way you wished they didn't or some ulterior motives of the producers being written into a throwaway line or indeed one of those aforementioned tiny little trivia tidbits that you just said don't bother you. Granted, it all boils down to taste, but are you honestly willing to hop up and down on one leg shouting that "Shuttlepod One" was one of Trek's all time worst episodes, which is what this implies.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I am never sure about how I rate episodes, and it's always subject to change. But with Voyager's seventh season in very fresh memory (as I saw the last Voyager episodes in parallel with the first ones of Enterprise) that is how I see things. I don't think that I'm too obsessed with finding errors and subtracting points from a maximum of ten. Other reviewers may tend not to use the lowest ratings, but with a scale from "worst Trek" to "best Trek" most of what I have seen lately was below average. I simply haven't seen any recent (Voyager or Enterprise) episode except for "Broken Bow" that really fascinated me.
But to be honest, there is something that is really new in my perception and evaluation of Enterprise, and that is the "annoyance factor" - everything that I mentioned as atypical and unbecoming of Star Trek. I have to take this into account, because I don't agree with Star Trek becoming yet another mindless series ruled by mystery/horror/action/sex/immorality/patriotism.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: The episode itself however, did a lot for Trip's character and the crew's relationships. (and after i saw it i didnt think it was such a dumb idea as when i first heard about it).. so basically they get an A for the story and an F for the plot devices, averaging to a C+.
Have to agree there, the holo deck pissed me off more then anything else in the ep.
They have done enough thingss well enough that I really like the show. I just wish that B&B would show some common sense once in a while.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I agree with The_Tom that your reviews do tend to me the impression that for every mistake or anything that you rubs you the wrong way you knock off a point. By that logic I could do the entire first seasons of all the Treks with 2's and 3's.
If I were to do a review I would go on an unbiased view. Meaning that as if there was no Trek before the show and massive amounts of hardcore fans obssessed the little details. I would first rate the story regardless if it was a rehash of another episode in another Trek series or if hurt the Trek timeline (big or small way). I would take into an account acting, actual story, SFX, and so on. Then a secondary review via Trek style, ships, details, story etc. But I would still do it in an unbiased view.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
The problem is absolutely not with inconsistencies. The problem is with how those inconsistencies are treated by the producers -- do they go an and say, "Aww, it's an error...sorry...you know of course that there is a reality beyond the TV show where everything is perfect", or do they fix them -- by thinking of a *creative* explanation for the error that kind of fits the story and using it onscreen. After all, some explanation is better than no explanation.
As far as the Ferengi, all we know is that in the 24th century, Starfleet knew something about them but clearly not a lot. Maybe Archer's missions were discredited somehow (after all, if Picard goes as far as accusing a fellow Enterprise captain of causing decades of war...), maybe the records of that one particular mission were accidentally lost, maybe the Ferengi were forgotten during the 23rd century due to some kind of seclusion, maybe they had briefly become part of another Empire...maybe it really is a timeline problem. There must be creative ways of explaining this that fit the story.
But again, it's not enough to even put these explanations in the Encyclopedia -- they must go onscreen and become a serious part of the story.
[ April 17, 2002, 10:34: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Except the producers now (and then, so dont single out B&B) dont believe the inconsistencies are important and should ever be referenced.. some of them were even deliberate, to make the new stories run smooth. They didnt want Dax to have a misshapen head or not be able to use the transporter, so they got rid of all that. There isnt really any way at this point to make a new story that addresses that and actually has interest too.
NEXT WEEK ON ENTERPRISE: A complex and gripping story where the Vulcan attache comes to terms with his inability to correctly describe current Klingon ships without using 'bird' references.
Who the fuck cares? Continuity fixing rarely makes a worthwhile story event. Its the kind of thing thats left the the encyclopediae, the tech manuals an so on, because it really has no bearing on the true focus of the show: the characters and their bearing as they move forward.
Every once in a while a continuity fix has a decent story to tell, but the backlog of things needing to be explained would prevent the staff from ever moving the series forward.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Next week...on an all-new Enterprise... The crew discovers a microphone-shaped lifeform floating around the starship. Is it real? Is it sentient? And for just how long has it been there?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Do you know the difference between making something "part of the story" and "the subject of the story"? Obviously not, so clearly you don't speak English too well. (my attempt at a joke).
What I mean is something like this:
"Captain, there are five Klingon warbirds approaching." And we see a bunch of Klingon warbirds with wings painted on and everything. Of course, the subject of the story is not that they're warbirds, but that they claim a planet that Archer wanted to explore. However, the viewer does ask these questions:
1) Are the Klingons and the Romulans are much friendlier in this period?
2) What makes them become bitter enemies?
OR
3) If they aren't friendly How do we explain this cultural similarity? Does that mean that the BoPs really are Klingon?
[ April 17, 2002, 11:46: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
It may be laudable if I pushed my personal reset button every week, but in a way this would be like allowing the producers and writers to do the same.
If we are honest, we are probably all biased after reading a spoiler or after seeing the first minutes of an episode. The more surprising it is to see that an episode unfolds completely differently than expected. There are quite a few episodes that had such an effect on me (like "Broken Bow" which was an overall pleasant surprise), but the most recent Enterprise episodes were just the contrary of that. They started out nicely, but then went out of suspense and relevance, and instead of that were filled with the above mentioned "annoyance factors".
I still have some hope that it is the "first season syndrome", but I honestly can't remember any Trek season with such a lot of uninspiring writing.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Now, see, I'm afraid I feel almost exactly the opposite. There hasn't been a "Duet" yet this season, but I don't think any of the shows other than TOS have had a first season which felt as if the writers had as firm a grip on the characters and the setting as this.
I suppose this means we'll have to struggle to the death with oddly shaped spears now.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: However, the viewer does ask these questions:
1) Are the Klingons and the Romulans are much friendlier in this period?
2) What makes them become bitter enemies?
OR
3) If they aren't friendly How do we explain this cultural similarity? Does that mean that the BoPs really are Klingon?
Sure you might, and I might too. But the fact it could open that kind of debate certainly wouldn't automatically endear me to this proposed episode or make my opinion of "Broken Bow" change one iota. And how about everyone else watching the show? Would they care? Assuming this was done well, all this might do is provoke a neutral response in the majoirty of the audience, and a slightly positive response in a minority of the fanbase.
But then that's assuming this would be done well. I certainly don't think an episode should be concieved-of and the production design of the ships done just to create a situation like you describe in the name of appeasing a few people's dissatisfaction with one line of dialogue in the pilot. If the episode had to jump through any hoops whatsover to get in a position to "fix" this apparent "problem," then in all likelihood the hoop-jumping process would hurt the overall quality, which is what I think Mike is saying.
I think my final point on the matter is that we have to have a "shit happens" mentality for at least some continuity violations because many really aren't fixable by a single scene like you describe. There's no dropped-in detail that can explain the Trill issue, to be prefectly frank. But the fact that from the minute Dax appeared onscreen she was a walking continuity violation (and by the end of the series as more was revealed about the Trill, an irreparable one) has never stopped people from enjoying DS9. In this current time, the online fanbase has seemed to stopped extending this altogether reasonable courtesy to the powers that be.
[ April 17, 2002, 14:54: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Actually, I'd say Enterprise's first season has been very good ... especially considering TNG, VOY's or DS9's first seasons.
BULLSHITE! DS9's season 1 was brilliant and Voyager season 1 was one of it's strongest... and I'm talking about the original arrangement of episodes here - i.e. the last 4 held over to season 2 I consider as season 1 - seeing as my videos for season 1 go up to 1.10
Season 1 101-->120
Caretaker (101 and 102), Time and Again (104), Jetrel (115), Heroes and Demons (112), Prime Factors(110), *Faces* (114), Eye of the Needle(107), Phage (105), State of Flux (111), Projections (117) Emanations(109).
Even Parallax (103) was good for a bottle episode!
DS9 season 1 was my first Trek Season, I've watched it countless times...
Emissary, A Man Alone, Captive Pursuit, Duet, In the Hands of the Prophets, Vortex, The Forsaken, Babel, The Passenger, Dax, Dramatis Personae, Battle Lines, Progress.
Enterprise, I've seen the first seven episodes... Breaking the Ice is probably the first 'satisfying episode'. The first six just don't cut it - even The Andorian Incident... ok, Fight or Flight was pretty good.
Andrew
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote: I read all these things on the Internet, these 'continuity pornographers' as I like to call them, though I didn't invent the term. These people honestly think that Rick and I are morons!
OK, I know - and have read some people on the 'net that go WAY over-board on nitpicking or just trashing episodes in general - even before they've seen the episode!
I don't think Braga should be saying this about the 'fans' though... if it wasn't for these FANS his little project would probably have been cancelled after the first two episodes... REALLY, I mean look at the number of series that don't even get past a pilot - it's the TREK history that keeps him in a job. That said, that doesn't mean he should sit there and shut-up but a little acceptance of the enormous job at hand instead of going off like that would help. Oh and decent stories.
Everyone keeps coming back to the Ferengi idea - ask a simple 'fan' pre "Aquisition" or when ever they first mention the Ferengi as to whethere there should be any Ferengi contact and they would immediately say NO. For many reasons - the main continuity reason being that the Ferengi were first seen by the Federation in "The Last Outpost". Other reasons vary - but one BIG reason should be... "Hey, Braga... Berman - why not try being original... you've got a basically unexplored expanse out there full of aliens: TOS, TOS movies and more importantly NEVER BEFORE SEEN ALIENS, either possible part of the Federation in the future OR ones never to ever be seen again - but that doesn't mean they have to turn up in later series. Why of ALL Aliens pic the Ferengi!?! For a laugh!?! why not create your own 'comic race'? And it's easier to explain away those eventual fan questions "why didn't we ever see them in TOS/TAS/TNG/DS9/Voyager!?! Easy - the adventures of those shows didn't bring us into contact with them. Be they Fed members or not.
Andrew
Andrew
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Two points, Andrew: First of all, there's been incessant whining every time we see a new alien species as well. The producers are in a damned-if-the-do, damned-if-they-don't situation with aliens. Which is unfortunate, really.
Secondly, DS9's first season's been rerunning on latenight TV here recently, and I'm sorry, but the execution was really quite shaky back then. "Dax," for instance, really doesn't hold up at all when seen retrospectively. It's ploddingly slow, begins with three minutes of pure technobabble, and goes through one of Trek's worst coutroom drama routines that's been handily eclipsed a million times both within and outside of Trek. Dax is relegated to spending the entire episode pouting, and aside from Odo, the entire cast seems to be really lost in their roles.
[ April 17, 2002, 18:24: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Yeah there were some real CLUNKERS in Season 1 - I've gone from LOATHING Move Along Home to just smiling and remembering it fondly ;o)
Maybe it was Odo and Tandro's wife (Fionula Flannagan?) which made me like the episode...
When I watched DS9 season 1 for the first time - I was blown away - I guess we were spoiled with BETTER and BETTER DS9 over the years... anyway - compare it to Enterprises first episodes - DS9 wins hands down...
Emissary compared to Broken Bow HUH! Captive Pursuit A Man Alone Babel (for a bottle ep is great) The one with the Bajoran resistance fighter still fighting... yeah the middle of the season is a bit flat... but then we get a GREAT ending to season 1 - and this you can't denie - The Forsaken one of Lwaxana's - if not the best (OK Dark Page was great) the fun Dramatis Personae, then the BRILLIANT "Duet" and "In the Hands of the Prophets" is one of the best - and is a brilliant move into season 2.
Move Along Home The Passenger (some of it was OK - mostly the bits with Kaitlyn Brown SP? Ty Kjada) The Storyteller If Wishes were Horses Yeah ok Dax plodded - as I said it was the Odo story line that did it.
Weren't great
Eps that were great that I forgot to comment on -
Maybe it's the little things but "Battle Lines" was amazing - mainly the Kira/Opaka story line and so was Progress - you have to watch it a few times - and yeah it plods a little too but it's still good.
Andrew
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I agree that Flanagan boosted "Dax." Pity she was onscreen for all of three minutes.
Great actress. Waking Ned Devine rules.
And she'll be on Enterprise in four weeks time as a Vulcan.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I know when a episode sucks and thats when I don't want to watch it a second time even though it might be the only good thing on TV. So far I find Enterprise to be good, compared to TNG, VOY and DS9. Because I can't watch those episodes without losing much interest.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: I agree that Flanagan boosted "Dax." Pity she was onscreen for all of three minutes.
Great actress. Waking Ned Devine rules.
And she'll be on Enterprise in four weeks time as a Vulcan.
WOOHOO! That's great news... thanks!
That's her third role... the actress with the most Trek roles?? Is that her or someone else? Sussana Thompson?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Suzanna Thompson has had 4 roles (Varel in TNG's The Next Phase, an asylum inmate in TNG's Frame of Mind, and then as Lenara Kahn and the Borg Queen)
More obviously, Majel Barrett has had 4 roles (Number One, Chapel, Lwaxana and the Computer Voice) plus a pile of voice work from TAS.
Annette Helde has also done 4 minorish roles (Karina in DS9's Visionary, a guard in ST:FC, Takar in VGR's Scientific Method, and Nadia Larkin in DS9's Siege of AR-558)
I know these things. By heart. Seriously... Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And there's Barbara Babcock, who had seven different roles, all in TOS. But five of them were just voices. But, then, if Majel Barrett's computer voices count...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Sorry I'm a bit late here, but still...
quote: The questionable role model of Captain Archer who is full of prejudices, who never never listens to anyone else, who frequently makes wrong decisions, never needs to face consequences and is even proud about that is still another annoyance. Well, at least he fits into the series premise, but that doesn't make his character a good captain.
So, er, he's a lot like Sisko then?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Honestly, what is it with the idea that it isn't good Star Trek unless the main character always makes the right decision?
I'm sure, for examples sake, NYPD Blue and The West Wing would be the opposite of compelling if Sipowicz and Bartlet, respectively, were written by Roddenberry circa 1987.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)