posted
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.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
...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.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Sparky:: Think! Question Authority, Authoritatively. “Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” EMSparks
Shalamar: To save face, keep lower half shut.
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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 ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
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
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
