Pure Metal
03-02-2005, 05:27
With Enterprise cancelled, i got thinking about about what made it so goddamn awful - then flipped the question on its head and considered what made the other 'treks so great. so, im curious to see what other fans here think makes a good star trek series? what would your ideal trek franchise be?
me, i'd love to see something set beginning about half-way through Voyager - around the time the Prometheus was launched - same tech level etc, maybe the same EMH? :D also maybe having slipstream drive would enable the series to explore more space.
---note: you can probably ignore below this line unless you are a trekkie---
as for what makes previous treks great, its the morality plays and messages that originally roddenberry put in, and were later continued (by Berman i guess) - the ethical and moral issues raised in each episode (from TNG to Voyager) are what seperates star trek from just any-old sci-fi. roddenberry talks about this himself in an interview on the first dvd of TNG series 1.
also, something that made enterprise particularily poor was the lack of a coherent overriding plot - sure there were main plots throughout the series, but not in the same way as Voyager (my favourite) had. Voyager was lost in the delta quadrant and were trying to get home - an endearing and couragous overriding plot that was simple and still allowed for a lot of diversion. TNG had the simple premise, or overriding plot, of 'to seek out new life....' which was fine. Enterprise had the same but not necissarily through choice - from what i remember of the first few episodes it was a case of 'well we didn't mean to come this far out into space, but now we're here let's keep going'. that, to me, is the major failing with the series.
other things i didn't like about enterprise was the Kirk-esque 'shoot/hit it first, diplomacy/science second' attitude. sure enterprise was set before TOS & Kirk, and mankind are not yet an 'enlightened' species as we are by the time we come to TNG, but still i don't like the attitude.
the plots were also too contrived in enterprise. now, i've only watched the first series (most of it, and that's all we've got so far in the UK i think) but that plot with the mushy-peas-faced-dudes (forget the name, began with an S i think) was too much like a movie plot for me. the other star treks only relied on those sorts of 'obvious bad-guy' plots once in a while - for the most part there was the overriding plot and then a mini-plot each episode. sure, enterprise did this, but not in the same way - and that mushy peas thing was too contrived & simplistic.
the characterisation on enterprise was again subtly inferior to that of the other series. Voyager, my fave, was the best in characterisation. Characters like Harry Kim - fresh from the academy - had little in the way of history and, while he had a distinct and strong personality, it was not too strong as to disallow real development of the character. and then there are twists, like Tom Paris - with a very distinct history and vibrant peronality - actually maturing and becoming more like Kim; the opposite to what one might expect. Then there's the Doctor, a brilliant character who, because he is the EMH, is practically a blank slate of personality and character. while he does start with (again) a distinct character he has the most scope for change (and change he does) but it is not easy for him and he has to learn along the way. the same sort of roles were played by Spock, Odo, Data and T'Pol. Again the Doctor's character is enhanced by Seven as he, after struggling to become more sociable and (for want of a better word) 'nice', becomes quite literally her tutor in the same thing. a clever twist that enterprise seems to be devoid of. Enterprise's characters are all very much defined, distinguished and while not un-changeable they do not seem to have any character flaws that make them endearing or that really warrant concious change.
the technology on enterprise is also too primative for my liking. its not a particularily fair point, as it is set before any of the others, but i don't care - and seemingly neither do the fans. i like the high-technology of the other series - it allows for far more scope of plot, more things to go wrong, more science in the show itself - basically, more things to happen.
finally, enterprise was too fun - made too much for anybody & to reach out to a new audience. in so doing, they left out the fans and that's a real shame. im not saying star trek can't be fun, but it has to be so within the confines of its own reality (this isnt making any sense in words...its fine in my head :headbang: ). what im saying is that there are too many silly or unprofessional or out-of-character moments on Enterprise that you simply don't get on the others (perhaps with the exception of DS9...). the comedy was the kind that made you smile in the other series', the kind that you could attribute to that character (like Riker's womanising & cheap lines :D ) while Enterprise practically threw in the occasional joke to liven things up. a more subtle and character-driven (as opposed to situation- or gag-driven) approach to comedy is needed.
wow that turned into a dissection of what was bad about enterprise and what was different about the others. o well i am tired (its gone 4:25 am here) and i like to rant :)
me, i'd love to see something set beginning about half-way through Voyager - around the time the Prometheus was launched - same tech level etc, maybe the same EMH? :D also maybe having slipstream drive would enable the series to explore more space.
---note: you can probably ignore below this line unless you are a trekkie---
as for what makes previous treks great, its the morality plays and messages that originally roddenberry put in, and were later continued (by Berman i guess) - the ethical and moral issues raised in each episode (from TNG to Voyager) are what seperates star trek from just any-old sci-fi. roddenberry talks about this himself in an interview on the first dvd of TNG series 1.
also, something that made enterprise particularily poor was the lack of a coherent overriding plot - sure there were main plots throughout the series, but not in the same way as Voyager (my favourite) had. Voyager was lost in the delta quadrant and were trying to get home - an endearing and couragous overriding plot that was simple and still allowed for a lot of diversion. TNG had the simple premise, or overriding plot, of 'to seek out new life....' which was fine. Enterprise had the same but not necissarily through choice - from what i remember of the first few episodes it was a case of 'well we didn't mean to come this far out into space, but now we're here let's keep going'. that, to me, is the major failing with the series.
other things i didn't like about enterprise was the Kirk-esque 'shoot/hit it first, diplomacy/science second' attitude. sure enterprise was set before TOS & Kirk, and mankind are not yet an 'enlightened' species as we are by the time we come to TNG, but still i don't like the attitude.
the plots were also too contrived in enterprise. now, i've only watched the first series (most of it, and that's all we've got so far in the UK i think) but that plot with the mushy-peas-faced-dudes (forget the name, began with an S i think) was too much like a movie plot for me. the other star treks only relied on those sorts of 'obvious bad-guy' plots once in a while - for the most part there was the overriding plot and then a mini-plot each episode. sure, enterprise did this, but not in the same way - and that mushy peas thing was too contrived & simplistic.
the characterisation on enterprise was again subtly inferior to that of the other series. Voyager, my fave, was the best in characterisation. Characters like Harry Kim - fresh from the academy - had little in the way of history and, while he had a distinct and strong personality, it was not too strong as to disallow real development of the character. and then there are twists, like Tom Paris - with a very distinct history and vibrant peronality - actually maturing and becoming more like Kim; the opposite to what one might expect. Then there's the Doctor, a brilliant character who, because he is the EMH, is practically a blank slate of personality and character. while he does start with (again) a distinct character he has the most scope for change (and change he does) but it is not easy for him and he has to learn along the way. the same sort of roles were played by Spock, Odo, Data and T'Pol. Again the Doctor's character is enhanced by Seven as he, after struggling to become more sociable and (for want of a better word) 'nice', becomes quite literally her tutor in the same thing. a clever twist that enterprise seems to be devoid of. Enterprise's characters are all very much defined, distinguished and while not un-changeable they do not seem to have any character flaws that make them endearing or that really warrant concious change.
the technology on enterprise is also too primative for my liking. its not a particularily fair point, as it is set before any of the others, but i don't care - and seemingly neither do the fans. i like the high-technology of the other series - it allows for far more scope of plot, more things to go wrong, more science in the show itself - basically, more things to happen.
finally, enterprise was too fun - made too much for anybody & to reach out to a new audience. in so doing, they left out the fans and that's a real shame. im not saying star trek can't be fun, but it has to be so within the confines of its own reality (this isnt making any sense in words...its fine in my head :headbang: ). what im saying is that there are too many silly or unprofessional or out-of-character moments on Enterprise that you simply don't get on the others (perhaps with the exception of DS9...). the comedy was the kind that made you smile in the other series', the kind that you could attribute to that character (like Riker's womanising & cheap lines :D ) while Enterprise practically threw in the occasional joke to liven things up. a more subtle and character-driven (as opposed to situation- or gag-driven) approach to comedy is needed.
wow that turned into a dissection of what was bad about enterprise and what was different about the others. o well i am tired (its gone 4:25 am here) and i like to rant :)