Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer WienerDog WienerDog WienerDog  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors
Customer Discussions > Star Trek forum

Star Trek Enterprise: Did the last season redeem it?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 285 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 5, 2009 2:59:55 PM PST
Yes, Enterprise has some of the lamest episodes in Star Trek history, and the ending was a TV tragedy, it was so lame.

But the rest of Season four is actually VERY good, from the Vulcan Reformation to explaining how the Klingons lost and regained their bulging foreheads.

Any comments?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2009 3:29:41 PM PST
Didn't see that much of it. But I did see a few eps but I don't think one good season could have redeemed it. I was once told by somebody (a comic book guy like in the Simpsons -_-!) that Star Trek Enterprise: was for the older generation around 40's -- 50's or something like that, instead of 20's -- 30 range. I don't think that makes any sense. Anyway, I think the redemption is going to be in the upcoming movie. Good for Star Trek Enterprise that they finally got on the ball but it was one season tooo late.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2009 3:38:14 PM PST
Yikes! I'm not that old. I never saw the thing when it was originally on TV, but saw it later in rebroadcast. I liked the original series, but was never fanatical about it. I really drifted away from it by the time Deep Space Nine came out, and there's still a lot of episodes from that and Voyager that I haven't seen.

I liked the pilot for Enterprise but quickly lost interest.

One of my buds forced me to watch the first arc of season four about the augmented humans reawakening, and I was hooked. They finally got back to the same universe Kirk was in.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2009 6:42:13 PM PST
Deep Space Nine was okay, but it got really interesting towards the end. Dominion Wars! More action packed. :)
You should probably check out the later season from Netflix

Now I watched season 1 and thought it was mildly entertaining. (I happen to like Time Travel Eps, when they weren't used that much) and after season 2, I watched it off and on. And I saw a few episodes from season 4 I believe. But how did your bud stay in the game so long? I hung in there but I did tune out eventually! After Season 2 being so crappy I just couldn't watch. The only reason I kept tuning back in was to see them get closer and closer to Kirk's Star Trek as you put it. I think I did when they had a very old Johnathan Franks (who was still number one on the enterprise by the way?) turn off a holodeck simulation of events forming the federation. I believe that was the end of Enterprise?

I suppose that is why season 4 was so good. It explained how the Star Trek Universe came to be. I could be wrong, but isn't that what we all wanted to see with Enterprise?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2009 4:53:54 AM PST
Season four of Enterprise contained some of the best Star Trek episodes ever created and it was the best of all four seasons. Saying that, the series did not need redeeming. For me, Enterprise stood on it's own as a worthy part of the franchise and creatively was better than the original series.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2009 10:58:47 PM PST
Fred: I remember reading Television Without Pity's reviews of Enterprise, and agreeing with them that episodes of Enterprise were the worst drivel on TV. And then seeing TVWOP's readers saying that the episodes were "A+!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

What is with you Trekkies? Undying loyalty doesn't make the product better. It just allows schlock-meisters to rip you off with ever-crappier versions. Hollywood will never do anything "for the fans". They're doing it for the money, not for you. And in this case they spit in your face.

Sorry, but Enterprise was lacking in any category you want to name. The Xindi war was recycled from the Dominion War of DS9, having the T'Pol sleeping around was unforgivable, and stuff like the Borg was just a really desperate attempt to grab the coattails of the more successful outings of the franchise.

It was just rotten, stupid junk.

Berman and Braga didn't solicit or allow any scripts from outside of their production company, as a way to keep down costs. Unquestionably, the best scripts in any of the previous Star Trek series had come from outside. Now, Berman and Braga were using recycled scripts from earlier series where they wouldn't have to pay royalties to an outside writer, or worse yet, they were actually using scripts that had been rejected by earlier Trek shows.

That's abysmal.

You can pick apart just about anything on that show's first three seasons as totally illogical stupidity, like the idea that Jean Luc Picard would have been so incompetent he would leave the ruins of the Borg sphere that almost killed Zephram Cochrane lying around in the Arctic. I guess Picard was busy. Or maybe he was so teary-eyed over "First Contact" he forgot to clean up the mess. Um, maybe the sensors were still off-line? It was just gouge-your-eyes-out idiocy.

And on and on.

The original series had highs and lows, and looks much better from far away in memory than it does if you re-watch it now. There's episodes like "Turnabout Intruder" (where Kirk gets possessed by a woman who is frustrated that women can't be captains in Star Fleet) that are as campy as the sixties Batman show. And of course, "Spock's Brain"... but we don't have to go there, do we?

But no way was Enterprise "creatively better" than the original series. It wasn't AS creative. Great special effects are now the norm for TV. The first three seasons of Enterprise had nothing to offer creatively.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2009 3:13:18 PM PST
I think the third season - its best - redeemed it.

Posted on Mar 4, 2009 12:06:44 AM PST
TV-Tastic says:
season 3 is vastly underrated. Seasons 3 and 4 redeemed it minus TATV.

Posted on Mar 11, 2009 10:47:55 AM PDT
I seriously enjoyed the heck out of Season 4. If they had just done that to begin with, the show could still be going (we'd be in the Romulan War by now, right?). Not every episode was perfect mind you (the Orion slave girls one was Meh), and of course that abomination of a series finale should never be mentioned. But I would rank Season 4 of Enterprise as better than any of Voyager's seven seasons, and maybe even ahead of the first two seasons of Next Generation.

What they really need to do is put out a Enterprise: Mike Sussman Wrote It DVD set, since all the best eps (including Twilight) had him as the lead scribe.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2009 11:39:30 AM PDT
TV-Tastic says:
Well first of all, ENT would be in its eighth season which highly unlikely considering that no Trek series has ever gone more than seven. Second, it's a fallacy to suggest that ENT failed due to poor writing during the first two season. The problem with ENT is the fact that it couldn't distinguish itself in format from TNG, DS9 or VOY. They've all followed the exact same tired format for over 20 years which was fine in 1987 but not in 2001. It was a completely new generation of TV viewers and the producers were continuing to try to pander to the fans of the 80's and 90's.

It also didn't help that UPN was only in about half of the markets in the country and compounding that not every cable provider offered their local UPN affiliate.

You also have the fact that in the new millenium there are 5 major networks and 300 or more cable channels many of which offer original programming and whereas niche programming could survive on a major network or in syndication before, the market is far too saturated and in general, unless it's something completly exceptional, niche programming will only survive on niche networks (e.g., SciFi, Spike, G4).

On the rare occasion that sci fi is succesful on network TV (see: Lost), space based sci fi never works (see: Firefly).

These are simply the times that we live in. The new Trek movie is designed to bring the new generation of fans in and that's what they should have done years ago. Also, I wouldn't ever honestly expect any new Trek on TV again unless it's on SciFi.

Posted on Mar 11, 2009 2:24:11 PM PDT
CaptainHawk1: Oh, please. You may have heard of a little show called Battlestar Galactica! It's ending in two weeks. That destroys all of your arguments about how Enterprise failed because UPN was weak and not in all markets.

Enterprise was badly written. That's why it failed.

There were a few episodes along the way that rose up to the mildly entertaining level, but there were far too many that were just embarrassingly bad. And that's the first THREE seasons that were crappy, not just the first two. The Cindy war was nothing to brag about.

Television thrives on going back to the same formats over and over again; how many police procedurals and horny doctor shows are there on TV right now? But you can't expect viewers to watch anything as bad as Enterprise. Berman/Bragga took a very solid brand name and drove it into the ground.

Yes, the show had a been-there-done-that feel to it, and while of course part of that was that it was filled with the tried-and-true Trek stereotypes we'd all seen before, much of it was because Berman/Bragga were reusing story ideas, scripts, or worse yet, using REJECTED scripts from earlier shows.

The show was supposed to be about man's endlessly exciting exploration of space, and all they ever found was the same old "drek". It would be like all the planets in our own solar system were all exactly like Earth, and every satellite was identical to the Moon. Why bother?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2009 2:40:15 PM PDT
TV-Tastic says:
"Oh, please. You may have heard of a little show called Battlestar Galactica! It's ending in two weeks. That destroys all of your arguments about how Enterprise failed because UPN was weak and not in all markets."

No it doesn't Tammany, it completely supports my assertion. BSG garners about 2.5 million viewers per week on SciFi which is a niche channel, exactly as I pointed out, which is exactly what ENT was garnering on UPN. Those numbers are great for niche channels for shows with low budgets like BSG but are lousy for network TV. Oh, and also, how many seasons has BSG run for? Oh, that's right... FOUR. Just like ENT. Get your facts straight and do a little research before spouting off, OK?

I never said that ENT didn't have problems, especially during the first two seasons (the recycled and altogether stupid plots) but to blame that for its failure is wrong. Who is Cindy and when was there a war with her BTW?

I wasn't a big fan of season three either until I watched it again recently over the course of two weeks and I changed my mind on it. The first two seasons are still pretty bad but ENT was never as bad as a lot of fans made it out to be, it was just mediocre for Trek and dated.

Posted on Mar 11, 2009 5:23:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 11, 2009 5:24:04 PM PDT
You can quibble about the numbers all you want, your argument that Enterprise got canceled because UPN wasn't in enough households just doesn't hold water. It got canceled because the show sucked.

What do you think, you're going to deflect me into a ratings comparison between Enterprise and Battlestar Galactica, which you Trekkies can't stand because it's a much better show?

UPN was always available in all of the major TV markets, right up until the end. The problem was that nobody wanted to tune in. Enterprise was a joke and an embarrassment, and got particularly bad ratings with the 18 to 35 demographic; only moldy, middle-aged Trekkies of questionable sanity like you were still holding on at the end, dressed up for every episode in their Star Fleet uniforms, sweaty prop phasers in hand. Casual viewers had long ago turned away in droves.

I cited Battlestar Galactica as an example of a space-based science fiction show that is currently doing well in the coveted 18 to 35 demographic, and by any account it is doing well.

UPN had grand visions of becoming the next ABC, CBS or NBC, but couldn't even reach the level of FOX. Is the SciFi network happier to aim and settle for less? Arguable, but that doesn't mean that Enterprise was a good show on those terms. Enterprise sucked.

It's a familiar whine among you little Trekkies that Enterprise (and Voyager before it) was held down by the stink of the UPN network. That's a foolish argument, and you know it. I have a remote control and a Tivo (and before that a programmable VCR, so sorry Voyager, you sucked too). I can watch what I want when I want. It certainly can't hurt if the lead-in to your favorite show is stronger than "Moesha", but that doesn't keep me from changing the channel to my favorite show when it's on.

Next Generation wasn't a network show, it was directly syndicated, and it was a lot more difficult to find a station carrying it back in the day than it was to find a UPN station carrying Enterprise.

There's hundreds of examples of shows that either dropped the audience from strong lead-ins, or strong shows that never helped their weak lead-ins.

Don't blame the network.

Blame the show. Enterprise sucked. Badly, for at least the first three seasons.

Your argument, that it was a great show on a crappy network, still does not hold water.

My argument that there's still an audience hungry for good science fiction space drama stands. We just won't settle for half-hearted regurgitated pap the way they served it the first three seasons of Enterprise.

And Cindy? She's the younger sister of the DS9's Dominion War. She's a sad little wanna-be that nobody really cares about. She never grew into anything original, and certainly couldn't keep Enterprise afloat.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 12, 2009 1:13:18 AM PDT
TV-Tastic says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 12, 2009 2:14:01 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 12, 2009 11:16:04 AM PDT
TV-Tastic says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 12, 2009 3:12:55 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 12, 2009 4:30:39 PM PDT
TV-Tastic says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 20, 2009 9:06:33 AM PDT
M. G. Mora says:
I grew up being a Star Trek fan so when this came on, I was like, Another Star Trek show. It was no longer about quality anymore, it was about Product. More. Moreeee! Paramount was just looking at the money end of it. The Enterprise pilot showed promise, just like the Voyager pilot but as we know, both went steadily down hill and I still blame Braga and Berman.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2009 9:49:31 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 20, 2009 9:50:58 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2009 9:49:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 20, 2009 9:54:17 AM PDT
TV-Tastic says:
M.G., I think you have a valid point and I think it was painfully obvious that they were just trying to squeeze whatever else they could out of the franchise and they were able to convince upper management that "Hey... a prequel worked for Star Wars, right?" considering only how much money the SW prequels made with quality being an afterthought in favor of the gimmick. Nobody bothered to tell them that Trek ain't SW and the same rules don't apply as far as success is concerned.

This is all my opinion based on observation, but post-TNG Trek pulled off a lot of gimmicks to boost viewership. On DS9 they brought in Worf during Season 4 and they went full scale into the Dominion War. On VOY, goodbye Kes, hello, Seven of Nine. From day one of ENT they were using the gimmick of T & A and salty language as a gimmick to make up for a generally bland, recycled, been-there/done-that show. And of course, when all else fails on Trek, they resort to time travel because that's a gimmick that's always a winner.

As far as blaming Berman and Braga for the demise of the franchise, I've never subscribed to that. Their vision was just old, it wasn't necessarily awful. B & B are directly responsible for some of the best TNG and DS9 yet are never given credit for that. I just think it's unfair to blame two people for the demise of a multi-billion dollar franchise. The fact is, as I pointed out to full-on Simple Jack, Trek's problems are less of a problem of poor quality writing leading to a demise in audience numbers and more of a problem of the demographics of this particular generation of TV viewing audiences not having any interest in this tired format that is what Trek has become or space-based sci fi in general.

Proving this point is the Sci Fi Channel changing its name after 16 years to Sy Fy to appeal to a broader audience.

""We love being sci-fi, and we're still embracing that," said network president Dave Howe on Friday. "But we're more than just space and aliens and the future -- the three things most people think of when they think of 'sci fi."'


"What this does is hopefully give us the best of both worlds," Howe said. "You keep the heritage, but also open up to a broader range of content."

"For years the network has sought ways to expand its image beyond its signature male-skewing space operas such as "Stargate" and "Battlestar Galactica." "


"The pragmatic aspect of the change is that from a business affairs standpoint, the network's genre-as-title has long been cumbersome."

The fact is that even Skiffy recognizes that the space-based model is stifling for even their niche network.

Trek needs to be contemporary again. Hopefully this new film will make it just that and appeal to a broader audience than just the die-hard Trek fan.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2009 9:50:38 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 20, 2009 9:51:30 AM PDT]

Posted on Apr 5, 2009 10:10:20 AM PDT
Bob says:
I think it is funny that you guys have spend so much energy arguing this "issue". Remember Shatner on SNL? Get a life! Go find a girl.

Enterprise stunk because it had to stink, like all prequels stink. Star Wars, Enterprise whatever, you KNOW how it turns out. Gee, let's watch the new movie because we need to know if Kirk becomes Captain and Spock first officer! Gee, I bet by the end of the movie there will be a Scott for a Chief Engineer! No suspense at all.

I kept wondering myself if Earth was going to be destroyed preventing the Federation from forming. How about if humans and vulcans can mate? Big Mystery there.

There was about as much suspense and mystery in that show as there was about if Aniken Skywalker was going to turn bad. I know I was surprised when it was twins!

Hollywood is completely dereft of creativity. I wish they would look forward and not backward.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2009 11:37:08 AM PDT
TV-Tastic says:
I think you need to read closer.

There's nothing wrong with a friendly discussion (or else why would you have opined), the problem is that full-on retard Simple Jack (Tammany Hall) immediately had to jump into personal attacks and idiotic responses because he didn't agree with my opinion (which he didn't misrepresented to begin with).

I don't agree with your assessment, though, that a prequel must stink because we already know what's going to happen. If that were the case why would anyone ever make a film revolving around World War II or any other historical event where we know what the end result is.

The difference in fiction is that we didn't even know how we got to the end result with because no one has come up with it yet. The Star Wars prequels didn't stink because they were prequels, they stunk because they were lazy. It is safe to say that ENT suffered from the fact that it was lazy, boring, uninspired, recycled and and not original for at least the first two seasons, but it didn't stink simply because it was a prequel.

Also, my initial post was to distinguish the difference between quality and why the show failed which is what started this whole exchange between me and full-on retard Simple Jack as I contend do not necessarily correlate.

I have a wife and two kids so i really don't need to follow your advice, in that department, but thanks for the tip. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2009 10:06:46 AM PDT
Sci Fi is no longer - I just read in USA Today that it has been sold and is now going to be called syfy - and will no longer be "just" science fiction. What that means, I don't know enough about it to say. Maybe I am a compete dweeb, but I loved Star Gates - all of them AND Star Trek - all of them. The Star Gates were provided by Sci Fi and for that alone, I am grateful. There is little today in space adventure offered (if any). If you want vampires, ghosts, supernatural phenomena galore - (and Law & Order) - pretty much turn to any channel.

I have to say, you pose a very negative opinion here but, unfortunately, I think you are mostly correct. It IS about the money as someone else here said, and maybe I am one of five people who love the original Star Trek (that includes DS9, Voyager and STNG as well as Enterprise). In my case, I love the escapism aspect that these series provide as well as a better opinion of humanity than I currently have.

As far as Lost is concerned - check the ratings. What was once a watercooler "hit" is now struggling to survive. JJ Abrams just does not understand that people don't WANT to have to think about what they watch - they watch to escape. Personally, I have had to defend Lost too many times this past year (as it finally began to make sense), to too many people who walked away and would rather watch CSI, et al, as it doesn't challenge them too much.

What you say may be correct, but it doesn't make me feel any better about the demise of all the excellent sci fi that has been offered over the years, which is why I no longer get involved in new shows (even though I might watch them). The heartbreak of shows like Firefly will not happen to me again. I'll just watch Castle, which is getting pretty good ratings!!!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Star Trek forum (67 discussions)


This discussion

Discussion in:  Star Trek forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  285
Initial post:  Jan 5, 2009
Latest post:  Dec 14, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions