I can’t stop picking on Enterprise (because it’s shit)
Before I say anything, if you read the last workshop blog you’ll know about a little project. The inventor of that project (I don’t think inventor is the correct term, but fuck it – this is my site. Deal with it) has started up a blog right here on TPM. Click here for Gary; Creator of creations. That’s not the blog name – I’ve been drinking.
Anyway, Enterprise… I recently picked on this show once again on GBBS. Why? Because it’s a huge gaping hole of disappointment. It’s as disappointed as lusting over Paris Hilton, thinking she’d make a great woman to stick your pee pee into then seeing her sex tape and realising even with a penis in her, she’s still dull as shit. That was Enterprise to me.
What I proposed on GBBS was simple; re-casting. I’ve seen Scott Bakula act. He’s not going to win an Oscar or anything, but he’s good. In Quantum Leap he did something quite important; he made it fun. The show wasn’t great, but it was fun and that was down to it’s two leads. I’ve seen Bakula in other things, mainly on Sci Fi where he just didn’t seem to have ‘it’ as much as he did in QL (though his QL co-star Dean Stockwell showed he was still awesome with his portrayal of Cavil in Battlestar Galactica) and even though I cringed hearing he was going to be captain of the Enterprise, I still hoped he’d be fun.
He was anything but.
The entire character was pathetic. He was bland, uninteresting, he was George W in Space (cheers for that OT!) and until the last season the only change in character would be to shout. BECAUSE SHOUTING SHOWS YOU SHOULD TAKE ME FUCKING SERIOUSLY! More importantly to me, it was as if Bakula either a) knew the character was shit and just read the words on the page hoping he’d be paid at the end of the week or b) was wrong for the role.
But was he wrong for the role, or was the character – along with the rest of the show – just dreadful?
I think it’s both. And when it comes to the show itself, I’m going to steal from the discussion…
1978 – Battlestar Galactica – great show, strong characters. New show on the tail of the Star Wars / SciFi craze
2003 – Battlestar Galactica – 25 years after TOS BSG with just G1980 and a few books inbetween, massive cult want for BSG. VERY MUCH thought out to twist on the classic show with a modern spin. Shot in a documentary style that give it more of a visual edge as well as the edgy sub plots the show had.1966 – TOS Star Trek – great show, strong characters, ground breaking stories parallel current events. Became underground cult GOD!
2001 – Enterprise – 35 years after its original inspiration on the tail of a constant – and sometimes overlapping – exposure of other incarnations of Star Trek. VERY LITTLE thought on making this a modern twist of the classic that can lead into the classic (keep time lines happy). It was the Studio trying to milk more out of its near 40 year franchise with just typical plots, and nostalgic tie ins to the future’s past. That is why Star Trek (2009) was a blockbuster film and Enterprise was called off.
- Cylon Knight
And…
I think BSG was much more of an ensemble show than Enterprise (both lasted 4 years; so it’s a level playing field for comparison that way). After 4 years on BSG, I really felt that I got to KNOW those people (a tribute to the writers and the actors both). On Enterprise? What little I know of Travis is that he grew up on a cargo ship, flies the ship, and smiles a lot (and he once had a thing with a redheaded reporter who looked like a cleaned-up Lindsay Lohan).
For a similar comparison, let’s consider Gaeta on BSG; he sings, he’s bi-sexual, he lost a leg, he went from being a loyal officer to a occupation collaborator/rebel to leading a mutiny against the admiral, and he was executed by a firing squad!
BSG was driven by characters and their growth; not cardboard archetypes.
-Obsolete Toaster
And I can hold Voyager up to the same thing – BSG owned that show in terms of concept. Galactica had MORE than Voyager and yet ended up in the shitter. Voyager? Limited resources, hostile crew, bad situation yet… status quo.
Enterprise and Voyager failed to capitalise on something very important; Difference and change. They tried to milk the same elements of the same franchise and, while Enterprise was more of a failure and did improve in it’s last season, they failed. They killed it.
I won’t say anymore, because I could pick this apart and rant on this for hours. But… let’s hope the next Trek TV series moved forward from the event that sent Spock back and time and kicked off the alternate reality. JJ-Trek was a great way to reinvent a movie franchise. For a TV franchise…?
…well, I do have an incredible multi-year outline…
Paramount, give a call. Or I’ll send Adam Shame round to get you.
No related posts.
Comments
Comment from jerobolod
Time 20.08.2010 at 20:42
Kudos for pointing out that season four of Enterprise was actually rather good.
Pingback from BOMB-BURST MANEUVER North Capitol Street
Time 20.08.2010 at 22:56
[...] The Picard Maneuver. » I can't stop picking on Enterprise (because … [...]
Comment from Barrie Suddery
Time 21.08.2010 at 11:35
I agree that season 4 of Enterprise was the best because it was giving the audience what it wanted: a prequel to the Kirk years. I wasn’t the least bit interested in the Temporal Cold War or the Xindi storyline and right off the bat the show threw canon out of the window by using Klingons, cloaking devices, phasers and photon torpedoes, none of which were due to be seen for another century.
I was expecting to see the Enterprise getting caught up in the geo-politics that led to the Romulan War and the founding of the Federation, which again, we got finally, but by then it was too late.
As for Archer, I saw a posting on the Trek BBS which said that he was a political appointee, who got the job because the Vulcans still had a great deal of influence over Earth public opinion and had made it clear they were against the Warp 5 project. Archer’s appointment was basically pure Hollywood; the prodigal son honouring his father’s name by commanding the ship he helped to design etc.
As for the Star Trek movie re-boot; no thanks. Abrams just reduced it to a Star Wars clone and has said that he doesn’t want to do allegorical stories dealing with the issues of today, which is what Star Trek, to me at least, is all about.
James Tyler Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 17:11
I though the Xindi arc was better second time round. Though it was still… off. They didn’t seem to have the balls to really go all out in the concept, and a prequel limits them in what they can’t do.
And I’m with you – something leading to the Romulan war would have been great, but then… with the lack of risk taking in the show, it was probably best left alone.
Archers story with the whole following daddys footsteps thing is an interesting one – if they’d capitalised on changing TV audience demands, they could have really sunk their teeth into that. A man following his fathers dream, never finding his own way forward or doing what he wanted. Even that would have added some much needed depth. I honestly believe if they show didn’t feel like a carbon copy of what came before, I would have loved it.
When it comes to the movie – I half agree. I’d like to see more thoughtful and provocative storytelling. The stories of the 60′s are long gone, but there are still good parallels to draw and good stories to tell.
But… I think thats best done on TV which would have time to advance on longer plots and characters, have more time for personal struggles and storytelling in general.
The new movie was exciting, it was energetic and it told a creation story. With the next, I’d like a stronger story or villian, but as long as it is a good story with good themes then I’ll be happy. In my view (which I know isn’tt a terribly favoured one from discussions I’ve had) is for the franchise to become successful again, then perhaps evolve once again on TV once the smoke has cleared.
Comment from theredeemed
Time 21.08.2010 at 14:30
[BLOG!] I can’t stop picking on Enterprise (because it’s shit) – via #twitoaster http://thepicardmaneuver.com/blog/the-wa...
via Twitoaster
Comment from CmdrReyes
Time 21.08.2010 at 17:03
A rewatch of Enterprise made me realise it was better than I remembered. There wasn’t much going on with the crew though even when looking back again, and a lot of them were just people in uniform at times with nothing else to them.
But in hindsight, it’s better second time round.
James Tyler Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 17:14
I totally agree with that. It’s still not a favourite show by a long way, but I enjoyed a lot of better the second time round. But then, that’s like the Matrix for me.
I loved the first Matrix movie, didn’t like the second as much and when it came to the third, I fell asleep a lot. Recently I rewatched the second and found thing about it I liked – I knew what I didn’t like, so the recent viewing was about getting past that to find good things. When I finally got through the third, my expecations were so low that I enjoyed it.
Ok, that not the best praise – but with Enterprise I’d seen the bad stuff, I’d picked out what I didn’t like and on the second viewing I could appreciate the good things. Which did come, mostly, in the final season.
James Tyler Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 20:53
I quite enjoyed the last season. It was far from the best of Trek, but it was as if they saw this was their last chance and finally put their best into it.
And it had Uncle Phil as a Klingon. Which was just plain awesome.