To those who don't seem to like ENTERPRISE, a rant

[The Highlander]

I've been seeing some of the recent postings about ENTERPRISE, and to those of who have been lamenting Oh, Trek as we know it is dead , Oh, they're tampering with canon , I have one thing to say:


LIGHTEN UP, FOLKS! IT'S STILL TREK !!


What a lot of folks need to do is loosen their collars, put down their ST Encyclopedias, just sit back, and enjoy some good stories.

Because this is what we're getting, believe it or not.

So what if it takes 4 days to get to Qo'NoS?

So what if there was a captain of an Enterprise before April, Pike, or Kirk?

IT'S STAR TREK !!

We are treated to tales of a starship and her crew, on new missions and more than likely setting the stage for the TREK stories that would come -- in the Original Series and the others.

What we're getting now is exactly the same style that the Original Series had in the 1960's.

It's retro in comparison, but so is "That '70s Show" , and no one complains "Hey, { } didn't look/sound/act like that back then."

It's Trek, folks. Different packaging, same product.

Just sit back and enjoy it.

[Troy]

I agree that Enterprise is Star Trek. Show is about how mankind's first starship out our solar system. Like an legend it has to have a beganing.

Enterprise is restarting to bring Star Trek back, just as TNG did when it first started. People was saying TNG was not Star Trek, after third season that TNG was a big hit.

I say give Enterprise time to grow .

[Phantom]

If B&B don't consider it Trek (see deviations from canon and the fact that "Star Trek" was dropped from the title) why should I?

[Weyoun11]

As one of those who may be classified as "displeased" with the course of the franchise all I'll put forward here is I recently purchased the November issue of Star Trek: The Magazine which is an "Enterprise" (new series) festooned feature. But thats not why I bought it. It had a feature on Dominion ships and Odo.... . To be honest I haven't watched nor cared to watch "Enterprise" since the second episode. Voyager had the same effect most of the time save for its two parters.
Highlander said "different packaging, same product" which is a very good analogy. Sorry fellow Trekkers (I prefer Niner myself...go figure) I can't enjoy the same product over and over again no matter how the outside packaging looks. New aliens of the week including Dr.Phlox that somehow faced mass extinction by the time of TOS...opps yeah sorry I forgot B&B get weak stomachs on continuity.
What we are witnessing are B&B version of Trek; there answer to oringinality was to drop the logo, put in vocal song as a theme, and make it a prequel. Just what about those ideas were original? For a "retro" show it doesn't look that retro to me at all. Its a matter of personal taste I guess. I'm enjoying Trek just fine in the novels anyway...

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

I don't consider the new Enterprise TREK, its just another sci-fi show to me. Different package you say, they dropped the title, changed the music, changed a couple of "canonical details" and overall just made it very un-TREK.

This show is more like Andromeda without Kevin Scerbo(sp?), and full of Harry Kims as a few dubbed it.

Will I watch, did I watch? Hell yeah, its still interesting sci-fi. Will I include any of their(B&B) material as TREK? Hell no.

[prophetsteve]

I concider Enterprise Trek. It isn't TOS Trek, It isn't TNG Trek. But I never wanted them to be. Enterprise, being another generation of Trek needs to find its own niche. TNG barely resembled TOS, with only a few themes crossing over. Everyone should keep that in mind - TNG, DS9 and Voyager were similar in theme but were in the same era. The TNG series were very different to TOS.

As Janeway herself noted that things that Kirk and co. would have done in TOS and got away with, would get them booted out of Starfleet in TNG. Less room for the Cowboy diplomacy in the next generation.

As for "loosening up a bit". I have. I am not shouting about the canon violations. However, I will continue to show the major flaws of episodes if they should arise. In doing so I will be trying to foster discussion rather than "besmerch the holy name of trek" or whatever.

And for those who disagree with us naysayers, please don't flame us when we do bring up issues. Just as we naysayers need to loosen up, so do some of you yeasayers.

[KlingonZ]

I do consider Enterprise as Trek. But a different kind of Trek.

They should have kept Star Trek as part of the title.

They should attempt to remain in canon as much as possible and research things before shooting them.

I like it. I would like it moore if they did the above!

[Caretaker]

How can people be so quick to judge? Let the show finish a season or two first, so we can see if it will truly be "alien of the week" or whether there will be story arcs or the whatnot. I mean, it is only on episode five this week... how can we judge something like "alien of the week" this soon?

[Lee T]

What caretaker says is very true, you just have to compare DS9's first season to it's others (or even compare TNG's first season to it's others, VOY is another thing though).

[Imagus]

I'm glad someone brought it up again, so I don't have to dredge up an older thread to comment

I finally got to see "Broken Bow" on Saturday evening (I think we're looking at February for broadcast in the UK), and despite poor sound and picture quality on the tape, I really quite enjoyed it.

In one sense, I agree with the naysayers - it's not Trek. At least not in the same sense that TNG, DS9 and Voyager (however much you hate it) were. There are only a few of the features that I consider to be Star Trek fundamentals - the technology, the familiar governments, technobabble, bright sets and uniforms, and moralistic preaching.

But that's not a bad thing - for the new series to last, it has to try something new, and it seems to have managed it so far (I'll have to reserve proper judgment until I've seen more!). And it's produced something fairly fresh and with the possibility of being

I like the look (dark, and fairly clunky), the obviously fragile relationship between the humans and the Vulcans, and the impulsive natures of many of the characters. I got the impression that Archer would deck the Vulcan at the first sign of an argument brewing - that's refreshing!

So what if we're meeting new races we haven't heard of in earlier series? In Kirk's time there are supposed to be over a hundred sentient races in the UFP, we met maybe a dozen. Many of the races we see in this series would probably have joined the UFP melting pot by that time.

I loved the need for a human translator, the Vulcan arrogance, the hefty looking weaponry, the shuttlecraft deployed through a hatch (instead of a flight deck), the chef and even Phlox's biomedical stuff. The uniforms looked much more military, and the dark lighting and metal frame-supported consoles gave the whole thing a more practical look I haven't seen since Babylon 5. I could have done without the transporters and the phase-pistols though (they seemed a little too high-tech).

Ok, there's a few continuity and technical issues but that's par for the course for any sci-fi series, and _especially_ Trek! (I still remember the "black hole" in Voyager's Parallax - as an Astrophysics graduate I was rolling on the floor.) About the only mainstream sci-fi series get anything astronomical right was Stargate...

Biggest disappointment was the Klingons. I know why they were there - to give some contunuity with the earlier series. But it went against everything they seem to be trying to do with what I said earlier. As others commented, another race would have done fine for the new race we've never met before. Andorians? Possibly, but the blue skin tends to look a little old-fashioned in sci-fi terms for current series...

The question is, will they keep it up? They need to avoid resorting to wormholes, newly-invented subatomic particles and time-warps at every available opportunity. And I hope they keep the number of "aliens of the week" under control!

Just my thoughts - but I'm definitely going to give this one a run before I decide to abandon it. It has more promise that B5's Crusade did... (Ok, that maybe a bad example, but it got good just before they axed it!)

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Well I liked it. And really couldn't care less if other people don't. So I'm not going to waste my breath trying to argue the point.

[Keny Suda]

Actually I liked the alien-of-the-week...

It's something new, something different. Sure, you have to trash some of the pages in you federation history books but the greatest mistake I can see is naming the ship Enterprise. Discovery or Endeavour would have done fine. I think most people critisize the new series because of what they read in RPG source books. With no intention to give the writers of these books a slap into the face (you really did an excellent job), but these books are written for the RPG. And although Paramount had to approve the contents they are not tied to them regarding the TV show.

My fellow ST fans: Enjoy the show as it is. There are enough other really serious things going on in the world to worry about.

[Don Mappin]

I don’t consider it Trek and no matter how much yelling you do you’re likely not going to change my mind.

I won’t bore people with details, but IMO it takes more than calling a ship “Enterprise,” putting pointy ears on a chick and calling her a Vulcan and making the odd reference to Starfleet to call a show STAR TREK.

Why isn’t it okay to have a dissenting opinion?

You like ENTERPRISE? Good for you. I hope you and Captain (Sam) Beckett have a nice time.

[REG]

While I agree that you can have dissenting opinions (that's what makes America great ... pluralism), I'd still like to know what is it or are they about ENTERPRISE (so far have aired 3 episodes) that does not embodies the spirit of Star Trek?

[The Highlander]

Originally posted by REG
While I agree that you can have dissenting opinions (that's what makes America great ... pluralism), I'd still like to know what is it or are they about ENTERPRISE (so far have aired 3 episodes) that does not embodies the spirit of Star Trek?

Reg, this is exactly what I'm talking about. . . every naysayer is lamenting the loss of Trek, and yet no one can come up with a viable reason why ENTERPRISE doesn't embody the spirit of Trek.