CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Star Trek Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Star Trek Thread - Page 54

post #2651 of 3283
7/31/12 at 3:02pm

Watching Enterprise on Netflix, I'm enjoying it. Corny and a lot of the episodes seem to be copies of TNG's. But fun. Also kind of annoying on how naive Archer and crew are, which I guess makes sense.

Reply
post #2652 of 3283
7/31/12 at 4:25pm

Yeah I think of Enterprise as the "Star Trek for 10 year olds", as in, 30 or 40 somethings writing stories they think will appeal to a 10 year old. Farscape strikes me as very similar in intent.


Edited by Cylon Baby - 7/31/12 at 5:04pm
Reply
post #2653 of 3283
7/31/12 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Yeah I think of Enterprise as the "Star Trek for 10 year olds", as in, 30 or 40 somethings writing stories they think will appeal to a 10 year old. Farsight strikes me as very similar in intent.

 

The whatnow?  Seriously, google came up empty.

 

I still can't get behind Enterprise.  Characters and actors I liked, but every story hurt my brain, and the whole thing pooped all over any established cannon.

Reply
post #2654 of 3283
7/31/12 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

 

The whatnow?  Seriously, google came up empty.

 

I still can't get behind Enterprise.  Characters and actors I liked, but every story hurt my brain, and the whole thing pooped all over any established cannon.

 

My first "Senior Moment", documented here on CHUD! I meant "Farscape". You know, the show with the Muppets.

Reply
post #2655 of 3283
7/31/12 at 9:43pm

I dunno, Farscape got into some weeeeeird pseudo sexual shit in its later seasons. Came with the territory of airing the same evening as LEXX, I guess.

Reply
post #2656 of 3283
8/1/12 at 11:57am

Gotcha.  That may be true, but my perspective is so clouded by age and fandom.  I thought it was super boring, and pandering.  

 

As a kid I think I would have liked it, I liked Space Rangers for Crom's sake.

Reply
post #2657 of 3283
8/1/12 at 2:27pm

Worked pretty hard on this recast and posted it last night. Figured the trekkies in this thread might get a kick out of my Next Generation reboot:

 

 

Quote:
Star Trek: Generation

Directed by Matthew Vaughn


Tom Hardy as Jean Luc Picard (bald).

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Riker (with beard).

Michael Fassbender as DATA.

Chiwetel Ejiofor as Geordie LaForge (visored).

Anne Hathaway as Ro Laren.

Judy Greer as Troi.

Iris Elba as Worf (TNG style Klingon makeup).

Winona Ryder as Dr. Crusher.

Hiroyuki Sanada as "Miles" Tanaka (based upon the character originally portrayed by Colm Meany).

Cristoph Waltz as Q.

After Star Trek 2 becomes a gigantic hit (or a big flop, depending on your outlook on things), the studio soon decides to reboot Next Generation, setting the film in the 24th century and retaining the overall look of the series for the Enterprise design and interior sets and title fonts. The movie is an extremely loose adaptation of Encounter at Farpoint.

Hardy was selected for the lead based upon previous excellence in the role of Jean Luc Picard's clone. Also, the general unease he expressed with the sort of work he did in Dark Knight Rises fits in with Stewart's early reticence about genre television. Crusher's character is slightly older than Picard in this version, with them having had a romantic past during Picard's Star Fleet academy days, when she was an instructor. Now she is a platonic friend, and a source of advice. Picard's romantic attentions instead shift to Hathaway's Ro Laren character in the reboot.

There is some controversy from the fan base about Ryder's casting given her appearance as Spock's mother in Star Trek (2009), but the old age makeup she was hidden under for that role is used as the excuse to bring her back to be a part of the crew of the NCC 1701D. Critics single her out for praise in reviews, and her career gets a big boost.

The sequel is subtitled "The Next Generation", intended to function as the  "Dark Knight" of this new series. Subsequent entries follow the Nolan trilogy naming convention, as in "The Next Generation Returns", and so on.
Reply
post #2658 of 3283
8/1/12 at 3:27pm

Haven't we learned from "Star Trek: Nemesis" that Tom Hardy is the wrong guy to play Picard? That performance was one of the best examples of an actor taking a horribly written role in which they were miscast and almost making it work based on sheer charisma alone.

 

Tom Hardy's talent and intensity tricked me into actually thinking his character was a great villain the first time I saw it. Then I came to my senses and realized it was just a marvelous actor acting the hell out of a shit role.

 

And I have to take issue with the person who called Terry Farrell a block of wood on the previous page. How DARE you. She may have been the least experienced actor of the bunch (aside from Cirroc Lofton) and the only one without theatre experience at the time, but for someone as inexperienced as she was, I think she did a fine job.

 

And even if she wasn't as convincing in heavier dramatic/emotional scenes due to her limited range, she was still damn charming in the role. She should at least get some credit for that.

 

It's a big reason why Jadzia Dax is my favourite Star Trek character. She also contributed significantly to "Trials and Tribble-ations" being my favourite episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". If you watch that episode and don't find her absolutely adorable in it, I'm sorry to inform you, but...you may not have a heart.

 

I agree with criticism of Avery "Giant Dripping Christmas Ham" Brooks, but I want to add that he was tremendous any time he played a character that was supposed to be over-the-top.

 

My favourite Brooks performances were when he played a James Bond villain in Dr. Bashir's secret agent holosuite program, when he acted like some whacko obsessed with building a clock in the episode where everyone becomes mutinous (for some sci-fi mumbo jumbo reason), and when he talked like some creepy African Hannibal Lecter as the murderous Dax host.

 

He was also a blast as Evil Mirror Sisko and I love when he yelled at people (him scolding Worf and Jadzia for trying to let a Klingon suicide ritual happen is one of the funniest scenes of the series). His style of acting was perfect for ridiculous villains characters. That's part of why he was well-cast in "The Big Hit" as well.

Reply
post #2659 of 3283
8/1/12 at 3:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post

Haven't we learned from "Star Trek: Nemesis" that Tom Hardy is the wrong guy to play Picard? That performance was one of the best examples of an actor taking a horribly written role in which they were miscast and almost making it work based on sheer charisma alone.

 

Tom Hardy's talent and intensity tricked me into actually thinking his character was a great villain the first time I saw it. Then I came to my senses and realized it was just a marvelous actor acting the hell out of a shit role.

 

And I have to take issue with the person who called Terry Farrell a block of wood on the previous page. How DARE you. She may have been the least experienced actor of the bunch (aside from Cirroc Lofton) and the only one without theatre experience at the time, but for someone as inexperienced as she was, I think she did a fine job.

 

And even if she wasn't as convincing in heavier dramatic/emotional scenes due to her limited range, she was still damn charming in the role. She should at least get some credit for that.

 

It's a big reason why Jadzia Dax is my favourite Star Trek character. She also contributed significantly to "Trials and Tribble-ations" being my favourite episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". If you watch that episode and don't find her absolutely adorable in it, I'm sorry to inform you, but...you may not have a heart.

 

I agree with criticism of Avery "Giant Dripping Christmas Ham" Brooks, but I want to add that he was tremendous any time he played a character that was supposed to be over the top.

 

My favourite Sisko moments were when he played a James Bond villain in Dr. Bashir's secret agent holosuite program, when he talked like some creepy African Hannibal Lecter as the muderous Dax host, and when he played Mirror Sisko. He was also a blast as Evil Mirror Sisko. His style of acting was perfect for ridiculous villains characters. That's part of why he was well-cast in "The Big Hit" as well.


I wouldn't want him to do a Patrick Stewart imitation, and his previous work as Shinzon was just a nice happy coincidence when it came to my recast. I was already considering him for the role, and then when I remembered Nemisis, that sealed it. I just think he's really talented and versatile, and I can see him as a new kind of Picard. A thinker, an explorer, cautious and canny but someone with an indomitable  inner strength that would reveal itself when put to the test.

 

I love Dax, by the way. Farrell might not be the strongest actor, but she really nailed that character I think. Somehow she really managed to feel "old", and sell the concept that the Dax symbiote had been around a very long time.

Reply
post #2660 of 3283
8/1/12 at 9:30pm

Does this mean that Troi will constantly be telling aliens on the viewscreen to "SAY GOOD BYE TO THESE!" before the Enterprise opens fire?

Reply
post #2661 of 3283
8/1/12 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

Does this mean that Troi will constantly be telling aliens on the viewscreen to "SAY GOOD BYE TO THESE!" before the Enterprise opens fire?

Haha, I just think Judy Greer has a very empathetic face, perfect for the role. She's a great actress and I didn't hesitate to cast her.
Reply
post #2662 of 3283
8/1/12 at 9:46pm

Arrested Development stars in "Star Trek:The Arrested Generation"

 

 

George Bluth, as Jean Luc Picard.

Oscar Bluth, as Shinzon

Michael Bluth, as Riker

George Michael Bluth, as Wesley Crusher

GOB, as Geordi La Forge

Lucille Bluth, as Dr. Pulaski

Anyong Bluth, as Nurse Ogawa

Buster Bluth, as Data

Lindsey Funke, as Tasha Yar

Tobias Funke, as Mott the Bolian Barber

Maebe Funke, as Guinan

Kitty Sanchez, as Deanna Troi

ICE, as Worf

Gene Parmasan, as every TOS Klingon

Anne Veal, as the Borg Queen

Stan Sitwell and Sally Sitwell, as the Romulans

Lucille Ostero, as Admiral Nechayev

Steve Holt, as every red shirted ensign on an away team.

Barry Zuckercorn, as the Ferengi


Edited by MrTyres - 8/1/12 at 9:58pm
Reply
post #2663 of 3283
8/1/12 at 9:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post

...

 

And I have to take issue with the person who called Terry Farrell a block of wood on the previous page. How DARE you. She may have been the least experienced actor of the bunch (aside from Cirroc Lofton) and the only one without theatre experience at the time, but for someone as inexperienced as she was, I think she did a fine job.

 

And even if she wasn't as convincing in heavier dramatic/emotional scenes due to her limited range, she was still damn charming in the role. She should at least get some credit for that.

 

It's a big reason why Jadzia Dax is my favourite Star Trek character. She also contributed significantly to "Trials and Tribble-ations" being my favourite episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". If you watch that episode and don't find her absolutely adorable in it, I'm sorry to inform you, but...you may not have a heart.

...

 

 

 

Relax, I said that based on the pilot, where she was indeed a very appealing two by four.  I know she gets better.  I also completely forgot Worf joins the show later.

 

 

Naisu and Jadzia sittin' in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Reply
post #2664 of 3283
8/2/12 at 7:23am

Finally finished TNG season 2 on Netflix last night and started season 3. I've never been so glad to see Patrick Stewart almost obsessively adjust his shirt when sitting down.

 

I was hugely disappointed that season 2 ended with a clip show. The war games episode would've made a decent enough finale, and ended the season on a high note. Instead we get one last look at how bad some of the first 2 seasons could be.

Reply
post #2665 of 3283
8/2/12 at 9:25am
Quote:

Star Trek: Generation

Directed by Matthew Vaughn


Tom Hardy as Jean Luc Picard (bald).

Bradley Cooper as Riker (with beard).

Edward Norton as DATA.

Donald Glover as Geordie LaForge (visored).

Anne Hathaway as Dr. Crusher


Judy Greer as Troi.

Iris Elba as Worf (TNG style Klingon makeup).

Hiroyuki Sanada as "Miles" Tanaka (based upon the character originally portrayed by Colm Meany).

Cristoph Waltz as Q

 

 

 

Not bad, made a few changes though.

Reply
post #2666 of 3283
8/2/12 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755 View Post

Quote:
Star Trek: Generation


Directed by Matthew Vaughn



Tom Hardy as Jean Luc Picard (bald).


Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Riker (with beard).


Michael Fassbender as DATA.


Chiwetel Ejiofor as Geordie LaForge (visored).


Anne Hathaway as Ro Laren.


Judy Greer as Troi.


Iris Elba as Worf (TNG style Klingon makeup).


Winona Ryder as Dr. Crusher.


Hiroyuki Sanada as "Miles" Tanaka (based upon the character originally portrayed by Colm Meany).


Cristoph Waltz as Q.

Not bad, just a few changes I'd make...Bradley Cooper as Riker, Edward Norton as Data, Donald Glover as Geordi (yeah...thats right), get rid of Ensign Ro (TNG never really had set helmsman aside from Wesley) and make Hathaway Dr. Crusher.

Solid suggestions. I considered Norton for Data, and I am actually open to a number of different options on that role. Since it was a fantasy cast though, and Fassbender was just this summer the highlight of Prometheus for his portrayal of a robot, I figured he should be my choice.

I feel like Riker should be a lady's man, but more dapper than Rock&Roll. I think Cooper can be strong in the right role, but I wanted a Riker who had an sense of class and refinement about him. A more benevolent Jamie Lannister seemed perfect. I imagine he'd have an excellent chemistry with Hardy.

I love Ro Laren's whole attitude and dynamic with the crew, and I felt it would be refreshing to have her play off Picard (with her an ensign and him a Captain it would be an interesting office romance). I've never been a big Crusher fan so I opted for that switch. I have not seen Donald Glover in anything but I know he's well liked, still though I think Ejiofor is perfect for the role of Geordie as I envision it.

Thanks for your suggestions and comments on my cast! I had more ideas (Dean DeHaan for Wesley, for instance) for casting but decided to keep it simple for the first film. In the sequel maybe Donald Glover could portray Alexander, Worf's son?

Oh, how about Bradley Cooper in the Matt Frewer role at some point?
Reply
post #2667 of 3283
9/7/12 at 8:25pm

Star Trek Into Darkness is apparently the title for the sequel

 

Is J.J. Abrams Taking a Star Trek Into Darkness?

Reply
post #2668 of 3283
9/7/12 at 10:47pm
Thread Starter 
Weird phrasing. Like TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON.

Might sound better as STAR TREK: INTO THE DARKNESS
Reply
post #2669 of 3283
9/8/12 at 5:05am

How much you wanna bet when we see a poster it's:

 

STAR TREK

INTO DARKNESS

Reply
post #2670 of 3283
9/8/12 at 8:27am

I mean, look:

 

   

 

 

 

 

Debate the crapiness of "Into Darkness" all you want, but I don't think lack of a colon is some huge deal here, or implying that you're supposed to read it as a sentence.

Reply
post #2671 of 3283
9/8/12 at 1:39pm

Happy 46th birthday, Star Trek! Today's Google Doodle is pretty great.

 

In semi-related news, AV Club just did a Random Roles interview with Mary Woronov in which she mentions that she auditioned for Janeway on Voyager, which would have reunited her with her Eating Raoul costar Robert Beltran. How awesome would that have been?

Reply
post #2672 of 3283
9/11/12 at 3:50pm
Thread Starter 
Beardless Riker, remastered.

Reply
post #2673 of 3283
9/11/12 at 4:10pm

Anbody thinking the name Star Trek Into Darkness is bad need only look at the song titles for the Star Trek soundtrack.  I think we dodged a bullet.

 

Hella Bar Talk indeed.

Reply
post #2674 of 3283
9/11/12 at 5:52pm

I'm totally cool with Star Trek Into Darkness.  It reminds me of Stephen Donaldson's Gap books.  Looking forward to Star Trek Into Knowledge, Star Trek Into Madness, and Star Trek Into Power.

Reply
post #2675 of 3283
9/11/12 at 5:58pm

Star Trek Enterprising Young People.

Reply
post #2676 of 3283
9/11/12 at 10:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neoolong View Post

Anbody thinking the name Star Trek Into Darkness is bad need only look at the song titles for the Star Trek soundtrack.  I think we dodged a bullet.

 

Hella Bar Talk indeed.

 

Truth. I try to ignore Giacchino's titles the best I can. I can appreciate the fun he's having, but it gets a little grating. 

Reply
post #2677 of 3283
9/11/12 at 11:15pm

Hey, I happen to love Enterprising young men, hell of a track.

Reply
post #2678 of 3283
10/10/12 at 9:12pm

So now that Chris Hemsworth is a thing, one has to wonder if JJ and team are thinking of ways to incorporate him into the third movie. Just a random thought. 

Reply
post #2679 of 3283
10/10/12 at 9:30pm

Maybe, but they had better schedule it way ahead of time.  Check out the man's current shooting schedule below for the next 2 years.  Granted Star Trek III probably won't show up until around 2016 or so, but I doubt he'll be slowing down anytime soon.

 

RUSH (2013) (completed)

THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013) (shooting)

ROBOPOCALYPSE (2014) (pre-production)

AMERICAN ASSASSIN (2014) (pre-production) (in talks)

SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN II (2014 or 2015) (scripting)

THE AVENGERS II (2015) (scripting)

 

Ron Howard's racing flick, a Spielberg sci-fi thriller, three sequels, and another potential franchise-starter.  He's gonna be one busy dude!

Reply
post #2680 of 3283
10/10/12 at 9:35pm

Guess they could always shoot a cameo. A quick flashback or something if they felt they really wanted him back in there.

Reply
post #2681 of 3283
10/10/12 at 9:37pm

I'm sure Abrams can swing something if he wants.  I'm more interested in seeing what happens when Star Trek 4 rolls around.  According to Urban, they all signed the standard Hollywood franchise contract:  three films, with an option for a fourth.

 

Then again, none of them have taken off outside of Trek yet, so they'd be stupid to not go the full 4.

Reply
post #2682 of 3283
10/10/12 at 9:55pm
Thread Starter 
It would be even more stupid if hey wait another four years to do a Trek film AGAIN. I always keep saying this, but STAR TREK should have rebooted on TV. That's where it belongs, that's where its real strengths are.
Reply
post #2683 of 3283
10/10/12 at 10:00pm

Yet it was the 2009 film, at least this time, that truly brought it back from the grave that the previous few TV series could not. Personally, I think the four year gap of no Star Trek was the best thing to happen to the franchise. There was just too much Trek and nobody but the devotees even cared anymore. 

Reply
post #2684 of 3283
10/10/12 at 10:19pm

A Hemsworth cameo is basically what I was thinking. With Orci and Kurtzman's brilliance a reunion for Kirk Sr. and Kirk Jr. doesn't even need to make sense. 

Reply
post #2685 of 3283
10/10/12 at 10:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

Yet it was the 2009 film, at least this time, that truly brought it back from the grave that the previous few TV series could not. Personally, I think the four year gap of no Star Trek was the best thing to happen to the franchise. There was just too much Trek and nobody but the devotees even cared anymore. 

The four year gap definitely helped, but I still believe TV is the best route the franchise could have taken. No movies, no spin-offs airing at the same time, just one TV show featuring the new adventures of Kirk and co on a big network.
Reply
post #2686 of 3283
10/10/12 at 11:21pm

They are supposedly slowly working on ideas for a show set within the same continuity and timeframe as the new films.  I think that would be the best route to take once the current theatrical cast decides to leave....or even before then.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandhay View Post

A Hemsworth cameo is basically what I was thinking. With Orci and Kurtzman's brilliance a reunion for Kirk Sr. and Kirk Jr. doesn't even need to make sense. 

 

I'm laughing so hard right now.  Thank you!

Reply
post #2687 of 3283
10/10/12 at 11:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

I'm laughing so hard right now.  Thank you!

 

Hey, it takes a certain brilliance to be able to gloss over illogical story beats with such abandon. Haha, now I'm gonna walk away b/c I'm perilously close to sounding like I'm defending them.

Reply
post #2688 of 3283
10/10/12 at 11:36pm
Thread Starter 
I'll be interested in how the pull that off. Back in the 90s what they should have done was stick with the original plan with DS9 becoming the new Trek series while TNG leaped on the big screen. No VOY or any other spin-off. Just one TV series and a movie coming out every couple of years, just as it was done with the TOS movies and TNG. Keep things minimal.
Reply
post #2689 of 3283
10/10/12 at 11:37pm

Heard that.  I was so burnt out on Trek during the Voyager years that I honestly never gave Enterprise a shot.

Reply
post #2690 of 3283
10/10/12 at 11:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandhay View Post

A Hemsworth cameo is basically what I was thinking. With Orci and Kurtzman's brilliance a reunion for Kirk Sr. and Kirk Jr. doesn't even need to make sense. 

 

 

An uncovered video log that George Kirk recorded for his son?  Kirk having to go back in time to prevent some disaster, and meeting his father but having to hide who he is, only to find out the price of saving the universe is to give up his father?

 

There are a million ways this could go.

Reply
post #2691 of 3283
10/10/12 at 11:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

Heard that.  I was so burnt out on Trek during the Voyager years that I honestly never gave Enterprise a shot.

 

It isn't that good.  Even the latter slightly better seasons aren't that great.

Reply
post #2692 of 3283
10/10/12 at 11:49pm

Is it better than Voyager?  Because I gave up on that one after the second season.

Reply
post #2693 of 3283
10/10/12 at 11:52pm
Thread Starter 
I'd say the fourth season is really up there with the best of Trek. I don't have any of the seasons on DVD, but since I heard the show will go blu I'll likely grab S4.

I always felt that ENT would have worked better as a follow-up to DS9. After the whole drama with the Dominion War arc, ENT might have been seen more as a back to basics kind of Trek show. But I'm thinking of an entirely different kind of execution. It should have been more vibrant and ballsy from the start, like THE RIGHT STUFF of STAR TREK. Instead Berman and Braga treated it like it was another season of VOY and that was the real kiss of death for the show.
Reply
post #2694 of 3283
10/10/12 at 11:53pm

Err, not really?  I guess it might be slightly less dull at times, but pretty much just as bad.  It only gets halfway decent in the last two seasons or so.  S4 is pretty good I guess, but I felt like the way it ended tainted the season.

Reply
post #2695 of 3283
10/11/12 at 12:04am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

Is it better than Voyager?  Because I gave up on that one after the second season.

The first two seasons of ENT are really no different than VOY altogether. Lazy, rehashed, dull, flat. It's just Berman and Braga coasting again and it's just as frustrating. Once Manny Coto came on board for the third season that's when the show was starting to take risks and adopted a serial storyline. It wasn't perfect, but they tried and cooked up some brilliant stuff along the way. The fourth season is basically a reboot in spirit, starting with the episode "Borderland" that guest stars Brent Spiner giving a very excellent performance. Instead of feeling like a dull TNG-spin off like the first two seasons, it now feels like a precursor to TOS. You can definitely tell things changed because the cinematography has dramatically changed with its lighting giving the show a more saturated vibrant look like TOS. It's like ENT is finally proud of being a Trek show and even embraces some of the silliness that Berman often dismissed.


First Season



Fourth Season
Reply
post #2696 of 3283
10/11/12 at 12:08am

While stuff like the Augments was done well enough, I didn't like that they basically just went back to the history well and just started explaining things.  It was a better show than in the first and second season, but do I need an episode on why the Klingons have ridges?  And hey, here's some Orion slave girls, remember them?

Reply
post #2697 of 3283
10/11/12 at 12:21am
Thread Starter 
The ridges story was pretty clever, even if unnecessary. The best arc for me was the Vulcan Trilogy, as that restores a lot of the damage the first two seasons did to Vulcans while taking Archer's weakest aspect (his major grudge against Vulcans) and giving it the best story treatment ever.

Oh and I should warn anyone that never saw the fourth season. Stay away from "These Are the Voyages...". It's so bad that virtually every EU novel treats it like it never happened. It's basically Riker in a holodeck, that's all you need to know.
Reply
post #2698 of 3283
10/11/12 at 8:22am

By missing Enterprise you've missed nothing, IMO. 

Reply
post #2699 of 3283
10/11/12 at 8:26am
Thread Starter 

Nah, there's plenty of worthy stuff in ENT. The third season storyline does a better riff on the Star Wars plot than J.J. Abrams' bullshit.

Reply
post #2700 of 3283
10/11/12 at 8:48am

I'm not very experienced with "Enterprise", as I only watched some of the season 4 episodes that gave backstory to certain aspects of the Star Trek mythos (Klingon ridges, Augments, Mirror Universe). I enjoyed that stuff so much that I feel like it alone justifies the series' existence, no matter how bad the early seasons may have been (as I've heard).

 

I understand why some people may consider those episodes unnecessary fanwank...especially the Klingon ones (the non-explanation joke about the change in Klingons between the original series and the movies/TNG in DS9's "Trials and Tribble-lations" episode would have sufficed), but I found them very entertaining, and even easy to follow for someone not very familiar with the characters and story arcs of "Enterprise". I think most people who are big fans of Star Trek should get a kick out of those episodes, regardless of how they feel about "Enterprise" as a series.

 

These episodes are also why I consider "Enterprise" a better series than "Voyager", despite having very little experience with both. I have never, ever been impressed by "Voyager" or seen a single episode that I would consider even close to great. As far as I can tell, that whole series was a completely unnecessary waste of time. I don't find a single one of the characters or plots I've seen in that series interesting. They're all so bland.

 

I've watched a few episodes that I believe are considered highlights of the series (i.e. "Year of Hell", the tribute to "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country") and even those bored me. The only episodes I got any enjoyment from were the Q episodes, and even those aren't episodes I'd consider very good...I just had to like them because I'm such a huge fan of the character and John De Lancie in the role. He really elevated the whole series by appearing in it, but like the rest of the series, his episodes were a huge step down from what was done on TNG.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Star Trek Thread