I watched all 4 seasons of Enterprise a couple years ago along with the other Star Trek series. As I began I recognized maybe a dozen episodes I'd seen before out of ENT's 4 seasons. Like Voyager, I recalled not liking ENT, but not necessarily recalling why. I started out with expectations at rock bottom--and was pleasantly surprised to find them far exceeded.
From what I had previously seen and recalled of ENT in the years before my completionist viewing, I wasn't particularly kind in my treatment of it. I had some issues with the series, then, that have rather been resolved in my mind. To wit:
It seems silly now, but I didn't like the way ENT was all bright and shiny in its production and special effects while previous series, that take place 100-200 years later in canon but aired 10-30 years earlier, boasted more modest visuals. That's on me. I can't even defend making that point previously. More importantly, I didn't like how ENT presented species and events that played a HUGE role in Earth's pre-Federation space exploration, but which in the time of TOS or TNG are of course not even mentioned (because in real life, such things weren't yet written into canon existence). But then I realized--with ENT we're talking of people, places, events that, again, take place 100 years before TOS, 200 years before TNG. How often in a given day do WE, in real life, talk of things 200 years ago in our nation's history? How many events/people can we name and discuss at length from that long ago? None of ENT's major events in canon ST history happened when the most beloved series had aired, but then, Kirk and Picard had plenty of their own history to make.
Moreover, having now rewatched ENT in full, I can honestly say I like it, despite its flaws. At its best it upholds classic Star Trek tropes of space exploration in the face of diplomatic challenges and powerful enemies, unique unforeseen issues that arise in encountering new worlds and species. And while introducing new proper nouns into a timeframe that takes place before previously established canon has its issues, I do appreciate that ENT shows a different time in Earth history--before the Federation. When humans were only just beginning to step out into deep space. I like how ENT presents the rough edges of an ambitious new endeavor: difficulties with language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, inferior space-faring technology, a complex relationship w/ the species (Vulcans) who helped Earth find its proverbial feet. A small cramped vessel.
In short, ENT at its best is classic Star Trek goodness, with the twist of (imperfectly) telling the story of humans getting out into space well before Earth became the powerhouse of the Alpha Quadrant that it is in the 24th or even 23rd centuries.
And while the cast doesn't have the same chemistry as other Star Trek series, I think the characters were (mostly) well written, and the cast does a good job of giving them life. Of course the real star in every sense is Scott Bakula as Archer; I wish we had more ENT for that reason alone. I don't like how Jolene Blalock's T'Pol was sexualized, recalling like treatment of Seven of Nine in VOY and even Counselor Troi in early TNG. Yet I think Blalock performed well, making T'Pol sympathetic and relatable even while humans otherwise had a complex relationship with Vulcans. It was a recurring delight to see Jeffrey Combs again; his portrayal of Shran is surely one of the highlights of ENT. Again, something ENT did well--just as humans had a rough start in space, we see the sordid history of Andorians, and Vulcans, before the Federation was built.
I could continue listing every little thing Enterprise did well--which was a lot, really--but I don't want to spend hours on this review. What were the series' failings? Where did it go wrong? Why is it remembered so poorly compared to every Star Trek series that preceded it?
There are three things that come to mind that specifically detract from what could have been another great success in the Star Trek franchise.
First and foremost, that theme song. WHY?! Watching ENT on Netflix, those little words "skip intro" were a blessing each episode.
Second, and much more substantially, one of the problems ENT had was simply biting off more than it could chew. This is a tricky one, because it tried so very hard, but results were mixed.
Self-contained episodes of classic Star Trek stories? Great. 1-2 episode arcs? Some were better than others. Very Big Ideas that spanned multiple episodes, a whole season, multiple seasons? That's where the wheels fell off. Above all else I of course refer to the Temporal Cold War.
The TCW is a Very Big Idea. Time travel is a very complicated thing to approach narratively; some fiction does it well, but Star Trek has a checkered history. To ENT's credit, it (almost entirely) avoids the bad story trope of "change the timeline, now the whole plot never happened." I can't pinpoint the exact issue. But with exceptions, Star Trek is at its best when the crew is dealing with crises Here And Now. The TCW is a cool idea, yet--factions from the distant future vying to change the past for more favorable timeline? That's a lot. And Enterprise just can't quite muster it.
Maybe the writers felt like they couldn't concoct a big enough threat, strictly in 22nd century terms, to precipitate the alliances underpinning the Federation--the eventual foundation of which is the bread and butter of ENT, and the whole reason for the Temporal Cold War. It's not that I think the Temporal Cold War narrative is handled *poorly,* I just don't find it entirely convincing. In my opinion it strays just enough from those stories that Star Trek tells best that it somewhat undermines the show. Credit due for taking a gamble--but it didn't quite pay off.
Third, and perhaps most significantly of all, though--worse than a terrible theme song, more disappointing than a narrative swing and miss--Enterprise tried far too hard to wink at the audience. Some episodes recalled established Star Trek lore and handled it well. Most did not. Most callback episodes smack of the same weak referential ploys that, say, 'Family Guy' often employs to elicit laughs without any effort: "Here's a thing! Recognize this thing? Isn't it great?!"
ENT takes place well before TOS or TNG. It stands to reason there'd be people, places, and events referenced that fans recognize from previous series. The issue is that Enterprise not only bends over backwards but attempts inhuman contortionist feats to shoehorn in whatever reference it can.
I've spent more time in this review talking about ENT's failings than its successes, but that's kind of the point: ENT is considered the ugly duckling of Star Trek, and it's not remembered well. That's unfortunate, because it had great potential.
Theme song aside, what I think it comes down to is Enterprise simply tried too hard. It attempted complex narrative arcs that went beyond the scope of what Star Trek excels at. It thrusted canon references at the audience with an obvious wink. All it actually had to do was Tell A Story. Had ENT been simply about humans getting off the ground--struggles w/ regressive elements on Earth, navigating complex interspecies relations, venturing into space for the first time, building core alliances preceding the Federation--it would've been remembered far better.
It's a shame--what ENT does well it does *very* well. I would've loved to see more stories with this cast and the difficulties the crew faced. Again, no one's more surprised than I am that I ended up liking it. I think Enterprise is worth watching. Just be prepared for some key disappointments.
Rating: 6.5/10
From what I had previously seen and recalled of ENT in the years before my completionist viewing, I wasn't particularly kind in my treatment of it. I had some issues with the series, then, that have rather been resolved in my mind. To wit:
It seems silly now, but I didn't like the way ENT was all bright and shiny in its production and special effects while previous series, that take place 100-200 years later in canon but aired 10-30 years earlier, boasted more modest visuals. That's on me. I can't even defend making that point previously. More importantly, I didn't like how ENT presented species and events that played a HUGE role in Earth's pre-Federation space exploration, but which in the time of TOS or TNG are of course not even mentioned (because in real life, such things weren't yet written into canon existence). But then I realized--with ENT we're talking of people, places, events that, again, take place 100 years before TOS, 200 years before TNG. How often in a given day do WE, in real life, talk of things 200 years ago in our nation's history? How many events/people can we name and discuss at length from that long ago? None of ENT's major events in canon ST history happened when the most beloved series had aired, but then, Kirk and Picard had plenty of their own history to make.
Moreover, having now rewatched ENT in full, I can honestly say I like it, despite its flaws. At its best it upholds classic Star Trek tropes of space exploration in the face of diplomatic challenges and powerful enemies, unique unforeseen issues that arise in encountering new worlds and species. And while introducing new proper nouns into a timeframe that takes place before previously established canon has its issues, I do appreciate that ENT shows a different time in Earth history--before the Federation. When humans were only just beginning to step out into deep space. I like how ENT presents the rough edges of an ambitious new endeavor: difficulties with language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, inferior space-faring technology, a complex relationship w/ the species (Vulcans) who helped Earth find its proverbial feet. A small cramped vessel.
In short, ENT at its best is classic Star Trek goodness, with the twist of (imperfectly) telling the story of humans getting out into space well before Earth became the powerhouse of the Alpha Quadrant that it is in the 24th or even 23rd centuries.
And while the cast doesn't have the same chemistry as other Star Trek series, I think the characters were (mostly) well written, and the cast does a good job of giving them life. Of course the real star in every sense is Scott Bakula as Archer; I wish we had more ENT for that reason alone. I don't like how Jolene Blalock's T'Pol was sexualized, recalling like treatment of Seven of Nine in VOY and even Counselor Troi in early TNG. Yet I think Blalock performed well, making T'Pol sympathetic and relatable even while humans otherwise had a complex relationship with Vulcans. It was a recurring delight to see Jeffrey Combs again; his portrayal of Shran is surely one of the highlights of ENT. Again, something ENT did well--just as humans had a rough start in space, we see the sordid history of Andorians, and Vulcans, before the Federation was built.
I could continue listing every little thing Enterprise did well--which was a lot, really--but I don't want to spend hours on this review. What were the series' failings? Where did it go wrong? Why is it remembered so poorly compared to every Star Trek series that preceded it?
There are three things that come to mind that specifically detract from what could have been another great success in the Star Trek franchise.
First and foremost, that theme song. WHY?! Watching ENT on Netflix, those little words "skip intro" were a blessing each episode.
Second, and much more substantially, one of the problems ENT had was simply biting off more than it could chew. This is a tricky one, because it tried so very hard, but results were mixed.
Self-contained episodes of classic Star Trek stories? Great. 1-2 episode arcs? Some were better than others. Very Big Ideas that spanned multiple episodes, a whole season, multiple seasons? That's where the wheels fell off. Above all else I of course refer to the Temporal Cold War.
The TCW is a Very Big Idea. Time travel is a very complicated thing to approach narratively; some fiction does it well, but Star Trek has a checkered history. To ENT's credit, it (almost entirely) avoids the bad story trope of "change the timeline, now the whole plot never happened." I can't pinpoint the exact issue. But with exceptions, Star Trek is at its best when the crew is dealing with crises Here And Now. The TCW is a cool idea, yet--factions from the distant future vying to change the past for more favorable timeline? That's a lot. And Enterprise just can't quite muster it.
Maybe the writers felt like they couldn't concoct a big enough threat, strictly in 22nd century terms, to precipitate the alliances underpinning the Federation--the eventual foundation of which is the bread and butter of ENT, and the whole reason for the Temporal Cold War. It's not that I think the Temporal Cold War narrative is handled *poorly,* I just don't find it entirely convincing. In my opinion it strays just enough from those stories that Star Trek tells best that it somewhat undermines the show. Credit due for taking a gamble--but it didn't quite pay off.
Third, and perhaps most significantly of all, though--worse than a terrible theme song, more disappointing than a narrative swing and miss--Enterprise tried far too hard to wink at the audience. Some episodes recalled established Star Trek lore and handled it well. Most did not. Most callback episodes smack of the same weak referential ploys that, say, 'Family Guy' often employs to elicit laughs without any effort: "Here's a thing! Recognize this thing? Isn't it great?!"
ENT takes place well before TOS or TNG. It stands to reason there'd be people, places, and events referenced that fans recognize from previous series. The issue is that Enterprise not only bends over backwards but attempts inhuman contortionist feats to shoehorn in whatever reference it can.
I've spent more time in this review talking about ENT's failings than its successes, but that's kind of the point: ENT is considered the ugly duckling of Star Trek, and it's not remembered well. That's unfortunate, because it had great potential.
Theme song aside, what I think it comes down to is Enterprise simply tried too hard. It attempted complex narrative arcs that went beyond the scope of what Star Trek excels at. It thrusted canon references at the audience with an obvious wink. All it actually had to do was Tell A Story. Had ENT been simply about humans getting off the ground--struggles w/ regressive elements on Earth, navigating complex interspecies relations, venturing into space for the first time, building core alliances preceding the Federation--it would've been remembered far better.
It's a shame--what ENT does well it does *very* well. I would've loved to see more stories with this cast and the difficulties the crew faced. Again, no one's more surprised than I am that I ended up liking it. I think Enterprise is worth watching. Just be prepared for some key disappointments.
Rating: 6.5/10