Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2 |

Archive 3

| Archive 4 →

Cast Section

Since I've watched maybe 40 episodes of Star Trek across the entire series, I'm not going to be the one to touch it. But I just wanted to point out that the cast section has an error; the ending of the cast section and the rest of the article has been accidentally stuffed into the Core Cast table. Arrow 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Footage cut from Voyager

In case anyone is curious what I meant in my recent edit by referring to footage cut from the -premiere of Voyager, I was referring to the footage of Genevieve Bujold as Janeway. 23skidoo 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonexistant 5th season

I remember reading an article from TrekToday concerning what Manny Coto would have wanted for Star Trek: Enterprise's 5th season.. Would that be good to insert into this article? DrWho42 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a fine addition - if nothing else could be in a trivia area if folks don't think it's worthy enough for it's own section on the page (which I think it is). Dopefish 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Logo

Why is this [1] being used on the article? I dont remember that ever being used on screen. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even remember seeing that on any TV commercials. I haven't the slightest idea. Feel free to replace it with the proper logo. 23skidoo 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've capped it and uploaded it, however it could do with replacing as i dont have a better source to hand. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That images was from the syndication advertisements, but I suppose that the current one is somewhat more appropriate.ChunkySoup 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Just a note that if you want to see past versions of a file click the date. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. I updated it with a slightly sharper cap from the DVD so that there is no UPN logo. ChunkySoup 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lowers the size down to 13k

. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

UPN future

"In May 2005, UPN announced starting in the fall, WWE SmackDown!, its longtime professional wrestling series, would move into the same Friday night timeslot vacated by Enterprise, a move coinciding with reports that UPN does not plan to renew its contract with WWE in 2006, bringing to a close another TV franchise. (However, in January 2006, it was announced UPN would merge with The WB to form a new network, CW, and SmackDown! was announced as one of series scheduled for the network's inaugural 2006-2007 season.)" -I'm afraid I don't understand how this has importance to Star Trek, and should be deleted.

- Please sign your comments. It is self-explanatory: UPN (at the time) was planning to shut down its only other long-running franchise, demonstrating that Enterprise's cancellation wasn't unique and that UPN was preparing to euthanize Smackdown the same way as Enterprise by putting it into the Friday Night death slot. However the second sentence indicated that these plans were changed when The CW was announced. It's more a reflection of the state of network politics that corresponded with the show's cancellation. 23skidoo 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Digital video

"the first Star Trek series to be produced on digital video [2]" - TNG, DS9 and Voyager were all shot on 35mm film, but the post-production was done on digital video for the majority of these series (I think the first 3 seasons or so of TNG were done on analogue video). So, should this line be removed from the article? I say yes. Davhorn 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps changed to "the first Star Trek series to be filmed using digital video [2]"? Koweja 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Changed. Davhorn 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove "Dear Doctor" from the "Controversial episodes" section

"Dear Doctor" was not a controversial episode. Every online critic loved it. Critics were constantly pointing to it and going "why aren't more episodes like this one"?--->In short, I think NPOV rules are being violated: one or two wikipedians disliked the episodes scientific basis (which was only in the backround to support the ethical point of the episode) or disagreed with it, and keep saying it "divided" fans. I was on practically every major messageboard during the run, read every critic obsessively: I saw no evidence of widespread fan polarization over this. Wikipedia is based on evidence: can anyone provide *evidence*, that this was controversial? Otherwise one or two people that didn't like it are beating a dead horse and violating NPOV. I'm formally asking for a vote or administrator arbitration to finally settle this.

"Every online critic loved it"? If you were really on every major messageboard at the time, you can't have been paying much attention. Plenty of viewers had a problem with what Phlox and Archer did. I still do -- it was unconscionable. (Or would have been if it had actually happened, anyway.) By all means take satisfaction in the fact that a lot of people agreed with you, but if that's not good enough for you... too bad. Dissenting views existed whether you like it or not. ~ CZeke 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Dear Doctor was one of the few season 1 episodes to receive widespread critical acclaim. However to say "every online critic" is an unverifiable and probably untrue statement. Take any classic episode of Star Trek (pick a series) and you could not prove that. I hate the Tribbles episode and for awhile I was an "online critic" insofar as I regularly posted reviews of ENT episodes to the TrekBBS until I gave it up. However, although I personally feel people took the episode waaaaay too seriously, the fact it was controversial is verifiable. Hell, every episode of Enterprise was controversial. It was (and remains) the Rodney Dangerfield of Star Trek ... the series that got no respect. 23skidoo 04:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think not every episode of ENT was controversial. Some were verifiably bad and universally reviled. Who here gave "Precious Cargo" a 10/10? ;) But I see your point--and, IIRC, "Dear Doctor" did receive a lot of praise. In fact, even I liked the show a great deal, even though I found Archer's actions a debasement of the ideals of Star Trek and the Prime Directive. It was a moral dilemma show of the highest caliber, even though the characters got exactly the wrong answer in the end. I think the section is true, as written, in just about every respect, but the whole thing needs citations. --BCSWowbagger 05:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Archer's actions were not a debasement of any Prime Directive because the entire point of the episode -- including the ultimate decision at the end -- was intended to illustrate the reason why the Prime Directive was created in the first place. One of the most-cited criticisms of the episode is Archer's rather obvious line "Maybe someday there will be a directive to help us avoid this in the future" (or something to that effect). People who criticized the episode on the basis of Prime Directive-related matters missed the entire point of the episode. There was no Prime Directive, and that's why Archer and Phlox found themselves in a Catch-22 where no one could win. 23skidoo 11:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that was no Catch-22, and, if that's the reason for the PD (and yes, I did get that), then it only justifies my long-standing opinion that it's a cheap excuse to avoid acting ethically. When I say it was a debasement of the PD, I'm saying that it warped the ideal of the PD that it was prototyping (just as TNG did before it, in such ridiculous shows as "Homeward") from the very simple, and not exactly ironclad, rule that first appeared in "Bread and Circuses." But Talk pages are not discussion forums; you want to take this up at the TrekBBS? ;) PM me; I'm known as Wowbagger there. --BCSWowbagger 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Killies

There's a whole paragraph, more or less, on the Kill Enterprise movement--a movement which existed almost exclusively within the boundaries of the StarTrek.com message boards (Sinister Six, anyone?), and which can no longer be found through a simple Google search for "Kill Enterprise", mostly because their main website, JMSTrek.org, had seven members (one of whom was me, and I was only there to keep an eye on them), existed, towards the end, almost exclusively as a reaction against the [www.TrekUnited.com TrekUnited] movement, and went totally inactive weeks before the series actually ended. So, on grounds of notability, I propose that all mention of the Kill Enterprise movement be excised from the paragraph about the future of Star Trek. --BCSWowbagger 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Right on, Wowbagger. This is exactly what I was talking about with "being unbiased by being biased." ~ CZeke 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation of a TJI article. I'll have to remember to file that under Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Assuming I actually exist, of course, which, IIRC, that article disputed. :D ... Hey, waitaminute! That article said that FMES4 would be going up in 2005! *gives CZeke a ten second head start* Anyhow, ignoring my rambling, thanks for the commentary. Now I can legitimately and retroactively claim consensus. --BCSWowbagger 22:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The page as it stands is absolutely saturated with weasel words and unsourced statements. I started added necessary cite tags but eventually lost the will to live, there are so many instances where the supposed opinions of unspecified and unreferenced people like "Some fans..." or "Many critics..." are used to make points. Reliable sources, which do not include message board postings, must be found or much of the article should be culled. Yikes.--Nalvage 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of Star Trek required to know where any of these assertions may have been made by people we can cite. I'm certainly endeavouring to find out. Presumably those who added the opinions of "critics" are aware of who they meant, which is why flagging up the need for that extra detail is useful.--Nalvage 13:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If those people who added the info can't provide a source, your (very unhelpful) suggestiong of "so fix it" will involve deletion of the material. thanks. CPitt76 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many weasel words. And I think the whole section titled 'Controversy' can be deleted too. The apparent opinions of anonymous individuals on some chat room are totally irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Vince 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

Here's an example: "...indicating a desire by the producers to leave behind the stigma that Star Trek had accrued[citation needed]."

Can't an author make such a mild and reasonable assumption without being called to task for a citation? I think most people would agree that this is an "indication" not a clear statement of intention. You have to grant contributors a small measure of personal observation, otherwise these pages will become as dry and sterile as a scientific paper. Landroo 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if it were mild or reasonable, or something other than the editors opinion, something had been discussed elsewhere previously to this article being written, then it could be reworded to:

"... indicating to some a desire by the producers to leave behind the stigma that Star Trek had accrued."

In such cases, however, it would then be possible to cite the sources. I also think that the reference to "the stigma" is something that is unclear, referring perhaps to some feeling that the editor is feeling personally towards the show, and not explained in any way. Of course it doesn't have to be dry, but it does have to be more than just the editors opinion. Mvandemar 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the who "stigma" thing out. For one thing it doesn't jive with Berman and Braga's comments that they wanted the show to stand out from the eyewash of other Trek series. I can find nothing to support that "stigma" had anything to do with it. Adding such a statement could be seen by some as pushing the anti-Berman agenda. They wanted the show to stand out from the others, and the idea backfired. That's pretty much it. I have, however, left the "citation needed" tag as one of the interviews needs to be cited and I don't have time to go hunting for it right now. If someone else wants to, I recommend checking the archives of TrekToday or Startrek.com. 23skidoo 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Enterprise on Itunes Okay was I the only one who saw Star Trek Enterprise on Itunes? I can't find it now.Camsg12 17:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy"

For so much controversy, there's only one reference to an interview to backup the assertions here. Much of this content also wanders into sheer irrelevance. It's also laden with synthesis and OR. Restore in part or in while if you can offer a substantiating published, secondary citation for the material here. --EEMeltonIV 15:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Enterprise arguably polarized the Trek fan community and two "factions" emerged within fandom, particularly on the many Internet message boards devoted to the Star Trek franchise (Enterprise was the first Trek series to debut following the rise in popularity of online chat rooms and forums). Initially, the term "Gushers" was used to describe fans who enjoyed the series, while "Bashers" was applied to Trekkers who did not like the show. Each group tends to object to these titles. As the series progressed, the terms were modified to refer usually to only the extreme fans on both sides—i.e. "gushers" was used for those who rejected any criticism of Enterprise, and "bashers" for those who hated the show and refused to be swayed—although in the wake of the show's cancellation the original definitions appear to be reestablishing themselves on Internet discussion boards such as TrekWeb and TrekBBS.

Continuity

Many Trekkies were upset by the very concept of Enterprise, a prequel to such a well-known and continuity-tight franchise, because it violated the canon which had been established in previous series and movies. Brannon Braga, executive producer of the series, has gone on record as challenging the fans who make such claims to prove them; however, Braga does admit to having "bent" the rules.^[1]

Critics have condemned what they see as Enterprise's attempts to rewrite the history of the various Star Trek series, by returning to things Kirk and Picard had done and claiming that the NX-01 crew did them "first" (such as encountering genetically-engineered supermen, encountering the Romulans face to face, and fighting the Borg). A subtle attempt to answer this was made in 4th season episode Demons, when it was suggested that a minister in the Earth government might attempt to write Enterprise out of history, in order to claim all credit for the formation of the Coalition of Planets (a predecessor to the United Federation of Planets).

Previous series had stated that James T. Kirk's U.S.S. Enterprise (NCC-1701), as seen in the original Star Trek series, was the first starship to bear that name: this was evidenced by displays on Enterprises both in Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: The Next Generation, the Deep Space Nine episode "Trials and Tribble-ations" (in which Sisko refers to Kirk's ship as the "first" Enterprise), among others. The producers of Enterprise have evaded this criticism by saying that Archer's ship was not a Federation starship, and thus doesn't count. It is worth noting that Sisko's statement is itself contradicted by a display Star Trek: The Motion Picture which shows vessels named Enterprise that predate Kirk's ship, including a starship that appears to predate the NX-01 (actually a Matt Jefferies spaceship sketch for a TV series that was never produced).

Others were upset that a fan-campaign (endorsed by actor George Takei) arguing that the new Trek series should focus on "Original Series" veteran Captain Hikaru Sulu and the crew of the USS Excelsior (featured in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) failed to influence Paramount management, including the Berman / Braga executive production team.

The critically-panned final seasons of Voyager, and the fact that the same production team responsible for those seasons (Berman and Braga) would be responsible for producing and writing Enterprise was a source of some concern among long-time fans of the Trek franchise, who saw later Voyager seasons as being devoid of fresh ideas.

Cosmetic aspects

In order to make the series distinct from the previous Trek series, the producers chose not to include the words "Star Trek" in the title, in an effort to avoid overuse of the brand name and to make Enterprise stand apart from its many forebears. This idea backfired, with many fans rejecting the series—or failing to learn of it—based on this decision alone. Early in the third season, the series title was altered to include the words "Star Trek". Rather than placating fans, this decision instead resulted in accusations of vacillation on the part of the producers and there is little indication that it succeeded in winning viewers.

The production style of the series also led to conflict amongst fans, with some criticizing the series for not replicating the style of the 1960s Original Series, while others praised the show for not going for a 1960s retro look. The production team has stated that their basic aim was to make the Enterprise NX-01 look like a halfway point between a present day nuclear submarine and the starships of later centuries.

Another frequent criticism was that the NX-class hull of the Enterprise looked far too much like the Akira-class 24th century starship introduced in 1996's Star Trek: First Contact. The two designs (NX-01 by Doug Drexler [2], Akira-class by Alex Jaeger [3]) look remarkably similar, to the point that there were widespread accusations that the NX-class hull design was simply a scaled down version of the Akira-design. This led to the fan-buzzword to criticize the "look" of the ship: the "Akira-prise". (It should be noted that the term Akira class has never been mentioned on-screen, though the Akira class nomenclature is used in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, produced by many of the same production and technical staff from that series, and has its own entry and picture in the Star Trek Encyclopedia). Furthermore, it has been noted in some fandom circles that the NX class resembles two other non-canonical vessels, specifically the FASA Role Playing Game Loknar Class and the Calon Riel & Mastercom Data Center Akyazi Class, which could be argued to more closely resemble the NX Class.

Other arguments regarding the NX Class design focus on the Daedalus-class. While an actual Daedalus-class starship has never appeared on screen in any incarnation of Star Trek, the design (which is based on an early Matt Jeffries concept sketch for the TOS Enterprise) has appeared as a desktop model decorating Benjamin Sisko's office on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and was mentioned by name in the NextGen episode "Power Play". Notably, the Olympic-class ship USS Pasteur [4], seen in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode All Good Things..., also possesses a spherical section similar to the Daedalus-class design.

Controversial episodes

Several episodes of Enterprise attracted criticism, for varying reasons.

The season 2 episode "A Night in Sickbay" was a comedy episode widely derided by critics and Trekkies, although it nonetheless received a Hugo Award nomination and is often cited by the cast as one of their favorite episodes. This episode has often been cited on message boards as the "jumping the shark" episode for fans who chose to abandon Enterprise at this point.

Another season 2 episode, "Regeneration", introduced the Borg and attracted wide criticism over its alleged breaking of continuity (although the previous series Voyager had already established that Starfleet was possibly aware of the Borg before the apparent first contact seen in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Q Who?"). Some fans liked the idea of this episode as it explained why the Borg were in the Alpha Quadrant (The Neutral Zone, The Best of Both Worlds). One criticism was that when the ratings were declining on Voyager, the writers brought in the Borg as a near-weekly villain because they had been very popular in the past. Subsequently, some fans felt that making a Borg episode on Enterprise was an obvious grab for ratings.

The season 2 episode "Stigma" followed the Star Trek tradition of inserting cultural topical discussion under the banner of science fiction. In the episode, Phlox chooses to intervene in order to cure T'Pol from a disease she contracted during a mind meld in a first season episode. It becomes apparent that the Vulcan authorities are willing to cure those 'innocently' infected due to coercion, but not those who chose to engage in 'immoral' practices, a clear allegory to the historically different treatment of homosexual victims of HIV and those who were 'innocently' infected through blood transfusion. The episode was controversial both with fans who were unhappy that a 'family' show was airing issues alluding allegorically to homosexuality, and with those who felt that the producers did not go far enough with the allegory (the episode does not explicitly mention HIV or AIDS although there is a message at the end of the episode). Some also found the episode inconsistent, in that it featured a light-hearted subplot involving casual polygamy. One of the major criticisms, however, was that Star Trek had not done an episode addressing HIV for years, and only made "Stigma" when UPN pressured all of its programs to do an episode discussing the topic that year. Many felt it was too little, too late, and even Rick Berman stated that he felt the episode didn't live up to its potential.

The season 1 episode "Dear Doctor" also raised controversy. In the episode, Phlox chooses not to intervene in order to save a species that is dying from a condition he can reverse. The moral questions raised by the episode divided fans: supporters said that this episode reflected the values of the Prime Directive, a viewpoint supported by dialogue within the episode itself, particularly when Archer muses about a "directive" being created to address such dilemmas. However, other fans felt that this was an inappropriate application of the principles of the Prime Directive, as it effectively doomed an entire species to extinction.

Romance between T'Pol and Trip Tucker

The decision to introduce a romance between T'Pol and Trip Tucker in the third season fanned the flames of criticism, with some critics regarding it as poorly executed or simply unnecessary. Those viewers who enjoyed the relationship countered that the Trip/T'Pol relationship is generally handled better than similar relationships in past Star Trek series. Those who disagree are in two camps: those who feel Star Trek and romance should not mix in any long-term fashion, and those who were dissatisfied with how Enterprise dealt with the subject.

The pairing was also criticized by some fans who felt that such a relationship should instead have been established between T'Pol and Captain Archer, as had been hinted at several times during the first two seasons. T'Pol as a character was a magnet for criticism throughout the series, with complaints being heard regarding her mode of dress, her emotional nature (which the series explicitly established as a major facet of the character), and in particular a third-season story arc in which it was revealed that T'Pol had become addicted to a substance analogous to a drug.

Xindi arc

Perhaps the largest point of contention, however, came with the season 2 finale, "The Expanse", which introduced a new species known as the Xindi, who launched a catastrophic attack on Earth that killed millions. This and subsequent events are never mentioned in any other Trek series, something many fans see as questionable, considering the huge impact of the event. Many fans counter this argument, noting that not every event in later series are mentioned in preceding series (e.g. Voyager doesn't often mention events that took place in TOS, TNG and DS9).

It is made clear, however, that the Xindi attack was caused by intervention from the future.

The season also featured controversial morality on the part of Captain Archer, who admits in the episode "Home" to having used torture, and "marooning a ship full of innocent people". This is in contrast to the morality and ethics shown in earlier Trek series.

Like TOS before it (for example Let That Be Your Last Battlefield which dealt with the absurdities of racism), Enterprise attempts to address real world social and political events in a science fiction theme. It was before and during this story arc that the United States began the War on Terrorism because of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. This story line attempts to capture some of the outrage, frustration, and moral conflicts that many people around the world were experiencing.

T'Pol's love scene

The producers of Enterprise were faced with a controversy of another kind with the 2004 episode "Harbinger", which included a love scene in which the top of T'Pol's buttocks were briefly shown. Aside from complaints from some fans that such nudity was inappropriate for Star Trek, the episode was also scheduled to air not long after the Super Bowl XXXVIII controversy in which Janet Jackson exposed a breast on live TV — an event she and network officials claimed was an unplanned "wardrobe malfunction" — leading to an upswing in network self-censorship. As a result, when the episode was finally aired on UPN, the scene was censored. Viewers in Canada, however, saw the uncensored version. Also, the uncensored version appears on the DVD.

Final episode

Controversy dogged Enterprise to its very conclusion when "These Are the Voyages..." sparked heated debate and arguments over its appropriateness as a finale. Fandom was split among those who felt the episode was a poor conclusion, and others praising it as a fitting conclusion to the 18-year "modern Trek" franchise. Several Enterprise actors were vocal in either their opposition to or their support of the episode.

An ongoing debate among Trekkies is whether the cancellation of this series should mark the end of televised Star Trek. In an ironic twist to the years-long fight to bring Star Trek back to television in the 1970s and 1980s, there are a number of Trekkies who feel that the concept has worn itself out and should either be retired or laid to rest for a number of years.

Although Manny Coto, in April 2005, announced that he was already prepared to pitch a new series idea to Paramount, Enterprise's producers, as well as Paramount itself, have stated that Enterprise will probably be the last Star Trek television series for some years to come, although an 11^th Star Trek film is now in the works, to be produced and directed by J. J. Abrams and set for release on Christmas Day 2008. Although work on that project is still in its early stages, the new production has already garnered criticism from some fans similar to that attracted by Enterprise, as widespread rumors emerged in the media that the film might be another prequel. (An early promotional poster for the film prominently featuring the Kirk-era USS Enterprise's emblem.^[2] have provided additional fuel for the reboot rumors.) However, Abrams and his writing staff, as of November 2006, have yet to definitively confirm these rumors, although rumors of the movie being a reboot of Star Trek, being set in Starfleet Academy and of Matt Damon being cast as Kirk have all been denied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EEMeltonIV (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Just to respond to the editor who deleted all this - are you a total newcomer to Trek fandom or did you manage to miss all this discussion in articles, message boards, reviews, etc. since 2001? 68.146.47.196 14:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this interesting section, it really illuminates the controversy. "Trekkies" seem to have grown into a very close-minded species, watching "Star Trek" apparently narrows the horizon. 62.216.213.177 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Total rewrite

As may be mentioned in the archives (and what's with all the archiving, BTW?), this article is nothing but fannish complaints about the injustice involved in cancelling the show and all the obstacles this otherwise uncancellable show had to face. In other words, it's an off-topic fannish apologia. At least split that into another article. The only thing relevant to an encyclopedia-type article is 'Show Foo aired from I to J, with a cast of Tom, Dick, and Harry, and produced by Dopey and Sneezy - the season synopses are X, Y, and Z. Done.' I'd tag this with some big whomping tag, but I'm not a wikipedian and don't know what big whomping tag to give it. 74.227.120.238 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Flagged the offending sections with template:rewrite - [5]. They are far too verbose, and contain a number of details that are potentially innaccurate, but the rest of the article is largely sound. MrZaius^talk 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the cast photo

Should the cast photo be deleted from Wikipedia? Discussion underway at: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_31#Image:StarTrekEnterprise_Cast.jpg Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the cast photo has now been deleted by an admin who believes free content could adequately replace that copyrighted image. The deletion review is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_15#Image:StarTrekEnterprise_Cast.jpg. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth are you going to find a free picture from a copyrighted show? — Mütze 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask. The inmates have completely taken over the asylum when it comes to images. There won't be any images at all on Wikipedia once they're finished. 68.146.47.196 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Balance of Terror

Someone should mention Balance of Terror in the Contraversy section, particularly Spock's line about the Romulan-Earth War:

"As you may recall, this conflict was fought, by standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels, which allowed no quarter, no captives, nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication."

Now a war seems like something that people would remember, and considering the Archer didn't know about the Romulans at first, that would imply that the war had not yet happened. But if they had view-screens and phasors before the war, then Spock's line makes no sense. 24.222.183.118 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to watch Enterprise again as the series clearly takes place prior to the war and the episodes in which the NX-01 encounters the Romulans themselves never do involve ship-to-ship visual communication. No controversy here. 68.146.47.196 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Even though Spock's line could be interpreted as meaning no visual communication between Federation and Romulan ships, which takes some measure of will, they DID have phasers, and they were starting to introduce photon torpedoes. Why then should they revert to the nuclear torpedoes that Enterprise used in the beginning of the series? Strategia (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  - If you want to get anal about continuity, which you obviously do, I point you to the Eugenics Wars in which half of humanity was annihilated. This was in the 90's. I could rewatch the Augments Arc to make sure, but I don't recall them mentioning that 3 billion people were killed in the 90's, what with Archer and T'Pol travelling back to an obviously non-devastated Detroit. Right at the onset, Braga said that it would impossible to follow continuity, as the shows contradict THEMSELVES. With that in mind, plz sleep easier. Howa0082 (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cancellation

I have several issues with some of the facts brought up in the whole "Cancellation" area of this page.

I know about a year or so ago, I tried to edit these different areas, but it seemed that the people from TrekUnited decided that the only real facts were facts favorable to them, and to not let REAL facts get in the way of their "good" publicity.

The Los Angeles Times, TrekWeb and SyFy Portal all reported extensively on the "Enterprise" cancellation and the TrekUnited efforts, but those references seem to be missing from this report -- especially where some of the "facts" included in this listing are actually contradicted.

Here are a list of issues that I have in the "Controversy" thread.

Many fans also reported that they chose to watch UPN's weekend rebroadcasts of the series, which were not counted in the ratings. This led actor Connor Trinneer, in an interview with Starlog magazine, to make the unusual request that fans not watch the weekend replay. Another factor cited for the show/franchise's decline was the fact that, as of 2005, there had been continuous Star Trek production for nearly 18 years, and executive producer Rick Berman in part blamed "franchise fatigue" for the show's poor reception.

There is no reference cited for any of these elements, outside of a mention (uncited) with Starlog magazine.

On May 20, 2004, it was announced that Enterprise had been renewed for a fourth season, but that the show would move from Wednesday to Friday nights (traditionally, Friday nights have been considered 'Death Row' for a major TV production; since most viewers are occupied with social engagements and other non-television activities, the viewing audience isn't likely to be the one the show is intended to draw).

This also is missing citation. Also, there is nothing cited for the "Death Row" comments, or why people don't watch on Friday nights. According to Nielsen Media Research for the most recent television year, 91.35 million people watch primetime on Friday nights. Every other day has between 100 million and 110 million viewers (including Sunday, which includes an extra hour of prime time), but Saturday has just 88 million viewers on average. One could easily argue that Friday nights has certainly changed, as some networks put some programs that are popular with viewers on those nights.

Only days later, however, Hart resigned his position and this, combined with the departure or reassignment of other Star Trek supporters within Paramount and UPN during 2004, placed the future of the series in doubt.

This needs a citation as it seems to be highly speculative.

The ratings also continued to be affected by the "rerun effect" when first-run episodes were rebroadcast over the weekend by UPN affiliates in time slots not registered by Nielsen.

For the record, Nielsen registers ALL time slots. However, reruns are generally not included in first-run airing ratings. This may need to be clarified.

Enterprise fans continued to indicate they chose to watch the weekend showing rather than the Friday broadcast, or chose to "time-shift" the program using their VCR or TiVo equipment.

Needs to be cited.

On April 15, TrekUnited revealed it had joined forces with several Canadian film production companies to put forward a proposal to Paramount that would see further seasons of Enterprise filmed abroad (most likely in Canada) and jointly produced by Paramount and these several unidentified production houses.[25] On April 16, TrekUnited revealed it was Canadian producer Al Vinci who had been negotiating with Paramount Network Television President David Stapf on a co-production with established Canadian motion picture and television producers, backed by US$18 million from private investors.

This entire paragraph has been disputed. The TrekToday story that is used as the source is actually nothing more than a rewrite of a press release issued by TrekUnited with absolutely no additional reporting. In fact, the primary (and only) source of the TrekToday story is TrekUnited.

The LA Times, TrekWeb and SyFy Portal all questioned the credentials of "Al Vinci" or if he even existed, and the latter two sites also disputed that there were any negotiations at all with David Stapf (Story from SciFi Wire, based on the SyFy Portal story, is located here: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=4&id=30877). TrekUnited did dispute the report, citing that it was based on an anonymous source, but before this story was released, "Al Vinci" had NOT revealed the name of the person he was in contact with at Paramount. SyFy Portal DID reveal the name, and the circumstances of the so-called "negotiations," which "Al Vinci" later confirmed was indeed the person he talked to, although denied the circumstances reported by SyFy Portal. "Al Vinci" also claimed that Paramount was going to release the fact they had negotiated with Paramount, but such a release never came, and Paramount officials actually told SyFy Portal there WERE no negotiations.

In May 2005, UPN announced that, starting in the fall, WWE SmackDown!, its longtime professional wrestling series, would move into the same Friday night timeslot vacated by Enterprise, a move coinciding with reports that UPN does not plan to renew its contract with WWE in 2006, bringing to a close another TV franchise. (However, in January 2006, it was announced UPN would merge with The WB to form a new network, CW, and SmackDown! was announced as one of series scheduled for the network's inaugural 2006-2007 season.)

This, like other parts of this section, seems superfluous. SyFyMichael 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I for one missed alot of episodes when 1st shown because of being prendted ofr sports. I sure my area wasn't the only one. That couldn't have helped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.252.124 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this has already been voiced, but there is so much text, both in Discussion and the main article, that it is hard to filter out the relevant information. Some sections are just too long. 'Theme song' for starters. Yes, the song was not a instrumental theme song, but a pop song. End of story. And then the whole 'Cancellation' section. So much text, writing in detail what happened when. If this were 1969 and we were about to land on the moon, I would say a detailed description of the events would be warranted. It's just the cancellation of a tv show. The show lost more and more viewers, list a few reasons, end of story. Vince 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why substantial articles have a summary at the beginning. If your interest or attention span doesn't stretch very far, then just read the summary. End of story for you. Bertport 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Connections to voyager ?

In the "Darkling" episode from season 3 of voyager, there is a character in the holodeck named T'paul and described as a scientist by the Doctor. Could it be the same character in enterprise ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.137.77 (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

I've assessed this article for WP:TV as requested here.

I have rated this article as start class because it is a reasonably comprehensive treatment of the subject but has several major flaws and omissions. I have several suggestions for improving the article:

The introductory sentence is ambiguous - it is not clear that Roddenberry created the show rather than the universe. The lead should also list the creator's of the show.
The first paragraph is a single sentence long - this should be merged with the paragraph below.
The lead introduces the concept of the federation and of the enterprise with no context. You should explain that the enterprise is a space craft and what the federation is for the casual reader.
The lead should summarise more of the article. See WP:LEAD for further guidance.
The production section uses acronyms for other Star Trek shows that have not been introduced to the casual reader. The first mention of each show should include the acronym in brackets to show the reader what it stands for.
The production section is very short and is a collection of trivia relating to the production rather than a guide to the production of the series. Where was it filmed? Who are the crew? How was it created? How was it cast? Who handles the special effects?
The plot section is listed as being overlong. Its not that bad but it includes a lot more than just plot. Other information should be moved into relevant sections. The plot section includes some unverified speculation on critical response. The article should have a response section which should include subsections for awards (if any), critical reception and ratings.
The cast section is in table format. For the reader unfamiliar with the show this gives little information. Each character should be introduced to the new reader with the briefest of summaries of their key characteristics and role.
The trivia info about the cast remaining unchanged needs a reference or it is original research.
The crossovers section is unreferenced and original research. There is a sub-section entitled characters and races that includes no information about races.
The milestones section includes an external link in the body of the text - this should be changed to a citation or moved to an external links section.
The milestones section reads as a list of trivia. It should be rewritten as prose and the significance of the milestones backed up with verififable sources.
The theme song section is very long, particularly compared to the production section. There is an uncited sentence about other aspects of the show polarizing fans - if this is not verified it should be removed.
Once again there are external links in the text of the theme song section - these should be changed to a citation or moved to an external links section.
Some of the information in the theme song section seems suited to an article about the song rather than the series (e.g. that it was used in an athletics event). Perhaps you could start an article about the song and keep a short summary of its useage on the series here.
The ratings section is pretty good. As I said above it should incorporated into a larger "Response" section. It could be expanded with reliable third party commentary on the significance of the shows ratings.
The cancellation section fulfills some of the function of commentary on the ratings. "Playing the blame game" is jarringly out of tone as a section heading for an encyclopedia article on a TV show. This sub-section is unreferenced and seems like original research. Once again there are inappropriate external links within the section.
The 2004 and 2005 sub-sections are also unreferenced at times and contain sections that sound like original reserarch (e.g. summary of fan reaction on notice boards)
There are some problems with grammar throughout so a thorough copy edit is warranted.
The DVD section is unreferenced. TV shows on DVD is a good website for verifying this kind of information.
The see also section might be better served by using the main article link to link to the episode list in the plot section and using the same to link to the cast list in the relevant section.
Some of the referencing uses the cite episode template format and some does not. The referencing should be made consistent throughout the article. Some of the references are not from reliable sources - for example the ratings have been referenced to a message board as well as the ABC website. The ABC website is appropriate; the message board is not.

I have rated the article as low importance because there is little to distinguish it from other articles about television series. These categories are subjective and may be reviewed by any member of WP:TV who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.--Opark 77 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Where My Heart Will Take Me

So... it's a pretty big section. We should either trim it way the hell down, or move it to it's own article, because frankly, it has nothing to do with Enterprise that Russell Watson sang a different version at some event somewhere. There's so much non-Enterprise stuff in that section, I feel it needs to go no matter what, but could be made into a decent article about the song in general. Howa0082 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the section does not need all the info just about the song. Ejfetters (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved some stuff out. It still looks awkward to me, but no longer huge and ungainly, so much happiness all around. Howa0082 (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fans Being Fans

In the "cancellation" section, there's a lot of hurrblurr going on about what fan groups have done (which is nothing) and what people have said (which is close to nothing). I personally don't think it's really needed, at least in the amount of it there is. But, before I go delete-happy, I'm fronting my plan. I want to more or less get rid of it, since I think this article should generally be only about the series itself. Having a self-serving section about a bunch of fans who wanted to raise money and came nowhere near the mark is pointless and kinda fancrufty, really. Now, if they had raised the appropriate amount, but still failed to get a new season, I'd be all "Hey, put that in there, man!" But they didn't. So I'm not. Howa0082 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as the information about the fan groups' action can be documented by a citation from a reliable source, it should be included. But I think that most of this information will be unreferenced, so that information should be removed. — Val42 (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

References

I would like to say that I'm not in anyway claiming the adding of all these references as mine. If the retrieval dates get changed while I update the templates, feel free to imagine that those are merely verification dates, since I have pretty much been checking each link to see if it works or not anyway. If you feel I've stepped on your toes, fellow contributors, well, I don't actually care, but am giving fair warning. Ta. Howa0082 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Quickfail

Upon its review on January 13, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. The tag under "Cancellation" has been there since long before this article was nominated. I also note that even a cursory glance at this article shows lots of uncited facts and sections, not just the "citation needed" tag under "DVD releases", which means this article could not pass as a Good Article even if the tag that this article is being quick-failed for was gone. I suggest ensuring that all facts and sections are properly referenced and cited before renomination. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 17:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit of an irony

That the best star trek shows it seems, are the original, and the very last one. The best Trek shows are not the long running ones, but the ones that died an early death. Although, fans have argued that "Enterprise" is by far the most rewatchable of all of them and I would be inclined to agree. Archer's Enterprise is like, tiny, not even the size of an actual real life aircraft carrier. A vessel that small floating around in space, man it like, increase the overral sense of danger.

Admitedly, space is huge, and even if you had a ship the size of Jupiter it would still be "small" in comparison to the cosmos but see, humans being humans, psychologically speaking, on a smaller ship outer space would seem that much more overwhelming. A trend (and a successful one) in the Star Trek universe it seems, was having made the ships smaller and smaller since TNG. From Kirk to Piccards enterprise, the crew size went from a compliment of 400, to I believe a compliment of over 1,000. By any standards that is a big ship. Archer's enterprise though does not have enough crew to man, even, a real life battle ship.

This sense of "space is overwhelming in our tiny ship" did serve to make the series more interesting. True enough, there was the Defiant in DS9, but it had a space station to go back to. True enough there was Voyager, but, they had cheerleaders on the other side of the galaxy and limited (but constant contact) with "home." Tiny Enterprise, Archer's enterprise though, of all of them faced by far the most danger. Archer's enterprise flew about in Space where there was no established federation of planets, where ANY alien species would be potentially hostile, and in all an environment far more dangerous even than the explorations of Magellan. The only "ally" Archer had was earth, and it was not even a power to be reckoned with.

All in all, I would say Archer's enterprise is by far the most interesting, with Archer himself I think being the best of all the captains. Reason being, Kirk and Picard had "history" to fall back on but, crap man, Archer was kinda like, making it up as he went and pissing off a few aliens in the process. The series was so interesting, it even drew in non-trek fans. I think that raising funds to re-air the show is a noble cause, reason being, we are actually not that far away from that time period.

How will humanity respond to alien contact? What if there are races out there who are interfertile with humans? We have bigots who see other races as inferior, as little more than worthless parasites and as a result they want to shut down the border with Mexico, with people that bigoted just in this country, we could very well see a group like Terra Prime and a new term for bigots coined; an "alienist." We have to ask ourselves, how will we react if first contact DOES occur? More importantly will we get lucky and encounter a benevolent group such as the Vulcans, or, will we have to pull an Independence Day? Assuming we even stand a chance.

All in all, Enterprise was interesting not just as a Star Trek show but as a T.V. show in general, and its too bad it was unapreciated. In all honesty, after watching Enterprise, and then other Star Trek show reruns, I'll have to be frank; except for the original series, Star Trek was crap. It was always some federation politics, some problem with holodeck addiction and how could we forget the virtual blow job TNG gave Wesley Crusher, god damn, I got so sick of episodes dedicated to that weasel, and let us not forget Worf's annoying rat-like son "no! I'm not a Klingon! All you care about is your honor! i hate it here! You're a retard dad! All Klingons are retards! leave me alone!" Its a loose paraphrase but I'm sure Trekies will be familiar with my complaint; Worf's son was a @#$##@$# brat. And an annoying, rat-like, shrill sounding one at that, damn man, the whole time I was watching I always wondered by Worf just didn't batlef the little punk. Case in point; we saw just how much the show had deteriorated after Rodenberry's death when we actually saw quality sci-fi in Enterprise. The science of course, like with all Trek shows, may not hold up, but the stories could be real. The prejudices of humans towards aliens, the struggle for earth to unify, earth being a virtual "third world" planet in comparison to alien civilizations; Enterprise covers it all. It is a damned shame that nerds complaining about the quality of the show declining after Rodenberry's death were the first to abandon it when Enterprise aired. Meanwhile the hardcore trekies insisted "come back! come back! this is good!" but did they listen? Nooooooo. People, think; Star Trek was interesting when Rodenberry was around, the creator himself, and then it became interesting again when Enterprise revisted Rodenberry's core idea of humanity's flaws and its role in its future. After Rodenberry's death, and before Enterprise, the franchise was just cranking out all kinds of crazy technology, and human interaction that seemed taken out of women's magazines! Is it just me, or did some TNG episodes seem taken out of women's magazine advice columns? Enterprise was good because like the original, it was very human. Unlike the previous ones that came before though, it had one important factor that set it apart from all the others; it was "real." It was so well written, the psychology and sociology of human/alien interaction so well acted, you actually felt that it could be the real history of the future. In fact, watching enterprise felt almost like watching the 5 o'clock news at times.

To conclude my rude behavior (I know everything I typed goes against wiki protocol), I would almost be tempted to help bring back the show myself. Problem is, good as it was, in the end television is a business, and the only person who can save it is a Trekie who apreciated it, and who understands it. That's enough; peace out.

206.63.78.85 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)stardingo747

GA quick fail

This article was recently quick failed and the issues have not been addressed (citation needed tags remain, for example). Additionally, the article has a lot of unreferenced material. The general writing and presentation of the article needs improvement as well. Please take a good look over the good article standards. The Manual of Style and the article writing guide may both be useful in providing guidance towards improvement. Vassyana (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As examples of areas lacking citations, see the "Theme song" and "Original novels and relaunch" sections. As examples of organizational and writing issues, the "Production" section has more to do with the run up to the program than the production of the show. Another example of both is the "Cast" section which is completely unreferenced and makes trivial comments like Reed's fondness for pineapple. As a general point, the article fails to address the thematic and stylistic uniqueness of Enterprise among Trek shows. These are but a few examples of the improvement needed in this article. Overall, it requires a large amount of referencing and effort to bring it up to good article standards. The links provided above will provide general guidance and advice towards improving the article. Vassyana (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives