Enterprise Changes Revealed (spoilers for next season)

snip.............


Executive producers Brannon Braga and Rick Berman and the cast revealed several key changes in interviews and during a press conference on July 22:

•The Enterprise crew will be joined by new characters, members of a Military Assault Command Operations, or MACO. "They're kind of semi-recurring and will be used on certain away missions," Braga said. Those characters have yet to be cast.

•Archer will get a little darker, a bit more driven in his mission to stop the Xindi. "The idea of being the peaceful 'We-come-in-friendship' , ... that guy is gone," Bakula said.

•T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) will no longer be under the control of the Vulcan High Command and will begin to explore emotions and humanity. She'll also get a new look: new hair, new costumes. "We've got color, and that's always exciting," Blalock said.

•Trip (Connor Trinneer) will grieve for his sister and struggle to balance a need for revenge with his sense of duty to Starfleet. Seeking help from T'Pol, he may find himself more intimately involved with her than ever before.

•The Temporal Cold War and the Suliban storyline will become an integral part of the Xindi arc later in the season, Berman said.


Enterprise returns to Wednesdays at 8 p.m. ET/PT, starting Sept. 10.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003-07/23/12.00.tv

although I think T'Pol is rather sexy right now


DEMMAN

"I have a mission, but I'm not allowed to disccus it. I'm like the solar wind."

getting T'Pol away from the Volcan High Command is a good thing, IMO.

i'm just old enough to have watched TOS on weekend afternoon rerun tv, and to have had college parties during TNG. i didn't like DS9 so much at first, and now love it, and while VGR had some problems, it was at least endurable.

but this new show- god, it's just like the bush administration after the glorious clinton years. there's nothing they won't destroy, no idea they won't corrupt, and like another GR spinoff project that started well and then became evil (andromeda) it's beyond painful to watch.

anyone read the article in the nation about enterprise? i'll see if i can find it, but essentially, it sums up much better than i can why the show is no longer a place for progressive ideas and positive portrayals of a common future and has in fact become nothing more than a fantasy about military conquest, paternalism, and imperialism.

did you know, btw, that enterprise is the only star trek show to make a specific reference to the monotheistic god? this is only one example of how much things have changed....

They've got enough characters and lines from the original series they can run without fouling this up more than they already have. You don't solve a problem by creating new ones. How about:

New technology difficulties. Getting/creating the new technology and making it work well is appropriate to the time 100 years before James Kirk.

Old enemies. The Tholians, the Romulans, Orion Syndicate, et al. will keep the writers quite busy without having to create a new set of enemies.

Earth-Vulcan diplomacy. It takes a long time for the Earth and Vulcan to achieve parity as opposed to the present "pesky little brother" and "snooty big brother" relationship they have now. That's a lot of story material.

Beginnings of Star Fleet and the Federation. Anyone remember Captain Robert April?

That list was off the top of my head. There's plenty of existing material to work with. A less Vulcan T'Pol? Bah!

Setting Enterprise in the time before TOS was a mistake from the beginning. I know Trek fans who don't watch because the constant continuity problems are just too jarring. Believe me, no group of fans are as nit-picky as science fiction fans. Why don't they just change the name of the ship and the series and be done with it? It doesn't resemble Trek any more anyway. THAT would take care of the problem.

:mad:

but, you are correct about the continuity issue. They destroyed the continuity of the timeline established in The Original Series. They had plenty of material to work with, but chose to toss it and the "Star Trek" concept aside.

You may be right. Just cut the "Star Trek" ties and have done with it. They can't do any worse. :shrug:

lose some of that 'PollyAnna' quality he's got. When I think of Star Fleet captains, Kirk, Picard, Janaway and Cisco, -They're all serious people with a sense of their work as important. Pie-eyed wonder just doesn't fit my idea of what a captain (even maybe the first ever captain) in the Trek series should broadcast.

Change that stupid opening song. It bites.

Hoshi. Holy crap, what an annoying whiner.

Reed. God what a self-righteous fancy-accented prig.

Mayweather. He seems nice enough but what's the point? Replace him with a cardboard cutout and save some staff costs.

Hoshi. Did I say her already?

But do keep Tucker. Incredible, luscious, dreeeeeeamy Tucker. But don't give him that tired old "revenge for his sister" crap. That's gonna get real old, real fast.

...as in all discussions relating to a TV show, music, or movie, plenty of generalizations are made but there are seldom any hard examples of the generalization. In this case, we're talking about supposed continuity issues with Enterprise.

I think the real problem isn't continuity issues but the POTENTIAL for them OR percieved violations. Remember, Trek fans are a loud bunch and were even known to tell Roddenberry himself things he was doing wrong.

If we want to mention supposed Trek continuity issues, we have to start with the original series. Early on, the military branch of the Federation was called "Space Command" or something along those lines. It was then, and without explanation, redubbed "StarFleet Command."

Originally, only the Enterprise crew had the now famous StarTrek symbol. All other vessels and crews had other designs for their insignias. By the time the movies rolled around, this, too, was changed without explantion. Now ALL of StarFleet shared the same insignia.

As we moved into the movies, suddenly the Klingons looked different. Fans have attempted to explain this change with various tall tales but the only explanation given was by Roddenberry - who said during the TOS, advanced makeup techniques were not in the budget. Fine. But that still doesn't explain it in terms of the StarTrek universe.

Why doesn't TNG ever mention the Klingon moon incident in ST VI? Or the "God" incident in ST V? Easy! Roddenberry declared those movies weren't canon. But if not, how else do we explain the peace between the Federation and the Klingons in TNG's time? Well, it was never fully explained.

How about Kirk suddenly having a son in ST II? Whaaaa? This isn't a continuity violation because even though TOS never established Kirk had a son, it never established he didn't.

The big "continuity" issue Trek fans have with Enterprise was the Borg episode "Regeneration." Trek fans mistakenly say that the TNG episode "Q Who?" was the Federation's first encounter with the Borg so the Enterprise episode is in clear continuity violation. However, the Enterprise-D's Borg encounter in "Q Who?" was NOT the Federation's initial contact with the Borg. It's made quite clear in 'Q, Who' that the Borg wiped out several Federation and Romulan outposts along the Neutral Zone in the TNG season one finale (appropriately titled 'The Neutral Zone'). This fact seems to have been generally ignored in future episodes, but it is definitively established in 'Q Who?'

Even if that were not the case (which it is) we know the events of "ST: First Contact" altered the time line significantly.

Of course, Enterprise has had minor continuity infractions, but so did all the other series - even the first few seasons of TNG when Roddenberry himself was at the helm. They're kind of hard to avoid.

Several episodes of TNG have Data using contractions. Later, (when he meets his brother Lore)it is established that he can't (or cannot.) A huge supposed continuity error occurs in the final episdoe "All Good Things..." where the Enterprise-D is still active in the future. In the movie, "Generations" Enterprise D is destroyed. This is rightly explained by pointing out the events in "All Good Things..." happenned in an alternate timeline. Just as the events of "First Contact" altered the timeline where the Borg were concerned, making the Enterprise episode fit continuity.

What makes Enterprise dangerous isn't it playing loose with continuity (which ALL series have done - even TOS)but it's POTENTIAL to violate continuity.

We're talking events that happened before Kirk's time that could not have possibly been covered in TOS. Here is a supposed continuity issue I've heard: The Andorians didn't have ground forces in Kirk's time like the did on an Enterprise episode. My reply? Really, how do you know? Just because it was never established in the TOS? How could TOS explain all things about all races in three seasons? See, not a real continuity violation.

The REAL problem with Enterprise (the same with Voyager though not as apparent in DS9) is the writing. It isn't the quality of writing (it's as good as any around) but the TYPE of writing.

In the 80s, episodic "stand alone" episodes were the norm. TNG tied up all the events of the day into one neat hour. DS9, however, introduced the story arc to Trek ( a continous storyline like the Dominion War, the alternate evil universe, etc.) If you haven't noticed, most TV shows - even comedys - do that now. Voyager returned Trek to episodics. Enterprise, while having a story arc, hasn't exploited it much. Most episodes get wrapped up by hour's end.

What needs to happen, and it looks as though it will, is the fine writers Enterprise has need to not be lazy and develope continous storylines - not stories wrapped up and forgotten by next week's episode.

They need to write Archer's character better, (The other characters outshine him.)

And please, change the music. Though I like it and don't see how it detracts at all from anything, I'm tired of the fanboys bitching about it.

When Roddenberry, pissed off at Harve Bennet and Leonard Nimoy for wanting to kill Spock off in Trek II, he selfishly leaked out the fact. In return, Leornard got a harsh treatment, including death threats on his daughter.

Like Shatner rightfully said, "it's a tv show".

"Enterprise" is just a total rehash. Rehash of music. Rehash of storylines. Bad rehashes of storylines. Bad rehashes of characters (Archer is Picard on valium). And then there's Rick Berman, the man who should have left in TNG season 6 (or even 5, some of those storylines are unforgivably bad).

Roddenberry can discount any movie he likes. I can see why for V, but VI? He hated that one with a passion. Personally, he has to like it or lump it. Producers and others had been ignoring his ridiculous ideas ever since "The Motion Picture" turned out to be extraordinarily lame.

Also looking at the original Trek pilot, "The Cage", it's clear that Roddenberry did NOT have racial equality in mind. The SECOND pilot (unheard of at the time) changed this thanks to the involvement of Gene Coon (he deserves a lot of credit for the best in Trek, as does Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett).

Trek has also played up with Borg continuity. "The Neutral Zone" clearly spelled out events which were later tied to the Borg. Then came continuity changes to the Borg, namely the stupid Queen. Not forgetting that Janeway had sarcastically thanked Q for introducing the Borg to the Feds (especially when "The Neutral Zone" clearly points out Q either had no involvement or thought about using the Borg to wipe out humanity as "the trial never ended".)

The real problem with Enterprise is that the same producer has been shoveling out the same tired old slop for 14 years now. And the fact that the whole Trek saga has been whipped like a horse that's been dead for 10 years, thinking they'll still get more life out of it.

I also have trouble with TV shows that break continuity when, before breaking it, they spend tons of time trying to build up a sense of continuity. Especially when the same people are doing the job for that long period of time. I can forgive "Doctor Who", especially since it never ever attempted to create an established continuity of anything. But TNG and later Trek? Nope, not from me.

Berman must go.

and/or

Trek needs a 18 year rest.

...but if anyone is/was the keeper of Trek canon, it would be Roddenberry. Not the fans.

TNG was a rehash of TOS plots and left over Phase II plots.

Judging Enterprise more cruelly or lightly is nonsense. Enterprise is just more of the same, as you put it, 14 year old slop. No better or worse than anything else that has come from post-TOS Trek.

All the series have had their moments. TNG is my fav because the plot devices, though used before, had not been used as much.

..that was the exact type my mother used in the 70s. So I guess mugs and bottles don't change much in the future.

I'd say "little" but there's nothing here that's really worthy to be considered something at all.

Besides, Patrick Stewart managed to hype up every Trek movie he's in, and co-incidentially every Trek movie he's been in stinks. Yes, including "First Contact" and ESPECIALLY for "Nemesis" which was his biggest hype-up ham job.

I dunno. When a TV show changes its format, it usually alienates what fans it has got and pisses off everybody else.

I found First Contact excellent and Nemesis perhaps in front of III and V in quality.

"When a TV show changes its format, it usually alienates what fans it has got and pisses off everybody else."

TV history is ripe with shows that made changes for the better.

Well, I certainly disagree with putting "Nemesis" above 3 or even 5, but let's agree on that - we disagree.

What I do want to know are shows that made changes for the better.

Okay, I just thought of one: "The Facts of Life".

And another: "Star Trek - The Next Generation" (except TNG didn't have 30 years of established storylines to bog it down with and was set further in the future so it was open to doing new things.)

I suppose "The Simpsons" counts, it's changed a few times - notably in season 3.

"Lost in Space" is another; maybe not at the time but in retrospect the campy episodes seem to hold better than the 'serious' ones.

other shows that changed cast and/or plots and maintained their audience or experienced very little change:

Three's Company - Show continued to strive after Somer's departure, only losing nominal ratings that were attributed to the show aging - not the character lose... #3 show the season somers left, #4 the year after... but actually got larger shares.

Friends - Once just friends, romantic involvements between characters shot ratings WAY back up.

Valerie - During it's six year run, the show fired it's star (Valerie Harper), changed it's name three times, and improved in the ratings.

But of course, there have been some stinkeroo changes - A-Team comes to mind.

Archie Bunker's Place was OK - though never lived up to All In the Family - but the "spin-off" was really just a retooling of All In The Family in an attempt to hang on.

I even defended it here at DU. I thought it had potential to be the best Trek since the original but all that changed in the beginning of the second season. Vulcans landing on earth in the 50's!? Archer getting sexually frustrated!? I couldn't watch it any longer.

These new ideas sound horrible!

...was never established as anything more than a T'Pol tall tale. However, Trek lore allows for this if it were true because Vulcans were said to have been observing earth for cenuries before First Contact.

I think the new ideas sound wonderful.

We're in the middle of the 1st season here.
However: the "we come in peace" thing was always an important part of Star Trek. Preemptive Strikes; shoot first, ask later in Star Trek just don't seem right to me. I find it interesting, that this is considered acceptable behavior for the good guys nowadays - it wasn't a few years ago.
And I hate the opening sequence: were is the Russian (and the European) space program?

...Enterprise is no better or worse than any of the proceeding shows. Later Trek series only lack the "newness" factors that let TOS and TNG succeed as well as they have. Plots, writing, etc. haven't changed.

I think people are tired of Trek in general and are focusing on Enterprise because it is there.

The happier I am that Babylon 5 ended instead of going on as long as I would have liked it too. The memories are much more enjoyable for me compared to Trek and Star Wars.