The Importance Of Being Earnest !

[ConnorExum 0]

It's rather silly I think to have a long standing franchise fade way only because those in control aren't willing to change with the times. Yet that's what is exactly happening to Star Trek if look at the numbers lately. I can't see how anyone can still be interested in seeing something that's been all done before and in much better ways. While totally discounting the simple fact that character development in Star Trek has become a cliche. Since St:TNG, the characters have only been carbon copies of previous series; of couse with new make up. While I understand that there are just so many possible emotions and events to place the core element of characters in. It's almost as if the writers have thrown out any real human nature replacing it with an overly idolized and idealist concept of human nature that just doesn't really exist. That is too often unrealist and lacks the earnest desires of what being Human is and therefore the ablity to impact with the auidence of today.

 

Now, I know some may say that what I'm suggesting is merely nothing more then "Platoon" , "Saving Pvt.Ryan" or a whole host of other gritty realistic films that show darker images then the classic John Wayne variety. However first you must understand that in the end "good" or "evil , "right" and wrong" , all depend on the prespective of the story teller. In reality events are more grey straddling those imaginery morals line and told in way that is benefical to the story teller's point of view.

For example I'm pretty sure that most Japanese people wouldn't consider Col. Paul Tibbets. The pilot of the "Enola Gay" a hero for dropping an atomic weapon on their country. Killing upwards of 120,000 in the blast alone. With many more dying a slow painful death from various cancers for decades later those that tought to be lucky to surivived the intial blast. However from a different perspective that same man is a glorious hero that saved millions of "his country men's lives". Who is right? Is he a hero or a villian? The answer is neither and both he was only a man sent on a mission that could the war. His goal was merely to succeed in it. His status as hero or villian is really only subjective from the teller's point of view. If you japanese he's not a hero but to American's he is.

It's this so type of human nature I think Enterprise lacks in it's story telling. All the characters are too fake. Always doing the same things never once really doing something wrong for all the right reasons. Or something right for all the wrong reasons. All too boring... All too done

[Klingonmike 0]

Enterprise has had some great stories,especially this last season. Top notch writing if ya ask me. And the characters are developing very nicely.I'm looking forward to the next 5 seasons as this show continues to grow and get better and better.

Gene Roddenberry would be proud of this latest incarnation of Star Trek!

[Red Shirt Volunteer 0]

Since St:TNG, the characters have only been carbon copies of previous series; of couse with new make up. While I understand that there are just so many possible emotions and events to place the core element of characters in. It's almost as if the writers have thrown out any real human nature replacing it with an overly idolized and idealist concept of human nature that just doesn't really exist.

 

That was an interesting post, and I agree in part, but I'm going to have to ask you to explain the above quote. How do you figure Ent characters are more idealized than TNG characters? TNG characters, in retrospect, were so pure it pained me at times. Picard always ranting on about the prime directive and following the rules of the Federation to the letter; Worf always looking for battle; Trio always having a funny feeling then fading into the background; etc. Don't get me wrong, I really liked TNG, but I must say that Ent. has at least made a go of developing characters that we can related to.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Isn't this your second thread devoted to how much you dislike ENT? You've made your point.

 

maybe the mods will combine these threads.

[ConnorExum 0]

QUOTE

Since St:TNG, the characters have only been carbon copies of previous series; of couse with new make up. While I understand that there are just so many possible emotions and events to place the core element of characters in. It's almost as if the writers have thrown out any real human nature replacing it with an overly idolized and idealist concept of human nature that just doesn't really exist.

 

 

Well you must take it with context of what ST:TNG was... ST:TNG was idealistic . Yet it still managed to hold enough realism about character development for the most part to keep it interesting to the auidence. The problem with Enteprise is this. The cast is too far withdrawn from the auidence in many aspects too little has been done with so many of them so far. The writers and producers seem to be trying to put the elements that made ST:TNG a success with that of ST:TOS' cowboy action filled storyline. The problem is that you just can't squeeze those two very different visions together. One demands a more sophisicated prespective about character development. And, other relies more on action squences and limited character growth. The basic what you see is what you get philosophy, that resembles a John Wayne style western. I find those boring...

 

Thus we come to Enterprise's new direction. Which should have given the characters a darker edge with more purpose. All they writers and producers have shown from the Expanse season finale episode is action... No character growth there at all. No general outrage against the attack(for the most part)... No crystalizing effect on the crew's attitudes or that of the Star Fleet command about the response to the attack. Instead we see alone ship thrown out into space with no solid mission objectives.

Adm. Forrester and the Earth Government didn't even seem like they had any thoughts on what to do... Didn't take command of the mission's planning or logistics' phases. It would seem to me that Adm. Forrester would need the full assets of Earth to pull of this attack and defense of Earth. Remember the Xindi aren't just going to stop until they destroy Earth. Earth, has to be ready for the worst. And yet Berman and Bragga seem content with leaving Adm. Forresters reactions so far as bland and uninspiring as one can get... We're talking about a major power player in the command structure of Star Fleet and he leaves almost all the details up to Archer alone? Not a realistic reaction to the events shown... Hell Adm. Forrester was more pissed about Archer taking off the NX-B with out permission then this attack it seemed.

Also Archer's reactions are complete disproportionate to the threat. Instead of pulling his crew together in a military fashion giving them the training and equipment they need. He whines about not being believed in because Vulcan's don't like his theory on time travel... Also I guess the whole Duras' subplot of regaining his honor with Archer's head is supposed to show the ever increasing darker side of Archer's command style. Well I have to say this "don't make me laugh"... Archer wouldn't and couldn't let Duras escape after the second attack. It would be a threat to his mission to save Earth and it would further put his ship in jarpody before he even gets started. Any sane commander would have blown Duras' ship away when he had the chance and the advantage. Also when you consider that Archer says "He'll do whatever it takes to save Earth" it's sort of odd risk being destroyed before even getting a chance to do that. Don't you think so too?

Trip's reactions are at least realistic. He's angry and out for blood. That should be the generall feeling of the crew... Because this is a mission that is about Earth's continued surivival and all of the human crew risk to loose everything they hold dear. Not just Trip as shown so far...

Yet they show Reed trying to play ships shrink... Shouldn't he be the first man to want to blow up the Xindi? He's always clamoring about how unmilitary Archer's command style is and the overall regs in Star Fleet. Well isn't this the perfect change that ??? Yet he's playing dr. with Trip and not hitting on the fact they've got valuable military intelligence in Daniel's quarters wasting away not to mention cloaking , shield generation, and more advance technology in an untapped Suliban Cell ship... Shouldn't he be thinking about how to farther upgrade the capablities of Enterprise's offensive deffensive system given the new mission? Not worring about Trip's funeral arrangements for his sister.

The rest of the cast seems to have no reaction at all after the intial shock so far... How interesting no one says "Captain we're all with and we're all ready to go where ever this may lead us" I guess not... Nor does the Archer give a stirring speach to inspire them... It's just oh let's go for the hell of it right?

 

That's what I'm talking about in realism so far...

[breencommander 0]

I agree,mostly.Gene Roddenberry had some unrealistic aspirations for humanity.I've read a few of his interviews,and in one of them he was talking about the TNG episode "Hero Worship"(well,either that one or "The Bonding")and he said the child character featured who had just lost his parents should not cry because in the future humans have accepted death as a part of life and would not be moved to tears by such a loss.That doesn't sound like humans to me,at all.Sounds like cold,unfeeling machines.And Trek's humans are just so ethical and moral and non-judgemental...we will NEVER be that way!We can try,but ultimately at our core humans are just not that way.Look back through history.While our civilizations and cultures have changed,the basic human animal with all of his or her faults and emotions haven't changed a bit.Last year I read a greek tragedy as part of some school asignment,and it was startling how easily I understood the various character's feelings and motivations...and this story was more than 2,000-years old.We won't change!That said,I don't think all Trek humans have been limited by this problem with Trek characterization.Ben Sisko(DS9) acted very un-Trek human like when he enlisted Garak's aid to bring the Romulans into the Dominion War,in fact.And several of the humans on Enterprise have been free of Trek's "advanced" human morality and ethics(Thank,God!).

[mj 7]

It's this so type of human nature I think Enterprise lacks in it's story telling. All the characters are too fake. Always doing the same things never once really doing something wrong for all the right reasons. Or something right for all the wrong reasons.  All too boring... All too done

In Cogenitor, Trip did wrong things (lying, sneaking around) for all the right reasons (helping someone he believed to be oppressed). It turned out to be a far more complex situation than he had perceived and ultimately led to tragedy.

 

Enterprise still has enormous potential for character development. I do not see the character

developemnt in Trek series following TNG as being some kind copy of the TNG group. Each series has had its own disitnctiveness.