Superman, Superboy...oh and Enterprise too!

Superman · Fleet Admiral Joined: 06 Dec 2003 Posts: 10220

This post is probably going to attract criticism. Please feel free but it's something I've been talking about at work recently and I wanted to get some views.

For a long time, I've been a fan of Superman. I've followed his adventures in the comics and on TV for years.

In the early forties, the writers of the Super-Comics wanted to capitalize on Superman's popularity. So, in More Fun Comics #101, Superboy made his debut. Quite simply, Superboy was the Man of Steel as a young teenager. Despite there never being any mention of Superman having had adventures as a boy, the tales went on for years and were fun.

Then, in 1986, the DC Comics universe was relaunced, rebooted, whatever word you want to use. A six-part series, written and drawn by John Byrne, entitled Superman:The Man of Steel made it's debut. It completely rewrote the super-universe. From 1986 onwards, Superman made his debut as an adult, he had never been Superboy, his origins and background were completely changed. Other heroes were affected too. Heroes such as Batman had changes made to them.

What is my point here? I give you one word...

...TIMELINE.

Yes, I am referring to various debates over the Trek timeline which have been made since ENT made it's debut in 2001. Everyone is entitled to their view, everyone's opinion is valid. But it seems that a lot of people are overly concerned with the timeline instead of trying to enjoy the stories.

The whole piece about Superman was posted to illustrate a point. In 1986, the Super Universe was rewritten. History was changed. But 99.9% of people decided to stick with it and not let the changing of the timeline ruin potential enjoyment of future stories. In fact, comics have been rewriting history since day one.

I like ENT. I think latter season 2/early season 3 have been great. It's got a long way to go yet but I think it has potential. But the timeline issue seems to be spoiling it for some people.

Of course, some things in the timeline should be adhered to. It wouldn't be wise for ENT to suddenly introduce the Hirogen, Ferengi or Cardassians to the show. Some respect must be made to the timeline.

But I think the most important thing should be enjoying the stories. Take the episode "Regeneration" which featured The Borg. That played with the timeline a little but I personally enjoyed the episode very much, it was tense and exciting and I loved it. Whatever timeline issues the episode contradicted, I don't care because I loved it.

And it gets me down a little when I speak to people at work who criticize ENT because, in their opinion, a certain piece of technology shouldn't exist in ENT times or that a minor aspect of the show is contradicting the future timeline.

I swear I am not arrogant but my advice to a lot of my work colleagues would be to simply watch ENT and try and enjoy. Forget the future timeline, concentrate on Archer and what his crew are doing in the here and now. Try and appreciate that the people behind ENT simply cannot check every aspect of a script to make sure it doesn't contravene something in the Trek timeline.

If that sounds arrogant, I apologize because I am not an arrogant person. I think ENT has potential. I really don't care about minor contradictions to the timeline.

Thanks for reading this long-winded post.

The Delta Flyer · **Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:05 pm**

I think that if you consider Enterprise as a show of which you know nothing about - pretend you've never heard of Star Trek before - it's really not that bad. Although it probably wouldn't have made it this far without the name of the franchise backing it up lol because, truth be told, there have been a few bad episodes.
It does seem to be pulling together though and sure, there might be continuity errors but if you appreciate the show for being a sci-fi programme, that hardly matters.
Presumably that's why the show appeals to viewers who aren't fans of Trek but on the other hand, drives away those who are...if you're a purist, I suppose it's understandable that you'll have problems with it.

IMO let's all be glad its slowly getting better.

Superman · Fleet Admiral Joined: 06 Dec 2003 Posts: 10220

The major problem I had with ENT was the fact that it seemed to be trying to cater for all tastes. It seemed to be trying to appeal to hardcore fans, casual fans, those who had never heard of Trek, etc. And that simply cannot be done with any franchise.

You'll never please everyone. A particular aspect of a show may endear itself to a hardcore Trek fan but not a new fan and vice versa. ENT seemed to be trying to be all things to all people.

Getting back to the Superman analogy, Warner Bros. have been trying to get a Superman film off the ground for years. Whoever directs the movie has an unenviable task of trying to cater for long-time fans and those who may not have heard of Superman.

With ENT, I think it has improved and I think the writers just need to try and write a good show and not to try and appeal to everyone and his dog. Write good scripts but don't concern yourself too much with the future timeline of TOS, TNG, DSN & VOY. Be respectful of the timeline but don't spend all day on it. That would be my advice to ENT writers.

On an interesting note, the ones who I speak to who enjoy ENT the most are the ones who have never watched a Trek show before. Whereas the people who have watched every other Trek series seem to be the ones that don't like ENT as much. I think that is interesting.

The Delta Flyer · **Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:02 am**

I think that by aiming the show at both audiences (fans of Trek as well as people who've never viewed the franchise before) they've possibly alienated members of both audiences.

Also I don't like the way that they seem to think the only way of improving the show is by introducing more action to it...

superwoman · **Sun Jun 20, 2004 8:13 am**

Superman · Fleet Admiral Joined: 06 Dec 2003 Posts: 10220

Perhaps another reason for some people to dislike ENT is the fact that we've pretty much been viewing Trek since '87. How I long for the days when you had two years to wait for a new movie to come out and it gave you time to be excited.

TNG didn't debut here in Britain until 1990 I think. But since 1990, it has been non-stop Trek, TNG, DSN, VOY and ENT. Whilst I enjoy ENT, I wouldn't like to see it run for more than two or three seasons and when it's over I would like the whole Trek franchise to go away for several years, perhaps restrict it to a movie every two years.

I see a similar thing happening with CSI. First there was CSI which is special. Then came CSI:Miami and a CSI:New York is set to air soon. You can have too much of a good thing!

The Delta Flyer · **Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:36 pm**

I know what you mean. I know that I was expecting there to be a new Star Trek show to be on the cards as soon as Voyager finished; kinda took it for granted. When I first got into Trek, the BBC was just showing season 3 (I think) of TNG. The very next day they showed brand new episodes of Deep Space Nine and then on Sundays they would show brand new episodes of Voyager.

I kinda took Star Trek for granted that it would be on (note to self: don't take things for granted).

However with so much Trek being broadcast there was, for the most part, "Something for everyone".

Also it annoys me ("annoy" is not really the right word) that shows such as Enterprise can survive on the name of the franchise alone during bad patches when other shows (Firefly!!!!) get canned after just a few episodes. In all honesty I would much rather have seen Firefly continue than Enterprise - Firefly never got the recognition it deserved. And from what I hear bad scheduling on the part of the network was the reason for that.

I'm going to go dream about Firefly and what might have been. And what might yet be...roll on the Firefly film, "Serenity".

PS. If you haven't seen Firefly, try and watch it if it is on. It is great. IMO. lol.

Slinzer · **Sun Jun 27, 2004 9:31 pm**

Well this is what i think i wrot it in another forumthread... and this is what i think:

The Delta Flyer · **Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:21 pm**

Yeah I know what you mean.

I imagine that in the last episode of Enterprise they'll rejig the timeline so that it agrees with every the other series - probably erase the Enterprise timeline completely thus explaining the lack of references to the series in other shows if you know what I mean lol.

Slinzer · **Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:29 pm**

so you mean that they will in like season 7 explain why it is like it is?

Jadzia Lenara Dax · **Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:15 am**

The Delta Flyer · **Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:00 am**

Superman · Fleet Admiral Joined: 06 Dec 2003 Posts: 10220

It makes perfect sense to me, Delta Flyer. You're talking about balance aren't you? And how you feel that there wasn't enough of a balance between good and bad on ENT.

The Delta Flyer · **Thu Jul 01, 2004 4:47 am**

Yeah that's it exactly! All shows have bad episodes; its important that the good episodes balance out the bad ones thus creating an overal good impression of the show.

If you have too many bad episodes in one go, the show earns a bad reputation. It loses viewers and no matter how many good episodes you show afterwards, much of your audience has already left and its much harder to win them back - bad reputations have a longer lasting effect than good ones.

That's what I think happened with season 2 and I think Season 3 has been as much about capturing a new audience as it is about regaining those it lost mid-way through Season 2...

Five - seveN · **Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:19 am**

Ryano · **Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:46 am**

I work in a Video Store and if theres one thing I've learned it's that the general public loves action! We hired out 2 times as many copies of "Welcome to the Jungle" with the Rock and Seann William Scott than we did of "Lost in Translation" , "Secretary" and "Spirited Away" combined.... now those 3 movies were some of the most critically acclaimed movies of the last few years!
Unfortunately the majority of people can't be relied on to enjoy substance. A big call I know and I'll probably get a lot of criticism but it's pretty much on the money.

So I think the reason ENT has gone for action is just to get the ratings up so that they are in for another season. It took TOS a while to get going too , lets just hope ENT gets there in the end.

My 2 cents ends here.....

Leo Wyatt · **Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:02 pm**

Just because someone has an opinion about Enterprise show the show sucks. Enterprise is a good show. Like the person above me said it takes time.

The Delta Flyer · **Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:25 pm**

Hmmm...I wonder however that, without the Star Trek name backing it up, would Enterprise have made it up to Season 3 at all? The ratings were really, really low during Season 2 and some shows have been cancelled with higher readerships.

Firefly for example (oh I always go on about Firefly don't I) had (in my opinion) much better storylines than Enterprise - yet it was cancelled. Would it have been cancelled had it been a part of the Star Trek franchise???

I also heard that they had to lower the price of Enterprise so as to sell Season 4 to UPN: