Thursday, December 1, 2011

What Went Wrong with Star Trek Enterprise?

In the wake of Jonathan Frakes' recent declaration that for him, Star Trek: Enterprise's series finale was "an unpleasant memory," actress Marina Sirtis has also come out on the controversial final episode. But instead of blasting it, she defends it as a fitting finale for ... The Next Generation.

In another of Star's lengthy interviews, the 56-year-old actress—who had to slip back into one of Counsellor Deanna Troi's skintight uniforms after 18 years in the role (and three years after Star Trek: Nemesis) in May of 2005 for the controversial Enterprise final episode ''These Are the Voyages''—said about the finale.

-Nathalie Caron
"Marina Sirtis defends Enterprise finale as a fitting end for TNG"

I've tried repeatedly to create a comment in reply to this blastr blog post but I keep getting an error message. Guess I'll have to write a wee blog of my own about it. First off, here's part of what I was going to say in my comment:

Wow! She's 56?

Anyway, I guess this means I'll have to get around to watching the final episode of Star Trek: Enterprise one of these days. Actually, I stopped watching the show at the end of the third season. It just failed to hold my interest the way that the rest of the Star Trek franchise shows did.

I don't think this was the fault of the cast or crew. The producers set it too early in history and created too many plot holes in terms of the already established "Trek" history. They introduced things like view screens and transporters when, according to the "official" time line, they shouldn't have existed yet. Then there were the desperate attempts to revive interest by introducing Romulans, Ferengi, and Borg when humanity hadn't met them yet, either. "Enterprise" could never create its own niche because it lacked most of the elements the Trek audience had come to know and love. The producers should have set it in the Romulan-Earth or Klingon-Earth wars or even when Capt. Pike 1st took command of the Enterprise. Now that would have been a riveting series, if handled correctly.

To continue, I think Berman and Braga just became arrogant and complacent. They assumed all you'd have to do is stick the title "Star Trek" on a show and everyone would spontaneously "nerdgasm" all over it.


They should have put a lot more thought and research into the concept of a "pre-STTOS" show. Instead, they goofed and shot Bakula, Blalock, Billingsley, and the rest of the cast in the collective foot. They also assumed (probably thanks to Seven of Nine in Star Trek: Voyager, that a pair of really large breasts would make up for good stories, consistent plots, and character development. Wrong again. Big boobs aside, my favorite character was "Trip", played by Connor Trinneer. I found him very human in his struggle to apply his personality and preconceptions on a rapidly unfolding interstellar exploration.

I could go on and on about what went wrong with the show and what could have been right, but I don't feel like writing a novel today. Like I said before, the one big thing I'd change, if I could, would be to set the show later in history but still before Kirk's time.

Point's moot because with the full Star Trek reboot, history is up for grabs again.

Set course for the Talos star group. Time warp, factor five. Engage.


  1. very interesting; loved star trek episodes period.

  2. I guess I'm kind of finicky that way. No worries, mate.

  3. The show was just ok in my book enjoyed the crew just not some of the story line. Other parts of the story line were better but I wasnt upset when it ended like when tng or voyager did.