ENT killer, ''Balance of Terror'?

[thelordharry]

So, if TOS 'Balance of Terror' had never been made (not advocating this, terrific episode!), would the whole of ENT made a whole lot more sense?

[Aaron]

No. There were far worse things in ENT than that. The problem with ENT wasn't just the continuity violations but that it was TNG MK III, the just took everything and chromed it. B&B were either afraid to take risks or they were blind to what was going on in the fan community.

[Captain Seafort]

No. It would have removed the issue of the cloaking device being known about long before Spock stated it was only theoretical, but that's a minor issue compared with the rest of the shite.

[Sionnach Glic]

Aye, there was only minor contradictions with the Romulan story arc. The problem was just shit writing.

[Aaron]

Aye, there was only minor contradictions with the Romulan story arc. The problem was just s**t writing.

Oh it goes far further than that. Trek was broken at that point or at least had stagnated, the entire staff responsible for it should have been replaced. Starting from the top and going all the way down.

[Tsukiyumi]

...the entire staff responsible for it should have been replaced. Starting from the top and going all the way down.

Even the guys who fetch the coffee and danish?

[Aaron]

Even the guys who fetch the coffee and danish?

Especially those guys, they were obviously putting stuff in the coffee.

[thelordharry]

It's been such a long while since I've seen it but it was on syndication this Saturday and reminded me of a few things like, the Earth/Romulan war with 'primitive nuclear weapons' etc etc.

Humour a man in his mid 30's who should probably know better and doesn't really have time to read every thread(s) that adequately answer this question...

Is the main reason that everyone hates ENT down to canon contradictions? Sure, the writing was at best, unimaginative and weak but it's always seemed to me that when I read what most disliked about it, it was the contradictory nature of the canon it created?

[Aaron]

It's been such a long while since I've seen it but it was on syndication this Saturday and reminded me of a few things like, the Earth/Romulan war with 'primitive nuclear weapons' etc etc.

Humour a man in his mid 30's who should probably know better and doesn't really have time to read every thread(s) that adequately answer this question...

Is the main reason that everyone hates ENT down to canon contradictions? Sure, the writing was at best, unimaginative and weak but it's always seemed to me that when I read what most disliked about it, it was the contradictory nature of the canon it created?

Everyone has a different reason. I could have ignored the canon violations and lame retro designs if the stories had been good. But how long do they expect me to watch recycled scripts and stuff that belongs in a sit-com?

[thelordharry]

So for you Cpl, it's simply the writing? Simply poor writing and bad storylines and four season's worth at that. Having been around for a lot longer than I on this forums and aware of most people's opinions, is this the general consensus?

[Aaron]

So for you Cpl, it's simply the writing? Simply poor writing and bad storylines and four season's worth at that. Having been around for a lot longer than I on this forums and aware of most people's opinions, is this the general consensus?

It seems so. Overall I think it's the lack of risk they took. Look what they did with Firefly, how kooky and bizarre it was, they even had a musical episode. ENT was just...stale. Like I had seen it all before. I dunno if I'm making sense, feels like I'm rambling.

Edit: Even when they did take a risk, it came off poorly. Remember when Archer became a pirate because he needed an engine part? It was meant to be a moral dilemma and show how conflicted he was but he came off as a colossal shitcock.

[thelordharry]

So for you Cpl, it's simply the writing? Simply poor writing and bad storylines and four season's worth at that. Having been around for a lot longer than I on this forums and aware of most people's opinions, is this the general consensus?

It seems so. Overall I think it's the lack of risk they took. Look what they did with Firefly, how kooky and bizarre it was, they even had a musical episode. ENT was just...stale. Like I had seen it all before. I dunno if I'm making sense, feels like I'm rambling.

Not at all, I understand you. I always thought that if I tried hard enough, I could have probably associated every episode or maybe situation to something that had been done before on Trek. Even favoured episodes like 'In a mirror darkly', although enjoyable were like, yeeeah, we've already seen a Constitution class bridge in TNG and DS9, MU stuff had been done to death in DS9 etc. OK, I think I get it now, thanks for the input

EDIT: And re: your edit, surely we'd already seen this type of thing in DS9 where Sisko was chasing Eddington and he 'gassed' the Maquis planet or the treachery of roping the Romulans into the Dominion war.

[Sionnach Glic]

Kendall's pretty much adressed the major problems with the show:
Shit writing (such as the pirate episode).
No imagination (seriously, virtualy any ENT episode could be a TNG or VOY ep with little changes).
Poor characters that no one cared about (remember Mayweather?).
Blatant canon contradictions (do I even need to give examples?).
Nothing changed (seriously, the NX could be a TNG era ship with pretty much no changes, all the tech was still the same).

[Graham Kennedy]

Look what they did with Firefly, how kooky and bizarre it was, they even had a musical episode.

Huh? They did?

[Aaron]

Huh? They did?

Sort of, it was Jaynestown.