Dec. 3, 2004, 1:26 a.m. CST
Dec. 3, 2004, 1:50 a.m. CST
Dec. 3, 2004, 2:20 a.m. CST
Actually, it's more annoying than anything. Let's get back to exploring the human limitations and psyche, not whether or not current political situations are to your liking, B&B!
Dec. 3, 2004, 2:24 a.m. CST
Dec. 3, 2004, 3:20 a.m. CST
Jeffrey Combs is an amazing actor, he helped elevate DS9, and does a great job on Enterprise. After seeing this episode I was surprised at how often they let Robert Foxworth smerk/smile. Plus for a vulcan he looked a lot like Bush after he sees the Hologram.
Dec. 3, 2004, 7:56 a.m. CST
Socio-political commentary is what made the original Trek a classic show and a step above all television science-fiction that had come before it (W/ the exception of Twilight Zone). If there is a return to this type of allegorical storytelling, then I for one welcome it. It's about time Trek was actually about something other than technobabble.
Dec. 3, 2004, 8:43 a.m. CST
for some reason, it was invisi-text'd...
Dec. 3, 2004, 8:56 a.m. CST
I'm glad Herc's rating of 3 stars was such an important secret that it rated invisotext...
Dec. 3, 2004, 10:22 a.m. CST
I'm liking the show a lot more. Too bad this might be the last season.... ohhhh How I miss Farscape.... wahhhhhh!!!!
Dec. 3, 2004, 12:51 p.m. CST
considering that other than the word "preemptive" there's no real analogy to current events... Last year's season long story-line was far more analogous to our current times, and it kinda supported the whole "get back at those who struck us first, no matter what" mentality that is kinda supportive of a certain president's rhetoric on the matter... i stress the word "kinda" though, as ST has been good about setting up parrallels, but nothing too in your face (unless, of course, you're just too sensitive to the word "preemptive")
Dec. 3, 2004, 1:59 p.m. CST
Dec. 3, 2004, 2:57 p.m. CST
What show are you watching?
Dec. 3, 2004, 3:25 p.m. CST
by The Killer-Goat
Hmm, so which subsect of Vulcans/Romulans gets to play the 'manufactured' mass graves of the Kurds who were gassed during Saddam's reign?
Dec. 3, 2004, 4:59 p.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
The only reason that should be included in the allegorical story is if it had been presented as a reason for going to war BEFORE the war started, or if two years later a new justification is needed after the first one is proven invalid.
Dec. 3, 2004, 5:16 p.m. CST
by Triumph poops!
Historically speaking, nobody goes to war for singularly ONE reason and ONE reason alone. There's clearly an accumulation of other factors that pile on top of each other, one after another, in various degrees of severity, that then CULMINATE in your primary reason for declaring war. But having a top rated reason on your personal laundry list of reasons to go to wars doesn't change the fact you clearly will have tangent supportive reasons that the "enemy" did as well to piss you off so much that you're declaring war. It's not like you write up a list and say "We're going to attack these guys for reason number one. And if that doesn't apply, EVERYTHING ELSE -- EVERY other reason on this list -- isn't valid." Truth is, regardless of WMD, Saddam was a genocidal maniac that needed to be taken out like the rabid dog and piece of shit that he was. And as usual, the UN was too gutless and spineless to actually DO the job. Clinton himself declared that Saddam had to go and Clinton himself made it official U.S. policy to seek regime change in Iraq, but it was Bush who actually had the balls to pull the trigger and commit to making it happen. And for the record, while everyone centered on WMD since it was the easier news bite to push, promote and digest, right from the start Bush and company DID cite the massacre of the Kurds as well as thousands of other innocent Iraqi civilians as yet another additional reason to finally go in and take Saddam out.
Dec. 3, 2004, 5:35 p.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
You're right. We definitely had two reasons for going into Iraq. The first was WMDs. The second was the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Quaeda. Was Saddam Hussein's genocide a given reason BEFORE the invasion? No. That's my point.
Dec. 3, 2004, 6:22 p.m. CST
by I Dunno
It's mentioned that Archer can do the Vulcan nerve pinch thing because he's carrying a Vulcan's katra, yet Dr. McCoy had Spock's katra in him and obviously and comically tried and failed to perform it on that security guy. ...........I do get laid, I swear.
Dec. 3, 2004, 7:16 p.m. CST
Dec. 3, 2004, 8:05 p.m. CST
If you pay attention to the uncensored news (what little you get of it over there) you would know that the gas Saddam had bought from the US was used up many years ago. When Bush invaded he didn't have any WMD's - that was a lie from the
Dec. 3, 2004, 9:14 p.m. CST
Answer is simple. Anybody can do it. It's nerve pinch. Purely physical. If you watch, Archer was putting a lot of muscle in doing it. Much more effort than Vulcans, who are inheriently stronger. So if you do try hard enough, like really put your back in it, you can get it to work. McCoy was a semi-frail old man when he tried. Not enough strength. It makes sense....
Dec. 3, 2004, 9:28 p.m. CST
I can't believe Manny Coto decided to go with the BermanBraga Romulans instead of going back to the Classic Trek Romulans without the GODDAMN BROW RIDGES!! That's what made the Romulans the best "villains" in Star Trek: they looked exactly like their Vulcan forefathers but behaved the exact opposite. I guess I shouldn't blame Manny, BermanBraga have been demoted but their influence still lingers i.e., the stupid "Faith of the Heart" intro instead of going with Bakula doing the "Space, the final frontier..." followed by instrumentals. Ever since TNG, the makeup guys have gone Forehead Ridge crazy and can't seem to understand that Romulans couldn't have developed ridges in the time between "Undiscovered Country" and TNG. Klingons yes, the ridges are approriate; I read somewhere Roddenberry originally wanted Klingons to have ridges but the budget wouldn't allow it during the series. I've been jazzed this whole season, with the exception of the Alien Nazi two-parter, every episode has kicked ass and I'm optimistic we will get a fifth season BUT the frickin' Romulans have Brow Ridges! AAAARRGHHHH! Going back to the classic Romulan look would've further indicated to the fans that "Enterprise" really is a prequel to TOS not a prequel to TNG, DS9 and Voyager! Oh well, spilt milk! Anyhoo, to all fans who haven't read Diane Duane's "The Romulan Way" its the best interpretation of the Romulans and I wish Manny would officially make it part of Trek canon; in my mind the Romulans will always be THE RIHANNSU!
Dec. 3, 2004, 9:28 p.m. CST
Dec. 3, 2004, 9:35 p.m. CST
(politically speaking, that is) anyways, my point still stands, that Trek's political parrallels to current events are always just skewed enough to still exist solely in their own universe... i.e. get the audience to relate to the events by throwing in familiar elements -- and words, like "preemeptive strike" in 2004 or the inclusion of the Black & White cookie people in 60s Trek (what could be more on the nose for black-white race relations) -- but have it then play out in the trek universe in a wholy unique way...
Dec. 3, 2004, 9:37 p.m. CST
these are the same people who tried to base the suleban on, well... you know who.
Dec. 3, 2004, 10:21 p.m. CST
by James Crackcorn
Really? I mean, it's like, dead, right? Nevermind...
Dec. 3, 2004, 10:30 p.m. CST
Dec. 3, 2004, 10:55 p.m. CST
Ummm, Voice O. Reason, you might want to check Public Law 107-243 - the resolution that was presented to Congress with the reasons for going to war that they agreed with and signed off on. "Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region..." That was dated 10/16/2002 and would be the whole "genocide" thing. If that helps.
Dec. 4, 2004, 1:37 a.m. CST
by Col. Klink
...Bush is secretly an agent for Reunification with the Muslims!
Dec. 4, 2004, 4:50 a.m. CST
Does anyone who makes decisions over at UPN take note of what's said in the Enterprise talkbacks? Sometimes I hope so, sometimes not. This was one of the best episodes/story arcs ever done in any Star Trek series. Not because of any current political overtones, but for the hardcore nerdy geeky Trekkie (Trekker if you're uppity) lore and exposition. Laying out the groundwork and history of how the Vulcans came to play second fiddle to the humans a little further down the road from Archer's time. If only they had been spending more time on the mythology and history... why is Enterprise only now living up to its potential in the fourth season? Remember way back in the 20th century, when this series was still in development, it was under the working-title "Birth of the Federation." That's what we are finally, at long last, getting now... the birth and pre-natal goo. Unfortunately it's taken four seasons to get there. And while tonight's conclusion to the three-episode Vulcanian arc was great and dealt with many Federation birth issues, toward the last fifteen minutes I was wondering how they were going to wrap it all up, and the denouement ended up feeling a bit rushed. The first two seasons, while having their highlights and a few tidbits thrown out to us uber-geeks, were more or less episodic stuff like you would find in the previous four iterations of Star Trek. Add a "temporal cold war" (whatever the hell that is...) to the mix, a boring and not very menacing new enemy race in the Suliban... whatever. Then a third season devoted to YET ANOTHER NEW AND PREVIOUSLY UNHEARD OF RACE -the Xindi - and a new threat. That was interesting in the sense that the developers committed to a long-running story arc, but decided to make something totally new, not related to the overall Trek history, and in the end, entirely forgettable. Sure, the Xindi WMD technology is hinted at again in tonight's installment with the Vulcans worried the Andorians have installed it on their ships; however, it's just a throw-in. They don't have it. Despite what certain talkbackers have to say about this being a commentary on current geopolitics, I think this was done more as an expedient plot device. Just like the sensor probes that the Vulcans sent to Andorian space, the ones that were spreading false warp signatures... isn't that technically a lie? So would Vulcans not use feints in their battle plans? Of course they would... we're beginning to see that their logic isn't so much based on the way their brains are hardwired, as it is on their cultural heritage. Nature vs. Nurture... so very Roddenberrian. Anyhoo, so now we're getting all the good stuff. The Khan/Doctor Soong/augment story arc, and the just-finished arc that begins to explain why the Vulcans of Kirk's/Picard's time are so much more docile and logical than are the ones of Archer's time. Now, I may be a card-carrying adult-olescent old school Trek nerd who once long ago won a Doctor McCoy coffee mug for correctly answering a trivia question at my fifth Trek convention (question - name of the nightclub Indie escapes from at the beginning of Temple o' Doom?), but I'm also in the coveted 30-40 year old male demographic with PLENTY of disposable income. Though I must admit that I Tivo the show and skip the commercials because it's on Friday night and even though I'm a geek, I'm out getting liquored most Friday nights by 8pm; therefore the fine companies pitching their quality products on UPN are wasting their advertising dollars on me (which causes me to wonder... do Nielsen ratings take Tivo into account? I've gotta check on that... anybody know?). Anyway, I will continue to watch this show if you keep up with the story arcs and continuity and historical exposition. Unfortunately, I guess appealing to the true blue fans is not what focus group corporate logic dictates. Please keep up the recent spate of good work. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. We don't have to have everything spelled out. You can keep innovating, throwing new stuff at us - just keep up the whole "Birth of the Federation" thing. Bringing the Vulcans back to the foreground - groovy. Lots of Andorians - super groovy. Romulans? Sweet. Hell, I'm willing to write off the smooth-headed Klingons of Kirk's era to Roddenberry's low TV budgets (and I thought the way DS9 deliberately took the trouble to go out of their way to shoot an episode that shows the original Klingons - then to have Worf blow it off with the "we don't like to talk about it" comment - sheer genius). We don't need to have that explained with a story arc about some insidious bio-agent that turns the Klingons smooth-headed for a hundred years. But if they want to do that? Sure, why not? Could be fun. Point is - PLEASE keep up the good story arc continuity stuff. Trek can continue to blend social commentary and current pop-culture allegory while still telling its own background story. It started as a single show back in the 60s - there was no history from which to draw, and the best format was naturally episodic at that time. But in the nearly 40 years since, Trek has taken on a life of its own. You have to account for this fervent fandom. Smaller than Star Wars fans by percentage, but far more rabid by weight. There are scores of Star Wars "non-canon" fiction books. There are literally HUNDREDS of Star Trek fiction books. Fans of Trek don't necessarily make the distinction between "canon" and "Non-canon." Maybe that's because they see these distinctions for the arbitrary nerdy falsities that they are (that's being charitable), or maybe they're just geeks who love their Trek and read alot (that's being realistic). But the recent Vulcan story arc brought in a bunch of arcane stuff that has been referenced over the years in the books. Kudos to you, UPN. "I know that you humans cross vast wastelands based on faulty intelligence." Priceless. And then I finish watching tonight's episode, click one channel up on the remote, and there is Prince Humperdinck on "The Princess Bride." And it finally hits me... holy shit, Soval the Vulcan ambassador is Prince Humperdinck! And here I was thinking he was the human cop from the Alien Nation TV show! May I live a thousand years and never hunt again! Also, I once dated a girl whose last name was McCoy, and now she's in med school. So one day she'll be Doctor McCoy. Which is cool.
Dec. 4, 2004, 8:52 a.m. CST
Dec. 4, 2004, 8:56 a.m. CST
<BTW, funny how the writers decided to criticize the Bush Pre-emption Doctrine...Actually, it's more annoying than anything. Let's get back to exploring the human limitations and psyche, not whether or not current political situations are to your liking>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yes, the original Trek was so very apolitical, with commentaries on overpopulation ("The Mark of Gideon"), Vietnam ("A Private Little War"), war crimes ("The Conscience of the King"), feminism ("Turnabout Intruder"), racism ("Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"), and youth culture ("The Way to Eden").>>>>>>>>>Fictionalizing American politics is nothing new to Trek. Aceattorney needs to go watch the original series on DVD before he spouts off.
Dec. 4, 2004, 10:43 a.m. CST
Did Enterprise decide to abandone that? Spock was only half Vulcan, and was easily as strong as Khan. These Full blooded Vulcans should have been whoopin the snot out of Archer & Co. Even T
Dec. 4, 2004, 11:51 a.m. CST
by Real Deal
I liked the ending to arc. I'm guessing this will continue on in the future Romulan arc coming up. I think the political discussions aside from how real polictics are directly reflected in Enterprise belong in another forum. If this is the last season what a way to go! Explaining all these things ST fans have wondered and speculated about for years. If it isn't the last season I look forward to what they cook up in the future with Coto at the helm.
Dec. 4, 2004, 12:59 p.m. CST
I was yelling at my tv during the fight scenes. How was it Archer managed to get any hits in at all, when it's been established from TOS down to the DS9 ep "Take me out to the holosuite" that Vulcans possess strength comparable to, or possibly exceeding, a Klingon's? That bugged me almost as much as V'los' extremely emotional display of gesturing and smirking. *SPOILER* I expected him to be a physicallly altered Romulan at the end. I was more surprised to find out he wasn't a Romulan than to see him talking to one.
Dec. 4, 2004, 1:03 p.m. CST
considering it's a prequel series and that we know where all of this is going, what suprises were you looking for? as uber-multi trek continuity porn this episode hit the spot, and frankly that criticism is almost as asinine as your thoroughly offbase criticisms of brent spiner's "over the top" performance a few weeks back. and kudos to the gomers out here who still support el presidente's war in iraq for being ultra sad in their silly defenses of said war. between bringing up the abuse of iraqi kurds (as if that was presented as a rationale before the war, and more to the point as if we would have given a shit about the kurds if it was) and that silly bastard who forgot that trek has historically dealt with current events analogues (hint: watch star trek VI you jackass and tell me that isn't about the end of the cold war)... you guys keep on keeping your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars! but seriously, this has been a fine talkbalk and i salute just about all of us for still giving a shit about trek.
Dec. 4, 2004, 1:20 p.m. CST
Dec. 4, 2004, 1:45 p.m. CST
This is what sci-fi can do.. comment on the social and political events in the present. And this trio of episodes did that beautifully. I loved it.
Dec. 4, 2004, 1:55 p.m. CST
and we never did anything to stop him. Crocodile tearing motherfuckers.
Dec. 4, 2004, 2:13 p.m. CST
who's the bigger dork, the dork who talks out his ass or the dork who calls the other dork on his shit?
Dec. 4, 2004, 2:14 p.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." IN OTHER WORDS: Although it was mentioned in the earlier part of the law, actually stopping genocide was not one of the goals for the war.
Dec. 4, 2004, 3:19 p.m. CST
I do find it interesting that what is good in the 24th century is bad in the 22nd. ~ It's kind of like The Republic in Star Wars becoming The Empire.
Dec. 4, 2004, 7:34 p.m. CST
I don't know if Manny Coto deserves all the credit, but Enterprise is fun again. While the Zindi arc was enjoyable, it tended to take itself too seriously, and there was not a trace of "Kirkiness" to be found. I define "Kirkiness" as a sense of fun, a hammy lack of self-importance that, ironically, manages to elevate the material it's involved in (though too much can be death; definitely a delicate balancing act). From the Augments arc to the Vulcan three-parter, the series seems to be moving briskly, not forgetting that it's a prequel to Star Trek, not existing in a vacuum. And having a Romulan appear at the end, that was the icing on the cake. As far as I am concerned, they are the only reason to watch Star Trek. If this is the result of Manny Coto coming on board, imagine how good things could get if Brannon Braga and Rick Berman somehow managed to exit the franchise?
Dec. 4, 2004, 7:54 p.m. CST
While the arc was interesting, I go back to my original point from a few weeks ago. This is all pointless. At one time, there might've been a good idea to go back to the beginning and sort of marry some of TOS idea's with ENT. However, it has been -mostly - a failure of style over substance. In the nearly 40 years since TOS began, we've taken a huge leap in technology and seen a large change in story telling style. TOS was not perfect by far, but found a voice in a time when life was changing. Prime time during the 1960's was filled with predictable fluff, if only because reality was horrible. Star Trek spurred the mind to go beyond simple plots and proved that TV could be a bit intellectual (which, historically, scares people of power and of certain leaders of a relgious nature). TNG and DS9 were able to balance the intellectual with silly, mindless stories, where Voyager and now ENT try to form over function. We are being treated now to what ENT should've been since it started. If it was going to a real prelude to TOS, it should be just that. Instead, for 76 episodes we are treated to bland stories whose's only main purpose is to showcase better visual effects and how far we've coming on allowing nudity. The stories, like most of Voyager, were forgetable when they should've been showing the real formation of the Federation. What we got was Daniels Temporal bullshit speech about Archer and his role in the foundation of the Federation. We got Archer becoming the whipping boy to other aliens. We got Scott Bakula, miscast as Archer, leading the crew nowhere. We got a Temporal Reset Button (stolen from Voyager) on every episode. We got stuck with bland villians, who really are not evil in any sense of the word. And, like Voyager before it, a series that does not understand its core audience. While I grant you, the franchise needs new viewers, it is abandoning the ones who made it survive for 40 years. Sure there is Real Deal who watches it no matter how dumb it gets. But she's not the viewer Star Trek needs to go after. It needs to strike a balance between action and story, between form and function, just like TOS, TNG and DS9 did. This season has tried, but while the ratings have some what improved, its still has not found the former viewers Berman and Braga angered since Voyager's launch in 1995. So, in the end, the franchise needs to go after those disenchanted viewers. But, alas, I don't see that happening. Intellectually minded people, the ones who can think for themselves, are not viewers any advertiser want to go after. They want dumb, white, straight male viewers who likes things that go boom. I'm in no way a smart man, but I know what is good and what is bad. I know when I'm being pandered too and I know when to praise a show for showing it can and will step above the other mindless chatter TV airs. Star Trek used to care about its viewers who had individual thought. Now we are told that is not what we need. There is a war going on, so mindless entertainment is what you're going to get. Blah! If it were'nt for Lost and Desparate Housewives, I would've turned my TV off for good after Angel faded to black this past spring.
Dec. 4, 2004, 8:09 p.m. CST
"always reliable as the series
Dec. 4, 2004, 8:15 p.m. CST
which is a shame because i agree, enterprise is being now what it should have been from the beginning- of course i think it's been mighty good so far and should get a chance to continue. i also think that any true blue trek fan who's read and enjoyed the trek novels "federation" and "prime directive" and isn't watching enterprise should be flogged because these people (the reeves-stevens') deserve a shot at rescuing trek, and trek fans who haven't checked those out should to see just how much these people love and grasp not only what trek is but what it can be. and that's my third post today and i'm done.
Dec. 5, 2004, 3:11 a.m. CST
What Michael Piller -perhaps the best writer Trek has ever had )despite Insurrections boob jopkes) said about Voyager. Things that can apply rather easily to ENT: Looking at the series as a whole, Michael Piller was able to see both its strengths and weaknesses. "The whole idea of exploring space is a metaphor for exploring ourselves," he said. "When Voyager did that, I think it did very well. I think the Seven of Nine stories gave us some insight into humanity and the meaning of humanity that the series sorely wanted. It had its moments. But when it did the exploding spaceships and space-monsters and so forth, the problem is that that's what everybody does in science fiction. I think that reduces Star Trek to being no better and worse than other science fiction shows." Piller told Cinefantastique's Anna L. Kaplan (via TrekWeb). "I have always encouraged the writers to try to find the human elements, the moral and ethical dilemmas," he said. "I think there was less an appetite for that after I left." This is very true of what happened to VOY and what is now afflicting ENT. I grant you, Manny Coto has done a far better job in 9 episodes than BermanBraga did in the first 76 of ENT. Still, the show relies too heavily on "things that go boom" and uses CGI effects to prop up it's stories (hence, look at Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 and potentially, episode 3). One good thing about TOS - like Dr. Who - it relied on the story veruses the visual effects. ENT relies on its visual effects to tell its story. As for Bakula, I'm sorry, after Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks -two classically trained actors - both VOY and ENT shows its weakness with lesser actors. Kate Mulgrew was a "yes" man and horrible to boot and Bakula seems to misunderstand his role within the Trek universe. His acting is stale as two-week old fresh bread and he delivers his lines like William Hung. She Bangs, indeed. He is way better than Mulgrew, but pales even behind Shatner. Trek has lost its unique voice, plain and simple. It produces show like we breath. It's necessary to live, but since everyone does its notability is reduced. I might as well as watch Two-Half Men. It's about as empty and pointless. At the end of the day, ENT -like the pedantic VOY -offers nothing in the way of the next step in this franchise's evolutionary life.
Dec. 5, 2004, 5:47 a.m. CST
don't agree with you on Enterprise, I think Season 4 has been the best Trek since the days of Patrick Stewart and TNG...BUT you are correct on Scott Bakula, I'm sorry to say he was miscast...I'm sorry because I'm a big fan of Scott and "Quantum Leap" is one of the most underrated series in TV history-the sweet natured Dr. Sam Beckett fixing people's timelines in order to get home was a perfect role for Scott because his personality blended easily with the "aw shucks" Sam Becket. Unfortunately, the same qualities don't work for a StarFleet captain who is supposed to be the archetype military men like Christopher Pike and James T. Kirk will follow. The problem is his Captain Archer came off as an incompetent boob who was getting his ass kicked every episode and was more worried about his dog than his crew. I would've cast Michael Biehn or Robert Patrick. In fact, Connor Trineer's Trip Tucker has more of a command presence than Bakula's Archer.
Dec. 5, 2004, 11:15 a.m. CST
by Real Deal
Well you can still go on a bit but your arguments are really subjective. This episodes getting good reviews from some of Enterprise's strongest detractors. IGN said that Enterprise has finally become a ST show and it's arcs are now better than TNG's. I tend to argree since The arcs on previous ST shows tend to start out with promise and don't deliver as strongly. IGN seems to think that STE's arcs ( while not as intense ) are more balanced with no disapointment with the payoff. Go check out some of the reviews EM. Coto's clearly making progress here. And you ask what's the point? This is a prequel show filling in the blanks about situations that we really didn't know how they took place. Sounds interesting to me and I'm not the only one.
Dec. 5, 2004, 11:22 a.m. CST
by Real Deal
Review: Enterprise Episode # 84 - Awakening (airs 11/26/2004): The transformation of Enterprise into the Trek series we've been waiting for continues in Awakening. Picking up where last week's episode left off, Archer and T'Pol make contact with the Syrranites while Trip, in command of the Enterprise, accepts help from the now former Vulcan ambassador to Earth, Soval (played by Alien Nation star Gary Graham). Andre' Bormanis' script successfully melds the established Enterprise universe with what we've discovered about Vulcan history since the original series and maintains viewer interest from the opening teaser scene to the inevitable cliffhanger that leads into the third and final part of the story arc, next week's Kir'Shara. I have chronicled in reviews of Enterprise episodes and here in the Trek Report how the series has frustrated me almost since the beginning. The concept, the characters, the actors and the universe have the potential to come together and make the most entertaining Trek series since the original series. As a fan of the work done for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the lack of involvement by Brannon Braga and Rick Berman and the resulting quality of that series spoke volumes about what was wrong with the series that followed, Star Trek Voyager. Voyager was never a compelling series or even an entertaining example of Star Trek and that lackluster approach towards producing a series seemed to carry over to Enterprise. Now that we're getting further into the fourth season of Enterprise, the changes behind the scenes are finally bearing fruit on our television screens. Enterprise still has some work to do before it becomes the series that it always had the potential to be but it is finally on the right track. Everything about what we're seeing on screen points towards greater things to come. The spark that has been missing from Trek since Deep Space Nine is starting to return and not a moment too soon. Awakening helps to advance this evolution in more ways than one. There have been some negative responses towards the apparent parallel between the event in this story arc and the current terrorist situation in the real world, a false assumption usually presented by people who aren't even watching the series. The plot behind the Vulcan story arc more closely resembles the covert operation taking place during Star Trek VI: The Final Frontier than the current Al Qaeda situation and the implications to the shaping of the Star Trek universe and the formation of the United Federation of Planets makes sense. Gary Graham has gotten the knack of playing a Vulcan down pat. There's a great moment in this episode that is undeniably a "Spock moment" and Graham plays it perfectly. If there were some reason to leave T'Pol on a planet somewhere (considering her recent outbursts to the press, I'm sure Rick Berman would be happy to chuck the actress out an airlock), Graham would be perfect replacement on the Enterprise bridge. Enterprise has also gotten away from the formula that has been in place since Berman produced Star Trek: The Next Generation, namely the use of at least three running plots per episode. With running times for one hour television series getting shorter and shorter, multiple plots are a luxury that a program like Enterprise just can't afford and thankfully, under the leadership of Manny Coto and new story editors Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, those extraneous plots are gone, making the episode flow as an exciting and entertaining hour of television that makes you anxious for the next episode. If UPN were smart and wanted to bring disenchanted Trek viewers back to the series, they would be well advised to package these two story arcs as movies and run them as specials with some extras. With the positive change in direction, the time to try and bring viewers back is now. Rating for Awakening: -- KJB He gave it 4 and 1/2 stars!
Dec. 5, 2004, 12:30 p.m. CST
Dec. 5, 2004, 4:18 p.m. CST
by Real Deal
" Sing it sister " Well I am a guy! LOL!
Dec. 5, 2004, 8:18 p.m. CST
by Real Deal
I also liked Angel and still like Stargate SG1. It's really sad about Angel the writing was really good for a tv show and Stargate is a really good, solid, show with characters that you can care about. Richard Dean Anderson is funnier than hell! I really want to see these shows ( like STE ) stick around as TV in general has been sliding quite a bit lately. I also look forward to the new BSG as I liked the mini series quite a bit! So there is hope.
Dec. 5, 2004, 9:14 p.m. CST
by The Killer-Goat
However, since an assumption of allegory to the Iraq war was suggested, I didn't present it for "justification" of anything, but as a fact that hold's relevance to said allegory. Proof after the fact, albeit delayed, is still proof. But, since it's too late for the dead kurds or their surviving families to argue the details, and since the episode arc is over, it's a moot point.
Dec. 6, 2004, 2:16 a.m. CST
by The Killer-Goat
At the risk of carrying on about this "allegorical" farce in Enterprise, I would say the consideration right now is less about whether Saddam had WMD's when the US invaded, but rather whether Saddam EVER had WMDs. There was alot of delayed waffling thanks to the negotiations with the UN. Almost a year, if I recall. Plenty of time for Saddam to move his stash ANYWHERE. The point isn't if he had them on him when our troops moved in, it's whether he ever HAD and/or USED them against the WMD conventions placed BY the US/UN over him. Even more to the point, if not for the mass graves, we would NEVER have known if he had. I'm not justifying the invasion, but those kurds (and many Iraqis) sure didn't die from a bad case of oil-refinery hiccups.
Dec. 6, 2004, 9:01 a.m. CST
As a lonely advocate of ENT among the nattering nabobs just a few months ago, the show's turnaround is very satisfying. It wasn't that ENT was so great, but it was better than the reality show replacement that would have inevitably followed. Glad they found their way. (And to me, a bad ENT was still way better than an average DS9). Just hope the ratings pick up now. ..... There is no doubt some episodes have had a political thread at least relevant to current events. I could do without. Before now, there were some obvious slams at Israel and now our own War on Terror. Easy to see if push comes to shove on Islamic Terrorism, who ENT tends to side with. How enlightened. Besides being a distraction, it just shows how foolish it is to make such simpleton commentary this way. What's the message... War is bad? No kidding, but sometimes, despite what Workers' Paradise advocates here and abroad might fantasize, we're not up to that Star Trek Earth society yet. And even in it, the conflicts, xenophobic and otherwise, don't end (as they never will), they just go galactic. Some pacifist utopia. They sill need a Federation cop on the block to keep order. .... Who usually loses in war? Dictators. Democracies almost never make war on other democracies. It's vile dictatorships that usually stir the pot and if ignored eventually are disaster for their people and the region. Is one of the other reasons we're in Iraq because of evil oil? Sure. But if you had no refined oil to get to work Monday or heat your house this winter, it wouldn't be so reviled. That was always a far bigger threat to our way of life than WMD's. At least we're not there to take it from its accidental owners. We just want the opportunity to buy it. Except for expansion, our wars have almost always been about keeping open free markets. One could die for less. When your survival depends on oil, then you'd better damn well make sure access to that lifeblood isn't cut off. The difference with us is we don't take it outright as any other 'imperialist' country in history would do. Especially when those oil purchases are used to fund attacks on our citizens. As imperialists, I guess we just never learned the lessons France, Germany, and Old Britain tried to teach us, then and now. I hope we NEVER do
Dec. 6, 2004, 10:02 a.m. CST
Robert Patrick would have been great but so would anyone else because Alan Rucks Captain from ST7 seemed tougher than Archer. PS- For a nice christmas gift, but Connor Trineer and Anthony Montgomery fucking acting lessons.
Dec. 6, 2004, 10:48 a.m. CST
I would have to point to Deep Space Nine. Here you have Gul Dukat killong thousands of semetic-like people because "They just Wouldn't Stop Fighting." The whole history of Cardassia versus Bajor reflects out current policy in the mideast, free them even if it kills them.
Dec. 6, 2004, 5:15 p.m. CST
by I Dunno
If you think a 9 year old kid or a 19 year old kid raised by clueless virgins are supposed to talk to chicks like they're James Bond. Yes the dialogue was awkward. That's the whole damn point. If you ant to think that is less believeable than common swordsman speaking in The Bard's prose than that's your opinion but consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
Dec. 7, 2004, 1:53 p.m. CST
Dude, what are you talking about? http://imdb.com/name/nm0334048/
Dec. 8, 2004, 8:23 a.m. CST
by Mark Twain
Let's say Hitler had never declared war on the US. Roosevelt convinces a reluctant public that Hitler is a threat to the US. We discover that Hitler had no plans to attack the US. At the end of the day though, Hitler is gone.
Dec. 8, 2004, 1:09 p.m. CST
The plots are better, the cameos are better (Orions, yay!), and I really liked that this latest Vulcan arc forced the characters to examine their lives (as opposed to the Augment story, which was fun but didn't develop the main characters any). However, I fear I may never care about Archer. It's the fourth season and I still don't feel any gravitas from him. I find him boring. I actually felt more for him in the first episodes than I do now. As a lead, he's not holding a candle to the main characters of other sci-fi shows like Jack O'Neil, John Crighton, and Malcolm Reynolds. As a Trek fan, I feel sick to even say it, but Archer reminds me of that captain from the first season of Babylon 5!! It's not just that Archer needs to lighten up, I think he needs to connect more with his crew. And in turn, the crew needs to be more interesting and worth connecting with. Hoshi, Travis, Phlox, and Reed all tend to have technical and/or expository dialogue, and they could have been replaced by guest stars most of this season. I'm not sure why Hoshi and Travis have to be regulars anymore, the writers don't seem interested in them. I happen to like T'Pol, I like Trip, and I wish the Surak katra hadn't been taken out of Archer at episode's end because he was a little more interesting with it in him. I wonder if maybe a little of Surak remains in him afterall. Wouldn't that be interesting? He finally gets the Vulcan High Command off his back, but now he's got Surak in his head. Maybe it'd be too much like something they did on Babylon 5. Or maybe it'll be the start of Archer getting more interesting. Well, at least I want to see. Electronic Monk, I get your frustration, but why the doom and gloom. I think Enterprise is more interesting now than it's been in a long time. So what if it's the fourth season, better late than never.
Dec. 8, 2004, 3:50 p.m. CST
Archer even looks like Jeffery Sinclair. I knew I'd seen him somewhere before. Unfortunately, don't all the star trek cast members have five year contracts? I guess we're stuck with them.