XPost: alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: alt.fan.tom-servo   
   From: deering1@mindspring.com   
      
   Travers Naran wrote:   
      
   > So what does Enterprise "lack"?  I know people like to bitch about it,   
   > but is there a real consensus on what you want from Enterprise?   
      
   For it to go away. As violently as possible. Oh, you meant   
   seriously . . . g!   
      
      
   > For me, I wish they'd captured the wide-eyed excitement of the early   
   > days of the Federation.  Something that would tap the excitement of   
   > the old Trek.  The sense of really getting into danger.   
      
   Oh, hell, yeah--that excitement was the least this show should   
   have delivered. Come on, how hard a task was this? We're talking   
   people encountering the unknown in environments they are mostly   
   unfamiliar with in situations where _anything_ can happen. They   
   could have opted for a swashbuckling "Tales of the Early   
   Federation" approach, and that would have been better than what   
   they've wound up with.   
      
      
   > The episodes also lacked interesting conflict.  I didn't care about   
   > the characters, so how could I feel "engaged" in their conflicts?  And   
   > their conflicts were pretty mealy-mouthed.  They lacked the edginess   
   > that TOS did, and to a much lesser extent, TNG and DS9.  They don't   
   > even use the old canard of taking today's conflicts and making them   
   > into stories!   
      
   That's because they are too busy taking TOS's 30-year-old   
   conflicts and making _them_ into stories--g!   
      
      
   > Then comes the thing that hurts it the most: Captain Archer.  Could   
   > this guy be anymore wishy-washy?  I like captains that think or have   
   > dobuts, but I also want them to be the embodiment of the old advice:   
   > "In any given situation, the best thing to do is the right thing.  The   
   > 2nd best thing you can do is the wrong thing because doing nothing at   
   > all is the absolutely worse thing you can do."  When they try to write   
   > Archer with a strong will or knowing his own mind, it still comes off   
   > wishy-washy.  I liked Scott Bakula in Quantum Leap, but he's just too   
   > soft for this role.   
      
   Yeah, he comes off more like an ineffectual second mate than a   
   captain. Yeesh, I wasn't a Riker fan by a long shot, but at least   
   he gave some sense of authority and command. This role simply   
   doesn't play to Bakula's strengths because he can't play the type   
   of guy who could convince others to do the impossible on a daily   
   basis. If he gave Archer cunning or sense that he was always an   
   angle ahead or _something_, that would help, but he comes off   
   here as a lummox--principled and decent but a lummox nonetheless.   
      
   C.   
   **   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)