I've watched almost all of the episodes of Enterprise (the newest Star Trek TV series), and have been wildly disappointed in most of them.

Thunderous roar of Applause

I'm glad you're prepared to say something that I have been unable to say so far, for fear of a lynch mob. It seems to criticise this series is to commit sacriledge: I've been watching Star Trek in it's many forms since I was a 7 year old, hiding behind a settee from the monsters, back in 1968. I think I am something of a big fan, and yet - this "back to the roots" series has been pure, untold, disappointment. Why?

Am I being a TOS purist? Am I being a movie monster? Am I being an NG nihilist? Why am I not allowed to say that I found DS 9 to be mystifying crap, and Voyager pure BOOOORRRRREDOMMMMMM? Now hang on, before you all dive in, I have been a science fiction fan (in it's many forms) since I picked up and devoured Heinlein's "Space Cadet" at the library in '68. I have around 2,000 SF novels lining the walls here and elsewhere: I have videos of some of the most impressive SF movies ever made: and yet, whilst I can see they have made an effort with Enterprise, I am disappointed, 'cos they have gone wrong. No one agrees with me.

Consider: the greater majority of the creative crew behind TOS were called back for NG. Although a slow starter, it grew (episodes like "Best of Both Worlds", "Tapestry" and "All Good Things" among others stick out in the mind) and maintained continuity with TOS. DS-9 and V were obvious technological progressions from the first two series, but were not creative progressions. The difference? Rick Berman had become the "Keeper of the Flame" following Roddenberry's death rather than the obvious choices of Harve Bennet/Leonard Nimoy.

With the need for a new franchise series becoming rapidly apparent with creaky viewing figures for DS9 and V, given the increased technological complexity generated by the expansion of the ST universe forced by these two series' need to maintain "backwards compatibility" (visions of DOS and W95 spring to mind here), they took the inevitable choice to reduce the problems of historical and technological complexity by positioning the new series earlier in the chronology of the ST universe. Good idea, bad execution

The breaks in continuity created by the insertion of this series before TOS to me are obvious, and less so to others. Things as simple as bringing the Voyager/DS9 "door chime" noise back to pre TOS times (where it didn't exist) irritates me since it shows no-one either noticed, or could be bothered to check, that this was the case. Although you don't knock on a sliding door in a spaceship, why was no careful thought put into this tiny subtlety, in order to win over existing fans to the fold? The bosun's whistle sound from TOS (used for inter-ship paging) was carefully modified for NG, discarded for DS9 and V, and ignored in Enterprise. Why? If that ship predated TOS, and it was maintained from sea-faring traditions in the TOS period, why not in the "earlier" Enterprise?

I'm sorry: when I first viewed the Enterprise pilot, I really wanted it to be good, I really did. But when I did see it (and the following 8 episodes) I felt overwhelming disappointment that the attention to detail required for this series to accurately predate TOS had not been put in.It's too slick for it's own good: it's hide bound with jargon (a RB/BB characteristic), it uses visual and dialogue shortcuts that rely on the audience's knowledge of the "later" series before they have occurred chronologically. Instead of enjoying the program, I ended up extensively nit-picking it for trivial detail faults (and yet - there were certain details that showed they had put in some effort - the officer's mess, the size of the quarters, other things - that would have "evolved" out of fleet practice by the time of TOS and later movies).

It is my opinion: the producers thought that they were smart by trying to reduce their production problems by stepping back in the chronology of the concept. By doing this, they reasoned that they could "establish" concepts and details without having the "history" of an already established, complex universe to comply to. However, it is my assertion that this reasoning is incorrect since if they were trying to do this, they were therefore establishing the foundation of the very continuity problems they were trying to avoid - every detail, every storyline of every following episode and movie pointed back to the beginning - "Enterprise". It was therefore prevalent on the producers and the creative team to be 10, a 100 times more rigidly constrained by existing "future history" than if they had simply created yet another follow-on series.

Sorry guys (at Paramount). You failed to convince me. You've lost part of your audience...

God knows what they're gonna do for the next movie....