'Star Trek: Enterprise - The Complete First Season' - High-Def Digest Review - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-08-2013, 06:15 PM
Attebery's Avatar
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,716
Default 'Star Trek: Enterprise - The Complete First Season' - High-Def Digest Review

Shanon has reviewed 'Star Trek: Enterprise - The Complete First Season.' This is recommended. Here's why...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/4036/enterprise_s1.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-08-2013, 07:23 PM
gravis778's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,639
Default

Pretty good review.

Quote:
Unlike prior 'Star Trek' series, 'Enterprise' struggled in the ratings almost from its onset
That's not exactly true...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...prise_episodes

http://www.trekcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9355

Each series after TNG held less and less viewers. Looks like the first couple of seasons of Enterprise actually held higher viewership than the last couple of seasons of Voyager. Considering how few markets UPN was in, the ratings aren't horrible, and even by the end of the series, it was getting better ratings than Stargate Universe ever did:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/200...eason-1/34668/

For about half of the shows run, it looks like it did better than Stargate Atlantis did as well:

http://forum.gateworld.net/threads/5...-Ratings-Stats

So yeah, the show didn't bring in the number of viewers as American Idol or something, but the ratings weren't horrible.

Quote:
Additionally, affiliates who did carry the show had to air it at UPN's designated time, unlike syndication, where they could air it at times that were advantageous to their particular market.
I was in college in a small town when Enterprise came out, and it was picked up by my Fox Affiliate. Fox Network programing aired from 7-9PM. Enterprise and Voyager aired at 9. I THINK Enterprise aired on Sundays. That wasn't a bad time slot, and the big screens in the common rooms in the dorms were always tuned to Star Trek when it was on, with the areas usually being packed with people watching. Not sure when other affiliates chose to air, but this time slot worked really well for our Fox station.

Quote:
There was also the simple issue of viewers being "burnt out" on 'Star Trek.'
I think that had more to do with it than anything else. The charts I posted above shows the gradual decline of all the series. I know I didn't have this issue though. Deep Space 9 did not hold any interest with me when it originally aired, and I wasn't impressed with Voyager. When Enterprise came out, I ate it up.

I am now discovering DS9 and Voyager, and am eating that up the way many people are now discovering Enterprise.

I think people who didn't like it when it originally aired may want to give it another chance.

One of the things that disappointed me about the release is that the quality isn't significantly that much higher than Netflix. It's not an issue with the encode, its just an issue that the show wasn't remastered.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-08-2013, 07:34 PM
ShannonNutt's Avatar
HDD Reviewer/Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 651
Default

Thanks for all the info gravis...yeah, I knew Enterprise started off strong and then started to drop, so I was (somewhat) careful about the wording there...I didn't want to imply it was a failure out of the gate, but ratings did steadly drop throughout Season 1.

I remember ENTERPRISE being re-run on the weekends of the original broadcast as well, but I still believe that was a UPN thing...they designated a time on the weekend to re-run it for viewers who didn't catch it during the week. I want to say it was Saturday night, but you may be correct that it was Sunday.

I do think ENTERPRISE would have been a hit had they held off on it for five years or so. It's pointed out on the set that there was a decline in ALL Star Trek viewing, and the studio was well aware that interest was fading. As I mention in passing in my review, Brannon Braga seems overly-apologetic about ENTERPRISE's failings...basically blaming the writing. But you know what, the episodes aren't that bad at all...yeah, there's a few clunkers in there, but nothing truly to be ashamed of, and certainly nothing to apologize about...most of the shows hold up pretty darn well.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-08-2013, 08:26 PM
The_Doctor's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,321
Default

Enterprise is one of the Trek Series I like the best, it had some problems part of it I think was 9/11, cant remember now if Broken Bow was delayed by 9/11 or not, it if wasn't it wasn't it aired right about when TV started to get back to normal after the attacks IMO the show producers scrambles to make it jive with a post 9\11 world, which they needn't have done.

By season 3 & 4 the show was making some memorable additions to Trek lore (with the exception of These are the Voyages...that was just a slap in the face to fans).

I defend the Enterprise a lot when it gets ripped mercilessly, to me it was an enjoyable show. My Dad who is a old school Trek fan actually enjoyed it, we were both looking forward to see how they could tie it in more with the original series.

As it stands with the 2009 reboot Enterprise is the only TV Trek series that still has standing in Trek history.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-08-2013, 08:27 PM
CaptainArcher's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,205
Default

Besides the original series, this is the only trek series I like - and don't get me started on the JJ mess. Looking at it now.. I think Scott Bakula was probably miscast, I just don't think he brought the charisma needed to be a starship captain, still I like him on the show..and besides the modestly weak transfer on blu ray this is a great buy..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-08-2013, 08:38 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1
Default

For the record, there are a couple factual errors the reviewer makes in the review.

Quote:
'Star Trek' series had been on the air for 14 years, with a few seasons where two shows would be running concurrently (for example, 'Enterprise's' first season was also 'Star Trek: Voyager's' final one).
Not quite. Voyager ended in May of 2001. Enterprise premiered the same year, in the fall. TNG and DS9 overlapped, and DS9 and Voyager overlapped, but Enterprise ran alone.

Quote:
While 'Enterprise' was shot on film and then transferred to HD, all the special effects were created standard-def and then upconverted for the original television run.
Quote:
However, it's certainly no worse than, say, 'Firefly', which also suffers from the same special effects issues (created in SD, upgraded to HD) that 'Enterprise' does.
This too is incorrect. Per a number of TrekCore articles, Enterprise had it's effects created in 720p. They WERE upscaled for the 1080p transfer on the Blu-ray, that much is true, but unlike Firefly which did have SD effects, Enterprise at least started with HD effects, albeit 720p.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-08-2013, 10:10 PM
Boston007's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 11,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainArcher View Post
Besides the original series, this is the only trek series I like - and don't get me started on the JJ mess. Looking at it now.. I think Scott Bakula was probably miscast, I just don't think he brought the charisma needed to be a starship captain, still I like him on the show..and besides the modestly weak transfer on blu ray this is a great buy..
Are you serious? He was the BEST thing about the show and I did like Enterprise even though the first season was a bit slow.

He was exactly the type of captain I expected from an early Federation human captain.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-08-2013, 11:15 PM
CaptainArcher's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,205
Default

My faves were always Trip and Phlox. I LIKED Bakula in the show I just don't think he made a great captain.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-08-2013, 11:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 281
Default

I agree that by this time the franchise deserved a break but that is hardly the reason the show tanked. The first episode got high ratings so there was still an audience for Star Trek.The reason why so many Trekkies avoided this show was because the writing was bad. Pure and simple.

We're going back to before Kirk's time so that we can get away from the trappings that bogged down the later series and in the very first episode we're dealing with time travel. If they really wanted to start fresh they should have gotten someone besides Berman and Braga to run it. By this time they had really run out of ideas(more Ferengi, more Borg, more technobabble) and were just repeating themselves.Plus the constant canon violations got annoying eg: Klingon Warbirds, Archer escaping Ura Penta, Deceitful Vulcans.

There were some decent episodes between the first three years but it they were few and far between. By season three they had sunk so low that they began promoting more and more decontamination scenes in order to show more flesh. Didn't work.

For me it didn't get good until Manny Coto took over in Season 4. He finished that stupid Nazi cliffhanger and from then until the finale it was solid programming. We got a lot of solid stories along with revelations we didn't know (section 31,Eugenics Wars, Klingon ridges, a GREAT mirror universe two parter etc.)Then Braga decided to do a "valentine" to the fans with a Next Generation episode which was a slap in the face to the current cast and a reminder to the fans of why Star Trek had sunk as low as it did.

It's a shame too because the cast was good and so was the production design. If only they had gotten someone like Coto from the beginning this would have been a great show. Oh well.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-09-2013, 01:18 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 83
Default

Where do I begin.

1) "Star Trek: Enterprise" did not have a season one. "Enterprise" had a season one, the former title started with season 2.

2) People disliked the show because it retconned the history of Kirk being the first commander of an Enterprise.

3) In addition, the special effects/tech design for Enterprise looked better and more high tech than any Scifi show prior, including all the previous Star Trek series, which all took place later chronologically. There is no way trekkies were going to accept a prequel that didn't look more archaic than TOS, IE, with paper cutout ships that are only shown from one side, bad rotoscoping, etc.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'Star Trek: Enterprise - The Complete Series' - High-Def Digest Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 9 02-09-2017 08:58 AM
'Star Trek: Enterprise - The Complete Fourth Season' - High-Def Digest Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 24 04-28-2014 09:14 AM
'Star Trek: Enterprise - The Complete Third Season' - High-Def Digest Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 13 01-16-2014 01:55 AM
'Star Trek: Enterprise - The Complete Second Season' - High-Def Digest Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 45 08-27-2013 04:55 PM
'Star Trek: Enterprise - The Complete First Season' is coming March 26 eastx Blu-ray Software General Discussion 52 02-26-2013 05:27 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off