gregmalone1 * NO SIGNIFICANT SPOILERS, BUT POSSIBLY SPOILING CHARACTERIZATIONS FOLLOW *For context, I'm a dyed in the wool Star Trek fan. As a child I watched the original series (TOS) when it aired. Years later when it revived with TNG, I was there for every bit of it, and so on down the line with all subsequent Star Trek television and movies. Caveat: I frankly never could get as engaged in DS9, sorry, but I have a rationale. I've even watched the recent first season of Star Trek Discovery, for which I have, to say the least, mixed feelings on a number of levels.My 'trekkie' profile would be characterized as 'moderate' -- I'm a fairly tolerant viewer that expects the franchise to hew reasonably close to established canon, allowing for adventurism in that realm inasmuch as Trek intrinsically allows --- i.e. temporal timelines used to excuse certain deviations, etc. I am not of the rabid variety of fan that criticizes every little detail, but I do hold true to the core canon.Ok, so what is my take on the lineage that Trek has followed over the decades until now? I'll summarize, then elaborate a bit on the Enterprise series.For a very long time I felt, like many, that TNG was the very best of pedigree, for so so many reasons that we all know well. That still holds true in general for me, though as I've rewatched all of the series many times, my thoughts are nuanced and evolved. I eventually became convinced that, for me, Voyager surpassed TNG on a number of levels. Now, I know there are good Trekkies among us that could never get their heads around Janeway -- her femaleness, her voice, whatever. I did not have that issue, and found that, like ALL Trek series, they start off a little green and rough but evolve to fine consistent stories, characters and productions. Voyager earned my highest regards for many many reasons.As I mentioned earlier, DS9, though a high quality production with excellent characters and stories, failed to captivate me by generally not being a space-faring adventure, which I believe is the heart of the franchise. Rather it was mostly rooted to the fixed, dark alien space station. Yes, adding the runabouts and more off-station stories did help me, but I had and still do have difficulty escaping the dark Cardassian space station setting that everything centered on. I have one close friend that has the exact opposite view of DS9 -- for him it was among the best, and he frequently blurts things like "Remember that episode where -insert Cardassian character name- did such and such?" I don't remember those things usually, and I wasn't a big fan of the whole Cardassian story dominance either. My apologies to those that disagree, I respect alternate views on this. I know DS9 was fine work.The movies, I seen them all, a few more than once. A real mixed bag there, spanning decades, but I haven't truly disliked any, and some I've truly loved. Interestingly, I've found the more recent JJ Abrams offerings a refreshing and close-to-canon retake on TOS. By this time, Trek producers have realized their 'poetic license' is tied to exploiting alternate timelines and alternate universes. Which leads me to Discovery.Star Trek Discovery, which I've watched closely, troubles me. Canon is practically in the rubbish bin. That's a huge problem for folk like me. They say the next season will reconcile the canon, so we shall see. I've advised reluctant fans to treat it like interesting science fiction, and drop 'Trek' expectations. I've enjoyed Discovery's different visual styling and the characters. Problem for me, though, is the writing and editing -- which means, the story telling. I found, especially the second half of the season (1), to be rushed, lurching from major (major!) plot point to plot point without nuance or setup, character development out the window, very poor refinement... a bit unnerving and way too perplexing (and not in the good way). I actually feel that the writers and producers of Discovery may *not* real Trek fans (true fans) (too young to have that?), and are throwing all things sacred to the wind in favor of sensationalism. Then in the editing room, it all goes to hell and gets chopped into short rushed "gotta get to the next plot point" chaos. I know there are many that don't see this POV. And though the talents of Jason Isaacs as Lorca shined brightly, the vast depth and available nuance of Michelle Yeoh were completely unrealised, turning her character(s) instead into cardboard cutouts and two-dimensional comic book stereotypes.Now to Enterprise, the original purpose of this writeup. I wanted to establish (my) context regarding the other series first.I've just completed my fourth watch-thru of Enterprise, which includes watching its original airing which had the misfortune of launching just two weeks after the tragic 911 event, playing through Afghanistan and Iraq wars and all the political darkness of that era. Those facts, coupled with awful time-slot scheduling and a few noisy intolerant fans (hard to believe) created a made-to-fail environment for such an optimistic series. We all know that it was canceled after only four seasons, not the usual seven. To drive home the point that America was not in the mood for Star Trek during that dark decade, it would be many many years before another Trek series would even be attempted, that being Discovery now (2018).I'm here to declare that despite all the forces waged against the success of Enterprise, it was, in fact -- at least for me and apparently many others here on IMDB -- the very best of all the Star Trek television series. That's a tall statement given the nobility of TNG, the edge of Voyager, the originality of TOS, and so on.This is not to say that Enterprise didn't have it's seams showing here or there, which every series experienced, BTW. And once it was announced the series wouldn't be renewed, the final season (4) felt at times rushed and perhaps trying to compress too many stories originally planned for seven seasons into one. But don't write off that final season. The stories were quite interesting and well done, and, more than once, I was brought to tears from the drama that gripped me in ways no other Star Trek series has. Every time I've watched the Enterprise series, when it ends with the final episode, I'm speechless, sad, and profoundly reflective of what I've experienced with the series. I can't fully say that about all the other series, though who can ever forget the endings of TNG and Voyager.The standout performances in Enterprise include, number one, Conner Trineer's Charles 'Tripp' Tucker III, Chief Engineer and so much more. Even though outstanding and compelling performances were produced by Bakula/Archer, Blalock/T'Pol and Billingsly/Phlox, Trineer was by far the true heart of what made Enterprise a genuine human drama... bar none. If you know the various events that he was central in throughout the story, you'll agree with me. A supreme and sublime and nuanced actor he is. His character brought me to tears and/or inspired me in ways no other Trek character ever has come close to. That's a big deal. Of the four seasons, Season 3 was by far the most compelling -- the Xindi War. One continuous story thread. The existential threat to humanity was palpable and the performances and storylines were top shelf. Seasons 1 & 2 laid the foundations and spun many fine one-off stories. The final season, I discussed already above... was powerful in the end.In terms of Enterprise's overall story arcs, there are many of value. T'Pol's slow adapatation to being among humans, and the conflict-driven transformation that she could not avoid. Her character provides a continuous case study in what it means to be 'Vulcan' like few other series have provided. The noble, statuesque Archer evolves along similar lines and faces ethical conflicts he'd never imagined, much like Janeway did through her amazing and pointedly dark arc. Bakula's Archer was the anchor of the story, no question, and remained throughout it all a genuine inspiring moral thread. And I was thrilled to hear him referenced in Discovery (!), a true accolade well earned. Though seemingly a secondary character, Billingsly's Dr. Phlox provided astonishingly effective emotional and insightful punctuation to so many of the critical moments in the story, sometimes provided by just a certain look or gesture, or a statement of his perspective on things. The value of Pholx's character and the way he was portrayed cannot be overstated. The other characters. Who doesn't adore and respect Hoshi. She's demure and smart, and the one who saves the day (and humanity!) more than once. Oh my. And Travis Mayweather -- what a rock and strength point in the story. Re: Malcolm Reed, the Tactical Officer, I'm sorry to say, I wasn't a particular fan of his character. Though his character was written to be macho and 'tactically' oriented, he was in fact played as a whiner and emotionally immature person that didn't fit, IMO. His reaction to the addition of the military contingent Makos is a perfect example. Pity his character was so constructed.In the end, Enterprise has a special place in my heart and mind above all the other Trek series. Despite its launch in adverse times and conditions, it was a particularly inspired series, not without seams, but pure and true to its mission. Bravo!
