I’ve only ever seen a handful of Enterprise episodes — it’s syndicated at odd times on Sunday afternoons here, often preempted by football or NASCAR or whatever else the local Fox not-quite-UPN-affiliate decides to show — so I can’t really comment too much on the validity of this argument (discovered through tranquileye). But it’s an interesting read nonetheless:
I have liked certain elements of the show, but it does often feel like an unfortunate step backwards: equal parts nostalgia and revision. I have to wonder whether Trek‘s current ratings are really “astronomical”, and whether The Next Generation was truly as subversive as Minkowitz claims, but she may very well have a point. Part of what made Star Trek special was its inclusiveness, Roddenberry’s (possibly flawed) vision of a future where race and gender were irrelevant and exploration of the galaxy (and ourselves) was all-important.
But, again, I haven’t seen more than maybe six or seven episodes. (The last one I saw, of course, was this one, so I’m somewhat favoring Minkowitz’s opinion at this point.) I’ve always thought that a more interesting Trek series would be one that took place many years after the most recent series, perhaps in a distant future where the Federation has all but collapsed. That way, more attention could be paid to making the familiar seem alien than to making the alien seem threatening.
[And yes, I’ve just realized that the date on Minkowitz’s article is March 7, 2002. I’m not sure that makes her argument any more or less valid, however. From what little I’ve seen — and anyone should feel free to correct me if I’m wrong — Enterprise hasn’t much changed since its first season.]