Enterprise Review – “Horizon”

And they say you can never go home again…

Enterprise LogoHorizon

 

Cast & Crew

Director: James A. Contner
Written By: Andre Bormanis

Starring
Scott Bakula as Captain
Jonathan Archer
Connor Trinneer as Chief
Engineer Charles "Trip" Tucker III
Jolene Blalock as Sub-commander
T’Pol
Dominic Keating as Lt.
Malcolm Reed
Anthony Montgomery
as Ensign Travis Mayweather
Linda Park as Ensign Hoshi
Sato
John Billingsley
as Dr. Phlox

Guest Cast
Corey Mendell Parker as Paul Mayweather
Nicole Forester as Nora
Adam Paul as Nichols
Joan Pringle as Rianna Mayweather
Philip Anthony-Rodriguez as Juan
Ken Feinberg as Alien Captain

Airdate Information

Originally Aired: April 16, 2003
Season: Two
Episode: Twenty-One
Production: 046

This Week on EnterpriseWhat Happened

When Enterprise reverses course to go investigate a planetary phenomenon, Ensign Mayweather takes the opportunity to visit the cargo ship where he was born and raised, the E.C.S. Horizon. But his father, the ship’s captain, just recently died, and Travis finds that things at home haven’t been the same since.

Review

I should go back and count the number of times I’ve had to say "At least it didn’t completely suck," or something like that, because I know I’ve had to say it a lot over the past few years.

In truth the episode does build upon Travis’ character, but this episode would have probably fit better within the first season and not the second. Sadly, we’re just not interested in him at this stage, nor does the storyline draw you into him any more.

One nice bit was Archer’s lead-in as to why he didn’t join the Cargo fleet. My guess is that’s covered later this season by "First Flight" (May 14th).

High Point

The last Frankenstein discussion. Training video, ha!

Low Point

Travis and Paul’s scene in the cargo bay, arguing over command policies. Poorly acted and whiney.

The Scores

Originality: Problems with the folks at home isn’t anything new. These stories are meant to flesh out the character’s past. 3 out of 6.

Effects: Good work, but nothing spectacular save for the melting planet. 4 out of 6.

Story: Not really sharp, but adequate. 3 out of 6.

Acting: Probably the worst aspect of the episode. Most of the guest cast seems wooden and uninteresting. 3 out of 6.

Emotional Response: There are some laughs to be had at T’Pol’s expense. 4 out of 6.

Production: Cool it’s the Defiant, er Equinox, er Fortunate, er Horizon bridge. 3 out of 6

Overall: This is what baseline for the series should be. 4 out of 6.

Total: 24 out of 42

Episode Media

From StarTrek.com

Next Time on Enterprise (April 23, 2003)

Next Time on EnterpriseThe Breach

Enterprise is asked to evacuate a group of Denobulan geologists from a world that has been taken over by a militant faction, and since they are located deep underground, the effort requires some treacherous spelunking by the rescue team. Meanwhile Phlox faces a dilemma when another evacuee, an Antaran afflicted with a fatal dose of radiation, refuses to be treated by a Denobulan because of very old bad blood between the two races.

Additional Notes and Comments

If you’re interested in what’s in the review queue, check out my What’s Coming page.

TheAngrymob

22 replies on “Enterprise Review – “Horizon””

  1. GusherJizmac says:

    The ending was just lame
    Why does every story have to wrap up on a happy note? There can be _resolution_ without the cliche-happy-ending. Here are the two endings I would’ve found acceptable:

    • Travis stays on board, and we have subplots for the next few weeks of him helping out on the ship. Enterprise picks him back up when they head home to deal with the Borg or whoever is “threatening the Earth for the first time”
    • Travis and his brother don’t reconcile and they leave on bad terms. Possibly because Travis screws up with the aliens and makes enemies out of them, too. Then, they can show up later, recognize him and get pissed

    Either way, we can an arc that is interesting, but not confusing to newcomers, and we give Travis some depth. God knows he needs some. He should be the most interesting character on the show, aside from Phlox and T’Pol (them being the only non-landlubber-humans on the crew that we know of).

    When things are left a little uncomfortable like that, I think people will tend to want to tune in again. I mean, it ain’t rocket science. Why is 24 so popular?

    • theangrymob says:

      Re: The ending was just lame

      When things are left a little uncomfortable like that, I think people will tend to want to tune in again. I mean, it ain’t rocket science. Why is 24 so popular?

      That’s a good point. DS9 always got crap for being serialized, as have other shows. Perhaps ’24’ debunks this idea as a misconception. My understanding is that several of the edgier new series (The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc.) are also serialized. Hell, look at soap operas. They’ve got a fan base that makes Sci-Fi’s look downright puny.

  2. PerlStalker says:

    Missed it

    I missed this week’s show because the Avalanche where
    running rough shod over the Wild. The thing is, I’m not really
    that depressed. The Avs game was good and it sounds like
    this episode sucked. I know! Let’s let each of the Avs body
    check B&B :-)

  3. neuronbob says:

    Do people still watch Enterprise?
    As much of a Trek fan as I am, I’ve given up on the show for the season.
    The acting is lame, the stories insipid, and this episode is only the latest
    example. I’ve been watching TNG and TOS DVDs to cleanse myself.

    I’m so disappointed..the first season was so promising, and the second
    has just blown chunks so far.

    • Boglin says:

      Re: Do people still watch Enterprise?

      The acting is lame … I’ve been watching TNG and TOS DVDs to cleanse myself.

      Ok, nothing personal, but I always get a kick out of it when someone complains about the acting quality on Star Trek and then longs for TOS, the series which brought us William Shatner, Chekov’s accent, and William Shatner . However, I do agree that the franchise seems to have made a shift from over-acting to under-acting, which is less fun.

      • Kaki says:

        Ditto

        Ok, nothing personal, but I always get a kick out of it when someone complains about the acting quality on Star Trek and then longs for TOS…

        Same here. I can watch maybe 2 or 3 of the best episodes before the urge to berate the characters for stupid decisions and such wins out in me. Knock that down to about half an episode if it is just some random one.

        That feeling, of wishing I could slap some sense into some character, is one that Enterprise inspires all too often. “Horizon” would have been 100 times better with a gritty, much less than happy ending. Something that would have wiped the goofy smile off Mayweather’s face for the rest of the series. Is living in space ever going to be shown as hard, dangerous work on Enterprise? Or is it always going to be “just conjure up more power for that popgun to make it a deathray and reduce the scary bad guys to morons so we can all go watch a movie.”

        I was so hoping that the freighter bridge would have some fundamentally different feel to it than the star fleet standard operating procedure. Something to reflect the idea that the crew is smaller and more connected. Maybe something more like a ship-wide vote for decisions that don’t need making in the next 30 seconds. Oh well, I’m used to Enterprise disappointing me even when it doesn’t suck super, super hard.

      • neuronbob says:

        Re: Do people still watch Enterprise?

        Ok, nothing personal, but I always get a kick out of it when someone
        complains about the acting quality on Star Trek and then longs for TOS,
        the series which brought us William Shatner, Chekov’s accent, and
        William Shatner . However, I do agree that the franchise seems to have
        made a shift from over-acting to under-acting, which is less fun.

        No offense taken. :) I have tried sooo hard not to be one of those
        people you mention. I think that this season is full of simply horrible
        acting. I don’t feel connected to any character other than Archer and
        T’Pol, who are really the only ones who are fleshed out. I simply didn’t
        have as many of these complaints with Voyager (took me until the 3rd
        season to grok it) or with DS9 (the dark mood was the hook for me!). I
        hope that the show turns around for next season. After all, it did take
        both Voyager and DS9 at least that long to gather a following…

  4. ColoradoPotatoBeetle says:

    I saw it.
    Can’t buy into the crew sitting together to watch a movie. It is just so MASH. I can’t offer an alternative.

    Obviously it wasn’t a date. Strange word to use. Why not just order her to go in a friendly way.

    The battle scene with the separation was lame. Didn’t they learn from Farpoint. Docking and undocking the damn saucer section is painful.

    Was the final rendezvous scene with the freighter off a bit. I’ll watch it again this weekend, but Merryweather cycles out of the airlock after they show the freighter leaving. I’d think it would take longer to undock than cycle though the air-lock.

    • TechnoGirl says:

      Enterprise STILL sucks !
      >Can’t buy into the crew sitting together to watch a movie.

      What *I* can’t buy is the following:
      1. With all the great entertainment out there the crew spends it’s free time watching a "B" movie from two centuries ago ?? WTF !

      2. Enterprise takes place some 150 years from now right?? Well how many plays books whatever do *you* spend your time reading, eatching whatever from the late 1700’s ?? What?? The state of entertainment in the 22rd century is so flipping BAD that there’s nothing to watch from like the past 50 years??? Well if hacks like Berman and Braga were in charge maybe I could believe but other then that …..

      What’s happenning here is that B&B are pandering to what *they think of as the Beanie wearing "scifi" crowd. Heaven forbid that B&B should make a reference to "Citizen Kane" ….nooo their idea of what we can relate to is… "Bride of Frankenstein". Ohh get flipping real.

      • GusherJizmac says:

        Re: Enterprise STILL sucks !
        Yeah, no kidding. They should at least be watching Star Wars! Or a show exactly like Star Trek :)

        And, did anyone think that the the freighter interiors were EXACTLY like enterprise? I mean, the mess hall had the same furniture!!!

      • scharkalvin says:

        Re: Enterprise STILL sucks !

        >Can’t buy into the crew sitting together to watch a movie.

        What *I* can’t buy is the following:
        1. With all the great entertainment out there the crew spends it’s free time watching a “B” movie from two centuries ago ?? WTF !

        2. Enterprise takes place some 150 years from now right?? Well how many plays books whatever do *you* spend your time reading, eatching whatever from the late 1700’s ?? What?? The state of entertainment in the 22rd century is so flipping BAD that there’s nothing to watch from like the past 50 years??? Well if hacks like Berman and Braga were in charge maybe I could believe but other then that …..

        What’s happenning here is that B&B are pandering to what *they think of as the Beanie wearing “scifi” crowd. Heaven forbid that B&B should make a reference to “Citizen Kane” ….nooo their idea of what we can relate to is… “Bride of Frankenstein”. Ohh get flipping real.

        Oh come on! Frankenstein is a classic, and will remain so even 150 years into the future. Look we still listen to music from MORE than 150 years ago. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. Wanna bet in 150 years music of the Beatles will still be popular? Shakespeare wrote his plays more than 150 years ago, and they are STILL being produced today. What about Homer? Need any more examples? Or maybe you just lack culture?
        Could B&B picked something better? Maybe, but the choice did seem right for Capt. Archer. For J. L. Picard something more ‘highbrow’ was necessary.

        • TechnoGirl says:

          Re: Enterprise STILL sucks !
          >Oh come on! Frankenstein is a classic, and will remain so
          >even 150 years into the future.

          The *novel* is a classic my very young friend. The *movie* is a low quality "B" (at best). People don’t even watch the movie *now* (save on MST 2000) let alone 150 years from now. When’s the last time Frankenstein played at your local theater? …uhhh huh…

          > Look we still listen to music from MORE than 150 years >ago. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc.

          There’s a bit of a difference between a work by "Bach, Beethoven, Mozart" and "Abbott and Costello Meet Franenstein". The reason that you did not immidiatelt perceive this is because you do not listen to much Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. Which is my point exactly….

          > Need any more examples? Or maybe you just lack culture?

          There was a movie meant explicitely for you calked "Jay Silent Bob Strike Back". Methinks the only significant culture you may have aquired during your obviously very short lifetime has been via an infection.

          • scharkalvin says:

            Re: Enterprise STILL sucks !


            >>Oh come on! Frankenstein is a classic, and will remain so even 150 years into the future.
            >The *novel* is a classic my very young friend. The *movie* is a low quality “B” (at best). People don’t even watch the movie *now* (save on MST 2000) let alone 150 years from now. When’s the last time Frankenstein played at your local theater? …uhhh huh…


            I suspect some Film Festivials might still show Frankenstein, but it would never make any money down at the local theatre, so your point there is correct. Don’t compare Frankenstein with Abbott and Costello please! The first was a milestone (as was King Kong for that matter) even if it was a ‘B’ movie. A film doesn’t actually have to be oscar material to be a classic. It can be a ground breaker going where no one has gone before.


            >>Look we still listen to music from MORE than 150 years ago.
            >>Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc.

            >There’s a bit of a difference between a work by “Bach, Beethoven, Mozart” and “Abbott and Costello Meet Franenstein”. The reason that you did not immidiatelt perceive this is because you do not listen to much Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. Which is my point exactly….

            As a matter of fact the local rock and rap stations get NO air time on my radio, which is glued to the ONLY classical radio station in this area. Also I remember watching TOS first run, so who is the youngster? OK no more flames!

            I suppose we can only guess who stocked the Enterprises media closet. B&B havn’t exactly blessed our crewmembers with high brow tastes, this is not the NG crew. I doubt the next movie night will feature ‘Gone with the Wind’ for example.

        • Babbster says:

          Re: Enterprise STILL sucks !
          Personally, I think it’s a good idea to avoid that kind of reference entirely. It doesn’t help suspend any disbelief when they’re making such direct references to [our] current popular culture. DS9, a show i enjoyed quite a lot (as opposed to Enterprise which I gave up on some time ago), did a good job with the culture. While they might make some references to earth culture, most of the time when they went for music or books they did it with something non-human (like that sweet, sweet Klingon opera).

          Now, I understand that this is a ship full of earth people, but why show them going to a movie at all? Does it advance the plot or enhance the quality of the characterization? I don’t think so. Showing the crew watching an old movie once can be amusing (the Phlox date) and give you some insight into life on the ship. Continuing to go back to it shows that the writers can’t come up with anything better.

          I probably have no standing since I quit on the show some time ago (reading what’s written here helps reaffirm my commitment not to watch and allows me the chance to see if they might be turning it around), but that’s my feeling on the subject.

      • fiziko says:

        Re: Enterprise STILL sucks !

        With all the great entertainment out there the crew spends it’s free time watching a “B” movie from two centuries ago ??

        While I’ve been known to get a kick out of watching Frankenstein, the idea that all of the movies they’ve picked have been from the 20th century does strain credibility. If, however, they write an episode that mentions that traditional movie technology was supplanted by something that Enterprise wasn’t equipped to play, then it might work. It would, of course, require explaining why they are equipped to handle something so archaic. (I imagine it as a ship still not designed for any recreation, so they’ve been borrowing some individual crewperson’s personal property, and are restricted to that person’s tastes.)

        That said, there were a few things to like about this episode. I like the rough warp jump on the old ship, which shows some fallibility and some progress. I like T’Pol’s interpretation of Frankenstein, although I’m not thrilled with the way Archer and Trip reacted to it. (That was, after all, Mary Shelley’s intent. We already know T’Pol did enough research to know it was a movie. It’s not at all unreasonable to assume she knows Shelley’s intention, and was delivering the answer she felt would be the accepted one.)

        Of course, there are other nits I feel compelled to pick. I don’t see massive improvements being made in a ship that old. (Updating drivers won’t get Windows 95 to run on an 8088, after all. Not that it really runs on any machine..>) I was particularly unimpressed with Mayweather saying he’s “never been better” mere days after learning his father is dead.

        I’ve already moved from watching the series on Wednesday (or even Tuesday) nights into watching it on the weekends if it’s convenient. I’ll ride out this season, but if WB puts something halfway interesting in the now vacant Dawson’s Creek timeslot before Angel, I may never watch Enterprise again.

      • GrimSean says:

        Re: Enterprise STILL sucks !

        What *I* can’t buy is the following:
        1. With all the great entertainment out there the crew spends it’s free time watching a “B” movie from two centuries ago ?? WTF

        ….

        What’s happenning here is that B&B are pandering to what *they think of as the Beanie wearing “scifi” crowd. Heaven forbid that B&B should make a reference to “Citizen Kane” ….nooo their idea of what we can relate to is… “Bride of Frankenstein”. Ohh get flipping real.

        I’m sitting here watching this right now, and it’s occurred to me why they are showing Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein and Son of Frankenstein, and I’m surprised that it hasn’t been realized before now, as it’s rather obvious when you think about it. Now I’m not sticking up for B&B, but I think this has less to do with their “pandering” and more to do with licensing – Universal made those classic monster movies, so it’s a heck of a lot easier for them to use those (not to mention cheaper), rather than make something new up from scratch.

  5. rickyjames says:

    Firefly vs.Enterprise Ratings Comparison
    Current weekly ratings for last three weeks of fresh Enterprise:

    Canamar: 2.8 final, 4.5 million viewers

    The Crossing: 2.6 final, 3.8 million viewers

    Judgement: 2.5 final, 3.7 million viewers

    http://mvrojo.tripod.com/entratings.htm



    VS.



    Last year’s weekly ratings for Firefly:

    *War Stories*: 2.4 final, 3.9 million viewers

    *Objects in Space*: 2.6 final, 4.1 million viewers

    and *Serenity*: 2.7 final, 4.2 million viewers

    http://www.thefutoncritic.com/cgi/gofuton.cgi?select=&id=firefly&season=20022003&action=tracker

    • TechnoGirl says:

      Re: Firefly vs.Enterprise Ratings Comparison
      Interesting Stats comparison! Says it all I believe … I think Firefly stood a reasonable chance of putting Enterprise in the grave by drawing away it’s user base to something actually entertaining.

      Rick Berman needs to be put out to pasture … preferably in one with lots of manure.

      • fiziko says:

        Re: Firefly vs.Enterprise Ratings Comparison

        Interesting Stats comparison! Says it all I believe … I think Firefly stood a reasonable chance of putting Enterprise in the grave by drawing away it’s user base to something actually entertaining.

        I’m currently trying to track down a mailing address for the WB so I can send them an actual paper letter describing why I think they should put new episodes of Firefly in the lead-in slot to Angel, head-to-head with Enterprise. If anyone knows what that mailing address is or where to get it, I’d love to hear about it.

        • TechnoGirl says:

          Re: Firefly vs.Enterprise Ratings Comparison

          I’m currently trying to track down a mailing address for the WB so I can send them an actual paper letter

          Go to Google and type in “Save Firefly”…Ta Daaa!

        • Babbster says:

          Re: Firefly vs.Enterprise Ratings Comparison

          I’m currently trying to track down a mailing address for the WB so I can send them an actual paper letter describing why I think they should put new episodes of Firefly in the lead-in slot to Angel, head-to-head with Enterprise. If anyone knows what that mailing address is or where to get it, I’d love to hear about it.

          Look what I found! http://www.adinternational.org/ADItvnetworks.html

          I do believe that was what you’re looking for.

  6. is says:

    Not a bad episode
    Before all you Enterprise haters flame for the title to this post let me say that I’d much rather see a character get some attention with a slow plot then to see B&B break the timeline or ruin my view of Klingons.

    There certainly was problems with this episode, but it was better than some others. I thought the old ship’s lack of ability was cool, but the set itself was pretty lousy. After watching every episode, you’d think B&B would realize that we would see that they are reusing the set and try to cover it up more.

    The movie issue I think is a pretty stupid thing to complain about for one major reason. If you were an astronaut on a ship to mars in 2015, you’d probably have movies and various forms of entertainment. I’d equate this to crew members bringing along their DVD collection. People collect and watch movies like this, I know I have a classic or two. It really happens. I bet they’d have newer stuff as well, but it’s not a bad choice of movies. it also seems like one form of entertainment they might enjoy. If I was a crew member, I’d certainly want to veg in the mess hall on occasion and watch an episode of futurama. The whole crew didn’t appear to be there, so I’d assume that some people just didn’t want to watch it.
    The only thing about the movie that that I see as negative is this: the whole movie section of the plot is just an excuse to waste time because the writers aren’t clever enough to fill it in with real plot.

    I thought Mayweather’s brother was pretty realistic. I’ve seen newbies and regular joe’s be put in positions of authority and this kind of crap happens a lot. The instinct to survive is there and the feeling that you gotta prove yourself. It seemed like something that could happen especially since the guy’s dad just died.
    I did find the “upgrades” to be a bit stupid. Mayweather isn’t even an engineer. I find it hard to believe that he could do half of that stuff, and so quickly to an old piece of crap like that.

    Overall, I think the episode was average, but certainly better than others. It wasn’t a total waste because we at elast know more about Mayweather.

Comments are closed.