Star Trek: Enterprise Season 1 Blu-ray March 26, 2013 Review

[Disciple of Vedder]

Originally Posted by troysayshi

That last episode was an absolute abomination no doubting that, however the rest of the season was fine.

Agreed, it was incredibly bad. Jolene Blalock was correct when she called it "appalling."

[Lope de Aguirre]

Originally Posted by adamclark83

Hoshi on Blu-ray. EXCELLENT!!!!

Yeah, looking forward to Empress Sato in 1080p.

But that aside. I really like ENT, especially the first 2 seasons.
But also Season 3+4 have some of the series' best episodes.

[Aristide Massaccesi]

This is great news, have been looking forward to watching ENT on blu for a long time.

[Tns49]

Since the series live shots were all 1080p24 (somtimes film, later in video). I would expect it to be shown that way even though the SFX may have been in 720p. It has been widely shown as 1080i on several networks notably HDNET.

[Greengoblin]

I was hoping it was Voyager but i will buy this anyway as it at least has Scott Bakula and i like him.

[d514]

Originally Posted by singhcr

The show was shot on 35mm film until the last season as I recall, so if the negatives are used it should look great. I don't know how the FX scenes were captured though.

Originally Posted by Tns49

Since the series live shots were all 1080p24 (somtimes film, later in video). I would expect it to be shown that way even though the SFX may have been in 720p. It has been widely shown as 1080i on several networks notably HDNET.

Season 1-3 were shot on 35mm, Season 4 was shot in 1080p.
BUT ALL post processing for all seasons was done in 1080p with CGI probably in 720p.

I don't think they will scan the negatives for the first three seasons again because effects like phasers etc. would have to be done again, like TNG.

The first season aired in 2001/2002. We all know how HD masters from that time can look on Blu-ray. Negative scanning improved a lot in the last 10 years. So even the real life scenes will probably not look as good as the ones in TNG.

Not saying that I won't buy the show on Blu-ray, but I'm not so sure the quality will be as good as a lot of people think.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Sons Of Sparda

Did not care for the last season. Especially the last episode. Use to watch it every week.

I'll give you the last episode, but so much of that last season represented, IMnotsohumbleO, some of the best TREK we'd had in nearly ten years, and bested virtually anything VOYAGER ever had to offer (which, I might add, is what the first two seasons of ENTERPRISE felt like...just more "going through the motions" VOYAGER writing). I still consider it almost too tragic to accept that ENTERPRISE was cut short right when it was really beginning to soar.

[Lope de Aguirre]

Originally Posted by d514

BUT ALL post processing for all seasons was done in 1080p with CGI probably in 720p.

The first season aired in 2001/2002. We all know how HD masters from that time can look on Blu-ray. Negative scanning improved a lot in the last 10 years. So even the real life scenes will probably not look as good as the ones in TNG.

I haven't thought about that.
But I hope it will look awesome nonetheless.

Are there any other 1080p TV shows from that time?
I mean "Firefly" probably used 1080p masters from 2002, didn't they?
And even "Battlestar Galactica" is from 2004...

[eddievanhalen]

I don't think Battlestar Galactica is a good example of how an HD show looks, good or bad, as it has this gritty and grainy look which was an estylistic decision.
On the other hand, the FX on Stargate Atlantis look soft on BD, regardless the resolution they were rendered.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by wormraper

enterprise was shot in HD, DS9 was shot like TNG, so muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch less work to toss it on blu-ray than DS9... + don't underestimate trekkies, the ratings for Enterprise weren't that good but on home video it did extremely well

Yes and at the time 1/2 of the country was able to get UPN on cable , so yeah you would get low ratings!! Not one of Paramounts greatists ideas. But watching the dvd's the show was better then people think.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Disciple of Vedder

Agreed, it was incredibly bad. Jolene Blalock was correct when she called it "appalling."

And in interviews even Rick Berman said looking back on it, it was a bad idea.
I think it was one last a temp to save the show.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Disciple of Vedder

Easily my least favorite of the Trek series, but still most likely a Day One purchase for me (if the price is right). Season 1 was by far the worst of the 4, IMHO. I'll look forward to revisiting the show in HD since I was stuck with SD when it originally aired.

It depends on who you are, i thought season 1 was ok.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

Yes and at the time 1/2 of the country was able to get UPN on cable , so yeah you would get low ratings!! Not one of Paramounts greatists ideas. But watching the dvd's the show was better then people think.

Don't remind me of UPN as I hated that network. The local UPN station would trump scheduled broadcasts of new episodes with local or regional programming and eventually became so frequent the station was just unwatchable. You never knew when they would switch to local content and quite frequently it would be in the middle of scheduled programmings.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

I'll give you the last episode, but so much of that last season represented, IMnotsohumbleO, some of the best TREK we'd had in nearly ten years, and bested virtually anything VOYAGER ever had to offer (which, I might add, is what the first two seasons of ENTERPRISE felt like...just more "going through the motions" VOYAGER writing). I still consider it almost too tragic to accept that ENTERPRISE was cut short right when it was really beginning to soar.

You have UPN to thank for that. There were rumors at the time that CBS was interested in picking up the show for a season 5. But thats never been confirmed. Funny All UPN said was ''Star trek is tired, it needs a rest''. Then not even a year later started talking about a Star trek movie!! geez!!

[jfh]

Day 1 purchase for me. I was on the Bridge during set tours in two different seasons and have been looking forward to a Blu ray release for a long time.

The Xindi were pretty easy to find, as the council chamber was through a hatch door at the end of a corridor on the Enterprise

[cartman781]

I would prefer Voyager but still nice to see

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

In comparison, recent shows like Battlestar Galactica VFX were rendered in 720p, and Stargate: Atlantis VFX were rendered in 480p, and were both up-scaled to 1080p, and both look fine. So, this shouldn't be that big of a deal.

All this "1080p is too sharp" is hogwash.

You think they render film VFX in sub-HD resolutions to keep them looking "not too sharp"? Hell no. VFX is rendered in 2k and now 4k on a regular basis.

Simple answer is: it's too expensive. VFX only looks too sharp if it's not integrated into the existing footage properly. That takes additional time, and we all know time is money.

Iron Sky doesn't apply since it's an independent production and not post-produced like Hollywood.

[Whirlygig]

^^^ I was thinking the same thing as I read a lot of this thread & related articles. If you render something and it looks "too sharp", I think that means you haven't layered enough lighting/atmospheric effects/artificial grain/whatever over it yet (either before or after the render). Which as you said takes more time than just running the render again.

[KenHurd]

I'm making my way through all the Star Trek series for the first time with these Blu-ray releases. Would I need to see the other shows before watching Enterprise?

[aimforsilence]

Originally Posted by KenHurd

I'm making my way through all the Star Trek series for the first time with these Blu-ray releases. Would I need to see the other shows before watching Enterprise?

Enterprise takes place before The original series. so no.