ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The reason Enterprise died.

brian.beard

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this Jan. 05 2012, 9:11 am

The first three seasons were too damaging to canon. The first season had the Feringi in it for crying out loud. Borg in the second, and the third was just horrid. The fouth season was by far the best, stories that sould have introduced the show were finally told, but by then it was too late. I lay the failure of the show squarely at the feet of Rick Berman and Brannon Baga. Neither, even with the all the producing and writing experience from TNG to VOY. really knew ANYTHING about Star Trek. They were teling stories that would have worked BRILLIANTLY in a post VOY timeline after 2379. But the fans were expecting in the first season what partially showed up in the fourth season. ENT began in 2151, 5 years before the Earth-Romulan war began. Had the show gone 7 seasons, the last two would have encompassed the first two of the war and it would not have made any sence to the shows core, as the Romulans had played almost NO part in the show until season four. All of this along with lackluster support from Paramount AND the low quality of lead in shows and impending failure of UPN, ultimatly lead to the cancellation of the show. The ratings for the fourth season effectivly dubled, however Paramount was in the middle of the Viacom/CBS purchase-merger hoopla. So this was not enough to save the show, or send it into first-run syndicatiion. Each episode was costing upwards of $750,000 to over $1 million dollars to produce, depending on the episodes amount of VFX. But it all comes back to Berman and Braga not understanding what Enterprise was supposed to be about. Introducing two new major races in a prequel and not concentrating on the TOS races and the stories about them was the harbringer that led to the early death of the series.


 


Flame on!


 


(edited for really dumb mistake. teach me to post angry!)

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 05 2012, 9:42 am

The first three seasons were too damaging to canon. The first season had the Feringi in it for crying out loud. Borg in the second, and the third was just horrid.


I agree that the Ferengi episode was ridiculous. But I don't recall them ever identifying their race by name, so it didn't violate continuity (at least, not really).


Same goes for the Borg. They didn't identify themselves, so continuity is safe. And keep in mind that in Generations. the Enterprise-B rescued El-Aurian survivors from their world's assimilation. So either way, Starfleet was well aware of the Borg (though not by name) before "Q Who".


And just because nobody mentioned the Xindi crisis in later series doesn't mean it didn't happen.


ENT began in 2151, 5 years before the Earth-Romulan war began. Had the show gone 7 seasons, the last two would have encompassed the first two of the war and it would not have made any sence to the shows core, as the Romulans had played almost NO part in the show until season four.


What difference does it make whether or not the Romulans made a big impact on the show before the war? Keep in mind that they tried to start two interstellar wars in Earth's region within two months of each other. That is their style, after all.


Introducing two new major races in a prequel and not concentrating on the TOS races and the stories about them was the harbringer that led to the early death of the series.


Um, what about that Andorians and Tellarites? Those are TOS races that didn't even appear in the other series.


And I think the series would have been boring without introducing new major races.


All of this along with lackluster support from Paramount AND the low quality of lead in shows and impending failure of UPN, ultimatly lead to the cancellation of the show. The ratings for the fourth season effectivly dubled, however Paramount was in the middle of the Viacom/CBS purchase-merger hoopla. So this was not enough to save the show, or send it into first-run syndicatiion. Each episode was costing upwards of $750,000 to over $1 million dollars to produce, depending on the episodes amount of VFX. But it all comes back to Brannon and Braga not understanding what Enterprise was supposed to be about.


That, I agree with.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

kree8or

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Jan. 05 2012, 3:00 pm

I really hate when people go on about the "cannon". In fatc it bugs the hell out of me. I really hate to break this to you, but ST ISN'T real. Can't you just accept it for what it is? A fun bit of SCI-FI?

Ghostmojo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1826

Report this Jan. 05 2012, 3:31 pm

Nah. The reason it died was that it was flat-lining anyway. And it didn't deserve resuscitating. It was only ever at very best merely OK. It was never great - it was never possessing of the WOW factor (I must rush out and tell everybody about this). But after four previous iterations (and three of them largely helmed by the same dullards) what could you really expect? It was the baby that nobody really wanted and of course in America it is not the right thing to even consider abortion...

notaclerk

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Jan. 05 2012, 3:44 pm

Well, Harry M Leland created a car and company called Cadillac. He sold it to General Motors. When he wanted to start a NEW car company, he did....and called it 'Lincoln" he did not try and call the new thing Cadillac. You see my point? If they want to start a NEW Sci-Fi show fun to watch  or whatever you said...thats fine there have been many and will be more I am sure.


The problem I think most have Including me, is they went back in time,...to the beginning of the Trek story, and highly publicised the fact that this was before Kirk or the others. They tried to rewrite a history that was already partially known for no more reason than to make a new show off the hard work of others who came before them.


sometime some details have been changed to allow story telling in the multiple movies and rv series. at first people over looked this as did I. But after a point it got a bit out of hand I mean its like retelling the Lord of the Rings but having NO Gandolf or making the Hobbitts Giants.


they should have just started their own show from the jump, I think they would have done well.  



"Titus Pullo's not afraid of any Bastard with a Dog's head on them".

Ghostmojo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1826

Report this Jan. 05 2012, 3:57 pm

Exactly. Not brave enough to create something new and not Trek-connected. At least Roddenberry tried other ideas for shows.

Reedworftripparis

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4166

Report this Jan. 05 2012, 6:27 pm

I think there are largely 3 reasons why Enterprise failed. (And failed is a strange word here, any tv show would be thankful and considered a success after 4 seasons on the air!!!!) First off let me state that when it first came out I was not a fan. Since then I have rediscovered it and completely fell in love with it. So much so that is now my favorite of all Trek. Love the series, love the books. A great collection of characters that never got a real chance.


1. TNG, DS9 and Voyager did not hit their strides until Season 4. Enterprise hit it's stride in Season 4 but a failing UPN network and no one willing to back up an expensive sci fi show did Enterprise in.


2. A lot of fans were upset that it went back in time, I was. I thought they were following in the footsteps of Star Wars. And though I like Star Wars, in my opinion Star Trek is a much better franchise and I took it as a slap in the face as a trekkie to follow Star Wars.


3. I think people were getting a bit tired. After all there was s 20 year gap between TOS and TNG. TNG overlapped with DS9 and DS9 with Voyager. Had UPN or any network for that matter waited 3 or 4 years for a new series, I think it would have done much better. Though the actors may have been different, and I LOVE the actors they picked. I could not think of anyone else playing any of the characters aside from who they picked. 


I have heard it from other fans that their first opinion of Enterprise was not a good one but when they went back and rewatched, they really enjoyed it. 


Archer, T'Pol, Trip, Reed, Travis, Phlox, Hoshi and Porthos. A great crew that should have been given more time.


"Reed Alert, that's not bad"...Malcolm Reed

Ghostmojo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1826

Report this Jan. 06 2012, 12:19 am

The going back in time business didn't worry me. Time is relative and ALL Star Trek is in our future anyway. And - as in Star Wars - there is no reason why any point in time in a huge universe is necessarily going to be more advanced than the same point somewhere else. Star Wars kind of explained that - very futuristic - but in our timeline actually ancient. So the early beginnings of Star Fleet and the creation of the UFP is not a problem with me. They still could have met with civilisations or travellers way in advance of anything that Kirk or Picard encountered.


But there is something wrong with any show if it has to wait for four seasons before it hits its stride. All that means is it has worn you (and your expectations) down to the point where you are desperate for it to improve.


A series has to be good from the word go - not necessarily great - but definitely good. I'm afraid I can't agree with Reedworftripparis above. I did quite enjoy some of it, and bought the first season on DVD. But it is not something I would watch over and over. I got the DVD set because it was cheap and I had missed some of the early shows on TV. The characters are average and with few exceptions not really worthy of further development. It was a concept worn out before it even got going.


It wasn't clever enough; original enough; dynamic enough (something it shared with the dire Voyager); possessed of a great lead character (ditto Voyager again); lacked a sense of purpose; had dreadful uniforms; the daft idea of a dog on board; lacked any chemistry between characters (no Kirk/Spock/McCoy thing); showed desparation by having to have a Vulcan on board; and so on.


Good but could do better. See me after school Berman. 5/10


to boldy go where no man has gone before

Vulcan1981

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Jan. 06 2012, 12:47 am

Quote: Reedworftripparis @ Jan. 05 2012, 6:27 pm

>

>I think there are largely 3 reasons why Enterprise failed. (And failed is a strange word here, any tv show would be thankful and considered a success after 4 seasons on the air!!!!) First off let me state that when it first came out I was not a fan. Since then I have rediscovered it and completely fell in love with it. So much so that is now my favorite of all Trek. Love the series, love the books. A great collection of characters that never got a real chance.

>1. TNG, DS9 and Voyager did not hit their strides until Season 4. Enterprise hit it's stride in Season 4 but a failing UPN network and no one willing to back up an expensive sci fi show did Enterprise in.

>2. A lot of fans were upset that it went back in time, I was. I thought they were following in the footsteps of Star Wars. And though I like Star Wars, in my opinion Star Trek is a much better franchise and I took it as a slap in the face as a trekkie to follow Star Wars.

>3. I think people were getting a bit tired. After all there was s 20 year gap between TOS and TNG. TNG overlapped with DS9 and DS9 with Voyager. Had UPN or any network for that matter waited 3 or 4 years for a new series, I think it would have done much better. Though the actors may have been different, and I LOVE the actors they picked. I could not think of anyone else playing any of the characters aside from who they picked. 

>I have heard it from other fans that their first opinion of Enterprise was not a good one but when they went back and rewatched, they really enjoyed it. 

>Archer, T'Pol, Trip, Reed, Travis, Phlox, Hoshi and Porthos. A great crew that should have been given more time.

>


 


I agree on all your points. I was one of the few people who actually enjoyed it while it was during it's original run. It had a lot of potential and I think most of it had to do with the fact that Trek was getting saturated and some fans were just getting burnt out.


As some said before, yes we saw some familiar aliens, but they were never mentioned by name. Enterprise took advantage of some loopholes, but never actually broke cannon. 


Speaking of the Borg, one original plan for that episode was to show the origin of the Borg Queen, but it was pushed aside. 


Also, most know that the Romulan War was going to be covered in the next season if it continued, but too little too late.


I applaud Enterprise for trying a different direction: seeing a time before the Federation was formed, before prime directive was established, and best of all...we finally get some Andorian love! (Shran was the man)!


It had a great cast, it really did. It could have used some better writing with some episodes, but the actors were great and could only do their best with the material given to them.


Overall, I don't think Enterprise deserves all the flack it was and continues to be given. Many fans shot it down without giving it a chance or only catching a few episodes. The show was getting better as it progressed (especially when they got the new writers not long before being cancelled).


Many friends and even my fiance who shot down ENT through it's original run after I had them watch it on Netflix came to enjoy it. ENT just like TOS has become more appreciated in syndication than during it's original run. My fiance even feels guilty now for not watching it during the original run and said its because of fans like how my fiance and many of our friends were are the reason the show was cancelled.


 


"Comforting words. Use them next time instead of "resistance is futile". You may elicit a few volunteers."- Seven of Nine

T'adam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 103

Report this Jan. 06 2012, 1:00 am

I absolutely loved Enterprise.  I dont have any real reasons why i thought it died.  I did begin to lose interest in Season 3, and I didnt enjoy the relationship between Tripp and T'Pol.  Its then that I began to lose interest


 

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 06 2012, 8:11 am

But there is something wrong with any show if it has to wait for four seasons before it hits its stride. All that means is it has worn you (and your expectations) down to the point where you are desperate for it to improve.


Wasn't that the case with TNG as well?


It wasn't clever enough; original enough; dynamic enough (something it shared with the dire Voyager); possessed of a great lead character (ditto Voyager again); lacked a sense of purpose; had dreadful uniforms; the daft idea of a dog on board; lacked any chemistry between characters (no Kirk/Spock/McCoy thing); showed desparation by having to have a Vulcan on board; and so on.


What? Are you suggesting the show would have been better without T'Pol? She was one of the best characters!


I thought the uniforms were okay. Nothing wrong with Porthos; he only showed up in a few episodes, and most of the time he was just eye candy.


And they did have a Kirk/Spock/McCoy thing - Archer, T'Pol and Trip. That was their intention, anyway; I guess it's up to the viewer to say whether it was successful.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Ghostmojo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1826

Report this Jan. 06 2012, 11:44 am

But there is something wrong with any show if it has to wait for four seasons before it hits its stride. All that means is it has worn you (and your expectations) down to the point where you are desperate for it to improve.


Wasn't that the case with TNG as well?


No, I don't think so really. TNG was good from the start - not great - which it did eventually become. So being good and then becoming great is the way to go (if you can't be great from the kick-off like TOS). But starting off lame and then slowly becoming OK is not good enough for me ...


It wasn't clever enough; original enough; dynamic enough (something it shared with the dire Voyager); possessed of a great lead character (ditto Voyager again); lacked a sense of purpose; had dreadful uniforms; the daft idea of a dog on board; lacked any chemistry between characters (no Kirk/Spock/McCoy thing); showed desparation by having to have a Vulcan on board; and so on.


What? Are you suggesting the show would have been better without T'Pol? She was one of the best characters!


Not necessarily - but the fallback into having to have a Vulcan was predictable. Miss Blalock could have played a sexy blue Andorian instead? ...


I thought the uniforms were okay. Nothing wrong with Porthos; he only showed up in a few episodes, and most of the time he was just eye candy.


Well fair enough. They looked like maintenance uniforms that were left over from Babylon 5 (bought on eBay) to me ...


And they did have a Kirk/Spock/McCoy thing - Archer, T'Pol and Trip. That was their intention, anyway; I guess it's up to the viewer to say whether it was successful.


Perhaps - but I'd go with the latter because it never really struck me that way ...


What would have been really brave would have been to have sexed it up a bit. I know mainstream US TV doesn't work that way (which is a pity) but had they gone for a steamy late night version of Trek showing some actual Trip/T'Pol bonking - and perhaps she could have been the Lois Griffin of Enterprise and shagged her way around the whole crew (Hoshi included) - then we might have had something worth talking about and remembering!!!


You may never have heard of Flesh Gordon which was a porno version of Flash Gordon (obviously). I'm not suggesting it went that far, but had it been more like an HBO show then it might have been really cool - lot's a fairly explicit sex and bloody violence - groundbreaking Trek or what? Now that would have been a really original, worthy, dynamic and very interesting Enterprise.


Of course not all the fan base would have been able to watch it - but they could have produced a de-sexed, cleaner and less gory version for the under 18s ...


to boldy go where no man has gone before

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 06 2012, 12:45 pm

Quote: Ghostmojo @ Jan. 06 2012, 11:44 am

>

>What would have been really brave would have been to have sexed it up a bit. I know mainstream US TV doesn't work that way (which is a pity) but had they gone for a steamy late night version of Trek showing some actual Trip/T'Pol bonking - and perhaps she could have been the Lois Griffin of Enterprise and shagged her way around the whole crew (Hoshi included) - then we might have had something worth talking about and remembering!!!

>You may never have heard of Flesh Gordon which was a porno version of Flash Gordon (obviously). I'm not suggesting it went that far, but had it been more like an HBO show then it might have been really cool - lot's a fairly explicit sex and bloody violence - groundbreaking Trek or what? Now that would have been a really original, worthy, dynamic and very interesting Enterprise.

>Of course not all the fan base would have been able to watch it - but they could have produced a de-sexed, cleaner and less gory version for the under 18s ...

>


I hope you're joking. Seriously, there's absolutely NO CONCEIVABLE EXCUSE for making Star Trek a porn show. There's enough of those already.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Vulcan1981

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Jan. 06 2012, 1:17 pm

Quote: T'adam @ Jan. 06 2012, 1:00 am

>

>I absolutely loved Enterprise.  I dont have any real reasons why i thought it died.  I did begin to lose interest in Season 3, and I didnt enjoy the relationship between Tripp and T'Pol.  Its then that I began to lose interest

>


 


I actually loved their relationship. My friend wanter Archer and T'Pol...I was like no. The time travel episode I giggled, wasn't the best but had good memoments and if you're a Quantum Leap fan, doesn't Archer's jacket look very similar to Bckett's?  Easter Egg!


"Comforting words. Use them next time instead of "resistance is futile". You may elicit a few volunteers."- Seven of Nine

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 06 2012, 1:35 pm

Quote: Vulcan1981 @ Jan. 06 2012, 1:17 pm

>

>I actually loved their relationship. My friend wanter Archer and T'Pol...I was like no. The time travel episode I giggled, wasn't the best but had good memoments and if you're a Quantum Leap fan, doesn't Archer's jacket look very similar to Bckett's?  Easter Egg!

>


Which time travel episode? There were at least five.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum