And released in 1987. Would Trip be more controversial for being thought too similar to McCoy (as happened with Pulaski) or, especially with Archer being somewhat like Kirk, would that similarity be widely accepted? And do you think the fans would react more or less negatively to the Vulcans generally playing an antagonistic role to Starfleet/humans going into deep space?
I think Trip is far enough away in field and age that you could kind of get away with it. Archer was too wishy washy to compare to Kirk i.m.o and I think the whole holding us back angle could have worked from the Vulcans with the right writers. In fact I think one of the biggest complaints would be having Vulcans at all. I suspect T'pol would have become Andorian or Shran would have become involved a lot earlier. Perhaps they would have taken the Vulcans place as our baby sitters.
Trying to decide which actress he'd make his next mistress? Apart from being from the South, what are the similarities between them? I think for Roddenberry Vulcans were a one trick pony and he wanted to get away from them. If Nimoy had not returned for TMP, I have a hard time thinking he would have even created a role for them. ENT is in many ways a sequel to First Contact, not a prequel to TOS, if not moreso. Roddenberry never would have made First Contact as it was.
ENT would have been very different had it been released in 1987. To compare it in any way to the actual ENT show would be folly, because ENT was influenced by the three sequel series and several of the TNG movies that came before it.
Where to take STAR TREK after TOS? The very first spinoff, if it had to be a spinoff and NOT a reboot (my preference), has to be moving foreward. A prequel would seem to be going in the wrong direction, because TOS had run the gamut of mediums it could be presented in, whatever followed it up had to take it to the next level. Having a spinoff holding itself back, for 'fear' of seeming too far advanced, or technically superior to the original ... that would have to suck. It would create too many issues for the next show to have any hope of establishing itself ... it would be cancelled mid-first season. There's no point. Showing STAR TREK's own future was the most elegant solution to the creative problems. And even when the actual series ENTERPRISE came along, wouldn't you just know it? The Trekkies are bitching that Archer's ship's too advanced ... there's canon violations galore ... this and that ... yeah, you couldn't have had that kick off the franchise in 1987.
Enterprise(or a show like it) was probably never conceived in the 80's. TNG was the natural progression, but eventually that well was run dry, and it was time to do something different, and in a different era.
The scene with "old" Cochrane could have been done with the original TOS actor. No whinning about the NX-01 being a version of the Akira. Different actors of course. Maybe Patrick Duffy as Archer, he was off Dallas at the time the show would have been put together, and would have had name appeal to bring to the role. How was Archer remotely like Kirk? Both were White males from America, but beyond that? Kirk was a soldier, Archer was ... not really sure. Kirk worked his way up the ladder to become captain, Archer was handed command owing to who his father was. Nope.
Yes, something could've been filmed for ENTERPRISE: The First Spinoff and could've been done using anyone you want, any way you want. But the problem still remains that the sort of things that TOS got away with, because it was the 60's and Kubrick had yet to release 2001, simply could not fly in the 80's. So, now you've got a prequel that's more advanced-looking than its predecessor and Trekkies, especially, were probably not going to be eager to accept that. You know, it's different if you want to improve the Klingons, everybody says, "oh! cool!" But when you show the NX-O1 looking like it came out 200 years AFTER ToS, everybody says, "WTF?"
Sorry, but do you mean in terms of the special effects? The model building? Or the set design? I really don't see any of that being a problem. Unless you're saying that the prequal bridge is going to look like the Enterprise-D's bridge. The NX-01 was a product of the early 2000's, not the 1980's. There was never a problem (at least on my part) with the ship's "look," Although I have alway thought it was depicted as too large.
The NX-01 was based on the 200-years-from-the-future Akira class starship first seen in Star Trek: First Contact. As a matter of fact, if Doug Drexler is to be believed (and AFAIK he has no reason to lie), the producers actually wanted the FC ship unaltered as the NX-01 with the completely ridiculous assumption that because it was a background ship in FC, the audience never noticed it.
A late 1980's prequel ship would be a product of it's time and unlikely to look anything like the ship from the early 2000's. Just as there would be different actors, there would be a different design for the ship.
I think the audience quite frankly would accept it today and it would work if it's done right, minimalistically of course.
There is a part of me that would like to see what an 80s version of Enterprise (or any TOS prequel) would look like. I imagine it would probably adhere to the original series aesthetic a lot more than ENT did.
The Next Gen sets were all slightly modified from the first three movies. I imagine the fan base might have taken exception to them being used for a ship a century before Kirk's refitted Enterprise.
1st off Star Trek: The Next Generation was not a spin-off; it was a brand new series which launched Star Trek to new levels of interest. It was such a huge success the production sold several additional shows which were based upon TNG. That is called a spin-off. As for Tripp, I honestly never saw the comparison to Bones, and Archer is nothing like Kirk, as a matter of fact the Vulcans from ENT are nothing like the Vulcanians from TOS. I think fans would be perplexed at why the ENT Vulcans were acting so out of character and why are they sporting similar wigs? Why are they not acting like friends towards Humans??? Why does the NX-01 looks so ugly, why are they wearing those stupid looking outfits??? Why does their engine room and interiors look far more advance than TOS when it's suppose to be a prequel??? As much as I believed ENT cast was the best cast ever assembled for Star Trek, the chemistry was there on episode 1, in 1987 there were too many things about it which viewers could never swallow. ENT was a dark show, not DS9 dark, but it was more on the edgier side; constantly attempting to re-write TOS by being the 1st to do or encounter whatever Kirk had experienced. Viewers wanted a show, TNG, which would embrace the world of Star Trek and not fight against it. I doubt Star Trek: Enterprise would've lasted a full 1st season in 1987 before it would be aired at 2am in the morning.
Well, this thread shows me how different can be interpretations. I never believe that there is a typical Star Trek "fan". So for me generalizations do not provide an informative basis. Here I can talk about my opinions. We are talking about ca. 100 years before TOS. If I do not go far and think about how Europa looked like for 100 years before, from the cultural index to civil rights, from relationship between European countries to daily life, who can say everything is still the same? Why should Vulcan society be the same after 100 years? It does not make sense. Another thing in itself which does not make sense is the mode, inclusive wigs/haircuts, whatever. Even hippies have their dress codes. Why not Vulcans do have a certain hair cut at a certain time period? Question is, if Vulcan society concept at ENT reasonable and plausible? I would say, yes! They are on the way of evaluation to being Vulcan society who is familiar us from TOS and not only Vulcans, also Humans and Andorians trying to find their ways. This is "the" story of ENT. It is the question of taste. I love for example XCV-330, both Constitution class 1701's, Excelsior class, Sovereign class and NX-01 design and I do not like Galaxy class, Ambassador class, so on. It is my taste without any logical reason, no one must be agree with this. Uniforms of ENT are the best, not like pajamas. They are very functional and cool. I know what I am talking about, at least I wear one of them three days at Con and had too many pockets for everything I/we get too many compliments at among others from mighty Ms. Nichols and Vaughn Armstrong Hihi.. Problem is not ENT but TOS. Already at 90's we have smaller mobile phones and flat monitors which TOS showed. I know many people they are Trek fans but they watched TOS as mandatory home work, not enjoyed as me. Main reasons are they find it soo retro and have issues with story telling of 60's. How could be a ship designed more retro than NCC 1701 but more advanced than our reality? It is a key dilemma. Another aspect is: Can producers call this show still scifi? Who will be shows potential audience? Only canon-belt Trekkies? Hey, we are talking about tough business such as money making kind of things. Ahhh, how would be late 80's ENT? I am not sure, but Trip has definitely a mullet hair cut