Why was Enterprise received so poorly?

[Hopeful Romantic]

No, that is not "natural." That is a deliberate choice to falsely depict humanity as being majority-white when it is of course not.

You frame it as "natural" to have a majority-white cast if the audience is majority-white. But another way to describe that behavior is to say that it's a deliberate decision to appeal to the (at best unconscious) biases of a white audience who wanted to see themselves depicted as the center of the universe.

...It was absolutely forced whiteness.

Okay, but that doesn't make the forced whiteness of the ENT cast any less of a deliberate decision...

So, yes, when a show that pretends it's about humanity's future instead depicts the nation of its creators as the default setting for the human race, that is indeed ethnocentrism.

...Both operated on the unquestioned feeling that white guys are the default setting for the human race. That makes both works ethnocentric.

It's very simple:

If all people are equal and your goal is to depict humanity's future, then your obligation is not to depict humanity as looking primarily like the culture you come from. Because the culture you come from can only ever be a minority of the human species.

If you instead decide to depict your culture as the norm that the rest of humanity is a deviation from, then you're being ethnocentric.

That's not a matter of interpretation. That's just objectively what you're doing.

Yes, Star Trek has historically been far more ethnocentric than we often like to imagine.

...The only way depicting your culture as the default setting for the entire human race could possibly not be ethnocentrism is if your culture makes up the vast majority of the human species. But no one's culture or race does.

...I'm sorry, but it would by definition be such. The vast majority of humanity are not Chinese. If you're depicting humanity's future rather than China's future, then you should not depict Han Chinese as the default setting for the human race. If you're depicting humanity's future rather than the United States's future, then you should not depict whiteness as the default setting for the human race.

@Sci, your repeated use of "deliberate choice," "deliberate decision," "forced whiteness," ethnocentrism, the calculated depiction of the ENT cast as "the default setting for the human race" - and your insistence that these claims are ironclad, incontrovertible fact, must stop. Your claims are your personal opinion. I see no citations leading to direct quotes by the staff and writers going on record that they are racist bigots. Do you have any such citations? Interviews? Video?

Other members have expressed differing opinions, but you have immediately dismissed them, choosing to continue casting aspersions on the staff's moral characters - the sort of accusations that now often lead to the accused being bullied, shunned, cancelled, stalked, fired. Moreover, you are using your opinion as a cudgel to try to beat your fellow members into submission, repeating yourself over and over, derailing the thread with your insistent spamming.

It's time for you to agree to disagree, and move on. This is your last caution. Thank you.

 

[Guy Gardener]

To begin with, I thought Trip was straight out of Tom Sayer.

But Florida?

Enterprise should have been full of Jackass reinactments. The crewmen devastating each others ball bags and hiding alligators in each others bunk, you know, typical Floridan hyjinks.

 

[panyasan]

I haven't read Tom Sawyer, but I do understand when people say that Trip was a bit cliché at first. However, I think that his character developed greatly over time and became more and more a real person.

And I do love Trip's accent.

(With the exception of fanfiction which expresses his English in for me half-baked English. I learned English when I was thirteen and my English teacher put so much attention to proper (Oxford) English, it still affects me. Or it’s a personal trait, just love good use of languages.)

 

[suarezguy]

People were just sick of Star Trek changing the desktop wallpaper but otherwise not doing anything new.

Although OTOH some viewers wanted, preferred that it not do too much new, that it had done what we had seen before

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Although OTOH some viewers wanted, preferred that it not do too much new, that it had done what we had seen before

Clearly not enough. Otherwise we'd have 7 seasons wouldn't we?

 

[suarezguy]

I was referencing that other dissatisfied fans wanted more of what he had seen before but more from the original series, in this forum there are a lot of comments that there should have been a lot more appearances of and focus on the Tellarites and Andorians, I don't think seeing more of them (or more original series-like rather than 24th-century-like Klingons) would have really made the show better but not getting that was another reason for disappointment and dissatisfaction.

 

[Dukhat]

ENT didn’t fail because it was a prequel.
ENT didn’t fail because it was too little like TOS.
ENT didn’t fail because it was too much like TOS.
ENT failed because it was just more of the same tired formula they had been doing since TNG, and the audience was tired of more of the same. There was nothing edgy or interesting about the premise of a crew flying around in a ship going to planets-of-the-week and meeting aliens-of-the-week. Most ENT episodes could have been VOY episodes with the VOY crew and little to nothing would have been different.

 

[fireproof78]

I was referencing that other dissatisfied fans wanted more of what he had seen before but more from the original series, in this forum there are a lot of comments that there should have been a lot more appearances of and focus on the Tellarites and Andorians, I don't think seeing more of them (or more original series-like rather than 24th-century-like Klingons) would have really made the show better but not getting that was another reason for disappointment and dissatisfaction.

The biggest downfall of ENT is that it felt like TNG and the 24th century ilk. You still had calling out percentages, you still had colors that were the same for the departments, and just a change in terminology. There was a lot of winking at the audience over different terminology that would be well known by the fans. It wasn't as different as it could have been and that's the biggest problem.

 

[Guy Gardener]

They didn't have enough decontamination scenes with the gel.

Although I would have played it for comedy.

"Now get it right between my butt cheeks Mr Reed."

"Can't you reach down there by your self Captain?"

or...

"The Decon Gel has become self aware, and it's made a simple request: No more feet, feet are gross."

Or...

"Sot it's a race Malcolm? Whoever can decontaminate the most Ensigns in 10 minutes wins?

"Wins what?"

"Bragging rights."

 

[Sumire]

I think, despite the feeling of Trek fans, Enterprise failed (as in did not get seven seasons) because UPN failed. Was it as well-received and as popular as its progenitors? No. Was it still the highest rated drama series airing on UPN? Yes.

From the New York Times, December 11, 2001: “UPN was ranked fifth, with an average audience of 4.9 million people. Its most-watched program, ''Enterprise,'' is ranked 67th in prime-time viewership, with an average audience of 8.6 million people.”

That’s eleven episodes into the much maligned first season. Those 12.5 million viewers for the pilot was a peak never to be seen again. Fans were no doubt complaining on this very board already about the theme song, the characters, the actors and the interchangeability of the episodes with Voyager and TNG. They had seen more decon gel being applied than most of them ever wanted to. I am sure a number of thus-far devoted Trek fans had already quit in disgust and still… “most-watched program” “average audience of 8.6 million people.”

When the CW was officially announced, it was already shaping itself into what it became. No one looks to the CW for “highest rated drama series,” they look to it for “most cherished dumpster fire.” ♥ (Please CW fans, don’t hurt me, your passion for your shows is a beacon to all fandom.) From The Washington Post, January 25, 2006: “The CW … will chase the elusive 18-to-34-year-old viewer with such shows as "America's Next Top Model" and "Smallville."

“…the list of series featured in the promo reel and news release shown at the unveiling included more WB programs than UPN ones. Shows like "Gilmore Girls" and "Supernatural," "One Tree Hill" and "Smallville," "Everwood" and "Reba," as well as the reality series "Beauty and the Geek."

I have to think this merger and new focus was being hashed out behind the scenes well before the promo reel was shown to reporters. The announcement that Enterprise was being canceled less than a year before the announcement that UPN had run its course is not a coincidence. Enterprise wasn’t where CW was headed.

From that Washington Post article (blithely titled “Ta-Ta, UPN. So Long, WB. Hello, The CW.”) again, “UPN has never been profitable.” Enterprise, love it or hate it, was birthed with a pair of cement shoes on its metaphorical feet and it valiantly fought to keep its head above water for as long as it could despite executives who apparently thought all it needed was just one more fresh coat of cement.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I was referencing that other dissatisfied fans wanted more of what he had seen before but more from the original series, in this forum there are a lot of comments that there should have been a lot more appearances of and focus on the Tellarites and Andorians, I don't think seeing more of them (or more original series-like rather than 24th-century-like Klingons) would have really made the show better but not getting that was another reason for disappointment and dissatisfaction.

Ah, understood! Sorry, I misread what you meant. :-)

 

[suarezguy]

Frankly, Berman, Brag and the higher executives assuming that the show would/should get seven seaons and most of the dedicated viewers would stick around at least to the third seasons, so it had a lot of time to improve, is a big part of the problem, they (and probably the higher executives more than Berman) really underestimated how burned-out and dissatisfied a lot of the dedicated fans were and/or pretty quickly would become.

I think, despite the feeling of Trek fans, Enterprise failed (as in did not get seven seasons) because UPN failed. Was it as well-received and as popular as its progenitors? No. Was it still the highest rated drama series airing on UPN? Yes.

It's interesting that other early story prequel (with it actually reboot) from 2001 on the other netlet Smallville ended up lasting more than twice as long.

 

[HIjol]

Not for nothing, as a HIjol1-Come-Lately to the Thread, but...
I have skim-read the posts and want to add that the concepts and plotlines may have been a bit contrived at times, and a little reminiscent of Other-Trek. However, the two HardSell things that got in my way were;
The theme song
Not being able to get past Scott Bacula as Sam Beckett

But Trek is Trek

Oh, yea, and the Bosomy Vulcan...

 

[Oddish]

1. Sometimes it's hard to discern between "I didn't like ___________ about Enterprise" and "____________ is why Enterprise failed." Your reason might be a factor, since if you tuned out, others might have. I didn't personally like the use of modern tech (transporters, photon torpedoes) or T'Pol's ridiculous and completely un-Vulcan outfit, but am I willing to say those things killed ENT? No.

2. I think a number of Trek iterations were less appreciated in their own time. I remember how much crap was leveled at DS9 (one commentary writer, which is what we had before YouTubers, said he "sat through the whole first season of Deep Space 9 for research purposes")... now, it generally takes the #2 or 3 spot in Top Trek lists, edged out only by TNG, and maybe TOS. And I've even seen it get #1.

3. "Cancelled" doesn't mean "bad". It means "didn't find an audience". Just look at PRO for a more modern example.

 

[HIjol]

1. Sometimes it's hard to discern between "I didn't like ___________ about Enterprise" and "____________ is why Enterprise failed." Your reason might be a factor, since if you tuned out, others might have. I didn't personally like the use of modern tech (transporters, photon torpedoes) or T'Pol's ridiculous and completely un-Vulcan outfit, but am I willing to say those things killed ENT? No.

2. I think a number of Trek iterations were less appreciated in their own time. I remember how much crap was leveled at DS9 (one commentary writer, which is what we had before YouTubers, said he "sat through the whole first season of Deep Space 9 for research purposes")... now, it generally takes the #2 or 3 spot in Top Trek lists, edged out only by TNG, and maybe TOS. And I've even seen it get #1.

3. "Cancelled" doesn't mean "bad". It means "didn't find an audience". Just look at PRO for a more modern example.

Very well said, @Pumpkin Bread

The things I listed were not "show-killers" for me, just things that I could not cuddle up to.
I still watched a lot of it.
I remember well the criticism of DS9. It is one of my favorites!!!

 

[Sumire]

It's interesting that other early story prequel (with it actually reboot) from 2001 on the other netlet Smallville ended up lasting more than twice as long.

Smallville could be (and was) described as soapy. It was full of subterfuge and sexiness. You had to tune in every week to see if Lana was going to be good or bad. Being a prequel, the ending was a given, but for many viewers the appeal was seeing how messy things could get before we got there.

Trek has never done that particular type of messy. Or rather, it has never done it well — in a way that meshes smoothly with the whole Trek ethos. They certainly tried with Enterprise. They gave T’Pol a drug addiction, they gave Archer PTSD, they cranked up the angst for Trip. They even gave Trip and T’Pol a romantic subplot complete with a talk of shame, a forced marriage via blackmail and a surprise baby that would have fit in just fine in any soapy CW show.

However the minds behind Enterprise’s trajectory didn’t grasp the soapy, goofy, campiness that lends eternally unrealistically rising tension on something like Smallville its appeal. Trek is so earnest, even at its most lighthearted. I love that about it but it means nobody shot their perceived romantic rival then kidnapped the object of their affection, or strapped a bomb to themselves and demanded an organ transplant for a family member, or joined a vampire sorority or got possessed by 17th-century witches (all plots found on Smallville). (Or if I missed an episode where any of that did happen, I’m sure Trek tried to make it mean something.)

I would argue that, at its best, Enterprise shows us that humans, Vulcans and Andorians can be petty and misguided but can learn and grow and create a better, brighter future. It’s a hopeful, aspirational message that we can fail, pick ourselves up and… go where our hearts will take us. Sometimes though, viewers prefer to solace themselves with seeing others fall down and just thrash about in the muck.

More succinctly, here’s GQ’s take on Smallville’s appeal: “No one wants to watch exclusively great, amazing stuff. Watching nothing but good things is exhausting. Your mind can only be blown so many times, you can only remain invested in so many rich characters, you can only pretend you are not a simple beast when no one is around for so long. Do yourself a favor and watch some trash.”

 

[Oddish]

There's definitely plenty available.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

"Cancelled" doesn't mean "bad". It means "didn't find an audience". Just look at PRO for a more modern example.

Or TOS for that matter.

 

[Oddish]

Or South Park, for an opposite example. A badly animated gross-out and shock-fest that repeatedly jokes about an 8-year-old dying violently... and it's gone more seasons than TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY combined.

Because it found an audience.

 

[Dukhat]

Or South Park, for an opposite example. A badly animated gross-out and shock-fest that repeatedly jokes about an 8-year-old dying violently... and it's gone more seasons than TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY combined.

Because it found an audience.

No that I'm disagreeing, but I think it found a much greater audience when it changed from a badly animated gross-out shock-fest that repeated jokes about an 8-year-old dying violently, to basically a social commentary piece.