Enterprise will go the way of The Original Series

[Nebusj]

Well ... I suppose that's possible, although the Original Series did a lot better than Enterprise ever did (against, of course, vastly tougher expectations), and it swiftly carved out a space in the pop cultural lexicon for itself. What are the features of Enterprise which stand out as unique and special and memorable?

It lasted 4 seasons instead of 3, it competed against more than 2 other networks/channels, it did not get knocked off the air by Lost In Space, and ummm, ... the actor that played the captain does not make fun of Star Trek fans.

All right: what are the features of Enterprise which are not also shared by Suddenly Susan?

Incidentally, I think you'll find that Lost In Space went off the air the year before Star Trek did. It would be a remarkable event indeed if the Original Series were knocked off the air by a program which was not airing. (Its competition the final year, for the record, was the CBS Friday Night Movie and Judd For The Defense.)

Well obviously the main thing is it's the first mission ,and secondly it's has a crew of people with no real code of conduct yet winging it as they go along.

lol there doesn't even seem to be a typical Star Trek command structure yet.

so there are curtain things that stand out if you look for them.

I'm surprised you didn't mention that Enterprise is the only Star Trek show to feature a captain whose last name starts with the letter A and whose doctor has a name ending in X.

What's the iconic stuff, the things about Enterprise that other movies or TV shows will be alluding to or want to rip off if they can get away with it? What are moments that make anyone think of the coolness of the show?

 

[ChristopherPike]

Since we're discussing how Enterprise will be remembered, I'd say the show will forever looked on by Joe Six-Pack as "the one where that guy from Quantum Leap" was the Captain.

While I sincerely hope Star Trek 2009 is a mainstream success (the franchise desperately needs one), I suspect Enterprise will forever be known as the first prequel, the first to air in HD and dare I say this... the closest in style to TOS with one 2-parter in particular that hit the nail squarely on the head, in a way J.J. Abrams didn't even go on to achieve.

 

[SFRabid]

All right: what are the features of Enterprise which are not also shared by Suddenly Susan?

I'm not sure how this turned into a debate of the blessings of TOS and evils of ENT. Foe me the more interesting aspect is why some Star Trek fans are so righteous in their beliefs that everyone should love one show and hate the other. If I am going to be forced into a debate it would also help to know who Suddenly Susan is. Was she a character in a TOS episode?

Incidentally, I think you'll find that Lost In Space went off the air the year before Star Trek did. It would be a remarkable event indeed if the Original Series were knocked off the air by a program which was not airing. (Its competition the final year, for the record, was the CBS Friday Night Movie and Judd For The Defense.)

Incidentally, if you knew TV history you would know that it was Lost in Space that was considered the more popular of the two shows at the time and comparatively TOS was considered a failure. That was from critics and networks executives. The third year of TOS never had to compete with Lost in Space, but it was so bad that it did not matter. Both were a major dissapointment when compared to The Twilight Zone.

It is ironic that you want to know what was original about ENT when TOS was considered anything but. Space shows had been done. It was a formula western which had been done over and over. It had a captain that let his penis guide his decisions. Done before. The only thing really new was "the kiss". That was television history, in the US.

ENT was more like TOS than many TOS fans want to admit. Go back to the first 6 aired episodes of TOS and count how many of those showed Kirk without a shirt. Can you really say they were not selling sex on that show? Compared to the time of air, TOS was selling sex to a higher degree than ENT.

 

[Red Ranger]

I just don't see it - it's bland, full of bad acting and has nothing original or interesting to say.

Yeah trek fans will keep watching it, but trek fans would eat a piece of shit if it came in a box that said "star trek spacefood".

I hope you enjoy your Star Trek Spacefood, then!

To the point, I don't think ENT will ever reach the cult status or popularity of TOS, but I do see it becoming more popular and a cult favorite in its own right.

RR

 

[HRHTheKING]

Bigger in reruns then in it's original run on television.

I seem to recall that the show that started it all wasn't really a ratings hit.

Wishful thinking.

TOS wasn't a hit, but it didn't have forty years of a proven successful franchise behind it.

ENT had that, and still couldn't survive.

 

[SeerSGB]

At the end of it, the only 'Trek that'll likely have any long term life too it will be TOS. We'll see it reinvented, rebooted, and recast over and over, but the various spin-offs will fade to obscurity over time-- slipping into niche and cult status within fandom, due to the fact that they are very much products of the decade in which they were made.

 

[JiNX-01]

Bigger in reruns then in it's original run on television.

I seem to recall that the show that started it all wasn't really a ratings hit.

Wishful thinking.

TOS wasn't a hit, but it didn't have forty years of a proven successful franchise behind it.

ENT had that, and still couldn't survive.

First of all, Star Trek has NOT had 40 years of a "proven successful franchise." For the first 10 years after TOS was cancelled, it was a "cult hit" that aired in syndication at 5 p.m. weekdays and 2 a.m. on weekends.

It took George Lucas to alert the TIIC at Paramount to realize that there might be some money in special effects.

TNG: Sept. 1987-May 1994 syndication (for some additional perspective, stop in http://www.treknation.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml)
DS9: Jan. 1993-June 1999 syndication
VOY: Jan. 1995-May 2001 UPN
ENT: Sept. 2001-2005 UPN

Star Trek was on one of only three networks competing for viewers. Cable TV was a fetus, at best. Satellite TV wasn't even a zygote. No Internet. No home videos. No iPods. No video games.

ENT, meanwhile, was on a "network" that didn't even cover half of the United States (the only region in the world the studios seem to give a damn about).

 

[JiNX-01]

At the end of it, the only 'Trek that'll likely have any long term life too it will be TOS. We'll see it reinvented, rebooted, and recast over and over, but the various spin-offs will fade to obscurity over time-- slipping into niche and cult status within fandom, due to the fact that they are very much products of the decade in which they were made.

And TOS isn't???

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

At the end of it, the only 'Trek that'll likely have any long term life too it will be TOS. We'll see it reinvented, rebooted, and recast over and over, but the various spin-offs will fade to obscurity over time-- slipping into niche and cult status within fandom, due to the fact that they are very much products of the decade in which they were made.

And TOS isn't???

TOS very much is a product of the time it was made, which is why it has to be entirely overhauled by J.J. Abrams in order to serve as the basis for a hoped-to-be-blockbuster summer adventure movie.

 

[Mr. Fergy]

Bigger in reruns then in it's original run on television.

I seem to recall that the show that started it all wasn't really a ratings hit.

I doubt it. ;(

 

[commodore64]

I agree. It is more popular now than it was during first run. The question may be which becomes the more popular episode, ANIS or "Spock's Brain".

Both very fun episodes! I'd rather watch Spock's Brain 50 million times than be forced to sit through And the Children Shall Lead. Spock's Brain is at least fun in the same way Turnabout Intruder is.

And ANIS has a more interesting plot than Harbinger (that managed to make all the characters look stupid without any fun), Precious Cargo (acting challenges) or Fortunate's Son (zzzzz) to me.

 

[gblews]

Bigger in reruns then in it's original run on television.

I don't know about how it will eventually fair in terms of re-run ratings, but I do believe ENT, by virtue of what the series became in it's last two seasons, has a very good chance of becoming a more "respected" series (especially among the hard core ST fandom) than both TNG and VOY as the years pass.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

All I can say is, I hope so.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Since we're discussing how Enterprise will be remembered, I'd say the show will forever looked on by Joe Six-Pack as "the one where that guy from Quantum Leap" was the Captain.

That's how I see it, but even that's optimistic thinking to me.

I don't see ENT going the way of TOS at all, but more along the lines of DS9. It'll have its very ardent fans and supporters, but it won't be remembered too much by general audiences. Once SCI-FI stops running ENT or banishes it into a late night timeslot, it'll be basically out of sight, out of mind except for the most loyal and dedicated fans. Thing is that'll be true for every Star Trek series though...

ENT came too closely on the heels of TNG, DS9, and VOY, and Joe Six-Pack may just sort of lump them all together as the same show ("Tha New Star Track") even if they really aren't, IMO...

 

[INACTIVESamusAranX]

Bigger in reruns then in it's original run on television.

I seem to recall that the show that started it all wasn't really a ratings hit.

I hate to sound condescending, but here goes:

Sorry, but it won't happen, and here is why.

For starters, TOS enjoyed WIDESPREAD syndication. No exaggeration.

Secondly, TOS enjoyed the benefit of no cable television, and barely any competition in its genre.

Third, TOS was a phenomenon. Even it's fans will tell you that. This may sound degrading to the show, but it's not, but what TOS did will be hard-pressed, if ever, to repeat. To come back from the TV dead as it were, would require an unprecedented amount of support and luck, which TOS fortunately had the luxury of.

 

[Messianni]

Bigger in reruns then in it's original run on television.

I seem to recall that the show that started it all wasn't really a ratings hit.

Well ... I suppose that's possible, although the Original Series did a lot better than Enterprise ever did (against, of course, vastly tougher expectations), and it swiftly carved out a space in the pop cultural lexicon for itself. What are the features of Enterprise which stand out as unique and special and memorable?

It lasted 4 seasons instead of 3, it competed against more than 2 other networks/channels, it did not get knocked off the air by Lost In Space, and ummm, ... the actor that played the captain does not make fun of Star Trek fans.

Wow, going to play that game huh?

Let's do this instead: You've listed what you seem to think are ENT's advantages over TOS, eh? Well, how about this:

- The Original Series spawned an animated series and six feature films, with a seventh on its way in about a year. What's that, it's not an ENT feature film? Curious that. Guess Paramount actually wants to make money off of Star Trek. Please, tell me ENT would hold up just as well as this film would with a straight face. I need a good laugh.

- It continues to be run in successful syndication over forty years later and is, in fact, getting a facelift for HD to ensure it a future.

- It spun off another series, called The Next Generation which in and of itself has spawned four more films. Then another one after that, namely Deep Space Nine. Then this other one called Voyager and right off the heels of that, get ready for this... well, you already know what I'm going to say.

- Lost in Space ended a year before TOS, so sorry, wrong.

- Let me guess, you're basing your assumption of Shatner on the SNL skit, right? Or his book Get a Life which, in fact, is very affectionate towards Star Trek fandom? He has freely admitted he owes his career to Star Trek and even does conventions to this day. Unlike Patrick Stewart. Or Avery Brooks. Or Kate Mulgrew or Scott Bakula and, aside from Stewart, it could be argued with Boston Legal he's much busier then all of them. He wouldn't do them if he didn't still enjoy it and, really, his pay from convention appearances is a great deal less than what else he could be doing. So, wrong again.

Give credit where credit is due.

 

[HRHTheKING]

Bigger in reruns then in it's original run on television.

I seem to recall that the show that started it all wasn't really a ratings hit.

Wishful thinking.

TOS wasn't a hit, but it didn't have forty years of a proven successful franchise behind it.

ENT had that, and still couldn't survive.

First of all, Star Trek has NOT had 40 years of a "proven successful franchise." For the first 10 years after TOS was cancelled, it was a "cult hit" that aired in syndication at 5 p.m. weekdays and 2 a.m. on weekends.

It took George Lucas to alert the TIIC at Paramount to realize that there might be some money in special effects.

TNG: Sept. 1987-May 1994 syndication (for some additional perspective, stop in http://www.treknation.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml)
DS9: Jan. 1993-June 1999 syndication
VOY: Jan. 1995-May 2001 UPN
ENT: Sept. 2001-2005 UPN

Star Trek was on one of only three networks competing for viewers. Cable TV was a fetus, at best. Satellite TV wasn't even a zygote. No Internet. No home videos. No iPods. No video games.

ENT, meanwhile, was on a "network" that didn't even cover half of the United States (the only region in the world the studios seem to give a damn about).

Bottom line, when TOS initially aired and was cancelled, it was all very new.

When ENT was aired and cancelled, practically everyone in the western world knew what Star Trek was.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

I got tired of Enterprise about half way through, I think it started to fail and stopped watching. Then somebody told me to check out its final season and I think the last season is great at least the show finished on a high note

 

[Noname Given]

All right: what are the features of Enterprise which are not also shared by Suddenly Susan?

I'm not sure how this turned into a debate of the blessings of TOS and evils of ENT. Foe me the more interesting aspect is why some Star Trek fans are so righteous in their beliefs that everyone should love one show and hate the other. If I am going to be forced into a debate it would also help to know who Suddenly Susan is. Was she a character in a TOS episode?

Incidentally, I think you'll find that Lost In Space went off the air the year before Star Trek did. It would be a remarkable event indeed if the Original Series were knocked off the air by a program which was not airing. (Its competition the final year, for the record, was the CBS Friday Night Movie and Judd For The Defense.)

Incidentally, if you knew TV history you would know that it was Lost in Space that was considered the more popular of the two shows at the time and comparatively TOS was considered a failure. That was from critics and networks executives. The third year of TOS never had to compete with Lost in Space, but it was so bad that it did not matter. Both were a major dissapointment when compared to The Twilight Zone.

It is ironic that you want to know what was original about ENT when TOS was considered anything but. Space shows had been done. It was a formula western which had been done over and over. It had a captain that let his penis guide his decisions. Done before. The only thing really new was "the kiss". That was television history, in the US.

ENT was more like TOS than many TOS fans want to admit. Go back to the first 6 aired episodes of TOS and count how many of those showed Kirk without a shirt. Can you really say they were not selling sex on that show? Compared to the time of air, TOS was selling sex to a higher degree than ENT.

While I'm a TOS fan, first and foremost (I also managed to catch it first run in 1969 at age 6), ENT was the #2 best series IMO - and the above poster is correct IMO in that ENT WAS the first modern Star Trek series that came closest to r-caoturing the original spirit of TOS - and I also agree that if modern fans DON'T recognize that TOS was using 'sex' just as blatently and TNT did on occassion to try and grab and hold viewership; then I would really like to know who produced the version of TOS they were watching because it wasn't NBC.

Also, people often wonder why Lost In Space and Star Trek started to be a bit more 'campy' after their first seasons, and that can be explained by the ABC series running at the time and beating the pants of both of the TV series; and riding a wave of such high popularity, that a feature film was produced during that series summer haitis - and that series was the100% pure 'camp' series Batman - which again was so popular, big name movie stars of the era (who never did television) were clammering for villian cameo roles.

 

[SFRabid]

Wow, going to play that game huh?

Game? What game. Are you looking for the Nickelodeon forum?

Let's do this instead: You've listed what you seem to think are ENT's advantages over TOS,

No, I just responded to someone that implied that TOS is sent from God and Enterprise is total crap. I think that responce pointed out that TOS was considered crap when it started and then was more popular after it went off of the air. That is the same pattern that Enterprise is following. No one expects it to ever reach the point that TOS reached. Just pointing out the same pattern. You know, down, then up. Simple.

over forty years later

Yep, TOS started almost 50 years ago. It faded away and then came back like a champ. No one is denying that. You cannot expect a spin-off to accomplish the same things in 3 years. To do so or use that argument would be stupid, wouldn't it? Anyway, spin-off's don't really create spin-offs. Well, I guess you could consider DS9 and VOY as spin-offs of TNG.

- Lost in Space ended a year before TOS, so sorry, wrong.

Not sure who you are talking to here. It was someone else that first stated that. I assumed they were correct so I did not bother to google. Are you pointing out that TOS worshipers are not always correct?

- Let me guess, you're basing your assumption of Shatner on the SNL skit, ...

Not entirely. He has a long history of relating to Start Trek fans when it suites him. He is also quick to put them down or distance himself. When speaking to groups of thoroughbred owners here in Kentucky he frequently pointed out his "embarrassment" regarding Star Trek fans.

Give credit where credit is due.

That's all I was asking. Why is it that ENT fans don't have a problem admitting they like TOS, but so many TOS fans NEED to go to Enterprise forums and bash the show? There must be a TOS club out there with the motto “Spread the hate.”