Have you ever given up on a Trek series? If so, what was the last straw for you?

[Tallguy]

IMHO both Enterprise and Voyager had fantastic premises. Some of the best in Star Trek. And the shows started running away from them before the pilots were even over. (That's an exaggeration for Voyager. It isn't for Enterprise.)

The people paying the bills just wanted more TNG. And it showed.

 

[fireproof78]

IMHO both Enterprise and Voyager had fantastic premises. Some of the best in Star Trek. And the shows started running away from them before the pilots were even over. (That's an exaggeration for Voyager. It isn't for Enterprise.)

The people paying the bills just wanted more TNG. And it showed.

Unfortunately, with lesser characters leading the charge so staying interested when the premise was abandoned was very difficult for me. I moved on to other shows.

 

[The Salt Umpire]

Part of my problem with ENT is that there was this gaping chasm between the hype and the reality. We were told going in that ENT was going to be this fresh new take on Trek: faster, edgier, rougher around the edges, getting back to the adventurous "Final Frontier" spirit of the Original Series.

What I inferred when ENT was announced was that it was going to be NCC-1701s pre-Pike era when the Enterprise was first commissioned. That dovetails with what you just said. The ending with Riker holobinging just confirmed the TNG bias of the writers.

In the TMP novelization, Kirk wrote about the first crews who went out were seduced away by more advanced cultures and that his class was picked because they weren't quite as bright as the first adventurers were. That's what ENT should have been about.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

IMHO both Enterprise and Voyager had fantastic premises. Some of the best in Star Trek. And the shows started running away from them before the pilots were even over. (That's an exaggeration for Voyager. It isn't for Enterprise.)

The people paying the bills just wanted more TNG. And it showed.

If Berman and Bragga had been allowed by Paramount to let the franchise rest for a year, so they could recharge their batteries, instead of rushing Enterprise, and if they had stuck to their guns about the first year being somewhat Earth bound and dropping the time war subplot, Enterprise might be more fondly remembered.​

 

[Some Sort of Lemur]

so they could recharge their batteries

he primary issue with early ENT, for me, is that the leads were mostly unappealing people—and not in an entertaining way—who made terrible decisions—decisions which the scripts described as the correct ones. Wthout any space-action distractions, a whole season relying on early ENT character dynamics sounds like torture.

B&B (that takes me back) just did not have a good handle on how to write convincing people and just didn’t have wide enough experience to pull off such a departure for Trek. The issue with ENT, I think, is not so much that they needed to recharge their batteries as that they were the wrong batteries for the job.

 

[CoveTom]

he primary issue with early ENT, for me, is that the leads were mostly unappealing people—and not in an entertaining way—who made terrible decisions—decisions which the scripts described as the correct ones. Wthout any space-action distractions, a whole season relying on early ENT character dynamics sounds like torture.

B&B (that takes me back) just did not have a good handle on how to write convincing people and just didn’t have wide enough experience to pull off such a departure for Trek. The issue with ENT, I think, is not so much that they needed to recharge their batteries as that they were the wrong batteries for the job.

That's an interesting point. Enterprise was the only show of the Berman era where Berman and Braga were solely responsible for creating the characters. With TNG, all the characters were created by Roddenberry and the early team of writers/producers. For DS9, Michael Piller was creating the show with Berman. And with Voyager, you had Piller and Jeri Taylor.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I still have no idea how starting Enterprise with 26 episodes set on Earth was even supposed to work, especially if it was going to lead to them getting out into space to have normal weekly sci-fi adventures. The episodes that visited Earth were typically pretty decent, but they couldn't haven't gotten away with doing First Flight over and over.

 

[Starflight]

he primary issue with early ENT, for me, is that the leads were mostly unappealing people—and not in an entertaining way—who made terrible decisions—decisions which the scripts described as the correct ones. Wthout any space-action distractions, a whole season relying on early ENT character dynamics sounds like torture.

I've always felt that you're generally not meant to side with Archer/Trip during early Enterprise; the most common model of story seems to be:
1. Enterprise discovers a new thing
2. T'Pol urges caution
3. Archer laughs in her face, ignores her, and does the opposite
4. Utter catastrophe follows
5. T'Pol bails them out

Unless Berman and Braga were extremely oblivious to how it was coming across, the message felt to me like "T'Pol is right and Archer is a headache", though it is still often annoying to watch.

 

[Greg Cox]

I find, both as a viewer and a book editor, that creators can often be surprisingly blind to how their characters are actually coming off, as opposed to how they think their characters are coming off.

Creator: "I love this character and the audience will too!"

Audience: "I can't stand that character. They're so annoying!"

 

[Tallguy]

Audience: "I can't stand that character. They're so annoying!"

"But... That's my self insert! I need to rethink my life..."

 

[Frontis]

Enterprise gives some hope, Disvovery is just frustrating imo.

 

[DonIago]

I've always felt that you're generally not meant to side with Archer/Trip during early Enterprise; the most common model of story seems to be:

1. Enterprise discovers a new thing
2. T'Pol urges caution
3. Archer laughs in her face, ignores her, and does the opposite
4. Utter catastrophe follows
5. T'Pol bails them out

Unless Berman and Braga were extremely oblivious to how it was coming across, the message felt to me like "T'Pol is right and Archer is a headache", though it is still often annoying to watch.

That may have been what they intended the message to be, but the message I received was that T'Pol was right but that we're supposed to think Archer/Trip are somehow great for having laughed in her face, ignored her, and done the opposite.

 

[fireproof78]

I find, both as a viewer and a book editor, that creators can often be surprisingly blind to how their characters are actually coming off, as opposed to how they think their characters are coming off.

Creator: "I love this character and the audience will too!"

Audience: "I can't stand that character. They're so annoying!"

This is one of the biggest aspects that creators often seem very blind too is how audiences will genuinely react. Audiences think that somehow their frustration or annoyance are automatically understood by creators, but the reality is much more complicated, as I'm sure you know.

It's deeply frustrating to watch because then people assume that the creators just don't care and are continuing the annoying character out of malice.

I've always felt that you're generally not meant to side with Archer/Trip during early Enterprise; the most common model of story seems to be:
1. Enterprise discovers a new thing
2. T'Pol urges caution
3. Archer laughs in her face, ignores her, and does the opposite
4. Utter catastrophe follows
5. T'Pol bails them out

Unless Berman and Braga were extremely oblivious to how it was coming across, the message felt to me like "T'Pol is right and Archer is a headache", though it is still often annoying to watch.

It was very annoying to watch, ad while I don't think Archer was meant to be right, he was still meant to be the hero which meant siding against him feels wrong from a narrative perspective. Yes, T'Pol is right but Archer is meant to be more right because he's trying his best.

Would TNG have managed the same viewership numbers in

That may have been what they intended the message to be, but the message I received was that T'Pol was right but that we're supposed to think Archer/Trip are somehow great for having laughed in her face, ignored her, and done the opposite.

Well put. And Archer is depressingly blind at times.

 

[Greg Cox]

Audiences think that somehow their frustration or annoyance are automatically understood by creators, but the reality is much more complicated, as I'm sure you know.

It's deeply frustrating to watch because then people assume that the creators just don't care and are continuing the annoying character out of malice.

And, of course, the realities of production schedules and lead times means that the creators can't immediately course-correct in response to negative feedback, since all or most of the season may have already been shot already.

As I recall, this happened with Season 2 of SLEEPY HOLLOW, where they introduced a new character they clearly expected to be a fan favorite. Alas, when fans reacted negatively instead, the show couldn't just quickly reshoot the rest of the season to react to this feedback immediately. They were stuck with a slew of episodes, highlighting this character, already in the can.

 

[Some Sort of Lemur]

"But... That's my self insert! I need to rethink my life..."

I have an acquaintance who works in The Industry and he’s said Archer’s an excellent depiction of a certain kind of white middle-aged studio exec.

 

[Firebird]

And, of course, the realities of production schedules and lead times means that the creators can't immediately course-correct in response to negative feedback, since all or most of the season may have already been shot already.

As I recall, this happened with Season 2 of SLEEPY HOLLOW, where they introduced a new character they clearly expected to be a fan favorite. Alas, when fans reacted negatively instead, the show couldn't just quickly reshoot the rest of the season to react to this feedback immediately. They were stuck with a slew of episodes, highlighting this character, already in the can.

I believe something similar happened on House during its first season. The network forced the showrunners to add a "heavy" that would threaten House, so they added the board member played by Chi McBride. The fans and even the creators didn't like the character, but they were stuck until the show had enough ratings clout to tell Fox to shove it.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

Remember when Lost introduced Nikki and Paulo in the third season and everyone tried to pretend that they were there right from the first episode and played an important part in the mythology of the show; only to be killed off almost immediately after fan backlash.

 

[Tallguy]

Remember when Lost introduced Nikki and Paulo in the third season and everyone tried to pretend that they were there right from the first episode and played an important part in the mythology of the show; only to be killed off almost immediately after fan backlash.

Is that what happened? I think they were planned as fodder from the jump.

 

[Farscape One]

Their fates on the island were far more interesting than all their appeaeances in that season. Combined.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

...when your supposedly bold new take on Star Trek starts going to same old wells almost immediately . . . well, that's when you realize that this is just business-as-usual with slightly different technobabble. It was Star Trek as comfort food.

A criticism of ENT that I read was that it had most every bit of tech TNG had, just termed slightly differently. "Phase Pistols" instead of Phasers, and "Polarized Hull Plating" instead of Shields.

In the TMP novelization, Kirk wrote about the first crews who went out were seduced away by more advanced cultures and that his class was picked because they weren't quite as bright as the first adventurers were. That's what ENT should have been about.

Well, they were successful in that Archer & company were definitely stupider than Kirk and his crew.

And, of course, the realities of production schedules and lead times means that the creators can't immediately course-correct in response to negative feedback, since all or most of the season may have already been shot already.

As I recall, this happened with Season 2 of SLEEPY HOLLOW, where they introduced a new character they clearly expected to be a fan favorite. Alas, when fans reacted negatively instead, the show couldn't just quickly reshoot the rest of the season to react to this feedback immediately. They were stuck with a slew of episodes, highlighting this character, already in the can.

You can tell from season 6 of HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET that the producers were all in on Jon Seda as the new character Paul Falsone, as they were giving him lots of prominence on the show, even at the expense of more popular older characters. That backfired pretty spectacularly, as HLOTS fans did NOT like the new character, and he ended up getting one of the internet's very first hate sites.