How long was Enterprise supposed to run?
- Thread starter cdgodin
- Start date
Most people assume it would've run 7 years, like the other 3 Series.
I think, all we know for sure, is that Manny Coto was indeed aiming to work towards the Birth of the Federation, and had a 5th season planned out.
IIRC, the actors were contracted for seven seasons.
Story-wise, info about the fifth season can be found here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise#Proposed_Season_5_stories
Shran was suppsedly going to join the crew. Fans long assumed Enterprise would depict the Earth/Romulan war (from the classic episode "Balance of Terror"), although I did once hear that TPTB wanted to instead save that for a movie (one was written, but aborted, after Enterprise itself was cancelled: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34635 )
Story-wise, info about the fifth season can be found here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise#Proposed_Season_5_stories
Shran was suppsedly going to join the crew. Fans long assumed Enterprise would depict the Earth/Romulan war (from the classic episode "Balance of Terror"), although I did once hear that TPTB wanted to instead save that for a movie (one was written, but aborted, after Enterprise itself was cancelled: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34635 )
Maybe. Or maybe they were going to have a short-lived precursor to the Federation--a Coalition of Planets--come into existence that would serve as a dry run for what would come later. A formal alliance more than an actual government.
Since when did one season HAVE to equal one in-universe year? They could have done the birth of the Federation with no trouble at all if they'd wanted. Heck, they DID the birth of the Federation in "Demons"/"Terra Prime", in fact if not in name.
IIRC, the 2161 date for the Federation's official founding is (or was, pre-"Zero Hour") from the old Star Trek Chronology book, and isn't (or wasn't) canon.
IIRC, the 2161 date for the Federation's official founding is (or was, pre-"Zero Hour") from the old Star Trek Chronology book, and isn't (or wasn't) canon.
Too many Star Trek fans who aren't television executives think they know everything, too.
The show was canceled because the dollars being spent on it could be better invested elsewhere. Pretty simple, really.
Non-skiffy shows have smaller budgets. Replacing a failing skiffy show with a cheaper "regular show" that's just as successful (ETA: here, I mean that has just as many viewers, or more specifically that yields just as much gross advertising and subscription revenue) is therefore an improvement. With the budget of a skiffy show you can try more pilots of "regular shows".
Because you're losing money by keeping the current show on the air. It's not complicated.
True, the network might be losing money. However as it was produced by Paramount the question becomes were Paramount as a whole losing money.
Was the show profitable when you factor into
Merchandise
DVD Sales
International Sales
I suspect it was, but it was a network decision to cancel the show rather than the studio as a whole. But like many company's the different divisions within it look at their bottom line.
Do you honestly believe that?
The way TV works, is you can charge advertisers $x per viewer, per minute. So, if you spend $2million an episode, and the minutes available to sell for advertizing equal only $1.5Million, you lost $500,000 on that episode. If you had double the number of viewers in your ratings, that would've been $3Million available to sell to advertizers, and you would have made $1Million.
Of course, this is simplistic, as there are a lot of other costs involved, other than just budget per episdoe, but, it still boils down to how many viewers you can show through ratings, are available to watch the Advertisers commercials, determines how much they are willing to pay for each minute you show their commercials during the program, and that is how they make money.
That new show that might flop might also be a big hit. TV is a hit-driven business, so the few hits have to pay for the majority of shows flopping. That means it's absolutely mandatory that networks keep churning through shows to find those elusive hits.
They can't tell what show will hit or flop before they air, but they do know that once a show's ratings start to slide, they very rarely turn that trend around. Used to be more common that that would happen, but it's virtually unheard of nowadays, probably due to the lower ratings for shows overall due to more competition in entertainment overall.
In ENT's case specifically, it was doomed anyway since the UPN was merging with the WB to create the CW, and the strategy for that network was to appeal to the young female demographic. Star Trek simply didn't fit their strategy.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that strategy was a slam-dunk. The CW has been a success I suppose inasmuch as they are still around. But they've currently got a slate that is probably going to be cancelled across the board, with the exception of those ever-popular vampires. Maybe Star Trek should have added a smouldering vampire character.
Also, shows can get cancelled even when they're making money. (As far as I've ever heard, ENT might have been profitable.) But if they're not making as much money as the new pilot the execs all like - or they're not making enough money to pay for all the flops - then they can still get cancelled. It's not about making money, it's about making MORE money.
The suits are not chasing ratings for sport or their own personal amusement. They are chasing ratings so they can keep their very lucrative jobs. Same as everyone who works for a living - produce results or hit the pavement. And in a risky, hit-driven business, nobody has any job security, except for Les Moonves, who hates Star Trek and keeps his job by doing only what is safe.
lol, how's the renewal of "Fringe" work into all of these "losing money, no ratings" theory?
There's just as much politics as there is financial excuses to these things.
Enterprise was a much a victim of this as any other reason given.
There's just as much politics as there is financial excuses to these things.
Enterprise was a much a victim of this as any other reason given.
Renewal of 13 more episodes will put the episode count to just over the magic 100 for Syndication, and also having a true ending to an arc'ed Series is a lot more likely to be lucrative longer term for the DVD market. Since they are so close to 100, it would actually, be a worse financial decision to cancel 12 episodes short of 100 and without an ending. Plus it's already in the death time slot and they probably believe they already know the ratings floor, so why put another losing show there that will have a lower floor?
TNG's "The Outcast" specifically gives the founding of the Federation as having happened in 2161.
Similar threads
