Theory About Why Most Don't Care for Enterprise as Much...

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Maybe you should join your local freegan group and liberate some steak.

You must live in a shitty area food choice wise. I can usually find some excellent but small cut of steak for 2 dollars if I want it. Something is always on the way out, LOL.

 

[Melakon]

There used to be a big supermarket I could walk to in the same shopping center as Little Caesars, but they closed that store, so neither of the two closest groceries are within walking distance for me anymore. When they closed, I couldn't even get fresh milk or lunchmeat anywhere closer. That's changed at least, but there's still no fresh fruit anywhere near me. And of course my brand selection and varieties of products are now severely limited, can't find a lot of things I liked and used to buy regularly.

Even with the train, I still have to walk another couple of blocks through parking lots just to get the groceries. And the grocery stores are those everything under one roof type, so there's more walking. I'm usually worn out before I leave the store.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Where I live there are numerous small grocery stores, butchers and green grocers who will deliver if you call up and tell them what you want.

 

[Melakon]

I'm not aware of any near me, and I usually don't know what I want when it comes to meat unless I see it in the display case. I used to buy a lot of hamburger until the store went away.

Ow! The cat tried to sharpen her claws on the seat of the kitchen chair I'm currently sitting in, which is mostly open in the back, and she got my seat instead.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Well there ya go, don't feed that cat for a week and buy a steak with your savings.

 

[Melakon]

Nah, I always make sure my pets have food, even if I don't.

 

[gblews]

Spock was the only alien we saw, there were likely dozens of others onboard that kept missing the camera. Its the same way we never saw a stellar cartographer in TOS but you assume that a ship of exploration has several.

You can make any assumptions you want in order to justify anything. But the fact (what we actually saw on screen), was that the 1701-Ent had one alien in it's crew. For the NX-01, a ship which was launched some 200 years before the 1701, and a pre-Federation ship, it was perfectly natural for there be only one alien. In fact, if Archer had had his way, there would not have been any. Considering how xenophobic humans were in the 22nd century, this seems logical.

ENT as a Earth-based ship makes sense to have few aliens onboard, but it should have been an early Federation ship instead with lots of aliens on the crew.

Why? Ent was a show about Earth's initial exploration outside of the solar system prior to the formation of the Federation. You may have wanted to see an early Federation ship, but other than that, I see no reason why Ent or the Nx-01 "should" have been about the early Federation.

 

[jazzstick]

I'm not a big Enterprise fan, but I'm also not a hater. Actually re-watching it right now via my DVDs. It's my only good condition DVD set since it's not well worn, but I still own them! So brownie points for that.

The other day though, I did develop a theory as to one perhaps subtle or subconscious reason so many fans turned away from the show?

What if it's all the subtle alterations to Trek lore?

What do I mean? Well, think about it. Shuttle pod instead of shuttle craft. No red alert / tactical alert instead. No photon torpedoes / eventually photonic torpedoes. Enterprise instead of the Enterprise. Phase pistols instead of phasers.

All those subtle little things designed to show the evolution of them, the predecessor to what we knew, intended to show the earlier stage of things... could those minor trivial details have been a key to putting some people off?

To some it could have been a sort of OCD thing. To others, an annoying nit-picky issue. others still totally unaware it was effecting them negatively. Some may even have felt as if B&B where trying to re-create Trek in their own image or something.

I dunno. It's a bit of a trivial/silly theory, and it's certainly well moot at this juncture, but I thought it an interesting proposition.

Hmmmm......

No, no I don't agree, All sins could have been forgiven if the episodes and characters where better written. That's why people don't like that show!

 

[MacLeod]

Well maybe not all sins, but so long as your characters are consistantly written and you have fairly engaging stories. People are willing to overlook some of the minor plot-holes etc.. that many stories have.

If your characters are inconsistant and your stories aren't fully engagin your aduaince all those little plot-holes etc.. start to be picked upon.

 

[JRS]

This. Having different hardware? That's fine. Oh, the phasers are now called phase pistols, and instead of shooting out a beam that will stun or kill, they ... shoot out a beam that will stun or kill.

Would have been much more interesting for the show if they would have just kept the plasma pistols we saw at the first half of Broken Bow(EM-33 I think it was called).
Having weapons that can only either kill or wound would have created more drama for the show,
when you cant just go and stun people at will. Would have required the writers to be more creative, too.

I kind of liked the weapons that the NX-01 had on the pilot better too
..seemed cool but more dated to the standard phasers of TNG.

 

[picardo]

I've read elsewhere that people didn't like what appeared to be minor changes in terminology, as you suggest. Phase pistols instead of phasers. Photonic torpedoes instead of photon torpedoes. Etc., etc. The Klingons in the very first episode bothered me. Then the Ferengi showed up, but since we never learned the name of the species, that's okay because it doesn't violate continuity. I think that's what turned a lot people off about the show.

There was also a mention of Ferengi in the Dear Doctor episode, a patient describes them as a warp capable alien race.

 

[Melakon]

Yes, the Ferengi are mentioned by name there, but apparently Starfleet never puts the name together with short, orange, big-headed aliens until 200 years later. Even T'Pol seems ignorant about them.

 

[dub]

Spock was the only alien we saw, there were likely dozens of others onboard that kept missing the camera. Its the same way we never saw a stellar cartographer in TOS but you assume that a ship of exploration has several.

You can make any assumptions you want in order to justify anything. But the fact (what we actually saw on screen), was that the 1701-Ent had one alien in it's crew. For the NX-01, a ship which was launched some 200 years before the 1701, and a pre-Federation ship, it was perfectly natural for there be only one alien. In fact, if Archer had had his way, there would not have been any. Considering how xenophobic humans were in the 22nd century, this seems logical.

ENT as a Earth-based ship makes sense to have few aliens onboard, but it should have been an early Federation ship instead with lots of aliens on the crew.

Why? Ent was a show about Earth's initial exploration outside of the solar system prior to the formation of the Federation. You may have wanted to see an early Federation ship, but other than that, I see no reason why Ent or the Nx-01 "should" have been about the early Federation.

Yeah, I have to agree with gblews. I really enjoyed seeing humans being wary, nervous, and at times naive when it came to dealing with or meeting other species. And the lack of non-humans heightened that tension for the crew and for the audience (speaking for myself). It also helped make things interesting for Phlox and T'Pol. Of course, it would have been really great if the writers were allowed to keep the crew grounded on earth for the first season.

 

[T'Girl]

... and Phlox (for some reason? I don't recall them explaining).

I did wonder about Phlox, I know the Enterprise left Earth earlier than scheduled, but who was supposed to be the ship's doctor? They wanted Phlox along to care for the Klingon, but why was the "original" doctor simply dropped from the crew roster? It doesn't seem like the kind of move Archer would have agreed to.

There actually is a lot about the show they got right, I liked the way they expanded on the Vulcans and the Andorians. While I disliked the TCW as many do, the Sulban were interesting and so were the Xindi.

The "photonic" torpedoes really should have been missiles with small nukes.

 

[Morpheus 02]

I'm not a big Enterprise fan, but I'm also not a hater. Actually re-watching it right now via my DVDs. It's my only good condition DVD set since it's not well worn, but I still own them! So brownie points for that.

The other day though, I did develop a theory as to one perhaps subtle or subconscious reason so many fans turned away from the show?

What if it's all the subtle alterations to Trek lore?

What do I mean? Well, think about it. Shuttle pod instead of shuttle craft. No red alert / tactical alert instead. No photon torpedoes / eventually photonic torpedoes. Enterprise instead of the Enterprise. Phase pistols instead of phasers.

All those subtle little things designed to show the evolution of them, the predecessor to what we knew, intended to show the earlier stage of things... could those minor trivial details have been a key to putting some people off?

To some it could have been a sort of OCD thing. To others, an annoying nit-picky issue. others still totally unaware it was effecting them negatively. Some may even have felt as if B&B where trying to re-create Trek in their own image or something.

I dunno. It's a bit of a trivial/silly theory, and it's certainly well moot at this juncture, but I thought it an interesting proposition.

Going back to the original post...my thoughts are similar to others...


It isn't so much the "subtle alterations" as much as how they really were NOT alterations, and did NOT represent something "new " or "original".

A biggie you missed was them dropping "Star Trek" from the title. Non-Trek sci-fi fans wouldn't have fallen for the title change, and those who were Trek fans probably rolled their eyes on HOW MUCH it was like Star Trek -- and as others have said, it could interchange easily with other series.

Some copycat stuff was just dumb -- like "hull plating"...they were basically the shields of the future"..and the Enterprise looked the same as always.

Phase pistols -- I was hoping they would be "phase rifles" with backpack generators like the laser soldier from the 1st Generation of 1980's GI Joe. Only the talk of 2 settings made that weapon feel like appropriately primitive.

The "photonic torpedoes" could have at least been missiles, less effective than photon torpedoes.

Transporters weren't needed -- and again, since they worked in the show pretty much like TNG transporters (only malfunctioning when that week's episode revolved around the "danger").."How original."

I can see how some people hated the Vulcans...I thought they were.. "logical".

The 1/2 developed crew was a big problem....Example: Mayweather's backstory seemed interesting, but he should have been treated as a "veteran:" that would tell/show the Captain how inexperienced he was. Never happened.

While some standouts (like Phlox), not enough for us the like the cast as a whole.

it would have been nice to build the crew alien by alien. Phlox & T'Pol to begin with...but adding Shran would have been nice, and later a Tellarite.

And of course, a Romulan War, or a build up to it, would have been nice. (And no remote control ships or especially ones with a cloaking device!!)

There were other interesting things...the Xindi were a fascinating species, actually original from the monolithic space empire-races out there. But in terms of Star Trek history -- would have fit in much later (an illogical substitute for the Romulans...that inconsistency nailed the coffin on Enterprise, and doomed a potentially epic Manny Coto run.

One other random thought: HUMOR/fun -- or lack thereof. Outside of Phlox...we seemed to get little sense of fun or humor. Big contrast to TOS and DS9.

More originality, yet subtle respect to the past, would have made Enterprise a success...Manny Coto's Season 4 is the model that should've been followed. that season was NOT too little, but certainly too late.

SOme great potential, never realized fully, and too late for that initial audience needed for long term success.

 

[Praetor]

... and Phlox (for some reason? I don't recall them explaining).

I did wonder about Phlox, I know the Enterprise left Earth earlier than scheduled, but who was supposed to be the ship's doctor? They wanted Phlox along to care for the Klingon, but why was the "original" doctor simply dropped from the crew roster? It doesn't seem like the kind of move Archer would have agreed to.

There actually is a lot about the show they got right, I liked the way they expanded on the Vulcans and the Andorians. While I disliked the TCW as many do, the Sulban were interesting and so were the Xindi.

The "photonic" torpedoes really should have been missiles with small nukes.

I've wondered the same about Phlox, and generally agree with your other comments. I am one who didn't mind the "asshole" Vulcans, especially after the Kir'shara arc explained it. Rushed it, but explained it. And indeed, the Suliban weren't bad. I assumed they would become allies of the Romulans later on.

Part of my problem with ENT was in the places it was able to do things differently than the other series, by virtue of being a prequel, it didn't. The photonic torpedoes are a prime example. Turns out of you add "-ic" to anything, it makes it more primitive. Somehow.

I've always thought it would be interesting, as opposed to later series, if the missiles were the main weapon, and the energy weapons were primarily used as a means of intercepting them, as well as larger space debris. Later, as energy weapons became more advanced, they supplanted projectiles as the primary weapon. Then, you could also ditch hull-plating/shields, and make it so if the ship is damaged, she's really damaged.

 

[bullethead]

Part of my problem with ENT was in the places it was able to do things differently than the other series, by virtue of being a prequel, it didn't. The photonic torpedoes are a prime example. Turns out of you add "-ic" to anything, it makes it more primitive. Somehow.

I've always thought it would be interesting, as opposed to later series, if the missiles were the main weapon, and the energy weapons were primarily used as a means of intercepting them, as well as larger space debris. Later, as energy weapons became more advanced, they supplanted projectiles as the primary weapon. Then, you could also ditch hull-plating/shields, and make it so if the ship is damaged, she's really damaged.

Thank UPN for demanding that. They didn't want it to be a true prequel or too different from the other Trek shows, so that's how we got off-brand versions of familiar Trek tech.

 

[Praetor]

Oh, absolutely. I remember being quite vitriolic towards "the Beebs" until I figured out what exactly was going on. In the end, they were trying to make a product for consumption and had to listen to their bosses just like anyone else.

To paraphrase Agent Kay, "A person is smart. People are stupid."

 

[TheGoodStuff]

I'm not a big Enterprise fan, but I'm also not a hater. Actually re-watching it right now via my DVDs. It's my only good condition DVD set since it's not well worn, but I still own them! So brownie points for that.

The other day though, I did develop a theory as to one perhaps subtle or subconscious reason so many fans turned away from the show?

What if it's all the subtle alterations to Trek lore?

What do I mean? Well, think about it. Shuttle pod instead of shuttle craft. No red alert / tactical alert instead. No photon torpedoes / eventually photonic torpedoes. Enterprise instead of the Enterprise. Phase pistols instead of phasers.

All those subtle little things designed to show the evolution of them, the predecessor to what we knew, intended to show the earlier stage of things... could those minor trivial details have been a key to putting some people off?

To some it could have been a sort of OCD thing. To others, an annoying nit-picky issue. others still totally unaware it was effecting them negatively. Some may even have felt as if B&B where trying to re-create Trek in their own image or something.

I dunno. It's a bit of a trivial/silly theory, and it's certainly well moot at this juncture, but I thought it an interesting proposition.

To be honest, I dont think any of that mattered or contributed in any major way to the cancellation of Enterprise.

It is simply: Seasons 1 & 2 were very poor. They were cliche, they recycled plots from VOY & TNG, everything had to involve either violence or sex to 'spice up' Star Trek....and it just didn't work.

Season 3 & 4 experienced a radical shift but it was already too late. A now great show was consigned to death because a large swathe of the fanbase had abandoned ENT due to those 2 dismal seasons.

Naturally, some will cry foul and say TNG/DS9/VOY had weak opening seasons but: I dont think they were AS weak and they were from a different time period.

 

[DeepSpaceWine]

A lot of good accounts of the series here. From what I remember reading on here at the time, the main reason was people expected to see the series progress towards the forming of the Federation. Seasons 1-2 felt like generic exploration. While the Andorians appeared early (people seemed most happy with the Andorians' development in the series, even in Seasons 1-2), the series seemed to lack focus and wasn't showing enough classic races. Episodes felt like, with a few script changes, they could've been TNG or VOY episodes. I think there were far too many unknown races being encountered in close space, making people feel this was several hundreds of ly away from Earth, not within 100, 200, etc ly of Earth. Add in to that scripts many felt were bland or were patronizing (Ferengi doing the Rumplestiltskin routine) or were ripoffs ("Oasis", "Doctor's Orders" are the biggest offenders). I think, even with the lack of creativity with the technology or looking more high tech than TOS ever did, would have been overlooked by these people if they felt Seasons 1-2 had a direction and could see steps being taken towards the founding of the Federation. There were too few of these episodes. Also, if B&B had openly addressed the Klingon & Vulcan matter, saying it was part of the plot and people would see them take their classic forms over the series, I think enough people would have given them some leeway.

A secondary reason is the Temporal Cold War. People seemed intrigued by it, supported it, but that all changed in Season 2. People seemed to realize B&B were making it up on the fly and didn't have anything plotted out for it. I think that's where X-Files influences things. X-Files ran from 1993-2002, they had their movie in 1998, killed the Syndicate in 1999, and eventually launched a new mytharc in 2000 (a far lamer one with supersoldiers). X-Files and its mytharc had many fans until people realized these weren't all pieces in the same puzzle they were shown, they were random and there would be no payoff for carefully following the whole story. Carter & Spotnitz were making things up as they went along and weren't keeping track of the elements they were introducing. By the time ENT premiered, X-Files' 'genius' of ongoing story arcs was exposed, the curtain was pulled back. I think people didn't want that again. Not sure how many Enterprise viewers watched X-Files, but X-Files was hugely popular for a fair chunk of its run and was a breakout hit for 1990s Fox.


-----
Ok, my take:

I watched its original run. It was acceptable even though I lacked the enthusiasm for seeing new episodes as I did for TNG, DS9, VOY (except for the Xindi arc). There was a stretch in Season 2 which was the only time I ever tuned out of Star Trek after returning to DS9 (hey, I was a kid then and Season 1 was soooo boring). I saw every new episode for years (except fell asleep during 1 Voyager episode and had to mute part of "Ferengi Love Songs"). Upon revisiting some of the series' episodes just in the past year, I felt ENT held up the least of all the series. DS9 was perhaps the most fresh because in some aspects it was ahead of its time in storytelling, subjects, but TNG and VOY didn't look dated and aged to me and TOS, while parts looked very 60s (it can never get away from that), the stories and everything still seemed to hold up. ENT just came off as very bland, even the characters and despite being the newest series, meaning it should have held up the most in time, it just came off as bland, forgettable, dated. I realized I was only watching it just because it was new Trek when no other Trek was on, not for intrinsically liking it. Watching it next to TOS episodes gives a sense of what it should have been. The uniforms were good though (invoked astronauts, flight suits more than later uniforms) and some of the attitude was (these were pioneers, the only ones out there. TOS had to recruit a lot of people to fill Starfleet, so you're going down on quality a bit there and there was a cavalier, Wild West mentality, not the 1960s space program kind of feel)- basically, think Lewis & Clark vs. the population that settled out there and acted out the Wild West over decades. That's the difference. Besides, even a modern TOS knockoff might've done better. It certainly would've been more in character with UPN's attitude and audience.

Season 3 I remember people were intrigued by the new elements (Xindi, Delphic Expanse, Spheres) and it did feel like a completely fresh break. Even though it ended up only being a tangent on the TCW, people seemed to like the story arc overall. The ratings were nearly flat for the season, suggesting high viewer retention (but not growth). People also saw the 9/11, Iraq War parallels and felt the light, irrelevant Seasons 1-2 could be replaced with something quite relevant and heavy-hitting.

Season 4 I remember was what many people wanted, but I think most knew the series was doomed then (Friday night death slot, was barely renewed at the end of Season 3, word going around it lost its supporters among Paramount brass). I remember it seemed like too much of a good thing, being too heavy on pleasing the fanbase, trying to emulate TOS stories (a 3-part Khan supermen arc, "Observer Effect") and was too arc-heavy (one arc to another to another). I think the ideal balance would have been a blending of the Season 1/2 model (exploration, many standalone eps) and Season 4 (small arcs, 2-parters interspersed which are all tied to building the Federation or developing the TOS-TNG Trek universe). It tried to make up lost ground, but felt like rushing to add everything in before the end (and too much fanservice feels patronizing).


I think a stretch in Season 2 just destroyed Archer's character, which was already getting a reputation as a doormat. I think they got close to the right idea (an explorer first, someone who tries to smooth things over and overcome differences, who can use words to calm tensions and bring people together) but Archer ended up being more hated than Janeway. I think "A Night at Sickbay" and "Singularity" (even though under the influence, I think it plugged into the stereotype for many. I think several Season 1 DS9 episodes gave people a negative stereotype of Bajorans, which helped alienate some viewers from that series) in particular seemed to take away any credibility he had for many people.