So...I've been a Trek fan since the late 70's. I grew up on TOS re-runs, TOS movies...and remember being in 7th grade and filled with excitement when TNG premiered in early October with "Encounter at Farpoint." I also remember years later giving a new prequel show called "Enterprise" a quick watch or two, and then quickly forgetting about it, as it was unable to hold my interest (despite giving it a very open-minded try). I hadn't really been able to stick with "Voyager..." and this seemed even more difficult to engage with. So, I'd never seen about 70-80% of the series. I watched a few episodes here and there. I saw the Brent Spiner "augments" arc, but mainly because it had Brent Spiner in it. I tuned in here and there during the Xindi arc...but was lost because of the serialized storytelling and my lack of dedication to the show. Now, fast-forward ~15 years later...I decided this past winter to do a complete "skip nothing" re-watch of the series on Netflix. I must say, I enjoyed it tremendously. It wasn't perfect...and it wasn't nearly as good as TOS or DS9 in my own personal rankings...but I thought it was a fun, engaging and interesting show. So- my theory: Honestly, I think if "Enterprise" had premiered in 1987 (in place of TNG) or even 1993 (in place of DS9), it would have been much more well-received. I actually believe it is possible that it would have been MORE popular than TNG if it had premiered in TNG's place. As a related data point: I'm having trouble forcing my way through a TNG re-watch right now. I had no such issue with ENT. Now, admittedly, some of that is probably because ENT was largely "new" to me, and I hadn't seen it before...but I think more of it is because as loose and foolish as ENT could be at times, it was just admittedly more "fun" and adventure-oriented. It was less pretentious and preachy, and the characters were far more relatable than the TNG characters. I think ENT did poorly because, chronologically, it fell after so many other series and felt repetitive and stale. But, when watched "in a bottle" like I just had the chance to do, it can be observed much more on its own merits...and I found it to be very entertaining. So, count me an "Enterprise" fan!
I'm sorry, but I can't say that I agree. If you mean that if Enterprise premiered in 1987 exactly the way it was shown, there's no way it would have passed the censors. Decon-gel porn? T'pol as masseuse? The crew running around in their underwear? Buttcrack? On a show primarily meant for family watching? Wasn't gonna happen in 1987. Probably not even in 1993. Now if you meant: if they made a show in 1987 about a prequel to TOS generally, then that would be different. Because a prequel to TOS made in 1987 would have been a completely different show than what we got with ENT.
I think a more action oriented TOS prequel would have been well received in 1987 or any other year. Enterprise had a lot going for it; chiefly a decent cast and good special effects. Another "what if?" What if Enterprise and Voyager had switched airing dates? So you go from TOS to TNG to TOS prequel to TNG sequel? I think the franchise may have been a bit healthier if that had happened.
1987. Glenn Corbett would have been 54 and could have reprised his role as Cochrane in the pilot. Without First Contact, some more back story on the Human-Vulcan meeting would have been needed. Or they could have gone with the meeting as depicted in the 1980 Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology, which to be honest I still like better. Omitting the decontamination and underwear scenes would have been a small change. Who would have played Archer? I vote for Lee Majors, Fall Guy ended the year before.
How about Tom Selleck? Magnum was supposed to have been canceled in 87, but was brought back for a short eighth season.
If it had started in 1987 it likely would have done better (there were fewer entertainment options and sci-fi options) but I don't know how popular the characters would have ever been. People would have probably still felt that Archer was an unimpressive captain & lead and T'Pol and Trip might really be dismissed for being too similar to and less than their original series counterparts. For as much as people abandoned Enterprise because of having high expectations and/or burnout from the spinoffs, there were probably also people who stayed on from having loyalty and wanting to be completionists to the franchise and thinking that like the other spinoffs the show would get better as it went on. Edit: At that time there probably also would have been at least at much anger about the Vulcans in general being portrayed as antagonistic.
Robert Wagner would have been in relative limbo following the end of Hart to Hart in 1984 (ignoring the short-lived 'Lime Street') and would have been a great Archer - instead of making him the son of one of Cochrane's contemporaries, make him the actual contemporary (with Cochrane a surrogate father). Perhaps even drag Stefanie Powers in later in the series as the counterpart to Captain Hernandez, as Powers and Wagner had great chemistry in H2H.Perhaps even try and get Richard Thomas (John Boy in The Waltons), who would have been 36 at the time, as Tucker.
Why would Glenn Corbett have needed to reprise his role? The Cochrane thing in ENT was only because of ST: First Contact, which would not have existed in 1987. A prequel to TOS made in 1987 would have had nothing to do with Cochrane. And honestly, there's no way that a brand-new Star Trek series in 1987 would have been a prequel anyway. "Prequels" were only vogue after The Phantom Menace.
They could have started the trend. Though there are some prequels that predate TNG Godfather II ( though its a sequel too) Butch and Sundance the Early Years All three of the 70's Planet of the Apes films.
Well, they kinda had to be prequels, since the Earth was destroyed by the Alpha-Omega bomb in the second film. Funnily enough, I never actually knew that Temple of Doom was a prequel to ROTLA. I'd always assumed it took place chronologically. It's not like it went out of its way to call attention to itself as a prequel, IIRC.
Robert Foxworth (General Hague on Babylon 5 / Admiral Leyton on DS9 / Administrator V'Las on Enterprise itself) had just finished 6 seasons as Chase Gioberti on Falcon Crest. Coming from a primetime soap opera, he was used to outlandish storylines and truly ridiculous dialogue, and he had a suitably authoritative look with his beard. I think he would have been perfect for a mid-'80s version of Archer.
I could see Kate Jackson as a T'Pol who's a bit older at the start of the series - she'd have been well known from both Charlies Angels, and a four season run on The Scarecrow and Mrs King. This would've marked a return to television, an alternative to her run on the short Baby Boom sitcom.
I meant that Temple of Doom was its own self-contained story that had nothing to do with the events of ROTLA. But you're correct; TOD takes place in 1935 and ROTLA takes place in 1936. Guess the title cards never stuck in my young mind at the time.
I honestly don't know why people hate Enterprise. I thought it was a solid and likeable show, even in season 1 and 2. It's nice "adventure of the week" stuff and some memorable episodes. By no means is it any worse than Voyager. I don't even get the hate for Archer. Yes, he seems a bit incompetent at times but that's obviously the writers trying to show that humans are still new at this whole warp traveling thing. The series isn't a masterpiece but I think what doomed it was a mix of franchise fatigue and the fact that some fans seriously get upset about canon. From a plain characters and storytelling point of view it's my second favorite Trek show. I just... like watching it. And Shran is awesome.
Well, speaking for myself, I hated it at the time because I felt like it was being written by someone with the mentality of a college frat boy. Plus, I hated that the NX-01 was a blatant Akira class ripoff (but that wouldn't have stopped me from watching the show had it been good.)