That is very interesting to hear. I would assume that they show is very popular with the Netflix audience? Enterprise and TOS are listed in the Most Popular queue on Netflix along with Arrested Development. Maybe there is hope?
Enterprise needs to come back!!!!
- Thread starter nschamp1976
- Start date
That is very interesting to hear. I would assume that they show is very popular with the Netflix audience? Enterprise and TOS are listed in the Most Popular queue on Netflix along with Arrested Development. Maybe there is hope?
They won't be willing to spend millions on sets. Trek requires cool spaceship interiors, which don't come cheap. Most TV shows just require generic building interiors, which are far cheaper.
Look at ST's V and VI, they weren't willing to do more than build a new bridge set, and use the already-standing Next Generation sets for the rest of the ship. I can't see Enterprise fans being particularly happy if the NX-01 suddenly looks like just like the new movie Enterprise on the inside!
Look at ST's V and VI, they weren't willing to do more than build a new bridge set, and use the already-standing Next Generation sets for the rest of the ship. I can't see Enterprise fans being particularly happy if the NX-01 suddenly looks like just like the new movie Enterprise on the inside!
Well the fans might be able to suspend disbelief, otherwise, there would have to be substantial gains for anyone to pick it up.
I never said it would work, more of a food for thought thing, but I am happy to learn trek is among netflix's most popular shows.
Glad to know it lives on somewhere.
Enterprise died because it was not a very good series, with the possible exception of Season 4 (which was surprisingly decent.) However, by season 4 the damage was done. I fell out of love with Enterprise after the episode "Dear Doctor," which made me so angry I felt like hitting something. Season 2 and season 3 were worse, with the exception of a few episodes such as the ones about the Andorian story line, etc.
You say you want Enterprise back because of the nostalgia of it being gone and there being no more Star Trek series on TV, but the truth is that a lot of Star Trek fans hated Enterprise with a passion and stopped watching it.
I'm not trying to hate on Enterprise. In retrospect it probably wasn't that bad, but when you pair it against great series like DS9 and TNG, Enterprise fell short of the mark.
You say you want Enterprise back because of the nostalgia of it being gone and there being no more Star Trek series on TV, but the truth is that a lot of Star Trek fans hated Enterprise with a passion and stopped watching it.
I'm not trying to hate on Enterprise. In retrospect it probably wasn't that bad, but when you pair it against great series like DS9 and TNG, Enterprise fell short of the mark.
Enterprise not being a good series is your opinion I would say. I don't think DS9 was a good series, and people love it. Enterprise died because it was on UPN. It did have low ratings for ST but it was still their number 1 drama. UPN wanted to have a new image and new audience and Enterprise didn't fit. So they stopped promoting it and changed the times around (like FOX did with Arrested Development, which was also a good show undeserving of an early cancellation).
I think having a new series set slightly in the future of Enterprise is a good idea. That way they can have guest appearances from the crew. I have a hard time believing that the set is nowhere to be found, I mean wasn't that the original set in in a mirror darkly? Well, even if they don't have it set on a ship, they could set it at Federation Headquarters, take a Caprica type approach (although this would be a sequel not prequel). But since that was marketed terribly and got cancelled, hopefully they can learn from SyFy's mistakes.
I think having a new series set slightly in the future of Enterprise is a good idea. That way they can have guest appearances from the crew. I have a hard time believing that the set is nowhere to be found, I mean wasn't that the original set in in a mirror darkly? Well, even if they don't have it set on a ship, they could set it at Federation Headquarters, take a Caprica type approach (although this would be a sequel not prequel). But since that was marketed terribly and got cancelled, hopefully they can learn from SyFy's mistakes.
It's way to soon for another Star Trek. I think a decade and a half of Star Trek on TV is part of the reason for the diminished ratings and popularity on TV. Some people kind of lost interest after a while.
I too would love to see Star Trek back...but it will be a while before that happens. When it does come back, it will probably be revamped and have a fresh story line (kind of like the 2009 Star Trek movie with an alternate timeline.)
I too would love to see Star Trek back...but it will be a while before that happens. When it does come back, it will probably be revamped and have a fresh story line (kind of like the 2009 Star Trek movie with an alternate timeline.)
It's never too early for another trek.
The main problem that star trek and many other scifi shows face, is that Science Fiction is a genre that is expensive to produce. It can't compete with things like reality tv, which people seem to just eat up ( for the life of me I cant understand why) moreover, reality tv is VERY cheap to produce.
It also doesn't help that UPN made the show hard to watch with its ever changing time slot and limited advertising (I didn't even know the show existed until 2008!)
The show literally had the odds stacked against it before it even got a chance.
The main problem that star trek and many other scifi shows face, is that Science Fiction is a genre that is expensive to produce. It can't compete with things like reality tv, which people seem to just eat up ( for the life of me I cant understand why) moreover, reality tv is VERY cheap to produce.
It also doesn't help that UPN made the show hard to watch with its ever changing time slot and limited advertising (I didn't even know the show existed until 2008!)
The show literally had the odds stacked against it before it even got a chance.
If it's too soon for Star Trek, why did JJ Abrams' movie do so well and why is Paramount spending millions on the next one?
There's always an audience for something good. The holdup is not demand, it's the expense of TV vs the much smaller audience compared with movies. Also, making $ off ads is much less lucrative than getting people to plunk down $12 for two hours.
Imagine of Star Trek on TV (or streaming, via Netflix or Amazon) were paid for that way. One season of 24 episodes at 40 min per episode = 16 hours @ $6/hr = $96 for a year.
How many people would pay close to $100 for a season of TV that they're used to getting for free? Maybe if it were part of a cable subscription they're paying for anyway, but would Showtime or HBO want to develop a series associated with free TV? That's not their brand.
The reason Star Trek is having trouble getting back on TV is that there's no good place for it anymore, for business reasons. If the business problems could be worked out, there would be an audience.
But basic and premium cable are doing expensive, glitzy-looking series like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead, and being rewarded with massive ratings. There's a market for expensive shows that look expensive, too. And more plans are afoot for series about Vikings, pirates, etc. Those will have hefty production budgets. Starz just announced plans for a space war series that sounds like it will cost a fair amount to produce.
Star Trek could fit right in with this stuff, except that it's been associated with free TV, and might seem too tame and kid friendly to appeal to the people who want to see Vikings and zombies marauding across their TV sets.
To make Star Trek viable on cable would require it to be "dark and gritty," at least moreso than its ever been. Just look at the series that have big budgets/big ratings and envision Star Trek fitting in with that crowd. It has no other place to fit in, anymore.
There's always an audience for something good. The holdup is not demand, it's the expense of TV vs the much smaller audience compared with movies. Also, making $ off ads is much less lucrative than getting people to plunk down $12 for two hours.
Imagine of Star Trek on TV (or streaming, via Netflix or Amazon) were paid for that way. One season of 24 episodes at 40 min per episode = 16 hours @ $6/hr = $96 for a year.
How many people would pay close to $100 for a season of TV that they're used to getting for free? Maybe if it were part of a cable subscription they're paying for anyway, but would Showtime or HBO want to develop a series associated with free TV? That's not their brand.
The reason Star Trek is having trouble getting back on TV is that there's no good place for it anymore, for business reasons. If the business problems could be worked out, there would be an audience.
Star Trek wouldn't compete directly with reality TV, which is a staple of broadcast and the lower-brow sort of basic cable channels like TLC. Broadcast can't support space opera anymore and TLC wouldn't bother with it.
But basic and premium cable are doing expensive, glitzy-looking series like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead, and being rewarded with massive ratings. There's a market for expensive shows that look expensive, too. And more plans are afoot for series about Vikings, pirates, etc. Those will have hefty production budgets. Starz just announced plans for a space war series that sounds like it will cost a fair amount to produce.
Star Trek could fit right in with this stuff, except that it's been associated with free TV, and might seem too tame and kid friendly to appeal to the people who want to see Vikings and zombies marauding across their TV sets.
To make Star Trek viable on cable would require it to be "dark and gritty," at least moreso than its ever been. Just look at the series that have big budgets/big ratings and envision Star Trek fitting in with that crowd. It has no other place to fit in, anymore.
True. Plus UPN didn't have much market coverage in the first place. The moving timeslot, the many preemptions for sports coverage...many people who might have watched simply couldn't find the show. A niche show (which sci-fi is) needs nurturing, but UPN didn't seem to have a clue how to do it. And yeah, wrong demographic. Plus the explosion of channels, more competition, changing of the guard at Paramount...ENT was a victim of changing times.
The TOS sets for IaMD were painstakingly recreated by the art department, from scratch. That's one reason those episodes cost so much.
As for the ENT standing sets, they (and just about everything else Trek-related on the Paramount lot) were trashed, literally bulldozed out of existence. The prevailing thought at the time (I believe Doug Drexler talked about this on his site, he was a witness) was that someone in charge had a thing against Trek and wanted to make a statement. Petty.
Plus, really atypical. When studio sets are no longer needed, they are usually put in storage so this or that wall or part can be refurbished and re-used on another show. That's why we saw so many reworked set pieces and decor from one Trek show to the next. Destroying all those sets and costumes (except for the stuff they auctioned off for $$$ ) was wasteful. They could have held an "estate auction" of Trek sets and props and Trek fans would have paid a mint for it all. DUMB.
So if ENT came back (ah, we can all dream), everything would need to be rebuilt, which only a major studio would be able to afford, and Paramount is putting its money into Abrams Trek. I like Abrams Trek just fine, but, well, I miss Enterprise. I thought there was great potential for another three seasons.
That hurts my heart.
Yeah, thats what I thought (about the recycling of sets). I can't believe they destroyed it. I agree that fans would have paid a mint for that. Had I money, I would've bought it.
Its sad that there doesn't seem to be a place for Star Trek on TV anymore, although it seems like the last couple conventions have had an event that's basically a panel saying "will there be a new ST on television?"
Personally I just tolerate JJ Abram's Star Trek, but I guess anything new is better than nothing.
True. Plus UPN didn't have much market coverage in the first place. The moving timeslot, the many preemptions for sports coverage...many people who might have watched simply couldn't find the show. A niche show (which sci-fi is) needs nurturing, but UPN didn't seem to have a clue how to do it. And yeah, wrong demographic. Plus the explosion of channels, more competition, changing of the guard at Paramount...ENT was a victim of changing times.
The TOS sets for IaMD were painstakingly recreated by the art department, from scratch. That's one reason those episodes cost so much.
As for the ENT standing sets, they (and just about everything else Trek-related on the Paramount lot) were trashed, literally bulldozed out of existence. The prevailing thought at the time (I believe Doug Drexler talked about this on his site, he was a witness) was that someone in charge had a thing against Trek and wanted to make a statement. Petty.
Plus, really atypical. When studio sets are no longer needed, they are usually put in storage so this or that wall or part can be refurbished and re-used on another show. That's why we saw so many reworked set pieces and decor from one Trek show to the next. Destroying all those sets and costumes (except for the stuff they auctioned off for $$$ ) was wasteful. They could have held an "estate auction" of Trek sets and props and Trek fans would have paid a mint for it all. DUMB.
So if ENT came back (ah, we can all dream), everything would need to be rebuilt, which only a major studio would be able to afford, and Paramount is putting its money into Abrams Trek. I like Abrams Trek just fine, but, well, I miss Enterprise. I thought there was great potential for another three seasons.
I could not have said it better my self, you summed up my feelings about ENT and how it was mishandled perfectly. Oh and great closing sentence.
Actually, they did auction off a bunch of the stuff.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/It's_A_Wrap!_sale_and_auction
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/It's_A_Wrap!_sale_and_auction
Haha, indeed.
NO DIGITAL SETS. Sanctuary did them, V did them, it never looked convincing.
Or they just need to do them better I agree most of the Sanctuary ones weren't great (and I loved the series) but there were a couple where I couldn't tell if it was a real set or not. I imagine Sanctuary was fairly low-ish budget so perhaps if had more time or money could be improved. I do think any new Trek/space opera needs to have more-alien alien environments rather than lazy LA/Vancouver forest/gravel pit-of-the-week. Something more like Vulcan in ENT season 4.
I agree most of the Sanctuary ones weren't great (and I loved the series) but there were a couple where I couldn't tell if it was a real set or not. I imagine Sanctuary was fairly low-ish budget so perhaps if had more time or money could be improved. I do think any new Trek/space opera needs to have more-alien alien environments rather than lazy LA/Vancouver forest/gravel pit-of-the-week. Something more like Vulcan in ENT season 4.
Last edited:
HopefulRomantic pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. Incompetence, compounded in the end by a terrible waste.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. We do not want the next Star Trek to become like the Star Wars prequels, with every single scene consisting of actors in front of a green screen. It just kills the look and feel of a show/movie when every scene looks like a video game, when I keep looking around wondering where I put the controller.
I loved the show, and if you think about it, its now the only 'cannon' show that hasn't been altered by some movie Timeline! When Trek '09 mentioned 'Admiral Archer' I kinda smiled as it brought back memories. Enterprise got cancelled just when it was getting darn good!
No chance it'll come back, but I do think its time for a new trek show - personally, I'd love it set during the Kirk/Spock timeline (current movie universe) or in same timeframe as Enterprise....
No chance it'll come back, but I do think its time for a new trek show - personally, I'd love it set during the Kirk/Spock timeline (current movie universe) or in same timeframe as Enterprise....
Entrprise, tried and failed we have to be content with hat we have with a 'how it all began' series.It took me som time to like nterprise, andpersonall I don't I could go throught it again. Anyoe who had not seen or heard of the other ST sries and came in on Enteprse wuld wonder why there as a following of such magnitude to Star Trek at all!
Similar threads
