"Enterprise" too advanced for 22nd Century

[GabyBee]

If a show is making money, they renew the show even if it's stupid and embarrassing, like all the reality crap around these days.

See also: The Big Bang Theory

NBC didn't want to cancel it -- They just had trouble affording to keep it on the air because its ratings weren't as strong as they'd like. This is what people tend not to understand about network renewal/cancellation decisions -- they're not about wanting or liking, they're about money.

I understand that. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to say "There were some NBC executives who wanted to cancel the show because they had little interest in the inherent artistic value of the shows they were producing, but were more so motivated by the monetary potential of their prime time programming."

But that's kind of needlessly long...

 

[Nerys Myk]

NBC didn't want to cancel it -- they appreciated having such a classy and well-made show on their network (it actually had just about the best visual effects in the history of television up to that point, far from being the cheap production people today tend to assume), and they appreciated the prestige of its Emmy nominations (which both Leonard Nimoy and the FX team received in all three seasons). They just had trouble affording to keep it on the air because its ratings weren't as strong as they'd like. This is what people tend not to understand about network renewal/cancellation decisions -- they're not about wanting or liking, they're about money. If a show is making money, they renew the show even if it's stupid and embarrassing, like all the reality crap around these days. If it's losing money, then they have to cancel it no matter how much they want to keep it.

Yeah, it's time to put the shoestring budget myth to rest.

 

[Ithekro]

More of a Christmas light string budget.

 

[Christopher]

TOS's budget was limited in some ways, but it wasn't the bare-bones operation that modern myth suggests, certainly not compared to the likes of the Irwin Allen shows. Indeed, the producers were very good at getting more with less, for instance, getting Wah Chang to provide high-quality props that the network wasn't willing to pay for by calling them prototypes, or getting AMT to design and build the Klingon-battlecruiser miniature for free in exchange for the model-kit rights to it. A lot of people willingly contributed things for less than they were worth because they believed in the show and wanted to help it.

But in terms of visual effects, TOS was top-of-the-line. It had four of the top FX houses in Hollywood doing its episodes on a rotating basis, the only way to handle the unprecedented load of optical effects that TOS used. They innovated whole new techniques for visual effects. There was nothing else at the time that looked as impressive, except maybe for the pilots of the Irwin Allen shows (though they tended to get progressively cheaper-looking over time).

 

[somebuddyX]

But it makes no sense to ask a show made in the 2000s for 2000s audiences to pretend it's a product of the 1960s. Again, Star Trek was not meant to be retro. It was meant to be cutting-edge futurism. Its '60s elements are the areas where it fell short of its goal to portray the future, due to limitations of budget (as in the appearance of the sets and controls) or imagination (as in the unthinking sexism). Roddenberry himself would never have wanted a later incarnation to cling to those dated '60s elements, which is why he changed the look of everything so completely in TMP (or approved of Robert Wise doing so, at least)..

Sure, but again, that's not my point. I'm saying if all you took was TOS and backtracked it 100 years, without also then adding in elements of present day extrapolated 150 years into the future, a prequel to TOS would look different from Enterprise. I'm not saying that's right but from a fan perspective I can see how not getting that would be disappointing. Like I said, it's the same way if someone predicted 100 years into the future from TOS only, you would end up with something different from TNG. There would be no Warp 10 limit, everyone would be crusing around at Warp 20 or 30. The uniform colours wouldn't have switched etc etc. It's fanon expectations vs canon actuality, the same way the Star Wars prequels were disappointing to some fans because they didn't live up to fan expectations.

 

[CaptainSpirk]

View attachment 2281

Nice short answer.

You have seen the difference in a warship from 1917 and a warship from 2017, right?

Or 1817 for that matter.

I have not. I'm not World War or history enthusiast.

As for jelly buttons, switches, and toggles... Well, I think they'd probably be labeled in any kind of reality, but somewhat generically. I can imagine Scotty whipping up one of his programs -- like blowing up the Constellation's impulse engines -- and saying finishing it with something like "go into stand by mode when Switch 1 is activated, start a 30 second timer when Switch 2 is activated. When the timer completes, execute."

I like those jelly buttons, rocker switches and toggles.

 

[Ithekro]

I have not. I'm not World War or history enthusiast.

A new warship from 1817 HMS Trincomalee
A new warship from 1917 HMS Valkyrie
A new warship from 2016 USS Zumwalt

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

A new warship from 2016 USS Zumwalt

Kinda feel sorry for the Zumwalt's captain, having to endure the inevitable flood of Trek jokes from the crew.

 

[Christopher]

Sure, but again, that's not my point. I'm saying if all you took was TOS and backtracked it 100 years, without also then adding in elements of present day extrapolated 150 years into the future, a prequel to TOS would look different from Enterprise. I'm not saying that's right but from a fan perspective I can see how not getting that would be disappointing.

Yes, it's not that I don't understand what you're saying. I don't need it explained to me again, because it's perfectly clear. I just don't agree with it. I think that perspective is missing the entire point of Star Trek. The people making the show in the 1960s obviously did not see the 1960s as the past. They were making the most futuristic, forward-looking show they could, and being retro or nostalgic was absolutely the furthest thing from their minds. Star Trek was anti-nostalgia -- a show saying that the future would be better than the past, not the other way around. It was that promise that the future could be made better that was the key to its popularity in the first place, because it was a welcome exception to all the cynical, hopeless dystopian SF that almost everyone else was doing. As someone who's been a fan of ST since the '70s, since a time when it was still seen as futuristic and forward-looking, I have no sympathy at all for the modern perception of it as some hoary exercise in nostalgia. And I think the franchise would be doomed to irrelevance and extinction if it gave in to that superficial desire for nostalgia. The only way it can remain relevant moving forward is to continue striving for the future instead of clinging to the past.

Like I said, it's the same way if someone predicted 100 years into the future from TOS only, you would end up with something different from TNG. There would be no Warp 10 limit, everyone would be crusing around at Warp 20 or 30. The uniform colours wouldn't have switched etc etc. It's fanon expectations vs canon actuality, the same way the Star Wars prequels were disappointing to some fans because they didn't live up to fan expectations.

And I think it's self-defeating and obnoxious to complain when fiction doesn't give you exactly what you already wanted. Let's be blunt -- most fans would be terrible writers. Writing is a skilled profession, as much as any other. It takes not only talent, but years and years of hard, dedicated work and training to learn how to create good stories, to learn what works and what doesn't. So of course any competently written story is going to give audiences things it didn't occur to them to expect, just as a functional airplane would have design features that someone who isn't an aviation engineer would never have expected.

And really, if fiction doesn't surprise you, if it doesn't offer any ideas you already have in your head, then what is even the point of its existence? The idea that a story should only give you what you already know is pure solipsism. People who think that way are trapped in their own heads, and it's to their own detriment, because they can't open their minds to anything new.

 

[Kor]

Yep, television is a cutthroat, for-profit commercial enterprise. Ultimately, the bottom line takes precedence over everything else, whether that be quality writing, high production values, or trying to say something important and relevant.

TOS wasn't cheap. When it started, it was one of the most expensive shows on television. Seriously, compare it to any other televised science fiction of the fifties and sixties, and you'll see how far ahead TOS's production values really were.

But it cost too much money and didn't seem to be making enough according to the metrics in use at the time, leading to budget cuts and a dismal final season that was severely lacking in top writers and outdoor location shoots, and was filled with bottle shows, space hippies, remote-controlled Spock, and a glowing green lawyer guest "star" who absolutely did not belong in the acting business, finally petering out with a pathetic whimper in one of the most forgettable episodes in the whole history of television.

Kor

 

[Prax]

So, I've heard TOS had a planned finale, that it was one of two unfilmed episodes at the end of season 3 when the show was cancelled. I also heard that the cast and crew begged to at least film the finale even if it wouldn't immediately air with the season but the studio said no. Does anybody know what the script was about?

 

[fireproof78]

Yep, television is a cutthroat, for-profit commercial enterprise. Ultimately, the bottom line takes precedence over everything else, whether that be quality writing, high production values, or trying to say something important and relevant.

TOS wasn't cheap. When it started, it was one of the most expensive shows on television. Seriously, compare it to any other televised science fiction of the fifties and sixties, and you'll see how far ahead TOS's production values really were.

But it cost too much money and didn't seem to be making enough according to the metrics in use at the time, leading to budget cuts and a dismal final season that was severely lacking in top writers and outdoor location shoots, and was filled with bottle shows, space hippies, remote-controlled Spock, and a glowing green lawyer guest "star" who absolutely did not belong in the acting business, finally petering out with a pathetic whimper in one of the most forgettable episodes in the whole history of television.

Kor

"Spock's Brain" wasn't the last episode in Season 3.

 

[Kor]

"Spock's Brain" wasn't the last episode in Season 3.

At least "Spock's Brain" had the virtue of being unintentionally funny. "Turnabout Intruder" was a profound disappointment on so many levels. Not "so bad it's good." Just bad.

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

At least "Spock's Brain" had the virtue of being unintentionally funny. "Turnabout Intruder" was a profound disappointment on so many levels. Not "so bad it's good." Just bad.

Kor

Fair enough

 

[Christopher]

So, I've heard TOS had a planned finale, that it was one of two unfilmed episodes at the end of season 3 when the show was cancelled.

Hardly any TV series back then had a "planned finale." They couldn't even be sure their episodes would be broadcast in the same order they were made; even shows that ended with cliffhanger previews of their next episodes, like Lost in Space, The Time Tunnel, and season 3 of Batman, shot their episodes in a different order and then added the tags later once the final episode order was determined. So most shows just kept on doing routine episodes until they were cancelled. Actual finales were vanishingly rare -- of the TV dramas of the '60s, The Fugitive and Route 66 are the only ones I know of that had them.

Also, I gather that a lot of the animated ST's episodes were scripts that were developed for a potential fourth season, so the producers had no intention of ending the show with season 3. It was supposed to be a 5-year mission, after all.

I also heard that the cast and crew begged to at least film the finale even if it wouldn't immediately air with the season but the studio said no. Does anybody know what the script was about?

The only thing I can find is that NBC passed on an option for two additional season 3 episodes and that the second would've been Shatner's directorial debut if it had happened. Depending on when the option was passed on, though, they might not even have decided on the plots.

 

[Prax]

The only thing I can find is that NBC passed on an option for two additional season 3 episodes and that the second would've been Shatner's directorial debut if it had happened. Depending on when the option was passed on, though, they might not even have decided on the plots.

Yes, that's the one. I heard about in an interview where it was discussed. I'll have to find it.

Shows could have finales back then. Gomer Pyle had a finale. The Andy Griffith Show's final episode featured the cast of it's succeeding spinoff "Mayberry R.F.D." And that show's first episode featured the conclusion of "Andy Taylor" where he finally gets married, not that a finale has to bring closure. Many don't, even today.

Anyways, this is all off topic. Sorry

 

[Christopher]

Shows could have finales back then. Gomer Pyle had a finale. The Andy Griffith Show's final episode featured the cast of it's succeeding spinoff "Mayberry R.F.D."

Yes, but most of the shows that had series finales back then (and there weren't that many) were sitcoms. As I said, I was only aware of two '60s dramas that had finales.

 

[Spot261]

Anyways, this is all off topic. Sorry

Just slightly

 

[somebuddyX]

Yes, it's not that I don't understand what you're saying. I don't need it explained to me again, because it's perfectly clear. I just don't agree with it. I think that perspective is missing the entire point of Star Trek. The people making the show in the 1960s obviously did not see the 1960s as the past. They were making the most futuristic, forward-looking show they could, and being retro or nostalgic was absolutely the furthest thing from their minds. Star Trek was anti-nostalgia -- a show saying that the future would be better than the past, not the other way around. It was that promise that the future could be made better that was the key to its popularity in the first place, because it was a welcome exception to all the cynical, hopeless dystopian SF that almost everyone else was doing. As someone who's been a fan of ST since the '70s, since a time when it was still seen as futuristic and forward-looking, I have no sympathy at all for the modern perception of it as some hoary exercise in nostalgia. And I think the franchise would be doomed to irrelevance and extinction if it gave in to that superficial desire for nostalgia. The only way it can remain relevant moving forward is to continue striving for the future instead of clinging to the past.




And I think it's self-defeating and obnoxious to complain when fiction doesn't give you exactly what you already wanted. Let's be blunt -- most fans would be terrible writers. Writing is a skilled profession, as much as any other. It takes not only talent, but years and years of hard, dedicated work and training to learn how to create good stories, to learn what works and what doesn't. So of course any competently written story is going to give audiences things it didn't occur to them to expect, just as a functional airplane would have design features that someone who isn't an aviation engineer would never have expected.

And really, if fiction doesn't surprise you, if it doesn't offer any ideas you already have in your head, then what is even the point of its existence? The idea that a story should only give you what you already know is pure solipsism. People who think that way are trapped in their own heads, and it's to their own detriment, because they can't open their minds to anything new.

Cool. I agree with some of that. I think there's a lot of good fan ideas and concepts that have come from having alternate viewpoints on Trek. I think there's room for all interpretations, what with IDIC and all.

 

[Christopher]

Cool. I agree with some of that. I think there's a lot of good fan ideas and concepts that have come from having alternate viewpoints on Trek. I think there's room for all interpretations, what with IDIC and all.

But we're not just talking about what some individuals would like in the abstract. We're talking about the choices that went into the creation of a show made for commercial television, a show that needed to make a profit to survive. Yes, some fans would like a more nostalgic, retro version of Trek, but that's probably only a small fraction of the population as a whole. Consciously retro sci-fi hasn't been shown to be all that popular with mass audiences -- remember what a flop Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was? Not to mention that no show ever succeed by appealing only to the core fanbase of the franchise -- there just aren't enough hardcore fans for that, and they undergo attrition over time for various reasons. So any new show needs to attract new viewers, people who weren't already fans. And new viewers would probably be confused by a show that was set 150 years in the future but looked like it was set in the past.

So yeah, sure, individual fans can wish for a nostalgic version of Trek. But the point is that Enterprise's producers had a good, solid reason for believing that never would have worked, because there wouldn't have been enough fans who preferred that approach. And it just wouldn't have fit the actual intent of the franchise as Roddenberry saw it -- and Rick Berman always tried to be true to Roddenberry's vision as he understood it (though one can quibble about the accuracy of his understanding in some respects). So the question isn't whether fans are allowed to wish for it. The question is whether it could ever actually have happened, as a matter of objective fact rather than personal desire. And objectively, a new Trek series being done in a Forbidden Planet or Flash Gordon or Jules Verne style (or however far back this nebulous "retro compared to the 1960s" idea would've gone) was just never going to happen.