I recognize that Precious Cargo sucked because Padma had all the chemistry of a tablespoon of flour and even Connor couldn't rescue it. ANIS, however, remains one of my favorites of the series. It was just slap FUN.
Rescuing Enterprise
- Thread starter Whizkid
- Start date
Like Captain Archer, I always do the breast that I can.
Very interesting responses. Many thanks y'all. I especially like the contextualisation of 2001 media in the response above.
Another factor from 2001 perhaps?: 9/11. ENT, like most Trek except DS9, was too utopian. BSG, for instance, wasn't. Perhaps that era really did suffer from, not franchise fatigue, but utopia fatigue.
The 9/11 allegory that was the third season came about because TPTB didn't know what the show was supposed to be about, other than some vague premise about the 'formation of the Federation.' By the end of the second season, somebody came up with the idea to swerve the premise in that direction, despite the fact that the Xindi attack or its importance was never once addressed in previous Star Trek productions before.
And when Star Trek came back to tv with S1 of DIS on CBS – which was far more like BSG than ENT was – the ratings weren’t good. Trek hasn’t been on tv since and has been relegated to streaming.
Guess ENT didn’t kill Trek on tv after all. DIS did, aAd doing the things ENT didn’t do too that were supposed to be the things ENT should have done.
I will say I did like that one line from Hoshi asking if they had a chainsaw onboard. And Archer and Phox chasing Phlox’s bat was also fun.
Even in "Precious Cargo", that tribunal with Archer and T’Pol was fun.
Maybe the best scenes and lines from both episodes should have been put in a different episode.
I don't really speculate on why Enterprise didn't prosper, but I have some ideas...
* Similar to Voyager, they refused to double down on the premise of the show itself. Instead of a prequel with tech, we got transporters that were reliable, the same phaser/photon weapons set as they used 200y later, polarized hull plating that was basically the same as shields, disposable shuttlecraft, and a universal translator that usually worked.
* Instead of watching the Federation form naturally, we had some future guy coming back and trying to retroactively engineer it into existence. It makes the establishment of the Federation feel far less meaningful. Given how overused time travel already was, couldn't they have given it a rest here?
* T'Pol's ridiculous outfit. Vulcans wear robes, not body hugging catsuits.
* Out of touch showrunners. Remember, these were people who actually thought the audience would like "These Are the Voyages"!
* And that intro music...
* Similar to Voyager, they refused to double down on the premise of the show itself. Instead of a prequel with tech, we got transporters that were reliable, the same phaser/photon weapons set as they used 200y later, polarized hull plating that was basically the same as shields, disposable shuttlecraft, and a universal translator that usually worked.
* Instead of watching the Federation form naturally, we had some future guy coming back and trying to retroactively engineer it into existence. It makes the establishment of the Federation feel far less meaningful. Given how overused time travel already was, couldn't they have given it a rest here?
* T'Pol's ridiculous outfit. Vulcans wear robes, not body hugging catsuits.
* Out of touch showrunners. Remember, these were people who actually thought the audience would like "These Are the Voyages"!
* And that intro music...
Viewership was in a general decline with voyager, and it continued with Enterprise.
Why did it fail?
Basically, it was more of the same, to the point of literally recycling Voyager scripts. People just got tired of more of the same. They wanted more/different/interesting, yet all they churned out was the same stuff from the past 10-15 years.
They had an excellent premise with a prequel set before the romulan war, and leading up to the formation of the Federation. Yet they squandered it.
Could it have been better if they were given the year lead time they asked for instead of a rush job? Maybe.
at the end, with Voyager and Enterprise, the premise of the series was loaded with great possibility, but they just made Tng lite.
Why did it fail?
Basically, it was more of the same, to the point of literally recycling Voyager scripts. People just got tired of more of the same. They wanted more/different/interesting, yet all they churned out was the same stuff from the past 10-15 years.
They had an excellent premise with a prequel set before the romulan war, and leading up to the formation of the Federation. Yet they squandered it.
Could it have been better if they were given the year lead time they asked for instead of a rush job? Maybe.
at the end, with Voyager and Enterprise, the premise of the series was loaded with great possibility, but they just made Tng lite.
That’s funny. Because there are five currently running Star Trek shows on tv, DSC being one of them. You have a strange definition of ‘killing Trek on tv.’
Broadcast TV is basically dead anyway. Streaming is real now.
And I always love hearing about what a disaster DSC and the other shows are. Because obviously TPTB love making shows that lose tons of money, right? That’s why they’re all renewed and more shows and movies are coming, right?
And DSC is in its fifth season, so clearly in addition to spawning multiple trek shows, it's found a fanbase in its own right.
Many people seem to rate a series subjectively ("I don't like it so it's a failure"). Given that no one person can speak for everyone, I prefer to go by objective standards: large scale opinion polls, viewership, and whether a series gets renewed.
Many people seem to rate a series subjectively ("I don't like it so it's a failure"). Given that no one person can speak for everyone, I prefer to go by objective standards: large scale opinion polls, viewership, and whether a series gets renewed.
And yet, some tv shows are growing in viewership on broadcast tv despite broadcast tv being nearly dead.
The main difference between ENT and DIS is that:
With Enterprise, TPTB gave up on them and did not think it as worth rescuing, especially seeing as S3 was the rescue.
With Discovery, TPTB kept backing them and found a way to keep it going, to the point of a new Trek boom. Discovery was worth rescuing to them.
-------------------------------
Now to expand on S3, which was the attempted rescue of the show…
Killing off Archer would have gotten the most attention; the lead had never been killed off of a Trek show before. But the problem with that is that morale would plummet on the show behind the scenes, as everyone liked Bakula.
So, what other things could they have done instead? Let’s see...
Kill off Reed instead of Major Hayes, and have Major Hayes be the new addition to the main cast for S4.
Kill of Hoshi; let the rescue mission be a failure because the Xindi Reptilian torture methods went too far, and it affects Archer that on top of the other crew he lost, and the questionable methods he employed, he lost one of his close friends as well.
Kill off Mayweather in the penultimate episode via exploding panel. And in the following season, the other space boomers are mad that the more advanced Starfleet got one of their own killed.
Heck, kill off all three in the penultimate episode, since so many deaths in a single episode, let alone a season, had never been done before. Plus, they weren’t getting the same character development as the big 3 anyways.
Kill of Trip. Instead of waiting for the series finale to leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, move it up a season and have him sacrifice himself to protect the ship from the Sphere Builders.
Have T’Pol’s Trellium-D addicted lead to an OD, where she’s either permanently comatose or dead because of it.
Phlox is wounded during a space battle and the other medics onboard are unable to treat him because they aren’t familiar with Denobulan physiology. So, he dies an otherwise avoidable death.
And if they don’t want to kill off anyone, then do at least one of the following:
Mayweather leaves Enterprise, finding it to be a very intense and life changing experience, and returns back home to the quieter and safer freighter life.
Hoshi stays on Earth, because both Vulcan and United Earth physicians recommend that she never goes into space again due to the torture she suffered left permanent psychological trauma that will interfere with her work.
Phlox leaves Enterprise, because that was one of the worst wartime situations he’d ever seen, and takes an offer to be reassigned to Rigel before an even bigger war breaks out.
T’Pol return to Vulcan to marry Koss and is reassigned to a different planet, like Coridan or Rigel, taking her off of Enterprise.
Reed leaves for Columbia, believing that his criticisms toward Archer in regards to not being strict enough and military like is partially to blame for so many Starfleet deaths and want to be led by someone else.
Trip decides to transfer to Columbia at the beginning of S4 instead of much later in the season, needing time away from Enterprise for a bit. And becomes the first officer as there are no plans for Vulcans to be onboard that ship.
Archer gets promoted to Commodore for his actions, he later gets promoted to Admiral and chief of staff after the death of Admiral Forrest.
And then, because a crewmember or two or three leaves, Shran decides to stick around joins the short-staffed NX-01 crew.
There was a lot they could have done to recuse the show even more than they did. It just wasn't done.
The main difference between ENT and DIS is that:
With Enterprise, TPTB gave up on them and did not think it as worth rescuing, especially seeing as S3 was the rescue.
With Discovery, TPTB kept backing them and found a way to keep it going, to the point of a new Trek boom. Discovery was worth rescuing to them.
-------------------------------
Now to expand on S3, which was the attempted rescue of the show…
Killing off Archer would have gotten the most attention; the lead had never been killed off of a Trek show before. But the problem with that is that morale would plummet on the show behind the scenes, as everyone liked Bakula.
So, what other things could they have done instead? Let’s see...
Kill off Reed instead of Major Hayes, and have Major Hayes be the new addition to the main cast for S4.
Kill of Hoshi; let the rescue mission be a failure because the Xindi Reptilian torture methods went too far, and it affects Archer that on top of the other crew he lost, and the questionable methods he employed, he lost one of his close friends as well.
Kill off Mayweather in the penultimate episode via exploding panel. And in the following season, the other space boomers are mad that the more advanced Starfleet got one of their own killed.
Heck, kill off all three in the penultimate episode, since so many deaths in a single episode, let alone a season, had never been done before. Plus, they weren’t getting the same character development as the big 3 anyways.
Kill of Trip. Instead of waiting for the series finale to leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, move it up a season and have him sacrifice himself to protect the ship from the Sphere Builders.
Have T’Pol’s Trellium-D addicted lead to an OD, where she’s either permanently comatose or dead because of it.
Phlox is wounded during a space battle and the other medics onboard are unable to treat him because they aren’t familiar with Denobulan physiology. So, he dies an otherwise avoidable death.
And if they don’t want to kill off anyone, then do at least one of the following:
Mayweather leaves Enterprise, finding it to be a very intense and life changing experience, and returns back home to the quieter and safer freighter life.
Hoshi stays on Earth, because both Vulcan and United Earth physicians recommend that she never goes into space again due to the torture she suffered left permanent psychological trauma that will interfere with her work.
Phlox leaves Enterprise, because that was one of the worst wartime situations he’d ever seen, and takes an offer to be reassigned to Rigel before an even bigger war breaks out.
T’Pol return to Vulcan to marry Koss and is reassigned to a different planet, like Coridan or Rigel, taking her off of Enterprise.
Reed leaves for Columbia, believing that his criticisms toward Archer in regards to not being strict enough and military like is partially to blame for so many Starfleet deaths and want to be led by someone else.
Trip decides to transfer to Columbia at the beginning of S4 instead of much later in the season, needing time away from Enterprise for a bit. And becomes the first officer as there are no plans for Vulcans to be onboard that ship.
Archer gets promoted to Commodore for his actions, he later gets promoted to Admiral and chief of staff after the death of Admiral Forrest.
And then, because a crewmember or two or three leaves, Shran decides to stick around joins the short-staffed NX-01 crew.
There was a lot they could have done to recuse the show even more than they did. It just wasn't done.
They love their war stories, but they still refuse to tell the story of the most important war of all.
I’m good with that, because whatever they come up with for the Romulan War would not even be close to what I’ve envisioned it being like in my head for the last 30 years.
Of course, none of what they do for Trek these days ever lives up to my expectations, so I admit I’m a bit biased.
Last edited:
Since I don't know exactly what was wrong, it's hard to determine a way to fix it. However, I do think that permanently killing off an established character would have been a very daring move. Trek had never had the balls to really do it. Tasha Yar had been around for less than a year. Spock was brought back in the next movie. And, Dax was basically comparable to hiring a new actress to play the character; her "station counselor" angle was BS, given that she was doing combat missions.
So... we want to send an Enterprise crew member to the hereafter. But who?
Archer? Daring, but I agree about crew morale IRL. When you get a guy like Scott Bakula, you want to hold on to him.
T'Pol? One of two aliens on the show, and she had an interesting arc going with Trip and her emotions going haywire.
Trip? Not a bad choice... his loss would be felt, especially by Archer.
Reed? Armory officers do go in harm's way, and he was a spy to boot. Writing a convincing death for him would be simple enough.
Phlox? He was the most interesting character they had.
Mayweather? Uhhh... would anyone notice?
Hoshi? Also a decent candidate, especially since once the UT became reliable, she had little to do.
So... we want to send an Enterprise crew member to the hereafter. But who?
Archer? Daring, but I agree about crew morale IRL. When you get a guy like Scott Bakula, you want to hold on to him.
T'Pol? One of two aliens on the show, and she had an interesting arc going with Trip and her emotions going haywire.
Trip? Not a bad choice... his loss would be felt, especially by Archer.
Reed? Armory officers do go in harm's way, and he was a spy to boot. Writing a convincing death for him would be simple enough.
Phlox? He was the most interesting character they had.
Mayweather? Uhhh... would anyone notice?
Hoshi? Also a decent candidate, especially since once the UT became reliable, she had little to do.
There's no point in doing so. It's the unreachable pinnacle of Trek storytelling, so mythologized that even if they did tell the story it wouldn't sell because it would not live up to expectations.
Because it wasn't making money. Not worth it.
Sounds like it was making money then. So, worth it.
It just comes down to a stick measuring context.
‘Killing off’(God but I hate that trope) a main character is by now a devalued ploy.Marvel and DC have been killing off and resurrecting legacy characters so frequently that it has become a running joke( if not a running sore) in the comics business.
Enterprises problems were bigger than just offing one of the cast.
Enterprises problems were bigger than just offing one of the cast.
Well sure, but at the time it was potentially workable, and consistent with the more serious tone that the show had attempted.
But, I agree, ENT struggles wouldn't have been solved by killing off a main cast member. It lacked a solid connection to enough audience members to keep it on the air. It was afraid of embracing its prequel concept because people might not know it as "Star Trek" despite originally calling it "Enterprise." There was a lack of confidence in the production throughout and it showed.
Right, I agree. The Romulan War, AKA the TCW, was just heating up.
They were laying the groundwork for it with Romulan incursions from the future with remote controlled ships, (why no-one ever saw Romulans - brilliant!) so why not finish it.
If nothing else, explain that damn bigger on the inside ship!
The problem isn't killing off characters, it's that they always seem to get resurrected. To use a non-Trek example, Superman's death was awesome (I was looking at the last page through a blur of tears). His return was an insult. As a result, I have lost all interest in the character.
The Abrams films and DSC need to explain the same thing.Right, I agree. The Romulan War, AKA the TCW, was just heating up.
They were laying the groundwork for it with Romulan incursions from the future with remote controlled ships, (why no-one ever saw Romulans - brilliant!) so why not finish it.
If nothing else, explain that damn bigger on the inside ship!
Similar threads
