Agreed. Being on a fledgling network did not help, but the competition did more to Enterprise than anything else. After being disappointed by Voyager I moved on to Stargate SG-1, Farscape, and the Invisible Man. I usually was taping maybe 3 episodes a week with school, so my time was given to less and less with TV, since I was the only one in my house who liked science fiction. So, ENT got one episode to hook me and the whole Klingon in the cornfield sucked.I think two factors that hurt ENTERPRISE the most was the network interference AND the amount of scifi competition. As stated, there were a LOT of scifi shows they had to fight with for attention. And this is before the streaming era where a viewer can watch a dozen shows at the same time and the network still not feel threatened.
Ok. They were. I did not find Worf enjoyable on DS9, though he was less insufferable on that show than TNG. Seven is...not my favorite character and I find her addition a detraction than an addition.
And Shran is annoying. Starts out as a racist belligerent and then is treated more as an ally than the Vulcans. WTF?
What would have saved Enterprise: Better Writing. Period.
The premise was good, the cast was good, the Vfx were going into pure CGI and could do more interesting things, so that was good.
The back office stuff? Crap.
A producer and network that didn't want to veer away from what was done, and didn't want to try new or interesting things. That translated into sub par or even recycled scripts. Maybe the show runners, or writers wanted to do this or that, but weren't allowed to.
But in the end, it was the behind the scenes people that torpedo'd the show with sub par effort.
The show didn't need a "Refresh" with a person being killed, or new person joining. Kind of had 2 refreshes with the Xindi 3rd season, and the mini arcs 4th season. I'm an Enterprise fan, and I hardly ever rewatch the xindi season. 1,2, 4.
Owell, thats 20 years ago, no much can be done.
What canon constraints?
ENTERPRISE was able to make it to 4 years and almost 100 episodes.
I...it would have to be handled more deftly than any writers currently working for Trek to do. Archer's attitude towards Vulcans was terrible, but the way Andorians treated Vulcans and vice versa was even worse. Having Shran on there would basically be saying "oh, you know what? All those times we tried to kill you? Just kidding!"Especially if Archer starts going to bat for Vulcan the same way he did for T'Pol and sees them as better allies for Earth than Andorians.
Why should they? ENT did the same thing with the Klingons. Why should canon be treated as sacred?whereas DIS pretty much threw out the rule book and did not care that they were rewriting what had been established as canon.
I...it would have to be handled more deftly than any writers currently working for Trek to do. Archer's attitude towards Vulcans was terrible, but the way Andorians treated Vulcans and vice versa was even worse. Having Shran on there would basically be saying "oh, you know what? All those times we tried to kill you? Just kidding!"
Why should they? ENT did the same thing with the Klingons. Why should canon be treated as sacred?
Maybe. Maybe not. The Andorians left much to be desired in ENT and I don't see Shran helping that dynamic, when the crew dynamic was already off kilter at times, or ignoring other crewmembers entirely.Yes, they would need much better writers and editors then they currently have. But it could be done, particularly with an Archer-Shran-T’Pau dynamic. That’s a fresh big 3 dynamic that could work for an ENT sequel.
I wasn't referring to that episode, though that didn't help matters either. And DSC didn't stir anything up that didn't already exist. It tried to do what should have been done from forever-diversify an empire. But, even with that, the ENT explanation provides all the rationale needed.It's all about consistency. ENT was resolving something said on DS9 in regards to how Klingons looked ion TOS. Its debatable if those episodes were ever needed in hindsight, since empires are diverse by default, but that how they resolved it. DIS didn't really need to stir anything up.
This right here is why "rescuing ENT" is a fool's errand. They really couldn't stick with the original premise or come up with something entirely original, so they had to throw so many different Trek tropes at it to try and make up for the lack of willingness to stick with their premise. Instead, Klingons, random TNG style encounters of the week, and time travel somehow set the tone.We'd already seen Klingons ad nauseum in TNG, DS9, and VOY, and yet this was what they continued to choose to show us, because they couldn't keep to their own premise or do something original.
The inherent problem with ENT as far as the Klingons were concerned, is that they actually didn't need to be in the show AT ALL. The premise was supposedly about events leading to the formation of the Federation, presumably after the Earth-Romulan War. Technically, the Klingons, being enemies of the Federation, should have come along much later. Instead, the producers decided to make the FIRST FRIGGING EPISODE about them. And make them look like TMP/TSFS/TNG Klingons to boot, along with their ships (in which they now have Birds of Prey for no apparent reason.) We'd already seen Klingons ad nauseum in TNG, DS9, and VOY, and yet this was what they continued to choose to show us, because they couldn't keep to their own premise or do something original. And the idea to have two entire episodes devoted to explaining why TOS Klingons look the way they do (precisely because of the decision to show TNG-type Klingons in the 22nd century from the get-go) was completely unnecessary and was ignored anyway by DSC.
Maybe. Maybe not. The Andorians left much to be desired in ENT and I don't see Shran helping that dynamic, when the crew dynamic was already off kilter at times, or ignoring other crewmembers entirely.
This right here is why "rescuing ENT" is a fool's errand. They really couldn't stick with the original premise or come up with something entirely original, so they had to throw so many different Trek tropes at it to try and make up for the lack of willingness to stick with their premise. Instead, Klingons, random TNG style encounters of the week, and time travel somehow set the tone.
As soon as someone demonstrates to CBS that it will make money then by all means it will happen.Nothing is stopping CBS from going back to the original premise, since there's still 100 years between ENT and DIS. Other than the excuse that ENT was not popular back then and thus nothing from the ENT era could ever become popular now. They're dithering at this point. If PIC can be a sequel series to TNG and do things that weren't done during TNG, I don't see why ENT could not get the same treatment with a sequel series, with 3 season of their own to boot.
As soon as someone demonstrates to CBS that it will make money then by all means it will happen.
Not massive profits but convinced CBS that it was worth spending money on because it would make money.And possibly not even then. It’s not about making money; it’s about what the showrunner who is hired by CBS wants to do. Did Mike McMahon come up with the idea for Lower Decks because he thought it would reap massive profits?
maybe that wasn't the intention of the thread starter
Looking back, the OP asked for possible reasons for the question "Why did ENT fail?" But the thread title is incongruously "Rescuing Enterprise," which seems to be a different topic entirely.Got to page two of this and gave up
FFS, what's the point of an Enterprise sub forum if every fucking thread leads to ENT bashing by most of the participants?
It wasn't renewed for Season 5, or beyond, but don't tell me that Enterprise didn't have great stories in comparison to other Trek series'
I've said before on here, Enterprise had good shows and not so good shows, the same as every incarnation of Trek, but I enjoyed watching every Enterprise show, not something I can say for other incarnations, especially TNG which I hated with a passion and still do.
It takes all types, it takes all types of different people with different tastes to appreciate a show or not, but ffs if you don't like the fucking show, why continually come back to it's host forum and start debates about how supposedly shit it was, or sorry, maybe that wasn't the intention of the thread starter, but that's the way it usually ends up.
There was nothing wrong with Enterprise, seasons three and four were great seasons, up there with the best Trek ever.
In the end that's all that can be done.As for how to do that for Enterprise, I personally did send a screenplay recently to Paramount a few weeks ago – where ENT characters have cameo appearances - and its been filed with the WGA-E too. I don’t know if I’ll ever get a reply from the studio though, but efforts have been made.
It's not a matter of bashing Enterprise, though I apologize if it comes across that way. It's a matter, for me, of the pragmatic mindset of how can Enterprise come back, and why should it. I appreciate the intensity of the fan love for the show, and I personally think the aesthetics have some of the best in the franchise. But, I'm a pragmatist when it comes to entertainment-tell me how this can make money and why it should come back because that's how CBS/Paramout/Viacom are going to treat it.I just simply do not see the need for the narrative to become a bash Enterprise theme, there's too many already.
I hope everyone can see where I'm coming from.
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.
This, of course, is the danger of attempting the fool's errand of comparing ratings from ENT in the broadcast era, to DSC in the streaming era. The markets are quite different, largely because they are not dependent on selling advertising, or at least not selling as much advertising as in the past.You’ve mentioned this multiple times in this thread and it’s kind of the backbone to your argument, but there’s one problem: Discovery never aired on CBS, at least not beyond its first episode, which was aired as a tease with the hope viewers would check out the rest on CBS All Access. It was a streaming show from the start.
I have a vague recollection that the first season might have ended up in CBS eventually, but it was long after it was released on streaming.
So I’m not sure how the ratings could be bad when it didn’t air in the first place?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.