What Could Have Changed to Have Brought Back Enterprise?

[DarKush]

I think some people can take the optimistic future thing too far with Trek. It's a television and movie franchise. I want it to educate and inspire, but also entertain. And for that you need drama, conflict, action, humor, romance. I was perfectly fine with Season 3 of Enterprise, starting with the Season 2 finale. I thought it was the shot in the arm that the show needed. And I liked Dark Archer in Season 3. It's the first time I got Archer. And I liked how he was haunted by the decisions he made in the Expanse, in Season 4. I don't know if Enterprise Season 3 or the Dominion War were against Roddenberry's vision. I mean Trek was about exploring the human condition and our darker natures and violence are part of that condition. Both Enterprise and DS9 presented us with situations where we really saw our heroes tested, and sometimes skirted the edge, or even fell off (with Archer torturing that pirate and Sisko's role in luring the Romulans into the war) but ultimately they did the right thing.Both men were also impacted by their experiences, though Archer seemed a bit more scarred than Sisko. Sisko never bought it up again.

I was a big fan of Quantum Leap back in the day so when I heard that Bakula got picked for the captain's role I was happy. I knew that Bakula had the versatility, likability, and energy to play a dynamic captain. Unfortunately we didn't get that with Captain Archer. He was the weakest of all the Trek starring captains, but my opinion of him rose due to Season 3. I still think he's at the bottom, but due to Season 3 and 4 at least I don't think he's a completely horrible captain, just a character whose potentially was barely realized.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Yes, Archer's potential was unrealised, but I really feel that the writers should've written him with Scott's personality and limitations in mind. As an actor, it's Scott's job to bring the words to life, whatever they are, but the writing should've been catered to his strengths ... and weaknesses. Even sports teams do as much with their draft picks, despite their reportedly being athletes. Had this been the case, -ENT- would've been Scott's Finest Hour.

As for Gene Roddenberry's "vision," Rick Berman had the greatest respect for Gene and his stamp on STAR TREK. Paramount wanted -ENT- to be more like Space Cadets. Rick's ability to play the game, as it were, preserved more of the flavour of this beloved franchise, whilst keeping true to a certain degree of "updating," which was necessary. -ENT- could've been so much more. So much better. Still in all, it fits comfortably with the other Trek that came out before it. That didn't happen by accident ...

 

[topcat]

I saw every episode of TNG and QL when they aired, except the last season of TNG due to the air time being changed without notice.
Bakula has talent when hes allowed to. But then again he had been given more control over his QL character so he was able to take it in directions that he felt were right. In ENT he had almost none.

 

[2takesfrakes]

TNG is what STAR TREK is to me, the rest of the franchise is just Bonus Features and I'm all for it. I watched ENT when it first aired, with great anticipation and was disappointed for reasons that I should've known better, about. Specifically, I wanted it to resemble NASA more than STAR TREK, even though NASA does its damnedest to imitate the show wherever possible, it seems like. But they're in a future century, for a start, besides which there's just no way there's going to be zero-g all the time. People floating through corridors and all that - where's the money? But even back in those days, we're hearing all about the miracle of CGI and the leaps and bounds it was making.

Whatever ... everybody's standing upright, shouting out "fire phase cannons and photonic torpedoes!" Oh, really -- 'photonic torpedoes?' That's a clever bit. T'Pol looked like shite, with that mushroom wig and there were other issues, to be sure. But the intent was there - the desire - to entertain and concern itself less with tradition and just get on, you know? Anyway, once it had that first season under its belt, I was certain this show would go the distance, as surely as the others had. And the desperation of the fans who coughed up the amount for another season, upon news of its cancellation told me that surely, history would repeat itself. Now, this thread asks what could've changed, or been done differently. It's an interesting question, but that was kind of the point of ENT, I thought: to do STAR TREK as differently as possible and still earn the moniker of STAR TREK. If they had it to do over again, in a Space Cadet style, it wouldn't have made it, I suspect.

 

[topcat]

they promised us a trek that was to have had the quality of TNG production and acting, and with a theme somewhere between TOS and Voyager.
A ship on the fringe of nowhere dealing with simple new discoveries. And they failed. They promised us a glimpse at the actual romulan war, with actual combat and such, like what Axanar did with the Klingons.
"wagon train" that became "days of our lives"

 

[eyeresist]

they promised us ... A ship on the fringe of nowhere dealing with simple new discoveries.

They did that more than any other Trek series. 'Breaking the ice' was the best example on the scientific side, as it's about investigating a comet, but throughout the first two seasons they were often investigating stellar phenomena with an enthusiastic attitude. They also (mostly) kept the sense of discovery when meeting new aliens (something Trek can't always boast), which is part of what made the Xindi arc work.

They promised us a glimpse at the actual romulan war, with actual combat and such

Funny, you were just saying earlier that you didn't want war, and that its presence in ENT was a big problem. Also, I don't recall the Romulan War ever being "promised" by anyone.

 

[Ghel]

Honestly, I thought Enterprise was the closest tone and "feel" to TNG since TNG. I think the unfortunate reality is that Enterprise really did suffer from the cliche of "going to the well one too many times." From the mid 1980s until Enterprise was cancelled, there was at least one Star Trek series on at all times. Many times there were two series and films. I think that under those circumstances, no matter how good or innovative the show had been, most people had gotten a bit of Trek fatigue by that time.

 

[STEPhon IT]

The Vulcan/ Andorian conflict had to be resolved. The distrust was strange and from season to season it felt the races were moving farther and farther apart. Stages of progression in peace could've been a start?

 

[Griffeytrek]

What could have saved Enterprise? It was the most expensive show to produce on a Network that people not only weren't watching, but in most cases had completely forgotten existed.

Also comparing ratings between Star Trek shows can be very deceptive. TNG and DS9 were both syndicated shows. Sold to other local networks. TNG was the start of the Syndicated television boom of the 80's and 90's. They created and drove the market for such things. And they were about the only thing out there that wasn't game shows or re-runs of old network shows. By DS9 that market had become dense and saturated. With competition from every angle. Voyager was the flagship show of a new broadcast network. Enterprise was the flagship show of the merger of two failed broadcast networks.