What Could Have Changed to Have Brought Back Enterprise?

[T'Girl]

I have alway have want to see this chart with TOS included, just for comparison.

It isn't franchise fatigue (or not primarily), it's the expansion of cable channels after TNG's run, people had more options and more niches to seek their entertainment. Star Trek increasing became a niche itself, it's unlikely that a Star Trek series will ever pull in twenty million viewers, but if well made it might pull in between four and six million.

TOS most of love for sentimental reasons

I think it goes far beyond that, It's a combination of a choice of style, the chemistry between the principal actors (which later productions largely lacked), the absence of political correctness. TNG, DS9 and VOY can blur together, TOS stands apart.

Its ironic that a show that promotes a future Utopian Earth

I don't think it's a "utopia"

has to pander to mainly white males or they won't watch the show. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

All shows have to play to their viewer demographics, like it or not Star Trek is primarily an American show, the majority of Americans are white, more men than women enjoy science fiction.

Deep space nine is the best of the franchise

Personally I place the five series thus, TOS - TNG - VOY - ENT - DS9. All fans have their list of favorites, DS9 is at the bottom of my list.

As a female I cringe and laugh everytime I watch TOS episdoe. Great characters but so Americancentric and sexist.

As a female myself, our culture has changed in the last half century, one of the things that makes TOS more "sci-fi" in my eyes is that the culture depicted is different than the one I live in.

.

 

[AdmiralShran]

And yet the more emotional, volatile, humanlike new Spock was pretty well received or at least didn't keep 09 from being successful and ID doing OK.

The new Spock isn't emotional in an irritating way. T'Pol steals the sheets out of arrogant spite ("The Andorian Incident").

Its ironic that a show that promotes a future Utopian Earth where our past and present day skin colour and gendar issues have disppeared has to pander to mainly white males or they won't watch the show.

Not everyone watches shows for their leftish socio-political commentary but just for an adventurous story and characters they relate to. There's also a noticeable upswing in left political viewpoints between TNG and DS9 so they may have also alienated some of the conservative base of the show.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Personally I place the five series thus, TOS - TNG - VOY - ENT - DS9. All fans have their list of favorites, DS9 is at the bottom of my list.

When did you last watch DS9? DS9 is the best series. VOY has just enough racial stock characters to offend everyone: angry black man, overachieving quiet asian, frat boy white guy who likes driving fast, and Native American noble savage who literally is the only human in all of Star Trek who still seems to practice Earth religion.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Personally I place the five series thus, TOS - TNG - VOY - ENT - DS9. All fans have their list of favorites, DS9 is at the bottom of my list.

Oh yeah, there's also hotheaded Latina.

 

[Avro Arrow]

As I said, they alienated their primary viewer-base by pretty much tossing all white males out the airlock while I'm guessing TNG was watched by primarily white males.

So, according to you... the main problem with modern Star Trek shows is... too much diversity.

 

[Dukhat]

There was nothing that ENT could have done to survive, because it was already doomed from the start. Between UPN's nuttiness, Berman's love of the status quo and "We're all very pleased..." Braga's frat-boy mentality, recycled Voyager stories, and overall tiredness of yet another new Star Trek series, it was over before it started.

 

[T'Girl]

Oh yeah, there's also hotheaded Latina.

Who I identify with the most.

When did you last watch DS9? DS9 is the best series. VOY has just enough racial stock characters to offend everyone: angry black man, overachieving quiet asian, frat boy white guy who likes driving fast, and Native American noble savage who literally is the only human in all of Star Trek who still seems to practice Earth religion.

As opposed to DS9 with the "angry black man" (Sisko), the angry white ex-terrorist (Kira), the angry white sheriff (Odo), the white science officer (Dax), the white every-man (O'Brien), , the overachieving doctor (Bashir), and the gang down at Cheers (Quark, etc).

is the only human in all of Star Trek who still seems to practice Earth religion

Too much diversity for you? And of course there was religion during TOS (the best series).

.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Who I identify with the most.
As opposed to DS9 with the "angry black man" (Sisko), the angry white ex-terrorist (Kira), the angry white sheriff (Odo), the white science officer (Dax), the white every-man (O'Brien), , the overachieving doctor (Bashir), and the gang down at Cheers (Quark, etc).
Too much diversity for you? And of course there was religion during TOS (the best series).

Sisko is a human with a righteous temper. Tuvok, it appears, is a vulcan who, for whatever reason, has exceptionally dark and violent thoughts and acted out exceptionally during childhood. It's much different when you make Sisko act like a normal human than when you make a Vulcan in the way Tuvok was portrayed. I'm exaggerating Voyager's problems except with Chakotay, Paris and Kim who are all extremely two dimensional.

DS9's characters are somewhat stock TV characters but they're not racial stereotypes like we find too much in Voyager.

Dax is one of the least stock characters in all of Star Trek.

And of course there was religion during TOS (the best series).

Barely... A few passing references to "God" to make the studio happy - far from actually having someone practice animism rituals as they did with Chakotay. I don't think Voyager is bad, I like it, I just think the writing is weak and I'm positing my view as to why Star Trek died. I don't believe it was "franchise fatigue" so much as "frachise mismanagement."

 

[T'Girl]

A few passing references to "God" to make the studio happy

I've done some research on this and I've never found any evidence that "the studio" ever insisted that religious references be put into Star Trek. NBC never told Roddenberry to put a wedding scene in Balance of Terror where the bride kneels in prayer and there were religious symbols on the wall.

NBC didn't suggest the writer put the Son of God into Bread and Circuses.

Roddenberry's problems with "the man" were a myth of his invention during the 1970's when he gave talks at conventions and college campuses.

.

 

[AdmiralShran]

I've done some research on this and I've never found any evidence that "the studio" ever insisted that religious references be put into Star Trek. NBC never told Roddenberry to put a wedding scene in Balance of Terror where the bride kneels in prayer and there were religious symbols on the wall.

NBC didn't suggest the writer put the Son of God into Bread and Circuses.

Roddenberry's problems with "the man" were a myth of his invention during the 1970's when he gave talks at conventions and college campuses..

Well, I'll take your assertion as correct. He certainly didn't come off as someone particularly friendly to religion. And you're the second person who has mentioned genuflection in Balance of Terror to me on forums - I don't remember seeing this at all so I'll take your word it exists. As far as I've heard - religion for the human characters was highly frowned upon - at least during the TNG series and frequently during the TOS series we get hints of contempt towards religion.

And I don't think that's true at all that it was a myth that the studio pressured him into certain decisions or Majel Barrett certainly would have been first officer.

 

[suarezguy]

VOY has just enough racial stock characters to offend everyone: angry black man, overachieving quiet asian, frat boy white guy who likes driving fast, and Native American noble savage who literally is the only human in all of Star Trek who still seems to practice Earth religion.

Oh yeah, there's also hotheaded Latina.

The portrayals of Kim and occasionally Chakotay were a little condescendingly stereotypical but I thought for the most part they and the other characters were portrayed in a pretty color-blind and egalitarian way.

 

[Nyotarules]

The new Spock isn't emotional in an irritating way. T'Pol steals the sheets out of arrogant spite ("The Andorian Incident").



Not everyone watches shows for their leftish socio-political commentary but just for an adventurous story and characters they relate to. There's also a noticeable upswing in left political viewpoints between TNG and DS9 so they may have also alienated some of the conservative base of the show.

I thought the concept of not mistreating people based on race, skin tone and chormosomes was good manners or just logical, nothing leftish about it or are you confirming the stereotype people of a rightish bend believe mistreating people based on skin colour and gendar is a brilliant way to run the planet?

 

[T'Arwen]

Nothing could save it. Enterprise is a dud. It's the redheaded stepchild of the Star Trek franchise.

Some don't think so anymore according to this article. I realize it's just an excerpt but it's apparently turning into a cult classic. With some people not knowing they should hate it. It was on Yahoo a week ago but I'm surprised no one mentioned it yet.
http://www.newsweek.com/star-trek-prequel-push-science-fiction-410058

I've often wonder what would have happened if the producers and the writers had fully embraced the concept of the Temporal Cold War, instead of endlessly bitching that it was being imposed upon them.

There's no way anyone could embrace an idea imposed on them. I hated the idea, not because there were random people telling Archer what to do but because it was so damn confusing. And believe it or not, it wasn't UPN's nuttiest idea, as Dukhat pointed out. They wanted to bring in boy bands every week. Although you have to sift through the mediocre first two seasons for the very good episodes, the real miracle was Enterprise wasn't worse.

her character is far less Vulcan and far more "angry, snobby, and bitter shrew." Compared to Saavik or Valeris, she's human - not Vulcan.

I don't think T'Pol was supposed to be likable in the beginning. You probably missed that she evolved over the course of 4 years. After all, if she stayed arrogant her whole life, she couldn't have a romance with Trip, join Starfleet or be a devoted mom to a half-human. It would be like saying Mr Darcy is a snob. Yes, he behaves that way toward Lizzy but it doesn't define him. However, I sort of agree with you that that made her too human. Because she played the role of logical killjoy in the first two seasons, they wanted to do something different and went too far in the other direction (cough, drug addiction, cough). That said, I happen to like the idea that Vulcans have all different kinds of personalities, and thus, T'Pol being unusually emotional. The problem was in the execution. Had they gone to a 5th season, I would have loved to see just how T'Pol dealt with that as a child, as her mom described.

 

[Nyotarules]

I don't think T'Pol was supposed to be likable in the beginning. You probably missed that she evolved over the course of 4 years. After all, if she stayed arrogant her whole life, she couldn't have a romance with Trip, join Starfleet or be a devoted mom to a half-human. It would be like saying Mr Darcy is a snob. Yes, he behaves that way toward Lizzy but it doesn't define him. However, I sort of agree with you that that made her too human. Because she played the role of logical killjoy in the first two seasons, they wanted to do something different and went too far in the other direction (cough, drug addiction, cough). That said, I happen to like the idea that Vulcans have all different kinds of personalities, and thus, T'Pol being unusually emotional. The problem was in the execution. Had they gone to a 5th season, I would have loved to see just how T'Pol dealt with that as a child, as her mom described.

I think Enterprise reminded fans that Vulcans are not born logical its something they learn, and since there are billions of them some of them are bound to fail their own standards (in RL just consider how many religious don't practise what they preach or struggle to). And no one was more emtional thatn V'Las Robert Foxworth portrays him as the emotional meglomanical that he was and none of the Vulcans picked up on it?

 

[DarKush]

As I said, they alienated their primary viewer-base by pretty much tossing all white males out the airlock while I'm guessing TNG was watched by primarily white males. We were left with Chief O'Brien in DS9 who is a good character in his own light - but also kind of a depressing character - but some people will relate to him about as much as I relate to Tom Paris which is absolutely not at all. You can count "Odo" I guess, but he's not human even though he acts like a really grouchy one. In Voyager all you have is Tom Paris.

By contrast, NCIS, for example, has all the diversity of neoconservative convention and has absolutely dominated the ratings. So they didn't find a middle ground between being diverse and being so diverse that you alienate your primary viewerbase that isn't super hip on ensuring every character they enjoy isn't a white male. Obviously not all the viewerbase will fall off if you cast almost no major white male roles into a show like Star Trek, but some certainly will.

That's the unfortunate reality... Trek fans are apparently pretty white...

I watched TNG as a kid and I didn't watch much DS9, much of VOY or ENT until after they were off the air. I don't really remember why I didn't - I think I was just mostly pretty young when those shows were on and I didn't watch them much because my parents didn't.

Admiral Shran,

My initial reaction was to not agree with you, but I read more deeply into this post and a previous one and I think you are you on to something. A truth that many Trek fans might not want to admit too since many Trek fans see themselves as progressive, enlightened, forward thinking where diversity is concerned, or egalitarian. Or at least that's what they want others to think, or that the egalitarianism has limits, perhaps even they might not realize.

That being said, I think it is subjective about how 'boring' Enterprise's white male leads are. Granted I'll give you Archer and Reed, but Trip was pretty much the heart of the show. I've felt in many respects Enterprise was his series and I'm surprised that if there was a desire on the part of the primary viewer base for a white male lead that they didn't gravitate to Trip.

Conversely I've wondered if maybe Enterprise should've went more diverse and not less. I mean it was on a network that had a lot of shows at the time that seemed to have non-white majority casts or leads. Why not take Enterprise into that direction or diversify its cast even more to reach out to new viewers? It was a clash, with the newer, more contemporary looking shows on the same network with a traditionally cast Enterprise. Enterprise wasn't the best fit and probably belonged on CBS.

 

[AdmiralShran]

A truth that many Trek fans might not want to admit too since many Trek fans see themselves as progressive, enlightened, forward thinking where diversity is concerned, or egalitarian.

A family friend I had growing up as a pre-teen (when TNG and VOY were on for me) was a pretty right wing conservative. His family was a bunch of dedicated republicans. They didn't seem to like DS9 - but they really liked TNG and VOY and owned all the DVDs of those shows when they came out. I'm not a republican, but neither do I like democrats. The point is, not everyone who watched Star Trek was left wing and if a family of neocons can be really into Voyager, then there's probably families of neocons who were into TNG and really turned off by DS9 and Voyager. The truth is people see what they want politically in Star Trek - because there's a little for everyone.

Trip was pretty much the heart of the show.

Really? I hated him except in Cogenitor when we discovered Archer was a seriously deluded person. Not the actor's fault - I just didn't like him at all. Shran was a hyperbole of the captain we deserved in Enterprise.

 

[AdmiralShran]

I think Enterprise reminded fans that Vulcans are not born logical its something they learn, and since there are billions of them some of them are bound to fail their own standards (in RL just consider how many religious don't practise what they preach or struggle to). And no one was more emtional thatn V'Las Robert Foxworth portrays him as the emotional meglomanical that he was and none of the Vulcans picked up on it?

According to "Memory Alpha" V'Las was the child of Romulan sleepers - and therefore not Vulcan. We're to assume that Vulcans have in some way genetically adapted to logical life due to the existence of pon farr which I would suggest is something Romulans don't experience despite being a subspecies/same-species as Vulcans. They should have had someone on Enterprise point out to T'pol that arrogance, disgust, contempt, spite, and egotism are all emotional if they were really aiming for this "Vulcans are not especially adapted to stoicism" line. It just makes the humans look dumber than humans are.

 

[AdmiralShran]

I think Enterprise reminded fans that Vulcans are not born logical its something they learn, and since there are billions of them some of them are bound to fail their own standards (in RL just consider how many religious don't practise what they preach or struggle to). And no one was more emtional thatn V'Las Robert Foxworth portrays him as the emotional meglomanical that he was and none of the Vulcans picked up on it?

Whoops - I can't edit my comments yet. V'Las was not the son of Romulans - I accidentally read that on the Memory Beta google summary. The whole thing was messy because they had all these Vulcans running around caliming to be logical and stoic and nobody seems to catch on that they're absolutely not.

 

[AdmiralShran]

I think Enterprise reminded fans that Vulcans are not born logical its something they learn

The writers seemed to not understand logic. You can easily create strife between vulcans and between vulcans and non-vulcans as logic depends on accepted premises. Some vulcans might think democracy is a more logical form of government, others might believe autocracy has its merits. Some vulcans might think strong military responses are logical or even that it's reasonable for vulcans to eliminate emotional races for interests that benefit them - other vulcans might believe that expansionism causes backlash and it's irrational to do so. There was no reason to resort to emotions to make antagonistic vulcans in Enterprise and this probably annoys me the most about them. T'Pol is far far less stoic than Spock who is half human which is supposed to be a big thing as to why he may be more emotional than most vulcans and, yet, we still have Spock being more cool-headed than nearly every Vulcan in Enterprise. The whole thing was just annoying.

I've decided T'Pol was a genetic mutant and the Vulcans assigned her to an Earth ship assuming the humans would probably do something stupid and T'Pol would be blown up. :-)

 

[DarKush]

A family friend I had growing up as a pre-teen (when TNG and VOY were on for me) was a pretty right wing conservative. His family was a bunch of dedicated republicans. They didn't seem to like DS9 - but they really liked TNG and VOY and owned all the DVDs of those shows when they came out. I'm not a republican, but neither do I like democrats. The point is, not everyone who watched Star Trek was left wing and if a family of neocons can be really into Voyager, then there's probably families of neocons who were into TNG and really turned off by DS9 and Voyager. The truth is people see what they want politically in Star Trek - because there's a little for everyone.



Really? I hated him except in Cogenitor when we discovered Archer was a seriously deluded person. Not the actor's fault - I just didn't like him at all. Shran was a hyperbole of the captain we deserved in Enterprise.

Fair point about the different ideological/political stripes of Star Trek fans. Though I wasn't looking at it strictly as a Democrat or Republican issue. I was basing my contention on some of what I've read on forums and threads on this site mostly. Despite the varied political leanings it seems to me that many Trek fans believe they are enlightened about diversity or are at the least are tolerant. Which may or may not be the case.

Perhaps the genius of Trek or why it has lasted so long as a franchise is that it does provide a bit for everyone, you can read into stuff what you might like, though I still think the general bent is minimally, innocuously, or superficially ideologically progressive in its outlook, particularly 24th century Trek.

As for Trip, I believe he was the heart of the show because to me so much of it was about him. His relationship with T'Pol was the main romantic relationship on the show. Trip showed more growth, or at least better written growth as a character than the supposed main character Archer. Trip went from at worst biased to at best skeptical about Vulcans to being T'Pol's lover and the father of her child. Also the Xindi attack on Earth, it was Trip who lost the most, with the death of his sister. Though the show could've done a better job of writing out his revenge tale or changing the course of that, at least they set it up. And his death closed out the series. And he was liked well enough that Trek Lit. actually resurrected him and still find a way to shoehorn him into the continuing book series.