What was the reason for the low ratings of "Enterprise"?

[Truth_Seeker]

"Enterprise" is definetely my favourite Trek show (especially the third season) , so I was wondering what was the reason for its low ratings, sometimes below 3 million viewers per episode.

I am not from the US, but I know that the competition for the TV market there is really severe and many good shows such as "Firefly" or "Sarah Connor" simply couldn't survive more than a season or two. Unlike them "Star Trek" has a much larger and devoted fan base, so I can't figure out why it didn't have better ratings.

 

[Mach5]

ANiS, mostly. That episode drove more viewers away than any other episode in Trek history. Stats prove it beyond doubt.

 

[Tyberius]

I actually liked A Night in Sickbay, except for Archer being a petulant douchebag.

I liked all the personal bits about the other characters.

It was a sloppy bit of writing to have Archer behave in that manner. The audience couldn't identify with Archer's position in the least. Perhaps if it hadn't been the dog we were talking about and it was Mayweather for instance?

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Actually, the entirety of season two (ANIS included) was quite subpar after the first three or four episodes. There was Trek fatigue and the new series needed to prove itself a contender. Season one had been promising, but season two really, REALLY dropped the ball for the most part. ENT was doomed after that.

 

[Mach5]

Actually, the entirety of season two (ANIS included) was quite subpar after the first three or four episodes.

Yes, but ANiS was the turning point. It marked the end of ratings' incline, and the beginning of the very steep decline.

 

[GalaxyClass1701]

Season two like most people but I rank season 3 in the top three Star Trek seasons ever. Also the channel that it was on did not help. It was in a transition phase from UPN to what ever the hell it is now.

I think a lot of people needed a break from Trek and they needed something that reinvented it. Enterprise was just another series really.

It should also be noted that the raitings were on a declince since TNG.

Fewer people watched DS9 than TNG
Fewrer watched VOY, than watched DS9.

The pattern continued with Enterprise.

 

[Truth_Seeker]

Yes, but ANiS was the turning point. It marked the end of ratings' incline, and the beginning of the very steep decline.

That episode was a boring one indeed. I've always though that producers better make 20 episode per season instead of including fillers like ANiS.

 

[Delta1]

It was a sloppy bit of writing to have Archer behave in that manner. The audience couldn't identify with Archer's position in the least. Perhaps if it hadn't been the dog we were talking about and it was Mayweather for instance?

The dog was a more important character than Mayweather.

 

[GalaxyClass1701]

It was a sloppy bit of writing to have Archer behave in that manner. The audience couldn't identify with Archer's position in the least. Perhaps if it hadn't been the dog we were talking about and it was Mayweather for instance?

The dog was a more important character than Mayweather.

Yea he was by far the worst regular character in all of Star Trek imo.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Every TV show has episodes that viewers don't care for. I have never heard of a lame episode being the reason a show got canned.

A much more important factor was the alleged "network" airing Enterprise, UPN. The network didn't have enough markets to cover the the US, so the show was not even available to watch in some locations. UPN's target demographic did not match the likely viewers for the show. Also, Enterprise was often pre-empted for sporting events, and was poorly advertised; Bakula has said in interviews that there are plenty of people who were not even aware he starred in a TV series that ran for four years.

Add to this the shrinking TV audience at the time, the migration to cable TV, UPN's imminent collapse, and TiVO numbers not being used to analyze a show's success. I believe I read somewhere (so sorry that I can't remember where ) something about Enterprise being a top-25 TiVO show in its last season. Perhaps someone else has more info about this.

Finally, at the time someone with power (i.e., a studio or network executive) was really needed to go to bat for the show, no one stepped up, for all sorts of reasons that didn't have a whole lot to do with the quality of this or that episode. Remember the first year of The X-Files? Fox (both studio and network) stuck with the show despite dismal ratings its first season, advertised the hell out of it, aired five-day marathons during that first summer to get people to sample the show-- and it survived to became a flagship series for the network.

Bottom line: The studio wants to make back its investment in the production, and the network wants to sell soap, as they used to say. How many shows do you see on TV that are crap, but have acceptable ratings and just keep coming back every new season like a bad penny? How many shows have you seen that are critical darlings, beautifully written and made, but they don't last three months because their ratings aren't good enough? It all comes down to money.

 

[Mach5]

Every TV show has episodes that viewers don't care for. I have never heard of a lame episode being the reason a show got canned.

No one can argue the fact that ANiS drove viewers away.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Enterprise had a record number of people downloading it illegally. Naturally there aren't any records to back that up 5 years on, with the sites long since gone and their owners prosecuted... I wish I'd been smart enough to screen capture some stats back then. Paramount were too slow and not technically savvy enough to take advantage of that... to provide a service, probably as much to fans worldwide who wanted to see Enterprise simultaneously with those in the US. While I don't condone those days (it certainly isn't excusable now, not in the case of the new movie, which is available quite affordably everywhere from supermarkets to online retailers), those were early days and without them, we wouldn't have the BBCi-player or whatever the CBS equivalent is. Star Trek retained a huge audience even after the show ended, if the number of fan-film downloads for New Voyages or Of Gods... were anything to go by.

We can't really discount the possibility that most of those illegal bit torrenters were in fact US-based. If that's more accurate, then it exposes how viewers either became fed up of the scheduling clash with a sporting event or another popular show (a stellar S4 clashed with either BSG or Stargate on SCI-FI Fridays didn't it?)... or perhaps they just couldn't get UPN and turned to the internet instead.

 

[MEATLOAFr]

the biggest reason for the show's low rating is that it was only played on th UPN netork, and alot of the poeple that like watching that show are in the mid west that cannot recive that channel, UPN was only available to the coast cable channels that could handle the extra channels

There was a channel in my area that had "some" UPN shows, it carried Enterprise AFTER it was canceled, even then it was at 11pm

Even I will admit that when the show was on I would download them so I could watch them and keep up... even at the poor quality back then... I got the DVD's when they were put out to see them in better quaility.

 

[DS9forever]

I would also cite the fact that DS9 and TNG came out on DVD. Why bother with Enterprise when you can revisit the older, better series?

 

[pookha]

one of the big things is how it was aired and how ratings were counted during that period.
often the mid week airing of enterprise would be canceld ect.
or some people just prefered to catch it during the repeat airing it had in most markets over the weekend.
but unlike now (i think they adjust for stuff like now for network shows) enterprise recieved no ratings credit for those weekend viewings.

and at times there were reports more people were watching during the weekend then during the week.
so much so that different people associated with the show tried to get fans to watch the mid week showing.

that if all the different viewings were added together the amount of people watching could have been double or more.


add in that unlike now back then things like how many people were tivo ect was not taken into consideration.

add in that moonves almost seemed to have a personal grudge against it (possiblly tied in with some internal viacom/paramount politics).. well..

 

[Joel_Kirk]

It was a sloppy bit of writing to have Archer behave in that manner. The audience couldn't identify with Archer's position in the least. Perhaps if it hadn't been the dog we were talking about and it was Mayweather for instance?

The dog was a more important character than Mayweather.

Ah, Mayweather was cool...He one of my favorite characters next to T'Pol, Phlox, Hoshi, and Reed.

Now, Trip was one I could have done without or at least a little less exposure....

Although, I think everyone did a fantastic job in the last two episodes of ENT that mattered: Demons and Terra Prime...

Overall, I think ENT had low ratings due to a lead that wasn't charismatic in the first couple of seasons....

Too, we recall the producers didn't call the show 'Star Trek' in the beginning; it wasn't until the later seasons....i.e. it wasn't clear what kind of a prequel they wanted to do.

At the same time, the Trek series was going downhill, IMO. There wasn't anything 'new' being shown, and the feel/writing/overall direction was routine.....things we saw in past series were suddenly ret-conned without explanation....etc...

Again, I think if the entire show had the same feel/writing as Terra Prime/Demons/Minefield/Dead Stop (and a couple of other episodes that did work), there might have been a couple more seasons...and we might have had a true winner...

I know posters say Mr. Moonves (sp?) had a grudge against the show; and, if it was on another network it would have done well... (Actually, if it was on another network, it probably would have been axed around the first couple of seasons, and we wouldn't have got showings of episodes THAT DID work).

 

[Mach5]

Why bother with Enterprise when you can revisit the older, better series?

Why bother revisiting, when you can enjoy fresh, new stuff?

 

[commodore64]

Funny, Star Trek wasn't cancelled after ANIS. The world and Star Trek survived so that argument is incorrect.

"Enterprise" is definetely my favourite Trek show (especially the third season) , so I was wondering what was the reason for its low ratings, sometimes below 3 million viewers per episode.

I am not from the US, but I know that the competition for the TV market there is really severe and many good shows such as "Firefly" or "Sarah Connor" simply couldn't survive more than a season or two. Unlike them "Star Trek" has a much larger and devoted fan base, so I can't figure out why it didn't have better ratings.

You know, this is a really good question and I think it speaks to Americans' viewing habits and what capitalism will get ya. Firefly (an excellent show -- high quality, great actors, good writing) couldn't last a year, but Survivor has been on for about 8 years.

Economics.

1. Science fiction shows take more money to make. After paying actors, crew, writers, etc., they also have to pay for special effects. Reality shows are much cheaper to make.
2. People watch reality shows. (Unfortunately.) Enough watch in order for people to want to advertise; the variety of viewers is fairly wide. Science fiction shows have a narrow audience; only specific advertisers might be interested.
3. Because reality shows are cheaper and because they might bring in more advertising, they earn more income.

It sucks. I personally hate reality shows and think some really wonderful shows suffer because of it. I sometimes wish we were like England and had a tax for good programming rather than depend on advertising. Our PBS, our viewer-supported television station, makes very little and manages to bring mostly documentary programming. Ken Burns voice overs are a lot cheaper than high-quality actors and special effects.

 

[DarKush]

My thoughts (in random order):

1. The network. UPN. It was on a low rated network that might not have been showing in every market. It also didn't mesh well with the UPN's other programming, which prevented a lot of cross promotion, and other stuff to make it the tentpole show. It stuck out like a sore thumb on UPN. To be blunt, I think ENT/UPN erred when not taking note of the network's target demographic in the casting of ENT. I think there should've been more care placed in perhaps making the captain a Latino/a, Asian, or African American, and making the younger characters more engaging and integral to the storylines. There could've also been a bit more sex and relationships thrown in there, a bit more internal conflict that didn't result in Archer, Trip, and T'Pol trading interspecies insults.

ENT's bows to being sexy and hip resulted in awkward sexual tension with T'Pol and Archer, T'Pol's catsuits, and the decon scenes, all poorly executed and unnecessary. ENT should've been on CBS proper or on SyFy Channel. If it had been making the ratings it had when it was cancelled on the SyFy Channel it would probably still be on the air.

2. Not identifying the show as Star Trek right off. Believe it or not suits, there are people who actually will watch something named Star Trek and not necessarily run away from that. Naming it Enterprise was the wrong signal, and a poor way, to symbolically disconnect the show from the other Treks. You do that with writing, characterization, etc. And the pre-Federation time period gave the writers a great opportunity to blaze their own trail, which I think they didn't fully exploit, but more on that later. Don't run from Trek's legacy, be proud of it.

3. ENT had the misfortune of coming along in the age of TV drama. TNG came out in the era of sitcoms and it didn't have much competition in regards to sci-fi drama. ENT also had the misfortune of coming along after TNG, DS9, and VOY, plus X-Files, Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, Farscape, and other sci-fi shows. There was a lot more genre content to choose from and ENT didn't do a lot to retain the viewers it had intially. It needed to be bold, fresh, and gripping, and ENT was safe and predictable. And when BSG came on the scene, and it was bold and gripping, talking about contemporary problems in a sci-fi setting like TOS, but also giving us more complicated and flawed characters that 21st century audiences were accustomed to. For me, the ENT characters came off as too bland and poorly defined. I think Trip and T'Pol are the most popular because the writers seemed to figure them out first and wrote better material for them. And if not giving the audience great writing, the 21st century shows did big action and shocking revelations, which ENT handled poorly too. The show just wasn't that compelling, despite the excellent FX.

4. Creative misdirection. I think the Temporal Cold War was poorly conceived and executed, one among many creative missteps that didn't mine the richness of the pre-Fed. backdrop. Only in the last season did they seem to get it, and Manny Coto started building up to the Romulan War, but my one issue with the fourth season was it was so plot driven, trying to connect all these dots that the characters often got lost in the shuffle.

5. Good writing and good characterization (similar to Point #3). That can make up for a lot of faults. I just never bought Archer as being the linchpin to the future or someone a young Jim Kirk would want to be. There was too much telling, without showing. That had nothing to do with Scott Bakula as an actor, but I think his performance was stilted and he always looked constipated. I also didn't care for the development or use of Mayweather or Hoshi. Both were underutilized. I thought Phlox's and Reed's characterization were fine, but they was also underutilized. The attempt to recreate the TOS trinity with far less interesting characters (IMO) was a mistake, and not the best way to honor TOS.

 

[Mach5]

Is it my imagination, or did someone call "Sarah Connor" a good show?