This show was all about three characters, Archer, T'Pol and Trip. A little ways back was Reed and then miles behind, bringing up the rear was Hoshi and Travis. No other series was as bad as this, in Voyager for example Harry Kim got loads of episodes dedicated to him. I thought it was unfair on those two
...And got fingered by never getting promoted. Poor character development was ENT's biggest weakness, but I imagine that we would have gotten more from Reed / Travis / Hoshi / Phlox in seasons 5-6-7.
They kind of blew it on Travis. The original point of Travis was to be that he was the most experienced space traveler in the group, allowing him to play off the others in interesting ways. This still wasn't exactly a fantastic idea, since their ill-defined mission would likely have carried them out of territory with which Travis was familiar before very much time elapsed, but it was at least something. Then they cast such a young actor that the concept sort of had to be scuttled. He was no longer a guy who would match or exceed Archer's experience as a space traveler; he was the kid who flew the ship. So we saw a lot of him...flying the ship.
That would have been great if Travis had been closer to Archer's age, a boomer who decided to go Star Fleet. There could have been conflict! He is so wide eyed all the time.. he should at least have been reassuring Hoshi in Season 1 when she was a nervous wreck about space travel. Reed did have a lot of development IMHO, much more of a personality than Travis. He's just so intensely introverted and work oriented that his character isn't as obvious. But there was the conflicts with the MACO leader Hayes, Section 31, his discomfort at socializing with the captain, his pessimism. You really see the pessimism in Shuttlepod One and Minefield, it's quite comical how frustrated Trip and Archer get with him. I think he's fairly well fleshed out as a personality, just needed some eps focussed on him. So I see Hoshi and Travis as the only ones that were totally undeveloped.
It is fine with me that it was about Archer, Trip, and T'Pol. Everybody does not have to have equal time. It was certainly not the case in TOS, and it seemed to work fine there as well. There are stars, and there are supporting players-simple as that.
That would have been fine with me, too, but they were really wrapped up in a "seven" and not as much a "Big Three," and seem to have vacillated on the matter to the show's arguable detriment.
Of course, there's also the fact that said supporting players in TOS were also minorities in 1960's America. I don't mind that some characters got less scene time, but I do mind that some were so under-developed that they may as well have been played by a GCI image of the actors and no one would have noticed. Harry Kim is the best example of an under-developed character, but even he got to have one or two episodes a season and allowed to at least play sick-kick on Tom Paris's holodeck adventures. Coto tried to give Hoshi and Travis something of a personality in the last season, but it was far too late.
There was a conscious attempt to focus on Archer, Trip and T'pol in the same way that TOS focused on Kirk, Spock and McCoy. ENT was never intended to be an ensemble piece.
Hoshie was characterized notably, a gifted linguist who was bit neurotic. Then someone decided she was a card shark and adept at martial arts, which seemed off compared to her early portrayal. OH, I'M COOL NOW. Yeah, right.
Then the opening credits should have reflected that intent. Dom, John, Linda and Anthony's credit should have come after the first commercial.
They were regular cast, not guest stars. Also star billing is very different now than it was in 1966.
Focusing on just three characters is part of why ENT lacked quality. Ensemble shows tend to be better as a rule.
It worked nicely for TOS. There is no rule that states that Ensemble shows tend to be better. Dr. Who isn't an ensemble show, neither is American Idol, or the Colbert Report.
TOS was in the '60s, too. Hero/sidekick shows were popular back then because the characters didn't really matter.
They needed promoitions and should have someone who was ocs not academy.It's also bullshit to have someone in a military at rank of 0-5 without know college or graduate schooling.
Ask any screenwriter, and they will tell you that the characters always matter. Ask any kind of writer. Without character, there is no story. I think that if Enterprise had gotten 7 seasons, there would have been more stories focusing on the supporting cast. Reed had been set up with the Section 31 background. Hoshi had taken command of the ship in "Terra Prime," and had demonstrated her aikido in "Affliction," and had developed the universal translator, so there were places to go with her character. Hopefully, hopefully, something more would have been made of Travis's background (the Horizon, Gannett). And there were plans to go to Denobula in Season 5, which would have meant more for Phlox.
That was the point I was making, which was that the show should've been more character-based, which would mean it would need more from the rest of the ensemble cast instead of just focusing on the "big three".
None of that was necessary. The show was very character driven. The supporting cast was there for support. Should they have gotten more stories and development? Sure, why not? But I don't think the show suffered from that. It suffered from being shoehorned into a formula from network execs afraid that the audience wouldn't know they were watching Star Trek.