Would like to see Enterprise come back…

[Richard S. Ta]

Again, none of that was why the show failed. ENT failed because it was a very expensive show to produce but made little money for the studio. If it was a ratings powerhouse, it would have lasted seven seasons.

DS9 and VOY kept their heads above the water just about and lasted seven seasons.

Back then a Trek show didn’t have to be a powerhouse, it just had to compete and Enterprise couldn’t even do that. Not even with a ready made fanbase.

IMO Enterprise failed with audiences because it was more of the same. A ship that’s a lollipop with two sausages for engines, a crew with well trodden roles and plots that were first cooked for TNG, reheated for VOY and served cold for ENT.

They wanted to go with a ring ship or a Daedalus style ship with a sphere instead of a saucer and that might have been a start on the right road. A distinctive ship that says ‘this is not your normal Star Trek’.

Instead the whole focus from the execs was on maintaining the Berman era status quo.

 

[Ferengi Prime 5]

I found this article that basically it agrees more with my ideas than yours @Dukhat ... It was not a rating winner and the cost was not factor...

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/enterprise-failed-star-trek.html#:~:text=After four seasons of low,triumph of the human spirit

 

[1001001]

Giant Freakin Robot...

 

[Dukhat]

I found this article that basically it agrees more with my ideas than yours @Dukhat ... It was not a rating winner and the cost was not factor...

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/enterprise-failed-star-trek.html#:~:text=After four seasons of low,triumph of the human spirit

That is a known clickbait site whose info can never be trusted. I am correct in my assessment; they are not. Cost was very much a factor as to why ENT got cancelled. The bottom line is that Les Moonves didn’t like having to produce expensive shows that showed no profit. That’s why those reality TV shows proliferate: because they’re super cheap to produce and they get stellar ratings. ENT was the polar opposite of that.

 

[fireproof78]

Giant Freakin Robot...

Wasn't that your other username?

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I found this article that basically it agrees more with my ideas than yours @Dukhat ... It was not a rating winner and the cost was not factor...

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/enterprise-failed-star-trek.html#:~:text=After four seasons of low,triumph of the human spirit

No, you’re still dead wrong I’m afraid.

 

[Ferengi Prime 5]

That is a known clickbait site whose info can never be trusted. I am correct in my assessment; they are not. Cost

You have your alternative notion of why...

No, you’re still dead wrong I’m afraid.

No, you and rest of your yoke can enjoy your alternative and incorrect notion of why...

 

[Dukhat]

You have your alternative notion of why...



No, you and rest of your yoke can enjoy your alternative and incorrect notion of why...

You are welcome to believe what a clickbait site tells you, and you are welcome to believe that ENT was cancelled because it was a ‘dark’ show or other such nonsense. I don’t particularly care. I know what I’m talking about.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

No, you and rest of your yoke can enjoy your alternative and incorrect notion of why...

No, you’re still dead wrong I’m afraid.

Just like you’re wrong in all those other threads you made.

I find that listening to people who have more knowledge of a topic than me let’s me learn something.

Of course, the alternative is to put one’s fingers in one’s ears and go “yaddayaddayadda”. If that works for you, knock yourself out.

 

[1001001]

I wouldn’t trust GFR to give me the correct time. And besides it’s just another opinion piece.

If Enterprise had made a profit, it would have stayed on the air. Period.

Now why it failed to generate profit is up to subjective interpretation.

ENT was definitely not “dark” from my point of view. If anything, given the setting, it should have been darker. John Billingsley himself has said so many times.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Because nobody agrees with you?

No. I don’t give a shit if I’m popular on this board or not and if the majority of the board disagrees with me. I had left this topic to rest last week, and I am again doing that this week. I have more interesting things to do than to help this topic devolve into a shitshow. But if you think ganging up on someone past midnight at the start of the work week on a message board is cool…

Facts do tend to take the wind out of the sails of a lot of arguments...

Facts can also cause groups of people to lose their cool and gang up on the person providing them…

Here's a thing. None of the kids who like Star Trek are cool kids. Call that a stigma, or a perk, but it's not and has rarely been the cool thing to like in any of its forms.

Within Star Trek, CBS thinks that TOS and TNG are the most popular Treks. They are the shows you would say are “the cool kids” because of their place in the mainstream consciousness. And I’m not worried or bothered that I back the not so popular show ENT that most people don’t really care about or might have even forgotten existed. Since I realize in hindsight that there were multiple factors - both internally and externally - that hindered it from reaching the heights of popularity. But ENT has issues with popularity.

Of all the people to captain a ship named Enterprise, Archer is the least popular captain; Kirk, Spock, Picard, Riker (BoBW) and now Pike are all more popular than him. Even with Harriman, fans can make jokes about Tuesday. And Garrett is synonymous with an all-time classic Trek episode. Even Jellico has his fans. Archer’s coolness seems to start and stop with name dropping him in movies and various episodes and various things being named after him. No one is talking about the things Archer did or didn’t do. Archer seems to be liked in a "I like the idea" kind of way. Whereas with most of the captains, they like the person.

Even among the spinoff captains, Sisko and Janeway are more popular than Archer. It could even be debated that Lorca is more popular than Archer now. The only captains it could be argued that Archer is more popular than are Burnham, largely because of the hate directed at the character specifically and not because of any objective metric. And Saru, because promoting Tilly in S3 hurt his credibility.

Are you serious? Is this an actual thing? I have never heard of people using a theme song as a valid reason to not watch a show. Like, they couldn't say, "I had homework"..."I had to wash my hair"...?

The theme has always been one of sources of irritation aimed towards the show. Even Dominic Keating, who likes the S1-2 version, knocked the S3-4 theme and said it was “naff”.

And if the show used Archer’s theme, and in particular that version I posted since it had power behind it instead of the mellow & laid back themes that the Berman era themes were trending in, the audience would not be turned off by the show. “Faith of the Heart” is a good motto for Archer & co, but it was not the best theme the show could have had.

 

[shapeshifter]

I don’t think changing it would have been the key to seven seasons.

They did change, well, alter, the theme. (for the worse, imo) Then it was cancelled anyway.

 

[Dukhat]

The show did not fail because of the theme song.

The show did not fail because of the design of the ship.

The show did not fail because it was ‘dark’ (it wasn’t, btw)

The show did not fail because of any of the people acting in it.

The show did not fail because it was a prequel.

The show failed because it was just more of the same, and UPN had their heads up their asses in their decision-making process for the show. By the early 2000’s, Berman Trek was getting old and stale, and people were losing interest in the status quo nature of the storytelling. Even changing the format to first a 9-11 allegory, and then to an overabundance of TOS nostalgia trips couldn’t save it. People were done with the Berman era.

 

[fireproof78]

And if the show used Archer’s theme, and in particular that version I posted since it had power behind it instead of the mellow & laid back themes that the Berman era themes were trending in, the audience would not be turned off by the show. “Faith of the Heart” is a good motto for Archer & co, but it was not the best theme the show could have had.

I loved the theme, and generally detest show themes (TNG's and DS9's particularly grate). This did not inspire my investment in the show. The characters and my lack of enjoyment with them is what cooled me on it. The theme may get a lot of jokes, but for me and my friends that wasn't what turned us off. It was a lack of interesting characters (no, not just Archer) and a lot more competition for me to enjoy over Star Trek.

Of all the people to captain a ship named Enterprise, Archer is the least popular captain; Kirk, Spock, Picard, Riker (BoBW) and now Pike are all more popular than him. Even with Harriman, fans can make jokes about Tuesday. And Garrett is synonymous with an all-time classic Trek episode. Even Jellico has his fans. Archer’s coolness seems to start and stop with name dropping him in movies and various episodes and various things being named after him. No one is talking about the things Archer did or didn’t do. Archer seems to be liked in a "I like the idea" kind of way. Whereas with most of the captains, they like the person.

Which goes to my larger point-the main character, the captain, is not engaging. He is not popular. So, it's not the theme song that people go "Ugh," and turn it off. It's the characters.

Among other factors.

Also this:

The show did not fail because of the theme song.

The show did not fail because of the design of the ship.

The show did not fail because it was ‘dark’ (it wasn’t, btw)

The show did not fail because of any of the people acting in it.

The show did not fail because it was a prequel.

The show failed because it was just more of the same, and UPN had their heads up their asses in their decision-making process for the show. By the early 2000’s, Berman Trek was getting old and stale, and people were losing interest in the status quo nature of the storytelling. Even changing the format to first a 9-11 allegory, and then to an overabundance of TOS nostalgia trips couldn’t save it. People were done with the Berman era.

It wasn't making money. That's a problem for shows if they want to continue.

 

[Dukhat]

I loved the theme song. What I didn’t love was the synth-pop version of it that they changed it to after the second season. Just more UPN idiocy.

 

[1001001]

I loved the theme song. What I didn’t love was the synth-pop version of it that they changed it to after the second season. Just more UPN idiocy.

Agreed, I liked the original theme especially alongside the visual history.

The revised pop theme was crap.

 

[fireproof78]

The original theme and credits are one of the few I still like. The visual history actually tells a story rather than various spacescapes.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I'm 100% behind the theme.

I think the Archer theme is perfect for the closing credits. I think it would have made a crap opening theme.

 

[Sci]

The original theme and credits are one of the few I still like. The visual history actually tells a story rather than various spacescapes.

While I do love the ENT opening credits sequence, I think we should acknowledge it's a deeply nationalistic sequence that's historically inaccurate. It completely disregards the accomplishments of every space program other than the U.S.'s -- meaning it disregards the first artificial satellite, the first human in space, the first woman in space, the first spacewalk, and the first international space docking, among many other spaceflight milestones accomplished by countries other than the U.S.

If ENT were to ever be revived, I would hope it would include a new opening credits sequence that incorporates the accomplishments of the Soviet, Russian, European, Japanese, Chinese, and other national space programs.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

While I do love the ENT opening credits sequence, I think we should acknowledge it's a deeply nationalistic sequence that's historically inaccurate. It completely disregards the accomplishments of every space program other than the U.S.'s -- meaning it disregards the first artificial satellite, the first human in space, the first woman in space, the first spacewalk, and the first international space docking, among many other spaceflight milestones accomplished by countries other than the U.S.

If ENT were to ever be revived, I would hope it would include a new opening credits sequence that incorporates the accomplishments of the Soviet, Russian, European, Japanese, Chinese, and other national space programs.

I'd never thought of it before but it's certainly egregious that we didn't even get a CGI Sputnik or some footage of a Cosmonaut. As it stands it does write every country out of the Space Race whilst implying that the future road to Starfleet lies in the work of NASA and the USA. Not good. Very very not good.

Dear Drexler,

More CCCP in the Enterprise credits if you do it please.

Thanks,

R.S.Ta