I also want the Chinese man who tried to fly to space using a rocket powered chair.
Would like to see Enterprise come back…
- Thread starter JN2849
- Start date
When a member of the main cast calls the S3-4 theme “naff” – trashy for those that don’t know what it means – it clear that the theme wasn’t well received by anyone. And that a classier theme – even if it was the original S1-2 theme – would have been more attractive to viewers. In any case, seeing T’Pol screaming while tied down to a biobed, or the ship getting the shit shot out of it in the teaser and then following it up with the cheery S3-4 theme was tonally wrong.
And we can have fun with the theme nowadays.
Doug Drexler actually had designs drawn up that would have made the NX-01 look more primitive i.e. ring ship with nacelles attached to a saucer and fins and wings attached to the nacelles when Enterprise was first in development. They were rejected, unfortunately. Although I would hope that either a revival of Enterprise or SNW in a future season would use those designs when exploring the 2120-2140 period. Or use those designs as Alpha Centauri ships. It doesn’t really hurt to display a more primitive time period as envisioned by many fans, while simultaneously showing how NX-01 was the culmination of that previous work.
Actually, the show was supposed to get darker with the Romulan War. I don’t know if that would have been achieved under Berman. I think Kurtzman might handle the Romulan War better, in terms of tone. If that war is ever shown on screen in the future and the ENT cast is involved, it may rewrite their cancellation as a silver lining since its now being handled by someone who will portray it as a very dark and very gritty conflict.
And in any case, the Xindi arc was controversial to some for its 9/11 and WOT allegories and was as dark as the Dominion War in DS9.
Please tell that to these people.
Star Trek: 10 Casting Decisions That Hurt Enterprise (And 10 That Saved It) (screenrant.com)
Star Wars proved that prequels can be successful long ago. And its prequel era is going through a renaissance.
One could argue that SNW is more of the same Star Trek of what came before it i.e.episodic. And the audience loves it.
They could have got rid of the captain at the end of S3. Although that would have been demoralizing for those working on the show at the time, as I’ve been told.
They could have also killed the cast off one at a time per season, to highlight how extremely dangerous space is supposed to be to them at this time. And they could have had the senior members of the crew transfer to Columbia or NX-03 or NX-04 much sooner (i.e very early in S4) because their experience onboard the NX-01 is valuable to the rest of the growing fleet. Or have them ascend up the rankings and work at Starfleet HQ. Or return to the freighter service or the Interspecies Medical Exchange program because Starfleet didn’t work out. Or someone arrested and drummed out of the service because they broke an important law in pre-Prime Directive Starfleet critical to the utopia of Earth.
In hindsight, a bunch of the main cast probably should have been killed off during the Xindi arc.
They could have brought Shran aboard as part of the main cast as soon as the start of S4 and have him at the mission debriefing instead of Archer. Waiting for S5 was too late. DS9 didn’t wait until S5 to bring Worf in, and VOY didn’t wait until S5 to bring Seven of Nine in. Why did ENT?
There were many opportunities to freshen the cast up with more interesting characters over the series. It wasn’t taken, despite half the cast not being developed at all and were ignored like Chakotay was on VOY.
And now Trek shows can make more money with half the viewership through streaming that Enterprise got during its run on UPN. Times changes. Why hold it against ENT? The show was cancelled on the eve of Youtube and streaming as a whole coming into the mainstream consciousness.
Its your opinion. Although had it replaced Faith of the Heart back then - especially after S3 - Archer's theme would have been welcomed with wide open arms by the fanbase at the time. The warm reception the mirror universe theme got, and its perception of being the best opening theme of ENT during its run, is evidence of this.
The crazy thing is that ENT wasn’t opposed to having a reference to Sputnik at all; the satellite itself is seen in “Carbon Creek”.
I would like to think that Sputnik’s omission in the opening credits was accidental at best. Or a directive from UPN.
And the Prequels were regarded as extremely poor. I would not use them as an example, save for experiments in digital filmmaking.
But, they did not.
Because there is no evidence it will make money.
I honestly can't be bothered with this particular discussion. It's a bit like banging one's head against a particularly tedious wall.
I would wager good money that there was never, nor would there ever have been, a serious discussion about tossing Scott Bakula off the show in mid-run as some sort of desperate retooling ploy. Aside from all his awards and industry-wide goodwill, and his marquee value, he was the heart and soul of the show's cast and crew. Perhaps if he had announced, a la Leonard Nimoy, that he wanted his character killed off...but he was very committed to the show, from everything I have read.
I said it made money. Not that they were good, although I personally think Episode III was good and is on par with the original trilogy. Its possible for high quality entertainment to not make money, and terrible entertainment to make billions of dollars. If you don’t think the prequels were financially successful, then I don’t know what to tell you. Other than would ENT being financially successful make a difference towards its perception of being one of the weaker series in the franchise?
Hey, at least you get how I feel debating Enterprise sometimes.
The effort was clearly made in the series to confirm that Archer would never be killed off. He’s like Pike, but without the premonitions of his future.
And even Nimoy came to regret killing off his character, since it was an enjoyable experience for him making TWOK. I doubt Bakula would want that with Archer. Although maybe they would finally bring Archer back if he did, instead of leaving Archer to be an Easter egg to be referenced on all the new shows.
The only thing about it I find interesting is this idea that ENT is somehow so popular that it will make money and is worth the risk.
It would make CBS more inclined towards making an ENT show because at least it would have financial backing to be worth the risk. As it stands, financially it doesn't add up.
And what I find interesting is how the show - that was not a failure when we are talking tv in general - does not even warrant a return because to do so would be risky. When they really just need to market it better and hire better writers. I’d imagine that's what most would do to prevent it from being a flop.
Enterprise was still more successful and less obscure than Short Treks or TAS, and the latter used the main characters from TOS. The show is not a failure.
I’ll wait and see what happens next, since Terry Matalas wants to do something with them. And Akiva Goldsman wants to do something with Archer at least. But I have to wait until Picard ends next year before expecting anything.
What the Hell?
TAS won an Emmy. It was a very big deal in it's time and did very well.
Short Treks isn't even a Trek series proper. Of course it's obscure. It's a series of shorts aimed squarely at fans. It's basically VAM.
Enterprise was a failure. Critically and commercially. If it wasn't, we'd have 7 seasons of it. End of.
An at times glorious failure perhaps, but by the metrics it was judged on at the time then the show basically limped into Season 4 with certain knowledge of it's own impending demise.
TAS won an Emmy. It was a very big deal in it's time and did very well.
Short Treks isn't even a Trek series proper. Of course it's obscure. It's a series of shorts aimed squarely at fans. It's basically VAM.
Enterprise was a failure. Critically and commercially. If it wasn't, we'd have 7 seasons of it. End of.
An at times glorious failure perhaps, but by the metrics it was judged on at the time then the show basically limped into Season 4 with certain knowledge of it's own impending demise.
Ah, I see. The show didn't fail because of it being poorly received. It failed because of poor marketing. So, from a money standpoint, CBS should invest more money in to something that lost money on the long shot it will make money?
Did it make money? That's the only question that matters, not fan interpretation. I call it a failure because it did not get past 5 seasons, was losing viewers and was then cancelled, going out with a whimper instead of a bang. You can blame all the various factors but it comes down to money and did it make money?
If you believe it is worth the money then I would encourage you, strongly, to put up your own money on this.
Indeed. The viewership was falling and the ratings tell the story. Fan loyalty is an admirable things at times but this is business. The numbers don't support going back to something that was not making money.
So, we’re measuring by Emmy wins now? Since by that metric, Enterprise has four; two for S1 and two for S3. While TAS has one.
But its not outstanding drama series you say? I would point out that none of the live action series won a best series category. Not TOS. Not TNG. Not DS9. Not VOY or ENT or the new shows of the Kurtzman era. Only TAS. And even then, not to minimize this significant victory – since it was also the Star Trek franchise’s first Emmy win anywhere - but it was for Outstanding Entertainment Children Series. I suppose by your logic, Trek should stop trying to do live action dramas and do animated children series only. And ST’09 is the only successful Star Trek film since it’s the only one to win an Oscar.
And unlike the spinoff series it spawned, TOS did not win any Emmys whatsoever in any category, though was nominated for several. Are you trying to suggest that the show that started it all and created a franchise that we are all enjoying nearly 60 years later and has left is mark on the world is a failure? All to solidify your stance that Enterprise is a failure compared to TAS? That’s kind of sad. So much for being a superfan.
Before you embarrass yourself any further @Richard S. Ta, please stop. This was an own goal on your part that did not need to happen. But did happen nonetheless, because you assumed you knew more than I did. Which stems from a believe on your part that I will comes to my senses and realize that Enterprise won’t comes back if you just keep shutting down the arguments presented. Not considering that I’m actually ok and not so delusional to think a show cancelled 20 years ago will somehow be resurrected and resume from where it left off like its still 2005 and not the 2020s.
I’d be willing to wager that a series based off of a Freedom-class ship like the USS Franklin is more likely to continue the ENT era, since BEY is one of the more financially successful films in the franchise and is as close as we are going to get to an ENT film in theatres. The uniforms themselves have been already made, if they haven't been auctioned off already.
But its not outstanding drama series you say? I would point out that none of the live action series won a best series category. Not TOS. Not TNG. Not DS9. Not VOY or ENT or the new shows of the Kurtzman era. Only TAS. And even then, not to minimize this significant victory – since it was also the Star Trek franchise’s first Emmy win anywhere - but it was for Outstanding Entertainment Children Series. I suppose by your logic, Trek should stop trying to do live action dramas and do animated children series only. And ST’09 is the only successful Star Trek film since it’s the only one to win an Oscar.
And unlike the spinoff series it spawned, TOS did not win any Emmys whatsoever in any category, though was nominated for several. Are you trying to suggest that the show that started it all and created a franchise that we are all enjoying nearly 60 years later and has left is mark on the world is a failure? All to solidify your stance that Enterprise is a failure compared to TAS? That’s kind of sad. So much for being a superfan.
Before you embarrass yourself any further @Richard S. Ta, please stop. This was an own goal on your part that did not need to happen. But did happen nonetheless, because you assumed you knew more than I did. Which stems from a believe on your part that I will comes to my senses and realize that Enterprise won’t comes back if you just keep shutting down the arguments presented. Not considering that I’m actually ok and not so delusional to think a show cancelled 20 years ago will somehow be resurrected and resume from where it left off like its still 2005 and not the 2020s.
I’d be willing to wager that a series based off of a Freedom-class ship like the USS Franklin is more likely to continue the ENT era, since BEY is one of the more financially successful films in the franchise and is as close as we are going to get to an ENT film in theatres. The uniforms themselves have been already made, if they haven't been auctioned off already.
By all means wager. I think it is a poor bet because it hasn't been demonstrated to make money. It's just hopes and wishes that it will succeed if only CBS would see things the right way.
Also, both Into Darkness and ST 09 made more money than Beyond. Why not make more based off of those?
Jesus Christ. Well, I’ve been told to stop embarrassing myself so that’s that. What a tedious, fruitless and nonsensical discussion this is.
Quite right. I’m embarrassing myself by even attempting to intellectually engage with a discussion that has been slowly descending further into the depths of stupidity with each page.
Done. Literally done with this one. Absolute fucking nonsense.
Quite right. I’m embarrassing myself by even attempting to intellectually engage with a discussion that has been slowly descending further into the depths of stupidity with each page.
Done. Literally done with this one. Absolute fucking nonsense.
Okay, FederationHistorian, I've had it. I cautioned you to stop getting personal, to stop pushing at other members simply because they don't agree with you. You've earned a double warning, for flaming and for trolling. Comments to PM.
Please use your time off to settle down and accept that members have different perspectives than you do, and that's the way life works.
Much has been said about how the first season of Discovery should have been set in an earlier time period. During the days of the Kelvin would have been great, since that would have been ten years into the rise of hostilities between the Federation and Klingon Empire. Obviously, that’s not what they did, and that has been discussed ad nauseum and needs not be delved into again.
There are plans for a Starfleet Academy series; and ideas for an Academy series set during the youth of Kirk and Spock have been kicking around for years. It might be set in the 32nd century though, based around Tilly.
I'm not sure how audiences would feel about a series set on Vulcan only. Or similarly, a series set in the Romulan Empire. I do know that there is fatigue with the Klingons, which makes a Klingon series challenging to do.
They have followed up on the Romulan supernova with PIC. Plus, that’s something Lower Decks is going to get to eventually.
There were plans for a Khan 3-part miniseries. CBS did not think it was long enough, even though it would work as a part of an anthology series.
They are doing a Section 31 series. It is in development hell.
A Carol Marcus series has never ever been considered before. Same thing with a Jaylah series.
If they were to do another space station type show, and its set in the 23rd century, I think hardcore fans want the Vanguard series to come to life, not Yorktown or the Delta Vega outpost.
The only thing missing is a USS Franklin series set in the early days of the Federation. Of course, if BEY not performing as well as ST’09 and STID are seen as a reason to not do such a series – and it’s the most recently metric we have regarding the ENT era - them perhaps we can glean from this that the 22nd century period is not a popular era to visit. And any sequel series to ENT should be set in the very early 23rd century. Like Discovery, but even earlier.
I liked Enterprise quite a bit, and was one of the more, uh, animated defenders of the show here on TrekBBS during the 2001-2004 period. And I still like a great deal of the visual design and art done for the series. The NX-01 is one of a couple of the Trek ships that I own various models, toys and keepsakes of.
However...Enterprise was the first studio attempt to do something that has been successfully done twice since - to reboot and modernize, as much as possible, the Trek franchise. Enterprise failed to hold onto sufficient audience for its medium, while employing timid storytelling to unsuccessfully attempt a minimal and conservative reset of its continuity and universe. Since it was cancelled, the Abrams movies have superceded oldTrek on the big screen and the so-called Discoverse guided by Alex Kurtzman has done the same on television.
There's no need for another version of Enterprise. It would be a step-and-a-half backward.
However...Enterprise was the first studio attempt to do something that has been successfully done twice since - to reboot and modernize, as much as possible, the Trek franchise. Enterprise failed to hold onto sufficient audience for its medium, while employing timid storytelling to unsuccessfully attempt a minimal and conservative reset of its continuity and universe. Since it was cancelled, the Abrams movies have superceded oldTrek on the big screen and the so-called Discoverse guided by Alex Kurtzman has done the same on television.
There's no need for another version of Enterprise. It would be a step-and-a-half backward.
Or...they just keep doing what they are doing, and work forward based upon current success. There is not sufficient evidence to justify revisiting ENT or even Kelvin Trek (as much as it pains me to say) when they clearly have a lot of other successful shows going on.
The only shows I see CBS making in the foreseeable future are spinoffs of shows they're already producing. ENT does not fit into that category.
When looked at from a reboot standpoint, of course another Enterprise isn’t needed.
In terms of a shows where the early days of the Federation are explored, I disagree. And there is no rule that says it has to be another exploration show. A political drama has often come up. As has a police procedural. And the first class of Starfleet Academy. And a show set on a civilian transport.
The term “ENT sequel” covered a lot of ground. It doesn’t have to focus on Archer. Technically, Discovery is a sequel to ENT, and so is SNW. But DIS and SNW were trying to take advantage of being set close to TOS, and the success of the reboot movies. They were not trying to explore the very early days of the Federation. That is post -Romulan War and the early days of the Neutral Zone, technological integration of the founding members, a growing Federation membership and subsequent integration, and a generational split between those that never had a non-interference directive enforced and those raised to believe in its importance. Not to mention the hero worship of various United Earth Starfleet officers, a much larger fleet at Starfleet’s disposal which leads to questions on how best to use that power, technologies like the transporter still not perfected and even used for nefarious reasons, more seasoned crews that don’t behave in a juvenile way, the integration of MACOs into Starfleet, and the first second contact missions.
Basically, new ground, like Star Trek used to do with DS9 and VOY. Whereas DIS S1-2 and SNW tread familiar ground.
You know one of them is ending next year right? And there is no guarantee that Section 31 or Starfleet Academy will be successful. Only the Seven show will be a guarantee.
The post-PIC future going to be very interesting for sure.
Similar threads
