Star Trek: Enterprise--interesting article

[Napftor]

Here's an article that takes a rational approach to the question of the show's probably cancellation. It's rather lengthy so I'll just post the link. Read and speculate!

http://www.b5tv.com/greatmaker/interviews/285/

 

[Vigilance]

Interesting article with a lot of well-reasoned insights.

I think the problem with trek in general is "7 of 9 syndrome".

There was this show, called "The Next Generation" that was the golden child. It got great ratings, and appealed to the "base constituency", the Trekkers.

Then there was this show called Deep Space 9, much beloved by the "base constituency" but largely ignored by the massive numbers of mainstream viewers who watched TNG.

Since then the franshise has been going to heck in a handbasket because, in an effort to revisit the numbers of TNG, Berman and company haven't given one thought to making a show that would actually appeal to Trek fans.

They took us for granted.

If a gorgeous woman in a tight catsuit with a little borg attachment over her eye brings in more young male viewers, who cares if the franchise loses credibility or the Trekkers become a little disenfranchised?

If a show about Trek's history would appeal to the mass auidience (with a return to "boldly going" and "wagon training to the stars") why bother to please nitpicky Trekkers who would actually like this filling of history to MAKE sense with what we were told of that history before?

So what UPN is left with is a show whose base constituency, taken for granted, has been abandoning in droves for shows like B5 and Farscape, and they still haven't managed to get any more mainstream viewers.

And even though Deep Space 9's numbers would crush Enterprise's, they still can't be bothered to make a show for the fans that actually takes place in the TNG universe.

UPN, Quit taking us for granted, and guess what? We will watch.

Chuck

 

[Silver Moon]

I think the most telling comment in the article was this one:

One rumor circulating is that they plan to do 24 again next season, get to 100 episodes (the magic number for syndication in the US) and them dump the show. A plausible rumor, as UPN just has to make do for a year more to allow Paramount to get a greater return on the show.

From an economic standpoint that makes a lot of sense. Also, if they know it will probably be the last season from the outset, and if Berman and Bragga are long gone, then the producers and writers won't need to feel constrained which could lead to some very dynamic storylines. Personally, I'd like to see the fourth and final season as four six-episode story arcs, each arc with a five to ten year passage of time between them.

 

[myrdden]

I thought this statement was very true:

The problem is that Star Trek hasn’t changed, whilst everything else has.

I think that is the essence of Trek's problem right now. I find ENT to be too much like TNG or DS9 and not enough nitty-gritty "first-time in space " adventure.

 

[Vigilance]

I think Star Trek *has* changed.

Next Gen and DS9 to me were realizations that Gene Roddenberry's universe, his vision of the future was a reason to watch every week just as much as interesting characters and cool effects and pretty girls.

However the next series, Voyager, did everything in its power to take that universe which people had been watching and reading and imagining about for 30 years and pushed it into a corner.

Enterprise seemed to have the potential to tap back into the basic appeal of Roddenberry's universe. This gave me high hopes for the show. I wanted to see first contact with Klingons and Romulans and early battles and internal struggles that shaped the burgeoning Federation.

I wanted to see the first Starfleet Academy graduate... the first formal alliances with Vulcan and Andoria and Tellar... the first war with Romulus.

Instead what we got was Suliban and time travel and a bunch of other ideas that seemed to have little to do with the actual universe.

I'm not saying the show's creators shouldn't have added their vision to Roddenberry's. Certainly when I think of TNG I think of Cardassians and Ferengi and sauver seperating ships... and when I think of DS9 I think Dominion and Bajor and Maquis.

However those were additions to an existing universe.

Voyager and Enterprise have tried to create something new out of whole cloth, with the occasional half-hearted attempt to placate the fans with the occasional Klingon.

Chuck

 

[johnsemlak]

Interesting article with a lot of well-reasoned insights.

I think the problem with trek in general is "7 of 9 syndrome".

There was this show, called "The Next Generation" that was the golden child. It got great ratings, and appealed to the "base constituency", the Trekkers.

Then there was this show called Deep Space 9, much beloved by the "base constituency" but largely ignored by the massive numbers of mainstream viewers who watched TNG.

Since then the franshise has been going to heck in a handbasket because, in an effort to revisit the numbers of TNG, Berman and company haven't given one thought to making a show that would actually appeal to Trek fans.

They took us for granted.

If a gorgeous woman in a tight catsuit with a little borg attachment over her eye brings in more young male viewers, who cares if the franchise loses credibility or the Trekkers become a little disenfranchised?

If a show about Trek's history would appeal to the mass auidience (with a return to "boldly going" and "wagon training to the stars") why bother to please nitpicky Trekkers who would actually like this filling of history to MAKE sense with what we were told of that history before?

So what UPN is left with is a show whose base constituency, taken for granted, has been abandoning in droves for shows like B5 and Farscape, and they still haven't managed to get any more mainstream viewers.

And even though Deep Space 9's numbers would crush Enterprise's, they still can't be bothered to make a show for the fans that actually takes place in the TNG universe.

UPN, Quit taking us for granted, and guess what? We will watch.

Chuck

I think you're assuming that 'trekkies' are a monolith audience that don't change.

It may not be possible to create any show that appears to the so called 'base' audience anymore.

I don't know myself. But trekkies today are much older. They're interests have changed. And they're probably more diverse in what they want. I imagine there are much fewer 'trekkies' than a 10+ years ago. New fans are less likely to emerge.

Plus the sci-fi TV scene is so different.

I think the creators are trying ot appeal to Star Trek's base audience, but the fact is that audience is probably a lot smaller and a lot more diverse in what they want, not not primarily because of the creators but because of factors beyond their control.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Trek changed because it became franchise. There were five items on the menu, hamburger, cheeseburger, fries, cola, and diet cola, because that was what the public wanted, that was why TNG worked. Later the public wanted more, some fish and chicken, so we got DS9.

Now we want exotic foods, but the franchise is still only giving us the same.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I love ST but enterprise sucks....first what happened to their not being a starship enterprise before the ncc-1701 in the original series. TNG had character devolpment and you cared about them they went to new places and did new things almost everyweek. DS9 was pretty good too it had everything TNG had and then addedthe all out war with the Dominion which made the series rock as much as B5...then we got Voyager whci hwas ok but how many times can you meet a new race and somehting go wrong? IT was only good as long as the borg were on it...and they didnt do that right they made the borg Into sissies. But over all voyager was an okay series.
They need to skip this Sulaban and Xindi crap and gt into the formation of the federation after the Romulan war which if i remember correclty should be happening soon i n the shows continuity which enterpsirse has none of...
they sohuld jsut do soem MAde for TV movies based on the early years of the ST universe and stick to the 24th century especially if they cant make a decent prequal.

 

[Iron_Chef]

Enterprise should have concentrated on the first contacts/Romulan war and should NEVER have attempted to do more of that same tired time travel nonsense that ruins so many Trek series episodes. Notice how much higher quality the two Andorian episodes of Enterprise are vs. everything else they've done. It should have been more like the original Star Trek's wild west frontier mentality than the politically correct old man Roddenberry crap they shoved down our throats instead. A blander bunch of earthlings never sailed through space than the new Enterprise crew.

Voyager was awful until Seven Of Nine gave us both eye candy and an interesting character. Her relationship with The Doctor (culminating in the best episode ever when he took over her body) was always fun to watch. Seven Of Nine SAVED Voyager. I never watched it until she became a regular because the first episodes were so bad. When I say bad, I'm being kind...

DS9 started off rockyt but quickly became my favorite Trek series because the characters didn't get along, the tone was darker, there was a lot warfare, skirmishes and intrigue, and it added (or expanded upon) a lot of cool new characters, races and conflicts to the Trek universe. Top notch!

TNG I liked at the time, but find almost unwatchably insipid and preachy now. Plus, I've seen them a million times already.

The original Trek will always be the best.

 

[KenM]

Two words: Babylon 5.