Star Trek: Enterprise 5/05/'04 "e²" (1 Viewer)

[Jason Seaver]

Viacom owns them both, and I highly doubt it is making a profit on the ad sales for Enterprise alone, even with the weekend reruns. Part of why UPN can afford to have a show as clearly expensive as Enterprise (and Voyager before it) is that the parent company will eventually make the money back in syndication, cable sales, licensing, and home video.

 

[Nelson Au]

This is what I was sort of trying to say in another thread, any kind of new Star Trek product being aired on UPN or in theaters serves to drive the sales of the DVD's, CD's, books, and video games. In other words, a Star Trek TV show or movie has come down to being a "razor blade holder" and the products being sold to the consumer/fans are the "razor blades". The tie-ins are the endgame, the corporation doesn't care about Star Trek or any of the other shows it's affiliates are producing.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

This is exactly why Enterprise won the Save Enterprise poll in USA Today. Because certain fans rally to have people stuff the ballot box so to speak. How is that doing anyone any good?
I called the number and told them unless they are to get different writers behind the scenes and to actually make a show that is interesting, than they should put it out of it's misery.
The ratings dropped even lower last week. I think that says it all.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I don't think that's so much the case, although it is a factor - Enterprise on the air does make the Star Trek franchise a "going concern", so to speak, but for what they're spending on Enterprise - ~$50M a year, if an episode costs roughly $2M to produce - they could produce a pretty decent movie every couple years and get about the same amount of legitimacy for tie-ins.

The razor blade analogy does hold in terms of them seeing Enterprise's UPN airings as a loss-leader, though. Even if "Wednesday 8pm ET" shows as a loss on UPN's books in 2004, in 2007 they'll get money from syndication/cable (probably Spike, a related-party) and home video sales. It's why Fox is giving Arrested Development a chance to earn a bigger audience, since they see it as being valuable in a few years even if it's a short-term drain.

 

[Anthony Hom]

The Nielsen ratings for 'The Forgotten' are now in. Better than Damage, but one of the lowest rated Enterprise ever. Can it get any worse? Of course, here Nielsens don't really mean a thing and if truth be told here that this show is really a loss leader promo for the other ST merchandising, then so be it. Funny in another era it used to be the other way around.

Enterprise Ratings:
http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~mvrojo/entratings.htm

 

[Mike Broadman]

Who are these fans that are passionately crying to save Enterprise? The best praise I've seen for the show is that it's OK or good, and not even much of that.

Networks stopped paying attention to fan campaigns ages ago, anyway.

 

[Martin Rendall]

We need a "Kill Enterprise" campaign for those of us who don't wear Federation uniform jammies to bed every night.

OK, just kidding! But I kinda hope the show dies, followed by nice 5 or 7 year break, followed by something of quality. That would be great...

Martin.

 

[Will_B]

Wow, those charts reveal one amazing thing:

The three episodes which followed the month of reruns are doing terrible!

So either the episodes were terrible (which they weren't, they were great, as noted on thedigitalbits and here and on the various trek websites), or, having a month of repeats absolutely kills the audience for this kind of series. No one knows to tune back in again!

Heck, if it weren't for Tivo, I wouldn't have known that new episodes had started up again. And that's not because UPN isn't promoting the show, it is because I DONT WATCH TELEVISION aside from a couple key shows. I'm willing to watch a show if there's a new one every week.

So anytime the network thinks it is a good idea to interrupt a season with a month of repeats, they are risking killing off the entire audience.

Look at those charts! They don't actually give the dates of the "vacation" but if memory serves there was a break between "Azati Prime" and "Damage". And the Damage was severe.

They've got to rethink this concept. When I was younger, the networks had no new programs on in the summer, so these things do change, when the evidence shows it is in their financial interest.

 

[Will_B]

You have great faith in your longevity. What if you get hit by a truck in two years?

 

[Martin Rendall]

Well, at least I will have enjoyed my last few days/months/years, instead of wasting it watching mediocre Enterprise episodes!

Martin.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Last in it's timeslot every week.

I think the ratings are an indication of what most people thing of this show.

 

[Jason Seaver]

"Great" is pushing it. With a tugboat.

I'm not saying that the repeats help, but can you give more data points when you say "this kind of series"? There's been annual teeth-gnashing about Buffy, Angel, Farscape, Smallville, etc., having a long time between new episodes, but I don't recall that tanking their ratings.

Of course, those shows haven't had the quality issues Enterprise has. Besides, one of the Trek franchise's strong points during TNG and to a lesser extent DS9 and Voyager has been that it retains viewers during repeat cycles. Not as much as the police procedurals do (reason #462,398 why networks love their Law & Order and CSI), but well enough.

 

[Will_B]

Specifically I mean a drama which isn't written cleverly enough to warrant watching the repeats*. And maybe specify a drama with a season long story arc (since shows like Buffy and CSI do indeed have long story arcs in addition to the weekly monster). Though many dramas get bad ratings on repeats, some are written creatively enough (Buffy, CSI, etc) that people keep watching to some degree.

This is as close as I'll come to complaining, so enjoy it:

As good as Enterprise has become, it is still hampered by the B&B - the writing isn't clever enough to want to watch a second time (and I don't blame the writers, I blame the people holding the reins of the writers). When Buffy had a less-good episode, people would still want to watch the episode to see the characters. But on Enterprise, most everyone is sterile, with the exception of T'Pol and Trip and Phlox, so there's not much fun in tuning in to see how the crew is doing if you've already seen an episode and already know that Hoshi's character will sit at a desk, and Archer will be grumpy, and Reed will be sulky. Thankfully they're finally giving these characters some breathing room, but they need to keep it up.

(*Though I'd still buy a box set of DVDs in case there are nuances to be picked up by watching them all in a row).

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, gee, if the show isn't written cleverly enough to keep the audience during repeats or have them checking their listings to see when new episodes are coming, then Darwin can have it.

 

[Will_B]

I just don't understand your passion to ruin someone else's entertainment.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, Will, the "passion" being demonstrated here is at the franchise's already having been ruined. Those who once were entertained by it are decrying the end of a franchise that always could be counted on to deliver, which hasn't been the case since Voyager.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

The Newer Treks have always have breaks in between new episodes and people have always managed to find the episodes when they are new. Why is Enterprise any different?

 

[TheLongshot]

I think serial shows have a harder time with the breaks than more episodic shows, which has been most of Trek. I only think 24 makes it because Fox continuously promotes it even when it is in repeats.

I've always had a problem with long layoffs. Often, it causes me to miss shows, because otherwise, I don't watch TV. I had a lot of those problems with Farscape for a while.

Course, the poor ratings on the repeats tell me that the show doesn't have much rewatch value. Considering I've missed two weeks of shows, and I don't care that I did, tells me something about my desire for this show, which isn't much.

Jason

 

[Jason Seaver]

Heck, 24 doesn't go into repeats. Of course, Fox does have promotional platforms for 24 that UPN doesn't, since I imagine Enterprise is the only UPN program most of its audience watches.

You can come up with a number of reasons why Enterprise is flailing, but the thing is, they'd all be irrelevent if Enterprise inspired the kind of devotion its predecessors did.

 

[Anthony Hom]

I believe you are wrong here, I saw the same episode repeated of 24 over 2 weeks during Dec- Jan , Also, the most watched show on UPN is probably not Enterprise, but WWF Smackdown (of all things).