Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Enterprise to be cancelled? Speculation stregthens


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
37 replies to this topic

#1 of 38 OFFLINE   Lance Nichols

Lance Nichols

    Supporting Actor



  • 729 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 29 1998

Posted January 20 2004 - 01:35 AM

Cinescape has put up an article questioning Enterprise's return for a 5th season.

Enterprise to be decommisioned?

Having only briefly scimmed the article, it would appear the PTB are questioning the lustre of their crown jewels. It is simple really, get rid of B&B and bring fresh blood in that understands the history of the franchise and will respect it while bringing new life in.

"Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it."

--...

#2 of 38 OFFLINE   Michael St. Clair

Michael St. Clair

    Producer



  • 6,009 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 1999

Posted January 20 2004 - 02:48 AM

Don't just ditch B&B, wait a few years (at least three, preferably five or more) before launching a new show.

Time heals all wounds.

I hope the cast of Enterprise understands that this is not their fault. All of the main actors, in my opinion, are worthy of appearing on a well-written Trek series. And the decline started years before they came on the scene.

#3 of 38 OFFLINE   Eric F

Eric F

    Screenwriter



  • 1,810 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 05 1999

Posted January 20 2004 - 03:50 AM

But the scars run deep. Most of us have moved on. TOS box set will help ease the pain tho.

Retire it altogether. Trek is still Paramount's cash cow so they'll keep beating this dead horse as long as possible.

#4 of 38 OFFLINE   Will_B

Will_B

    Producer



  • 4,733 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted January 20 2004 - 03:55 AM

If they cancel Enterprise I won't be back to the franchise.

Enterprise is the best series since Next Generation. They've got a great cast, excellent characters, a fantastic ship. You suggest they come back in a few years with a great cast, excellent characters, and a fantastic ship? Makes no sense. They have that now, and if the current producers aren't able to take that potential and make home runs with it, then they need new producers, not a new show.

Enterprise could be succesful on the Sci Fi Channel (worked to huge success for Stargate SG-1) or it could be on Showtime as a few mini-series arcs. Remember Next Generation succeded as a first run syndicated series, with no network support whatsoever.

And I'd like to add that UPN had been foolish to air this drama at sitcom time (8pm) when it should be on at drama time (9pm).
"Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic than they originally predicted." -Krysta Now

#5 of 38 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted January 20 2004 - 03:58 AM

Makes no sense? How about consistently finishing in the Neilsen's bottom five (dead last in two of the past five weeks). Paramount notices that sort of thing.

#6 of 38 OFFLINE   Will_B

Will_B

    Producer



  • 4,733 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted January 20 2004 - 04:18 AM

Additionally, Paramount should have its head examined for not releasing the first season of Enterprise on DVD. What sort of rock were they living under that they didn't see how it helps tv series?
"Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic than they originally predicted." -Krysta Now

#7 of 38 OFFLINE   Will_B

Will_B

    Producer



  • 4,733 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted January 20 2004 - 04:22 AM

I didn't mean to say that ratings aren't a problem. I am critizing the idea that a solution is to sit back and do nothing for a few years, waiting for some external factors over which one has no control (nor any real idea what they even are) to suddenly make Trek popular.
"Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic than they originally predicted." -Krysta Now

#8 of 38 OFFLINE   andrew markworthy

andrew markworthy

    Producer



  • 4,766 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 1999

Posted January 20 2004 - 04:36 AM

I can see why it will be pulled because of poor ratings, but I think it's a great shame, because after DS9, this is the only ST show I can face rewatching.

What follows is a personal opinion only, so please don't flame me, but:

TOS: had ridiculous fist fights, rampant sexism, too many lame plots, and cliches aplenty. Yes, I know it's iconic, but so was I Love Lucy, and I wouldn't watch that now, either.

TNG: falling over itself to be politically correct. Some brilliant individual episodes, but against this was Wesley and Deanna Troi. And when her mother arrived ...

Voyager: Oh ye gods, this was *painful*. The only interest in many episodes was deciding who was more annoying that week - Janeway, Neelix or Chakotay. Not even the presence of Seven of Nine could save this trainwreck.

On the other hand, DS9 and Enterprise have in general been well scripted, have believable characters, and had a reasonable continuity to them so one episode builds on the last. The bleats about Entreprise using old plots are, I feel, unjustified. There are only so many permutations of plot, and inevitably in as long-running a franchise as ST, there are bound to be echoes of earlier programmes. Let's put it this way, has there been anything in Enterprise to match the annoyance level of:

(a) Deanna Troi saying 'I feel a great joy'?
(b) Picard ruminating about kicking alien ass before wimping out and obeying the prime directive (a plot device that seemingly only raises its head when the script writers want to annoy viewers)?
© Wesley, Neelix or Janeway doing *anything*?
(d) Chakotay doing the noble savage act?
(e) Kirk managing to get off with an alien woman at every opportunity?
(f) One of those oh-so-hilarious pieces of banter between Spock and McCoy (preferably with sidesplitting musical cue in the background)?

Thought not.

#9 of 38 OFFLINE   Mikel_Cooperman

Mikel_Cooperman

    Producer



  • 4,184 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2001

Posted January 20 2004 - 04:51 AM

I agree and it's a no brainer that B&B should be gone.
Bring in Nick Meyer or Peter David or someone who knows how to write good Sci Fi stories.The Farscape writers are available.
I believe if it wee "Well Scripted," that more would watch. Still even after popping in from time to time, I dont think it has gotten much better. It still plays it way too safe and their idea of "Better" is tighter outfits, more space battles and rubdowns.

I really dont see how releasing it on DVD would help either. The overall opinion of the show is so bad that I dont think people would spend money on them. As someone who used to collect a lot of Trek stuff, I wouldn't even shell out my money for this.

#10 of 38 OFFLINE   TheLongshot

TheLongshot

    Producer



  • 4,119 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2000

Posted January 20 2004 - 05:07 AM

The reason why I think Trek should sit for a while is because the Trek universe has gotten stale, and UPN can't seem to dream up new and interesting ways to use the Trek universe right now.

At best, Enterprise is mediocre. Like Voyager, they took an interesting premise, and threw it out the window, mostly relying on standard Trek plots to keep things afloat. While the Xindi plot is somewhat interesting, it doesn't really fit into the concept of a prequel series. Putting in time travel in the first two seasons was a bad idea that also didn't really fit into the concept. I don't see any trust at all by the writers in the original concept, which was the flegling human race learning to deal with the universe and the races within and how they interact with each other, not to mention the formation of the Federation. It feels like they have no plan, since they seem to change what the show is about from season to season.

Yes, I still watch, but only when I'm at home to watch it, and I remember to. I have a lot of friends who have dumped it, even with the meager offerings in the genre.

Jason

#11 of 38 OFFLINE   todd s

todd s

    Lead Actor



  • 6,935 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1999

Posted January 20 2004 - 05:07 AM

My biggest gripe with Enterprise is this. I wanted to see how the Federation was founded. Yet, instead of more interactions with aliens we know (ie-Tellarites, Andorians). We keep meeting races we have never heard of before. This is suppose to be over 100 years before TOS. The best episodes were the ones that dealt with the known races. For example the eps with the Andorians and their conflicts with the Vulcans. I want to see how they patch things up enough to replace their starships with a unified fleet.
Bring back John Doe! Or at least resolve the cliff-hanger with a 2hr movie or as an extra on a dvd release.

#12 of 38 OFFLINE   Jason Seaver

Jason Seaver

    Lead Actor



  • 9,306 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted January 20 2004 - 05:08 AM

Quote:
They've got a great cast, excellent characters, a fantastic ship.
They've got a cast that is capable of doing what little is expected of them. I don't mean that as a dis, but are Hoshi and Mayweather there for any reason other than as tokens nowadays? It's not like the cast is incompetent or anything, but it's not like they have to do much more than hitting their marks.

Quote:
Enterprise could be succesful on the Sci Fi Channel (worked to huge success for Stargate SG-1) or it could be on Showtime as a few mini-series arcs. Remember Next Generation succeded as a first run syndicated series, with no network support whatsoever.
Define "success". There's no way Sci-Fi will pay Paramount nearly what UPN will, and I don't know how long they'll operate it at a loss, sure that they'll make it up later in third-run or home video sales (especially if the Voyager DVDs tank).

And TNG was a special case in a different time. When it came out 17 years ago, independant and even Fox stations were able to give it prime-time slots, since Fox was only airing two or three nights of programming per week. Now, those good slots are gone, and that was before the Trek name had been diluted by DS9 (well-liked by the fans, but the mass audience was indifferent to it), Voyager, and Enterprise. TNG was something small UHF stations were willing to pay big money for because it was the only slick, network-quality original programming they had available to them.


Of course, there's nothing in the article to indicate that Enterprise being cancelled, or Paramount realizing that Berman & Braga are an anchor and someone else could do much better, is likely.
Jay's Movie Blog - A movie-viewing diary.
Transplanted Life: Sci-fi soap opera about a man placed in a new body, updated two or three times a week.
Trading Post Inn - Another gender-bending soap, with different collaborators writing different points of view.

"What? Since when was this an energy...

#13 of 38 OFFLINE   Chad R

Chad R

    Screenwriter



  • 2,174 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 1999
  • Real Name:Chad Rouch

Posted January 20 2004 - 05:20 AM

Bring in Nick Meyer


Assuming he wants the job, of course. Running a show is a lot of work, and he has other interests outside of Star Trek he may want to continue pursuing.

#14 of 38 OFFLINE   Mike Broadman

Mike Broadman

    Producer



  • 4,956 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 24 2001

Posted January 20 2004 - 05:53 AM

(a) Deanna Troi saying 'I feel a great joy'?

T'Pol saying how she's unemotional- with lots of emotion.

(b) Picard ruminating about kicking alien ass before wimping out and obeying the prime directive (a plot device that seemingly only raises its head when the script writers want to annoy viewers)?

Archer deciding to kick ass, then kicking ass, but not really kicking ass, and everybody's fine at the end, but he feels a little sad.

© Wesley, Neelix or Janeway doing *anything*?

T'Pol saying anything and Archer doing anything.

(d) Chakotay doing the noble savage act?

Merriweather constantly reminding us that used to live on a transport ship, and then that has nothing to do with anything except for one episode where we meet his boring family.

(e) Kirk managing to get off with an alien woman at every opportunity?

That was cool, very 60s.

(f) One of those oh-so-hilarious pieces of banter between Spock and McCoy (preferably with sidesplitting musical cue in the background)?

The charm of the OS is the dynamic between the three main characters. The only character relationships in latter-day Trek that is nearly as enoyable is Picard-Data, IMO.

At best, you've made a case as to why Enterprise isn't dreadful, which is what most here are saying- but it's also not particularly. Given the annoyance of Troi, Wes, the cheesiness of the OS, is there anything on Enterprise (or Voyager) that can compare with:

1) The revolutionary sci-fi ideas that Trek brought to the mainstream, like time travel paradoxes, silicon-based life form, AI logic traps, spacial anamolies, etc.
(Yes, I realise most weren't knew, but I think Trek is most responsible for drawing it out of the sci-fi fandom and making it part of public consciousness).

2) The epic scale, intensity, and intrigue of the Dominion War.
(The Xindi doesn't cut it- it had no build-up, seems out of place, and is a contrivance).

3) Any characters that are just plain loveable like Data or Spock?
(Even if you don't like Spock, most do, which is the reason Roddenberry turned changed from a minor curiosity to a central character).

4) Episodes of poetic beauty like the Inner Light (Picard lives an entire lifetime in 20 minutes)?

5) Enemies as truly menacing as the Borg?
(And no, re-using the Borg doesn't count.)

6) The mythological, grand, opera-tragic nature of Warf and the Klingons?

7) The brilliant performances the likes of Stewart or Spiner, or the charm of Kelly or Auberjenois(sp?).
(I agree the Enterprise cast isn't bad, but it's nothing particularly special).

8) Anything approaching the sense of wonder and majesty that the first two series inspired, or the character and story intensity of the third?


I believe a lot of dramatic shows on TV are good enough, not bad, etc. Alias, CSI, ER, etc all have their merits, I'm sure. I watch none of them. Before DS9 went off the air, Trek was the franchise that offered something unique that struck a chord with a certain audience that was looking for something else. It no longer does that.

#15 of 38 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted January 20 2004 - 06:02 AM

Quote:
Let's put it this way, has there been anything in Enterprise to match the annoyance level of (list follows)

I agree that Enterprise hasn't been annoying. It's generally been too dull even to rise to that level.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#16 of 38 OFFLINE   Lance Nichols

Lance Nichols

    Supporting Actor



  • 729 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 29 1998

Posted January 20 2004 - 06:39 AM

I really feel that they need to get adventurous with the franchise. This doesn't meen dropping "Star Trek" from the title, then adding it on again. This doesn't mean adding species and critical events that contradict the history of the 'verse.

One of the promising things that failed to materialize was the "birth of the Federation". As stated earlier in the thread, the early interactions between the founding members of the Federation would have been the perfect set of story lines to tie the overall arc together. Not to mention the Earth-Romulan war, the very genesis of the Federation. It was hinted at with the introduction of the Romulans, then dumped for the Xindi.

"Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it."

--...

#17 of 38 OFFLINE   Ivan Lindenfeld

Ivan Lindenfeld

    Second Unit



  • 336 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 23 2000

Posted January 20 2004 - 06:45 AM

Since we're Enterprise bashing, I noticed something emotionally Friday night watching Stargate.

I am not a Trek Hater and am not drawing a direct comparision between the two franchises, however this one moment seemed to pinpoint exactly what I expected from Enterprise. The show has succeeded for me in keeping me steeped in Trek but... (please bear with me)

In last weeks SG-1, Samantha is alone through much of the episode becuase their faster than light ship has found itself trapped inside some kind of nebula. The crew has been kidnapped by some aliens (non-regular i.e. non G'Ould aliens) but for some reason Sam was left on the ship nursing a concussion.

Cutting to the chase, some stuff happens, lots of character development for Sam, she does manage to convince the other ship to free the prisoners, her crewmates.

Now, keep in mind this is one of the first and farthest light jumps they have made in this ship. These are humans venturing out at light speed into the open galaxy on their own for the first time.

As Sam is relieved of duty, the captain looks out into space, forward, at the alien ship. You can tell he is also thinking of the nebula that perhaps had intelligence. AND HE HAS A LOOK ON HIS FACE THAT THERE ARE MANY THINGS IN THE GALAXY THAT HE DID NOT EXPECT, AND HE HAS A SENSE OF WONDER AND FEAR ON HIS FACE. And possibly "What the fuck are we doing? Do we know what we have gotten ourselves into?"

WONDER AND FEAR. That is what audiences expect of our sci-fi heroes in 2004. They are expected to have real emotions that fit their situation. These humans ca. the time of Enterprise are new at interstellar travel. This is the fastest ship ever launched from earth.

Why is that so hard for the creative minds at Enterprise?
Ivan Lindenfeld

#18 of 38 OFFLINE   Mikel_Cooperman

Mikel_Cooperman

    Producer



  • 4,184 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2001

Posted January 20 2004 - 07:05 AM

Quote:
I really feel that they need to get adventurous with the franchise. This doesn't meen dropping "Star Trek" from the title, then adding it on again. This doesn't mean adding species and critical events that contradict the history of the 'verse.


They had a clean slate in which to do this with Voyager and now Enterprise and they failed miserably with both, adding characters we had seen before, very little sense of danger and a big reset button on most episodes.
Did we think that the crew wouldnt make it from week to week on Voyager. That there wasnt a chance that they might not get home, that their ship was in shambles and had little rations left?
The same with Enterprise. Sure we have a new villian but theres still no sense of chaos or any real danger. Thats why Trek is failing.
All you have to do is watch Farscape to see that no one is perfect, people get lost,when something major happens, it's not forgotten about two episodes later. They get tortured and... people die. You feel like you have something invested in these characters. You dont on Enterprise.

#19 of 38 OFFLINE   Joseph Bolus

Joseph Bolus

    Screenwriter



  • 2,193 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 1999

Posted January 20 2004 - 07:23 AM

Quote:
WONDER AND FEAR. That is what audiences expect of our sci-fi heroes in 2004. They are expected to have real emotions that fit their situation.

This is precisely what Firefly offered; however, it didn't make it through even one year.

As a lifelong Star Trek fan (I viewed the initial NBC TOS airings in the college dorm TV room with the rest of my fellow geeks), who has become disenchanted with the franchise since DS9 left the air, I recently decided to give Firefly a chance by way of a "blind purchase" of the recently released "Complete Series" box. What I found was an astonishingly fresh approach to the genre, with almost all of the episodes providing riveting and compelling story lines. This short 14 episode series contained more "A"-rated shows than Enterprise has offered in it's entire three year run. (The episode "Objects in Space" provided one of the finest examples of pure science fiction that I've seen in any medium since DS9.) I say let's get the creators of this unfairly abortive series a shot at Star Trek!!
Joseph
---------------

#20 of 38 OFFLINE   Michael St. Clair

Michael St. Clair

    Producer



  • 6,009 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 1999

Posted January 20 2004 - 07:56 AM

Quote:
This is precisely what Firefly offered; however, it didn't make it through even one year.


Fox did not market it well, IMO.

If it had the name 'Trek' in the title and was owned by Paramount, you can bet they would have invested in it enough to give it a couple of years or more to find an audience.

These days, now many networks will give a non-franchise genre series one season to build a following?


Back to TV Programming



Forum Nav Content I Follow