Why do you think ENT didn't do well?

[Hancider]

Hey guys I have been catching ENT on Scifi now and I have really gotten into and I was wondering what you thought on why this show did so poorly in it's first run.  I was wondering because I remember when it was in first run and it never really appealed to me.
Was it because people had just gotten done with the Voyager/DS9/TNG super run and putting something on that was so different was almost like a culture shock.  Or was it just colossal bad timing when it premiered just one month after 911 and we had other things that occupied our minds in those first couple of years.  Anyways tell me what you think.

[psikeyhackr]

I must admit I was kind of Trekked out but it started long before Enterprise.  I Remember really looking forward to TNG coming on the air and I liked DS9 better than TNG.  But the last couple of years of DS9 I would often forget to set my VCR to record it and just didn't care.  And I asked myself, "What is my proble?"

I always recorded free TV and fast scanned thru commercials.  The purpose of technology is to increase quality of life.  Wasting time on commercials is definitely low quality.

But my sci-fi reading dropped off too so I just attributed to tastes chaning with age.  Voyager came out a year or two too soon.  And then they had Borg and Ferengi on Enterprise which weren't introduced until TNG, so they screwed up the timeline.

TV and Star Trek tradition may have contradictory objectives.  TV has to have ratings and must attract large numbers but getting traditional fans pissed off can't help.

psik

[space_invader64]

Here are the reasons I didn't watch it.

I thought they went back too far and didn't have cool aliens and technoligy.

I hate it when they mess with the backstory because I catch all the continutiy mistakes.

I thought the crew was rough around the edges.

After 9/11, I wasn't really in a trek mood.

I was treked out after voyager.

I didn't like the theme music.

Who?  They got the guy from quantom leap?


Now, in reruns on scifi, I got into it and like it now.  I think if it had been launched this year there would be enough intrest for the show to succeed.  It was bad timing.

[moyer777]

I liked Enterprise quite a bit.  Only a few episodes were silly.  I really enjoyed how they brought the borg and ferangi into the show without messing up the timeline.  I felt they were careful and creative in that.  In fact I rewatched those shows several times to see how they got around it.  It was awesome. 

I think my favorite part of Enterprise were the Andorian episodes.  I just really like the blue skinned anteni laden aliens.  Very cool!
:andorian

I was rather sad when the ratings dived on it and I knew it was going to be the first Trek in years not to make it's seven year run.  Oh well. 

I just like Trek.  I don't think I could ever get burnt out on it.  I don't know why, maybe the gadgets, hope for the future, the special effects... it takes me back to when BSG was new and Star Wars first came out.  Space exploration and the creative cool aliens are what makes me come back for more.

To answer the question though, why did Enterprise not do so well?

I don't know.  Perhaps the fan base is getting smaller, or there were was just too much of it out there.

[Hancider]

Anyone remember when Enterprise was on I remember that it I wanted to watch it sometimes but it always had some time slot that I just remember or be available for and of course this was before the DVR so that was another reason it slipped by me.  I also thought that they play Archer a little too reckless as captain and major representative of earth on his mission.  Now that i see that they were trying to get back to a more frontier style that TOS had in it but there were some episodes where I thought he acted like a bonehead especially considering his training for this mission. Anyone else feel the same.

[Rico]

As you all know I enjoyed Enterprise quite a bit.  I actually thought a prequel idea was a cool concept.  I thought the stories, acting and the rest were all solid.  The most sensible answer is most fans seemed a bit over-Trekked by that point.  However, I know a number of people that enjoyed the show and have watched more of it since it ended.  I also don't always trust the "ratings" reported.  It is a very small sample of people the pick to determine what show's ratings are.  I think it's not very accurate actually.  I also think the last couple of seasons were really great stories and top notch TREK.  But everyone has their likes and dislikes.  There's plenty of TREK to go around if one series isn't your cup of tea.

[Geekyfanboy]

It is a very small sample of people the pick to determine what show's ratings are.  I think it's not very accurate actually. 

The rating system is a JOKE but unfortunately it's all we have at the moment and the advertisers swear by it. Many great shows have been lost due to this inaccurate rating system.

[jedijeff]

I really enjoyed Enterprise a lot. I am Like Rick in that I can never get trekked out. I agree with Rico, that ratings are not as accurate as they are made out to be at times. I think possibly UPN may have played a role as well, as Enterprise did not fit with the other programs on the channel, so it may not have gotten prmoted as well as it could have.As well it did not start out as strong as other Trek series, and the later seasons were very top rate in my Opinion, but by then, I think getting that message to people who had tuned out was very difficult.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

Hey guys I have been catching ENT on Scifi now and I have really gotten into and I was wondering what you thought on why this show did so poorly in it's first run.  I was wondering because I remember when it was in first run and it never really appealed to me.  Was it because people had just gotten done with the Voyager/DS9/TNG super run and putting something on that was so different was almost like a culture shock.  Or was it just colossal bad timing when it premiered just one month after 911 and we had other things that occupied our minds in those first couple of years.  Anyways tell me what you think.

After TNG/DS9/VOY (21 seasons in 14 years), people lost interest.  With news of a fifth series, people just didn't care anymore.  Notice that those who didn't watch ENT are just now tuning in due to having not seen a new episode since DS9 or VOY ended?  Oversaturation killed Star Trek more than anything.  However, network and studio politics also played a big role as did the burnt out creative team.  The show needed new producers who would not give us TNG 3.0 (VOY being TNG 2.0).

[space_invader64]

If they had waited a few years, I think interest in the a new trek show would have grown over a few years and it would have done better.

[Hancider]

Yeah I think the biggest problem was that people were getting Trekked out so to speak.  It is a shame though because there was a lot of good acting on the show especially for Collen Trinear as Trip and Blalock as T'Pol.  I like how they tried to get back to the so called Trinity aspect that TOS had Between Kirk, Spock & McCoy with Spock being logic, McCoy being humanistic and Kirk having to balance the two.

They did the same thing with Archer, Trip and T'Pol and actually I think in some ways they gave the characters more depth than TOS did. Sorry about the sacrilege but with Trip having to deal with his sisters loss and T'Pol with her lack of control of emotions and such really I think was one of the best parts of the third and fourth seasons.

I remember a scene in the third season episode called The Forgotten I believe where Trip finally breaks down in front of T'Pol about his sisters death and I was like dang that is good acting.  It was some best acting that I had seen in Trek in a long time.

[MrOsterman]

First Re: Rating Systems

C'mon, these are professional statisticians at work.  They get paid a lot of money to be very smart about how to structure their study to be fair and accurate.  It's simply impossible to poll all of television (or it has been for a long time) so they do the best they can to have a scientific sampling of the population and go from there.

If the ratings said that ENT didn't get watched much then proportionally it didn't.

My theory on why ENT failed... based on my SMALL sampling of only a few episodes can be summed up in the opening sequence.

TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY all showed the ship flying through space to really cool music (well VOY not so much and DS9 sorta just at there).  But my point is that the show was about the SHIP.  It was about the crew as a family and how the ship was going to push on no matter what.  The crew might change, the uniforms might change, but the ship/station was going to perservere.

Now we go to ENT.  The opening reel?  A retrospective on exploration (with a fictious HMS Enterprise I might add).  So what's the show about?  Not the ship... it's about history.

I didn't watch much because what I did watch felt more like it was about seeing the early days of Starfleet more than it was about the ship exploring and adventuring.  It was like ST:the History Channel more than ST: Real Adventures.

Just my impression though as I only gave it a few episodes before I quit.

Mr. O

[Geekyfanboy]

First Re: Rating Systems

C'mon, these are professional statisticians at work.  They get paid a lot of money to be very smart about how to structure their study to be fair and accurate.  It's simply impossible to poll all of television (or it has been for a long time) so they do the best they can to have a scientific sampling of the population and go from there.

If the ratings said that ENT didn't get watched much then proportionally it didn't.

I disagree with you Mr. O about the TV rating system. It worked back then when it was first created because there were fewer channels and programs.. now with all the channels and programs it need to be changed.

They collect data from 25,000 household... that's it. I'm sure it's a cross reference of people but still it's only 25,000 households of the 301,139,947 people living in the US.  And before you say it I'm sure not all those people watch TV but still. In the industry the current rating system is a joke, but there isn't anything else out there at the moment so the networks and advertisers have nothing else to go by but this flawed system.

And to bring this back on topic... I watched every episode of Enterprise and yes it was different then any of the other Trek shows but it still was Star Trek at it's core.

[markinro]

I was initially surpised at the announcement of a new trek series after Voyager.  There were rumors of the new series being centered around Starfleet Academy which I thought this was a better idea.   The first impression I had with enterprise was that everything looked more futuristic then TOS.  It was hard to swallow it was a prequel.  The run-ins with the Vulcans, the Borg, the time-travel, Nunian Sung,  and stories I wondered if they would ever end -- it was like they were trying to do too much.   The casting, I thought was solid.  Bakula was a great pick but it wasn't enough to get the series off the ground.   I thought they would have done much more with building the Federation and making TOS historical references come alive.  Also, a 5th series is a bit much.  As Q put, its time to put an end to your Trek amongst the Stars (or whatever he said).  Think of it -- might have been 38 years of TREK.  Yeah, yeah, you guys are probably drooling...  :)

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

Yeah I think the biggest problem was that people were getting Trekked out so to speak.

Agreed.

I like how they tried to get back to the so called Trinity aspect that TOS had Between Kirk, Spock & McCoy with Spock being logic, McCoy being humanistic and Kirk having to balance the two.

I didn't like this aspect too much.  Star Trek had a triad, because they could only afford three series regulars: Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.  The rest of the cast (Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, & Uhura) were officially recurring guest stars, that is why they never got much to do unless the episode specifically focused on their character or had a plot that would allow the character to do a lot.  However, Gene Roddenberry got around this by including them in nearly every episode.  However, if you notice that there are some episodes where they are bizarely not in an episode that clearly calls for their role, it is because they could not appear in every single episode of the season due to some kind of contract reasons.

In 2001, a TV show's central cast could be much larger than three.  Infact, each spin-off had 7-9 series regulars at any given time and thus tried to develope each character.  When Enterprise came along, we had seven regulars.  Like any other TV show, we expect them all to get something important to do.  Instead, Travis and Hoshi became glorified extras.  Reed became a tolken tactical officer.  The only supporting character who got anything interesting to do on a regular basis is Dr. Phlox.  This is not the 1960's, the show's cast features 7 regulars, not 3.

C'mon, these are professional statisticians at work.  They get paid a lot of money to be very smart about how to structure their study to be fair and accurate.  It's simply impossible to poll all of television (or it has been for a long time) so they do the best they can to have a scientific sampling of the population and go from there.  If the ratings said that ENT didn't get watched much then proportionally it didn't.

Well said.  The rating system may be extremely outdated, but they are trying very hard to be accurate.

My theory on why ENT failed... based on my SMALL sampling of only a few episodes can be summed up in the opening sequence.

TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY all showed the ship flying through space to really cool music (well VOY not so much and DS9 sorta just at there).  But my point is that the show was about the SHIP.  It was about the crew as a family and how the ship was going to push on no matter what.  The crew might change, the uniforms might change, but the ship/station was going to perservere.

Now we go to ENT.  The opening reel?  A retrospective on exploration (with a fictious HMS Enterprise I might add).  So what's the show about?  Not the ship... it's about history.

I didn't watch much because what I did watch felt more like it was about seeing the early days of Starfleet more than it was about the ship exploring and adventuring.  It was like ST:the History Channel more than ST: Real Adventures.

Just my impression though as I only gave it a few episodes before I quit.

TOS, TNG, and VOY were all ship-based with an opening credit sequence featuring the ship flying through space set to a catchy musical theme.  DS9 was space station-based, so we instead got majestic views set to a more quiet, emotional theme.  In Season 4, the sequence was reworked to a faster, upbeat remix of the theme music.  The majestic montages of the space station now featured different angles and ships coming and going to reflect that the station has become a very important place for lots of people to come and go.  It wasn't the same as the other three shows, but it was just as good.  When we come to Enterprise, Berman and Braga wanted to do something different.  Instead of a ship flying around the cosmos, we got a historical montage with a few fictional clips toward the end.  Instead of theme music, we got a theme song with lyrics that describe the show.  Considering it is a prequel, this was a very smart move indeed.

ENT is as much about the ship as TOS, TNG, and VOY were.  I might say it was even more so since the ship was an experimental prototype.  The ship/crew format is the same as TOS, TNG, and VOY.  I really do not see how it differs.  The show was rarely about history.  The first two years were about boldly going where no man has gone before, the third year was about saving Earth from the Xindi, and the fourth year was about going on specific missions and strengthening the ally relations with the Vulcans, Andorians, and... those pig-faced aliens who's name escapes me.  Where did you get the idea that the show is about history?  Did you ever watch past the opening credits?  ::)

The show was partly about the early days of Starfleet, but it was just as much about the ship's missions of exploration and interstellar adventure.  I'm guessing you didn't like DS9 because of the space station setting and the focus on politics and war, eh?  I'm guessing you didn't like VOY because of the focus on the journey home, eh?

The first impression I had with enterprise was that everything looked more futuristic then TOS.  It was hard to swallow it was a prequel.

True, but you just have to use your imagination.  The original was a product of the 1960's.  The prequel is a product of the 2000's.  Obviously, the prequel will look more futuristic.  Personally, I think they did a great job with making it feel like it takes place before TOS.

The run-ins with the Vulcans, the Borg, the time-travel, Nunian Sung,  and stories I wondered if they would ever end -- it was like they were trying to do too much.

The Vulcans were obviously going to be a major part of the series based on the first episode, so I was cool with that.  The heavey focus on time travel was a studio demand, so they had to do it.  I liked the Noonian Soong arc, that was a cool trilogy, though Brent Spiner had a bit too much screen time.  As for stories you thought might never end...  I assuming you're refering to the Xindi saga and the Temporal Cold War?  :confused

The casting, I thought was solid.  Bakula was a great pick but it wasn't enough to get the series off the ground.

The casting is great!  Scott Bakula was a great choice for the Captain.  He wasn't quite convincing in scenes where he had be very agressive (Stewart and Brooks were the best at this), but he was otherwise great in the role.

I thought they would have done much more with building the Federation and making TOS historical references come alive.

Blah... just focus on stand-alone episodes and tell a new story each week.  The Xindi saga was fun, but I am glad it was limited to one season.  Season 4 was fun, but it was too heavilly tied into TOS and TNG. :blink I was dissapointed, because they began Season 4 knowing it'd be the last.  Instead of tieing up loose ends, most of them were ignored in favor of prequeling TOS/TNG stories.  ::)

Also, a 5th series is a bit much.  As Q put, its time to put an end to your Trek amongst the Stars (or whatever he said).  Think of it -- might have been 38 years of TREK.  Yeah, yeah, you guys are probably drooling...  :)

Is it?  I don't see people saying they're are too many CSI or Law & Order shows.  I don't see people saying there are too many DC or Marvel comic book super heroes.

Launching a 5th series wasn't a bad idea.  Launching it right after TNG/DS9/VOY was too soon.  Once VOY ended, people were ready to move on.  TV Trek should have ended with a bang in Voyager's triumphant return to Earth.  Wait five or so years, then launch ENT.  People would be ready for more Star Trek.