1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fate of Star Trek: Enterprise uncertain

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by Mark Holtz, Feb 14, 2004.

  1. zztzed

    zztzed Mentor

    Sep 15, 2002
    It's just TV, man.
  2. Ray_Clum

    Ray_Clum Hall Of Fame

    Apr 22, 2002
    No HD in my household, yet...
  3. waydwolf

    waydwolf Icon

    Feb 2, 2003
    I know you meant "fleshed out" but "flushed out" is ironically apt considering the Andorians were never a species one could really take a lot of interest in and flushing them out is probably a good idea.

    They had so much going at the end of DS9 with finally achieving peace with the Dominion. At the start of their contact with the Gamme Quadrant natives, we got some interesting and quirky people. The hunters, the game players, and so on.

    They might have done some examination of what happens to the Dominion with Odo's influence among the Founders. The Gem H'dar have been essentially freed from total mental and emotion slavery to the founders and can have their own ways. We never got to explore that. We never got to explore an entire quadrant.

    And the Ferengi come from Beta Quadrant which has been much overlooked in the Trek and we don't know what their influence deep into the Beta Quadrant has done. How many hate them and are their enemies? How many cultures did they infect with their aquisition fever? Is it a technological free-trade zone?

    We could have done soooo much with where we already were in Trek. Going back in time is like doing a Western series today. A bit out of place, well trod ground, beaten to death.

    Trek isn't losing viewers due to Roddenberry's death or too many SFX episodes. It's losing viewers because it isn't remotely as adventurous as it could be. The whole contemplating their navels thing might be a draw to some, but the mass market gets enough of that from politicians, news media, and sappy WB shows that have reduced Superman of all people into a whiny angsty drip(and if Superman's got emotional problems and can't exactly cope with the expected bravado, how much better can mere mortals like us do? How depressing.). We don't need Trek to do it unless anyone thinks that the writers channeling Leo Buscaglia would be a bang-up draw.

    In the episode of Stargate: SG1 where O'Neil was taken over by alien intelligence and first went to the Asgard world and met them in person, he made an excellent point that Trek once made to the rest of the universe: we're here, we're inquisitive, we ain't perfect, and we're not going away so deal with it or face the music for letting us go on our merry way.

    That's the kind of thing Trek should be about. HUMANS, who are the only intelligent life WE know of here in real life, are what we are concerned with. Aliens in Trek are props,. story tools. They're not real. We use them to reflect human conditions to varying degrees. Trek should be about the human adventure of exploration it once was to some degree. But without the heavy-handed preachy crap that makes people go, "not again...".
  4. invaliduser88

    invaliduser88 Welcome to Torchwood DBSTalk Gold Club

    Apr 23, 2002
    The Xindi story line + HD broadcast has me watching again. Even though last week episode sucked, it seems to setup something interesting for later.

    Also, the two episodes before were great.
  5. dfergie

    dfergie Hall Of Fame

    Feb 27, 2003
    The only episode ive seen this season was the one where archers short term memory was gone. I really liked it. Maybe since frasier is going off the air they could do a star trek with him playing the charecter introduced in the ng. The captain of a starfleet ship from the ng past in their present.
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    Mar 23, 2002
    Wolf, ST:TOS was nothing if not full of heavy-handed preachy crap. :D Mixed in with the adventure of exploration.
  7. FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    Jul 21, 2002
    My two cents:

    Rick Berman, who took over as ST's guiding force when Gene passed on, has said (I'm paraphrasing my memories here, so apologies if this isn't 100% accurate) that one of Gene's failings was that the crew always got along. In Rick's eye, little disagreement equaled little drama. So with each new post-Gene installment, we've got crew members with different agendas and divided loyalties.

    As you can guess, I think this is a primary reason for the franchise's fade. It might take a little more work to introduce an external conflict to solve every episode, but it's quite doable. The main point is that ST is like comics -- wish fulfillment. We viewers project ourselves into a bridge officer's chair, and we want to be part of a friendly family team. We don't want to see two other officers whom we both like argue to the point where we have to emotionally side with one or the other.

    I really enjoy Scott Bakula's Archer, although I'm annoyed at the character's inconsistencies from week to week, and his unrelenting driven "We gotta save humanity NOW" theme is wearing thin after over half a season. The real treat is John Billingley's Dr. Phlox, wonderfully quirky and warm while staying alien.

    I gave up on DS9 once I was unable to follow the episodes (miss two weeks and you're toast). I gave up on Voyager earlier because (ahem) the whole dang premise was created by Janeway's screwup (Prime Directive, okay? Just go freakin' home, okay? But noooo...). But I've been watching Enterprise hoping it doesn't get too stupid. If it got canceled, I'd miss it. A little.
  8. Kevin G

    Kevin G AllStar

    Jul 3, 2002
    When DS9 was on, I was more interested in Babylon 5, a better space station show. When Voyager was on, I'd watch it when I could, but didn't care for Captain Janeway (her voice, her over-the-top toughness, etc.). I actually like this season of Enterprise.

    The main problems with the francise are the utter lack of surprise and PC. In TOS they were always shocked with what was out there, and space seemed vast and mysterious where life was rare. In DS9 and on, even Enterprise, there are just so many races and nothing shocks them. This is especially bad on Enterprise - this is supposed to be their first real exploration into deep space and nothing fazes, pun intended, them. Plus, the whole PC garbage really is out of touch with TOS roots.

    They also don't do conflict very well. You want crew conflict - Firefly was much better. Moral delimas? Stargate was pretty good at this.
    They need to show different points of view, but not tell us which is the better opinion.
  9. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    Apr 24, 2002
    Here's the solution.... UPN should move Enterprise to Tuesdays at 8pm, and call Joss Whedon to keep Angel alive on UPN and air Angel right after it at 9. Boom, better ratings for both. Frasier is going away, and the American Idol contingent are not their demographic anyway and would be a good counterprogramming move.
  10. buzzdalf

    buzzdalf Godfather

    Jan 27, 2003
    I'd much rather see a move instead of canceling it.
    Get it away from Smallville.
  11. waydwolf

    waydwolf Icon

    Feb 2, 2003
    And it WASN'T the preaching people were tuning in for. They got that all the way through the sixties from all and sundry.

    People don't want to be taught by writers who think they know better than the viewers. They want a fantastic escape from their own lives. It's gotten to the point that reality TV is all over because people find the REAL LIVES of OTHER PEOPLE more interesting than their own.

    Star Trek and other sci-fi will take off again when it stops contemplating humanity's navel and starts going and doing things that everyday people don't and won't ever.
  12. TNGTony

    TNGTony Hall Of Fame

    Mar 23, 2002
    The ratings of the show say differently. When they started to get away from that type of story line is when the ratings started to go south.

    See ya
  13. DChristmann

    DChristmann Mentor

    Dec 16, 2002
    Maybe it's just me, but I gotta think that the reason why Enterprise's ratings are so much less than any other Trek is because it's only like the 17th Star Trek series out there.

    Yeah, TNG got good ratings, but there was 20 years' worth of pent-up demand for a new Star Trek series. I was two years away from being born when the original series was canned, so yeah, I was pretty jazzed about TNG. But in the past 15 years, there has not been a single season in which there has not been one Star Trek show or another. And that's on top of the 10 movies. The mere presence of a Star Trek series on TV is about as exciting as another season of Friends. It's old hat and it's not exactly going to thrill the masses, especially when you've got reruns of the original series on Sci-Fi, TNG on Spike, and DS9 and Voyager in syndication all at the same time.

    Frankly, I think that Enterprise has been pretty refreshing, all things considered. It's more interesting to see a Star Trek series that really does take place on "the final frontier" for a change. Aside from Patrick Stewart's voiceover in the opening credits of TNG, there was nothing remotely "frontier" about that show. And it's more interesting to see a Star Trek show where the crew often has to say "we don't know how to do that," where in every other Star Trek show in the last 15 years, the resolution to every problem lied in reconfiguring the polarity of the tachyon flow or some other piece of treknobabble.

    Finally, I think that to a certain extent, there's a certain cultish adherance to Gene Roddenberry's "vision" for Star Trek, and it tends to blind people to the fact that the list of episodes under Gene Roddenberry had more dogs on it than the Westminster Dog Show. A lot of the criticism of the newer series, no matter how good or bad the episodes' storylines are, pretty much boils down to "That's not how Gene would've done it," as if that were inherently a bad thing.

Share This Page