Why this show failed


I watched Enterprise when it first aired, and I'm recently watching it again on Netflix. I actually enjoy the show, as I enjoy all things Trek, but I can see why the show was cancelled so soon. Here are the reasons the show didn't work (according to me):

1) The look of the show

When I first heard about Enterprise, I was really excited. Since it was supposed to take place before TOS, I was looking forward to seeing some really interesting, retro set design in line with what would have evolved toward that of TOS in terms of colors, technology, uniforms, etc. Instead we got a slightly evolved version of modern space shuttle or submarine decor. I know they were going for the "realistic" look, but I would have rather seen something more along the lines of the set design of the JJ Abram's movies, although even that looked way too advanced compared to TOS.

2) Uninteresting characters

Whoever did the casting for this show did a terrible job. The only character that stood out to me was T'Pol. Everybody else was invisible. I did also like Trip, although I found his nice southern country boy persona without any interesting backstory a bit boring. Paris from Voyager was a similar character, but he at least had an interesting backstory.

3) Captain Archer

I love Scott Bakula. But I don't think he is Star Trek captain material. Star Trek captains are supposed to be strong and principled (Picard, Sisko, Janeway) with perhaps a little mischievousness (Shatner). But Bakula always seems to play the serious but befuddled Everyman who always looks a bit in over his head. When the show started he was principled in that he eschewed violence and torture. But as the show went on he was torturing everyone in sight. I know the producers probably wanted to show how his character evolved in response to the challenges he encountered, but it just didn't seem to work.

4) The Aliens

This show was supposed to take place to over a century before TOS and a few decades after first contact. I'll accept having a Vulcan aboard on this first mission, but some strange alien doctor in charge of the crew's well-being? I would have preferred a human doctor, perhaps, like Bones in TOS, especially if he exhibited some friction with the captain.

5) Story Arcs

Those long story arcs just didn't work. Star Trek works when it's episodic--something new each week. It gets boring when a single story line dominates.

6) The song

The first time I heard the song, I hated it. It just didn't fit Star Trek. I admit, however, that I actually like the song now. But I think they should have stuck with the tried and true classical music/monologue opening.

reply

I agree with some, like the aliens and acting, however, I give some benefit that he was the first captain and kinda had to make it up as he went. Later captain already had a history of decor and manner that was expected. Shoot, nobody new what to do. Picard was like a father to me and I would never expect the first captain to have his statue. Good stuff!

reply

I wouldn't say the show failed. It lasted 4 seasons.
I thought it was great, and I loved the song.

reply

2) Uninteresting characters

Whoever did the casting for this show did a terrible job. The only character that stood out to me was T'Pol. Everybody else was invisible. I did also like Trip, although I found his nice southern country boy persona without any interesting backstory a bit boring. Paris from Voyager was a similar character, but he at least had an interesting backstory.
The show ran for 4yrs, so I don't think it was a failure. The original ran for only 3. Do you consider it a failure?

I totally agree about the characters. Not sure if it was the lack of developement in the writing, or the actors playing the roles, but these people could not have been more boring. T'Pol was somewhat likeable, and sometimes Archer was just okay.





5) Story Arcs

Those long story arcs just didn't work. Star Trek works when it's episodic--something new each week. It gets boring when a single story line dominates
IMO, the long story arcs in the last 2 seasons was a desperate attempt to save the show since the writers screwed up the first 2 seasons. They never developed the characters in the first 2 seasons and didn't have time in the last 2 seasons to do it. Doomed.

reply

1) The look of the show


Looking back, I think this is one big reason why a large portion of the Star Trek audience was disappointed. I was one of those people as well. However, I am glad that they did not end up going down the route of trying to make the show into a wannabe TOS. What disappoints me now is the fact that they were not allowed to go further with the look that they wanted. It's funny that you mention that the NX-01 has a "submarine decor", because the creators' original intent was to make the NX-01 something likened to a "submarine in space" with even tighter quarters, no viewscreen, very small windows, manual doors that latched, etc. In my opinion, that would have been far more interesting than TOS yet again. Paramount and UPN simply wouldn't have let the creators have it their way, though.

2) Uninteresting characters

I can agree with this to an extent, but I think the characters are an improvement over Voyager(which had maybe 2 or 3 interesting characters). Then again, Voyager sets the bar so low. ;) I did like Archer, Trip, T'Pol, Phlox(OMG PHLOX), and Hoshi. Maybe Hoshi the least out of that list, but I think having someone more "ordinary" in the cast made the show more believable for me. Mayweather was simply terrible, both in terms of character and acting. Many people poke fun at Chakotay for being the most plain character in Star Trek(I actually like Chakotay, btw), but he has nothing on Mayweather. The only interesting story they gave Mayweather was in the second to last episode.

I think a more likely turnoff for people than uninteresting characters is the fact that Enterprise had different characters than the other shows. Characters from the other series usually fall into two categories: Goodie goods who went through Starfleet Academy and always walk the straight and narrow, and the screw-ups with a heart of gold that just needed a second chance(Ro Laren, Paris, B'elanna Torres to some extent, etc.). The stories surrounding such characters often involved understanding the moral dilemma at hand and making the right decision in the end. They were always generally upstanding figures, even if they were on the side with Starfleet. Enterprise, in contrast, had a cast of what are really just ordinary people who have thrust themselves into situations that have impacts which they don't always fully comprehend. There are multiple episodes where characters choose to do things that are very questionable(and this was intended). I think the best example of what I described is Archer; unlike Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway(ugh), Archer isn't exactly extraordinary or legendary. He had skills, but in the end he was just a normal guy who had to do things that were a lot bigger than he.

Evidently, those things are not what interested many people in Star Trek, so perhaps that's why a lot of people tuned out.

3) Captain Archer

Star Trek captains are supposed to be strong and principled (Picard, Sisko, Janeway) with perhaps a little mischievousness (Shatner). But Bakula always seems to play the serious but befuddled Everyman who always looks a bit in over his head.


That was exactly the point. Granted, this is all based on personal tastes, but I think it's a shame that so many Star Trek fans would rather have the same thing over and over again than try new characters and stories. Maybe I am biased because I find flawed characters more interesting. I'd rather a crew with some misfits than one made entirely of Starfleet goodie goods.

Archer is my second favorite captain to Picard since, in some ways, he is antithetical to Picard and the stories that Picard was written in to.

4) The Aliens


That was indeed a problem, though a really minor one. Part of the premise is that humans have had some contact with other species for decades since before the NX-01 set its first course. I personally think this was a mistake in writing, but to take that premise seriously, I don't think it's too unbelievable that they would allow a Denobulan to serve on the Enterprise as the doctor. Seeing as Earth hadn't that much contact with species other than Vulcans, it would make sense that they would form a relationship with Denobulans rather quickly given their planet's proximity as well as their peaceful and curious demeanor. Phlox was undoubtedly the best candidate to be the doctor on the NX-01 because his understanding of biology and genetics not only rivaled that of Arik Soong, but he had a tremendous knowledge of exobiology and held degrees in several disciplines(including psychology). It wouldn't have made sense to have a doctor that knew little of other species or space-faring diseases. One could argue that they could have had a Vulcan doctor but, given the knowledge of the Denobulans, I can understand why Starfleet would insist on Phlox; as we learned rather quickly, the Vulcans at that point were actually fairly conservative and often did not record scientific findings that didn't interest them.

I would have preferred a human doctor, perhaps, like Bones in TOS, especially if he exhibited some friction with the captain.


Why? Bones was already in 79 original series episodes and several movies. Do we really need another Bones? Actually, we did have another Bones; her name was Katherine Pulaski, and the audience hated her which is why she only lasted for the 2nd season of TNG. If you replaced her with DeForrest Kelley, her character would have been exactly Bones. I actually loved Dr. Pulasky, btw. But I don't think that we need another version of the same character at this point(or at the point that Enterprise began airing).

5) Story Arcs
Those long story arcs just didn't work. Star Trek works when it's episodic--something new each week. It gets boring when a single story line dominates.


I disagree. :)

6) The song


I get the feeling you'd rather they had just made new TOS episodes.

reply

I actualy really like the song! At first I didn't like it either but after a while it grows on you! And it does fit the theme of Enterprise in General. You have to look in another aspect of the star trek show and it's actualy really great. And Captain Archer is in my opinion still my favourite captain, just slightly above Sisko.

reply

However, I am glad that they did not end up going down the route of trying to make the show into a wannabe TOS

Interestingly, that was at the core of what I found to be behind the most annoying aspects of the show; the "wannabe TOS" approach.

Not so much the aesthetics/"look" of the show and sets, but the underlying technology and capabilities. Everything was a mirror of classic "Trek Tech", but just a bit weaker and not at the upper end of the humanoid races, the way they always were, later. Some of these became a bit silly. For instance, instead of having shields, they had "polarized hull plating." And yet... THEY HAD TRANSPORTERS! Sorry, the concept they'd have transporters before shields is just poor sci-fi. Sure, I could see the development of polarizing materials to strengthen them prior to the advent of shields; but the concept behind a basic shield is closer to modern tech than warp drive, casual space travel and, of course, the transporter (arguably the most "magical" piece of tech from TOS). If they were going to throw the transporter into the show, it should have come later, and only as a very unreliable prototype they would NEVER use for life-forms (except maybe later on in the series, as a hail-Mary move).

Enterprise should have never been able to slug it out with Klingons, either. One would presume Klingons were a bit more static in their tech development, and would have been similar in Enterprise to TOS in capability. Namely; they could have torn a new one in Enterprise. The aliens we know, in TOS, as rivals, would have felt a bit god-like in the 2150s.

No... if anything, Enterprise should have had a much different complement of tech and procedures, rather than just renaming a few things. I wanted to see something a bit more like "The Right Stuff."

reply

I liked the theme song myself. I do agree about the uninteresting characters though.

If it's all the same to you, I'll have that drink now.-Loki (Marvel's Avengers)

reply

I think it is less about liking or disliking the song as whether the chosen style fits to Star Trek. And it does not. Space is big and timeless. The song is some softrock crap which is tied into the late 90ies. I don't see the point of a show trying to create the vision of a future, just to destory its credibility within the first seconds by playing a song which could be the start of a half-assed family drama.
And that says a lot about how the creators made the decisions. They did not think about what is best for the story they want to tell but what will have traction at some imaginary target group which, as the rating did prove, not existed.

reply

The theme song was horrible.

I agree with all the points that you've made.

The casting indeed doomed this show,none of the characters were interesting.

reply

There is some well thought out rationale here both in the original post and the follow-ups. I was for sure a graduate of the ST TOS school of exceptionalism. So much so that I didn't even watch Enterprise until 2012. I had such a difficult time accepting a new cast with ST TNG that I just couldn't bring myself to imagine there was a Captain before Kirk :-/

Then, in 2012, I actually watched Enterprise and was blown away! I loved it! And, I also had to ask myself, "Why did it end so soon?" <I agree "failure" is a bit of a strong term to describe a program that has almost 100 episodes to its credit.>

1. I like the theme song but felt like the constant reprise of the word "faith" was a rather odd choice. Making it to the stars doesn't require faith. "Faith" is a word often used to describe an unwarranted or rabid belief in an idea or philosophy with little or no supporting evidence. Science requires no faith. Science doesn't care what you, or I, "Believe".
That said, the start sequence and synchronization of that sequence with the song is terrific IMHO. It's a great mix of past, present and future. I especially like the 3 second slo-mo clip of the astronaut in his snoopy-hat turning his head and rolling his eyes back in his head in response to who knows what. Not sure what he is responding to but for some reason, that clip adds so much nostalgia and realism into this epoch journey leading us to the launch of NX-01.

2. Character backstory and "Goody Two-shoesiness"- Completely agree this was a major failing.
How about having one or two dyslectic, ADD/OCD/ODD suffering officers who have overcome their issues and risen to the top despite their inability to fit into the Star Fleet cookie cutter mold? I get it, in terms of this being the first crew on the first NX class ship; you're probably going to follow the Hallmark philosophy of "caring enough to send the very best". Such qualifications really don't leave a lot of room for those of us who were not valedictorians but nonetheless possess the innate abilities required of leadership roles. Point is, the backstories ARE in fact boring as hell and also make it difficult to identify with the characters.

3. Captain Archer - I enjoy Scott Bakula. I think he is Captain material. I felt he had command presence, thoughtful introspection and played the "it's lonely at the top" card rather well.
Hindsight being 20/20; I didn't like the way the writers so transparently drew the comparison between 9/11 and the Xindi raid on Florida that killed 7M people. Then used that raid to justify torture by the Captain. Remember when putting someone in an airlock until they cried uncle was a despicable act carried out by likes of KAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNN!?
I think I could have even been O.K. with Archer torturing the enemy or steeling a warp coil from a civilian ship had these actions resulted in unexpected consequences. However, they did not. In fact, in both cases, the torture and the theft ended up serving as perverse incentives to continue such abhorrent behavior. Torture ends up being integral to the success of the mission. This not only violates any sense of fair-play, and the law and any hope for the future, but moreover it violates my suspension of disbelief. As the American public, and world for that matter, found out recently - torture does far more damage to anti-terrorism efforts and rarely if ever results in the direct success of thwarting terror attacks. According to Enterprise though, as long as you take 30 to 50 seconds of introspection, say 5 Lords Prayers and 10 Hail Marys after committing such acts, all is well.

4. Story Arcs - LOVE 'EM! Enterprise Season-3 was like watching a never-ending 24 hour movie! The following shorter arcs in Season-4 such as the WWII episodes and Trip's trip to Vulcan likewise were theater quality experiences.

5. The LOOK of the show - Yes, in order to be true to the timeline, I agree the doors probably should have been swinging hinged replete with knobs and perhaps some of the comm gear should have been more in keeping with pre ST TOS gear...on the other hand seeing as some of today's technology has already surpassed that of TOS(example: Bluetooth earpiece vs. the eggplant sticking out of O'Hara's right ear) maybe it's o.k. to admit that TOS didn't get everything exactly correct with some revisionist prequel technology updates. Also, the shooting of Enterprise in widescreen format added considerably to the cinematic experience.

Of course, this is all subjective. I don't know that there's any right or wrong other than that the majority of fans probably agree that if DS9 and Voyager could go 7 seasons, certainly Enterprise deserved more than 4.

reply

The main failure for me was going back into the past. Each Star Trek series moved forwards into the future. The past means crap weapons, stupid missiles no shielding except for that daft polarising.

They could have done 20 years ahead of voyager series with cool innovative weapons, ships and another badass enemy and use many of the species of Starfleet Federation instead of mainly humans with an odd sprinkling of vulcan, klingon, Ferengi.

reply

I agree this past thing Star Trek seems to be doing (enterprise, current movies) will get old. They aren't getting the trekkies they used to have, and they are the ones who stick around.

Star Trek is about the future. They need a new series with newer technology. Really wow us again. That's what TOS and TNG did. Even Voyager had some new tech. We need a series somewhere between Voyager and Andromeda (I know, not star trek, but Roddenberry)

reply

It was also weird that they used a flip phone as a communicator when flip phone now are out of fashion 10 years ago. It was ok in the original Star Trek as there was no mobile phone so at the time looked cool. They didn't want technologies ahead of the original, so kept the flip phone. A big mistake as most fans would surely look past the original since most weren't even born and probably never seen it.

reply