An announcement due later on today Enterprise has been cancelled

doh.ie

bizmark wrote:

Star trek is massive all it needs is a good producer like manny coto to give it the kick it needs you should never be able to run out of stories tbh

Agreed - a good storyteller will never run out of interesting material, even in the Trek universe. But Coto should have also realised how important characterisation is - there was scant sign in the first 10 episodes of s4 that he had realise anyone on the show but Archer, Trip and T'Pol existed...
The show had a relatively wonky premise, wafer-thin characters and very drab storytelling.

I really don't expect the show will be coming back in another form or on another network - they seem set to end it with an appropriately "big" episode. It's a pity the birth of the Federation won't be seen in the way originally intended - gradually. Same with the Romulan War.

But given some very poor plotting, a larger proportion of weak episodes per season than any previous Trek incarnation and some very underused characters, the cancellation is hardly surprising news.

I'd hoped Manny Coto (a finer writer) could have brought about the changes necessary to get the show back on its feet and start telling some fine stories, but with B&B still at the helm (technically), it probably wasn't possible for him to do much. (I know Brent V. Friedman left the staff in season three under very acrimonious circumstances, citing a lack of creative freedom.)

Sad day overall, but as much as the Trek franchise needs to be rested, so does the tired, unoriginal and uninspiring involvement of Berman and Braga.

As someone said above, Firefly had more potential in 14 episodes as a series - in fact it *was* a hit to most fans in those 14 alone! - than Enterprise has had in almost 100. And that's possibly the very saddest part of today's news. They had a chance to make a decent show out of it, but they blew it, right from the very start.

Fenster

doh.ie wrote:

Agreed - a good storyteller will never run out of interesting material, even in the Trek universe. But Coto should have also realised how important characterisation is - there was scant sign in the first 10 episodes of s4 that he had realise anyone on the show but Archer, Trip and T'Pol existed...
The show had a relatively wonky premise, wafer-thin characters and very drab storytelling.

I really don't expect the show will be coming back in another form or on another network - they seem set to end it with an appropriately "big" episode. It's a pity the birth of the Federation won't be seen in the way originally intended - gradually. Same with the Romulan War.

But given some very poor plotting, a larger proportion of weak episodes per season than any previous Trek incarnation and some very underused characters, the cancellation is hardly surprising news.

I'd hoped Manny Coto (a finer writer) could have brought about the changes necessary to get the show back on its feet and start telling some fine stories, but with B&B still at the helm (technically), it probably wasn't possible for him to do much. (I know Brent V. Friedman left the staff in season three under very acrimonious circumstances, citing a lack of creative freedom.)

Sad day overall, but as much as the Trek franchise needs to be rested, so does the tired, unoriginal and uninspiring involvement of Berman and Braga.

As someone said above, Firefly had more potential in 14 episodes as a series - in fact it *was* a hit to most fans in those 14 alone! - than Enterprise has had in almost 100. And that's possibly the very saddest part of today's news. They had a chance to make a decent show out of it, but they blew it, right from the very start.

Good points on Manny Coto and characters-I was hoping for some of the excellent character work from Odyssey 5 to show up, but it never materialized.

qwertz

Well, it' really their own fault. My parents in law's Irish Setter is a better acton than Quantum will ever be. And Irish Setters aren't the most cooperative dogs

bizmark

qwertz wrote:

Well, it' really their own fault. My parents in law's Irish Setter is a better acton than Quantum will ever be. And Irish Setters aren't the most cooperative dogs

what?

shinzon

qwertz wrote:

Well, it' really their own fault. My parents in law's Irish Setter is a better acton than Quantum will ever be. And Irish Setters aren't the most cooperative dogs

If i decipher this correctly i think your saying that a red setter is more of an action man (dog?) than scott bakula will ever be

if not then i echo Bizmarks sentiments

WHAT ?

Shin

Johnny Storm

qwertz wrote:

Well, it' really their own fault. My parents in law's Irish Setter is a better acton than Quantum will ever be. And Irish Setters aren't the most cooperative dogs

C'mon fellas its perfectly obvious what he's sayin'
Poor old Scott Drakula DOES look like a dog.
:eek:

Private Joker

Tbh it was the theme song that killed it for me, what were they thinking. When the show first came out I did watch it because I was interested in how they were going to portay the foundation of the federation and all that. I watched season 1 and half of season 2 and gave up after that.
I can't really point to one factor ( apart from the theme song) that killed it for me maybe the star trek universe has gone a bit stale. What they need is about 10 defiants kickin some new enemys ass with no moral prime directive crap.

spooky donkey

Private Joker wrote:

Tbh it was the theme song that killed it for me,.

I dident like it at first but i got to like it over the 4 years.
I think that guy with the red setter is just complaining cause portous never joined the mako`s

qwertz

What I am saying is that Quantum isn't (wasn't) the best choice for a catptain. This guy just sucks at acting. He's worse than Kiefer Sutherland in 24.

jaggeh

^flame alert^

My flatmate will kill me for saying this because he is a total extremist when it comes to ST.

Star trek needs to be cancelled, reconceived and re-launched.

The reason it needs to be cancelled is because its stale, there is only so many times you can watch the same storyline in a different guise before it gets so old that a graveyard plot is being organised.

In order to reconceive the whole trek universe they need to bring in new writers and tell a story from a totally different perspective. As it is there is really only 1 race with the depth other than humans for a series, and thats the klingons. But that would just be a war show and klingons are very dry in the drama department.

If they took a leaf out of Firefly's book (cancelled after 12 episodes why?) which was a fantastic show, they would probably do better.

One of the problems with enterprise is that its coming from a 'Defender of peace' Moral standpoint which is very pro-america right now, they tried to introduce dubious standards during the Xindi affair with archer resorting to torture and brainwashing, but it was too little to late.
<edit> plus it was an attempt to acclimbatize the american viewers to their governments aggressive foreign policy and human rights abuse(re: guantanamo bay)</edit>

The next Lead needs to be more of an anti hero and all the pro-america patriotic bullcrap needs to go out the window.

Round Cable

jaggeh wrote:

The next Lead needs to be more of an anti hero and all the pro-america patriotic bullcrap needs to go out the window.

Funny I thought ENT was one of the most Bush bashing American TV shows on the air...

secret_squirrel

jaggeh wrote:

The next Lead needs to be more of an anti hero

Agreed - we need more

We come in peace - Shoot to kill

moments.

TCamen

doh.ie wrote:

Agreed - a good storyteller will never run out of interesting material, even in the Trek universe. But Coto should have also realised how important characterisation is - there was scant sign in the first 10 episodes of s4 that he had realise anyone on the show but Archer, Trip and T'Pol existed...
The show had a relatively wonky premise, wafer-thin characters and very drab storytelling.

I really don't expect the show will be coming back in another form or on another network - they seem set to end it with an appropriately "big" episode. It's a pity the birth of the Federation won't be seen in the way originally intended - gradually. Same with the Romulan War.

But given some very poor plotting, a larger proportion of weak episodes per season than any previous Trek incarnation and some very underused characters, the cancellation is hardly surprising news.

I'd hoped Manny Coto (a finer writer) could have brought about the changes necessary to get the show back on its feet and start telling some fine stories, but with B&B still at the helm (technically), it probably wasn't possible for him to do much. (I know Brent V. Friedman left the staff in season three under very acrimonious circumstances, citing a lack of creative freedom.)

Sad day overall, but as much as the Trek franchise needs to be rested, so does the tired, unoriginal and uninspiring involvement of Berman and Braga.

As someone said above, Firefly had more potential in 14 episodes as a series - in fact it *was* a hit to most fans in those 14 alone! - than Enterprise has had in almost 100. And that's possibly the very saddest part of today's news. They had a chance to make a decent show out of it, but they blew it, right from the very start.

Totally agree. I gave up on 'Enterprise' early in S2 after it was clear that nothing was going to change from S1 in terms of character development and standalone plots. S3 coaxed me back with the promise of a season-long arc, and while it did contain some standalone episodes, I think the Expanse worked well as a framework within which to craft the non-arc episodes. As a whole, S3 was far and away the best 'Enterprise' season, because it at least gave the triumvirate of Quantum, T'Pol and Trip *some* development that lasted more than an episode. It featured battles that *meant* something, and gave focus & drive to the lone Starfleet vessel & its crew.
The writers still neglected the majority of the cast and the arc was light compared to most series, yet it was enjoyable. What really disappointed me about S3 was the finale, which just rushed everything to a conclusion that was frankly too neat -- all the tertiary characters such as Degra were killed off, the Expanse/Xindi/Sphere Builders were finished, over, done. No loose ends to tie up from the arc that lasted the season. For the cliffhanger what did we get? A random, ridiculous time travel plot that frankly left my jaw on the floor from the sheer audacity & retardedness(sic) of it all. It ruined the season because it had nothing to do with anything we spent a year watching, it was lazy, and most crucially, it left me with ZERO interest in coming back for Season 4.

Signs weren't good when Paramount slashed the budget, moved the series to Fridays (the least-watched night on US television next to Saturday) and only gave a 13 episode commitment for S4. Frankly I'm surprised that Paramount canned the series with just two episodes shy of the desired 100 episode syndication number they covet when it comes to Trek. They'll still make a bundle off the sale regardless, but it was obvious that unless a huge surge in ratings for S4 had ocurred, there was little hope for 'Enterprise' to make it another year. It's telling that Sci-Fi is having a roaring success with their 'sci-fi fridays' featuring 'Stargate SG-1', 'Stargate: Atlantis' and 'Battlestar Galactica'. These series have fresher appeal to scifi audiences, they can alternate between standalone episodes and arc plots, and above all, can deliver viewers. Next to them, 'Enterprise' looks decidedly dated, and while S4 tried to turn the tide, it had lost the audience for good.

I will probably still catch S4 when it starts on Sky One in March, but I'm not sorry the series is cancelled. It squandered all opportunities to make the flawed premise work. Ultimately I think the prequel series idea was a bad way to take the franchise, and hopefully, after a rest, and with new writers, Star Trek can return with a new series that gives us something fresh & new.

doh.ie

Round Cable wrote:

Funny I thought ENT was one of the most Bush bashing American TV shows on the air...

Agreed. With the exception of some very questionable actions (stealing a ship's warp coil and the like, which Archer later regretted), S3's arc was very much about seeking friendship over war.

The season did begin all gung-ho/let's get them/kill them, but the ultimate revelation that the Xindi were merely pawns, manipulated by the Sphere Builders, turned the focus to seeking a peaceful resolution. The alliance sought by the humans and the open, trusting friendship forged with the Xindi was very anti-Bush Administration policy. For a season that started out as appearing to go against Trek ideals, it certainly swung back around by the end.

doh.ie

TCamen wrote:

..I think the Expanse worked well as a framework within which to craft the non-arc episodes.[/spoiler]

This is true. The non-arc episodes in s3 were very strong, and a lot of this was down to taking the ship and placing it in an unknown region. Enterprise's prequel concept was probably its weakest element; its reinvigoration for the duration of the Expanse storyline (although a turn-off to some viewers) gave it the shot of life TNG, DS9 and Voyager didn't receive until season 4. For that reason, it's kind of ironic it is ending early.

TCamen wrote:

The writers still neglected the majority of the cast

After the wonky concept, this was the biggest problem with the show. Slight redress with a few of them in s4 (still not with Hoshi or Mayweather though!), and it's very much a Archer/Trip/T'Pol show even in this final year.

TCamen wrote:

What really disappointed me about S3 was... No loose ends to tie up from the arc that lasted the season.

So typical of Star Trek - a sort of reset button (Voyager loved pressing that...), but with the events still having happened. There was nothing from this crucial mission that would, it seems, have any lasting impact, for Starfleet, beyond those who died in the original attack.

TCamen wrote:

For the cliffhanger what did we get? A random, ridiculous time travel plot that frankly left my jaw on the floor from the sheer audacity & retardedness(sic) of it all.

You said it. And that retardedness is just the last 40 seconds of season three... Wait until you see what comes next! I consider those first two episodes of season 4 to be the worst two Star Trek episodes EVER (yes, even worse than "Spock's Brain" or "Threshold"!)... Still, there's a marked improvment in most of what follows (bar episodes 10 & 11), so it's probably worth sticking with until the end, assuming they don't botch it up royally. (A Vulcan mini-arc and a later 'mysterious pod ship' arc are very enjoyable.)

TCamen wrote:

It's telling that Sci-Fi is having a roaring success with their 'sci-fi fridays' featuring 'Stargate SG-1', 'Stargate: Atlantis' and 'Battlestar Galactica'. These series have fresher appeal to scifi audiences, they can alternate between standalone episodes and arc plots, and above all, can deliver viewers.

Agreed - despite the death trap that is Fridays, those shows have managed just fine. Enterprise would have lived on too, had the premise, the stories, the actors and the execution been right. In some ways, despite the s4 improvement, it is a kind of mercy killing. I sense it might just have gotten worse, had it been allowed three more years.

TCamen wrote:

..and hopefully, after a rest, and with new writers, Star Trek can return with a new series that gives us something fresh & new.

Yep - as I said earlier in this thread, a good storyteller will never run out of stories, even in a universe which has told as many as the Trek one. I hope in a few years the next generation (pardon the pun) of Trek writers will be new blood, those that come from the kind of television that is exciting, engrossing, passionate about its characters and about keeping the viewer desperate for more - the kind of writers and producers behind some of my favourite shows - Lost, Carnivale, Millennium, Firefly, Buffy - or at least those who can see what more television can offer than the kind of material the Trek factory was turning out in the past 10 years...

The Corinthian

doh.ie wrote:

After the wonky concept, this was the biggest problem with the show. Slight redress with a few of them in s4 (still not with Hoshi or Mayweather though!), and it's very much a Archer/Trip/T'Pol show even in this final year.

Hardly surprising given that many of the characters were formulaic to begin with. Phlox they could never decide if he was comic relief or not and as for Mayweather, Read and Sato - the prescribed token African-American and non-Americans respectively.

senordingdong

Excuse me but, I'm a little behind on this matter.

Why exactly was it cancelled?

Low ratings would be the main reason.

secret_squirrel

general suckyness mine be another

tj-music.com

It is always sad when a series gets cancelled, no doubt about it. But in the case of Enterprise it really looked pale in comparison to all its predecessors.

Potentially it should have been great, but really it wasn´t.

In comparison to TNG,DS9, classic and even Voyager - it looked very pale.

I think Enterprise was meant to be great but it turned out to be "mcgyver" instead of "James Bond", if you get me.

cregser

Check this out. Enterprise is getting annonymus donations from 3 people in the space flight industry who want to see another series of Star Trek. They say the show influenced their careers which try to bring the future closer to us. They've got around $3million and they need 10 times that for a series.

If you ask me the money would be better spent bringing the present (nevermind future) closer to people in Africa and Asia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4312767.stm
http://www.trekunited.com/

[EDIT] Actually after reading this my mind is changing. Some good patriotic writing here:

http://www.trekunited.com/ wrote:

... Scientists, politicians, entreprenuers, celebrities, humanitarians, astronauts- these people and many more are part of the generations that were inspired by a show that dared to portray a better humanity. A better future. A better understanding of our world and acceptance of those around us. On the eve of the fortieth anniversary of this amazing social and cultural phenomenon, its latest outing – Enterprise has been cut short, for lack of perceived interest.

Legends never die...

Cactus Col

Star Trek should be gone for at least 5 years before another movie is made, and at least 10 before another series is made.

18 years with star trek on tv and in the cinema is a bit too long. If Voyager hadn't been made at all, and in it's place we had a few years of nothing, then Enterprise probably would be doing better.

In other words, it's Voyager's fault.

_Kaiser_

I read a bit about the whole "let the fans pay for Season 5" idea yesterday and what was really scary was the number of extreme fanboys who genuinely think it'll work, and even more bizzarely, that people have contributed 3 MILLION dollars to this idea???

Don't get me wrong. I really enjoyed DS9 (and to a lesser extent TNG and VOY) but another season of "The Archer, Trip and T'Pol Show" is not what's needed to revive Trek at this stage. Personally I've never gotten into the show. OK, season 3 WAS better, and I'll probably watch Season 4 next week on Sky (what the whole alien in WWII thing is about is beyond me) but I still don't consider it "proper" Star Trek and if anything I find it slightly more watchable if I think of it as a standalone "generic" sci-fi show.

Give it a rest for a few years, then come back at it fresh in a post Nemesis era would be my vote

CiDeRmAn

I got the feeling that some of the reasons, certainly the reasons I stopped watching, was the reliance on soapy story arcs that are too hard for the casual viewer to keep up with, also the time travel based stories, ie most of them, were too contrived.
Liked it say when they found the pod that was bigger on the inside than the outside but the episode where they go back to 20th century USA to stop experimentation on humans was total claptrap, felt like the dark days of ****e Above and Beyond, the low tide mark of Science Fiction tv, also don't think Archer is a strong enough leader, too vunerable, too touchy feely, no dark streak, too vanilla. Janeway, Picard, Sisko all seemed like born leaders, played by actors who could convince you of their almost noble stature on a voyage into the unknown. Archer is more like a teacher leading an unruly class on a field trip, confused, stressed and without direction.

Or I could have it all wrong.

A Sulu show on the Excelsior would have rocked as that Voyager episode, you know the one with the flashbacks to Tuvoks time as a member of her crew, proved.
Ah well, such is life.

senordingdong

Janeway was anything but a good leader.

My favourite was Sisko, he took no **** from no-one. He was like Shaft, Shaft in space.
Picard was all well and good, but lets face it, he was French.

I think Enterprise was entertaining and all but it was so riddled with inconsistencies etc...

From whate I've heard Paramount already have a new Trek in the making and that they stated making it because they knew Enterprise was failing.
I have no idea how true or false that rumour is so don't count on it.

Personally I'd like to see the adventures of Voyager in the Alpha quadrant.