Star Trek: Enterprise Forums

UPN (ended 2005)

Why did this get cancelled???

  • Avatar of wingsabre

    wingsabre

    [21]Aug 13, 2007
    • member since: 06/15/05
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 761
    copygeek wrote:
    sporkman5353 wrote:
    Tronman100 wrote:
    Codeguru wrote:

    The first seasons got it right, showing their first interactions with the different alien races and situations first hand. Then they let the politics of present day take over and it got all preachy every other episode pretty much starting right after the Zindi conflict. Too bad for them I guess, I can livewith reruns of the better series...

    Codeguru

    Interesting, most people I talked to think the opposite. I didn't hate the first seasons, but I especially loved 4 and how it dealt with establishing later plot lines from the other series.

    The only bad season imo was season 3. I actually only saw the 1st and last few episodes and didn't miss anything.

    I'm always amazed when I hear people say they disliked Season 3. To me, it was mostly fantastic (except for the episode where Archer and T'Pol went back to present day Detroit). I guess the reason I liked Season 3 is because I like watching 24, so the idea of a season long plot doesn't bother me at all. Anime often does this, as well, with a single plot line covering up to 52 episodes.

    I just thought that the season long arc built up the tension and gave plenty of episodes that provided greater character development.



    I like a season long arc, i even like a series long arc, but there are arcs that belong and arcs that don't and the whole Xindi thing didn't belong. No Trekker liked it, they should have stayed w/ Klingon instead of Xindi. Time Travel for that series just made it bad.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ootsdemons

    ootsdemons

    [22]Aug 24, 2007
    • member since: 07/14/07
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 110
    I suppose rating is an easy answer

    kinda like saying "he died because he stopped breathing"

    but the cause of the low ratings i think is more important

    I have always firmly believed that
    the apauling show voyager was responsible for losing too many trek veiwers
    few returned for when enterprise came along

    upn once they relased they wernt getting another hit
    released they had a dead albatross around thier necks
    and didnt waste anytime or resources promoting
    enterprise

    As with all trek spin off shows the fan base was divided in to lovers and haters.
    Alot like when TNG was first released

    haters seemed to fill the internet with
    thier opinions on this "insult to trek".

    A show that got a bad rap
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jrsgalaxy

    jrsgalaxy

    [23]Aug 28, 2007
    • member since: 01/30/07
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 1,676
    [QUOTE="ootsdemonsthe apauling show voyager was responsible for losing too many trek veiwers
    few returned for when enterprise came along

    upn once they relased they wernt getting another hit
    released they had a dead albatross around thier necks

    Lets stop beating a dead horse shall we? Yes Voyager wasnt up to TNG standards . So What? It was different . Different cast and all. All ships cant have Data. we cant compare all shows to TNG ratings and all. After all it was the first spinoff. They find lightning in a bottle again. Can t expect them to do it all the time can you? Lets just leave Voyager alone. They were all fine episodes. The fact that Enterprise got cancelled was after all becuase of the Nielsen ratings. And if Networks still go by those is sad. and they have my pity. If they want an accurate rating , then why not tally up the actual viewers that tune in to watch and not a select few who get awarded a box?
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of belial_77

    belial_77

    [24]Aug 28, 2007
    • member since: 06/02/07
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 2,484

    So I know a lot of Trekkies out there are going to kill me for saying this, but I liked both Enterprise and Voyager better then TNG... maybe it was because I grew up watching the Original Kirk series in syndication, and the whole feeling of exploration was lacking on TNG and DS9... but those elements came back in Voyager and Enterprise (even tho in Enterprise, it was discovering stuff we already knew about from the rest of the franchise)...

    as far as Season 3 goes, it was a departure from the previous 2 seasons, but wasn't bad imo... I liked the struggle of the crew to go from being a vessel of exploration like the NASA program, to becoming a military vessel like Air Force or Navy... and how the characters attepted to cope with the more hostile environment of "the Expanse" as well as the loss of so many human lives back on Earth... sure the "Temporal Cold War" is bobo excuse for a plot line, but this turn of events was great... T'Pale getting strung out on Vulcan Smack, Trip going crazy from grief, and Cap'n Archer having to face difficult decisions to keep the mission going (like the episode which he has to basically become a space pirate, and forcefully steal a peaceful alien vessel's warp coil, etc...). I can see how it would get on peoples nerves by being "preachy", then again, I like Battlestar Galactica which is way preachier... My biggest problem w/ the third season was the change in the Theme song...

    but why was it canceled? 101 reasons, none of which are good imo... the network was wanting to have a diff target audience, lack of support by the fan base, scheduling nightmares (it was always placed at times when sporting events or other things would interrupt it, and the fact that only the initial airing's ratings were tracked, instead of the re-airing on the weekend which most viewers would tune in...

    I just hope that the story of the first Enterprise will still be told, through movies, mini-series, or even direct to dvd avenues...

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [25]Aug 29, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    ootsdemons wrote:
    but the cause of the low ratings i think is more important


    The ratings are measured with a fatally flawed system. The numbers might as well be made up, because they are not truly statistically relevant. Those numbers are only relevant to the networks and advertisers because there is no other system, but it would be a mistake to assume they represent people's actual watching habits.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [26]Aug 29, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    jrsgalaxy wrote:
    Lets stop beating a dead horse shall we? Yes Voyager wasnt up to TNG standards . So What? It was different . Different cast and all. All ships cant have Data.


    People are not embarrassed by Voyager because it was "different." TNG was different from TOS, and it was a huge success. Voyager had other serious problems.

    jrsgalaxy wrote:
    Lets just leave Voyager alone. They were all fine episodes.


    Elogium? THRESHOLD? Hello?

    jrsgalaxy wrote:
    The fact that Enterprise got cancelled was after all becuase of the Nielsen ratings. And if Networks still go by those is sad. and they have my pity. If they want an accurate rating , then why not tally up the actual viewers that tune in to watch and not a select few who get awarded a box?


    That much is true.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MrShotShot

    MrShotShot

    [27]Aug 30, 2007
    • member since: 08/21/07
    • level: 15
    • rank: Ginsu Knife
    • posts: 292

    I was never able to watch Enterprise when it was on because I didn't have UPN. In fact, it wasn't until SciFi started bringing it on in January that I watched it.

    Funny thing was, I kept wondering when it was going to start sucking because I had heard so many bad things about it. It just kept getting better and better as far as I was concerned.

    Frankly, I really liked the show and really wish someone had given it another chance.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of entnx01dj

    entnx01dj

    [28]Sep 19, 2007
    • member since: 09/19/07
    • level: 1
    • rank: Weatherman
    • posts: 2
    The show wasn't supported by the network it was on. Therehas been quite a few interviews with Scott Bakula, Captain Archer, who says basically the same thing, the show didn't fitwith what the network wanted, so they killed it. I never knew when it was on, or even if it was on. Then they usuallyput it on a night I couldn't watch anyway, due to college classes,so I am just getting to know the show through re-runs on theSci-Fi channel, and renting the DVD's from Netflix, and downloading the shows onto my ipod. I think that this was the best of all the Star Trek series, and Voyager was the second best. I really hope that the Sci-Fi channel will see that the fans want it back, and will be able to do something about it. Keep watching the re-runs as much as you can, maybe the ratings will go up, and help bring it back.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Scorptilicus

    Scorptilicus

    [29]Oct 17, 2007
    • member since: 06/24/05
    • level: 9
    • rank: Door Number 2
    • posts: 50
    Because no one watched it. Alas. And its last two seasons were the best.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of iamralphiam

    iamralphiam

    [30]Oct 17, 2007
    • member since: 09/05/07
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 96

    its first two seasons sucked, and it seemed intent on destroying all the constants in the star trek universe (behavior of species; namely vulcan and klingon)

    it doesnt matter how much better the next two seasons were, they lost too many viewers already

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of suzpsycho

    suzpsycho

    [31]Oct 18, 2007
    • member since: 10/11/06
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 2,700
    iamralphiam wrote:

    its first two seasons sucked, and it seemed intent on destroying all the constants in the star trek universe (behavior of species; namely vulcan and klingon)

    it doesnt matter how much better the next two seasons were, they lost too many viewers already

    Must agree here. The first 2 seasons were discombobulated and people tuned out. Starting with the 3rd, the directors/creators/writers seemed to finally know where they wanted to go; but by that time, it was too late. The fan base was no longer there and when they re-tuned; the death-knell had already been sounded. Too bad, cuz it was becoming a really interesting show. And, IMO, the way they ended it just sucked.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Travis_Crincoli

    Travis_Crincoli

    [32]Oct 20, 2007
    • member since: 01/12/05
    • level: 12
    • rank: Evil Bert
    • posts: 86
    From what i hear, enterprise was cancelled because its competition was smallville, and since smallville is still around and enterprise isnt, obviously the man in blue won the battle of ratings. Personally i think enterprise was better. The last episode was insulting though.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of iamralphiam

    iamralphiam

    [33]Oct 21, 2007
    • member since: 09/05/07
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 96

    Travis_Crincoli wrote:
    From what i hear, enterprise was cancelled because its competition was smallville, and since smallville is still around and enterprise isnt, obviously the man in blue won the battle of ratings. Personally i think enterprise was better. The last episode was insulting though.

    normally i'd agree with this type of assessment of a show vs a show.... but star trek had a following and while it slowly declined with the degrading quality of star trek since the beginning (an opinion, but its not only my own) if this show wasn't so poorly made in the beginning (an alternate reality without B&B perhaps? haha) it could have been very successful... The real question now is star trek been ground to dirt or could another show revive it--I'm fairly confident a new series premier would get a lot of viewers but could they keep them?

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of lazyjay

    lazyjay

    [34]Oct 21, 2007
    • member since: 07/15/05
    • level: 30
    • rank: Anchorman
    • posts: 16,681
    iamralphiam wrote:
    I'm fairly confident a new series premier would get a lot of viewers but could they keep them?

    Without the Bed and Breakfast factor I'm thinking they could. As a dedicated fan I would watch any new Star Trek. If it were not so great I would feal insulted, but continue to watch becasue... well, I'm a Star Trek fan.

    I'd really enjoy a quality revival though.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of heeroyuy2006

    heeroyuy2006

    [35]Nov 1, 2007
    • member since: 06/06/06
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 464
    I agree that it was cancelled because of a combination of the network, ratings, and the rampant "hater" camp of fans. That's not to say I think it was perfect, just that it's unfairly hated. Enterprise had a number of good episodes. Yes, it's bad ones outnumbered its goodat the time of cancellation, but that's only because it wasn't given the full seven seasons. As far as each season as a whole go, the only season that really disappointed me was season 2 and it had some highs to it: "Shockwave, Part 2", "Regeneration" (even though it made the already messed-up continuity of the Borg worse), and "First Flight" to name a few. Also, I hope that Enterprise is somehow revived in the future.
    Edited on 11/01/2007 12:49pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of belial_77

    belial_77

    [36]Nov 2, 2007
    • member since: 06/02/07
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 2,484
    If it wasn't for the travisty that was the series fianle... I'd say a series of direct to DVD movies would be the best way to continue the story... like Futurama and Dead Like Me are doing.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of petef20

    petef20

    [37]Nov 2, 2007
    • member since: 06/16/05
    • level: 22
    • rank: Freak and Geek
    • posts: 2,166
    I think it turned away a lot of hardcore trek fans because of things like the slight miscontinuity (is that a word?) between the other shows. Most of which were addressed in later seasons, but I guess they'd stopped watching by then.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of belial_77

    belial_77

    [38]Nov 2, 2007
    • member since: 06/02/07
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 2,484
    To tell the truth, I never noticed major continuity errors the others talk about... What are the big ones?
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of heeroyuy2006

    heeroyuy2006

    [39]Nov 5, 2007
    • member since: 06/06/06
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 464
    The way the Vulcans behaved throughout the first 3 seasons (having survaillance equipment in the P'Jem monastery to spy on the Andorians is an example) was out of character and continuity with the other Trek series. However, this "lack" of continuity was explained/"fixed" in a 3 episode arc during the fourth season. Also, continuity was bent in the first season episode, "Acquisition", with the Ferengis appearing before their official first contact with humans in TNG (even though Quark, Rom, and Nog in DS9's "Little Green Men" travelled back to 1947 crashing near Roswell, New Mexico). The very fact that the NX-01 is named "Enterprise" is seen as going against continuity by some who think the NCC-1701 was the first starship of that name because of how they interpret a statement in DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations" about there only being 6 Enterprises up to that point. Another thing that some have a problem with is that the Enterprise (NX-01) looks more advanced than the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). Personally, while I see where they come from, I think these things are explainable thusly not breaking continuity only bending it a little.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of copygeek

    copygeek

    [40]Nov 5, 2007
    • member since: 10/04/06
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 527

    Well, anyone who honestly thought going into the series that the NX-01 was going to look LESS advanced than the NCC-1701 had to be smoking something pretty strong. NO ONE would have watched Archer and the crew flying through space in a cardboard box (the only thing I can think of that would look less advanced than Kirk's Enterprise!) so it's pretty much a given that Archer had to have a sexy looking ship.

    As for the other "continuity" errors, I never watched a Trek series with the Trek Encyclopedia on my coffee table saying, "OMG! The Klingons would SO never wear those emblems on their uniform!" Granted, if they had chosen to make T-Pol have bright green skin like an Orion Slave Girl I would have probably complained, but most of the "errors" were simple writer's goofs made by people who don't walk around with every line from every episode of Trek memorized.

    To me, any time you sit down to watch a sci fi TV show or movie you have to greatly suspend your disbelief and just go with the narrative that the writers, directors, actors, etc., are trying to put out there. If you dislike it holistically, fine, but don't pick it apart until it dies from the proverbial thousand cuts.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.