UPN Officially Cancels 'Star Trek: Enterprise' 886
Tycoon Guy writes "It's official now: UPN has decided to cancel 'Enterprise.' The show's series finale, which may feature Jonathan Frakes (William T. Riker) and Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troi), will air on Friday the 13th of May. The show's fate was probably sealed when last Friday's episode reached only 2.5 million viewers - but even so, the people at EnterpriseFans.com are still trying to raise money for a fan campaign to save the show."
Re:Hrm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
About time. (Score:2, Insightful)
ST needs a hiatus (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek's roots are in social criticism, raw idealism, and triumphalism about the human spirit. There was very little of any of those themes in Star Trek series in recent years. A return to roots is neccessary, especially since the bar has been raised on production values (Battlestar Galactica), story arc writing (Babylon 5) and character development (Farscape).
Or, they could just hire Wil Wheaton as the next captain - playing a different character than Wesley Crusher, natch - give him a starship, and set him loose.
Just stop having episodes with Nazis. Or on historical Earth. Or both.
Shock horror (not) (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone really surprised? I mean, Star Trek has been getting steadily worse. Voyager royally sucked and Enterprise was, at best, mediocre.
Trek fans shouldn't take this too hard. This cancellation could give the staggeringly lazy Trek writers and producers a kick up the arse -- it's a good excuse for a badly needed clean out of the wasters that have taken up residence in the Star Trek creative departments over its long history. The next Trek series might actually be worth watching as a result.
In the meantime take a look at the new Battlestar Galactica. I'm British, I've seen the entire series already and it's fantastic stuff.
Just Let It Die (Score:2, Insightful)
It's up to Berman... (Score:2, Insightful)
What about Stargate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find that a rather illogical statement, considering that Stargate and Battlestar Galactica are both doing very well on Friday, and they are even on cable which doesn't reach as many households as UPN.
The problem with Enterprise was that the first two seasons sucked ass and it consequently never developed a strong fanbase beyond the die hard trekkies during the early life of the show. The last two seasons have been better, but unfortuantely not good enough to save it.
Re:The Downfall (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The winds of change. (Score:2, Insightful)
spoiler: (Score:1, Insightful)
it was kinda cheezy, actually. rather than lead into another episode, the video just stopped; there was just a voiceover that informed us of his fate.
Re:About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
They fucking killed it by putting it on at the same time.
Why are these posts insightful ever time? The show started out ok, got worse with the time crap, and is now back to good episodes. New directors and writers help.
Re:One Word (Score:2, Insightful)
Star Trek has sucked for years. I've got higher hopes for the latest attempt to resurrect Doctor Who than for that sinking franchise
Stop with the +Insightful posts, many people like the Enterprise tv show. 2.5 million people watched it the same time Stargate SG1 was on.
They are trying to kill Enterprise by putting it on at friday night, it cant win in that timeslot.
Re:SPOILER (Score:0, Insightful)
Regular Nerds/Trekkies (Score:2, Insightful)
Those boys really know how to geek it up
Kill it and bring back Farscape/Firefly. (Score:3, Insightful)
I never got into firefly when it was on, but after a run through the box set in proper order, I must say it was shiny.
Farscape was a blast.
I hated enterprise from the beginning. Stupid time travel this and time travel that. I don't mind one wierd fluke time travel episode, but they couldn't come up with an idea that didn't involve time travel. One other thought, do prequels always suck?
Re:ST needs a hiatus (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd, I thought its roots were unnecessary man-to-man fist fights that are way too slow and choreographed, spaceships, and space pussy.
Re:Damn them. (Score:2, Insightful)
The other people responsible for the show getting killed are the ST fans themselves. They fooled themselves into thinking crap was OK so long as the crap stayed on the air. So the crap got deeper, year after year, and now it's so deep that it smothered the franchise.
ST died from being buried in crap generated on both sides of the screen.
Re:The show's fate was probably sealed (Score:3, Insightful)
Mars riots would be a fantastic plot line. So would attempts at exploring extremely hostile worlds. With a strong tie in with Vulcan you could even contrast the emotionalism of Earthlings versus the coldly logical Vulcans when they share danger and conflict. Or even better yet, how about the human race suddenly coming to grips with the reality of alien life forms which are superior to us in many ways?
The team of B&B raises a special type of ire in me. There is only a small handful of people in the world who are in a position to make a SciFi series with a built in universe and dedicated fan base. To squander that opportunity with inane plots and technobabble is a crime. They should be banished to live the remainder of their days in the very universe they neutered.
The sad thing is (Score:5, Insightful)
Had they launched into that, instead of the "Temporal cold war" bullshit (and the Xindi weapon bullshit), they could have caught and held the fans' attention.
But the Temporal Cold war crap turned off a lot of people.
And the Xindi weapon arc turned off many more people.
And that whole "Go back in time to WWII and fight the Nazis, who are working with fugly aliens"
So when they FINALLY start showing the founding of the Federation - when they finally explain how the stuck-up asshole Vulcans of the first seasons became the race we knew in TOS/TNG/DSV, how the alliances formed because of Starfleet, and how the Romulan wars started - there were no significant viewers left.
Which is a shame, as the series is finally starting to show some potential.
Time to start over (Score:3, Insightful)
(a) The universe carries too much baggage. Okay, it's nice to have some history to play off of and create plots from, but it's also a major downer creatively to have too much of your fantastic futuristic world predefined. Star Trek carries a ton of that baggage -- the relations, technology, conventions and politics are all laid out there.
Example outside of Trek: When I was younger, I was into the Dragonlance books. The first few were damn decent in terms of starter fantasy, but as more and more came out they started suffering from this exact problem. The situations, characters and setting started to lose their edge and the attributes which made them attractive in the first place. "Oh, hey, it's Lord Soth, what a shocker that he'd show up..."
(b) It's a show for a different time. I'm not sure if this is cyclical, but today's audiences don't really want mildly disguised social commentary. If you look at the top shows right now, they tend to be about human drama. BSG is a great example. Farscape was (often) a good example. Deadwood, the Wire... The list goes on and on.
I'd add that it was overmerchandised, but George Lucas has proved to us all that you can whore something out to the hilt and people will still come pony up for it if the original was good enough.
At this point, rather than trying to patch up the Star Trek universe it seems like it would be better just to direct creative juices elsewhere.
Somewhere along the line.. (Score:5, Insightful)
More sci-fi, less drama. More psychobabbling nonsense about spacetime continuums and prime directives, that is what will get the fans back.
It had a bad start, and never really recovered (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I too was happy when a new Startreck series was announced. But then I watched the first Episode... and the second... and the third.... and after I saw the fourth I simply gave up.
I can't really define what Startreck is all about.
But I know I don't want it to be about decontamination gel (fanservice is nice once in a while, but doing it in the first or second Ep is a bad sign, especially in a way that screams "I'm just here to show you a nekkid chick") and horrible temporal wars (giving it a big introduction and then not mentioning them for a long time doesn't improve this).
After the first seasons many Startreck fans simply abandoned the Series.
Even if it improved after that, it already had lost many fans - and without real efforts to regain them, they stayed lost - and this was the death knell for the series.
I'm feeling a bit sad for the Fans - I know if you love a Series (I loved Firefly) seeing it cancelled really hurts - but I hope they will take a breather, get a producer, decent director & writer team, and make a series that makes the Startreck label proud again.
And perhaps they can even cut down on time travel a bit...
Re:Shock horror (not) (Score:3, Insightful)
Oddly enough, it did- the episodes surrounding the fact that the Vulcan High Command was a Rommulan plot to supress the works of Surak were wonderfull. The episodes with Data (really a "Dr. Soong" from the past) weren't terribly good from a canon perspective but were GREAT from an originality perspective. And it appears with the new "Babel One Parts One and Two" that started Friday and continues this Friday, we're going to get some good Canon episodes again (and to top off originality- an early form of Cloaking technology in a remote control Romulan vessel that uese holograms to mimic other ships).
Still having said that- 10 good episodes out of a 3 year run does not a good series make, and thus, in the end analysis, I have to agree with your last line:
I still think this is a good thing in the long run. Star Trek needs the humiliation of being cancelled to sort it's crap out.
Re:wtf? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:ST needs a hiatus (Score:5, Insightful)
The true test? I could actually get other people who wouldn't touch ST with a ten foot pole to actually LIKE watching DS9. Why? Because underneath, it was a truly character driven ensemble cast, with so many shades of gray that people were never clearly good and never clearly bad throughout the whole series.
Re:One Word (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One Word (Score:1, Insightful)
It might surprise you to know that outside of America there have been many, many shows that were huge hits, critical hits, but they were cancelled in America because they had no following.
Just because you prefer SG1 doesn't make it better. Just because Golias (the GP) doesn't like Enterprise doesn't mean "nobody cares". Your tastes aren't representative of the tastes of everyone (thank God).
Re:Somewhere along the line.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're dead on with that. Character development IS important but there are plenty of ensemble cast shows on the air set in the here and now where we can sit and speculate on which cast members are going to pair off. Star Trek is supposed to be SciFi though and drama is only a part of that. The producers lost sight of this and their show is going away as a result.
I also think Enterprise and Star Trek in general has just crumbled under the weight of it's own enormous history. When your fan base can spot even a minor continuity error from a mile away and there are volumes of material available detailing the history of your imaginary universe then you've got to walk a very fine line with your stories. Each season slowly tightens the noose a little more. The people doing Star Trek have gotten progressively worse at keeping things plausible and Enterprise has been a train wreck where continuity is concerned.
There are just so many reasons why this died and so many things it could have been if done well. All this work and effort and in the end Scott Bakula is going to go down as the George Clooney of Starship captains. He'll be the guy who's tour of duty killed the franchise (A disctinction that should have gone to his predecessor on Voyager. I can't remember her name for some reason, all I can think of is "The woman with the munchkin voice")
Re:The sad thing is (Score:2, Insightful)
We are sorry to see Enterprise go. Someone else said "Bad Star Trek is better than none". I don't know if I agree with this or not. The episodes that focused on "titillation" certainly didn't do this show any favors, either. Working an attractive cast member into the series is fine, but when episodes (and the promotional spots announcing them) would focus on her anatomy rather than on a good story, we knew the execs must have been getting desperate. Well, their little experiment failed. It's just too bad they "got it" too late! Leave the "skin" for those other dime-a-dozen shows, and give us good STORIES for Star Trek.
I did enjoy the ending last week, where they zoom out to show that the Romulans were remote-controlling that ship. Interesting twist.
To the cast and crew of Star Trek: Enterprise, THANK YOU. It was fun while it lasted.
Re:erm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Star Trek is FANTASY! (Score:3, Insightful)
If Star Trek is 'sci-fi', it's only because any mildly geek-friendly show set in the future/space/etc is called 'sci fi'. I'm with Arthur C Clarke on this one; it's not sci-fi, it's fantasy.
The 'science' is made up, usually to suit the plot. The 'aliens' are humans; and I mean more in the way they behave than look. Frankly, if we discover real aliens, I'll be surprised if we can relate to them on even a rudimentary level.
Star Trek is fantasy that just happens to have borrowed the clothes of 'true' sci-fi. Star Wars is *definitely* fantasy that just happens to include some sci-fi elements (eg spaceships).
True sci-fi should at least have its roots in a plausible idea; so I'd call Asimov's robot stuff sci-fi, 2001 sci-fi, and so on.
Don't get me wrong; I enjoy some Star Trek (well, TNG mainly, having recently watched a complete season on DVD), but it's fantasy.
And it strikes me as ironic that geeks (myself included) enjoy watching a show that makes up as much stuff as Star Trek does.
Re:erm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or course the final-for-quite-a-while series of Doctor Who got about 3.5-4 million IIRC, which wasn't bad at all considering it was against Coranation Street at the time. But that was before Sky really came in etc.
Re:Somewhere along the line.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ST needs a hiatus (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of a federation ship, we have a Klingong ship. They start out the show with some mysterious music and space stuff. And the voice over says "Our goal, to pilage the universe, accumulate as many women as possible and drink the blood of our enemies!". From there you have klingons just running around blowing shit up. Maybe have some hot vulcan chick as the science officer who pulls kung-fu on anyone who looks at her wrong. Every time they have a tough moral delema, they say "fuck it, blow it up!" Maybe have Wesly be a federation starship captin who is the snobby enemy of the klingon state, as a regular.
Hmm... I think I'd actually watch that.
Opportunity wasted. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's put the results aside for a moment (the show has had some serious issues), and take a look at what could have been.
Enterprise started off with two things going for it: a decent premise, and a good cast. What Star Trek fan isn't interested in how the Federation was started? Or how the war with the Klingons started? How about the formation of the Neutral Zone with the Romulans? Or how about the evolution of technology from rougghly what we know today, to what was available in ST:TOS?
Unfortunately, all of this was an opportunity that was wasted and squandered. Sure, they tried a few episodes dealing with the evolution of technology, but all of them were of the sort where the episode started with "Hey, we need X", and by the end, they had X (for all X in "Phasers", Transporters", etc.)
Part of that was just bad writing, and bad story planning. But then there was the introduction of time travel, which was completely unnecessary, and made the whole thing completely unbelievable. Whomever came up with the "Temporal Cold War" should be summarily fired...out of a canon. Into a pool of sharks. With laser beams on their heads.
Then there is the ship. I'm sure it would make a fine set for any number of sci-fi shows, but not for a Star Trek series that is supposed to take place before TOS. The interiour should look like that of a modern day battleship, and not filled with zinc plates and chrome. Yes, it would have been hard to make the series believable by not having any display terminals (TOS didn't have them, but here in the 2000's we do, so it would be somewhat difficult not to have them), but they should have taken a cue from a modern military warship for interiour design. It would have made the show more believable, and would have added some "grit" for the writers to work with.
The big year-long story arc with the Xindi (sp?) didn't help either. It was hard to just tune into an episode here and there, particularily towardds the end. I was in the middle of nowhere during the first four months of 2004, where TV wasn't really available, and the one time I did get a chance to see part of an episode I couldn't get into it because I had no idea what was going on. I missed the whole resolution of the story arc as well, making the whole season a total write-off for me. I can only imagine what the casual Star Trek watcher would think trying to watch just a few episodes here and there.
I feel bad for the cast, who are now going to be out of jobs after such a short run (but not too bad -- it isn't as if people in the tech industry don't know what it's like to be without a job...:P). There was some good potential for this series, but the people in charge completely munged it. Let's hope they find themselves jobless for a while so they can ponder their grand failure.
Yaz.
Re:WTF?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, yeah. They already spent 7 seasons shedding viewers left and right, so there was hardly any viewership left for Enterprise. It needed to be so good it attracted viewers back. It wasn't close to doing that - it was just not as bad as Voyager... and any fan who stayed with the franchise through Voyager would have watched anything, so it didn't matter whether Enterprise was a bit better (it could hardly have been worse).
Think of it this way: Voyager killed Enterprise, it just took a while for the blood to drain and the franchise to finally die.
Jedidiah.
Re:One Word (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I stopped watching it after the half-dozen episodes. Oh, I'd check back a couple times a year to see if it had finally stopped sucking; but it never did, at least from my random sample.
Trek died with Gene Roddenbery. The undead abomination that kept shambling along after his death needed to have a stake driven through it's heart long ago, and now it appears that has finally happened. Maybe now Gene can stop spinning in his (metaphorical) grave.
If you're going to mourn the passing of a show, save your energy for something worthwhile like Firefly, B5, or Farscape.
Trek is dead. Let it rest in peace.
Well, that's copyright extension for you (Score:3, Insightful)
Under the originnal UK 1710 Statute of Anne , the model for modern copyright laws, much of TNG would already be in the public domain (14 years + 14 if the author was alive at the end of the first term). The US rule was similar from 1790 onward, until 1909, when each term was doubled.
In '76, the term went to death + 50, which would mean that people who remembered TOS would, by in large, not live to see it enter the public domain.
The Bono act of '98 extended copyright to death + 70, or in some cases 95 years. Under the act the public domain will not receive any new works until 2019, and of course the entire Roddenberry ouvre will remain in private hands until after everyone who is reading this (I mean you) is dead.
Bringing the topic back to Star Trek, I leave you with a quote from Lord Macaulay, from a speech given to Parliament in 1841 opposing the extension of copyrights from the Rule of Anne term:
Which is fitting to this case. The franchise died because it was kept in private hands who tried to milk it for cash, instead of going to its natural conclusion, entering the public commons where it could ignite new creativity and competition.
Re:ST needs a hiatus (Score:2, Insightful)
DS9 is IMO the best trek series taking into consideration all aspects of it (arcs, character dev, plot twists, etc.
Babylon 5 is a FANTASTIC series with ingenious arcs, character development, sci-fi, plot twists, and just a profound sense of completeness when considering the series as a whole.
But I'd choose to let both series stand on their own, they are a bit too apples/oranges to say B5 blows DS9 out of the water. DS9 had to conform to the trek universe, and taking that into consideration it is quite comparable to B5.
Re:The sad thing is (Score:3, Insightful)
Time travel doesn't always suck, but the vast majority of the time, especially in Star Trek, it does. When time travel isn't the main scifi element (i.e. H.G. Wells's _Time_Machine_), it tends to be an excuse for lazy writing.
Time travel episodes generally fall into two catagories. At best, time travel is a deus ex machina. These episodes typically end with someone going back in time and undoing all the events of the episode. (e.g. TNG's "Parallels", DS9's "Time's Orphan", VOY's "Endgame", etc.) These episodes can work if they're character driven. Harlan Ellison's TOS episode "The City on the Edge of Forever", TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise" and DS9's "The Visitor" being some of the best.
Then you have the "cheap laughs" episodes. These are MUCH more common, and always suck. TOS's "Tomorrow is Yesterday"'s airforce sargent on the Enterprise. TOS's "Assignment: Earth" where the crew go back to 1968. TNG's "Time's Arrow" where the crew goes back to 19th century San Francisco and meets Mark Twain. DS9's "Little Green Men", where Quark, Nog, and Rom are the Roswell crash. DS9's "Past Tense" where the cheap laughs are coupled with the "afterschool special" leason of "treat poor people with dignity". STVIII:FC where the crew travels back in time to the future. TOS's "By Any Other Name" is effectively a "cheap laughs" time travel episode, but it's even lamer since the crew doesn't actually travel back in time, but rather to a planet populated by 1920's Chicago gangsters.
The granddaddy of this type of episode is STIV:TVH. Kirk and the gang prevent the destruction of Earth by going back in time to the present day, in order to save the whales, while getting into all sorts of silly misunderstandings. The high point is Kirk pawning his reading glasses while noting that they'll eventually find their way back to him. The low point isn't as easy to pick, since there's so many of them. But, if I had to pick on, I'd say it's Scotty with the Macintosh.
So yeah. Time travel pretty much sucks.
Fan Campaign Saving Show? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell, Angel was the WB's second highest rated show when it was cancelled.
Enterprise is doomed.
As someone who's clocked in 600 h of Trek (Score:3, Insightful)
TNG - This seemed to be everyone's favorite, likely because it was the first, and Picard was bloody brilliant. Hands down the best character. The show would have been unbearable otherwise. Riker had his moments, and a few Data episodes were okay, but on the whole an episode without enough Picard was a bad episode. 8/10
DS9 - I as skeptical of this series, but it became to be a truly amazing show. Overall the characters were better than those on DS9 (although no one will ever top Picard); particularly Odo, Garick, Martak, Goyron, and Weyoun. I didn't find myself cringing at any of the characters, save some completly bizarre Ferengi episodes. Massively long continual story arcs kept you intrigued throughout the entire series. Overall the plots were just better than TNG. 10/10
Voyager - Oh God. This was the bottom of the barrel. Yes, worse than Enterprise I'm afraid. I wish I kept a running tally of how many times Janeway said "I understand that blank blank blank, BUT blank blank". Ugh. She wasn't a captain, she was a Mom. No characters were worth seeing except the holographic Doctor, and they dwindled on him too much at times even. Truly atrocious series I was glad to finish. I can recall 2-3 good episodes. 2/10
Enterprise - Probably got the worse rap out of any of the series. The stupid intro song, the prequel thing, and the idiotic cheap leg shots of T'pol put most everyone off. However it did improve as the series went on. Malcolm ("armory" office) got a little more interesting, and Trip's accent became less annoying. Archer finally started making some tough decisions (jacking an innocent ship's warp drive), but it was too little too late to really save the series from termination. The Xindi story arc was intriguing, but it took them 2 seasons to get to it. 4/10
It should be noted that Every one of these series started off very badly, even TNG and DS9. I don't know why Star Trek needs the obligatory 1 or 2 seasons to get going but that's certainly the trend. And yes, I need to get out more.
Another triumph for the forces of darkness (Score:5, Insightful)
When they had Vulcan desert insurgents fighting, I thought, you guys are getting too clever, they will get you. (I also wondered where T'Pau's thick accent disappeared to.)
Original Trek played against the background of Viet Nam and a tidal wave of social change. This season Enterprise started to come around to that and tweaked some present day noses. In today's rat-out-your-neighbor-to-Homeland-Security-for-not -being -patriotic-enough climate, there was no way this could go on, could it?
Look, one of the central tenets of Star Trek is that humanity stops warring amongst itself, forms a world government and then heads out to the stars. In an ideal world, Enterprise could have shown some of that process in action using the example of how the Federation came into being as a model for how we can do it ourselves and bring all these disparate nations together to form a peaceful whole.
In this real world, I'm afraid that the forces of darkness are winning. Any notion of a peaceful world government is considered (at best) traitorous liberal propaganda. A substantial portion of the population of the US believes that the end of the world is real close and (incredibly) that this is a good thing since it means Jesus will be here soon. Selfless acts and working for the betterment of all rather than just your own clan is considered a sign of weakness, not strength. Honor has no value. Science and education have no value. Only money and power are worth anything to us and only blind obedience and unquestioning patriotism is worth anything to our leaders.
We need all the idealistic dreams and heroes that we can get now because this century is going to be getting worse before (if) it gets any better. Progress is not a new feature for your cell phone, it is the march of humans from our barbarous past to a better future. At its best, that is the heart and soul of Star Trek and that is what we all need so very very badly right now.
Re:About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Enterprise is certainly above Voyager's quality, and with season 4, I think it's approaching DS9 quality as well. I'll be the first to admit the show wasn't perfect, but not every series can be DS9. Give the bashing and especially the mod bias a fucking rest. You guys make the comments in these articles unreadable at any threshold.
Re:This is really sad. (Score:2, Insightful)
How about two more hours?! (Score:2, Insightful)
How about putting back those two hours that were taken away earlier in the season? The 98 hours of Enterprise come from 26+26+24+22=98 over the course of four seasons. The last two hours can be shot immediately after the already planned 22 episodes for this season, before they tear down the sets and release the talent. Let Manny Coto write a worthy series (maybe franchise) finale as a two-hour "telefilm." Make it about the founding of the Federation. If available, get Jonathan Frakes to direct it. Spend a bit more time in post-production to make it really special and save it for airing during the Fall sweeps period.
I can see that it is unreasonable to expect another season of Enterprise on UPN (or elsewhere), but surely, Paramount's investment in just two more hours of Enterprise would be worthwhile. If UPN doesn't want it, sell it to the SciFi Channel as a one-time special event.
I'd be satisfied with something like that...
Re: Somewhere along the line.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're equating 'science fiction' with 'technobabble' then you get my strong disagreement!
As far as I'm concerned, proper science fiction is about ideas. The bigger the better. The nature of causality and time, the confusion of reality and computer-generated fantasy, insanity, the nature of language and communication, the reliability of memory, faith, &c are all big ideas that have led to (IMO) really great stories, in Trek and elsewhere. Technology per se, and the alien of the week, do not necessarily make proper science fiction, unless they are part of an interesting idea. Similarly, relationships and personal development aren't necessarily excluded, provided that they relate directly to the big idea.
For me, then, The Truman Show counted as science fiction, even though you saw very little technology, no aliens, no laser beams, no starships, no robots, and none of the usual SF trappings, because it had at its core an amazing idea. Whereas I count most of the Star Wars films as space opera, not science fiction, despite the presence of all of those things. I consider Alien a horror film with SF trappings, but Bladerunner is true science fiction not just because it deals with replicants, but because it uses them to look at the nature of humanity.
I haven't followed Enterprise, so I can't quote you examples there. But I hope you can see my point. If the writers think that by just throwing in exotic aliens, weird energy beams, and some incomprehensible technobabble, that they're necessarily creating science fiction, then they've been doing the series -- and the general public -- a great disservice.