Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Television Media Sci-Fi

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 are still trying to raise money for a fan campaign to save the show."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UPN Officially Cancels 'Star Trek: Enterprise'

Comments Filter:
  • SPOILER (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:03PM (#11556141)
    In the finale, Q takes Riker to the past, present and future to correct the timeline and prevent Enterprise from happening.
    • Re:SPOILER (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:16PM (#11556332)
      Or... "Sam, thank God I found you! Ziggy says there's a 98% chance you've messed up the timeline and pissed off the fans. You've got to fix it before you can leap".
    • In the final episode will end suddenly when Dianna Troi wakes up frightened and runs into the loving arms of Will Riker. While explaining her nightmare, Riker stops to inform her that everything will be okay. He pauses for a second and then asks "Archer, who is Archer?" The camera will then slowly zoom in on his face. The end.
    • Re:SPOILER (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jp10558 ( 748604 )
      You know, as crazy as this sounds - I actually think that would make a good ending. It certainly would fix up for me the disconuity between enterprise and the rest of the shows that supposedly happened after it.

      Although, I'm just finishing watching the second season so ...
  • by dennbruce ( 668774 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:05PM (#11556160)
    a DDOS attach brought down UPN networks late yesterday shortly after news that Star Trek: Enterprise would be canceled. No details were available at this time
  • Bummer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:05PM (#11556164) Homepage Journal
    I enjoyed the show. But if people weren't watching it, then all I can really say is 'farewell'.

    Hmm maybe now we'll get that Star Trek: Titan show that was rumored to be about Captain Riker and the fall of the Federation....
    • Re:Bummer (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rick the Red ( 307103 ) <> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:11PM (#11556245) Journal
      I'm still waiting for the series set at Starfleet Academy, with Picard as the Headmaster, and My Favorite Martian as the gardner. Well, OK, he's dead. But still, wouldn't it be cool having a whole academy full of disposible characters (students) to die at the hands of of their fellow classmates in horrible science experiments gone wrong, or fatal navigation errors while on internships, or in illegal flying stunts, or...
      • Re:Bummer (Score:5, Funny)

        by mcc ( 14761 ) <> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:22PM (#11556412) Homepage
        So in other words you want HARRY POTTER IN SPAAAAACE.

      • Re:Bummer (Score:5, Funny)

        by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:24PM (#11556432) Homepage Journal
        to die at the hands of of their fellow classmates in horrible science experiments gone wrong, or fatal navigation errors while on internships, or in illegal flying stunts, or...

        "Welcome Freshmen, to the Red Shirt Academy!!!"
        • Re:Bummer (Score:5, Funny)

          by MalachiConstant ( 553800 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @08:50PM (#11557411)
          "Welcome Freshmen, to the Red Shirt Academy!!!"

          Most of you will die long before graduation.

          But a few lucky cadets, the cadets that excel, can look forward to serving on a real starship and perhaps meeting a real starship captain before being burned alive by a Horta, or absorbed by a vague energy cloud on some backwater planet.

          Our fine academy will train you to be a specialist. We have no combat training or engineering classes.

          You won't be needing those.

          Here you will be trained to creep around a desert planet with a phaser in hand, or perhaps simply wander off on your own and touch any random glowing thing you find. Some of you may major in Provoking Reptilian Aliens, or Ignoring Repeated Warnings.

          I myself majored in Agonized Screaming, though I've never had to ... had to ... AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHH... (gets eaten by a Gorn)

      • Re:Bummer (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) *
        Hmm, I'd prefer Strikeforce Morituri.
    • You already got it. It was called Andromeda.
    • by js3 ( 319268 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:41PM (#11556653)
      I'm not sure what happened but startrek is not drama, it is sci-fi. Somehow this got lost during the brainstorming of enterprise. I'll watch an hour of the borg, even the crappy ones in voyager but I won't last 15mins into the episode on who T-Pol sleeps with next.

      More sci-fi, less drama. More psychobabbling nonsense about spacetime continuums and prime directives, that is what will get the fans back.
      • by JudgeFurious ( 455868 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @08:22PM (#11557122)
        Actually that's more than just "Insightful" in my opinion. It's extremely insightful. As much as Star Trek is dogged for it's techno-babble dialog you're actually advocating more of that and less of the interpersonal relationship focus.

        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")
        • by JamieF ( 16832 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @09:47PM (#11557851) Homepage
          If only the Star Trek story universe had the benefit of a... huge library of novels that they could just pick and choose tidbits from, that'd make it so easy to maintain continuity. All they'd have to do is look at them, and extract an hour-long screenplay.

          Or maybe if they had a bookshelf's worth of commercially available reference books containing detailed information on virtually every aspect of their story universe... that would make it so much easier.

          Or... maybe they could recruit an elite force of fanboys who, for the sheer bragging rights alone, would be tasked with consistency checking any new story idea or script with the rest of the Star Trek universe.

          Oh well... *sigh*
        • by gidds ( 56397 ) <> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:48AM (#11561348) Homepage
          As much as Star Trek is dogged for it's techno-babble dialog you're actually advocating more of that and less of the interpersonal relationship focus.

          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.

      • I'm not sure what happened but startrek is not drama, it is sci-fi.

        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 i
    • Re:Bummer (Score:5, Informative)

      by kwalker ( 1383 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:46PM (#11556714) Journal
      Actually, that is a show called Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda [] starring Kevin Sorbo and produced by Majel Roddenberry. But they had to remove the Trek part, but just substitute "Federation" every time someone says "Commonwealth" and you'll know what I mean.
    • I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about this but if your interested here is the address to send your "Please Don't Cancel the Show" Letters :

      Mr. Leslie Moonves
      Co-President, Co-Chief Operating Officer
      Viacom International, Inc.
      c/o CBS Television City
      7800 Beverly Blvd
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-2112
  • I didn't know anybody watched that show in the last three years? Good to know.
  • About time. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Let the fucking series end already. Way past beating a dead horse.
    • Re:About time. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BrookHarty ( 9119 )
      2.5 million people watched it, well duh, the same time Stargate SG1 is on. 2 SCI-Fi shows on at the same time, and the other has been on longer and has a stronger audience.

      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:About time. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kethinov ( 636034 )
      Fuck that. It's a great show with a dedicated fanbase working with an unparalleled legacy. I'm so motherfucking tired of reading Enterprise articles on Slashdot and seeing nothing but "OMFG THE SHOW SUCKS" getting modded +5 insightful. Want to see moderator bias in its full form? Read Enterprise articles on Slashdot. Or a Star Wars article.

      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
  • by Anonymous Coward
    When I first heard about the series I immediately thought it was going to be a hard drama about the pain and suffering of the early days of spaceflight.

    What a waste of potential. I'm not sure how weird of an idea it is, but I would love to see a BBC style 'remake' of the series. Of course throwing out everything except the basic concept.
  • ST needs a hiatus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by abde ( 136025 ) <apoonawa-blog@[ ] ['yah' in gap]> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:08PM (#11556197) Homepage
    If the franchise takes 5 years off, and comes back with new people at the helm (and not Berman or Braga - they had their chance, it's time for fresh blood), it might actually be something that can reignite fandom again.

    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.
    • by drunkenbatman ( 464281 ) <i@drunkenblog.c3.14om minus pi> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:36PM (#11556599) Homepage
      Star Trek's roots are in social criticism, raw idealism, and triumphalism about the human spirit.

      Odd, I thought its roots were unnecessary man-to-man fist fights that are way too slow and choreographed, spaceships, and space pussy.
    • Time to start over (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Skyshadow ( 508 ) *
      In my opinion, Star Trek as a franchise has pretty much run its course for two big reasons:

      (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

    • by archen ( 447353 )
      Considering what people really want to see, I'd think you'd have to go a bit farther than that. So how about this.

      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 kun
    • Here's a frank appraisal of each series (minus TOS), and a ranking:

      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 th
  • It's not that is was fantastic, just that it was better than CSI:Dubuque or what have you. I'll actually miss it, somewhat. Ah, who am I kidding... life's too short. If you have to say "somewhat" it should go away. Like mediocre table wine and my last so-called vacation.
  • When was the last time when there wasn't a Star Trek series running on television. I bet it was between Star Trek (The Original Series) and Star Trek: TNG. I say this because Deep Space Nine started during Star Trek TNG, and Voyager started during DS9, and Enterprise started in 2001 (the same year Voyager ended).

    I must admit I thought Enterprise sucked, and Voyager sucked even more, but there was something comforting in the knowledge that if I ever wanted to see how the Federation I was doing (or at least
  • Personally I preferred Enterprise over any other sci-fi show that I've seen. Especially this last season I felt they really did an excellent job with the story line.

    I was anxiously awaiting the next episode each week.

    That being said, I missed Friday's epsiode because I don't have any cool PVRs. I guess I'll have to download it.
  • Shock horror (not) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Motor ( 104119 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:10PM (#11556221)

    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.

  • by madstork2000 ( 143169 ) * on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:10PM (#11556227) Homepage
    There was no chance ever of it being renewed. It was moved to Friday, which we all know is teh death nell for any SciFi show. I mean if FireFly could not cut it on Friday, how the heck is the worst Star Trek show going to have a prayer. B&B blow, and Joss rocked. Damnit bring back FireFly. .. . .

    • by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:14PM (#11556305)
      It was moved to Friday, which we all know is teh death nell for any SciFi show.

      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.
  • Just Let It Die (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hirschma ( 187820 )
    They wasted so much promise with this show that it really does deserve to die. I will miss Jolene Blalock's overall yuminess, however.
  • I guess the temporal war got out of hand, and destroyed the crappy spacetime continuum that "Enterprise" was in.

    It's too bad...the new season was starting to grow on me.
  • by Das Auge ( 597142 )
    If Berman let's the franchise cool for a while, then this is a good thing. If Berman keeps his chaps on and continues to ride the dead horse, this will be a bad thing. Sadly, I pretty sure I know how this is going to turn out...
  • by computerme ( 655703 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:11PM (#11556251)
    That stupid, stupid opening theme song..

    WTF? Rod Stewart in outer space??

    at least we won't have to deal with that anymore...

    yet, the only thing worse than the song was the constant statements from the producers stating it would not change...

    memo to future producers: when that many people complain about a show, perhaps its time to rethink things.
    • But they did change it! The first season had a slower, more sappy feel - the second season, they added a doubletime jangly acoustic guitar in an attempt to excite the listener. Both sound like a diamond/beer commercial. Ew.

      Either way, a surefire way to annoy my wife is me singing, "IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME...." at the top of my lungs.

  • Actually, I shouldn't say they suck, but for some reason they seem to put their shows on really bad time slots and the ones I might watch I don't actually ever get to see.

    I have satellite TV, live in the Mountain time zone, and the UPN channels I get are based out of Boston. Enterprise is always on at 6:00pm - about the time I get home from work.

    Recently saw the posting about UPN ending the series, so pulled some episodes of bt. Haven't watched many of them, got tied up in the first season of 24 on
  • This is almost unfortunate. Last week's episode, involving the Romulans scheming against the possibility of Earth brokering an alliance between the Andorians and Tellarites, was the first one in a long time to really get at the meat of what I think most Star Trek fans wanted to see from Enterprise. If B&B hadn't filled the series with all that time travelling alien nazi crap, they might not have lost the faith of the true believers, and Manny Coto would have a much easier time bringing people back to
  • by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:13PM (#11556275)
    "Faith manages."
    - JMS

    "Rick Berman, on the other hand..."
    - Trek's fanbase

    Cause I've got faith - but no art,
    Goin' where the ratings take me,
    I've got faith to believe,
    Borg chicks sell anything,
    Branding strength - but no soul,
    Finally the Nielsens break me,
    I can sell - any script...
    I've got faith... (I've got faith...)
    Faith without art...

  • That's too bad.. it had really improved a lot this season. I've really enjoyed it this year...

    WHEN I remember to watch it, that is. The move to Friday has caused me to miss about 4 episodes. Who is watching TV at 8pm on a Friday?

    Moving it to Friday kiled it. That's the spot for zombie TV shows, which are dead but don' t know it yet.

    It's too bad, because the story was very interesting this year, and I liked the way they did the 3-part story arcs. (Although they had a few typical Star Trek fluff epis
  • how many... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ultramk ( 470198 ) <[ten.llebcap] [ta] [kmartlu]> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:15PM (#11556317)
    Q. How many "Enterprise" fans does it take to save a TV series?

    A. Both of them.

    Thanks, I'll be here all week.

  • Damn them. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:15PM (#11556323) Homepage Journal
    While the show started out as poor, its gotten better and it now upto TNG in quality. The problem they have, is some people tuned out, and lost viewers.

    Instead of working on it, and keeping the show going, they cancel. Where are the 2 hour specials to bring back viewers? They havnt tried shit, other than canceling. The whole idea of a gritter time is great, thats what made Firefly kick ass.

    Really tired of all the networks canceling shows and putting reality crap, or fucking with good content. SciFi at least has Stargate and Atlantis. G4 fucked over TechTV, its a poor shell of the show it once was. B5 had many spinoffs, and possible

    Last week episode showed how much the show improved. The plot worked, good inship fighting, little drama, and a few ship battles. Everything you want in a good episode.

    So before all the posts "Its Crap, Let it DIE", are wrong, its a good now, now that the time war crap is over. I wish they would shoot the writers who are ruining such a good series.

    Is it me, or is becoming popular to buy something and run it into the ground?

    Side note, wtf is shows like "Blind Justice" a cop who is blinded on duty goes back to work, and now has super powers? Are we in a time warp going back to 80's crap?

    Where are the fucking smart tv producers and network directors, they all quit?
  • Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Staplerh ( 806722 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:20PM (#11556394) Homepage
    the people at are still trying to raise money for a fan campaign to save the show.

    Resistance is futile.

    Seriously, in this case.
  • by harborpirate ( 267124 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:24PM (#11556434)
    "You left just when you were beginning to get interesting."

    Seems like this show is finally starting to gain some momentum. Too bad the never-ending moronic Xindi plot had already killed the show.

    I think all the interesting parts of the Xindi story arc honestly could have been compressed into about 3 episodes.

    And WTF was up with the "Beauty and the Beast" episode complete with medieval sytle castle? Ugh, what a disaster that was. Probably lost 40% of what was left of their viewership on that episode alone.

    Still, once that lame arc finally completed, there have been a few interesting episodes. They're finally getting back to actually exploring the galaxy, rather than hunting "Osma in space". They've had some interesting characters, and getting into dealing with the implications of a lot of "cutting edge" technology happening at that point in the Trek timeline. Some promise there, but nobody's watching anymore. Well, except me, which apparently puts me in the minority of even the geeky slashdot crowd. Scary.
  • by genrader ( 563784 ) <> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:24PM (#11556446) Homepage Journal
    Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaan!!!
  • by guidryp ( 702488 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:34PM (#11556566)
    Both much better.

    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. :-) Looking forward to the movie.
    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?

  • erm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:35PM (#11556586) Journal
    2.5 million is HUGE numbers. In the UK thats like a 3rd of the population. I might hate enterprise but Jesus christ give it a break with figures that high.
    • Re:erm.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bartash ( 93498 )
      The UK has a population of 60 million []. So you're out by an order of magnitude.
    • Re:erm.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      25 million is about 1/3 of the UK population, you're out about x10. Although 2.5 million would be fairly good ratings for Channel 4 or BBC TWO primetime AFAIK, or amazing ratings for a digital channel.

      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.
  • by b00m3rang ( 682108 ) * on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:38PM (#11556619)
    it'll be too soon. I knew it was doomed to fail the minute they gave up the orchestra for that "faith of the heart" easy listening crap.
  • The sad thing is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:39PM (#11556630) Homepage Journal
    The sad thing is, they have FINALLY started doing what they should have been doing from day one - namely, showing the foundation of the Federation - showing why the Federation didn't come into being UNTIL Earth started poking its collective noses into everything.

    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" ... well, the less said about it the better, save that it, too, served to turn off more people.

    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.
    • Re:The sad thing is (Score:3, Interesting)

      by batura ( 651273 )
      What really suprised me about the whole Xindi thing was that nobody called the show out for basically creating a Star Trek: 9/11.

      Think of the Xindi as the Taliban, the Federation as America, Florida as the World Trade Center and that stupid weapon as WMDs and it all adds up to Star Trek: Ripped Directly From the Headlines.

      What was the end result? A show that was too serious to be taken seriously.
  • by snuf23 ( 182335 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:45PM (#11556703)
    Seriously, I'm kind of bummed that they haven't completely pulled out all the stops to get any remaining Trek fans to watch.
    Where is the show I want to see. You know the one where Scott Bakula and that guy from Texas fight a whole truckload of Gorn to save the green skinned Orion women from being forced into the green alien sex trade while Q causes a time and dimensional, universal shift bringing the entire cast of TNG racing into battle - only get this - it's the MIRROR UNIVERSE TNG, with Evil Picard and even Evil Wesley showing up.
    Oh yeah and of course the Vulcan chick and Seven of Nine find out that, yes, they are in fact space lesbians.
  • by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <{gorkon} {at} {}> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:48PM (#11556729)
    This show, while it was star trek and bad star trek is better then none at all, it deserved to be cancelled for a few reasons....first...

    Prequels never work to well. Star Wars works a little, but even it has the look that the past was more modern then the future problem. Examples in Star Wars is the Naboo Starfighter and Amidala's ship.

    One thing that Enteprise was effected was the ship looked fricken great. LCD's all over the damn place and very sharp looking....NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IT CAME BEFORE KIRK!

    I'd have rather seen more buttons and things like that....the bridge should have looked more like a 80's carrier. MUCH more cramped and not as modern looking. Even that may be slightly more then the old series.

    UPN's signal SUCKS in my neighborhood and I never watched it primarily because of that. Also, my UPN affiliate is also a WB affiliate and they do not show it at the same time as the rest of the nation.

    I will be picking this up on DVD. Since this one is real short, pricewise, it should be ok for me to get UNLIKE other Trek DVD sets!
  • WTF?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bulln-Bulln ( 659072 ) <> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:48PM (#11556735)
    They aired the crappy Voyager series for 7 (too) long seasons without killing it and now they kill not-so-bad Enterprise?!?
    I hope there will be at least some movies based on Enterprise - So the birth of the Federation can happen.
    • Re:WTF?!? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Coryoth ( 254751 )
      They aired the crappy Voyager series for 7 (too) long seasons without killing it and now they kill not-so-bad Enterprise?!?

      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 b
  • by CharonX ( 522492 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:49PM (#11556748) Journal
    Let's be honest - many of us didn't watch more than the first few Episodes of Enterprise before they got fed up and dropped the series.
    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...
  • But.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by T-Ranger ( 10520 ) <> on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @07:58PM (#11556876) Homepage
    So UPN cancels "Enterprise". UPN isn't the only station that buys Enterprise. In Canada, the Space network show it, as does CityTV. (who, while both are owned by CHUM, may not be paying exactly twice, but paying more then once) Im sure there are both "normal" and speciality networks all over the world buying and showing it.

    Besides that, Enterprise is almost gaurenteed to have a long syndication run. STTOS is still being aired; outside of a marathon, when was the last time you saw Leave it to Beaver? Isn't Viacom all but gaurenteed infinite future syndication sales?

    I remember one of those "behind the sceens" show on TNG. Each episode cost about as much to make as an average feature film. They had a bunch of production staff working full time, 52 weeks a year. (a 30 minute comedy could likey be shot in <2 days, 8 weeks for the season, not much post-production) So while expensive, I would think it would also be easy to manage at the executive level... Keep a regular, full time, cardre of ST production staff and all but forget about it on the executive level. No toss of the dice every season with new shows. No worrying about getting good writers or crew. ST just churns out stuff like clockwork. Quality is important, but many people will watch it regardless today, and tomorrow.

    For that matter, with a full time ST cadre, movies could almost be done for free. Well, thats a streach.. But all your pre and post production stuff can be done here and there by the TV staff (or the opposit, the TV stuff could be done here and there by your movie crew). Farm out major work, and get a special crew to do the principal photography, but all the "glue" stuff could be done inhouse. At the very least, you will maintain a skill set, ST props, ST makup, ST sets and what not that, if you diddnt have full time staff, may or may not carry over from movie to movie.

    People are saying that ST needs a break. Writers need a break, fans need a break. Is the opposite not true? Airing new shows keeps the interest up, even in the syndicated series. One might not tune in to watch a TNG episode, but if a TNG episode airs just before or just after Enterprise, the viewers might stick around for both.
  • by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @08:01PM (#11556903)
    Sorry, but not surprised, to see it go.

    For science fiction to succeed away from its own little niche of fans, it needs writers who can develop stories that appeal to a wide audience. After all, a bad science fiction story is, in the end, just another bad story.

    The stories Enterprise has been telling since Coto became the showrunner are better, but Season Four is the wrong time to go after the audience the show should have sought in Season One.

    The Star Trek franchise also suffers from the curse of its fans, many of whom give the earlier series a degree of respect they often didn't deserve. (Bad scripts and cheesy plots abounded there, too. Each series had wondetful moments of drama that inspired legitimate awe and wonder about humanity's future, but each series was also inconsistent, with frequent recourse to alien/disease of the week.)

    But, every fan who insists that Trek scripts maintain continuity with their view of the Trek universe also hamstrings the writers, putting them in increasingly restrictive boxes.

    A show like Babylon 5 survived thanks to consistently good scripts and adherence to one individual's vision. The notion that good stories begin with character development was at play there. But, any spinoff series would like have run into the same problems as happened to the Trek series.

    So, my advice to Paramount is this: Go have a deep think. Pitch the next Trek series/movie to the general population. Bring in good writers, good actors, a good director. If Trek fandom values adherence to continuity more than good stories, tell them to take a one-way tranporter trip.
  • Fundamental problems (Score:5, Interesting)

    by almaden ( 631213 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @08:45PM (#11557365)
    In general, why did Enterprise fail?

    Pacing: In many of the early episodes, the pacing of the stories was terrible, often slowing to the point of boredom. Remember the episode where the Ferengi were stealing parts of the Enterprise (yawn)? Or how about "A Night in Sickbay" (yawn^2)?

    Continuity: Initially, there were problems with continuity with the ST universe. Many episodes only paid lip service to previous ST material by mentioning it, and then went promptly went nowhere. Only when the ratings began to slip did the producers make an intelligent effort to tie into the old school.

    Also, it was cool at the beginning of the series when Enterprise didn't have all of the tech that Picard et. al. were supposed to have. I liked the feeling of a small, weak Earth ship that didn't have all the answers. Bit by bit though, the same level of technology has crept back, to where except for the occasional shuttle pod, the tech is equivalent.

    How did that temporal war arc get resolved? Did they make it up as they went along? Why did it seem so clumsy and difficult to follow? How about the Xindi/Star Wars/Death Star arc? Why did it take 4 years to start seeing elements of the ST universe we were yearning for from the start?

    Viewers relating to Characters: Did the show ever get the viewers to really care about the characters? Maybe you could care about "Trip", but the rest of the cast could get blown out the airlock, and no one would protest.

    Erratic Character Development: Why did so many of the episodes have the cast acting out of character? This was a problem with Voyager too, where each week a character would act differently, and negate or forget their development to that point in the series. Viewers watch the show and think "he wouldn't do or say that".

    Crummy casting: Why is Scott Bakula so unbelievable and unconvincing in the role of Archer? Why can't he be taken seriously like Patrick Stewart was? This is an anchoring role for a Star Trek series - you can't miss-cast the role, and then expect the series to succeed. Voyager had problems here too, but I could at least stomach Janeway.

    Yes it's easy to criticize the series at this point, but these guys have had 4 years, gazillions of dollars, and a lot of fan input to draw from to get the show right. Time to look elsewhere for sci-fi entertainment.
  • by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @09:13PM (#11557575) Homepage Journal

    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.


  • by JDax ( 148242 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @09:15PM (#11557592)
    When all is said and done, it would have been 39 years, 754 episodes from 6 series (including the Animated one), and 10 films. Literally about a month's worth of 24/7 viewing.

    Alot of ups and downs and I'm sure there will be a 40th anniversary special for next year commemorating the franchise, as they have been doing something like that since the 20th anniversary first-time airing of the B & W version of "The Cage" in 1986.

    Time to warp off into the sunset...
  • by yoshi_mon ( 172895 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @09:23PM (#11557643)
    Every time a thread like this comes up I see a lot of insightful, well thought out reasons on what happened in the past and why what is happening now is good/bad.

    This is why most people here are clearly overqualified to ever be a TV executive.
  • by cwolfsheep ( 685385 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @10:14PM (#11558038) Homepage
    Here's some food for thought: can anyone name a "good" Paramount film or series in recent years? What happened to syndicated TNG? What happened to the old Trek films, or Beverly Hills Cop, or even Beavis & Butthead (remember, "Picard" liked it too)? Why did Nemesis bomb, when it really wasn't as bad as Trek V? I haven't seen "Deep Impact," but saw "The Core:" did anyone see both?

    Basically, there seems to have been a large marketing of failure at Paramount. Tie series to UPN, whose affliates share with Fox or pre-empt for sports events? Put movies out in December to compete with "big events," instead of waiting a month when it'd be #1? When you advertise an episode of Trek, make it about sex most of the time, even when it has nothing to do with the story? Where's the sci-fi in their sci-fi?

    What we are seeing is a revamp of Paramount, and they consider Trek a part of the problem, not the solution. It should be the other way around: however, it is the last vestige of an experiment, and probably should be put to rest while they clean house. Let us hope there is more Trek one of these days, and preferably syndicated, if not on Sci-Fi or some other network.

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @10:52PM (#11558328) Homepage Journal
    If the early 20th century copyright term of something like 28 years were in effect, TOS and the whole set of characters would be in the public domain now, and TNG would be going into the public domain in ten years. Then, if Paramount wanted to make money from the franchise, they'd have to compete with other studios. You would be able to choose allegience to the creators who kept Roddenberry's vision alive for you, instead of having to make due with Rick Berman because that's who Paramount thinks having run the franchise is in their interest.
    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:

    I believe, Sir, that I may with safety take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honourable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Company's monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essex's monopoly of sweet wines.

    --Thos. Babbington Macaulay

    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.
  • sad :-( (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dave1g ( 680091 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @11:33PM (#11558608) Journal
    I liked Enterprise, especially this season.

    sniff sniff... :-/

    Why don't they just do it syndicated, or offer it to the Sci Fi network?

    I'm sure some one is willing to put money behind a Star Trek franchise.
  • by jhallum ( 31304 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @02:17AM (#11559647) Homepage
    Of course it's going to be cancelled, Galactica on Sci-Fi and the rest of the Sci-Fi Friday is getting as good or better ratings than it is, and I believe that UPN has a wider distribution than Sci-Fi does. I've read that Galactica had a 2.5 rating last week, which is higher than the week before. It's weird seeing Galactica succeed and a Trek franchise fail, but Galactica is just That Damn Good. You Galactica haters can scoff now, but wait until the last few episodes, Galactica gets very good. On par with Babylon 5 at its prime, I'd say.

"If you lived today as if it were your last, you'd buy up a box of rockets and fire them all off, wouldn't you?" -- Garrison Keillor