Why Did Star Trek: Enterprise Fail?

An In-depth Look at the Latest Star Trek Franchise and Its Shortcomings

By True Edge, published Jan 21, 2008
Published Content: 1  Total Views: 878  Favorited By: 1 CPs
Rating: 3.0 of 5
Star Trek is a television phenomenon that promises to boldly go where no one has gone before. Ever since its creation, Star Trek has been the definition of science fiction. Star Trek gave us warp drive and the transporter and encouraged our top scientific minds to pursue their theory. Each television franchise had a unique feel, and each one (excluding the original series) did well enough to run for seven seasons. But when we look at the five television franchises, one of them stands out like a sore thumb. It's the last show to grace our small screens: Enterprise. This Trek franchise ran for only four seasons before being cancelled, leaving an unresolved plot element. It is perhaps the most unsuccessful and controversial franchise in the history of Trek. Why did Enterprise fail? I intend to answer this question in this article.

First, let's consider the official source. Rick Berman has been a prominent name in Star Trek ever since the 80's. He worked with Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek's creator) to create Star Trek: the Next Generation. He would go on to give us Deep Space Nine, Voyager, several of the movies, and even Enterprise. When asked about Enterprise's declining ratings, Rick Berman stated that he believed the entire Trek line was suffering from "franchise fatigue." Basically, we've seen so much of Trek that it's lost its originality.

Consider this. Enterprise debuted in the wake of the closings of both Deep Space Nine and Voyager. Both of these were very successful and acclaimed franchises. We had little time to sit back and actually grasp the conclusions of these shows, when Paramount gave us another ship, another crew, and another timeline. Too many irons in the fire.

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
 
 
I felt that Enterprise failed because it was too much "more of the same" - same thin campy schmaltzy moralistic metaphores, same approach to both script, character, AND production problems (there are more than one, even in Trek) and the same crappy production methodology - the establishing shots, scene construction, music cues, scriptwriting just screamed 1986. Look what Firefly did in 14 episodes with NO franchise and a fresh take. That's all.

Posted on 06/30/2008 at 11:06:30 AM

 
I was very sorry to see Enterprise cancelled, but at the same time was not surprised. The cast was excellent and the concept was intriguing, but somewhere along the line it ran off course and never righted itself. The strength of Enterprise, like the OST, was in the interplay of its characters. There was also a certain innocent wonder about watching even a fictional past/future unfold. The series lost its way with the endless, post 9-11 story line about the imminent destruction of earth with its constant inter-dimensional/time travel element. From that moment on, it was preachy and forced and convoluted as hell. I had the chance to spend an hour or more talking about the OST with Roddenberry once after a speech he gave at TCU following release of the first motion picture. He was still sore about the way the studio tried to make the movie about special effects, rather than human relationships. Like the 1st movie, Enterprise started well but veered off course and lost its way.

Posted on 06/16/2008 at 2:06:08 PM

 
Interesting article and topic. I grew up on TNG, and no Star Trek series could ever complete for my affection in the same way. But it is sad to see the franchise as a whole pushed out of popular consciousness. It felt like the end of a whole tradition of television when Enterprise failed.

Posted on 05/09/2008 at 9:05:47 PM

 
Great article. But I feel the reason why Enterprise failed was simple: the show's sheer lack of respect for TOS. It's obvious to me that ENT was Berman and Braga's attempt to supplant TOS as the first incarnation of TREK. You can see it in the very interior/exterior design of the NX-01. *This* was supposed to be the basis of the original NCC-1701? Yet, one has no trouble making the leap from the NX-01 to Picard's NCC-1701-D. The show's further assertion that Archer (not Robert April as has been long noted) was the first Captain of a ship called Enterprise, as well as its insistence on featuring anachronistic TNG elements (the rest planet Risa, the Ferengi, the Borg), all contributed to the show's overall inconsistency. Later episodes tried to reconcile these flaws with established TOS continuity, such as the Mirror Universe two-parter, but it felt forced, too little, too late. In my own mind, I just look at ST:ENT as an alternate timeline created by the events of "First Contact,

Posted on 05/04/2008 at 3:05:56 PM

 
Nicely written. As a writer who wrote episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation & Deep Space Nine, I too have many questions about the premature demise of Enterprise. A frustrating thing I encountered as a freelancer - which was echoed by other writers I spoke with on the subject - Enterprise was the hardest to score a pitch meeting to... After scoring sales to a show or with a high profile agent, the practice is to be granted story pitch meetings. After my TNG & DS9 sales, I had many meetings with DS9 & Voyager staffers - including in person meetings with executive producer/show runner at the time Jeri Taylor. Enterprise under Rick Berman & Brannon Braga seemed to "close ranks" & freelancers - again voiced by many writers I've heard from - were often not brought into the mix. I wrote an article on the subject :http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/503341/did_producer_rick_berman_kill_tv_star.html It certainly isn't only why Enterprise failed, but I submit it's a strong one.

Posted on 03/28/2008 at 8:03:14 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
 
Most Commented On