Scott Bakula Would ‘Love’ To Do More Star Trek Enterprise + Drexler Starts Season 5 Netflix Campaign | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Scott Bakula Would ‘Love’ To Do More Star Trek Enterprise + Drexler Starts Season 5 Netflix Campaign April 3, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: DVD/Blu-ray,ENT , trackback

Last week Star Trek Enterprise executive producer Brannon Braga brought up the idea of show being resurrected by Netflix. Now Scott Bakula is commenting on the possibility of a reunion. Find out what he had to say below, plus check out Doug Drexler’s campaign to get Enterprise season 5 on Netflix.

 

Bakula talks Enterprise Reunion and Fan Critiques

In a new interview promoting the release of the first season of Star Trek Enterprise, star Scott Bakula was asked if he would be on board for any kind of Kickstarter-funded effort (like was recently done for Veronica Mars) to reunite the Enterprise cast for a new season of the show. Bakula appeared to be open to the idea but was skeptical it could be done, saying..

I talked about that in the beginning, before Kickstarter was around. If the fans want us to do a movie or the fans want more episodes, why don’t we let the fans be investors in the show? This is eight years ago and it didn’t go anywhere. I’d love to do [a new season], but the big problem with our show is that it requires effects and sets. A lot of our sets have been sold. Our bridge is in Germany, assembled in a guy’s garage.

The actor also talked about the two things that people seemed most critical of with Enterprise…

There were two things that were somewhat irritating that came up in the period of time that we made that show. People either loved or hated the theme song and people loved or hated that I had a dog on board. It was a little obsessive and a little shortsighted, missing the big picture. It’s not that people don’t want to love your show. I always know that the guy who wore that sign, he wanted to love our show. He said so on the sign. But we’ve created a world where people have forums to speak their minds anonymously or not. You want to encourage that, but you also have to take it with a grain of salt. There’s going to be critics of everything I do, every day. We put our heads down and worked as hard as we could for as long as they let us, with great results.

Visit the LA Times Hero Complex for more from Bakula about Enterprise.


Scott Bakula says he would ‘love’ to do more Enteprise

Drexler Launches Facebook Campaign For Enterprise Season 5 On Netflix

Last week TrekMovie reported on Enterprise co-creator Brannon Braga’s comment about how fans should watch the show on Netflix because they track viewership and maybe they would be interested in bringing back the show. Braga’s comments inspired  Star Trek visual effects artist (and designer of the NX-01) Doug Drexler to launch a Facbook group. The group has over 2000 likes so far.


Another campaign to save Enterprise

 

Enterprise on Blu-ray

You can order Star Trek Enterprise Season 1 on Blu-ray at Amazon.

 

Comments

1. MJ - April 3, 2013

Memo to Bakula,

No thanks!!!

2. kadorthegreat - April 3, 2013

@ 1

speak for yourself

3. Ahmed - April 3, 2013

YES, bring back Enterprise.

4. Sybok's Secret Brother - April 3, 2013

@ 2 Amen

Doing this would at least generate interest in making another Trek series. That being said, Enterprise had some low moments (Season 3) but it had finally hit its stride in the 4th season. It was canceled too early.

5. Pensive's Wetness - April 3, 2013

it’ll never happen because TPTB will not allow it, sadly… but folks can dream, one supposes…

6. Allen Williams - April 3, 2013

I think this would have been a good idea…8 years ago. The thing is they haven’t been together in a long time. They look different. The same chemistry may not be there. On the other hand TOS was off the air for 10 years when TMP was made. They managed to recapture the chemistry.

7. C Zenko - April 3, 2013

If they could not bring Firefly back to life, don’t fool yourself that a season 5 of Enterprise will happen. I liked the idea of Enterprise, time travel has become a crutch for Star Trek writers. If you can’t think of anything new to write, default to time travel. I admit I have enjoyed some of the time travel, but any more and they better get a Tardis. I hope to be wrong, but I don’t think we will see it.

8. DisgruntledTrekkie - April 3, 2013

2. I whole heartedly agree.

I’d love to see Enterprise be brought back.

9. Weerd1 - April 3, 2013

The formula had just hit its stride when they were cancelled. As bad as some episodes were, I loved these characters, and FAR preferred these four seasons to all seven of Voyager.

10. CmdrR - April 3, 2013

Would always love to see it done right.
Gotta wonder how you get the kuh-ching to pay for a new set, costumes, fx, et al. (New theme song, too, please!)
I would be fun to see the refit NX-01 with secondary hull attached.

11. anotherscott - April 3, 2013

I had no problem with the dog or the theme song. I just hated all the time travel stuff. That should be used very judiciously.

12. Jason - April 3, 2013

I’d rather bring back any other of the Star Trek series, but not enterprise

it did more harm than good to the franchise.

13. The Sinfonian - April 3, 2013

It could always be set around 2171, ten years after the Romulan War, using a different ship: a prototype Kelvin-type ship. Use the Kelvin set pieces. Make the show more planet based/BSG:B&C green screen/bottle show type, and there you go. Just make a series of 2-hour telemovies.

14. Darmok - April 3, 2013

I personally love Enterprise, granted the first two seasons there were some not so great episodes. By the third and definitely fourth season, the show started to get its bearings.

Other Star Trek series took a few seasons to get in the groove. TNG season 3 – less Roddenberry (ouch, I know but its true), Voyager season 4 – when 7 came along, DS9 season 4 – Worf/Sisko shaving his head. Of course, there are great episodes beforehand, just like 1 and 2 of ENT. People complained about some canon changes but you can find that in every series.

I could definitely live without the theme song, though I loved the opening sequence. Also, I think some of the casting was a little questionable.

Earth/Romulan War + Ronald D. Moore = Big win for ENT

15. MC1 Doug - April 3, 2013

Build it and they will come!

16. Sebastian S. - April 3, 2013

I really enjoyed S4 of ENT (not so much for the other three), but all the same I think a fifth season of ENT would be too cost prohibitive. I just don’t see this happening. A shame too, as ENT was really getting good in S4.

If anyone wants a decent continuation of ENT, try the Romulan Wars books; they were pretty good.

17. shawn - April 3, 2013

Forget the theme song… the images were perfect but not the tune.

I agree a couple of years after.season 4.. maybe the destruction of the nx-01 at the beginning … new ship and lets go… eart/romulan war with ronald D. Moore.

But why in the hell the killed off Trip… bad move! Bring back Sim or something like that!

One more season or a 10 hours special on the war… 2 a least. Enterprise and the fans deserve it. By the way change the producers!

18. rickindc - April 3, 2013

The last two seasons of ‘Enterprise’ started to gel with the cast and story line, too bad it was on the lame UPN network.

19. DiscoSpock - April 3, 2013

MJ,

I agree 100%. The truth hurts sometimes, especially for apologists.

20. DiscoSpock - April 3, 2013

“I’d rather bring back any other of the Star Trek series, but not enterprise…it did more harm than good to the franchise.”

Yep!

21. JP - April 4, 2013

DiscoSpock = MJ

22. mike - April 4, 2013

No. I like how it ended. I’m not mad about Trip’s death because it’s all about risking your life to go where no man has gone before. He killed himself for Archer so the federation, something that had not been attempted before, could happen. Restarting the series would be a disaster. Fans are gona push it, see it, and regret it because the show came to a final ending and will not feel right. Trip’s death breaks the chain of characters which is half the show.

23. DiscoSpock - April 4, 2013

@21. LOL Funny how you myopic fans of Enterprise have a tough time believing that the majority of Trek fans never really liked the show.

Here’s betting that any real sock-puppeting that is going on here is being done the 2-3 (at most) Enterprise fans who have posted here today, with I suspect this newbie, JP, being chief among them.

24. K-7 - April 4, 2013

DiscoSpock,

JP has been around for awhile — JP is not a newbie. He/she has accused me as well as being MJ in the past, so I have been where you are now.

JP’s posts usually involve whining about MJ in some fashion. I can’t recall a post from JP that was ever about any other topic than his/her negative passion for MJ.

Just ignore him/her.

25. Red Dead Ryan - April 4, 2013

I gotta disagree with MJ and DiscoSpock about “Enterprise”. It was pretty good. Better than “Voyager”.

Yeah, I like the show, but it isn’t coming back.

The one show I’d like to get Kickstarted is a third season of “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles”. Now that show didn’t get a fair run.

I am kind of uneasy about actors asking their fans to fund a new season of a show that they already get dvd/Blu Ray royalties from.

26. K-7 - April 4, 2013

Good thing Read Dead that you disagreed — you just avoided JP calling you “MJ” as well. ;-)

PS: My own opinion on this n is in-between yours and MJ’s. I liked some of the final two seasons, but then the final episode really stank. So while I would have like to have seen the show given a 5th season, I don’t think trying to re-start it is that great of an idea. Let it rest. And certainly, them trying to charge $70+ for the awful 1st season is just plain highway robbery.

27. Legate Damar - April 4, 2013

A continuation of Enterprise would be awesome, though the actors may have aged too much. After all, they can’t really set it eight years after Terra Prime (the real Enterprise finale), since that would set it in 2163. Setting Enterprise after the forming of the Federation would sort of ruin the point of the show.

28. Red Dead Ryan - April 4, 2013

#26.

Well, the final episode was pretty much a holodeck episode. I theorize Trip’s death was really a glitch in the matrix. Besides, in the “Enterprise” novels Trip faked his death so that he could go undercover as a Romulan on Romulus during the Romulan Wars.

I really liked the final two seasons. A lot of top-notch storytelling, especially during the fourth season. A shame it came a bit too late, though.

I think I’ll wait for the Blu Ray to come down in price. The dvds still look pretty good on my fourty-inch LCD screen.

29. Jason S. - April 4, 2013

This site got it wrong, Doug Drexler is not just strongly supporting this, he’s the main guy running it. This campaign is his!

Look, I realize that there are a lot of cynics out there on the internet who would dismiss this as ever having a chance without trying. But guys, look at it this way, what do you gain by trying and it not working out? We would all be were we started except those of us that supported this thing get to watch and enjoy more Enterprise, something most of us would do anyway.

I really can’t see a downside to this. Enterprise deserve one more season at least, or a Romulan War film or two. It’s ok if it’s some NetFlix production, I don’t mind. The show ended right as it was getting good!

@2 – Agreed!

30. JohnRambo - April 4, 2013

” Our bridge is in Germany, assembled in a guy’s garage.”

lol

31. MJ - April 4, 2013

Hey guys,

Yea, a number of times in the past when some people have agreed with me on certain things, this JP troll shows up and insists that they must be me?

He is a harmless clown though; he makes me laugh!

32. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

reposted from previous thread as posted late so no one will have seen it:

STE movie in alternate summer 2009 where Enterprise been a TNG style success and seen out its 7 years on tv (as with ST09 it would’ve been 7 years since Nemesis). any similarity to ST09 is purely coincidental:)

Following its successful 10 year mission, the refitted NX01 is relaunched to confront a new threat to the newly formed UFPs outer defenses where they discover an advanced ship of unknown design has destroyed several federation ships and outposts. As they engage they realise they are seriously outmatched and flee but are pursued, take on heavy damage and are about to be destroyed when they are suddenly engulfed by a violently unstable anomaly – emerging in the late 24th century. There they find a future where the federation is in a desperate all out war with an advanced romulan empire led by a crazed revenge driven warlord. With the help of Captain Picard and the crew of the Enterprise E, Archer and his crew discover the ship which attacked them was from an unknown part of the galaxy and had the ability to create unstable quantum holes in space. Found by Romulans, they commandeered it back to the mid 22nd century to destroy the federation in its infancy, but were destroyed by the unstable anomaly they created when the NX01 unwittingly passed through and was thrown into the future. However Romulan ships of that period recovered debris/telemetry from the ship which was enough to slowly advance their empire to the point where they are imminently about to destroy the federation in the 24th century…

The crews of both Enterprises must work together along with a legendary vulcan former starfleet officer in order to save the past and the future….

Paramount Pictures presents….A Rick Berman Production…..‘Star Trek Futures Past’ (no colon)

starring Scott Bakula, John Billingsley, Jolene Blalock, Steven Culp, Michael Dorn, Jonathan Frakes, Stephen Lang, Jeri Ryan, Brent Spiner, Conner Trinneer, with Patrick Stewart, and Leonard Nimoy

Written by Manny Coto, Mike Sussman, and Nicholas Meyer

Directed by Jonathan Frakes

Tagline – Two Crews. One Destiny (a riff on the Generations tagline – like the way Insurrection took TUCs tagline)

33. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

IMDB style Trivia for the ST Enterprise movie (2009):

-Main characters = Capt Archer, Cmdr Tpol, Cmdr Tucker, Capt Picard, Cmdr Data (not B4 as is altered timeline), Nero (S Lang – crazed revenge driven Romulan warlord whose son was on board the destroyed timeship)
-Extended cameos = Cmdr Madden (Ent E 1st Officer – as in Nemesis deleted end scene), Capt Riker (USS Titan – in altered timeline was promoted to Captain long before end of Nemesis – helps the Enterprises out Sulu style), Cmdr Hansen (Titan 1st Officer – was never borgified into 7of9), Ambassador Spock (as in Unification trying stop the federation/romulan war)
-minor roles – all the rest in their usual positions/ranks (Geordi, Dr Crusher, Troi, Hoshi, Malcolm etc etc)

-titled ‘Star Trek Enterprise’ (no colon) in some countries

-a sequel to Enterprise and Nemesis

-third PG13 rated Star Trek film

-James Horners third Star Trek score

-Production Designer Herman Zimmerman’s seventh Star Trek feature

-Jonathan Frakes third time directing a Star Trek film.

-Nicholas Meyer was offered the chance to direct but turned it down, however he later agreed to co-write the film.

-Enterprise was close to cancellation by the forth season in 2005 due to low ratings, however massive fan support convinced Paramount to commission a fifth season which has been hailed as one of Star Treks best, leading to a further two critically acclaimed seasons. This led to the decision to revitalise the movie series with the Enterprise crew

-Plans for an eleventh Star Trek feature were halted after the box office failure of Star Trek Nemesis. However elements of a proposed ‘crossover’ film featuring several members of each series, as well as a prequel trilogy entitled ‘Star Trek: The Beginning’ were worked into this film.

-William Shatner was approached to cameo as Captain Kirk in a holodeck exposition scene but wanted a non holodeck Kirk role central to the action like Spocks – as a result the scene was discarded and the dialogue was added to Spocks character. Shatner had guest starred in the fifth season of Star Trek: Enterprise as a vengeful mirror universe Kirk.

-Leonard Nimoy initially declined to return as Spock. He agreed after Nicholas Meyer re-wrote elements of the script to make Spocks part more essential to the plot.

-Those considered for the role of Nero included Russell Crowe and Eric Bana, before Stephen Lang was cast.

-inspired by Yesterdays Enterprise (ship from the past encountering changed future, federation losing the war), and First Contact (villain attempting to destroy the federation in the past)

-Plans for a ‘Yesterdays Enterprise’ style crossover film featuring crews of two Enterprises go back to 1994s Star Trek Generations but the idea was discarded when it was established it would be too expensive.

-the NX01 emerging in the 23rd Century and teaming up with the remaining crew of the NCC 1701A was considered then discarded in favour of the TNG crew.

-the Enterprise E emerging in the 22nd Century was considered then dropped for the NX01 in the 24th century.

-Rumours surfaced in 2007 of an original series prequel film charting the early years of Kirk and Spock being developed. JJ Abrams, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were rumoured to be involved. However soon after it was revealed Paramount had hired Jonathon Frakes to direct a movie with the Star Trek Enterprise cast.

-22nd century scenes set – 2162. 24th Century scenes set – 2387

-Budget = $100m.

-Box Office – $45m opening wkend. $125m US. $75m foreign = $200m ww

-Despite several rumours, there are no plans for a sequel as yet.

Spoilers (The trivia items below may give away important plot points):

-Enterprise crew deaths – Hoshi, Mayweather (opening attack), Madden (half way – replaced by Data as 1st Officer), Trip (end sacrifice), the entire Ent E crew (getting the NX01 back to the past)

-During Nero and Archers fight scene Nero states ‘I Know your face from earths history….’ Archers response of ‘I find that difficult to believe’ is intended to be a reference to his Quantum Leap character Samuel Beckett

-During the final battle the USS Voyager is seen to be destroyed

-Ships present during the final battle include the USS Excelsior, Reliant and all previous Enterprises.

-When Picard and Archer enter Spocks chambers, a photo of Kirk (William Shatner) can be seen on the desk.

-Near the end of the movie, Khan (Richardo Montalban) is briefly seen in a cryogenic stasis pod as Archer searches the gigantic cargo hold of Nero’s advanced Romulan battleship. (suggesting at some point between 2162 and 2387 in the changed timeline the romulans located the Botany Bay). The ILM effects team scanned Richardo Montalbans face from the 1967 episode Space Seed and applied the result to a stunt double.

34. RenderedToast - April 4, 2013

No.

35. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

34 – but it already happened (in another reality :)

36. Exverlobter - April 4, 2013

I loved the dog. It reminded me of Gene Hackmans character in Crimson Tide who also had a dog.

37. Horatio - April 4, 2013

I’d actually rather see DS9 come back in some form. Movie or miniseries.

Ah, the fracturered universe of Trek fandom…

38. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

i think ENT wouldve worked quite well on the big screen – the big budget making the ship even more realistic, that particular era with plenty nods to TOS – all the cool foreshadowing, Scott Bakula as Archer, possible interaction with the TNG crew like the way TNG interacted with TOS for their 1st film.

the cast mustve been thinking a movie would be a strong possiblity in the early days as there was no way a DS9 or VOY film would go ahead, and TNG were about to have their final film (and even if Nemesis wasnt to be TNGs final film it would be unlilely theyd be still doing the films by the time ENT finished its run on tv), so there mustve been the feeling that ENT would more than likely be the next crew on the big screen at the end of the 7 years in a film possibly like the one described above

hearing the show wasnt doing too well and then was going to be cancelled early mustve been unbelivable, especially when the likes of Stargate was still going…and just when ENT had found its feet like TNGs 3rd season….

even now its still pretty shocking ….i know it probably worked out for the best as otherwise we wouldnt have had the return of the original characters with ST09/STID but even so i cant help imagining what an ENT movie wouldve been like :(

39. Mock - April 4, 2013

The fact that ALL of you folks commenting here even clicked on this article proves that you are in some way at least interested in bringing this series back, or at least SOME TYPE of Star Trek back.
By clicking on this article, you also ADMIT you are a Star Trek fan, or you wouldn’t even waste your time at this website, for that matter.
I grow weary of all these nitpickers, nay sayers, and Star Trek Trolls that hang out at Star Trek sites, finger on the trigger, ready to fire off these negative comments, like vultures, at the drop of a hat!
If you have nothing better to do than to critique critique critique Star Trek to death, then in the words of William Shatner himself, “GET A LIFE!”.

40. star trackie - April 4, 2013

No way Netflix would foot the bill for this show, the investment of time and research of recreating the sets alone would be cost prohibitive. Not to mention, the slim ratings that sunk the show to begin with. No one was watching it. Add to that, the fact that it has no “cult” status like Arrested Development, which, by comparrison, is a cake-walk to produce. Get the same actors and put them on a couch and you’re ready to roll. I thought the show was ok, certainly liked it more than TNG and Voyager, but thinking Netflix is gonna revive anything from the Berman era is just wishful thinking IMO.

41. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

heres the poster:
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5967/mov8fd5844cb.jpg

42. KevinA Melbourne Australia - April 4, 2013

Enterpise Season 5 – Make it so!

43. Damian - April 4, 2013

I liked Enterprise also. But I’m also a realist. Bakula knows it’s highly unlikely (partly as he mentioned because the sets are no more and the effects required to do it). Part of it also is it’s been 8 years now.

However, if enough interest is shown on Netflix, along with the Blu-Ray of TNG and Enterprise, it might just encourage CBS to look at doing a new show.

So while a lot of interest will not bring the old shows back, it can still lead to something we all want, a new show.

On the flip side, if all these ventures flop, CBS will likely decide it’s not worth it to do Star Trek on TV again (esp. since Star Trek is expensive to do), and it could be years before Star Trek is seen on TV again.

44. Schultz - April 4, 2013

Yes, Mr. Bakula, you’re right, I hated the title song at first, but I’ve grown used to it over time. Sometimes I even think, when watching another Star Trek show’s episode: “it would be nice to have a song here instead of an orchestral theme”. :)

Loved the dog. Liked the reference in JJ Abram’s film.

LOVED the cast, character chemistry, very good acting etc. Way better than VOY, except for Picardo’s Doctor, who’s dope.

At any rate: yes, definitely! I’d really enjoy a new Enterprise season.

45. Eric Holloway - April 4, 2013

#43 Very true statements I’m sure. Too bad though, I really liked Enterprise.

46. Shannon T. Nutt - April 4, 2013

NO SETS ARE NEEDED!

Did any of you guys see Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome? That was done almost entirely with green screen, as the old BG sets have been torn down, and it looked pretty darn good. The Enterprise bridge, etc., could be recreated on a computer, and few would be able to tell the difference.

47. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

what if some trekkie billionarie gave 30 million to do a 5th season – hire all the people, writers cast etc could they do it or would Paramount stop it

48. RichCD - April 4, 2013

I have worked in the TV industry for 25 years. Whether it is Enterprise (highly unlikely) or something new, Star Trek will never return to standard broadcast television. It is too expensive and the ratings had dwindled too much.

When next we see a new Trek for TV, it will be done with some type of pay-tv model – Showtime, Netflix or some other entity. BTW – Netflix ponied up $100 million for 26 episodes (two seasons) of House of Cards. They could definitely be a player.

49. Disinvited - April 4, 2013

#39. Mock – April 4, 2013

The words aren’t Shatner’s. They are the words of the writer Robert Smigel.

50. Disinvited - April 4, 2013

#48. RichCD – April 4, 2013

The same was said of BATTLESTAR GALACITICA but someone figure out a way to do it.

51. Shannon Nutt - April 4, 2013

For those interested, the 90 minute Blood & Chrome pilot was done for about $2 million. That’s peanuts. You could raise that with a Kickstarter campaign in a day. You don’t have to spend a fortune for quality Star Trek to return to the air. All that’s really needed is for CBS/Paramount and some media outlet (be it Netflix, Hulu, or CBS itself) to give the green light.

52. BatlethInTheGroin - April 4, 2013

#51: You’re not taking into account actors’ salaries. Blood and Chrome was a cast of unknowns. Enterprise has established actors who would make FAR more money. $2 million per episode isn’t even remotely close to what it would take to bring back Enterprise.

This will never happen. Anyone who thinks there’s even a chance is just being naive.

53. BatlethInTheGroin - April 4, 2013

#39: If you grow wary of it, feel free to leave.

Also, you need to learn what the term “troll” means. Shooting down rumors and offering realistic appraisals of whether or not a TV show has a bat’s chance in Hell of being resurrected is in no way an example of trolling.

54. Z3R0B4NG - April 4, 2013

i totally would love to support this

but

i can’t like on Facebook because i do not have and do not want an account there (all people that i hate are on there!)

i can’t watch on Netflix because i’m in Germany and we dont have ze netflix here …not yet anyway

hmpf

oh well i suppose i can help by spreading the word

55. Adam Bomb 1701 - April 4, 2013

I don’t know about a full 26 episode fifth season, but I’d love to see the planned follow-up to “In a Mirror Darkly”. With Linda Park as “Empress Sato”. That will never happen, as it would be too expensive to do that as a one-shot episode.
#48 – Netflix also ponied up big bucks for pay-TV rights to Disney films starting in 2014 or 2015, taking them away from pay channels Starz/Encore, who’s had the rights since 1995.

56. Smike - April 4, 2013

Please…bring…it…back! Somehow!

57. ME!! - April 4, 2013

Not my favorite Trek show, but I’d take a new season for sure. I’d like to see the NX-01 undergo a refit where she gets a secondary hull (google it….).

I’d be happy to help with the campaign, but I have a very strict policy…I don’t do Facebook.

58. Siral - April 4, 2013

All hail khan 2.0
Perfect but somehow I think we need a Trekkie billionaire to make it. And some dam good writer. Life is like a box of…..chocolates.

59. MJ - April 4, 2013

@39 “I grow weary of all these nitpickers, nay sayers, and Star Trek Trolls that hang out at Star Trek sites, finger on the trigger, ready to fire off these negative comments, like vultures, at the drop of a hat!”

You mean like you just did right here?

60. Damian - April 4, 2013

It’s amusing to read some of the comments here. I know it’s fun speculation for some, but it seems there are a few who think bringing Enterprise back for a 5th season may be a real possibility.

It’s just not going to happen guys. I liked Enterprise, loved the 4th season, thought it ended prematurely too, but simply, too much time has passed. Even Bakula is realistic about it. Would he do it, of course, he’d be a fool not to. But he knows it’s not going to happen.

It pains me to say it, but Enterprise just never caught on with the general public, at least not enough to warrant bringing it back. I thought it was a great show personally, and I think if people tuned back in during season 4, they would have seen what they expected from Enterprise, but they didn’t. CBS would probably laugh at any suggestion at bringing it back.

Again, if there is a lot of interest shown in this and other Star Trek products out there, CBS may consider something new, so don’t give up. But if you want more Enterprise, you’ll have to read the novels (which were good reads–though the 2nd Romulan War book was a bit disappointing with it’s lack of detail).

61. Jack - April 4, 2013

I’m not MJ, but I never liked Enterprise. Like Bakula, hated Archer. And the whole thing really felt like “hey, we’re making a TV show and we have to because, you know, franchise, fans, job security… God, we’re tired of this.” And I ain’t a canonista, but it really did bug me that all of a sudden there was a very TNG-era-looking Enterprise we’d never, ever heard of, full of stock characters from the Trek character generator.

62. Mel - April 4, 2013

ENT is dead and won’t be back. Better campaign for a new Star Trek series. That has a higher chance of success.

63. Damian - April 4, 2013

61–The sets were a challenge. I remember seeing an interview with production designer Herman Zimmerman about that.

On the one hand, it had to be more primitive than the Enterprise from the original series. On the other hand it had to look more advanced than today. I loved Star Trek best of all the series, but let’s face it, if it were done today, the sets would look considerably different.

I thought the production team did well enough. There were things less advanced (the ship had a max speed of warp 5 instead of 8, it didn’t have deflector shields, force fields or tractor beams, it had buttons, levers and screens that looked like radar screens). It also had a more claustrophobic feel with the narrow, primitive corridors and the bulky look of the ship.

64. Smike - April 4, 2013

@60:
Don’t be too sure it can’t be resurrected somehow. If you ignore that final holodeck adventure, the series ended exactly 10 years before the foundation of the Federation. The actors would be exactly in the right age to reprise their roles during that time, not to speak of the Romulan War period to follow shortly after that.

If economically viable this venture is, tell I can not (Yoda). However, 8 years have passed and in retrospect ENT has aged a lot better than any of the post-NextGen series. It is still relevant for both timelines, the SFX are largely on par with today’s standards and it was even referenced in ST09. I would even go so far to say that most Trekkies have embraced it a lot more after its run had ended prematurely. I don’t know any numbers, but if DVD and BD sales are fine, rerun ratings, online streaming etc. are up their expectations, why would CBS not agree on re-evaluating that show and giving it another shot? They’ve got absolutely NOTHING to lose, if it’s financed and co-produced by Netflix.

Plus, it doesn’t have to be back for a full season. A mini-series about the first days of the Federation and the Romulan Wars would do.

@62:
“Better campaign for a new Star Trek series. That has a higher chance of success.”

There is absolutely no need for campaigning there. On the contrary. It is highly unlikely, if not impossible Star Trek won’t be back to TV by 2016. If STID does as well as ST09 or even better, CBS would be simply stupid not to get Trek back to TV by the end of this decade.

Can you imagine them sitting on the rights to produce another TV show that is remotely linked to one of the most successful bigscreen franchise and not doing it? The only reason there is no show quite yet is because they are waiting for the right momentum, which will be after the second movie but before the 50th anniversary to announce it! The ONLY question is whether it’ll be produced by Bad Robot and set within the new timeline or not…

65. RichCD - April 4, 2013

#50: Galactica was a cable show with a very uneven production schedule. Its ratings were anemic – much lower than Enterprise’s. It generated a good deal of publicity, but it was never the commercial success needed for a broadcast network.

With Netflix or Showtime money, Trek could get the Game of Thrones treatment. 10 expensive episodes per season – without the constraints of a 42 minute running time – would be one of the best things to ever happen to Trek.

66. Jeffery Wright - April 4, 2013

Enterprise rocked. It was more Star Trek than any of that tedious space opera Deep Snore 9 or the cringe-fest Star Trek: Lost In Space! ever was.

They should never have cancelled this series, the 2009 Trek movie should have been that crew.

67. Thereare4lights - April 4, 2013

CBS should just get a pair of balls and put Enterprise back on tv.

68. Thereare4lights - April 4, 2013

#66 agreed

69. ACJG1985 - April 4, 2013

I would want this on one condition and one condition only, you keep Berman and Braga behind a big desk in a supervising role and you make sure you bring back Manny Coto to stop B&B putting the final mail in the coffin. There so called “nod to the fans” that was ‘These are the voyages’ was nothing more than a plot device to explain why Riker told Picard about the Pegasus incident and did nothing to help expand the franchise. B&B are all about their vision of Trek and trying to get away from Gene as much as possible and that’s not the way ENT needs to go, ENT needs to pave the way to what is excepted Trek whether its the Nero incursion and the Abrams-verse or Gene’s Prime universe and the only man even remotely capable of giving that to us was Manny. Season 4 should have ended with Deamons, enough said!

70. Jack - April 4, 2013

Zimmerman did a decent job. I would have liked something more NASA/2001-y.

71. Jovius the Romulan - April 4, 2013

66: I have to disagree. Deep Space Nine tried a lot of stuff that other Treks failed to and held my interest from the first season, unlike Enterprise, Voyager, or even TNG did.

72. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

58 – if i had the money i would make a $100million Enterprise movie.- i might even make some $ if it success – of course any profit would go towards paying legal fees when Paramount sue me for everything :)

73. Lt. Bailey - April 4, 2013

There is nothing wrong with liking/loving ENT as a series in Star Trek lore. My wife and I enjoy it very much and it did what it was designed for, telling the story(s) of the gap in time between First Contact and the Pike/Kirk era.There is a very rich history that can and should have been told. What do you want? A show set in the 28th century?

Yes some stories were bad in ENT, but I defy anyone to prove that TOS, TNG, DS9 & VOY had 100% great stories. Its all a matter of personal opinion, my wife and I do not bad mouth any other fans of VOY becasue we do care for it and we do not bad mouth the series either. Same goes for DS9, TNG, TOS. Everyone has thier favorite series and so be it.

We enjoy all Trek for what it is and what it gives us to enjoy. So if we get a chance to see season 5 of ENT on Netflix, lets have it! TNG, DS9 & VOY all got 7 seasons so why not let ENT have one more season? How is that going to hurt anyone?

Please just accept the fact that there are some people who love ENT and want to see another season or more if we can. I think Star trek is not supposed to be about hatred or putting down of others because we differ on what we like in the way of the various series.

74. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

heres how i think this shit will go down:

2013 STID
2014 STE season 5 premieres on netflix
2015 STE season 6
2016 STE season 7 / ST3.0 (summer) / STE The Movie (xmas)

75. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

come xmas time itd be a case of ‘one to star trek please’ and then you get asked ‘which star trek do you want?’ (as ST3 would still be playing as itd still making decent BO after breaking $1billion like Skyfall :)

btw the STE movie would be an ENT/TNG crossover so would be pretty big at the BO too

76. Khan 2.0 - April 4, 2013

not as big as ST3 but about half that – $500m ww (as everyone would want more trek in 2016 :)

if they used that ENT/TNG crossover @32 itd have to be changed from romulans to klingons villains (as in Yesterdays Enterprise) and no Spock, so Shatner could have a shot at a cameo (holodeck recreating TWOK era shatner)

77. MJ - April 4, 2013

“btw the STE movie would be an ENT/TNG crossover so would be pretty big at the BO too”

Huh??? I don’t think so. You guys really must be smoking crack today or something. :-))

78. MJ - April 4, 2013

@66 “Enterprise rocked. It was more Star Trek than any of that tedious space opera Deep Snore 9 or the cringe-fest Star Trek: Lost In Space! ever was.”

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on this website. Comparing Deep Space Nine to Enterprise is like comparing a Filet Mignon to Spam. The are not even on the same playing field.

79. RockiScience - April 4, 2013

Yes I too hate the theme song, love the dog though…. Still tuned in every week…

Whether its Enterprise or something else trek belongs on TV…
As well done as CloneWars was i might even settle for something animated.

The question is How can it be done? What is best for Star-Trek and the Trekkies who enjoy it.

Paramount seems more than satisfied to wait for JJ to get around to another movie in what 2020?

The only way we are going to change that is to support these sort of campaigns.

80. Phil - April 4, 2013

@78. Come now, MJ, it’s possible to enjoy Filet Mignon and Spam…

I’ve watched all of Trek, and none of it is anything I would shut off to go cut the grass. Having said that, if Enterprise came back it would need to be rebooted. Pre-Federation earth history always struck me as being pretty gritty, and Enterprise turned into a TNG retread somewhere during the first season. Give the show some of that TOS swagger, lose the emotionally constipated Archer and catsuited Vulcan women. That world Gene Roddenberry envisioned didn’t just appear, it took a lot of blood, sweat, tears, and leadership to make it happen, and I suspect those would be interesting stories to tell. Not that “Vulcans are holding us back”, ‘temporal cold war’ and time traveling Daniels bull$hit we ended up getting….

81. Phil - April 4, 2013

Oh, add the Xindi attack/war to that list. More nonsense….

82. Ahmed - April 4, 2013

@ 78. MJ – April 4, 2013

“@66 “Enterprise rocked. It was more Star Trek than any of that tedious space opera Deep Snore 9 or the cringe-fest Star Trek: Lost In Space! ever was.”

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on this website. Comparing Deep Space Nine to Enterprise is like comparing a Filet Mignon to Spam. The are not even on the same playing field.”

DS9 is a whole different show. It was by far the best Trek series after TOS & TNG.

With its serialized stories & character developments, it gave us some of the best Trek episodes like Far Beyond The Stars, In the Pale Moonlight, Inquisition, The Visitor, The Way of the Warrior, Duet & It’s Only A Paper Moon.

Enterprise was good but in no way better than DS9 or TNG

83. Smike - April 4, 2013

DS9 was a good show, but yes, I have to say that I also prefer ENT a lot. DS9 had a decent number of good eps, especially The Visitor, Far Beyond the Stars and Trials and Tribbleations. But it wasn’t a typical Star Trek show.
I know, you have to open to new concepts when you want to embrace the unknown, but I can’t help it: a series with a starship Enterprise, or at least a starship in the center, is much more what I expect.

In addition DS9 was far from perfect. Yes, there were highlights and that Dominion arc, that worked perfectly fine while it was on, but I grew weary of those stupid Ferengi sitcoms and holosuite silliness (baseball and Vic Fontaine come to my mind).

It took the show two years to take off (same as ENT), but by taking off, it became something different. It’s a bit strange, but in retrospect – other than the Dominion war and some gems – I remember the series best for its numerous TOS references…the Klingon triumvirate, the Mirror universe, the Tribbles… that’s what really stuck…

As an independent show it was way too gloomy, self-absorbed and partially boring. Bajoran and Cardassian culture are highly overrated, especially since they didn’t really show any interesting places on Bajor.

ENT Seasons 3+4 are probably the best Star Trek ever, for they finally began to take us places where no one had gone before after so many years of empty promises…

84. Smike - April 4, 2013

For me it’s settled:

1. TOS
2. TNG

3. ENT

4. VOY
5. DS9

85. Trek Fan - April 4, 2013

I really enjoyed Enterprise. I thought it was finally finding it’s legs with some good writing and acting. The network acted too quickly in pulling it. I think Enterprise was just as good if not better than some of TNG’s first couple of seasons.

I am sure that if TNG was on a network like UPN, it would have been cancelled within the first few years like Enterprise was. And I am sure that if Enterprise was in syndication run like TNG, it would have had a full run.

I\d love to see a fifth season.

86. Tarkov2008 - April 4, 2013

Uh… no.

That FB campaign page is pretty embarrassing… looks like a crazy fan film.

Take all this effort and get Netflix to do a 5 part TNG miniseries and let THAT cast go out in style.

Now that’s something people would watch… unlike most of Enterprise.

87. fansincesixtynine - April 4, 2013

no thanks. never cared for it.

88. Disinvited - April 4, 2013

#52. BatlethInTheGroin – April 4, 2013

The cast of VERONICA MARS are just as “established.”

89. K-7 - April 4, 2013

#83. You entirely ignore the point that the acting quality on DS9 was far superior to Enterprise, as well as being superior to TNG and Voyager. DS9 had by far the best ensemble acting cast of any Trek series in history. Voyager and Enterprise tie for the bottom on the heap in terms of the quality of the acting.

90. K-7 - April 4, 2013

I had never even heard of this supposedly great Veronica Mars show until recently. No, I don’t think that show is very topical in pop culture outside of some hardcore older female fans who have money to spend. Sorry!

91. Greg2600 - April 4, 2013

I thought Enterprise was unwatchable until Manny Coto took over. Shame it was canceled, and that Paramount/CBS was too cheap to pay for the William Shatner guest spot.

92. Trek Fan - April 4, 2013

89. K-7

Except for the horrible acting of the actress that played the younger Dax. She was so wooden. And Rene Auberjonois seemed very one dimensional at times. I always hated Nana Visitor as an actress… I know the part was written to be Ro Laren.

93. Lt. Bailey - April 4, 2013

For those who do not want Berman and Braga to have anything to do with a new ENT season have nothing to worry about. I bought the Blu-Ray and watched the entire 1st Season. There is a great many extras and the interviews with B&B give a lot of info, Both have said, they are done with Trek. I wish they had some way to help out but that is their choice.

Other than that. Looks great in B-Ray on a HD tv!

94. Bender Bending Rodriguez - April 4, 2013

I liked Enterprise more than Voyager and DS9. It was really picking up steam in season 4. I was disappointed when it was cancelled. I loved all the tie-ins to ST:TOS. Don’t have time to watch it on Netflix, but I would love it if it was brought back in some form.

The only thing I would have changed about the series was I would have added more warp 5 ships. After awhile it felt like they were kinda hanging out there. There was some talk about the Columbia joining them, but I don’t remember if it ever did. Would have loved it if by the end of season three there was a fleet.

If I had a wish list there would be some tie in to Admiral Archer mentioned in ST:09. Like maybe some of the story could be told in flashback by an elderly Archer, and right at the end, the dog materializes.

95. DiscoSpock - April 4, 2013

@92. “And Rene Auberjonois seemed very one dimensional at times. I always hated Nana Visitor as an actress”

You are joking, right?

96. Trek Fan - April 4, 2013

Nope. I hated Nana Visitor. Hated her character. Hated her acting. I think that Michelle Forbes would have been better on the show as Ro Laren.

But don’t get me wrong, I did enjoy DS9 and found it to be extremely well written. I loved the show. Loved the characters (and actors that protrayed them) Sisko, Jadzia, Bashir, Work, Garek…

97. Trek Fan - April 4, 2013

…and sometime I would think to myself… “Aw geez… not another Odo episode.”

98. Red Dead Ryan - April 4, 2013

#89.

I agree. DS9 had the best, and most diverse, cast of all the series. It was smart of the producers to bring in Worf and the O’Briens. The chemistry was great as well.

#92.

Michelle Forbes dropped out, and Ro Laren was scrapped. Kira Nerys was a totally original character. It was a blessing in disguise, as Major Kira was given a backstory interwoven with that of Gul Dukat. I doubt they would have been able to do that with Ro Laren. I just can’t imagine Forbes and Marc Alaimo with the same chemistry that he and Nana Visitor had.

99. Trek Fan - April 4, 2013

98. Red Dead Ryan

Oh, I know that it was initially intended as a vehicle for Forbes but she didn’t want to do it.

I just never liked Visitor. I remember her from the 80s TV version of The Flash. I just never liked her as an actress.

As for back stories… I think the could have done some great stories with Ro Laren. Her back story was already sketched out in TNG. I think they would have done some great stories with Dukat. And Marc Alaimo was great as Dukat, btw.

I have to agree with you about O’Brien and Worf too. Fantastic. I think Worf really had a chance to grow on DS9.

100. Luke Forrester - April 4, 2013

Enterprise’s problem was that the cast had zero chemistry together, and the writing was terrible. Even with Voyager, flawed as it is, I can at least look back on a few episodes like “Timeless” and “Living Witness” and say “You know, there’s a few episodes in this show that stand up to the best in the entire franchise”.

No so with Enterprise. Season 4 merely made the show watchable. It was like season 2 TNG (but without anything as good as “Measures of a Man” or “Q-Who”. It was a big improvement over season 1, but it still was just, ok.

DS9 was different Trek, but it took risks and succeeded nearly every time. It had not only the largest cast of any of the shows (when you include it’s sizable supporting cast roster), but it was also did the best at developing them. Even the supporting cast saw more development than anyone on Enterprise, and most of Voyager.

101. Trek Fan - April 4, 2013

100. Luke Forrester

You also have to remember that DS9 was also not attached to any network. UPN had their grubby paws all over Voyager and Enterprise. UPN made demands that they wanted fulfilled. The producers of TNG and DS9 were basically free to do and try anything they wanted.

If TNG was on a network – it would have been cancelled after the 2nd season. Those were some pretty awful seasons. Thank God TNG got better in the 3rd season.

Season 3 and 4 of Enterprise was really better in terms of writing and acting. They were finally getting back on track but the network had no support for it. Too bad,

102. MJ - April 5, 2013

“Nope. I hated Nana Visitor. Hated her character. Hated her acting…..…and sometime I would think to myself… “Aw geez… not another Odo episode.”

WOW ! ! !

This bolthers me more than an Orci-DM Duncan conspiracy thread.

103. MJ - April 5, 2013

@101. “If TNG was on a network – it would have been cancelled after the 2nd season. Those were some pretty awful seasons. Thank God TNG got better in the 3rd season.”

Compared to the nearly unwatchable first two seasons of Enterprise to the two weak first seasons of TNG is like comparing gravel roads (Enterprise) to asphalt roads (TNG). Granted, neither is the desired concrete road we all would want, but everyone avoids the gravel road like the plague, with the asphalt road provides the minimal desired adequacy needed to suit our needs.

104. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 5, 2013

Re: Trek Fan

Nana Visitor was/is the best female actress in Trek history, in my opinion. And Kira is my favorite character in Trek since TOS Big 3.

And using the word “hate” in the context of not liking Visitor seems a bit childish to me?

105. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

AAPB, I agree. Visitor and Auberjonois were hands-down two of the best actors every to grace a Star Trek series. They are great people as well. This “hate” of them by some here is unwarranted, and downright mean-spirited to boot.

106. Lone Browncoat - April 5, 2013

I would rather see effort go into ST:Phase II.
Those people are chomping at the bit for a decent budget and rolling out the scripts that never made it to air in ’68-’69.
I especially could go for it now that Elvis-Kirk has dropped out in favour of working behind the scenes and cast someone with a better resemblance to the character.
Have you seen the vignette “Going Boldy….”? …though as its’ currently non-profit, I would like them to use the .mkv file video format,rather than the .mp4 .

107. Lone Browncoat - April 5, 2013

…by decent…I meant go for more polished sets, maybe increase the green-screen…which is how that Vancouver studio,
is doing the flashback scenes for “Once Upon A Time”, even some of the set pieces are green, filled in later during post-prod.
The actors there just put themselves into “Live Theatre” mode and use their imaginations and inner selves to bring their performances alive.

108. DisgruntledTrekkie - April 5, 2013

I’d take the first two “unwatchable” seasons of Enterprise over the entirety of the dull Bajoran religious crap during the entire run of DS9 anyday.

109. Third Remata'Klan - April 5, 2013

I would watch this any day. Bring it on!

And @108: I always enjoyed Enterprise, but DS9 is my favorite.

110. MJ - April 5, 2013

@108. Back at you: I’d take the first two season of DS9 versus having to watch that big-titted Vulcan sham character in the stupid bodysuit ever again.

111. JohnD - April 5, 2013

Can we stop this crap. Enterprise SUCKED that’s why it was cancelled, that’s why fans did not watch it.

112. Damian - April 5, 2013

101–An interesting fact people sometimes ignore. Voyager and Enterprise were attached to UPN unlike their predecessor. I’ve read enough articles and seen enough interviews to know Paramount made certain demands that the producers had to fulfill.

Ultimately it was Rick Berman and his co-producers responsiblity for it’s successes and failures, but no doubt Paramount also share some responsibility as well.

I remember in particular Rick Berman saying he thought Star Trek should take a break after Voyager and Paramount would have none of it.

Not saying Berman should get a pass here, only that it wasn’t all on him.

113. Dave H - April 5, 2013

#111 “Can we stop this crap. Enterprise SUCKED that’s why it was cancelled, that’s why fans did not watch it.”

I agree completely. This whining by people trying to reinvent history needs to stop. The show stunk.

114. Exverlobter - April 5, 2013

Voyager also stunk!

115. Phil - April 5, 2013

Must be nice to live in a universe where one’s opinion is rule of law. Really, you all are entitled to your opinions pro or con, but it won’t change how I feel about the show. If anything needs to stop, it should be these absolute ‘line in the sand’ declarations. Yeah, the show had it’s issues, but overall, I enjoyed it.

116. Christopher Roberts - April 5, 2013

Yes please!

117. MJ - April 5, 2013

@115. Yea, I see your point, Phil. However, when some people started saying Enterprise was superior to DS9 though…well, we all have our limits Phil on what crap we can take.

118. Jovius the Romulan - April 5, 2013

115. Phil: Thank you.

119. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

MJ, Thank you. One has to respond when something that outrageous is said.

120. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

And people need to stop bringing up the lame UPN excuse. Voyager was on UPN, and Voyagers average ratings during its run were NEARLY TWICE the average ratings of Voyager…SCOREBOARD!!!

So, CASE CLOSED now on the UPN excuse/whining, please

121. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

Sorry, correction to my post as follows:

“Voyager’s average ratings during its run were NEARLY TWICE the average ratings of Enterprise’s…SCOREBOARD!!!”

122. Dave H - April 5, 2013

I think the reason some of us are coming down so hard on Enterprise here is that we are scared to death that reviving this failed show would take all the air of the balloon of the reinvigorated Trek franchise that we have now here today.

123. MJ - April 5, 2013

@122 “I think the reason some of us are coming down so hard on Enterprise here is that we are scared to death that reviving this failed show would take all the air of the balloon of the reinvigorated Trek franchise that we have now here today.”

Exactly!

@120 “And people need to stop bringing up the lame UPN excuse. Voyager was on UPN, and Voyager’s average ratings during its run were NEARLY TWICE the average ratings of Enterprise’s…SCOREBOARD!!! So, CASE CLOSED now on the UPN excuse/whining, please.”

I could not agree more — well said!

124. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

104. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle

Sorry, I really hate her acting style. I don’t see how it is “childish” to say that. I’m not a fan of hers and have never been. You don’t have to agree with he, that is your right. But don’t go saying that I am wrong in saying that.

And like I said, I did like DS9 and I thought it had fantastic writing and stories. The rest of the actors were wonderful to watch – but I cringed every time there was a Kira story.

120. DiscoSpock

Sorry, Disco, but because of UPN making demands on the producers for both Voyager and Enterprise – we had sub par shows compared to TNG and DS9. UPN was the responsible for wanting THAT theme song. They had their fingers in both series. I have read where the producers initially wanted to take both shows but UPN vetoed it.

125. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

#124. You are missing my point, Trek Fan. Yes, there were problems with UPN — I am not debating that. But, Voyager, under those same sets of problems, averaged double the average ratings of Enterprise, and therefore didn’t have to be cancelled. This is a fact that is not really debatable.

If Enterprise had got Voyager-like ratings on the same crappy network that Voyager had succeeded on, it would never have been cancelled and would have received a full series run. Duh!

126. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

125. DiscoSpock

Voyager’s rating dropped by almost half by the end of their run. The wanted a Trek show on the UPN network at any cost. UPN had it’s hands all over Enterprise more than it did with Voyager. The Producers had lots of headway at the beginning of Voyager. You can tell when UPN started pulling in the reigns. And the same thing happened with Enterpise but in reverse. The series actually got better after they agreed to let the producers run it more the way they wanted. Unfortunately, people were not impressed with the first two seasons. Not to mention that it was a well known fact that the head of UPN at the time was not a Trek fan at all, She wanted Trek off the network. Duh!

127. Phil - April 5, 2013

@117. I’m not prepared to say that Enterprise was superior to DS9. I am on record as stating that if Enterprise does return on Netflix, it should be rebooted. The analogy I like would be to compare Trek to apples. Some may prefer Red Delicious, others, Gala, but they are all apples.

128. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

“The series actually got better after they agreed to let the producers run it more the way they wanted. Unfortunately, people were not impressed with the first two seasons.”

This is make-believe. The ratings of Enterprise continued to decline in Seasons 3 and 4 — the seasons that you and a handful of others here would have us believe it was a much better show. If it was a much better show, then why would ratings continue to decline over the final two seasons as well? The ratings numbers don’t support your argument.

“Not to mention that it was a well known fact that the head of UPN at the time was not a Trek fan at all, She wanted Trek off the network.”

Again, the ratings declined again in Season 4 despite your argument that the show should have been reinvigorated by then. And I’m not talking a minor change — the ratings went from about a 4 share in Season three (when you claim the product was improving) to about a 3 share in Season Four (again, where you claim improvements in the product). THAT IS A 25% DROP IN RATINGS BETWEEN THE 2 YEARS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ME BELIEVE THE SERIES WAS GETTING BETTER???

I mean, come on, TNG had ratings upticks after its poor start — because the show got better and fans new it. What really happened here is that most fans still did not like the show much, and were still bailing out — with a handful of you hangers-on still hoping for the best. So yea, if I was her, I would have cancelled the show as well.

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

129. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#126. Trek Fan – April 5, 2013

Don’t forget Les. He was right there with her.

130. MJ - April 5, 2013

Disco,

Yea, you have hit the nail on the head there. Sure, we can all buy the argument that the series lost viewers after seasons 1 and 2 because of its poor quality; and I can even make a mental stretch and say that those fans weren’t going to come back (even though TNG ratings proved otherwise). But what does not compute about Trek Fan’s and others’ arguments here, if that since they claim the series was consistently improving in Seasons 3 and 4, then why the 25% drop in ratings between those two seasons. That drop makes no sense in terms of what Trek Fan and others are saying. No sense whatsoever!

What does make more sense is that fans kept bailing on the series still in Seasons 3 and 4 because they were still not seeing what they viewed as a quality Trek product. The ratings numbers directly support this, and they do not support at all Trek Fan’s and others’ contention that these seasons were improving. TNG series ratings history shows you directly how ratings improve with the quality of a Trek series over time — this is not evident whatsoever in the history of Enterprise’s ratings – in fact, the opposite happened.

A dog is a dog, no matter how you dress it up.

131. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

128. DiscoSpock

Did you not read what I wrote? Of course the ratings stayed down. People that were disenchanted with the first 2 seasons and left never came back for the next 2 seasons. Hence that is why, even though the shows were better and well written and far superior, the ratings stayed low.

And if TNG was on UPN… or any other network… it would have been cancelled. Since it was a syndication run show, it was sold to many different markets and also some smaller local stations. And because the ratings for it were low in some cases, the show was not cancelled in those markets, the stations just decided to not pick it up again. If Enterprise was in a syndication run like TNG, we would have seen 5 to 7 seasons. But as it was on a Network, the network (who was also producing it) decided to cancel it.

132. Red Dead Ryan - April 5, 2013

Well, I think that seasons three and four came too late. Even though the quality improved drastically, everyone was moving onto other shows, such as “Lost” and “Battlestar Galactica”, which reinvented tv sci-fi for a modern audience.

Also, “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” was critically acclaimed and high quality, but for some reason, the ratings kept dropping.

So falling ratings aren’t always indicative of a show’s quality.

133. Dave H - April 5, 2013

Could it possibly be that the reason Dawn Ostraff and Les Moonves didn’t like Enterprise (and Trek) is because Enterprise started out with a 9 rating and consistently went down year after year, with virtually no upticks, ending up with about a 2.5 rating at the end of year 4?

No, that couldn’t possibly be the reason that they cancelled Enterprise and didn’t like Trek, could it?

LOL :-))

134. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#127. DiscoSpock – April 5, 2013

I don’t think you can hang those ratings entirely on the show. UPN was failing as a whole with bankruptcy looming and stations fleeing. If I recall correctly ENTERPRISE’s worst ratings bested BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and STARGATE ATLANTIS both of which were renewed.

Les Moonves took control of UPN then drove it into bankruptcy with the resolution being a merger with the bankrupt WB which his CBS got to manage as the new CW. He was on record as hating Trek as a whole and the phenomenon of VERONICA MARS in particular, largely because of his frustration of not comprehending the devotion each inspired in its respective fan base but mostly because he wrongly believed that with that incomprehension it would be impossible to make money from them. Something the two renewed series I mentioned proved fallacious.

135. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

Trek Fan: “Did you not read what I wrote? Of course the ratings stayed down. People that were disenchanted with the first 2 seasons and left never came back for the next 2 seasons. Hence that is why, even though the shows were better and well written and far superior, the ratings stayed low.”

Again Trek Fan, you are missing my point. Yes, the ratings were down after years 1 and 2. But you say the quality of seasons 3 and 4 were vastly improved. So why did the ratings drop between seasons 3 and 4?

In other words, the fans that stuck with the show into season 3, for that group of fans, you claim here that the product started to improve significantly. If that is the case then why would 25% of these remaining fans who were still with the show in the improved Season 3, still bail out on the show and not return for Season 4? This goes completely against your argument that the quality was improving significantly by Season 3.

This is what you need to address here???

136. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

135. DiscoSpock

UPN wanted Enterprise to die. They shifted it from different timeslots and days to the point people ended up giving up on it. The ratings for the show on non-UPN stations were actually higher. And like Ryan had said, people were turning into shows like Lost and BSG – they lost interest in Enterprise. The fact that Enterprise still had higher ratings that BSG at times didn’t matter to Ostraff & Moonvies. They hated Trek from the start.

137. Dave H - April 5, 2013

Re: Disinvited

You said: “largely because of his frustration of not comprehending the devotion each inspired in its respective fan base.”

Again, as I said above, Enterprise started out with a 9 rating and consistently went down year after year, with virtually no upticks, ending up with about a 2.5 rating at the end of year 4.

So if Moonves was ever to be persuaded by your utopia view of “devotion” of us Trek fans, that fact that by Year 4 the audience had shrunk by 70% sure wouldn’t have been a compelling argument to show him how devoted we all were, would it?

And you said: “Les Moonves took control of UPN then drove it into bankruptcy.”

Yea, and Enterprise legitimately was one of the causes thank bankrupted UPN. The show’s ratings went down, down, down with no relief for four years straight.

If I was Moonves, I’d hate Trek as well. And I’d be right to hate it.

138. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

@136. Come on, man! You’ve got an excuse for everything with this show. TNG was all over the place and the time-slots were moved constantly, as was DS9. You’ll have to do better than that.

Buzz!!

Next?

139. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#135. DiscoSpock – April 5, 2013

You probably couldn’t see 134 while you composed that but to sum it up.

UPN heading for bankruptcy = losing stations = falling ratings for the network as a whole.

#136. Trek Fan – April 5, 2013

Did UPN save any of its series in the CW merger? I can’t think of a one and if the contentions being flung around here are true, all of the other UPN shows had higher ratings than ENTERPRISE.

140. MJ - April 5, 2013

Disco,

This is what bugs me about some the Enterprise fans here. Every time they are presented the legitimate arguments as to why the series failed, they just fall back and say “it was evil UPN’s fault.”

If the show was really improving during Season 3 as some believe, then there would NOT have been a loss of 25% of the fans in Season 4, despite time slot changes, etc.

This is a inconvenient truth. There is no getting around this.

141. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

Disinvited,

I’ll grant you that the breakup of UPN is a legitimate issue to bring up in terms of any series on UPN moving to CW.

But again, why the huge drop in ratings between Seasons 3 and 4, when supposedly Enterprise was improving? This makes no sense? And please don’t give me the time slot change nonsense — any fans that stuck with Enterprise though the awful first two seasons should have been predisposed to give the quality of the show the benefit of the doubt and find it on their dial — so why did that all still bail between seasons 3 and 4 when the quality supposedly was improving??? This is the primary issue here for me.

142. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

140. MJ

Comments like yours are what bugs me too. Every time you are presented with legitimate and factual arguments – you go into bashing mode.

143. Dave H - April 5, 2013

All,

Nearly all of the stations dropping UPN came after Enterprise was cancelled. So the “stations were dropping UPN” argument is not viable to explain the Enterprise ratings drop between Seasons 3 and 4.

144. MJ - April 5, 2013

@142. I hear you! And if I have offended you in any way, I apologize. But perhaps it is slightly more acceptable for one for be in a “bashing mode” if they have legitimate numbers, facts and logic to back them up, versus just a subjective set of opinions and urban legends? ;-)

145. Phil - April 5, 2013

The show failed because the ratings tanked. The ratings tanked because the show never found it’s way, it was trying to be TNG in tone, and the stories reeked of formula writing. What does the audience want, the studio asked? Epic space battles!! Naked Vulcans! More catsuits! Hookups!! Explain stuff! Screw continuity!!

Enterprise was a classic example of creativity by committee, and it failed as a result.

It’s not that hard to figure out. Most of us watched it anyway. And that why if it does come back, they need to ignore the first four years and reboot it.

146. MJ - April 5, 2013

Thank you, Phil.

147. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

144. MJ

How is anything I said an “urban legend?” I presented you with FACTS. Just because you have a differing opinion, you are right in your mind. Back off buddy, you come across as a smug know it all. You do it all the time when you don’t agree with someone.

148. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

145. Phil

Who do you think wanted the catsuits and the nakedness? UPN wanted to play the sex angle. It is well documented that Berman was opposed to Seven’s catsuit as well as T’Pol’s catsuit. Both Voyager and Enterprise were on UPN. We didn’t see that stuff on DS9 or TNG. UPN wanted then to “sex up” Trek. They had the final veto on scripts and had often asked then to do things that were more suited to the other shows on the network as opposed to Trek.

149. MJ - April 5, 2013

Trek Fan,

You may not have said it yourself, but this somewhat pervasive idea in Trek Fandom that a couple of people here have mentioned — that the evil Les Moonvies was out to wreck Trek — I rate that as a Trek urban legend. It’s Trek’s version of Al Gore inventing the Internet. :-)

PS: Moonvies was certainly not a scifi guy, but if E’s ratings has been on par with Voyagers, he would never have cancelled the show, no matter what he personally thought of scifi and Trek. If anything, the continuing demise of E’s rating just acted for Moonvies to say “I told you so” regarding his personal preferences, where, in the case where Enterprise might have been a successful show with improving ratings, perhaps it might have changed the guy’s personal opinions on Trek and scifi. He was just a guy in a suit, not Trek’s version of the AntiChrist as some here seem to think.

150. MJ - April 5, 2013

@148. Trek Fan, I agree with you on the stupid catsuits. Well said.

151. Red Dead Ryan - April 5, 2013

Maybe we all ought to just agree to disagree?

Some of us like “Enterprise”, some of us don’t. The show got cancelled eight years ago. Not sure why this really matters, anyway. I can’t see the show being brought back.

152. Phil - April 5, 2013

@148. Really, what do you call that bodysock that Marina Sirtis and Nana Visitor had to wear? I understand that the studio has some input, but this was just as much a problem with the producers and writers who got lazy. Enterprise was a weak retread of TNG, down to Archer’s attempt to channel Picard. It’s a lot of work to create TV year in and year out, and the franchise was on autopilot by the time Enterprise hit the air.

Berman obviously wasn’t that opposed to the catsuit…

153. DisgruntledTrekkie - April 5, 2013

DS9 sucked and so AbramsTrek.

154. DisgruntledTrekkie - April 5, 2013

So does AbramsTrek i mean

155. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#141. DiscoSpock – April 5, 2013

It’s documented fact of history that when NBC wanted to justify its decision to cancel ToS it moved it to the then “death” slot and its ratings plummeted. Why is that now a taboo explanation in the new millennium for newer Trek?

In 2005, Redstone decided to split CBS and Paramount effectively giving Moonves control over Paramount Television, specifically UPN and STAR TREK, even though it didn’t become official until the end of that year, Moonves was in charge of ENTERPRISE’s and UPN’s demise.

156. Red Dead Ryan - April 5, 2013

#153.

DisgruntledTrekkie sucks.

157. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#141. DiscoSpock – April 5, 2013

But even before that:

online.wsj.com/article/SB105294618527396300.html

“For the past year, Mr. Moonves has focused on trimming losses. As the 2002-2003 season winds down, people familiar with UPN say it expects to lose about $40 million, an improvement over last season’s $100 million loss. Much of the savings came from consolidating UPN operations under CBS.

But UPN’s ratings are still wasting away, dropping by double digits in both total viewers and those in the coveted 18- to 49-year-old demographic. The slide could hurt the network when it tries to sell ads for next season in the so-called upfront market, which traditionally starts in June. Spencer W@ng, an analyst at J.P. Morgan, expects UPN to underperform the rest of the ad market, taking in about $250 million in advance ad sales, about flat with last year’s number.”

#143. Dave H – April 5, 2013

UPN’s decline began with Viacom getting total control in 2000 when it bought out Chris-Craft.

From the same article:

“UPN’s importance inside the Viacom empire faded after Viacom bought CBS. Another blow came when Chris-Craft put its stations up for sale, and Viacom was outbid by News Corp. Viacom’s array of profitable cable networks — including MTV, Comedy Central and BET, all going after the same young audience UPN coveted — also helped push UPN off the corporate radar screen.”

You really want to stick with that claim that the affilirats (sic) didn’t start leaving the sinking ship until after ENTERPRISE’s cancellation?

But even if you had that contention, would that not be a sign that ENTERPRISE was the glue that was holding the affiliates together, i.e. they waited until it was cancelled to flee?

158. DisgruntledTrekkie - April 5, 2013

156.
Now you’re just trolling, just like the Enterprise bashers in this thread.

159. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#141. DiscoSpock – April 5, 2013

But even before that:

online.wsj.com/article/SB105294618527396300.html

“For the past year, Mr. Moonves has focused on trimming losses. As the 2002-2003 season winds down, people familiar with UPN say it expects to lose about $40 million, an improvement over last season’s $100 million loss. Much of the savings came from consolidating UPN operations under CBS.

But UPN’s ratings are still wasting away, dropping by double digits in both total viewers and those in the coveted 18- to 49-year-old demographic. The slide could hurt the network when it tries to sell ads for next season in the so-called upfront market, which traditionally starts in June.”

#143. Dave H – April 5, 2013

UPN’s decline began with Viacom getting total control in 2000 when it bought out Chris-Craft.

From the same article:

“UPN’s importance inside the Viacom empire faded after Viacom bought CBS. Another blow came when Chris-Craft put its stations up for sale, and Viacom was outbid by News Corp. Viacom’s array of profitable cable networks — including MTV, Comedy Central and BET, all going after the same young audience UPN coveted — also helped push UPN off the corporate radar screen.”

You really want to stick with that claim that the affilirats (sic) didn’t start leaving the sinking ship until after ENTERPRISE’s cancellation?

But even if you had that contention, would that not be a sign that ENTERPRISE was the glue that was holding the affiliates together, i.e. they waited until it was cancelled to flee?

160. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#149. MJ – April 5, 2013

Well, I think the problem UPN presents you with is how is that all its other fictional narrative programming, which had better numbers than ENTERPRiSE by your reasoning as in they were renewed, were deemed NOT good enough to transition to the MOONVES controlled CW?

I mean if it were all about the numbers as you contend surely he could have salvaged something, if only to stem off two bankrupt merged companies from further squandering funds on riskier unknowns?

161. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

Disinvited,

“It’s documented fact of history that when NBC wanted to justify its decision to cancel ToS it moved it to the then “death” slot and its ratings plummeted. Why is that now a taboo explanation in the new millennium for newer Trek?”

TOS? Yea, right. That was before Trek fandom was born. With Enterprise, you already had the awful Seasons 1 and 2 to “weed out” the casual fans, so by Season 3 and 4 you would have had the hardcore fans remaining. So, regardless of the timeslot, the ratings for those final two season should have showed an increase if the product truly was getting better. And yet it did not. You are grasping at straws now in trying to make a case with TOS.

162. MJ - April 5, 2013

Just as I thought and mentioned with my urban legend and subjective opinions remark, now that key issue of the poor ratings down-spiraling in the supposedly improved Seasons 3 and 4 can’t be explained away by the Enterprise defenders, we get a bunch of irrelevant history of UPN and Moonvies again.

Yawn!

Phil said if best:

“The show failed because the ratings tanked. The ratings tanked because the show never found it’s way, it was trying to be TNG in tone, and the stories reeked of formula writing.”

And remember, Phil kind of liked Enterprise. But Phil has “objectivity,” and Phil knows the difference between a fact and a subjective opinion.

Phil calls it like he sees it — I know, because he has called me out on things many times, and the guy is right on those things more than he is not.

163. MJ - April 5, 2013

And Enterprise, in terms of its creative focus — if I may expand upon Phil’s comment — somewhere along the line in creating and launching the show they forgot that it was supposed to be a prequel to TOS, NOT a prequel to TNG. But everything on the show looks more like TNG or Voyager instead of like TOS.

If they had really tried to make something that fit before TOS, I think it could have been a much more compelling show.

And I blame this on Berman, Braga and company….oh whoops, no, it must be ole Moonvies fault, right? ;-)

164. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#160. DiscoSpock – April 5, 2013

“That was before Trek fandom was born.” Believe what you want. I was there. Trek Fandom was born and being heard in th first season.

#161. MJ – April 5, 2013

Read my cited WSJ article. UPN was tanking in ratings overall and that was the responsibility of the new non-Chris-Craft tempered management. Not one series.

And how is it that those numbers got ENTERPRISE cancelled you label
a metric of proof of unworthiness and yet when those same numbers got BSG and SG:A renewed you infer they represent numbers of quality? You can’t have it both ways.

165. Will - April 5, 2013

The fact that Veronica Mars succeeded is just proof that if you ever see Les Moonves on the street you should kick him square in the crotch for not being smart enough to realize fan funding is viable and recognizing the fan fund raising effort back then was just the beginning of that trend.

166. K-7 - April 5, 2013

@165. You must be referring to that that Veronica Mars series that finished 138th in the Nielsen Ratings in 2006 out of 142 shows, right?

:-))

167. DiscoSpock - April 5, 2013

@164. Please don’t try to lecture me on the history of Star Trek. My late father was at the first true Star Trek convention in history in NYC in 1972. That is commonly known as the official birth-date of organized Trek fandom — at least that is what he used to proudly say.

It’s too bad my dad didn’t last until 2009, as Nemesis and Enterprise would the last Star Trek experiences my old man got to see — not a great end for an original Star Trek fan. And Enterprise was also the only Star Trek series that my dad didn’t like. :-(

168. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

@166 “You must be referring to that that Veronica Mars series that finished 138th in the Nielsen Ratings in 2006 out of 142 shows, right?”

Seriously, guys, I mean if you are in the business of TV, and your show is so unpopular that is finishes 138 out of 142, what the hell is any TV Executive suppose to do in that situation? Of course Veronica Mars had to be cancelled — Moonvies made the right call then, even if it is more popular now. No one can predict future popularity of cancelled shows.

I wish Jericho hadn’t been cancelled, but I am a realist. Not enough people watched it. But do I sit around making up “bad guy Executive motives” in TV to blame this on? Of course not.

169. Red Dead Ryan - April 6, 2013

#158.

Look in the mirror, pal. Look in the mirror.

Anyway, I think we’ve beaten this horse into horsemeat.

170. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

168. DiscoSpock

That’s just because you hated Enterprise and you can’t comprehend the facts that were laid out clearly for you.

You and MJ keep talking about the ratings. Yawn. Disinvited showed you proof and facts. You just don’t want to admit the obvious. You two just complin and hate and bitch and moan. Just because you guys hated the show doesn’t mean it was cancelled due to just poor ratings. UPN was dying because of Moonvies… he screwed up many things. Including moving Enterprise into different slots and days. It got lost in the shuffle and ratings continued to plummet because of it.

In syndication run, the show would have run 5 to 7 years, TNG had bad ratings and many markets dropped it after the first season. If it was on a network, we would have never seen a season 3 of TNG.

171. K-7 - April 6, 2013

153. DisgruntledTrekkie – April 5, 2013
DS9 sucked and so AbramsTrek.

154. DisgruntledTrekkie – April 5, 2013
So does AbramsTrek i mean

Wow, we have a real intellectual here, I see. LOL

172. MJ - April 6, 2013

Trek Fan,

I have tried to reason with you and point out the facts. You have relied on subjective opinions that cannot be validated, and making studio folks into cartoon bad guys to explain your alternative “theories”. Moreover, you never were able to provide a credible response to the argument Disco made here as to why the ratings still dropped sharply between seasons 3 and 4, when you claim the shows quality was much improved — this is “the smoking gun” factoid here which you will never be able to answer logically, which is why you fall back to your silly UPN/Les Moonvies excuses.

I get that you love this show and wish it hadn’t been cancelled. I’ll chalk up your passion and love for this show here as your basis for continuing to ignore facts and defend your beloved show to the hilt. You have great intentions, and I do commend you for that!

Now go out and pay that $70 for Season 1…that’s an order! :-)

173. MJ - April 6, 2013

One more thing, Trek Fan. You said:

“TNG had bad ratings and many markets dropped it after the first season.”

This is simply NOT true. TNG in its first three season was very stable, with healthy 11-share Nielsen ratings on average. The bump in the better Seasons 4 and 5 were up to about a 12-share Nielen average, which it pretty much maintained until the end of its run in Season 7.

Sorry, but this is just another example of you just pulling statements out of your butt, dude. Your statement here is factually false — that is a fact.

174. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

173. MJ

Point out facts? You? LoL. You did nothing of the such! All you did was tell me it was cancelled due to ratings. That is it! No facts. No proof. Just alot of hot air as usual. You were presented with facts MJ.

As far as TNG being dropped … It was where I lived. The local Fox affiliate dropped it after season 2. A friend in Tennessee had it dropped after season 1. Another friend in Toronto had it dropped after season 1 as well. Season 1 and 2 weren’t that great. I never saw season 3 first run.

So I’m sorry to say that you are factually wrong MJ. So stop pretending you know it all because you don’t.

Go read the links above that disinvited posted and open your eyes a little. And I don’t have to shell out any money on Enterprise … I recorded all the episodes on DVD when it was on the air. The only thing I have shelled out money on is the TOS remastered and the Trek movies. All the other series are always running on the air.

“TNG in its first three season was very stable, with healthy 11-share Nielsen ratings on average”

Really … which market? It was in syndication run and sold to mostly affiliate stations… not on network TV nationwide. So which market had that 11-share???

175. K-7 - April 6, 2013

#174. Hey guy, MJ tried to be direct with you, but you keep bullshitting here and providing bad information. I just did an internet search myself and verified that the historic ratings that MJ mentions above for TNG were correct; and yes, they are correct.

Sure, from year to year, as with any syndicated show, some stations pick up and some stations drop shows. So the fact that you have some anecdotal information from friend Bubba in Nashville is meaningless. And I know from a friend of mine that every season was shown in Toronto.

176. MJ - April 6, 2013

Trek Fan,

Now you are making me laugh, dude. You are using TNG Seasons 1 and 2, which averaged about an 11-share Neilsen ratings, as examples of how poorly performing shows can be cancelled. (I won’t even mention how any show above a 6-share is considered good ratings, and anything above a 10-share is considered great ratings)

Yet, over and over again, you defend a show, Enterprise, from being cancelled due to ratings, when the ratings were down to a 1.7 share at the end — 85% lower ratings then TNG on average. So we can now agree that of course now finally agree that Enterprise should have been cancelled here since some stations were cancelling TNG with ratings 7 times as high as for Enterprise. This is a no-brainer — I agree!

Thanks for demonstratively proving my point for me. Much obliged.

177. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

175. K-7

Hey, exactly how am I bullshitting? I have given everything factual. I am being direct with you. WHICH MARKET HAD AN 11 SHARE?

Listen, TNG was first run in syndication much like game shows are. It isn’t like when a show has to do 3 seasons before it can be sold INTO syndication. There is a difference between the two. Why do you think game shows are on the air for so long? With the exception of a few, they are in first run syndication… meaning no network tie. No answering to national network ratings. It is sold to individual stations. THAT is how TNG was sold. It wasn’t tied to any network – it was in first run syndication so it could be sold to FOX affiliates and CBS affiliates and ABC affiliates, etc. It could never be cancelled as a whole unless the producers wanted to stop making it or no stations wanted to buy it. Unlike Voyager and Enterprise that were tied to a network and the producers had to bide by that network because that was who was shelling out the cash.

Do some research before opening your mouth K7 – you constantly do that here.

“…anecdotal information from friend Bubba in Nashville…” What a bloody ignorant comment to make. What are you? 12?

178. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 6, 2013

Hello All,

The reason some syndicated stations cancelled TNG during the first couple of years was due to the price Paramount was charging for the series. The ratings were very healthy nationally, but some stations in certain regions where Trek was not as popular couldn’t justify the cost.

I would add that Enterprise, with its horrid ratings, would have been dropped unilaterally all over North America if they had tried the syndication route like TNG did.

179. Red Dead Ryan - April 6, 2013

Trek Fan,

Dude, TNG was obviously doing great in the ratings. More stations were picking it up as the seasons wore on. Maybe a couple dropped the show after the second season, but I suspect that they were in a tiny minority, and am willing to bet even some of those stations had a change of heart after “The Best Of Both Worlds” cliffhanger.

TNG was an expensive show to produce. Paramount would not have kept it on the air had the ratings been as low as “Enterprise”s. Stations would have given up on it had the viewers not tuned in.

And yeah, “Enterprise” improved in the third and fourth seasons, but it was too late to stop the bleeding. CBS made the right decision to cancel the show. If you’re not getting the ratings, then the show has to be axed.

180. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

176. MJ

So… WHICH market had an 11 share?

Some shows with lower ratings than Enterprise still survived… some shows with rating higher than Enterprise were cancelled. It all depending is a network will back that show. There were shows that were strong in ratings but dropped off the screen due to lack of Network support.

Take a look at the show “Birds of Prey” … a horrible show that is a first run syndication show. Luckily not on the air anymore, but it had lower ratings in most markets than Enterprise did. And BSG had lower ratings at some points compared to Enterprise.

How about you go read the links that disinvited posted – maybe then you will understand how UPN never backed Enterprise and had it’s fingers into everything.

Maybe you should not dismiss what other people are saying so quickly – you don’t know it all MJ.

I have provided factual statements and disinvited posted proof for you. What have you provide? Lots of BS and hot air.

181. Red Dead Ryan - April 6, 2013

“Battlestar Galactica” was more critically acclaimed, plus it wasn’t nearly as expensive to produce. Also, the ratings were better.

182. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

179. Red Dead Ryan

Oh, I’m not debating the fact taht Enterprise had low ratings – I’m just trying to show what contributed to the low ratings. UPN was not a network that ws in every market. Most places didn’t even have a UPN or CW affiliate. The saturation of Enterpise wasn’t as deep as shows like TNG or DS9 which were in first run syndication. And most people had to pay for UPN or CW if they wanted the networks – some cable companies did not offer it on a basic package.

If Enterprise didn’t have Moovies and UPN to answer to… having to change scripts or add certain story lines or sex up the show, etc… if it was given the treatment that TNG had (meaning no network to answer to) then we would have had better stories from the start, less soap opera-ish plots, less T&A… it would have had a better chance.

Unfortunately, because of the poor ratings form the first 2 season and UPN time slot shifting it … people gave up on it.

183. MJ - April 6, 2013

Just hut up and read the data, dude — here you go:

http://www.madmind.de/2009/05/02/all-star-trek-movies-and-episodes-in-two-charts/

And this analysis specifically concludes:

“What’s astonishing is the rather small decline of viewership in the first two abysmal seasons.”

And also, Einstein, look and you will see for yourself the multiple first and second season episode Neilsen shares of above an 11-share…exactly as I tried to tell you, but which you insist I am wrong on.

And look at the F-ing graph of TNG ratings — exactly as I said, very stable at about 11-share the first three season, then moving to about 12-shares for the duration of the series…exactly like I tried to tell you, but which you refuse to believe for some reason? WTF — why would I lie about numbers like this here?????

Yea, I called your bluff, dude.

184. MJ - April 6, 2013

“Unfortunately, because of the poor ratings form the first 2 season and UPN time slot shifting it … people gave up on it.”

Oh, please, do I have to paint this picture for you again? I agree with this.

THE POINT here though that you keep ingoring (except for the UPN/Moonvies nonsense) is that you and others tell us that the quality significantly improved in Season 3 and Season 4. So at the very least, the ratings downturn should have stopped, if not reversed, if the quality was finally improving. You still have not been able to explain this logically to anyone’s satisfaction here?

185. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

This sad news, Maybe we can all agree on that:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/star-trek-set-designer-mees-dies_2013-04-06.html

#178. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – April 6, 2013

What are you talking about? It went into rerun syndication immediately after network cancellation.

http://www.trektoday.com/news/270805_02.shtml

If it was as bad as you said they never could have sold that syndication idea to anyone.

#177. Trek Fan – April 6, 2013

Excellent explanation.

186. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 6, 2013

Trek Fan said: “Most places didn’t even have a UPN or CW affiliate.”

This is a misleading statement. Virtually all the major metropolitan markets had a UPN affiliate. However, many small town or out of the way markets did not — hence you can claim “most places” like you do here, but that is really intellectually dishonest, since 90% of Americans live in major markets and had access to UPN.

187. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

183. MJ

Listen, you still haven’t shown me which market had an 11 share. What was the saturation of TNG in first run syndication compared to the saturation of Enterprise?

TNG had a higher saturation into the market because it was able to run in most markets on more than one station. Enterprise was carried on UPN. UPN as a whole has less of a market share due to the fact that they were not in every market.

Once again – if TNG was tied to a network like UPN, who had less market saturation, would not have survived past the second season.

In some markets, you were able to catch TNG on FOX and CBS. With Enterprise, you could only catch it on UPN… IF your market even carried UPN.

You keep seem to be missing the point as to why it had bad ratings in the first place. And how the network bosses didn’t want it to last. They tossed it around the different time slots. THAT and the bad ratings from the first two seasons, please gave up on it or couldn’t find it and it died. Which was too bad because the last 2 seasons were great. It found it’s legs and the writers were better. It’s too bad that the network didn’t support and promote the show.

So how about you finally just shut up as well. You come across as so incredibly arrogant.

188. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 6, 2013

Disinvited said: “What are you talking about? It went into rerun syndication immediately after network cancellation.”

You are mixing apples and oranges here. The cost of the completed Enterprise series was priced accordingly for “repeat syndication” given that the series was already completed (i.e. production costs were sunk costs). This is completely different than a “first run syndication series” like TNG, where you charge syndication fees to pay for production costs. There is no way an expensive show like Enterprise could have been successful as a “first run syndication series” with ratings at the 1.7 share level. But sure, once the series is done, CBS can make up whatever low price they want to get a poorly performing series to be accepted into “repeat syndication”.

189. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

186. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle

UPN and CW was not on a basic cable package. You either had to pay for it, you didn’t have it or it was carried. It wasn’t as readily available as ABC, NBC or CBS.

UPN had 143 stations that were owned and operated. Compare that to ABC, NBC or CBS. Not to mention that UPN was not available outside the US, whereas the other networks are.

190. MJ - April 6, 2013

@187. “Listen, you still haven’t shown me which market had an 11 share.”

I have shown you date which show a national average of an 11-share. If you know 5th grade math, then you can certainly work it out for youself that to calculate averages, this would mean that some markets were above and 11-share and some markets were below and 11-share. If you can’t see this, then I pity you.

“Once again – if TNG was tied to a network like UPN, who had less market saturation, would not have survived past the second season.”

You are just making up this shit, dude. Come on, this is not credible. And you know it.

“So how about you finally just shut up as well. You come across as so incredibly arrogant.”

I think I will. You cannot see logic, and when I finally present you the data, instead of acknowledging it, you nitpick and pretty much ignore it all.

And if I am incredibly arrogant, then you are incredibly stupid.

191. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

188. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle

If Enterprise was sold initially in first run syndication instead of tied to a network … it would have had a higher rating than it did. It was doomed from the start with the demands of UPN on the producers to produce a show the network wanted.

192. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

#184. MJ – April 6, 2013

UPN as a network was losing viewers and money all over the place. Clearly Moonves was a Carnival captain tipping his ship. How have you determined that ENTERPRISE slid off the deck and fell into the drink solely of its own accord? They way you seem to paint it ENTERPRISE’s seasons 3 and 4 single-handedly sank UPN and I just don’t buy that assertion.

And I’ll repeat, if it was that much of a turkey how the hell did Les successfully syndicate reruns of it immediately thereafter?

Why DVDs and Blu-rays after that if Moonves has access to your highly accurate market data indicating there is no market?

193. Red Dead Ryan - April 6, 2013

MJ, you presented Trek Fan with the facts, and he threw it back in your face. He refuses to face the truth here, and all you’re doing is driving yourself crazy.

Trying to convince “Trek Fan” of the truth is like trying to convince George Takei that he wasn’t the star of TOS.

Some people refuse to accept reality and face facts.

194. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 6, 2013

Trek Fan,

From TV Guide: “It was estimated in 2003 that UPN was viewable by 85.98% of all households, reaching 91,689,290 houses in the United States.”

This does not agree here with your posts where you are trying to make the case that UPN and Enterprise not be available to most people.

I am starting to see why MJ keeps claiming that you are basically making things up as you go along here.

195. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

190. MJ

Maybe it’s you that is incredibly stupid. UPN had 143 owned and operated stations that were required to carry all their shows. They also had another 65 stations that carried some of their shows but were not full affiliates, they had the rights to use the name “UPN” and run whichever shows they wanted. First run syndication reached far more viewers and markets than UPN did. TNG was sold world wide and made shitloads of money. UPN was only available in the US. So, no, I am not making this up.

196. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 6, 2013

Disinvited said: “And I’ll repeat, if it was that much of a turkey how the hell did Les successfully syndicate reruns of it immediately thereafter?”

Disinvited, I responded to your earlier post on this. In re-run syndication, they can price a show like Enterprise for whatever the market will bear, as they don’t have to recoup any production costs like they would with a first run series. So Les probably sold it for peanuts — that’s why you saw it immediately in syndication.

197. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

192. Disinvited

Don’t bother with him – when MJ gets something in his head, he has blinders on. He refuses to see anything other than what he believes to be true. He has basically ignored anything you are trying to show him. He does this all the time. His is the only opinion that is right apparently.

198. MJ - April 6, 2013

Disinvited,

Yes, actually you are right. I never meant to imply that Enterprise sank UPN.

It’s been good and fun discussing this with you, my friend. However, because this other guy and I are starting to get uncomfortably personal now, I am going to “disinvite” (pun intended) myself from this debate, effective immediately.

@195 – Trek Fan: You can have the last word — CONGRATS !!!

199. Red Dead Ryan - April 6, 2013

#195.

You owe MJ an apology for the insults you’ve been directing at him.

Of course, in your case, insulting someone else is in reality your unintentional and subconcious way of admitting that you lost the argument.

200. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

#188. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle

Also, you were typing about the “horrid” ratings which didn’t happen until season 4 so bringing up first run syndication is a non sequitur.

201. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

199. Red Dead Ryan

Actually – he owes me an apology. If you read his post, he was the one that initially insulted me – I ended up sinking to his level.

202. K-7 - April 6, 2013

Red Dead Ryan,

From a sheer entertainment point of view from me sitting here at my computer in my boring little life here tonight, it’s been a lot of fun here watching Trek Fan implode as MJ and his facts/data carved him and his bullcrap up like a Christmas ham. LOL

203. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

Oh, and MJ – I never said you were arrogant… I said you come across as arrogant.

204. MJ - April 6, 2013

I am a man. I apologize.

205. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

#194. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – April 6, 2013

Look at your numbers again. They have to be off. The number of households in the US in 2003 had to be far in excess of 92 million.

206. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

202. K-7

I was wondering when you would pop up… where MJ and Ryan are, K7 is close by. Interesting how that happens.

I don’t see any of MJ’s “facts” yet he was presented with facts and figures from the start… not inly from me but from disinvited as well. All we had was MJ’s “opinion” yet again.

And if you check MY facts, you will see that everything I said is right there in black and white. All fact, no bullcrap.

207. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

Just logged back on here. A George Takei, “oh my,” is all I can say regarding Trek Fan’s posts since I went out for the evening.

I am going to leave well enough alone here since it seems like this has run its course. I think those viewing this discussion after the fact will easily be able to deduce the correct conclusions from this debate. Facts talk, bullshit walks.

208. Dave H - April 6, 2013

Does this Trek Fan person ever shut up?

New topic, please?

209. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

207. DiscoSpock

All my facts are there – all you have to do is take a look at what disinvited and I wrote and you can see there is no BS there. And yes, people are quite familiar the other players on here and how they “play”. ’nuff said.

210. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

#209. Sure, whatever you say… :-)

211. K-7 - April 6, 2013

What DiscoSpock said.

212. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

211. K-7

Of course.

213. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 6, 2013

Disinvited said: “Look at your numbers again. They have to be off. The number of households in the US in 2003 had to be far in excess of 92 million.”

I quoted that 85.98% of all households in the U.S. (that UPN reached reached was equivalent to 91.7 million houses in 2003. Multiplying this by 100/86.98, we get 100% of all households in 2003 is equivalent to 105.4 million total households.

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 105.5 million households in the USA in the year 2000:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-8.pdf

So my information here is accurate.

I beg of you — please don’t be like Trek Fan and try to ignore or besmirch this information like he always does.

214. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

213. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle

PN had 143 owned and operated stations that were required to carry all their shows. They also had another 65 stations that carried some of their shows but were not full affiliates, they had the rights to use the name “UPN” and run whichever shows they wanted. Some were also FOX or CBS stations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_UPN_affiliates

First run syndication reached far more viewers and markets than UPN did. TNG was sold world wide and made shitloads of money. UPN was only available in the US.

215. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 6, 2013

Nothing personal, Trek Fan, but I didn’t work my butt off for years to get my PhD in Mathematics to have to argue with people who ignore numbers, refuse to analyze trends, and are generally dismissive of factual information.

I don’t really see any utility in you and I having any further discussion here. Why waste the time?

Later…

216. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

#213. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – April 6, 2013

No, it just seemed to me that we in the US crossed a billion in population a while back. Wow, we must be packed. ;-)

But I can challenge your peanuts syndication contention:

http://trekmovie.com/2006/09/05/hdtos-is-replacing-enterprise-in-syndication/

As you can see ENTERPRISE’s original syndicated rerun deal which was made before its plug was pulled was to last until 09/07/08. Now the interesting thing is CBS pulled a switcheroo and substituted remastered ToS for those original syndication licensees a year later. Now, I think we both are reasonable and can agree there’s no way CBS would have done that for a contract that was negotiated merely for “peanuts”.

Also note Trekmovie quotes an affiliate as saying “we could have got out of the contract if we made a stink, but decided to stick with it.”

217. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 6, 2013

Disinvited,

Well, sure, I didn’t really mean like $500 and a toaster. :-) But I would bet that the syndication fee for Enterprise was significantly lower than any other Trek series in recent history. And also, the fact that they pulled it early to replace it with TOS-remastered — doesn’t that likely imply that Enterprise wasn’t exactly a hit in syndication?

In any case, the link you provided provides no dollar values, so neither of us really know the specific dollar value here of Enterprise in syndication.

218. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

#217. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – April 6, 2013

According to CBS Paramount Televesion President John Nogawski “it is just a coincidence”.

My interpretation is CBS didn’t want ENTERPRISE on the air competing with the slick way they decided to get paid for advertising for their remastered box sets. And I think the affiliate quote makes it clear they weren’t demanding a substitution.

219. Thomas - April 6, 2013

I know people like to say, “Never say never”, but Enterprise is done. Netflix may track viewership of its streaming video, but I’d think this would be more likely to move them to develop their own Trek series rather than revive an old series that hasn’t been on the air for eight years. Before anyone starts clamoring about Arrested Development, that was a show that , while cancelled, never really fell off the pop culture radar on which Enterprise was barely a blip. Besides, the new episodes are going to tie into the new Arrested Development movie that’s coming out.

220. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 6, 2013

Disinvited,

I agree. That makes sense.

221. K-7 - April 6, 2013

“Nothing personal, Trek Fan, but I didn’t work my butt off for years to get my PhD in Mathematics to have to argue with people who ignore numbers, refuse to analyze trends, and are generally dismissive of factual information. I don’t really see any utility in you and I having any further discussion here. Why waste the time?”

Trek Fan. Bubbie! Ouch!!!

LOL

222. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

#219. Thomas – April 6, 2013

I know. that’s like saying Richard Hatch would ever appear again in another new episode of 1970′s BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Like that would ever happen in this millennium. Oh wait, it did.

223. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

215. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle

Well for someone that got their PhD in Math … you sure seem to be ignoring other numbers. Circulation and saturation of a product into the market. TNG was viewed first run across the globe and not just regulated to an US network with 143 stations & another 65 that may or may not have carried that show. How much money TNG made from initial sales and then advertising revenue compared to what UPN shelled out for production costs and only taking in ad sales revenue. They were losing money off of it initially. Understand?

224. Thomas - April 6, 2013

222. Disinvited
I’ll grant you a few points:
1. Hatch did appear on nu-BSG in a few episodes, but only after having been a vocal critic of the show early on, as he had tried to pitch his own continuation of the original series subtitled “The Second Coming”.

2. No doubt there are people who would watch Enterprise on Netflix (I’ll admit I’d check out any new episodes even though ENT is responsible for nearly killing my love for Trek). It’s just that I don’t think Netflix would go back to a show that didn’t generate much interest the first time around. That’s the thing everyone needs to recognize about Arrested Development: that’s a show people continued to talk about even after it ended. The creators of the show helped keep that talk alive by trying to bring the show back in some form, years before the Netflix/new movie that’s going on. Who else besides Brannon Braga and Scott Bakula is interested in bringing it back? Is CBS/Paramount interested, the ones who would actually be in a position to greenlight any new Trek project? Hasn’t the official line been that all the key players involved are interested in Trek as a film franchise and not television at the moment?

3. It’s clear that people want Trek back on television. I’d love to see a new series; hey, it might even be a Netflix original. I just don’t think ENT is that show. I’ll grant you that Arrested Development has been off the air nearly as long as ENT (since 2006), but it was a show the public embraced even as (like Firefly) it was on Fox, a network that really didn’t know what to do with it.

4. This point has been made before, but it’s perfectly valid here: for Trek to be a continued success, it needs to appeal to a broader fanbase. The best way for that to happen is with a brand new series with a storytelling dynamic that’s a little closer to the JJverse than previous Treks (not exactly like it, but close to it). Looking at this thread, diehard Trekkies can’t even agree that they would want ENT back. It’s not really in the best interest of the Ftanhise as a whole to go back to ENT when even the pre-existing fans agree whether it should come back or not.

All that to say, I’d like to say Star Trek back on television, but I don’t think new episodes of ENT will be made, nor is taking a step backward good for the franchise.

225. Thomas - April 6, 2013

Ftanhise should be “Franchise”. I’m not really sure why it says that.

226. MikeB - April 6, 2013

Please bring Enterprise back, but fix the known problems. It needs an original theme song. You can use the same song for the closing credits. I’m lukewarm about the dog. (Either get rid of him or don’t take him on any more away missions.) Stop trying to sex it up with T’Pol and stop lightening her hair color. She’s a great Vulcan. (Can you imagine doing that with Spock!?) Two things that are suspect for resolving plots are awakening from a dream sequence and time travel. This screams cop out.
The 2 hour shows sound like a good idea to me. More time to have a plot. And please do more clever shows with new technology and new aliens that are not hostile. I’m referring to Season 3′s assumption that all aliens are hostile. When I watch Star Trek I would like to escape to a better place. The continuous war and negativity in Season 3 probably cost viewers. It wears you down. The writers must have the vision of a better, more interesting place.

227. Red Shirt Diaries - April 6, 2013

Wow, just seeing all of the conversation here from last night! A few observations:

1. When Trek Fan was presented with actual ratings numbers, he basically ingored them? In fact, every time anyone here brought up numbers or real information, Trek fan pretty much ignored the information and instead launched into diatribes about UPN and Les M. And when backed into a corner, he provides throwaway lines like referring to overseas ratings and profits of Trek shows, but unlike MJ, he brings not cited information to the table to back up his claim?

2. When Trek Fan was provided with TV guide data providing the number of households in 2003 (nearly 90%) that received UPN, in instead of acknowledging the number accurate, he provided generalized Wikipedia information on UPN stations which had no bearding on the TV guide numbers?

3. When Red Dead Ryan and Trek Fan called for apologies to be provided due the discussion starting to go personal, MJ immediately apologized without any excuses to Trek Fan; Trek Fan ignored ed the apology and did not offer his own?

4. When it became clear here that most people were not buying into Trek Fan’s arguments, he started suggestion that Red Dead Ryan and K-7 must be sock-puppets of MJ.

In summary, this Trek Fan guy obviously is not coming to our table here to have an open exchange of information and ideas. His agenda seems to be a much more personal one, and logic, truth and real information be damned.

PS: Folks, watch, I am sure that Trek Fan will now suggest that I am a sock-puttet of MJ’s or Red Dead Ryan’s. Because it could never be that Trek Fan would be severely outnumbered by people who disagree with him — of course that could never, ever happen. :-)

228. Dave H - April 6, 2013

Red Shirt Diaries,

Amen, Brother (or Sister?)! Reading that guys posts last night, I wanted to throw up.

This is the same reason why the government can’t solve it’s problems. The smart people bring up real numbers and data, and then the selfish politicians, who have axes to grind and scores to settle, ignore the real information, and instead start basically manufacturing conclusions from limited information or conjecture — and then largely succeed in getting the public to believe that these must be facts, because a politician said it.

And like the corrupt politicians, this guy never knows when its time to shut up. He really should run for public office, me thinks.

229. Dave H - April 6, 2013

And by the way, I was stationed in Germany in the early 2000′s, and I did watch Enterprise there. So that guy claiming that is was not shown overseas during its initial run is completely false. Again, illustrating another politicians tactic — “not knowing what you are talking about.”

230. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

#224. Thomas – April 6, 2013

Thank you for granting me that.

But I think the mistake you are making is you are thinking in old school either/or funding limitations of CBS organizing funds and putting them up and risking major limited CBS money for a particular Trek TV series/movie/miniseries production. With kickstater, raising most of the upfront money that’s being risked is no longer a factor for CBS to fret about. You also have to be cognizant that all US network television shows are made at a loss for their production companies; never recovering their expenses from their network licensing fees. Those production companies’ goals are to make enough episodes (about 100) to make a go of rerun syndication which is where they get their returns that recoup their money and then turn a profit.

The only other possible mitigating factor is whether CBS believes in the “diluted product” bogeyman/scapegoat but I don’t see how they could because if they did they’d “vault” their home video retail releases like Disney does to maximize their value against such a phenomenon. And they’ve never seemed to be concerned about that in that they’ve never hesitated to come up with some excuse to come out with another “edition” of a boxed set for a series that they’ve already released and marketed in home video.

I would like to see a return of Trek to major network television, but you need to be aware that wasn’t ENTERPRISE’s fault. There was a demand:

http://business.highbeam.com/2012/article-1G1-66933447/boldly-want

“LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – Whatever the newest incarnation of “Star Trek” will be is a closely guarded secret but it’s generating interest among the networks. An NBC spokeswoman said Wednesday that the network has told Paramount that “if a ‘Star Trek’ series becomes available, NBC would definitely be interested in it.” Fox was known to have inquired about the availability of the new “Star Trek” series some months ago. It remains unclear whether Paramount is shopping the project or intends to take it directly to UPN, home of “Star Trek: Voyager,” which ends its seven-season run in May.”

CBS/Paramount just stuck to limited either/or thinking and made the wrong call. Good TV Trek needs an outside leavening force to mitigate against CBS’ foolish “greed’ decision bean countering.

http://www.youwoncannes.com/2013/03/30/star-trek-enterprise-season-1-blu-ray/

“The notes they got from the suits were the worst they had ever seen. The suits wanted a band to be featured on the show every week.”

#226. MikeB – April 6, 2013

Agreed. If a new production doesn’t address those issues in their Kickstarter appeal, they aren’t getting my money. But neither do I want them to be denied the right to make their appeal for this old vision, if that is their choice. There may be a market for it. It just won’t be us and in the US we believe in the freedom to possibly fail when it comes to art.

231. Gowron - April 6, 2013

Dave H,

Enterprise was also shown here in the UK during its initial run.

232. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

Wow guys, Get on the Ole MJ bandwagon again. Actually, I never disputed the fact that Enterprise had low ratings. I acknowledged it repeatedly.

I was constantly ignored and walked over when trying to present why Enterprise was done differently thank TNG or DS9 and how Moovies and the viewership to UPN was lower than that of the first run syndicated TNG.

And I never said that you couldn’t watch Enterprise outside of the US – I said that UPN was not available outside the US. In the US – TNG had a wider audience because it was sometime on two or more stations in the same market. But Enterprise would only be on UPN and not another station in the same market.

Not brain surgery guys. But if you want to bash me, go right ahead. Everything you just wrote about me was false.

MJ did not apologize for insulting me – he apologized for not seeing that I didn’t call him arrogant.

And just because UPN was in 88% of the market does not mean 88% of the market was watching UPN. I never disputed that. But you guys seem to have ignored everything I stated. A little hypocritical, no?

And Dave, how am I making up numbers? I posted a link as well. Did I fake that? Oh wait – the conspiracy theorists will say yes.

You guys completely missed the point I was trying to make because you were too busy bashing me. I never once said that low ratings weren’t the reason it was cancelled – I was trying to show you the reasons why it had low ratings and was eventually cancelled. And how, if given the same treatment as TNG, would have been able to go a full 7 years like the other shows.

Small minds guys. Small minds. You can’t see past your own beliefs.

233. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

Trek Fan: “TNG was viewed first run across the globe and not just regulated to a US network”
+++++++++++++++++

Dave H: “I was stationed in Germany in the early 2000′s, and I did watch Enterprise there.”

Gowron: “Enterprise was also shown here in the UK during its initial run.”

WHOOPS! There he (Trek Fan) goes again. Footloose and fancy-free with the facts. :-(

234. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

233. DiscoSpock

Well, if you ACTUALLY read my post you would see that I never said that Enterprise wasn’t seen in just the US. I said UPN was available in just the US.

Good Lord, read my post above.

235. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

No you didn’t!

When you specifically said, “and not just regulated to a US network,” that is saying that Enterprise was regulated only to a network in the U.S. Any objective person would take that away from reading this sentence.

Show some integrity here for a change please and take responsibility for what you said.

236. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

Maybe I can explain this in a way that you guys will understand….

TNG:

First run syndicated.
Not tied to a specific network.
Able to run on many stations in same market.
Wider worldwide release and saturation.
Stations would run TNG in prime time slots.

ENTERPRISE:
Tied to UPN.
Smaller market base in the US.
Only available on UPN stations in certain markets.
When available on UPN, was not on another station in same market.
Moonvies timeslot shifted Enterprise and finally put it on a Friday timeslot.

Does that make my point a little more clear to you guys? Sheesh.

237. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

That is not what you initially said. And I understand perfectly what you initially said.

YOU ARE A LIAR!

Continue to try to weasel out of if it you must, but YOU ARE A LIAR!

238. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

235. DiscoSpock

Dude, I was talking about how TNG was a first run syndicated show and how Enterprise was tied to a US network.

TNG was sold world wide in many different markets – often on more than one station in that same market.

UPN was a US based station that was only available in the US. It had stricter sales restrictions. Enterprise was sold outside the US but did not have the saturation as a first run syndication show does.

Never one above did I say that Enterprise wasn’t available outside the US. I said UPN was. Get your facts straight before you start bashing me.

239. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

That is not what you said originally, and you know it. You said specifically: “and not just regulated to a US network.”

LIAR!

240. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

237. DiscoSpock

SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT ENTERPRISE WAS NOT AVAILABLE OUTSIDE THE US. How dare you call me a liar when I never stated that.

Go ahead – which post did I write where it stated that Enterprise was not available outside the US.

241. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

LIAR!

242. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

239. DiscoSpock

DUH … TNG WASN’T regulated to a US network. How is that a lie? It was first run syndicated. You were able to find it on FOX or ABC or NBC or ABC … other on more than one network affiliate in the same market.

243. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

241. DiscoSpock

PROVE THAT. Show me which post I lied in. Which post? If I did in fact say that Enterprise wasn’t available outside the US – should be easy for you to tell me which post I said that in.

What’s the matter? Can’t find it? All I am asking is for you to prove to me I wrote that. Give me a post number.

244. Dave H - April 6, 2013

DiscoSpock,

You are completely correct here. This guy just makes up shit to back his posts, and you’ve caught him red-handed in a lie.

Stand your ground. Don’t let him bully you out of this.

245. Khan was Framed! - April 6, 2013

Here’s some criticism for you, Scott:

Enterprise was amazing!

And your appearance on Two & a Half Men this week was hilarious.

You’re awesome!

And I look VERY forward to watching the Enterprise Romulan War mini-series on Netflix.

246. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

244. Dave H

Okay – since you agree with him – how about you show me where I lied.

Can you show me which post I said that Enterprise was not available outside the US? If you guys think I wrote that, they it will be easy to prove by showing me the post number. Right?

The thing is – I never wrote that. Never once stated that Enterprise wasn’t available outside the US.

247. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

No one can show me which post I “supposedly” wrote that Enterprise wasn’t available outside the US?

I rest my case.

248. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

@244

Thanks, Dave H. Don’t worry, I am not intimidated by him, nor will I take his bait here to let him weasel out of this. I’ll mention it one more time here, to avoid the confusion that Trek fan would like to sow here for others’ who will be reading these posts — this was my response to him above:

“When you specifically said, “and not just regulated to a US network,” that is saying that Enterprise was regulated only to a network in the U.S. Any objective person would take that away from reading this sentence.”

This is pretty cut and dry. But he is now trying to twist this around and weasel out of it. I’m not falling for it, and I doubt that anyone else will here either. And since he is now denying it, he can objectively be branded a “LIAR” here by all of us collectively.

Trek Fan is a LIAR! There is no getting around that. It is not a nice word, and I don’t like to use it, but unfortunately, it fits here.

249. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

248. DiscoSpock

No, Disco – I said that “TNG was first run syndicated and not just regulated to a US network.”

I never said that Enterprise wasn’t seen outside the US. I said that it was tied to a US network.

Interesting how you only quote a partial quote without the rest of it. If you read the full quote, the you would see that I never said what you are insinuating.

If I am a liar – prove it. You said that I said Enterprise wasn’t seen outside the US. Show me where I said that.

Stop calling me a liar when you have no proof of what you are insinuating. I will not be bullied by the likes of you.

250. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

“No, Disco – I said that “TNG was first run syndicated and not just regulated to a US network.”

Exactly. And the comparison was to ENTERPRISE/UPN. That was what the sentence was about. Here is the full paragraph:

“Well for someone that got their PhD in Math … you sure seem to be ignoring other numbers. Circulation and saturation of a product into the market. TNG was viewed first run across the globe and not just regulated to an US network with 143 stations & another 65 that may or may not have carried that show. How much money TNG made from initial sales and then advertising revenue compared to what UPN shelled out for production costs and only taking in ad sales revenue. They were losing money off of it initially. Understand?”

So, IT IS COMPLETELY OBVIOUS to anyone here reading this, that when you said here, ” and not just regulated to an US network with 143 stations & another 65.” THAT YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY CONTRASTING THIS WITH ENTERPRISE ON UPN — that Enterprise is stuck only on a U.S. network.

Come on LIAR, admit it? Take responsibility; show some integrity for a change.

251. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

Still waiting to see where I was lying, Disco.

How is anything there I said a lie? Was TNG in first run syndication? Yes. Was it tied to a US network? No. Did it have higher saturation by being on more than one station in the same market? Yes. Was Enterprise in first run syndication? No. Was it tied to a US network? Yes. Was it on more than one station in the same market? No.

So because TNG was first run syndicated and not regulated to a US network gave it a higher saturation and higher viewership that Enterprise who was not in first run syndication and regulated to a US network.

Unlike ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX – UPN was not available outside the US. Countries like Canada and Mexico who do get the other networks would not see Enterprise on UPN – the would have to rely on if a station in their country bought the show from UPN.

What I was trying to say is that if Enterprise was given the same treatment as TNG… MEANING, if they were on first run syndication and not tied to a network – they wouldn’t have had to bow down to the demands of UPN. The producers were freeer to do what the wanted with TNG and DS9.

What is so difficult to understand Disco. Where in there have I lied?

252. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

Or do you want me to dumb it down for you more? This is the point you are missing. You are so focused on thinking I lied saying that Enterprise was available only in the US, you missed the whole point to my posts. Plus – nowhere did I ever state that.

253. MJ - April 6, 2013

Disco, give it up. He doesn’t respond to reasoning or facts. Winning the argument at all costs is his only goal.

Remember, this was the guy who demanded I provide proof of my claim of 11-share ratings for TNG in Seasons 1 and 2, Then why I provided the data points on a graph covering all TNG episdoe Neilsen ratings that clearly [proved this, all of a suddent he wanted me to instead to provide market-specific data with 11-shares, which of course I doubt anybody except a Neilsen paid database woudl have at this point in time. So again, I provide the factual evidence, and instad of saying, “Oh, OK, I see that your ratings information was about right.” he instead tried a “bait and switch” by asking a question that is impossible to answer with publically avaialble data.

And for the record, the guy specifically asked for an apology fromr me in Post 201: “Actually – he owes me an apology. If you read his post, he was the one that initially insulted me – I ended up sinking to his level.” Based on his rquest, I responded immediately with an apology, with no strings attached or conditions in Post 203: “I am a man. I apologize.” This is pretty uneqivocal, but yet in Post 232 he claims: “MJ did not apologize for insulting me – he apologized for not seeing that I didn’t call him arrogant.” Where this fuk did this come from? He said I owed him an apology and I immediately apologixed to him directy, with no strings like this attached as he is suggesting. This is completelyh disengenuous.

I may be an arrogant blowhard myself on this site, but I at least know the diference between facts and opinions, truth and fiction, honor and dishonor, and integrity and sleaziness.

And NO, I will not address this person directly here anymore, although I am sure this post will generate multipl long posts of disinformation, character attacks and whining on me; but I am happy to converse with others.

254. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

Trek Fan, I’ll repeat myself again:

IT IS COMPLETELY OBVIOUS to anyone here reading this, that when you said here, ” and not just regulated to an US network with 143 stations & another 65.” THAT YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY CONTRASTING THIS WITH ENTERPRISE ON UPN — that Enterprise is stuck only on a U.S. network.

You are a LIAR.
.

255. Dave H - April 6, 2013

Give it up, guy. You lied — we all know it, including you.

Admit it, move on, and stop wasting everybody’s time here.

256. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

253. MJ

Are you guys all hard headed or just like ganging up on people? I asked Disco to show me where I wrote that Enterprise wasn’t available outside the US. He skirted around the issue. Posted half quotes, but never showed that I said that. He is trying to tell me that I am lying about that yet he continues to avoid showing where I wrote that. Not only that, but he misunderstood what my point is. I tried to explain it better to him – yet he is so focused on this “lying about Enterprise only in the US” thing that he isn’t seeing what I was initially trying to get across.

As for you, I had just said to you that “I wasn’t calling you arrogant, I was saying that you came across as arrogant.” To which you apologized for in the post right after. I assumed that was for misunderstanding and think I was calling you arrogant. I never attacked your character either.

You guys are making up fictional posts and telling people I wrote things I never did. Go back up and read the posts.

You same bunch of people do this constantly with people that have differing opinions than your own. I will not put up with your bulling and slander.

I posted facts. If you don’t like the facts I posted, it doesn’t make them lies – it just is something YOU don’t believe in. Did you ever bother to read what I wrote? Did you ever take a look at what I was trying to say?

257. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

255. Dave H

Once again Dave – WHERE DID I LIE?? SHOW ME THE POST NUMBER. SHOW ME WHERE LIED!

If you can’t show me this, then stop calling me a liar. Because that is starting to become harassment.

258. Red Shirt Diaries - April 6, 2013

MJ, it looks like you have caught him in another lie based on him making up stuff about your apology to him??? An apology he himself had requsted of you, as I had refernced in my earlier post.

This guy is shameless. It makes me depressed to be a ST Fan today (I feel dirty using the phrase “Trek Fan” here now, hence I weant with “ST”).

259. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

254. DiscoSpock

Once again Disco – NO I AM NOT CONTRASTING THAT. I am stating … and please use the FULL quote…

” TNG was in first run syndicated and not just regulated to a US network which gave it a higher saturation and higher viewership that Enterprise who was not in first run syndication and regulated to a US network.”

in a separate point, I was showing someone else how many stations UPN had at the time. Which was 143 plus 65 affiliates.

TWO SEPARATE point Einstein.

260. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

258. Red Shirt Diaries

Excuse me…

” 203. Trek Fan – April 6, 2013
Oh, and MJ – I never said you were arrogant… I said you come across as arrogant.

204. MJ – April 6, 2013
I am a man. I apologize.”

261. MJ - April 6, 2013

@256. I’ll tell you what, Trek Fan, if you give me the credit I am due for providing the valid data for the 11-share TNG national ratings to prove that point that I was trying to make (with not smart quips or qualifiers), and then I will be happy to put this to bed for my part. And I will call on others to do the same.

262. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

261. MJ

Fair enough, MJ. Thank you for providing me with the link to the TNG National ratings. I appreciate that.

And I appreciate you being level headed.

263. MJ - April 6, 2013

Thanks, Trek Fan.

And I can see now how we misunderstood each other on the apologies.

We are probably more alike than not.

I’d urge everybody now to wrap this up and move onto other topics.

264. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

“Forgive, but do not forget.” “Trust, but verify.”

I agree that we need to find a new topic.

265. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

264. DiscoSpock

Oh please. Could have done without the final little digs.

263. MJ

Thank you MJ – I appreciate your understanding of the matter. And you are probably right. I was just trying to get my point across like you were and it frustrated me that some people had kept insisting upon something completely wrong. So thank you for stepping up to the plate and calling a truce to this. Just wish other could see that they could have been misunderstanding as well. Oh well.

266. DiscoSpock - April 6, 2013

OK, I’ll join the truce. I will acknowledge that from your POV, perhaps you didn’t realize that your wording and paragraph structure conveyed that you were saying Enterprise was being first-run only in the U.S.?

Peace!

267. Trek Fan - April 6, 2013

And perhaps, Disco, from your POV you were just misunderstanding what I was truly saying. And that when one only focuses on one thing instead of the bigger picture – things can be misunderstood that way.

Thank God this ordeal is over. Even though MJ can come across as arrogant at time – from what I have seen of him over the years, he is good people and has extended his hand many times before. I have the utmost respect for you MJ.

268. MJ - April 6, 2013

@267.

The feeling is mutual, Trek Fan.

269. K-7 - April 7, 2013

I like this thread. It’s exciting!

LOL

270. MiaoGirl - April 7, 2013

Oh yes! Enterprise 4ever!

271. Dave H - April 7, 2013

“Oh yes! Enterprise 4ever!”

Exactly. Enterprise will be stuck at Season 4 now forever….”4ever”

Well said!

272. CommandDJ - April 7, 2013

I think the next TREK series needs to be a web series to start, like SANCTUARY. There are plenty of actors out there who would jump at the chance to play in the Star Trek universe. Get a new ship (STO universe perhaps?) some scripts from some of the classic writers, and lets have some product! OR how about a series based on Star Trek Online – what ever happens that week, happens on the show? I know SyFy has a series in the works similar to that, but it is an interesting concept.

273. Red Shirt Diaries - April 7, 2013

@272. That sounds low budget and minor. Our franchise is surely bigger and better than some low rent web production?

274. MJ - April 7, 2013

I agree with Red Shirt. What would have been the point of JJ revitalizing the franchise and expanding the audience significantly, if the resulting direction after the movies was just some web serials, and not a major TV production like Game on Thrones on HBO or Walking Dead on A&E.

Let’s not settle for sloppy seconds here, please! I want a major TV production.

275. Red Dead Ryan - April 7, 2013

After seeing what J.J Abrams has done with “Star Trek”, any new series must be high-budget, high-concept, and high-energy.

Doing a Trek web series would be a joke. It would be extremely cheap and low-quality. As well as incredibly cheesy. So I agree with both MJ and Red Shirt Diaries on this.

#274.

“The Walking Dead” is on AMC. And yeah, I agree that a ten or twelve episode season would be the best way to go.

276. Bruce - April 7, 2013

I think a Trek series could work on Netflix but I also think they should start with a clean slate: new crew, new ship, and a new mission.

277. Salvador Nogueira - April 7, 2013

Wow, why are talking so much about Enterprise’s original ratings? The whole point of this effort is getting Netflix’s attention with massive watching. Those are the ” ratings” that matter and could bring the series’ redemption. Honestly, I don’t see how the hardcore fanbase can do that, but trying doesn’t hurt. Also, we can’t discount the possibility that Netflix doesn’t feel confident enough to produce a new season, but could jump in for an Enterprise made-for-TV movie set during the Romulan War. We’ll just have to watch a lot and see what happens. No point arguing old ratings. Of course they were reason enough for cancelling the show. But now, with streaming, we’re talking a completely different ball game.

278. Marissa - April 13, 2013

More Enterprise! I loved the whole series! Like others have mentioned, season 4 was so good! Loved the characters as well, I hope that they can make it all happen again with netflix! :D

279. discount dog car seats - April 18, 2013

Hi there! I just would like to give an enormous thumbs up for the great information
you’ve right here on this post. I shall be coming again to your blog
for extra soon.

280. Malk - April 22, 2013

I would love a new season…. it would be the most amazing thing in the last 25 years for me !

281. LordEdzo - April 22, 2013

You can’t do “Star Trek: Enterprise” Season 5 without Manny Coto as executive producer. It was his day-to-day oversight of Season 4 that *FINALLY* got the show on track and made it resonate with the “stuff of things to come” in TOS. Bring back the entire main cast, or don’t do it at all. Commit to giving Hoshi Sato and Travis Mayweather more involvement, too. I hate that they were the ENT equivalents of TOS Uhura and Sulu, having barely anything to do.
Stop whining about the title music. It was different from the Star Trek norm, sure, but it fit the theme of the show.
People were complaining about Porthos? WTF? Because of that ONE episode in which Archer wants to save his life? Look, I’m not a dog person, and I don’t own one, but I can’t believe there’s such an outcry against Porthos that it’s reached so-called “Wesley Crusher-objectionable” status. Give it a rest. The man has a dog. Give it a rest.
And NO MORE sexual exploitation of T’Pol, for heaven’s sake. Keep her clothes on. No more “Vulcan acupressure” or whatever that contrived nonsense was to titillate young male viewers.
There … NOW can we do “Enterprise” Season 5? ;)

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.