Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Media Television

Paramount Says Enterprise Cancellation Is Final 583

Posted by Zonk
from the live-to-fight-another-day dept.
Kethinov writes "The Save Enterprise campaigns appear to have been for naught. Paramount has declared that they will not be accepting any amount of money from fans to continue to produce Star Trek Enterprise. With the decision final, Star Trek Enterprise will be the first Star Trek show since the original series not to run a full seven seasons." From the letter: "Paramount Network Television and the producers of Star Trek: Enterprise are very flattered and impressed by the fans' passionate outpouring of attention for the show and their efforts to raise funds to continue the show's production." Commentary also available from TrekToday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paramount Says Enterprise Cancellation Is Final

Comments Filter:
  • Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kethinov (636034) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:35PM (#12217672) Homepage Journal
    Enterprise never had a chance to grow. The first two seasons of Ent were decent, but still a bit mediocre. The third season was a nice ride, but not the show we really wanted out of the prequel. Manny Coto's 4th season is EXACTLY what the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd seasons should have been, but too little too late. I love the show, always will, but TV politics have ruined many a good show. Look at the original Star Trek, or look at Farscape...

    In their place, reality TV dominates. Why watch intelligent TV when we can have Growing Up Gotti?
    • Re:Just like TOS (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170) *
      Enterprise never had a chance to grow.

      More along the lines of they've tried everything their limited imagination and accountants (even more limited imagination) would let them do. It's been not just a good run, but a phenominal run. It is time to let it rest and beat to death some other genres until fresh ideas (or the next generation of viewers) come along.

      so long and thanks for all the rubber ears

    • Re:Just like TOS (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nomadic (141991)
      What politics? Why can't the writers, actors, and producers ever get blamed for making an inferior product?
    • Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TexVex (669445) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:49PM (#12217863)
      Enterprise should not have needed a chance to grow.

      After TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager, Enterprise should have come sprinting out of the gate. It didn't. Blame those who did the writing and producing for the first two seasons for giving the show a gimp leg and dooming it right from the start. Its potential audience tuned out. And, once that happens, there's no saving it. Those people no longer care, and you're not going to recapture their attention.
      • Re:Just like TOS (Score:2, Insightful)

        It seems someone doesn't remember the first season or so of TNG when it was almost painful to watch. Or the first season of Voyager when it WAS painful to watch. Every new trek show needs time to find itself before it doesn't suck balls. Ent was no different.
        • To be fair, they did give it 3 seasons of time to find itself... maybe it did on season 4 (not much of a ent. fan and season 4 won't be showing here in Venezuela for a while), but I guess it was too little too late.
      • Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Etherwalk (681268) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @07:42PM (#12218408)
        > After TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager,

        *coughs pointedly*

        Actually, Not to go into the long history, but I've always thought Voyager was largely to blame for the downfall of the franchise. No, no, let me explain (briefly):

        TNG - great, largely episodic, we got used to 2-parters, though.

        DS9 - great, took a while to really get on its feet. It was competing with B5, which showed us that Yes, Story arcs longer than two episodes can work in sci-fi. It also gained its own momentum, shifting away from a purely episodic series into an ongoing bit of war. The war was the beginning of the end- they did it well enough, but it was responsible for trek getting away from being about ideas, and getting towards being about shooting the funny sci-fi weapons. When Voyager rolled around, this mentality had invaded the minds of the writers, and consistency had gone completely out the window.

        Voyager really showed a lack of artistic understanding. They had one or two good actors, and I'll admit that for some of them I don't know if its the actor or the character that was bad- but for the most part, it lacked quality. The show got away from its core demographic and wound up with a much more transitory audience. So when Enterprise came along and actually had some decent writing again, much of the franchise audience was gone, and it had to start from scratch.

        The most glaring example of artistic failure in Voy is, of course, the borg. There are others, but the power of the borg as an evil was in their evil, not in their weapons. When the ratings drooped, Voyager brought out the borg. It effectively transformed them from an unknowable menace that was so different from humanity that it was practically pure evil, to a bunch of pansy-ass default bad guys that drove around in blocks and spheres.
        • Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)

          by R.Caley (126968) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @01:58AM (#12220925)
          [...] a bunch of pansy-ass default bad guys that drove around in blocks and spheres.

          Bad girl you mean. The give away that they had lost all clues was the queen. That personalised the borg. Originally the borg weren't a military/imperial force, they were something more like a disease. They couldn't be fought just by sending in more and more powerful ships, and they couldn't be negotiated with. That was a real threat.

    • Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Illserve (56215) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:54PM (#12217917)
      Never had a chance to grow through 4 seasons?

      As a Firefly fan, I'd like to be the first to tell you to shut your goddamned piehole.

    • Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fm6 (162816) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:56PM (#12217940) Homepage Journal
      Your comparison is lame, because TOS had a lot of good scripts during the first two seasons. They didn't start to falter until the third and final season, when most of the best writers and producers had left.

      I do get pissed when I see a good TV show cancelled before it has a chance to find an audience. But a proper chance is two or three months, not 3 years.

      Even most Trekkies found the early Enterprise scripts rancid. Stand back from your Trekkieness for a minute and consider that from the network's POV. They spend millions of bucks on a TV show, and it can't even inspire enthusiasm among hard core fans who are supposed to be a lock. Any other show that screwed up that badly wouldn't have lasted a full season, never mind getting renewed twice. Didn't get a chance? Spare me.

    • Quite honestly, I've never watched the show, but if you're right and it took four seasons for them to get it "right" then it was three and a half seasons too long.

      It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with ratings and budgets. If the show had been done "right" in season #1 or #2, then maybe it would have had the audience to generate the cash to see it through to season #7.
    • I'm supposed to watch 3 * 26 hours of television just to wait until it starts to get good?

      Sorry...there's too little time to waste waiting for crap to stop smelling so bad when there is decent stuff to watch.
    • Imho, Enterprise was doomed the moment they cast Scott Bakula. I mean seriously...Scott Bakula?? I watched one episode and it made me so ill I vowed to never watch it again. He simply has ZERO leadership quality about him. Enterprise captains have always been very strong people...until Bakula. My dog is more of a leader than Bakula could ever hope to be.

      Horrible casting will doom any show and that's what happened with Enterprise. Personally, I'm happy to see it go. Maybe there will be a new Star Tre
    • by Aqua OS X (458522) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @07:19PM (#12218164)
      Dude, that show sucked. Talk about beating a dead horse.

      Weird aliens that always look like humans, good guys that ALWAYS win at the last possible moment with some crazy technical miracle, magical SciFi gadgets that are backed with ridiculous jargon, doctors with miraculous cures for every insane ailment.... bleh, spare me.

      I love SciFi, and there was a point in time when that entertained me, but I need a new story. This one has be rehashed and told too much.

      As far as space dramas go, my money is on the new Battlestar Galactica series. No doubt, it's an old title. But at least is has been reworked to avoid tired SciFi cliches.

      • by fm6 (162816)

        Weird aliens that always look like humans, good guys that ALWAYS win at the last possible moment with some crazy technical miracle, magical SciFi gadgets that are backed with ridiculous jargon, doctors with miraculous cures for every insane ailment.... bleh, spare me.

        Well now, that criticism is fair, but it describes the whole Trek Franchise, not just Enterprise. And in fact some of us have long since decided that the whole Star Trek idea is worn out, and deserves to be retired.

        Hardcore Trekkies will sa

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:35PM (#12217676)
    There should be plenty of room for all 3 fans in my parent's basement
  • by Skyshadow (508) * on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:35PM (#12217682) Homepage
    Jesus, this is horrible news. Seriously, how could something like this happen?

    I mean, what could the network possibly be thinking? Don't they understand that they're cancelling the most original, innovative and entertaining Sci Fi show of this generation? How can they cancel a show with such a devoted following? How can they turn their backs on well-developed characters with their flaws and nuances? What about the great staging and the inspired writing? How can they ignore such incredible potential?

    What about the tremendous buzz behind the show? What about the devoted legions of fans who are careful to never miss an episode? The ratings on this have to be through the roof -- everyone I know watches it religiously! Christ, I know people who went out and got TiVO just so they could start going out on Friday nights again without chancing setting their cheap VCRs wrong and missing it!

    I mean, I'm upset, I'm angry and most of all I'm just plain astonished. I just can't get my head around this. I mean really, it just doesn't compute. I think the SciFi network ought to be ashamed of themselv...

    (whispering, pause)

    Oh, wait, they cancelled Enterprise?!? Just 100% for sure this time? Pft, well duh! Gee, you really had to be Miss Cleo to see that one coming. All the attention this was getting, I just figured that they must have cancelled Battlestar Galactica! Heh, oh Jesus, don't scare me like that! Heh, my hands are still shaking, man, you freaked me out! Whew...

    C'mon, are you serious? You mean there were actually people willing to pay to see more of this crap? Like, real money? C'mon! An online petition with two signatures I might buy, but *pay*? Riiight....

    Cancelling Enterprise... Yeah, whatever. Tragedy for all three fans of the series, I'm sure. Heh, pft... "Save Enterprise". Yeah, let me get right on that! What will the galaxy do without the heroics of Captain Archer, inspiration to mildly retarded people everywhere? What about all the memorable characters we know and love, like... er.. You know, hick-sounding white guy! Or british-sounding white guy? Or the chick in with the big boobies? (okay, 100% seriously: I will miss those boobies, but then again there's always the internet). LOL, "Save Enterprise". Ooh! We got to save Enterprise! Because, you know, it's, um, like a TV show with spaceships or something. Heh.

    Whew.

    Hey, is it July yet? Man, I couldn't believe that cliffhanger -- I tell ya, I haven't been genuinely surprised by a TV show in ages...

    • Don't they understand that they're cancelling the most original, innovative and entertaining Sci Fi show of this generation?

      Guess you missed Babylon5.
      • by Skyshadow (508) * on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:55PM (#12217921) Homepage
        Nope, I sure didn't.

        B5 was a reasonably entertaining show, but IMO it was critically flawed because of the extreme "cringe factor" that worked its way in, especially in the later episodes.

        C'mon, we're talking about a series where two advanced races spend thousands of years and unimaginable amounts of effort to influence the evolution of the galaxy only to suddenly pack up and leave because, at the denoumont of the entire serious, Bruce Boxleitner yells "Get the hell out of our galaxy!". The cheese was too thick to get past. "As my grandfather used to say, 'cool!'"...

        B5 was better than Enterprise and Voyager and, IMO, it was the reason that DS9 was forced to become watchible in its last couple of seasons. But overall (and still, obviously, in my opinion), it was still a flawed show in a way that BSG is not (at least, not yet).

        • C'mon, we're talking about a series where two advanced races spend thousands of years and unimaginable amounts of effort to influence the evolution of the galaxy only to suddenly pack up and leave because, at the denoumont of the entire serious, Bruce Boxleitner yells "Get the hell out of our galaxy!". The cheese was too thick to get past. "As my grandfather used to say, 'cool!'"...

          I dunno. I liked that scene. It conveyed a strong sense to me of what power at that level does to your culture. The Vorlon
      • no no, he has all the Babylon5 DVD's on his shelf, right next to Days of our Lives and Ryan's Hope.
    • Re:Oh no No *NO*! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768.comcast@net> on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @08:46PM (#12218956) Journal
      you do realize that for all the hoopla over BSG Enterprise still beats it in the ratings.
      • Re:Oh no No *NO*! (Score:3, Informative)

        by Cellshade (140462)
        Uhm, no. Enterprise had good ratings for its first two seasons.

        In the last season, it averaged 3 points. About equal with Battlestar Galactica, not better than.

        But here's the the thing: Enterprise is a network show, BSG is cable.

        For a network show, Enterprise isn't so hot.

        But for a cable show, BSG is a gigantic success.

        If Enterprise was on cable, it probably wouldn't even get a single rating point.
  • A good idea ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by foobsr (693224) *
    ... would perhaps be to try to redirect the money to The Internet Movie Project [imp.org] ...

    Begin Quote
    Our dream is to create a movie with the POV-Ray raytracer,
    as a collaborative effort of many people from all over the world,
    just for the fun of it, "because it can be done" -
    very much like POV-Ray itself is developed.
    End Quote

    or a similar instance ...

    Yes, I am daydreaming [signiform.com].

    CC.
    • making a quality feature film with POV-Ray would take about a century, I'm sorry to say.
    • Such a thing, using POV-Ray would give new meaning to "script".

      I love POV-Ray, though rusty, but then again... I mean...

      I'm at a loss with that one. Seems as improbable as Enterprise revising Trek cannon successfully. Let's hope it isn't, but not hold our breath either.

      The producers of Enterprise OTOH may feel free to hold their breath forever. So I'm a little angry with them. What's the percentage of long time Trek fans who aren't?
  • by Flounder (42112) * on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:36PM (#12217701)
    One down, reality shows, Friends reruns and 60 Minutes to go.
  • "But I'll pay!"

    "I'm sorry son, we'll never allow a hooker in this house, and that's final!"

  • OH SNAP (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:38PM (#12217729)
    Breaking news: Cancelled show cancelled.
  • by 14erCleaner (745600) <FourteenerCleaner@yahoo.com> on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:39PM (#12217742) Homepage Journal
    ...was all the counter-offers of money from fans if they DID cancel the series.

    Good riddance, if you ask me.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    KAHHHHHHHHHHN!!!!
  • by UlfGabe (846629)
    Disclaimer: Not a flame, just an observation that a previous version of ST was saved by fans.

    How come the legions of fans didn't save Enterprise from the same fate of Star Trek?

    Are the fans just less hard core? Or is all that money they sink into merchandice not affecting the bottom line enough?
    • Because this one sucked, so there were no marketing oppertunities. Actually it was probably because the first one was saved by a huge writing campain, the one to save Enterprise was no where near that.

      Maybe it was the suckage.
    • by IWorkForMorons (679120) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @07:34PM (#12218305) Journal
      Are the fans just less hard core?

      Uh...no. I consider myself a hardcore Trek fan. I've never once gone to a con or even put on rubber ears. I kinda pride myself on that fact. But the shows...I know my Trek. I recently decided to download all the episodes and watch the full series. I hadn't watched any shows before, because of all the bad press other fans had given it. But I wanted to give it a chance before making a final decision.

      And my final decision is this: let it die. As much as I hate saying that, I believe it's the right thing to do. It was a good concept, but poorly executed. The first problem I found was that there was too much emphasis on "filling in the gaps." They tried to explain away everything that the other shows introduced. The most glaring offence was the Borg episode. For god's sake...BORG?!? This says that the Enterprise-E crew were stupid enough to leave a whole crapload of future technology laying on Earth, potentially polluting their own timeline. AND that the Temporal Police or whatever they want to call themselves didn't do their jobs. For what? To explain away why the Borg invade the Alpha Quadrent 200 years later? Wasn't that already explained in TNG? The whole episode should have been killed in writing.

      Besides that was the over-sexual use of T'Pol. You saw this happen with Voyager when Seven was brought in. They decided to start off with some hot babe in skintight uniforms on this one, killing the show's credibility in the process. Then there was the sterile acting of Reed and Archer in the first 2 season. Most of the cast was guilty of this actually. This I think was more caused by letting nearly every actor in previous shows have a chance to direct on Enterprise. And speaking of previous actors, there was far too many actors from previous shows playing in Enterprise. Part of the joy I got out of watching the show was spotting recycled actors. I've seen the guy who played General Martok on DS9 play at least 3 other characters in other Treks, including playing a Klingon on Enterprise. And they should have NEVER let Ethan Philips play a Ferengi, since he was the easiest to spot from playing one on Voyager. I didn't really like them bringing in Ferengi in the first place, but it sorta fit with the Star Trek Universe laid down by TNG. Storyline-wise, I wasn't impressed with the Temporal Cold War, and it really didn't do anything except introduce even more inconsistances in the Star Trek Universe. But at least they wrapped that up. The fourth season was picking up steam, and I would have liked to see that have been the first season. But it's too late. The damage is done. This is a hardcore Star Trek fan saying: Let It Die...
    • ST-TOS had some real merits, even after a lacklustre third season. Enterprise was a pile of crap, an idea that should have been aborted before it was given a budget for even dixie cups.
  • by vivin (671928) <vivin.paliath@gmaiLIONl.com minus cat> on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:41PM (#12217772) Homepage Journal
    Season 3 tried to bring in a good story arc (it was good). Season 4 is pretty good, but it's too little, too late.

    Seasons 3 and 4 are what seasons 1 and 2 should have been like. That Cold War temporal thing when NO WHERE.

    The first seasons didn't have very gripping episodes. You had the same moral dilemmas and tired clichees and the blatant use of T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) as a sex symbol to attract testosterone-pumped young males. This is something she herself didn't like - Blalock wanted T'Pol to have more depth.

    But anyway... Enterprise was interesting at first. It was interesting to see starfleet outmatched against pretty much everyone they met and how they dealt with the situation.

    It is certainly sad, but I guess they had their chance. Blame the Diabolical Duo Berman and Bragga. They have the negative Midas effect. Anything they touch turns to crap. Which is why the first few seasons of DS9 were also not that great. It didn't get interesting until Michael Piller took it over and Berman turned his attention to Voyager. The actors in Enterprise, I think, did a decent job.
    • That Cold War temporal thing when NO WHERE.

      Well put. IMHO the Star Trek franchise has for a long time been suffering from a bad case of Deus Ex Machina [wikipedia.org] Disease. Just when things are getting really hairy, just play the temporal card. It also works as a means of foiling the characters just when things are going their way.

      In more capable hands, the concept of temporal confusion might have been handled with much more imagination and in a more believable fashion. I mean, the Crewman Daniels dude who is supp

  • by TechnoGrl (322690) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:43PM (#12217799)
    Paramount might be waiting for Berman's and/or Braga's contracts to expire before they relaunch another ST series again?? Perhaps they want a producer that can create something other than crap? Hellooooo... Coto or Joe??

    Maybe they have more neurons then we give them credit for...then again

    Well a girl could hope....
  • That's OK. Doctor Who's better than Star Trek anyways.

    ;)

    • It only took 16 years for the BBC to bring Dr Who back, so hopefully we should be seeing more star trek in 2021.
    • And let's not forget the new Battlestar Galactica. SF fans are doin' okay; we don't need no Star Trek stinking up the airwaves, even though it seems they finally got it together at the end. Oh well. I'm still in mourning for Space: Above and Beyond, and Firefly. And Angel got really fantastic in its final season, another one killed just as it was returning to greatness. The puppet episode was one of the funniest things ever on TV, IMO.

      Once we all have closure after Star Wars: Ep 3, we can all move on, and
  • There is still hope; Netcraft has not confirmed the cancelation!
  • They got lazy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bullfish (858648)
    Frankly, what killed Enterprise in the end was that same thing that made Voyager suck. The writers, producers, et al got lazy and sucked the meat off a franchise which had a loyal following for many years. They indulged themselves in the stories and forgot to work at producing a good quality show that would keep the fans wanting more and that put the fans first. In the past they didn't have that much compting with them, but the new battlestar galactica, farcape, the new doctor who and other shows that put E
  • Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Renraku (518261) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:46PM (#12217840) Homepage
    "Paramount has declared that they will not be accepting *any amount of money* from fans to continue to produce Star Trek Enterprise."

    This should tell you something important.
    • Re:Obvious (Score:3, Funny)

      by aspx (808539)
      > "Paramount has declared that they will not be
      > accepting *any amount of money* from fans to
      > continue to produce Star Trek Enterprise."
      >
      > This should tell you something important.

      It does. Para mount translated from Spanish is "for sex." They want sex, not money.
  • I'm not sorry to see it go. This series was a waste of talent (some of the actors are *way* underrated) on predictable plots and softcore scenes.

    But the franchise really needs to rest for a while. Next Generation was great because it was sort of a revival. Maybe a few years from now somebody will come with a great idea for a Star Trek series that doesn't look like its milking the same tired cow.

    Old comics book series have gotten big on the big screen. Battlestar Galactica surpassed my expectations. A
    • I say give it about ten years, then bring in top sci-fi writers to create a background story that uses TOS and maybe TNG/DS9 as the untouched cores. Ignore Voyager and Enterprise, and start showing us the true histories. Look at the models used in TNG to see how the first starship Enterprise looked, and craft it from there. Allow an evolution. Create a smart series, and not one that simply expects Trek fans to blindly follow where every other series has gone before.

      Hell, make one about the Romulan War,
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:51PM (#12217885)
    I can just see it now. Sam Beckett going back in time and saving Scott Bakula from making the worst career move of his life (After Major League 3, that is).
  • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpottedKuh (855161) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:53PM (#12217900)
    All they need to do is go back in time and kill the Nazis that cancelled the show! ...Oh wait, that's why they're being cancelled...
  • by redswinglinestapler (841060) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @06:53PM (#12217902)
    TOS: enjoyed it in reruns as a kid. Thought the first season ruled, the second season was mostly good, the third season was headed downhill fast. Lesson: the quality (read: intelligence level) of the show's producer(s) matters. TNG: first seasons wildly uneven. Cheesy opticals (FX), unclear story lines, characters were thin at best. Season 5 was generally good. In the end, okay, but cut out about half the episodes. Lesson: quantity does not equal quality. DS9: A great idea, indifferently executed. The whole Bajoran gods idea could have been a fantastic bit of sci-fi, but in the end they just were used as deus ex machina. The introduction of the war story arc (although probably a response to Babylon 5) rescued it and made me actually want to tune in. Lesson: go somewhere with your big idea by giving the writers a framework. Voyager: Interesting idea (lost, out of touch), horribly executed. Janeway was in need of serious medication, as she was at a minimum bipolar. I wouldn't follow her as a leader for a month, much less years. The producers introduced ideas and at the end of the episode would use the "magic reset button" of time warp, tech change, or the jargon of the week. The ship acquired technology which gave it advantages, then the next episode it would be gone and might as well have never existed, to say nothing of frequently suffering damage which should have required time in dock. Utterly uncompelling and frustrating. Lesson: there's no point in having a show if it's not going anywhere with the characters, story or even the technology. Enterprise: I knew that when I heard who would produce that it would be garbage. When I heard the theme song, after cleaning up the vomit, I knew my worst suspicions were nowhere near what they should have been. The time-machine reset button, the unbelievable screwing with the canon, the notion that a ship could be remote controlled all the way from the Romulan Empire... Just...let...it...die, folks. The idiots who produce it are incapable of doing good work. It's just a money machine to them. Giving them your money is counterproductive. Find someone talented like Joss Whedon or Strasczinsky (sp?) instead. Don't save Enterprise.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I'm amazed no one has said it (at least up until the time I started typing this post)!
  • ...and someone will try to bring back the bloated corpse to life. This is what Enterprise was about, there's no getting around it, and it deserves to go.

    Can we toss Berman out an airlock at the same time?
  • one season short (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The_Rook (136658) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @07:04PM (#12218029)
    the one surprise about this is that they didn't let the series go for a full five seasons. common wisdom has it that in order to successfully syndicate a series you have to have at least five seasons (about 130 episodes) of a series for it to be really profitable.

    syndicated series are typically stripped - one episode a day five days a week. one season, 26 episodes is enough for just over five weeks. 2 seasons is ten weeks (two and a half months). 4 seasons is five or six months of programming. maybe a little more. it's kind of iffy for a 3 or 4 season series to be successful in syndication. classic trek was exceptionally successful with only 3 seasons. other series aren't always so successful.

    perhaps the dynamics of syndication on cable, sales of dvd box sets, and the reduced profitablity of conventional teevee and cable broadcasts are changing how expensive series like 'enterprise' are financed. but i always thought that it was with the fifth season that the accountants could finally throw away the bottle of red ink.
  • by Malluck (413074) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @07:07PM (#12218050)
    earmarked to keep the voyager probes up and running.

    That way you'd be funding real space stuff and it still has Star Trek relevance.

  • by Johnboi Waltune (462501) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @07:08PM (#12218070)
    Paramount Network Television and the producers of Star Trek: Enterprise are very flattered and impressed by the fans' passionate outpouring of attention for the show and their efforts to raise funds to continue the show's production... but please fuck off already, you fucking nerds.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @07:09PM (#12218078)
    When Gene Roddenberry created the original series, he attempted to make the series as inclusive as possible. The TOS included characters such as Uhura (black African, NOT African-American), Sulu (Asian, not Asian-American), Chekov (Russian), and many other diverse characters. In one eposiode of the TOS, when Kirk was going through some kind of court-martial based on video evidence, the Starfleet judges (admirals, actually) included not only a person of Mongoloid descent but also of Asian Caucasian descent (he looked like a South Asian). That is two out of 5 judges which is quite impressive given that the TOS was made during the 1960s when racial equality was just coming of age.

    After the TOS, successive Star Trek shows became more and more white and American-centric. Anyone who looked Asian in those successive shows could not be mistaken as a person who came directly from Asia as their behavior was too American. Ditto for the "blacks". Travis Mayweather is a prime example of this American-centric nature of the successive Trek shows. Why couldn't they just have named him Emekah Olowokandi or something like that??

    Where the heck were the Africans, the Indians, the Chinese, the Middle Easterns, the Egyptians, the Brazilians, the Mexicans, and of course, the Australians in the Trek shows after TOS??

    Only Trek: Deep Space Nine even tried to come close to Roddenberry's ideal. Dr. Julian Bashir was obviously Middle Eastern. But they could have had a Nigerian or a Kenyan as the black commander instead of Benjamin Sisko from Louisiana.

    Unfortunately, Star Trek TOS was and still remains the ONLY Sci-Fi show that attempted to be inclusive of all cultures and individuals around the world. After TOS, nothing came close. Not even Battlestar Galactica.
    • by MagicDude (727944) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @08:03PM (#12218594)
      TNG - Geordi was black. In his original character description, they wanted a black character but in the description they sent to casting agencies, they specifically said they didn't want "street types" for the role, and they even would have prefered a slight Jamacian accent. Levar Burton obviously doesn't have that, but it's a slight consession for getting an actor of his caliber. Not to mention that he plays a blind character. There's also Worf, played by a black actor, but even more important was that he was a Klingon. Remember that at the beginning of TNG, all we knew of the Klingons was all the strife Kirk and his crew had with them. Troi (Marina Sirtis) was greek, or medeterrian or something like that. Picard was french, Riker was american, Data was a robot.

      DS9 - Sisko was black. Kira was Bajorian, Dax was Trill, Odo was a changling, Bashir was arabic, O'Brien was Irish. The differences are more fictional about people being different aliens, but the spirit is there.

      Voy - Janeway was the first female captain in a starring role. Chakotay was a native american (Or a native something or other, I forget). Tuvok was a black vulcan. Doc was a hologram. Kim was chineese. Paris was american. Torres was half Klingon and from her last name, I imagine she was supposed to be hispanic as well.

      Compare all the diversity there to what TOS was, Kirk and Bones were American with McCoy being from the south. Spock was vulcan. And then you had a black woman, a japaneese man, a scot, and a russian. I wouldn't say that numberswise it's more diverse than any of the other series. It's just that society has improved itself that was don't consider a ship with a female captain, and native american first officer, a black alien security officer, chinese ops officer, and holographic doctor as shocking as 1960's america would have considered an educated black woman.
    • Where the heck were the Africans, the Indians, the Chinese, the Middle Easterns, the Egyptians, the Brazilians, the Mexicans, and of course, the Australians in the Trek shows after TOS??

      At the risk of sounding a tad racist, "Not in the target demographic".

      You assume Television, at its core, involves story-telling. Wrong. Television involves nothing beyond "find a target demographic, figure out what they buy, and sell that to them, oh yeah and provide visual stimulii of what they like to keep control
  • what's that?

    that would make sense if the shows had been designed from the start to have some story arc or whatever to span 7 seasons, but none of them had that.
  • by Ka D'Argo (857749) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @08:22PM (#12218766) Homepage
    I have to be the biggest sci fi geek there is.

    I don't dress up, or go to conventions or nitpick the blueprints of every Federation ship, I am just a fan. I fall deeply into the cores of every show there is almost, and their writing style.

    I grew up on Star Trek. From TNG, to DS9 to Voyager and now Enterprise. I expanded my sci fi tastes to Farscape (god I miss it, so much), Firefly, Stargate SG1 and Atlantis, Buffy, Angel (more fantasy on those last two), and I even started to get into Battlestar Galatica despite how I don't like it's politic driven stories.

    What is left? Sure Stargate SG1 is around but how long can they keep it going? I love Ben Browder being added to the cast but seriously, it's on its last season or two. Atlantis shows promise but I'm gonna say it lasts maybe 4-5 seasons. I'm not a huge BSG fan, it's good but I can't feed my sci fi craving off of just it alone.

    Trek is gone. Paramount has basically said "fuck you" to the fans. I mean how much money has been raised here, for more episodes? Once Enterprise is over I will be removing UPN from my digital cable lineup just like I did "G4TV" after they shafted TechTV.

    Even the Sci Fi channel learns from its mistakes. Sure they fucked over Farscape after season 4 but at least they had the balls to make a mini series to AT LEAST TRY and give fans closure. Paramount will finish this season but at what cost? It's a sheer slap in the face saying they won't accept money for new episodes. I mean what other show on earth thats cancelled/going to be cancelled could be run simply by fan donations? I'd pay money every week for Trek. Alot of fans would too.

    Am I too far gone to be objectional? I think not. The first few seasons of Enterprise had their lows, I mean they really had their lows. But they had some good episodes too. And even more so I love Enterprise cause it's more human. Alot of themes, ideas, and ways of things are still done in the time period of Enterprise. People still wear hats, watch old movies, have more human forms of recreation. It seems silly but it relates more, you can actually imagine 100 years from now some form of space flight similar to warp drive, you can see how the Trek timeline actually fits in. It's doing what a prequel does, tells the backstory and sets up the future series.

    Monday through Thursdays I usually watch dvd's to fill the gaps. Ocasionally I'll tune into Smallville on Wednesdays. Fridays are Trek and Stargate for me. Saturdays maybe the new weekly movie on HBO might be entertaining, and Sundays will always be dominated by The Sopranos and Carnivale.

    Prime time tv is owned by sad reality tv. We have become a society of lemmings following whatever is popular and being entertained by the lowest common denominator entertainment. Even Picard would order our extinction, out of fucking mercy.

  • by SirBruce (679714) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @08:42PM (#12218922) Homepage
    >Star Trek Enterprise will be the first Star Trek
    >show since the original series not to run a full
    >seven seasons

    Not so. That honor would go to Star Trek: The Animated Series.

    Bruce
  • Why the vitriol? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hazee (728152) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @08:46PM (#12218953)
    Blimey, the knives seem to be out for Enterprise now. It's like some sort of anti-fanboy brigade or something. Do people think it's fashionable to knock Enterprise or something?

    Yes the series had plenty of problems. Yes, there were plenty of lost opportunities to explore the implications of the absence of things like the universal translator and teleporter.

    But compared to some of the utter shit that infests tv, was it really so bad? Worse than soap operas? Or reality tv? Or those pop idol things?

    To those people who seem intent on shouting "good riddance" after it, were you strapped to a chair and forced to watch it or something?

    Maybe it could have been better, but as one of the few shows to portray the future in a positive light, it provided me with a good few hours of undemanding light entertainment.

    I for one will miss it.
  • by adrianbye (452416) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @08:46PM (#12218955)
    If the fans could have made a deal which somehow involved pushing more merchandise, then this might have worked. Its all about the licensing - the studios make little money on the actual series with the big money coming from ties to the show. That is evidenced by this comment from the article:

    "We believe the franchise is still very vital as evidenced by the fans' demand for books, DVDs and all sorts of related merchandise."
  • Good (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mr_Icon (124425) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @09:08PM (#12219143) Homepage
    If they said they were leaning towards continuing it, I would have started a help kill Enterprise campaign, and I'm sure I would have easily raised billions.

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long

Working...