Why "Enterprise" is Doomed

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I was hearing fanboys speak of archer at a local chess meeting on Sunday. They frigging whack off to actions. tHis franchise may survive longer than we expect.

But aside from the moron fanboy demographic Enterprise is a failure. A complete and utter failure. The only reason it's still on the air is it's the current Trek tv incarnation.

That and its seven season contract...

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I was hearing fanboys speak of archer at a local chess meeting on Sunday. They frigging whack off to actions. tHis franchise may survive longer than we expect.

I don't know; if they not jacking off to the chicks, then they might just be Quantom Leap fans who got lost.

I never thought of that -- casting Bakula was a stroke of... intelligence on Bragman's part. Think of it -- two SF cash cows for the price of one!

[Darth Wong]

Enterprise is on the air because the bar is set rather low for continuation of a series nowadays. Thanks to massive dilution, multiple upstart TV networks, and cable, it has become perfectly acceptable to fight over small scraps of viewership. Add to that the fact that continuation of Star Trek in some televised form is good for merchandising sales, and you can see the business incentive to keep Trek going even if it's a dismal failure on the tube.

[Stormbringer]

Enterprise is on the air because the bar is set rather low for continuation of a series nowadays. Thanks to massive dilution, multiple upstart TV networks, and cable, it has become perfectly acceptable to fight over small scraps of viewership.

The bar isn't that low, and certainly not for sci-fi. Enterprise has been hitting new lows even for UPN. They're doing a limbo with the ratings expectations and so far they're under every time. There have been quite a few articles on the poor performance of the Ent and it's boiled down to the fact that the show is a steaming turd.

Enterforaprize's continued production is almost solely due to the fact it's the current flagship for Trek.

[Dennis Toy]

Stormbringer Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:03 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darth Wong:
Enterprise is on the air because the bar is set rather low for continuation of a series nowadays. Thanks to massive dilution, multiple upstart TV networks, and cable, it has become perfectly acceptable to fight over small scraps of viewership.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The bar isn't that low, and certainly not for sci-fi. Enterprise has been hitting new lows even for UPN. They're doing a limbo with the ratings expectations and so far they're under every time. There have been quite a few articles on the poor performance of the Ent and it's boiled down to the fact that the show is a steaming turd.

Enterforaprize's continued production is almost solely due to the fact it's the current flagship for Trek.

Personally i think UPN should just die i mean the network isnt that good, the shows are shit

[Peregrin Toker]

And how they dug up a beat up old naval vessel and....

nope, doesn't have that either.

I doubt B&B will go that far in their quest for new plots, as it probably would provoke a lawsuit from the makers of Space Battleship Yamato...

[Spanky The Dolphin]

"Cruiser," not "Battleship."

While the accurate translation is "Battleship," the Japanese creators say the offical English name is Space Cruiser Yamato...

Why, you may ask?

Because they say so.

[The Kernel]

Enterprise is on the air because the bar is set rather low for continuation of a series nowadays. Thanks to massive dilution, multiple upstart TV networks, and cable, it has become perfectly acceptable to fight over small scraps of viewership. Add to that the fact that continuation of Star Trek in some televised form is good for merchandising sales, and you can see the business incentive to keep Trek going even if it's a dismal failure on the tube.

Agreed, but that still doesn't explain why Paramount doesn't clean house in what has been one of their most successful franchises. There's really nothing wrong with Star Trek that a few Crucifixions can't fix (up first, Bermen and Bragga) and I still don't see why this hasn't been done sooner. Really, these two clowns have virtually no fan support and they are producing a show that has consistently the lowest ratings of any Star Trek show. There is a big difference between the 10 million+ viewers in the heyday of DS9 and Voyager and the paltry 3 million or so that watch Enterprise.

As for the bar being set low for series renewal, I would say that popularity and quality seem to have less to do with this than politics. For example, Fox cancelled both Family Guy and Futurama, two very successful and critically revered shows simply because the executives at Fox didn't particularly like them. This is a matter of pride for UPN I think as Star Trek has been a staple of their network since its inception. Without it, the only shows they have left are all these craptastic, exploitive black "comedies".

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

This is a matter of pride for UPN I think as Star Trek has been a staple of their network since its inception. Without it, the only shows they have left are all these craptastic, exploitive black "comedies".

Except that Enterprise would've been the genesis of the word "craptastic" if the word hadn't existed already, and it's probably one of the most exploitative things on television right now -- exploitative of women (You think the chick in the upcoming episode "Rajin"<sp?>) is gonna be wearing anything that doesn't show off her tits?); exploitative of teenage boys, who probably tune in just to see said tits and for no other reason; exploitative of the parent property...

[The Kernel]

This is a matter of pride for UPN I think as Star Trek has been a staple of their network since its inception. Without it, the only shows they have left are all these craptastic, exploitive black "comedies".

Except that Enterprise would've been the genesis of the word "craptastic" if the word hadn't existed already, and it's probably one of the most exploitative things on television right now -- exploitative of women (You think the chick in the upcoming episode "Rajin"<sp?>) is gonna be wearing anything that doesn't show off her tits?); exploitative of teenage boys, who probably tune in just to see said tits and for no other reason; exploitative of the parent property...

I absolutely agree about Enterprise; I was refering to the Star Trek franchise in general.

[Patrick Degan]

Enterprise is on the air because the bar is set rather low for continuation of a series nowadays. Thanks to massive dilution, multiple upstart TV networks, and cable, it has become perfectly acceptable to fight over small scraps of viewership. Add to that the fact that continuation of Star Trek in some televised form is good for merchandising sales, and you can see the business incentive to keep Trek going even if it's a dismal failure on the tube.

Agreed, but that still doesn't explain why Paramount doesn't clean house in what has been one of their most successful franchises. There's really nothing wrong with Star Trek that a few Crucifixions can't fix (up first, Bermen and Bragga) and I still don't see why this hasn't been done sooner. Really, these two clowns have virtually no fan support and they are producing a show that has consistently the lowest ratings of any Star Trek show. There is a big difference between the 10 million+ viewers in the heyday of DS9 and Voyager and the paltry 3 million or so that watch Enterprise.

Paramount don't do anything about it because they don't feel they have to. They're operating on two market models: the presold fanbase who will simply tune into and buy anything with the Trek brand-label on it, and the boutique fandom, who may ignore everything but their favourite sub-brand and spend their dollars only on that select segment of Trek merchandise which appeals to them. It's like the "competition" between Chevorlet, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac or Cadillac — all subsidiaries of General Motors, who get all the profits generated therein.

The Trek Franchise has become the GM of media SF. This is why it doesn't matter to the Paramount execs that Boobyprise is shit or that Berman Braga has alienated so much of the fandom. It doesn't matter that V'ger and Deep Sleep Nine were miserable failures. It doesn't matter that TOS and TNG fans (or TNG and DS9 fans) slag one another off and won't even give "that other show" a chance. They've all got their compartmentalised brand markets to shop from to their heart's content and Paramount owns them all. While the presold brand-loyal fanbase, not all that different psychologically from the Borg Collective, will automatically buy any bit of crap with the all-important brand label on it because it's there and because they know they must continue to be one with the Collective... er... support the Franchise.

As for UPN, well, that joke of a network makes for a nice loss-leader for Paramount; not only keeping the Franchise up and running but also helping to balance the books and providing a nice hefty writeoff come tax time.

For Paramount, everything is unfolding according to their design.

[The Kernel]

Paramount don't do anything about it because they don't feel they have to. They're operating on two market models: the presold fanbase who will simply tune into and buy anything with the Trek brand-label on it, and the boutique fandom, who may ignore everything but their favourite sub-brand and spend their dollars only on that select segment of Trek merchandise which appeals to them. It's like the "competition" between Chevorlet, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac or Cadillac — all subsidiaries of General Motors, who get all the profits generated therein.

Uhhh...you are aware that the hardcore fanbase has already deserted Enterprise aren't you? Most of the current viewers are made up of lonely teenage boys.

The Trek Franchise has become the GM of media SF. This is why it doesn't matter to the Paramount execs that Boobyprise is shit or that Berman Braga has alienated so much of the fandom. It doesn't matter that V'ger and Deep Sleep Nine were miserable failures.

DS9 and Voyager were NOT miserable failures: DS9 posted the best ratings in Star Trek history its first season and continued with solid ratings for much of its life. It tapered off during the final seasons but that is typical of a show like this. Even Voyager was considered a success from a business perspective.

It doesn't matter that TOS and TNG fans (or TNG and DS9 fans) slag one another off and won't even give "that other show" a chance. They've all got their compartmentalised brand markets to shop from to their heart's content and Paramount owns them all. While the presold brand-loyal fanbase, not all that different psychologically from the Borg Collective, will automatically buy any bit of crap with the all-important brand label on it because it's there and because they know they must continue to be one with the Collective... er... support the Franchise.

You really don't remember the early 1990's do you? Back then, a good deal of America watched Star Trek and it was considered at its height of popularity. Star Trek TOS movies were doing nicely at the box office, TNG was doing great in the ratings, DS9 premiered to fantastic numbers and took the series in a new direction and even the Star Trek videogames were okay.

Are you really suggesting that Paramount likes the demise of one of their key franchises?

[Patrick Degan]

Paramount don't do anything about it because they don't feel they have to. They're operating on two market models: the presold fanbase who will simply tune into and buy anything with the Trek brand-label on it, and the boutique fandom, who may ignore everything but their favourite sub-brand and spend their dollars only on that select segment of Trek merchandise which appeals to them. It's like the "competition" between Chevorlet, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac or Cadillac — all subsidiaries of General Motors, who get all the profits generated therein.

Uhhh...you are aware that the hardcore fanbase has already deserted Enterprise aren't you? Most of the current viewers are made up of lonely teenage boys.

The BorgTrekkies. The overall fandom are still split into their own segments, with each show having its corps of loyalists and marketable books, videos, and junk to cater to them. And Paramount collects on it all.

The Trek Franchise has become the GM of media SF. This is why it doesn't matter to the Paramount execs that Boobyprise is shit or that Berman Braga has alienated so much of the fandom. It doesn't matter that V'ger and Deep Sleep Nine were miserable failures.

DS9 and Voyager were NOT miserable failures: DS9 posted the best ratings in Star Trek history its first season and continued with solid ratings for much of its life. It tapered off during the final seasons but that is typical of a show like this. Even Voyager was considered a success from a business perspective.

Hate to disillusion you, but they were. DS9 was riding the coattails of TNG's success when it premiered but by the end of its seven year hobble had maybe a third of the audience which had tuned in for "All Good Things". V'ger was lucky to hold an average audience of four million when that show laid the turd which was "Endgame". The decline of the audiences for both shows charts to a downward curve. That's not a "tapering off", that's a wholesale collapse. And if you still doubt my thesis, you just keep waiting for Paramount to produce a feature-length film based on TNG's two bastard children.

It doesn't matter that TOS and TNG fans (or TNG and DS9 fans) slag one another off and won't even give "that other show" a chance. They've all got their compartmentalised brand markets to shop from to their heart's content and Paramount owns them all. While the presold brand-loyal fanbase, not all that different psychologically from the Borg Collective, will automatically buy any bit of crap with the all-important brand label on it because it's there and because they know they must continue to be one with the Collective... er... support the Franchise.

You really don't remember the early 1990's do you? Back then, a good deal of America watched Star Trek and it was considered at its height of popularity. Star Trek TOS movies were doing nicely at the box office, TNG was doing great in the ratings, DS9 premiered to fantastic numbers and took the series in a new direction and even the Star Trek videogames were okay.

Sure. That's why "All Good Things" had an audience of 18.1 million viewers and within seven years of that finale Deep Sleep Nine petered out before a viewership of 5.7 million at best and V'ger slinked off the stage with only 4.3 million to see it into its grave. The early 1990s don't mean jack-shit —the Bold New Direction the Franchise took was Straight Down.

Are you really suggesting that Paramount likes the demise of one of their key franchises?

You really don't get it, do you? As long as Paramount can continue to rake in profit from Star Trek in any form while minimising their Bottom Line, the quality of their current (and future) product is immaterial. The BorgTrekkies will simply buy anything, and each series has its loyal cultists who will buy everything and anything associated with "their" favourite series and neither want or have to give a damn about the rest. And Paramount keeps collecting the gold while putting out only the minimum effort and expense to keep the Franchise in the public eye. That's Bottom Line thinking.

Welcome to the food chain.

[The Kernel]

Patrick Degan,

You just don't get it do you? DS9 never WANTED to be as mainstream as TNG was which meant it appealed to a much less broad audience. This doesn't make it a failure in any sense of the word, it just makes it less of a financial success than TNG.

Voyager was an attempt to reintensify popular interest in Star Trek and it failed to do that (although it did create a new niche audience) due to a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that UPN has been a total failure as a network. It didn't help that there really weren't any likeable characters and the early plots weren't exactly gripping.

Still, I doubt you could classify either as a failure. DS9 was an experiment for Star Trek that worked well at a lot of things, although some of the old Trek baggage did seem to hinder it (I wonder what it would have been like without the Trek connection...). Voyager was the spiritual successor to TNG, but it wasn't great from a critical standpoint and just got worse over the years (as did the ratings). So I guess you can make a case for Voyager being somewhat of a failure, but DS9 was a successful show even if it wasn't as mass market as TNG.

As for your claims that Paramount only cares about their bottom line in regards to Trek, I suggest you remember that by diluting Trek's popularity, they are diluting their bottom line as well. My prediction is that if Enterprise doesn't bring its ratings up (and it wont) then it is finished along with Bermen, Bragga and the rest of the staff that are still stuck in the stone age. Trek might be crap now, but it is still a powerful franchise that could make a comeback given the right support.

[Patrick Degan]

Patrick Degan,

You just don't get it do you? DS9 never WANTED to be as mainstream as TNG was which meant it appealed to a much less broad audience. This doesn't make it a failure in any sense of the word, it just makes it less of a financial success than TNG.

Um, bullshit. The one and only thing which mattered was capturing the target demographic. Do you really imagine that television executives give a flying fuck about audience tastes or what kind of Star Trek they prefer? If DS9 wasn't losing its audience, they wouldn't have tweaked and monkeyed the format as much as they ended up doing. They wouldn't have staged "events" like the Klingon/Federation war to beef up sagging ratings or have gotten desperate to the point of simply ripping off other TV shows wholesale. DS9 lost its audience —that is indisputable no matter what handwaving you try to indulge to make it not so.

Voyager was an attempt to reintensify popular interest in Star Trek and it failed to do that (although it did create a new niche audience) due to a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that UPN has been a total failure as a network. It didn't help that there really weren't any likeable characters and the early plots weren't exactly gripping.

Naturally, the fact that it was simply a crappy show which lost its audience faster than DS9 did has nothing to do with the matter.

Still, I doubt you could classify either as a failure.

Let's see... Both shows started out with relatively strong viewerships, lost three-quarters of their audiences during their runs, will never have feature movies made from them and today appeal only to their remaining corps of loyalists. I'd say that spells "failure".

DS9 was an experiment for Star Trek that worked well at a lot of things, although some of the old Trek baggage did seem to hinder it (I wonder what it would have been like without the Trek connection...).

A more widely recognised ripoff of Babylon 5 which would have gone into the crapper after season two.

Voyager was the spiritual successor to TNG, but it wasn't great from a critical standpoint and just got worse over the years (as did the ratings). So I guess you can make a case for Voyager being somewhat of a failure, but DS9 was a successful show even if it wasn't as mass market as TNG.

As you wish...

As for your claims that Paramount only cares about their bottom line in regards to Trek, I suggest you remember that by diluting Trek's popularity, they are diluting their bottom line as well. My prediction is that if Enterprise doesn't bring its ratings up (and it wont) then it is finished along with Bermen, Bragga and the rest of the staff that are still stuck in the stone age. Trek might be crap now, but it is still a powerful franchise that could make a comeback given the right support.

They've got a presold market —including presumably yourself— who will keep buying into the merchandise for decades. It's the same principle of working a goldmine to the last nugget. And by that time, they'll have come up with an even more lucrative replacement and Star Trek won't even be missed. Don't delude yourself into thinking that Paramount's fortunes rise or fall on the fate of one 35 year old TV show and its spinoffs. That's business.

[The Kernel]

Presumably myself? You think I am a rabid Trekkie? LOL! Funny! I gave up on Trek a loooong time ago. Despite what I said about Voyager, I was trying to look at it from an objective point of view. My personal opinion is the Voyager sucked, Enterprise sucks and Star Trek has basically turned to shit.

Anyways, I think you should read this:

http://www.treknation.com/articles/rati ... tory.shtml

I don't agree with everything here, but I think it is a fairly decent look into the demise of Star Trek.

The truth is, you and I agree on more points than you want to admit. You may not have liked DS9, but I found it fairly entertaining if a little flawed but certainly not the pile of crap most people make it out to be.

As far as network executives and their profits, sure they don't want a niche show but network executives don't have as much creative control over a product as you seem to think. Maybe they didn't realize that DS9 was writing itself into a niche market and maybe they tried to reverse it with things like the Klingon/Dominion conflicts. Doesn't change the fact that most of the control lay with the producers and they had a very clear vision of what they wanted DS9 to become. The fans also approved of most of the new direction despite the languishing numbers. There are many factors that go in to popularity and quality isn't always one of them.

[Drooling Iguana]

My God, you seriously think that this is not an improvement?

Hell yeah. I actually liked the show during the first two seasons (well, I liked it more than I've liked any other modern Trek series, anyway, which I suppose isn't saying much.) Seeing what the show's become now is downright painful.

[Patrick Degan]

Presumably myself? You think I am a rabid Trekkie? LOL! Funny! I gave up on Trek a loooong time ago. Despite what I said about Voyager, I was trying to look at it from an objective point of view. My personal opinion is the Voyager sucked, Enterprise sucks and Star Trek has basically turned to shit.

My mistake then. Must've misinterpreted the attempt to argue that DS9 wasn't a failure when the data shows otherwise.

Anyways, I think you should read this:

http://www.treknation.com/articles/rati ... tory.shtml

I don't agree with everything here, but I think it is a fairly decent look into the demise of Star Trek.

A look at the data here:

http://x-files.host.sk/nielsens.php

pretty much counters the argument that DS9 held its own alongside shows such as The X-Files. That series, which ended its first season with an average Nielsen of 7, remained at about an 8.2-8.6 per season Nielsen average until its last subpar season without David Duchovny. The writer at TrekNation is trying to put a positive spin on what otherwise is a disaster. To fuck up something which had a presold audience to begin with takes grand-mal incompetence or arrogance combined with the sort of ruthless bottom-line thinking I've outlined on this thread.

The truth is, you and I agree on more points than you want to admit. You may not have liked DS9, but I found it fairly entertaining if a little flawed but certainly not the pile of crap most people make it out to be.

I spent seven years watching that show turn to shit before my eyes. I saw Ben Sisko transform from a fairly decent if somewhat pompous Starfleet officer into first a loose cannon, then a war criminal, then pope of the Bajoran voodoo people. I watched as Gul Dukat was turned from a fairly interesting villain into Snidley Whiplash with glowing red eyes. I saw Odo turned into a lovesick simp, the Klingons turned into moronic Space Vikings, and the arrival of the Space Nazis from the Gamma Quadrant. The "war" became little more than backdrop for the soap opera As The Wormhole Turns, interspersed with tripe like the Vic Fontaine Show and the Who's Getting Into Ezri's Pants game. The Big War gets wrapped up with a stock-footage space battle peppered with Martok's idiotic ramblings about the glory of death in titanic battle blah blah blahblahblah... and with Odo having a quickie with Female Changeling, bringing the word of peace and goodwill from all solids God Bless Us Every One blah blah blahblahblah... before the Thanks For The Memories montage.

And the coincident ratings nosedive from an 11 to a 4 is not indicative of failure?

As far as network executives and their profits, sure they don't want a niche show but network executives don't have as much creative control over a product as you seem to think.

You really need to read up on television history. Far too many shows have been wrecked and destroyed by the Suits interfering with creative control. And as they're the ones signing the cheques, they do exert control. It takes a clever contract negotiation at the outset to avoid that fate.

Maybe they didn't realize that DS9 was writing itself into a niche market and maybe they tried to reverse it with things like the Klingon/Dominion conflicts. Doesn't change the fact that most of the control lay with the producers and they had a very clear vision of what they wanted DS9 to become.

At the beginning of the series, Deep Space Nine set forth three main plot points: detente with the Cardassians, the transition of Bajor into Federation membership, and discovry of the true nature of the "Prophets". By the end of the series, none of these plot points were really resolved. The Klingon/Federation war wasn't part of the plan but a hastily incorporated gimmick to attempt to halt the ratings slide. It failed.

The fans also approved of most of the new direction despite the languishing numbers.

Since the languishing numbers indicate a clear loss of fans, that is a somewhat bizarre formulation.

[The Kernel]

You continue to argue the success of the show based on its predecessor TNG which is obviously a mistake. Despite both being Star Trek, they are still two different shows.

As for the rest, are you looking for me to concede that DS9's ratings dropped off significantly from the first season? Fine, consider it said. I still believe that the only reason DS9 was as popular as it was is because it was riding off the success of TNG. I don't think people realized that it WASN'T TNG for some time, which at least explains the ratings change from the first two seasons. If you look at the data from the third season on, it isn't nearly as bad. And I doubt that you would argue that DS9's strongest shows were in the first and second seasons.

Creative control by the networks varies from show to show. If you look at a show like South Park or The Simpsons, there is little-to-no control by the networks; all they care about is that they keep getting made. There have been other shows that have been in similar situations that weren't even as popular (Family Guy and Futurama spring to mind [sorry, I'm an animated TV junkie...]) that still retained their creative control, all the way up to being cancelled. Seth McFarlane and Matt Groenig may be bitter against Fox for cancelling their shows, but they NEVER claimed that they were trying to exert creative control over the shows (indeed, they implied that they felt extremely free in most of the interviews/commentaries).

As for Star Trek specifically, it is hard to tell. Bermen seems to think he is in control of the franchise, but since he really doesn't talk much about his relationship to the network, I don't think we can say for sure.

[Patrick Degan]

You continue to argue the success of the show based on its predecessor TNG which is obviously a mistake. Despite both being Star Trek, they are still two different shows.

Unfortunately, that really doesn't answer the question as to why Deep Sleep Nine lost 3/4 of its audience through its run, does it?

As for the rest, are you looking for me to concede that DS9's ratings dropped off significantly from the first season? Fine, consider it said. I still believe that the only reason DS9 was as popular as it was is because it was riding off the success of TNG. I don't think people realized that it WASN'T TNG for some time, which at least explains the ratings change from the first two seasons. If you look at the data from the third season on, it isn't nearly as bad. And I doubt that you would argue that DS9's strongest shows were in the first and second seasons.

C'mon, the viewers would have to be a pretty dim bunch not to notice the difference between the two shows, don't you think? And I don't see how you can support your case with a data chart which demonstrates a continuing downward trend and the clear fact that the viewers who abandoned this show never came back.

Creative control by the networks varies from show to show. If you look at a show like South Park or The Simpsons, there is little-to-no control by the networks; all they care about is that they keep getting made. There have been other shows that have been in similar situations that weren't even as popular (Family Guy and Futurama spring to mind [sorry, I'm an animated TV junkie...]) that still retained their creative control, all the way up to being cancelled.

Exceptions do not destroy the rule, I'm afraid.

As for Star Trek specifically, it is hard to tell. Bermen seems to think he is in control of the franchise, but since he really doesn't talk much about his relationship to the network, I don't think we can say for sure.

Well, yes we can actually, since Parmount's board have not seen fit to veto any of his decisions in the fifteen years he's been mismanaging things.

[Stormbringer]

Unfortunately, that really doesn't answer the question as to why Deep Sleep Nine lost 3/4 of its audience through its run, does it?

Half that was B&B fucking with the syndication to try and tank the show in favor of their baby Voyager. More than a few TV insiders have said that the gruesome twosome deliberately fucked the show over. For the last couple of seasons it was never on at the same time for more than three weeks at a time. That kills the audience right there.

That doesn't account for it all, but it really hurt the show since it relied on syndication deals rather than UPN like Voyager.