Without the numbers in front of us, no one really know for sure how true that it.
Complimenting ENTERPRISE...
- Thread starter Farscape One
- Start date
Without the numbers in front of us, no one really know for sure how true that it.
If it got canceled then that raises the question of profitability. Pausing means investing more money.
With the way tv shows were produced in that era, the only viable option was what Berman wanted to do originally... take a year off after VOYAGER ended, then bring on ENTERPRISE. Shows simply weren't put on pause for any length of time other than the usual summer hiatus.
The FAMILY GUY example, ironically, is proof of why the cost of such an idea is not feasible. That was an animated show... no sets or stages to keep in storage. And that's not even including the cost of keeping lead actors on contract and staying available for such a thing.
I can't think of any live action shows in that era that went on a year or two break and then come back. Especially scifi shows, as they are typically much more expensive than other types of shows.
The FAMILY GUY example, ironically, is proof of why the cost of such an idea is not feasible. That was an animated show... no sets or stages to keep in storage. And that's not even including the cost of keeping lead actors on contract and staying available for such a thing.
I can't think of any live action shows in that era that went on a year or two break and then come back. Especially scifi shows, as they are typically much more expensive than other types of shows.
Last edited:
I hate to say this, but I have to agree with this. As much as I will defend ENTERPRISE and how much I really did love that show, I have had to live the fact that I will never see any continuation of it on tv or in movies.
Best case scenario? A SHORT TREKS revival that involves some characters from ENTERPRISE. And even I'm not hopeful of that.
They typically don't. Even the 2 Jeri Taylor written VOYAGER novels weren't declared canon.
Not sure the DISCOVERY or PICARD ones were, so that kind of thing might be under different rules with the Kurtzman era shows.
Not sure the DISCOVERY or PICARD ones were, so that kind of thing might be under different rules with the Kurtzman era shows.
It might be different with characters that don't plan on using again.
In "The Autobiography of Kathryn Janeway", for instance, it's revealed that neither Chakotay nor Tom Paris remained in Starfleet. However, "Lower Decks" and "Prodigy" used those characters, and revealed otherwise. But if there is no more TV trek set before the 23rd century, why not establish a fate for them?
In "The Autobiography of Kathryn Janeway", for instance, it's revealed that neither Chakotay nor Tom Paris remained in Starfleet. However, "Lower Decks" and "Prodigy" used those characters, and revealed otherwise. But if there is no more TV trek set before the 23rd century, why not establish a fate for them?
This is exactly my point. The costs would be prohibitive. Even Lucasfilm struck sets from Episode One even though the same locations would be used in Episode Two.
The financial picture doesn't support a pause.
I’m not worried about the series, since I feel the way forward is something new with the ENT cast, plus some new casting additions and settings. Basically, a simultaneous rebrand and revival.
There’s also Jericho, which was resurrected by a fan campaign (sounds familiar?) and then canceled again afterward. In the case of Jericho, that was owned by CBS, and while the ratings for it was low compared to other shows on CBS, it was still doing better than ENT ratings wise. CBS and UPN are quite different though.
If there was going to be a Short Trek, then this year would have been it, since it’s the 20th anniversary of ENT premiering. Would have been perfect for a cast reunion and if anyone could get a 30+ minutes Short Trek, its them. And considering how many times Archer is referenced in Discovery, as well as the references to Trip, Shran, mirror Hoshi, Denobulans, and the hopes that T’Pol will make an appearance on SNW, it would be a suitable tie in to the Kurtzman era.
JERICHO... I remember the campaign, but it wasn't a long break in between. The second season aired as a midseason (around March, I believe) show for 2008. It was canceled in June of 2007.
The sets were not struck down and actors were not away from the show for a protracted period of time. Definitely not a year or more, which was the point that was stated before.
The sets were not struck down and actors were not away from the show for a protracted period of time. Definitely not a year or more, which was the point that was stated before.
The financial arguments - under the parameters for Enterprise - doesn’t work though.
Stargate Atlantis, after being cancelled after 5 seasons, still ended up on syndication and got the opportunity to have at least 1 direct-to-DVD movie. The direct-to DVD movie only got shelved indefinitely because of financial trouble at MGM and the Great Recession, even though enough financing was secured for a 20-episode season.
Paramount did not have financial issues, and they did not let the Great Recession stop production on the reboot movies. And I’m sure they could have secured the financing if they wanted to. So, their reasoning to shelve Enterprise indefinitely is suspect, although they did allow Enterprise to complete filming after announcing cancellation. And the cast in response put everything they had into the remaining episodes, including the finale.
At this point, create something new based off of the cast, crew and writers’ favourite seasons and episodes. Like a “Broken Bow” meets "The Andorian Incident" meets “Shuttlepod One” meets “Dear Doctor” meets” “Detained” meets “Cogenitor” meets “Regeneration” meets “Judgment” meet the Xindi arc meets Season 4 kind of miniseries.
Last edited:
Yup. Still not see the financial way forward.
And I’m still not seeing how the support - including financial - wasn’t there.
Nonetheless, its not my responsibility bring ENT back. Either as a revival or as a rebranded series.
Exactly. The money wasn't right, which is why JERICHO never got more than that shortened second season. Despite the fan campaign, the second season viewership was even lower than season 1.
And yeah, the cancellation of ENTERPRISE is suspect... it's because ultimately, Les Moonves did not like STAR TREK.
And of course they let them finish production of season 4... the announcement happened while filming "IN A MIRROR, DARKLY, PART II", which only left 3 episodes to complete the production season. It's not like it was cancelled halfway into the season and then shutting down for good to save the company money.
And yeah, the cancellation of ENTERPRISE is suspect... it's because ultimately, Les Moonves did not like STAR TREK.
And of course they let them finish production of season 4... the announcement happened while filming "IN A MIRROR, DARKLY, PART II", which only left 3 episodes to complete the production season. It's not like it was cancelled halfway into the season and then shutting down for good to save the company money.
Why else cancel it except to save money?
I just don't see how you can argue they should pause when it would cost more money.
A lot of shows back then... and many now... will get an initial season order of 13 episodes, and if it does well with the first episodes, will get a back half of the season order of 9 episodes, bringing the total to 22.
Very few shows got a full season order off the bat. STAR TREK shows were one of those rare exceptions, partly due to syndication ability.
With the exception of TNG season 2 (cut due to WGA strike), DS9 and VGR's first season (20 episodes each due to having the actual season start filming a month or 2 after the normal time a season begins shooting), VGR season 3 (not exactly sure why only 22 were filmed, but I'm guessing it's because of the stupid UPN decision of holding 4 episodes back from the previous season to start airing earlier), and ENT seasons 3 and 4 (season 3 was 24 episodes, not entirely sure why, and the budget was slashed for season 4, which is why it's 22 episodes), all seasons of the Berman era were 26 episodes.
So since the order was already made for the season, it was locked in with that number of episodes. The cancellation order simply meant no new seasons.
Which is a damn shame... they found the perfect format with season 4.
Very few shows got a full season order off the bat. STAR TREK shows were one of those rare exceptions, partly due to syndication ability.
With the exception of TNG season 2 (cut due to WGA strike), DS9 and VGR's first season (20 episodes each due to having the actual season start filming a month or 2 after the normal time a season begins shooting), VGR season 3 (not exactly sure why only 22 were filmed, but I'm guessing it's because of the stupid UPN decision of holding 4 episodes back from the previous season to start airing earlier), and ENT seasons 3 and 4 (season 3 was 24 episodes, not entirely sure why, and the budget was slashed for season 4, which is why it's 22 episodes), all seasons of the Berman era were 26 episodes.
So since the order was already made for the season, it was locked in with that number of episodes. The cancellation order simply meant no new seasons.
Which is a damn shame... they found the perfect format with season 4.
Because you don’t want to disrupt the momentum and growing goodwill of ENT while the UPN/WB merger is under way? Done right, S5 would have been a relaunch.
Unless the cast and crew were being asked to take a pay cut in rights fees or something related and they refused, there was no reason to cancel the show.
Moonves could have even cancelled ENT and created a sequel series with the same cast specifically for the CW, but with Coto at the helm in place of B&B. But that wasn’t done either.
What credentials allow you to evaluate whether or not the rates advertisers were willing to pay to support the production of ENT were sufficient as to pay for ENT's production budget? Or to evaluate whether Viacom could achieve a reasonable profit from those rates?
I mean, it's pretty simple: ENT's ratings were low enough that advertisers in 2005 were not willing to pay enough money for advertisements during its broadcast as to earn the levels of profit Viacom deemed necessary to warrant the costs of production.
Now, things like that are contingent upon the context of the market and era in which such decisions were made. ENT's ratings in 2005 were probably high enough that in today's much larger and more diffuse marketplace, either Viacom would probably still be able to charge high enough rates for advertisers as to earn a profit or Viacom would be able to find an alternate funding model such as streaming subscriptions. But in the context of the much smaller 2005 market, ENT's ratings just weren't high enough for advertisers to want to pay. Hell, I distinctly remember watching ENT Season Four and noticing that they'd started putting in "Stay tuned to Star Trek: Enterprise" interstitials during the commercial breaks because UPN was literally not able to sell enough commercials to take up the entire scheduled commercial breaks.
1) The decision to merge UPN and the WB to create the CW was not announced until January 2006, almost a year after ENT was cancelled.
2) There was no momentum. ENT's ratings in S4 were mostly between 2.5 million to 3 million, down from S3's ratings of mostly 3.4 million to 4 million, which was itself down from S2's ratings of mostly around 4 million, down from S1's ratings of mostly around 5 million. The audience was shrinking, not growing, including shrinking DURING S4. There was no momentum.
Do I need credentials? I just need to compare DVD sales of ENT with other Trek series to see how its performed. And pay attention to the ratings of ENT and how it performed in the demos to see which audience it was attracting over a four-year period. If Enterprise was attracting those over the age of 50 instead of those that were in the 18-49 demo, then its no wonder that they were struggling to attract advertisers for the show. Advertisers want 18-49, since it means they are buying the products advertised.
It been since proven that Voyager and DS9 were rewatched more than TNG on Netflix and made for better repeat customers, despite TNG and TOS having larger audiences. And VOY and DS9 not being remastered and put on Bluray may be part of the reason why they had more viewers on Netflix; the TOS and TNG fans are enjoying the Bluray versions they have at home.
Maybe Enterprise would have been up there with Voyager and DS9 if they had been allowed seven seasons as well. Mentioning Voyager is important because it too was on UPN until the end of its run and was only available in certain markets at the time of its airing.
And maybe there was too much attachment to TOS & TNG and not enough attachment to DS9 & VOY for ENT?
The show’s momentum came from better writing, with led to more positive review that it had been previously receiving. It just needed to be seen by a larger market to see if it its new direction was well received by a more mainstream audience. How are you going to say no one would watch when a number of trek fans wrent even able to watch it?
Even if they were cleaning up the books ahead of the UPN/WB merger over the course of 2005, Enterprise could have still be brought back once the merger was settled by 2006. And I doubt a return of Enterprise would have impacted the plans for the reboot films at all.
Similar threads
