Why was Enterprise received so poorly?

[Dukhat]

There has been nothing in any Star Trek series that has ever been really controversial. And no Trek series has ever been cancelled, or even in danger of being cancelled, over something controversial.

 

[Riley]

Counterpoint: It is much harder to sell the idea, "The captain who came between Kirk and Picard -- the first one, not the second one -- right, this is from the prologue to that movie we released seven years ago with that guy from Ferris Bueller, remember him?" -- than it is to sell the idea, "The first captain, one hundred years before Kirk."

It's possible I didn't specify that Harriman could have (and probably should have) been replaced by a new captain. The series also doesn't have to be set right after the events of Generations; a five year jump could have occurred, leading to a new captain and bridge crew.

I highly doubt Alan Ruck would have reprised this miniscule role for an ongoing series.

See above. Though I think Ruck is a fantastic actor, I don't think there was enough there for him to play with, paving the way for new captain.

To me, "watch the formation of Starfleet and the Federation!" sounds much more exciting than "watch the adventures that's just filling time between two legendary captains with the captain you kind of hated for being so inept in a movie you were lukewarm about".

Again, Harriman doesn't have to remain as captain. Maybe he gets a five year mission and is then promoted, or he and the rest of the E-B crew are reassigned after the incident with Kirk.

 

[Anna Yolei]

If it were up to me, Archer would have been Latino. Seemed to me like a pretty obvious next step to take for the franchise.

As terrible as the writing was for Archer, I'm glad they didn't saddle the first Latino captain with this level of petulance.

To me, "watch the formation of Starfleet and the Federation!" sounds much more exciting than "watch the adventures that's just filling time between two legendary captains with the captain you kind of hated for being so inept in a movie you were lukewarm about".

Same. There was tons that could've been done in this time period that wouldn't have conflicted with existing canon....almost none of which either Berman or Paramount would've gone for. They were so stuck in TNG format mode and we were never getting anything BUT that.

Let's put this way, ENT "Unexpected" was considered to be a controversial episode...

Was it, though?

The only complaints I've heard against the episode was that it sat back on tired, basic bitch sitcom pregnancy "jokes" and sidestepped the issue of consent with Tucker but even among the more conservative audience back then, no one batted an eye over a pregnant man and this was years before Thomas Beattie made headlines.

Slapping a "trans lesbian" label on something is a death sentence to the masses, an all time classic for a incredibly small portion of the population.

Perhaps they couldn't get the studio to do trans AND lesbian rep in one go, but I remember the 2000s as well and most of the active users here at the time thought it beyond absurd that there was ZERO mention of gay people existing, especially when we got that line in "E²" about all the women getting paired off to half the available guys. Putting aside the ridiculous issue that the crew wasn't more evenly split between male and female....bruh, this show thought EVERY woman was dying to pair off? And that there weren't queer people with no interest in the opposite sex?

This same network greenlighted Willow and Tara for a show that shared much of ENT's audience and having gay characters (albeit not leads, I'll grant you) exist was less and less of a novelty. FOX greenlighted Glee less than four years later and *that* became a huge hit that beat American Idol in ratings.

There was an appetite for it. ENT may have still been cut short anyway but that would not have been it.

 

[FederationHistorian]

when we got that line in "E²" about all the women getting paired off to half the available guys. Putting aside the ridiculous issue that the crew wasn't more evenly split between male and female....bruh, this show thought EVERY woman was dying to pair off?

Its not even half of the available guys, as 27 crewmembers had died beforehand.

We know that among the casualties were 2 women and 6 men. Multiply by x3 for the total and its 6 women and 18 men that were lost; total of 24. We can probably round up the women’s total by 1 and the men’s total by 2 as well, due to how many were aboard.

That leaves 21 women, and 35 men aboard available to pair off. Subtract Archer who got together with an Encari freighter captain, and it knocks down the men's numbers to 34. If the whole crew pairs off, then that leave 13 male crewmembers that get with no one, not even others aliens.

And the audience is also supposed to believe that a few crewmembers aren’t at least openminded to be in a poly relationship, even though Phlox is aboard and exposes them to the idea. And Maslow’s hierarchy of needs won’t come into play here; the men will be fine being celibate for the next hundred years. And supposedly there are no asexual crewmembers either. And we also know that outside of Phlox, some of the crew are married (Trip referenced Ensign Kimbal as being married back in S1); while the married women seem to be okay moving on, the married men not named Phlox might not be.

So, were some - if not all - of the 27 that died gay? That leans into the Bury Your gays trope. What about the 8 or 9 crewmembers that left the ship before the Xindi mission. Where they gay? If so, that’s playing into gay stereotypes.

Its just not plausible that no gay individuals served on Enterprise. Or if they did serve on the ship, that they all happened to have died, or managed to avoid serving in a war.

And that there weren't queer people with no interest in the opposite sex?

This same network greenlighted Willow and Tara for a show that shared much of ENT's audience and having gay characters (albeit not leads, I'll grant you) exist was less and less of a novelty. FOX greenlighted Glee less than four years later and *that* became a huge hit that beat American Idol in ratings.

There was an appetite for it. ENT may have still been cut short anyway but that would not have been it.

In hindsight, the Trip and T’Pol romance in S3 should have been T’Pol and Hoshi in S3, and Trip and T’Pol are saved for S4 and onwards. It would have addressed both the lack of LGBT characters and that the LGBT characters in the franchise tend to act villainously, gave the audience something new to learn about Vulcans, and gave the Kirk/Spock shippers a bit of hope.

Its not the only thing that could have been done. But some ideas for LGBT representation should have been plausible enough to do, even back then.

 

[fireproof78]

Was it, though?

The only complaints I've heard against the episode was that it sat back on tired, basic bitch sitcom pregnancy "jokes" and sidestepped the issue of consent with Tucker but even among the more conservative audience back then, no one batted an eye over a pregnant man and this was years before Thomas Beattie made headlines.

It was for me. It was the repeat of Troi's violation in "The Child" while not even taking it seriously. It was played for laughs which is the absolute most irritating thing since Spock commented that Kirk's evil half had some "interesting" traits to Yeoman Rand.

 

[at Quark's]

Was it, though?

The only complaints I've heard against the episode was that it sat back on tired, basic bitch sitcom pregnancy "jokes" and sidestepped the issue of consent with Tucker but even among the more conservative audience back then, no one batted an eye over a pregnant man and this was years before Thomas Beattie made headlines.
.

Agreed. If it was controversial, it wasn't because of the theme itself, but because of the level of adolescent 'humor' and the lack of taking some related issues seriously, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Lord Hierarch]

Why was it recieved so poorly?


CAUSE THE VULCANS INTERFERED!

Roswell? THE VULCANS.

The Khan? THE VULCANS.

The Martian Secession? THE VULCANS.

KOMMUNISM?!!? THE VULCANS!!!

 

[Darth Thanos]

The lack of LGBT characters can hardly make a show fail, especially when romance itself (of whatever type of pairing) is not the hook that brings audiences in, but just an added bonus, that may even be absent from many episodes without anyone noticing so. People come to Star Trek for the aliens, the futuristic tech, the space exploration, etc; not to see the endless telenovela cycle of love and bickering between Trip and T'Pol, Torres and Paris, or Odo and Kira.

Just look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the most successful media franchise of all time. It started in 2008, broke all audience records, and the first gay kiss was in 2021, 13 years and 25 films later (and even that happened in a film, Eternals, that didn't turn out to be as successful as its other productions). Just like Star Trek, the success of the MCU (and the failure of Eternals, for that matter) is not based on romance, even if there is some romance in it.

 

[bdub76]

The lack of LGBT characters can hardly make a show fail, especially when romance itself (of whatever type of pairing) is not the hook that brings audiences in, but just an added bonus, that may even be absent from many episodes without anyone noticing so. People come to Star Trek for the aliens, the futuristic tech, the space exploration, etc; not to see the endless telenovela cycle of love and bickering between Trip and T'Pol, Torres and Paris, or Odo and Kira.

Just look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the most successful media franchise of all time. It started in 2008, broke all audience records, and the first gay kiss was in 2021, 13 years and 25 films later (and even that happened in a film, Eternals, that didn't turn out to be as successful as its other productions). Just like Star Trek, the success of the MCU (and the failure of Eternals, for that matter) is not based on romance, even if there is some romance in it.

The show was renewed for four seasons. I don’t count that as a failure. It’s my locker partner from high school’s favorite Star Trek show. I like the theme song despite it being an issue back in the day.

I’m starting a rewatch next month. It’s been long enough that I can look at it through a modern lens away from 90s Trek.

From what I gathered watching Center Seat, the two biggest issues with the series was the long season length and not delivering on the promise of revisiting TOS stuff until season 4.

 

[Anna Yolei]

not delivering on the promise of revisiting TOS stuff until season 4.

Yeah, that was absolutely baffling that the season 4 type of story telling wasn't what they lead with from jump.

 

[Dukhat]

Yeah, that was absolutely baffling that the season 4 type of story telling wasn't what they lead with from jump.

It was because the writers were the same writers from Star Trek: Voyager, and all they knew how to write were VOY episodes. Which is why for the first two seasons of ENT, most of the episodes could have been written as VOY eps. I think there was even an episode of ENT that was taken almost straight from an episode of DS9, where the crew found a planet with holographic people who didn't know they were holograms.

 

[FederationHistorian]

The lack of LGBT characters can hardly make a show fail

No. But in the context of when it was airing, it shows that ENT was falling behind its peers in the industry. And some of those other shows at the time were content with representation to come in the form of guest characters who were only around for an episode.

ENT was on long enough, and had enough filler episodes, to address it at some point.

From what I gathered watching Center Seat, the two biggest issues with the series was the long season length and not delivering on the promise of revisiting TOS stuff until season 4.

They had the Axanari and Andorians and Tellarites, and reference to the Orions and Rigelians in the first couple of seasons. It just wasn’t enough. And it was mixed up with TNG-era species – the Ferengi, Nausicaans, and the Borg – and the TCW as well, which led to the presentation to get lost in translation.

Its forgivable that they wanted to show the transition from FC to TOS. I think the question is: could they have done it faster than they did?

 

[fireproof78]

Faster? Maybe.

Better? Definitely.

 

[bdub76]

No. But in the context of when it was airing, it shows that ENT was falling behind its peers in the industry. And some of those other shows at the time were content with representation to come in the form of guest characters who were only around for an episode.

ENT was on long enough, and had enough filler episodes, to address it at some point.

What shows are you thinking about during that specific period of time?

There is an afterward at the end of Fahrenheit 451 that surprisingly talks about letters Ray Bradbury received about representation in his books. It's a good read. I recommend reading it. Made me think about this issue in a different way.

 

[FederationHistorian]

What shows are you thinking about during that specific period of time?

In the same timeframe that ENT aired, 24 – which premiered the same year as ENT - had two:

- Mandy, a bisexual character who appears in the first few episodes of the first season, then disappeared until the final moments of the second season, and them briefly appears in the final few episodes in fourth season

- Richard Heller, a gay man who also appears in seven episodes in the fourth season, who got caught in the middle of the plot of the season. Coming out is a twist, but still featured.

Not many LGBT characters in that series, and there was only one other character afterwards (not counting the 24 spinoff here), but still more than ENT.

I don’t have to list other sci-fi shows in Firefly, Doctor Who or Battlestar Galactica at all. Or other mainstream shows in Desperate Housewives (another show Bakula was on), Entourage, or The O.C. , or Degrassi:TNG, that aired concurrently to ENT.

There is an afterward at the end of Fahrenheit 451 that surprisingly talks about letters Ray Bradbury received about representation in his books. It's a good read. I recommend reading it. Made me think about this issue in a different way.

I read the letter. I get what he’s saying.

It still would not have hurt if the show addressed in some way. It just needed a pitch like the following:

"Two unjoined male Trills who want to get married seek asylum onboard Enterprise. Archer is conflicted, because even though the crew is generally accepting of them, as there are several gay crewmembers onboard including the chef, he is trying to adhere to a non-interference directive after his experiences with several missions of the past year. Also, the government of the planet the Trills are fleeing have very fast and powerful warships that outmatch not just Enterprise, but the Vulcans as well. But the crew fights Archer to do the right thing and keep them onboard, no matter what happens."

There, a tasteful LGBT story for a grand total of one episode. Some will say its still too safe, as it does not focus on human characters. But at least its still adressed.

Saving that, there was NEM that did nothing as well, so the lack of LGBT representation by that point does not all fall on ENT.

 

[Guy Gardener]

As terrible as the writing was for Archer, I'm glad they didn't saddle the first Latino captain with this level of petulance.

Same. There was tons that could've been done in this time period that wouldn't have conflicted with existing canon....almost none of which either Berman or Paramount would've gone for. They were so stuck in TNG format mode and we were never getting anything BUT that.

Was it, though?

The only complaints I've heard against the episode was that it sat back on tired, basic bitch sitcom pregnancy "jokes" and sidestepped the issue of consent with Tucker but even among the more conservative audience back then, no one batted an eye over a pregnant man and this was years before Thomas Beattie made headlines.


Perhaps they couldn't get the studio to do trans AND lesbian rep in one go, but I remember the 2000s as well and most of the active users here at the time thought it beyond absurd that there was ZERO mention of gay people existing, especially when we got that line in "E²" about all the women getting paired off to half the available guys. Putting aside the ridiculous issue that the crew wasn't more evenly split between male and female....bruh, this show thought EVERY woman was dying to pair off? And that there weren't queer people with no interest in the opposite sex?

This same network greenlighted Willow and Tara for a show that shared much of ENT's audience and having gay characters (albeit not leads, I'll grant you) exist was less and less of a novelty. FOX greenlighted Glee less than four years later and *that* became a huge hit that beat American Idol in ratings.

There was an appetite for it. ENT may have still been cut short anyway but that would not have been it.

Fuck love, but everyone had an obligation to replace crew, to pursue their mission to save Earth, which can be achieved with a donation into sick bay. No sex necessary.

Of course they were only 6 months from Earth, so they could have easily got more crew, or got more babies or got more sperms/eggs.

 

[Darth Thanos]

No. But in the context of when it was airing, it shows that ENT was falling behind its peers in the industry. And some of those other shows at the time were content with representation to come in the form of guest characters who were only around for an episode.

ENT was on long enough, and had enough filler episodes, to address it at some point.

The thread is "Why was Enterprise received so poorly?", and as I pointed the presence or absence of LGBT characters does not really have any influence on the way a series is received.

Besides Marvel, there is another sci-fi franchise that takes people in droves even to this day: Star Wars. The lack of LGBT content does not seem to be a problem for its popularity, either.

 

[FederationHistorian]

The thread is "Why was Enterprise received so poorly?", and as I pointed the presence or absence of LGBT characters does not really have any influence on the way a series is received.

Besides Marvel, there is another sci-fi franchise that takes people in droves even to this day: Star Wars. The lack of LGBT content does not seem to be a problem for its popularity, either.

Its not that there’s a lack of LGBT characters in Star Wars, its that the audience generally doesn’t care they are there. That’s not why they go to watch Star Wars.

 

[evilchumlee]

Its not that there’s a lack of LGBT characters in Star Wars, its that the audience generally doesn’t care they are there. That’s not why they go to watch Star Wars.

I would say that's also the case for Star Trek. There's really only a small vocal minority who cares about these things, really on either end. That's true for most media.

I know i'm certainly not watching Star Trek for LGBT characters. I don't really care one way or another if there are some or not, although I don't love overrepresentation. It's distracting. Discovery walks a fine line. Stamets and Culber are great. I could do with significantly less Adira and Gray.

 

[FederationHistorian]

I would say that's also the case for Star Trek. There's really only a small vocal minority who cares about these things, really on either end. That's true for most media.

I know i'm certainly not watching Star Trek for LGBT characters. I don't really care one way or another if there are some or not, although I don't love overrepresentation. It's distracting. Discovery walks a fine line. Stamets and Culber are great. I could do with significantly less Adira and Gray.

True. But because Star Trek is also associated with social justice and progressivism, the bar is higher.

Star Trek actually has to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.