Slashdot Log In
Paramount Says Enterprise Cancellation Is Final
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Apr 12, 2005 05:34 PM
from the live-to-fight-another-day dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 583 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://eric.halo43.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @12:54AM)
In their place, reality TV dominates. Why watch intelligent TV when we can have Growing Up Gotti?
Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Interesting)
Firefly
Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://babelfish.alt...%2F%2Fslashdot.jp%2F)
B5 got futzed about by the uncertainty over the fifth season; consequently, the intended end of the arc was moved to series four, and when series 5 got the go-ahead, it was missing the main plot that drove the whole series.
I found it inconsequential and disappointing. Of course, some would argue that the replacement of Michael O'Hare with Bruce Boxleitner was also a major kink in the story arc. Although some criticised O'Hare's acting, it was at least as good as Boxleitner's and his style was way more appropriate (pseudo-gravitas versus Boxleitner's regular-guy character acting). Apparently, Boxleitner was more of a "name" than O'Hare; well, maybe in the US, but I'd never heard of him before that.
Funny how B5 exhibited some of the worst aspects of sci-fantasy (ropey acting and characterisation- e.g. Marcus and various second-league characters-, messing stuff around, cliched sets) as well as the best (genuinely planned long story arc, good characterisation and acting- e.g. London and G'Kar).
Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.crystalwind.org/)
No, that's not what happened.
All that happened at the end of S4 was that the end of the Earth Civil War was wrapped up at the end of season four -- it was intended to finish early on in S5 -- and the final episode, "Sleeping in Light", was filmed at the end of S4. (It takes place several years after the events of S4 and S5, so isn't really out of place at the end of either season.)
When B5 got renewed, they replaced "Sleeping in Light" with "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars" (filmed first thig in S5) and showed SiL at the end of S5 -- which is why it's the only episode in that season that has Ivanova in it.
The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 [midwinter.com] has numerous posts from JMS about the show, written at the time it was happening (I was a regular reader at the time).
Jay (=
Re:Just like TOS (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean... is it because they're unprofitable? It's hard to believe they all could be - sure, sci-fi series in general cost a fair bit to make, but all these series (and I'll throw Futurama in as well) certainly seem to have pretty large numbers of dedicated fans.
And if they're unprofitable... why do they then eventually commission other sci-fi series? What are they hoping for? Actually, how many sci-fi series haven't ended up being cancelled?
Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, Fox put it in a cruddy timeslot on a cruddy day - Friday night.
They didn't advertise it worth a crap.
They showed it out of order.
They preempted it CONSTANTLY so that it got to the point that, unless you had a really good guide, you didn't even know if it was going to be on or not.
Basically, just about everything a network can do to not encourage a following, they did.
Re:Just like TOS (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
(http://www.oddquad.org/)
*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)
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)
As a Firefly fan, I'd like to be the first to tell you to shut your goddamned piehole.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://picknit.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 29 2006, @03:58PM)
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.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Dude, that show sucked. (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.designpoolstudio.com/)
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.
Funeral Plans? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh no No *NO*! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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...
Re:Guess you've missed... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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).
Re:Oh no No *NO*! (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday October 24 2003, @12:44PM)
Good riddance to bad TV (Score:5, Funny)
It's never worked with my parents either (Score:4, Funny)
"I'm sorry son, we'll never allow a hooker in this house, and that's final!"
Re:It's never worked with my parents either (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/~panaceaa | Last Journal: Friday July 14 2006, @09:19PM)
No wonder you chose to live in their basement!
OH SNAP (Score:5, Funny)
The real reason (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.xpriori.com/ | Last Journal: Friday June 18 2004, @04:18PM)
Good riddance, if you ask me.
Re:how come not this time? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday December 04 2003, @10:34AM)
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...
Too little, Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://vivin.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday May 12 2005, @11:19AM)
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.
I'm just guessing that...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they have more neurons then we give them credit for...then again
Well a girl could hope....
Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
This should tell you something important.
Quantum Leap Storyline (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Let it die the death it so richly deserves (Score:4, Insightful)
one season short (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Give the money to Nasa.... (Score:5, Interesting)
That way you'd be funding real space stuff and it still has Star Trek relevance.
Re:... Sigh ... (Score:4, Funny)
The real message (Score:4, Funny)
Star Trek has too many white people. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Star Trek has too many white people. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Paramount spits in the fans face, TV is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://hangarbay.niteshdw.com/)
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.
How quickly they forget (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.mmogchart.com/)
>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)
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.
Its about the licensing (Score:3, Insightful)
"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)
(http://www.mricon.com/)
Re:Rephrase (Score:5, Funny)
(http://vivin.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday May 12 2005, @11:19AM)
Maybe because it's getting cancelled after the fourth season?
MOD PARENT DOWN, PLAGIARIZED CONTENT (Score:3, Informative)