Star Trek goes off the air after 18 years

[KronoRed]

I'm giddy, this is 11 years too late IMO

The last voyage of the 'Enterprise'
Series goes off air Friday, leaving no new TV 'Treks'

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/0....ap/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- "Star Trek: Enterprise" is about to go where it has never gone before: off the air, taking the "Star Trek" franchise with it.

After the two-hour finale airs (8 p.m. EDT Friday on UPN) this will be the first time in 18 years that no first-run "Trek" series is on TV.

"Enterprise" lasted four seasons. It was the first "Trek" spinoff to last fewer than seven seasons. Plummeting ratings did what no Klingon battlecruiser or Borg collective could accomplish. And this time, network honchos didn't bow to Trekker pressure to renew the series, as they did in the face of a write-in campaign that gave the original "Star Trek" a third year on the tube (1966-69).

In fact, many longtime Trekkers stopped watching long ago. There were gripes going back at least as far as the fourth incarnation, "Star Trek: Voyager" (1995-2001), about lame or retreaded plots, goofy aliens and the weak leadership of "Voyager's" Kathryn Janeway (Kate Mulgrew) and "Enterprise's" Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula).

Sadly lacking were the rules-be-damned machismo of James Tiberius Kirk (William Shatner) or the class and thoughtful maturity of Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart).

The original "Trek" was not above a little T&A to jazz up ratings. (Who can forget Yeoman Rand's miniskirt or the green-skinned Orion dancers?) But "Voyager" may have upped the silliness ante with a Borg who wore skin-tight catsuits and high heels, while "Enterprise" had a curvaceous Vulcan officer stripping every other episode.

No villain like the unstoppable Borg cropped up for a decade, either.

Supporters say "Enterprise" had vastly improved in its final season and blame other reasons for the ratings drop: weekend reruns that drew an audience but weren't counted in the Nielsens; ditto for those who taped or TiVo'd the program. And shifting "Enterprise" to a Friday time slot didn't help.

Producer Rick Berman has cited the problem of "franchise fatigue" after decades of "Star Trek" spinoffs.

Changing times, changing centuries
Perhaps, some Trekkers argue, it was time to take a rest. After all, it was 18 years between the original "Trek" and "The Next Generation," which went on to have a vast following.

In the meantime, there are the reruns, the DVD packages, the video games, the hordes of fans in chat rooms and conventions and the contributions to popular culture that range from Klingon language academies to the phrase "Beam me up, Scotty!"

Things have changed a lot over the years, both within and without the "Trek" universe, as scholars drew real-world comparisons to the shows.

The original series had a Cold War between the Federation and the Russians, er, Klingons and a cheerfully naive approach to solving racial and political conflicts.

"Next Generation" (1987-94) had a post-Soviet view in which the Klingons were allies, and a politically correct view that the values of other cultures, no matter how weird or repugnant, deserved respect.

Both also shared a sunny idealism that humans had overcome their own conflicts, lived in peace, and were on voyages of discovery and knowledge for the sheer joy of it.

The optimistic view of a united future humanity that the original "Trek" offered began to crumble in earnest with "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (1993-1999). The earnest morality of the first two series gave way to gray areas in which the good guys dirtied their hands with assassinations and other foul deeds in fighting a war for survival.

Moral relativism had crept into the sparkling "Trek" universe. Some viewers were dismayed; others enthralled.

By "Enterprise," actually a prequel set more than a century before the original series, the plots involved murky machinations and feuds spreading across the galaxy and even through time. Innocence was replaced by a somewhat gloomy view. Even the vaunted Vulcans were portrayed as pompous and dissembling.

But in the meantime, "Trek" no longer had the TV universe to itself. "Bablyon 5" (1994-1998) created a world arguably as rich and complex as the Federation's. Nowadays, science fiction fans can choose from a host of syndicated and cable shows, including "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" (named for "Star Trek's" late creator and produced by his widow) and the new "Battlestar Galactica."

Maybe there's just too much competition these days, and the audience is too fragmented.

Maybe even Capt. Kirk couldn't save the franchise.

Maybe, as with people, so with "Trek": the one enemy that always wins is Time.

Or perhaps, someday in the distant future, "Star Trek" will rise again. Fans can have only one response to that hope:

Make it so.

[Unassisted]

Regime change at Paramount removed Star Trek from its status as the cornerstone of UPN's programming. Once people there started thinking of it as expendable, executives started treating it that way.

I enjoyed the first finale episode tonight much more than the second one.

I liked Enterprise more in recent years, but I agree that it probably is time to give the franchise a rest.

I'm happier that Star Wars is going away, though. That was never my cup of tea.

To continue that Star Wars tangent, there is an article in today's USA Today discussing how fans of the first set of trilogies generally don't like the second set and vice versa. Even Star Wars geeks have a generation gap.

[KronoRed]

They can't even do finales right..SAD

[RedsBaron]

I watched the finale. I was glad to see Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis back in their TNG duds, but the episode really didn't do much. Anytime I started to get involved with what the Enterprise crew was doing, the episode would stop and we would be reminded that this was just Riker on the holodeck.
I did like the very last scene where first you see TNG's Enterprise and hear Patrick Stewart's voice, followed by the classic Enterprise and William Shatner's voice, and finally the Enterprise and Scott Bakula's voice.
As I noted in another thread, after the first season I didn't watch Enterprise that often, but it may have been a show that was cancelled just as it was finding itself.
The whole Star Trek franchise probably needs a rest. My favorite of the franchise was easily Star Trek: The Next Generation.

[MrCinatit]

i am a HUGE Star Trek fan...been one since a kid, when the cartoon was making its rounds.
that said, i have unfortunately never seen one episode of Enterprise...mainly because when it first came on, i could not find it anywhere. once i did find out where it was, it seemed like the time kept changing. finally, i gave up - ST is not a series you can "catch up with" in the middle. tried that with DS9 after missing it for a couple years in college, and was completely lost.

however, perhaps it is time for Star Trek to take a little hiatus. the originals...well, you can't do reunion without Scotty nor Bones. the TNG cast does not seem interested in making another film. i honestly don't think there would be enough of a demand for a movie with the DS9 crew nor the Yoyager crew. it hurts me to say that, as i loved both series', but i think it is true but, heck they are working on a movie based on the very good FireFly series, so anything can happen.
maybe it is time for the Trek series to take a hiatus for a while. maybe for a few years - in order for fresh, exciting ideas to become more polished.
heck, i look forward to meeting new crews - and to seeing the old crews again. but, i have a feeling it might not happen for quite a while.

[TRF]

the fact that the final episode was actually unseen parts of a Next Generation episode was IMO really a cool twist. The phased cloak episode (I'm not nerdy enough to remember the actual name) was one of my favorites. Nice twist.

[GAC]

The one adversary that the Enterprise crew was unable to overcome - cancellation. Worse then anything that Harry Mudd or the Borgs could throw at them.