|
"ENTERPRISE" CANCELLED -- NOW WHAT?
Feb. 11, 2005
I am not a Trekkie, nor a Trekker, nor any other term of endearment one can claim as a superfan of the "Star Trek" universe. That's not to say I'm oblivious to the "Trek" phenomena, however. "Star Trek: The Next Generation," which ran from 1987-1994 is one of television's definitive sci-fi masterpieces. (Has there ever been a better season-ending cliffhanger than second-in-command Will Riker giving the order to "Fire!" on the Borg cube that held Capt. Jean-Luc Picard as an assimilated, unknowing hostage?)
Once "TNG" signed off though (great final episode, too), the franchise lost its shine. "Deep Space Nine" was hit-and-miss and would often lose my interest. "Voyager" only bored with its stuffy Capt. Janeway and restricting lost-in-space setup. Still, when "Enterprise" premiered in 2001, my interest was piqued. Making a "Trek" prequel set years before the original Kirk-led series, one that showed the painful birth of the Federation, seemed like a good idea. As did the casting of Scott Bakula, so good on "Quantum Leap," another bastion of TV sci-fi greatness.
So it was disappointing all around when the first few episodes of "Enterprise" failed to entertain or energize. Bakula seemed stiffer than Janeway, the supporting characters were forgettable, and, man, that cheesy, light-rock opening theme song made me want to hurl as if I was the one blasting into space.
I stopped watching after about five episodes. Did the show ever get any better? Internet scuttlebutt always pointed to no, and this week, UPN pulled the plug on the series, which will close up shop this spring. It's lucky it lasted that long. The failure of "Enterprise" to reinvigorate the franchise (along with the crash and burn of the last two "Trek" movies, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis") had casual fans tuning out long ago and hardcore Trekkers storming the Paramount castle and demanding the head of executive producer Rick Berman, the man who was given the "Trek" captain's chair after the death of original creator Gene Roddenberry.
I'm not about to dive into that (and not being a hardcore fan, it's probably not wise to do so). But this I can say with certainty: TV is a better place with a good "Star Trek" show on it. My advice to Paramount is to let the series rest for a couple years. There's no need to rush another mediocre "Star Trek" show back on the air. One reason being the competition is much fiercer now than when "TNG" debuted. With the new "Battlestar Galactica," two versions of "Stargate," "The 4400," and a bunch of other science-fiction shows on the tube, fans can afford to be more selective.
A three-year break would give the studio plenty of time to carefully plan out the best course for "Trek"'s future. Regardless of how you feel about Berman, it sure wouldn't hurt to give some young writers a chance to come in and pitch their own ideas for a new spinoff. I'd also suggest that casting be weighed equal to concept when assembling the next "Trek." One of the reasons "TNG" worked so well was because it had a stellar cast, led by the then largely unknown Patrick Stewart. The actors who manned the bridge on "TNG" could pull off action, drama and comedy with equal aplomb. In fact, they were so good at it, you completely forgot about the silly, tight, color-coded uniforms.
Later casts often featured one or two standout actors (Avery Brooks on "DS9," Robert Picardo on "Voyager"), but filled out the ranks with blandly-played supporting characters along with the token sci-fi babe (Jeri Ryan on "Voyager," Jolene Blalock on "Enterprise").
Hey, I like girls in tight spacesuits as much as the next guy. But, believe it or not, sci-fi fans actually ask for more than just futuristic sex appeal when it comes to their TV shows. Especially ones that are part of the considerable "Star Trek" legacy.
|
|
