Enterprise- the newest series in the Star Trek saga. It is set 100 years before Captain Kirk's time according to the series creators. It is supposed to be set where they are first exploring space...actually, not to far into the future from right now in our time. I'm a bit baffled though on some of the timing of the show and their technology they have.
First of all-transporters. Transporters were new during Captain Kirk's time. Bones, the doctor, always complained whenever he had to take a transporter because he didn't like the idea of his molecules being sent through subspace and reshuffled together in a machine. That's understandable for a new invention to make a person nervous, but if it was so new, how did the crew on Enterprise get that type of technology?
Vulcans. Spock was almost never emotional and never showed emotions except for during mind melds, and in the movies before and after he died and came back to life. The Vulcan on Enterprise either wasn't fully in control of her emotions or I'm guessing what the writers are hoping now that the series is over is that people will think that the Vulcans at the time had not become the peaceful and logical beings that they are during Spock's time. The Vulcans and Romulans are actually cousins and were actually one violent civilation. After a while, the Vulcans took on a lifestyle of peace and logic whereas the Romulans kept on with their agressive behavior.
I think that the creators of Enterprise took the wrong direction with it. I'm not necessarily saying that they should have gone farther into the future, but I don't think they should have gone so far back in the past. It really limited the abilities of the writers. They couldn't write about an encounter with the Borg since the Borg was discovered in Kirk's time.
Did anyone understand the last episode of Enterprise? I didn't and would really like to know what it was about. Apparently, Deanna Troi and Will Riker were on the holodeck or something checking out the original Enterprise's crew or something like that. Can anyone clarify it? While I think a new series of Star Trek deserves a chance, it needs to be good and fit the Star Trek timeline. Enterprise sure didn't last very long compared to the others. The only other one that didn't last very long was the original series because they couldn't get air time on tv and the channel that they had been on took them off and replaced them with Lost in Space.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
A couple minor explanations for you:
The transporter wasn't new in the original series. Bones just had a phobia about transporters.
With the Vulcans, I think you're pretty much right. They wanted to show how the Vulcans were more arrogant in their logic, and over time they mellowed out somewhat and became more tolerant of the "irrational" humans.
The last episode was supposed to be a holodeck re-enactment of the events that took place on the Enterprise NX-01's final mission. The wrapping story with Riker and Troi took place during the events of one of the Next Generation episodes, "The Pegasus", when Riker was having a dilemma of whether to follow orders blindly, or to disobey them to show loyalty to his captain and ship.
Also, I don't believe that Lost In Space replaced the original Star Trek series. Star Trek was on NBC, Lost in Space was on CBS. They both were on during roughly the same years.
Overall, I enjoyed Enterprise. It started with a great idea, to go back to the basics of Star Trek, exploring the unknown, by turning back the tech level that made creating conflict and tension much more difficult in the later Trek series (don't have the "magic bullet" to get them out of a jam). Season four is probably the best of all, they really explored the history of the Trek universe, keeping as true to established Trek canon as possible.
The Original series lost out in the ratings to Lost in Space. More people watched that than Star Trek so it got taken off the air.
You might have different information than me, but according to IMDb, the last new episode of Lost In Space was aired March 6 1968, and the last episode of Star Trek was aired June 3 1969, which would appear to contradict your statement that Star Trek was taken off the air because of Lost in Space. Star Trek was canceled due to low ratings, but I've never seen anywhere that mentioned the difference in ratings of the two shows as the reason for its cancellation.
Lost in Space had lots of reruns playing and Star Trek just didn't make the cut. It's too bad about that now since Star Trek now has ten movies, four other series', syndications, and conventions around the country. Lost in Space doesn't have any of that.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, that Lost in Space had more reruns. The original Trek series was showing in reruns in the early '70s, that's where i was exposed to it the first time.
Trek didn't survive very long. Even with reruns, it didn't last long on a non syndicated station. It's back on I believe Spike now, but back then, it was mostly syndicated.
Didn't survive very long with reruns? Just counting the original series, it was showing in reruns off and on for the past 35+ years! Yes, there were only three seasons that aired on network TV, but Lost in Space only had 83 original episodes (to Star Trek's 80). And remember, back then, the only thing they had was syndicated stations (no cable stations like Spike TV, TVLand etc).
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. I think that if Star Trek had run its five years (or more), it might not have had the longevity that it has had. As it was, it left at the top of its game, and people were dying for more original stories, which didn't happen until the first motion picture in '78 (and the following sequels), and then in '88 with the Next Generation series.\
I know that it has been rerun a lot since it came off the air. Right after it came off the air, it was in syndication. What is sad is that nowadays, the actors on shows that are syndicated are getting paid every time a rerun airs whereas the original series crew didn't get that when their show was originally being rerun.
I don't know the specifics of the contracts for the actors in the original Star Trek, but yes, it was pretty common back then for actors to not have provisions for being paid residuals for reruns.That is indeed sad, but it is good that this practice has changed.
Some of the other Star Trek series didn't even deserve a third season. Sure they should have at least two seasons, one to get their name out there and one to improve, but Enterprise and Deep Space did not improve in all of the seasons they were on the air.
I wouldn't say that. Some of the best writing in Trek happened in later seasons of DS9. Enterprise had a good concept, but the writing was pretty poor for the most part (not counting season 4). Granted, the original series (and even TNG) were the better of any of the Trek series, but the others were pretty good too, in their own ways.
I didn't like DS9 very much because what can happen on a space station? All of the danger came to them and a lot of the episodes were about the prophets and the Bajoran religion which got redundant. Voyager was a pretty good series. They incorporated different species and aspects of the Star Trek series before it which made it interesting. A former Borg drone becomes a part of the crew, a Talaxian is discovered and becomes a part of the crew, and a holographic doctor are a few of the things incorporated into it. It makes it a lot more interesting, in my eyes anyway, than DS9 and Enterprise.