• by Paul Gough , May 13, 2004

"Enterprise" could go where no other "Star Trek" series since the 1960s original has gone before: hiatus. Or in network TV parlance, a premature cancellation.

With less than a week before UPN announces its fall programming schedule, there's increasing concern that the "Star Trek" franchise might not be on it. The once-high-flying Star Trek mythology has seen better days. "Enterprise" has been in ratings free-fall almost since the series debuted in the fall of 2001.

"It's lost almost half its viewers," says Tim Brooks, co-author of "The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows" and a former Sci-Fi Channel executive. "It really is a classic example of the wearout effect." The series didn't get off to the best start, with its first season's ratings about equal to the final year of "Star Trek Voyager," the show it replaced. And things have gone from bad to worse, falling from about 5.9 million viewers to 3.3 million viewers this season. Last week, it ranked in the 160s among the Nielsen Media Research tally of prime-time network TV shows.

UPN declined to comment on the fate of "Enterprise." As late as a week ago, star Scott Bakula told "The Wayne Brady Show" that "Enterprise" was on the bubble, and he didn't know whether it would be back or not. Fans are enlisting help for an online version of the letter-writing campaign that saved the low-rated original "Star Trek" when it veered toward death at the end of its second season. Certainly "Enterprise" has history on its side, as the fifth series and with a pedigree of a 20-year track record on the big screen. It's also been a cash cow for Paramount and the signature brand at UPN's launch as a network in the mid-1990s. But this year, more than any other in Star Trek's 40-year history, fans and TV observers are wondering if the sun has set on "Enterprise."

Complaints about "Star Trek" are nothing new, with snarky remarks about its camp almost as common as its fame as a cultural phenomenon and a vision of the future. There's also been cynicism among some who think that Star Trek has become little more than a factory with less regard to quality than previously. In part to answer the critics and chart a fresh course, Star Trek's producers reached into the mythology, creating in "Enterprise" the first crew of the flagship who pioneered space travel years before any of the show's legendary characters. The cast of "Enterprise" fell in the timeline somewhere between Star Trek's current-day viewers and voyagers like Kirk and Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

"There were those of us who were really hoping that this series would succeed, but in our guts felt that it was doomed from the start, because 'Trek fatigue' set in," said Michael Davis, senior editor of TV Guide, which has passionately devoted more than its share of space to the phenomenon over the past four decades.

Davis and others think "Enterprise"--and "Voyager" before it--were blander, less creative shadows of the shows that came before them. Add to that Scott Bakula miscast as "Enterprise" Captain Jonathan Archer, a somewhat breezy regard for the mythology, and a creative drought that left viewers feeling they'd been there before.

"Venturing into the unknown actually turned out to be the well-known-- the truly well-known," Davis says.

Star Trek's decline disheartens Norman Jacobs, publisher of Starlog, which has chronicled the many forms of the franchise for 27 years. Jacobs says it's a product of a true visionary, the late Gene Roddenberry, that has inspired generations of viewers.

"I hate to see this show go down. It's a very important part of Starlog. We used to put it in every single issue. It was a mandate from me," Jacobs recalled Thursday. "Now it's not in every issue. You just can't do anything on it. There's nothing to do. To renew the interest [in the franchise], I think it's possible--just come up with something creative."

Jacobs thinks that instead of opting for a 50-year-old star in Bakula, those at the helm of Star Trek should have gone for a youth movement. There are so many teenagers that could be potential viewers, but they're not going to watch something that has characters who are their parents' ages.

"Bring in the youth for the youth. It's so simple," Jacobs said.

Jacobs isn't alone. John C. Snider, editor of the Web site SciFiDimensions, says a better setting for the new show would have been at Starfleet Academy, where young cadets could have exciting adventures. Or maybe even a series following the young Captain Kirk, whose previous heroism and other exploits have been referred to--but never seen before he took the helm of the USS Enterprise for the first series. Snider says Star Trek's woes began before the current show.

"People were complaining about 'Voyager.' I almost think that no matter what they did, the new show was going to have problems because the franchise was already in trouble," he says.

He acknowledges that Star Trek's producers have a tough job, keeping the franchise fresh without plunging into cliché.

"There's only so many stories you can tell," Snider says. "You can set it years in the past if you want to, but there's only so many basic plots that can be hashed or rehashed." Snider says that "Enterprise" would have worked better if it had been a standalone series not attached to Star Trek.

"I think everybody would have loved it. The problem is that it ["Enterprise"] carries the Star Trek name in front of it, and people have a certain expectation that they have to live up to," Snider says. "There has been so much history."

But it's just that history that has disappointed so many fans. Snider estimates that "Enterprise" works best for viewers who didn't grow up on the original Star Trek or even "Star Trek: The Next Generation," which started its seven-year run in 1987. Brooks, whose time at Sci Fi Channel involved Star Trek and other science fiction classics, thinks that "Enterprise" would have done better with casting a relative unknown as the captain instead of Bakula, who already starred in a cult hit "Quantum Leap." He points to the master casting of Patrick Stewart to lead "The Next Generation"; Stewart was a well-known Shakespearean actor, but wasn't famous in the United States.

If UPN does pull the plug, it would be an irony. Davis says the producers listened to fans' complaints about "Enterprise," taking steps this third season to refresh the show.

"I believe there's no decision yet [on whether to renew "Enterprise"], and it's going to be a very difficult one for UPN to make," says TV Guide's Davis. "Creatively, the show made a sharp right turn this year and was much more compelling and smart, and less whiney, and truer to the best instincts of the franchise. But at the same time, the viewers continue to dwindle down to an extremely loyal, core audience."

That loyal core audience may not be enough to keep "Enterprise" going. Brooks thinks it's 50-50 whether it will stay on UPN, even though there's a kind of home-field advantage with its connection to Paramount. Jacobs says that connection is what kept Star Trek on the air so long.

"If it was any other channel, it would have been off the air. But UPN is owned by Paramount, Star Trek is owned by Paramount, so Viacom keeps it on," Jacobs said. "Any other show would be off the air."

That doesn't mean that "Enterprise" couldn't have another life on cable. Spike TV, which is also owned by Viacom, shows "Next Generation" and "Deep Space 9." Sci Fi Channel, which is now owned by Viacom rival NBC Universal, has rights to the original series. It's possible that UPN could make it a limited-run series, or the occasional movie event. But it's also an expensive show to produce, so it's unlikely that "Enterprise" could be moved to cable intact. Davis sees a market on pay cable, perhaps Showtime, where "Enterprise" could be more edgy and yet have an audience.

"Maybe it's just time to give the franchise a rest. Certainly it has suffered some huge losses in the last couple of years," says Brad Adgate, senior vice president of research at New York-based buying agency Horizon Media. "Maybe prequels don't work as well as sequels, or maybe the franchise is a bit tired."

Even if "Enterprise" is canceled, that won't mean the end of Star Trek. There are reruns on at least three channels, the movies on others, DVDs, even a theme-park attraction. That doesn't even take into account Star Trek conventions, which are regularly held across the United States. Davis, for one, thinks some time off might end up being positive.

"Things happen in waves, and we are in a low ebb. The history of pop culture suggests that when you reach that point, you must give it a rest," Davis says. "You must allow time to pass, new thoughts to percolate ... I'm talking about a real rest, a real opportunity for people to rethink and recharge, and literally ache for somebody to lengthen the legend and lure the mythology."