being on UPN wasnt a factor it was the story line that made it soooo bad and it doesnt help the fact that they hired wrong actors to play the parts.

I never said, it was a complete failure. It was a commercial failure (Being on UPN might have had something to do with it) Anyway, it had a good start and good ending. In between it lost me. Too many holes );

Ciao

I am not sure I agree Enterprise was totally a failure, it had its moments and some episodes were really outstanding. but in general and commercially, it did not do as well. In my opinion it did not do well in a big part because of the "prequel" factor. what works for Star Wars does not have to work for other shows. Most sci-fi fans expect shows to go forward in time and ideas, a throw to the back does not always work. Am not a fan of Roddenberry or Berman, but Roddenberry was involved with TNG only in the first season, after that he had a stroke and Berman took over. I think most of us agree that the show got a lot better after the second season.

I did not follow Andromeda closely, but the episodes I watched were good, I would probably get the show one day on DVD and watch it.

Star Trek E was a failure because the writing was bad, the story was not accurate. Scott Bakula can never be a star ship captain. His acting style was not meant for that role. Quantum leap was fine but it seemed to me that he brought elements of Sam Becket to the role of Jonathan Archer.
Another reason why the show was not successful is because majority of the true trekkies are not fans of Rick Berman. Rick Berman does not know how to tell a story. Gene Roddenberry was the man behind the show. You can clearly see a shift in the writing of Star Trek TNG after the demise of Roddenberry. Majel did all she could but she lacked her husbands vision. Rick Berman made almost all the stories political. There was always some political conflict. Star trek enterprise is all about politics. Trekkies wanted to see a space adventure in Eutopia , not political turmoil. Even the last ST movie was about political gain.
Another example is Andromeda. Andromeda was based on a concept story written by Rodenberry. Robert Hewitt Wolfe is the one who expanded the stroy line based on Rodenberrys concept. The first season of the show was ground breaking. It immediately gained a huge fan base. But Kevin Sorbo wanted more control and he and Wolfe had a little tif and wolfe left. After the second season , the show became Hercules in space ); . The fan base started to dwindle. I stayed becaue of Lexa Doig :P (and I know I am not alone :))
Just my .02.

I think Star Trek E could have continued if they shifted to cable and put it on the Sci-Fi channel like SG-SG1. Any time you have a good show with good writing and good ideas people will watch. something was missing from that last series and that's why it did not last for long

I think Star Trek time as a series is up for the time being. Any new series will be a bigger flop then ST - E: only 5 seasons... reason being is that they've strethched Star Trek series way to far. Only thing I say is continue with the Star Trek Movie Series and after like 5 or 10 years ...bring back Star Trek as another series...Then it'll be strong as it was during ST - TNG.

yea that's one direction to take. we can even change their jobs. like am not sure I would want jordi as a an engineer in a new crew.

but there could be a new direction to this, how about making up a whole new crew with new characters? and for god sake lets not use the Rodenberry rule that all people are good in the future. I prefer my crew as real human with problems and mistakes.

That would be interesting, to add to that maybe we could use some of the characters from TNG and some of the more interesting characters from DS9; such as Dr. Bashir and Quark. From TNG maybe have Riker as captain and Data as First Officer. What do you guys think?