Why Star Trek: Enterprise Had A Different Title For Its First Two Seasons

Paramount

When it debuted on September 22, 2001, "Star Trek: Enterprise" was meant to be a bold new step for the "Star Trek" franchise. "Star Trek: Voyager" had ended its seven-year run the previous May, marking the closure of a three-series orgy of "Star Trek" shows that began in 1987. "Star Trek: The Next Generation," set almost a century after the events of the original "Star Trek" series, proved to be unexpectedly popular, introducing a whole new 24th-century vernacular into the "Star Trek" mythos. That show spawned "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" in 1993, another show set in the 24th century, and that shared a few characters with "Next Generation." After completing its run in 1994, "The Next Generation" moved onto feature films, with "Voyager" debuting in January 1995. It, too, was set in the 24th century. The 1990s were a good time to be a Trekkie.

"Enterprise" was made by much of the same production staff as the previous three shows, but by mid-2001, everyone wanted a new angle. The franchise needed some fresh concepts and innovative visuals. Instead of making a fourth TV series set in the 24th century, show creators Rick Berman and Brannon Braga decided to make a series set on board the very first warp-capable Earth ship to go on a multi-year mission of exploration. The ship was to be called the Enterprise, natch, and it was captained by the heretofore unheard-of John Archer (Scott Bakula). "Enterprise" also took place before certain recognizable "Star Trek" elements were invented. There were no tractor beams, no shields, no human-safe transporters. Importantly, there wasn't a Federation or a Prime Directive yet. The "Enterprise" theme song — gasp! — had lyrics! This was the wild frontier and envisioned a unique, rough-and-tumble version of "Star Trek."

Additionally, Berman and Braga debuted their series without "Star Trek" in the title. For its first two seasons, the show was just called "Enterprise." It wasn't until the series' third season — when ratings were flagging — that it changed its title to "Star Trek: Enterprise."

Paramount

One can understand why Berman and Braga might have wanted to drop "Star Trek" from their show's title. In addition to the three TV series that aired from 1987 to 2001, there were also five "Star Trek" feature films released in that window. The market, it seems, was becoming oversaturated and non-Trekkies would likely be unable to keep a lot of the mythos straight. It also didn't help that the three films based on "Star Trek: The Next Generation" didn't have Roman numerals in their titles, being called merely "Star Trek: Generations," "Star Trek: First Contact," and "Star Trek: Insurrection." Any of those could easily have been the title of a TV show. Also, why was the "Star Trek" film with "First" in its title the second to come out? Or was it the eighth?

Merely calling a show "Enterprise" was cleaner, especially for a "Star Trek" series that ostensibly offered viewers a fresh start. In being a prequel, deep knowledge of extant "Star Trek" lore wasn't required. It was okay to be different. The show offered non-Trekkies a few eye-catching details, including new aliens species (Denobulans, the Suliban), sharper special effects, a NASA-like industrial aesthetic, and swimsuit model Jolene Blalock in a central role. In the eyes of Berman and Braga, they were doing everything right.

But "Enterprise" never took off in popularity. The show, while deliberately about the earliest cowboys of the "Star Trek" universe, was stodgy and slow-moving, even for the famously talky franchise. The Suliban didn't set Trekkies' imaginations aflame and many of the stories were business-as-usual for "Star Trek." It didn't help that the antiwar, post-capitalist philosophy of "Star Trek" likely didn't fit with the wounded, vengeance-seeking mindset of the post-9/11 world; "Enterprise" debuted 12 days later. The show was just starting, yet the world already seemed finished with "Star Trek."

Paramount

"Enterprise" also came at a time when television was evolving and many showrunners began embracing a traditional, syndication-friendly storytelling model or one more amenable to marathons and, later, streaming. "Star Trek," meanwhile, was still presenting an episodic, story-of-the-week format, even as other shows ("24," "The Sopranos," etc.) began rolling with season-long story arcs. Whole seasons of television made their way into DVD box sets for the first time, with binge-watching becoming a more common activity.

"Enterprise" began as an episodic show, but wasn't gaining much traction that way. In the third season, to combat falling ratings, Berman decided to put "Star Trek" back in the title, make the theme song more upbeat, and roll with a season-long story arc. The action was juiced up, too. The selected story arc for the show's third season involved a mysterious species called the Xindi appearing out of nowhere to wipe out the entire state of Florida. The Enterprise became a military vessel on a mission of revenge. It was clearly meant to be a 9/11 metaphor.

Would all of these changes draw in new crowds and placate Trekkies seeking brand recognition? Anyone? Anyone?

No, it didn't work, nor did the multi-episode arcs presented in the show's fourth season. Although the previous "Star Trek" shows lasted seven years each, "Enterprise" was canceled at the end of its fourth. Its cancelation followed the box office failure of the 2002 feature film "Star Trek: Nemesis," indicating that, yes, "Star Trek" was over and done with.

In 2009, the franchise was rebooted with an action heavy feature film called simply "Star Trek." It starred younger versions of familiar characters and was bigger on drama, violence, and mayhem than the philosophizing "Star Trek" is famous for. The film was a commercial hit. In a post-9/11 world, this seemed to be what audiences wanted.