Home Home
YOUR ACCOUNT / NEWSLETTERS
Email Password
AIR SCHEDULE
BBS TOPICS
TrekWeb Newsbits: Extra coverage your crave
OPINION POLL
Community Departments Promenade About Us Submit News Make TrekWeb.com your home page!
It's Official: UPN Puts the "STAR TREK" Back in ENTERPRISE
PROMENADE







Posted: 12:07:51 on September 09 2003
By: Steve Krutzler
Dept: Enterprise | stenterprise.com
Ever since airing television commercials with the two-years-absent STAR TREK moniker in front of ENTERPRISE, speculation has been circulating that the series would eventually place those hallowed two words back in its official title.

With season three marking a seemingly do-or-die attitude, UPN today announced the name change officially to its affiliates. Kathie Kiefner, manager of communications and operations for CBS and UPN affiliate relations, informed stations of the change just today. TrekWeb has obtained the following memo:
    TO ALL UPN STATIONS

    SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

    RE: STAR TREK ENTERPRISE - TITLE REVISION
    WEDNESDAY, 8:00-9:00PM CNYT/CPT AND SUNDAYS 10PM
    EFFECTIVE 9/10/03-9/15/04

    PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING NEW TITLE FOR THE 2003/2004 SEASON:

    STAR TREK ENTERPRISE

    (P/K/A "ENTERPRISE")

    ALL OTHER INFORMATION REMAINS THE SAME. PLEASE UPDATE YOUR RECORDS ACCORDINGLY.

Speculation abounds for the reasons behind the name change, but it seems likely that with the show attempting a ratings rebound this season, distancing the series from the familiar sci-fi brand name was no longer an option.

The new name follows the model of STAR TREK NEMESIS and appears without the colon that accompanied DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER and comes at an appropriate moment. STAR TREK celebrated the 37th anniversary of its original debut on NBC in 1966 yesterday, September 8th.

STAR TREK ENTERPRISE premieres tomorrow at 8p on UPN. (Thanks to Bryan.)
React to this story below and see what others are saying at the STAR TREK BBS.
Join our monthly e-mail newsletter!

Season Three (2003-2004)
Prod #Title Airdate
153 The Xindi 09/10/03
154 Anomaly 09/17/03
155 Extinction 09/24/03
156 Rajiin 10/01/03
157 Impulse 10/08/03
158 Exile 10/15/03
159 The Shipment 10/22/03
160 Twilight 10/29/03
161 North Star 11/05/03
Season Two (2002-2003)
Season One (2001-2002)
TREKWEB TALKBACK
(28 comments)
Sort Controls:
Start New Thread | Help
ENT is not "Star Trek"!
By theoren ( ) at 02:02:28 on September 19 2003
URL: | User Info
I'd rprefer they leave it the way it was. This show has very little if anything in common with "Star Trek". Just another prime time action flick.

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

The word Trek does not mean its Star Trek
By cooper2000 ( ) at 03:02:54 on September 11 2003
URL: | User Info
A last ditch attempt to get people to watch this drek.
Changing the title and putting people in tight outfits does not make a good show.

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

Name change
By AntonyF ( ) at 13:39:22 on September 10 2003
URL: http://www.b5tv.com | User Info
The name change has always been intended to be just a UPN promotional thing, and not a name change to the show.

So my Paramount source said to me. But then hell... look at startrek.com and you'll see that it was just a UPN thing. Rather obvious really.

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

It's all fixed now!
By Scorned ( Noway@thanksbutno.com) at 10:22:21 on September 10 2003
URL: | User Info
Wow the return of the logo "Star Trek" to the title of Enterpirse!

Everything is all fixed now!

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

"Star Trek" not there
By Zelig ( ) at 05:38:28 on September 10 2003
URL: | User Info
Just seen the ep and the words are NOT there, at least in the one i got of the net. BTW the new version of the song "Faith of the heart" is even worse than the first one

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

Curious
By Captain Jim ( ) at 22:52:24 on September 09 2003
URL: | User Info
Someone asked Dominic Keating about this just last Sunday, at the Cleveland Vulkon, and he knew nothing about it. (Actually, he tended to discount it.) I suppose one shouldn't be surprised that the actors are the last to know...

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

The Title HASN'T changed
By Mr. J ( ) at 19:48:57 on September 09 2003
URL: | User Info
The credits are identical, except for a slight remix of "Faith of the Heart". It's a slight improvement IMO, and it's a little more modern and upbeat, but it does sound a little too soap-opera-ish.

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

Holy cow!
By AX ( ax23000@hotmail.com) at 18:41:07 on September 09 2003
URL: | User Info
Enterprise is a Star Trek show? And all this time I've been avoiding it because I thought it was about an aircraft carrier. Agh, what a fool I've been. Oh well, now I'll be watching it for sure.

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

Still sounds goofy to me.
By MikeJonas ( mikejonas@aol.com) at 14:18:34 on September 09 2003
URL: http://www.battleroyalefilm.net | User Info
Kinda like saying "Law and Order: Cops and Lawyers" and "Star Wars: The Force." Maybe it's just the Trekkie in me, but "Star Trek Enterprise" is a little redundant. It was goofy when Patrick Stewart said it in his SNL monologue (the running joke was that he saw himself as an "expert" but was not: "These are the voyages of the Star Trek Enterprise"), and it's still goofy now.

The question is--we know UPN's putting "Star Trek" back, but is Enterprise (the show itself) putting it back in its main titles?

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

colon?
By Cyrus ( ) at 13:02:40 on September 09 2003
URL: | User Info
The new name follows the model of STAR TREK NEMESIS and appears without the colon that accompanied DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER

Is this referring to press releases and TV guide listings? There was no colon in the actual opening credits of any of the Trek spin-offs.

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

Um...
By Lieutenant Ro-Your-Boat ( ) at 12:49:41 on September 09 2003
URL: | User Info
I really cant think of anything to say. Do they think this is somehow going to help?

[ Reply | Quote | Parent ]

  • RE: Um... by Cyrus @ 13:12:55 ET on 9 Sep
  • RE: Um... by Steve Krutzler @ 12:59:35 ET on 9 Sep
  • Well, by Jean-Luc @ 12:56:35 ET on 9 Sep
    • RE: Well, by PokeTrek @ 13:39:07 ET on 9 Sep