A new direction. A new name. And for a while, even a new time slot.

But it seemed that no matter what Rick Berman and the people at UPN tried to do for "Star Trek: Enterprise," it just wasn't enough to get the ratings up and where they should be.

But what is the cause for the ratings' problem? Is it bad storytelling? Is it poor marketing? Could it be just a bad timeslot? Has Star Trek run its course? Or has Berman & Co. run the franchise into the ground?

These definitely are all good questions to ask when it comes to "Star Trek: Enterprise" as fans and non-fans alike wait to hear the official announcement of the show's fate as it wraps up its third season. And hell, I wish I had the answer for you here.

But I really don't. All I can do is look back at the third season, at what the producers and writers tried to accomplish, and share my opinion on the season overall. Unfortunately, it's not up to me, or you, or any campaign, or any group of fans anywhere on whether "Star Trek: Enterprise" will return for a fourth season or not. It's all up to Les Moonves and his band of studio executives to decide, and they will share that decision in just a few days.

I enjoyed the writing of the third season, and I have thoroughly enjoyed the Xindi arc. As a fan who was able to watch "Enterprise" each week with no competition (and a DVR), I have to say that the intricate details of this arc that was given to us episode by episode kept me glued, and helped produce some of the finest writing this particular series has seen. If Ronald D. Moore and Ira Steven Behr were involved, it probably could've reached the level of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" in my opinion.

But the approach was flawed from the start.

Creating a huge mission for the NX-01 crew: Good. Putting the fate of Earth at stake: Good. Forcing Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) and crew to face some serious realities about interspecies relations: Good. Adding the name "Star Trek" back to the title: Very good. Actually concentrating on writing: Priceless.

But other things just didn't work well.

Keeping the series in a head-to-head with The WB's "Smallville" and Fox's "American Idol," which fight for similar demographics: Very bad. Making the arc an entire season, making it difficult for new fans to come in halfway through: Bad. Not taking the time to properly market this show on the many outlets that Viacom owns ... like CBS, MTV and even its own network: Bad. And yes, I'm sorry. But allowing Rick Berman and Brannon Braga to continue running the series: Bad, bad, bad, bad and bad.

I am not going to do Berman/Braga bashing. I think they have done some tremendous things for the Star Trek franchise. I mean, they brought us DS9, and then brought in talented people to run it. "Star Trek: Voyager" initially was a great idea, but it became too soft too early. And consistency just wasn't there at all. And yes, the last two Star Trek movies saw better days, but a lot of those problems were out of their hands.

It's so secret that the Xindi story arc was a desperate move to to keep "Enterprise" on the air. Reminding fans that Star Trek is stronger than Superman was another desperate move. Even the recent talks of another Star Trek motion picture: desperation.

I really like "Star Trek: Enterprise." People can moan and complain all they want about the theme song, the level of the writing, the characterizations, the acting, the nudity. But in the end, what Star Trek is really missing is simple: It's missing the risk-taking that was Gene Roddenberry.

Sex does sell, and it sold for the original series. We watch the original "Star Trek" now, and the belly buttons, short skirts, women in command, black people and Asians on the bridge, and those things are nothing to us. But at the time, these were major risks that Roddenberry took. He tackled major issues like the Vietnam War, racism, gender equality, mankind's own desire to achieve technologically -- even before we understand what we're doing -- and presented them at a time when the Big Three of NBC, CBS and ABC wanted nothing to do with it.

But what risks has "Star Trek: Enterprise" taken? I can't think of any. Hell, look back to "Star Trek: Voyager." What risks were taken there? None.

Sure, there were references made to AIDS, made to religious fanaticism, made to terrorism. But those are issues also being found on other shows. Some series completely revolve around those issues.

But look at the non-reality shows that are succeeding. We no longer live in a sitcom age. People want dramas, and they want them now. They want something fresh and unique, like "Law & Order." Like "Alias." Like "NYPD Blue." They want shows that make you think, that pull you in, that make you wonder how they had the balls to do what they did. They want shows that make you angry, that make you want something to talk about the next day around the water cooler. They want something that will push the limits, and take a new direction to television.

Sure, with the "CSI" and "Law & Order" spinoffs, we're seeing the same format recycled again and again. But those formats are still fresh. The format that "Star Trek: Enterprise"
is using is nearly 40 years old. It's old. It's stale. It just doesn't work.

Science-fiction is not dying. Just look at all the shows that are being planned. Look at the movies that are in development. Two years ago, the Airlock Alpha staff was wondering what the hell we would cover for the coming season, because there wasn't much to choose from. This summer, we'll have to figure out what we won't be covering.

There is so much potential in the premise that is "Star Trek: Enterprise." Some of that potential was discovered this season, but the approach was wrong.

I'm not a television executive. I am hardly an expert. But if Les Moonves let me run his job for a month, and pay particular attention to the Star Trek franchise, this is what I would do.

First of all, I would cancel "Star Trek: Enterprise" from UPN. I wouldn't strike the sets, or fire the actors. I would prepare the show for a retooling, and a return ... maybe a year later. I would get rid of people like Berman and Braga, and bring in real fresh blood. People like author Peter David. People like J. Michael Straczyinski (and pay him whatever it takes to get over his dislike of Star Trek that he may have). People like, hell, Ronald D. Moore if you could ever steal him back from Universal.

Stay with the ship, the crew, the time period, and even the Temporal Cold War. But retool everything else. Take it off network television, and its grueling 24-episode schedule with little breaks, and move it to cable television. No, not Sci-Fi Channel. To Showtime. Yep, the premium cable channel.

Don't go overboard on cussing or sex, or anything like that. It shouldn't be turned into a "Queer As Folk" (although a gay character or two would be nice), but maybe something more of a "Dead Like Me." With character-driven stories, that tackle huge issues, that make fans angry, that make them apalled, that make them entertained and interested.

Moving it to Showtime, which is owned by Viacom already, will allow the production schedule to be cut from 24 episodes to 14. It will allow more time in between seasons, and allow the writers and producers to really work on scripts so that they will be strong stories, and not just something whipped together to fill the Wednesday at 8 p.m. timeslot.

Sure, that will mean less "Enterprise." It won't be on as frequently. But how many fans out there really think that the show isn't oversaturating the market? That the fact that we have so much Star Trek is part of the problem?

Doing such a move takes a lot of balls. But then again, that's the point. Shake things up. Surprise the fans. Surprise the critics. Hell, surprise "American Idol," I don't care.

More and more people are finding their way to premium cable shows. Why? Is it because the concepts are so unique? They are a little. But the biggest thing is that we don't get slammed with episodes week after week, get a couple months off, and then start the whole process over again. We see less bombs, and more gems. We see chances being taken, and we see people talking about Star Trek again.

Network television? Been there, done that. Exploring on a starship with optimistic people who rarely ever cuss? Been there, done that. Storylines that no longer make us think or have things to talk about? Yep. Already there.

Grow the balls, Viacom. Make the change. And show fans that something doesn't have to be reality to be new and interesting. Show us that you have the balls to make Star Trek work, and work right.

Michael Hinman is the founder and news editor of Airlock Alpha. He is based in Tampa, Fla., and can be reached at michael@airlockalpha.com.

Talk about this story on the Airlock Alpha message boards. Click here!.