C.E. Evans wrote:
A spinoff can work, or it can't. Using DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise only as examples of them not working seems to ignore examples of it actually working, and the other inherent problems of them, least of which was that they weren't Kirk and Spock.
Agreed, although in the case of DS9 and VOY it was more that those shows did work, but not at the generally unheard of scale as TNG (syndicated/upstart network dramas usually don't even come remotely close to rivaling--much less sometimes even beat--the big network shows). On their own, though, they did very well against other similar (action-adventure drama) shows in syndication.
Totally. People undersell DS9 and
VOY. Some people like to pretend Star Trek fell off the public radar when TNG ended. It didn't. That kind of historical revisionism does get to me. It irritates me because the fact is, while neither show reached TNG's stellar heights in the public consciousness, they didn't exactly tank
either. There was a natural drop-off from TNG's popularity, but it was never as big a catastrophe as this revisionist opinion would have us believe.
Some people's expectations were too high They expected too much. They expected TNG levels of success to continue on, to build and build. But it was actually perfectly natural, IMO, for that to drop off a bit. But no, neither DS9 or VOY was as big a 'failure' as some people are now seemingly all too happy to pretend they were.
As to a new show, whether a new TV series is a reboot or a sequel is not important. It's the quality of the show
that matters. Some people in internet land talk about the original Star Trek universe as if it's somehow been "tainted" by some of it's entries in the past, and that nothing short of a total continuity reboot can save the franchise. I disagree with that lazy assessment, on so many levels.