Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

[Admiral Shran]

The Super Brando wrote:

---

TOS is garbage and shouldn't be considered canon. It was only thought of as good because most other tv and film up to that point was even worse garbage.

Star Trek began with the movies, established its foundation with TNG, and reached its full potential with DS9.

I find your belief system fascinating, as you can probably tell.

[plynch]

I am not Spock wrote:

---

I liked TOS season three. There, I said it

It seems the general consensus is changing as people consider not the utter dogs, but the whole season.

[BillJ]

Admiral Shran wrote:

---

I find your belief system fascinating, as you can probably tell.

There's unpopular... then there's downright retarded. Which is what the above opinion is. Hmmm... I like everything Modern Trek swiped from Star Trek... but I think that Star Trek is garbage. By your logic, Modern Trek has to be garbage too, since it pretty much stole its entire concept (lock, stock and barrel) from Star Trek. And let's not forget that the massive ratings slide began with the series that reached Trek's full potential, Deep Space Nine.

plynch wrote:

---

It seems the general consensus is changing as people consider not the utter dogs, but the whole season.

Watched Elaan of Troyius Special Edition last night and had forgotten how entertaining the episode was. This is an instance where the upgraded SFX really helped the episode.

[DevilEyes]

BillJ wrote:

---

And let's not forget that the massive ratings slide began with the series that reached Trek's full potential, Deep Space Nine.

Very fitting for a franchise that originated from a show that was in danger of cancellation throughout its run and was eventually cancelled after its third season.

[3D Master]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

Very fitting for a franchise that originated from a show that was in danger of cancellation throughout its run and was eventually cancelled after its third season.

Back then the ratings were not very well measured, for one thing, there was no differentiation between gender and age groups. When the new system came into place, after the cancellation, they went to once again redo the ratings, and Star Trek hit all the important target groups. If the new ratings systems had been implemented sooner, Star Trek would never have been in danger of cancellation.

[DevilEyes]

3D Master wrote:

---

Back then the ratings were not very well measured, for one thing, there was no differentiation between gender and age groups. When the new system came into place, after the cancellation, they went to once again redo the ratings, and Star Trek hit all the important target groups. If the new ratings systems had been implemented sooner, Star Trek would never have been in danger of cancellation.

And do you believe that the ratings system today, or in the last 15-20 years, is a very accurate reflection of quality?

[3D Master]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

And do you believe that the ratings system today, or in the last 15-20 years, is a very accurate reflection of quality?

I'm not the one who brought up cancellation, you did, so YOU should be the one to answer the reverse of that question.

[BillJ]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

And do you believe that the ratings system today, or in the last 15-20 years, is a very accurate reflection of quality?

I think we all understand ratings are not indicative of quality. What the ratings for Deep Space Nine mean: that people that were fans of The Next Generation did not necessarily watch Deep Space Nine. That the built in audience that would watch anything with Star Trek in the title was smaller than Paramount thought.

[flemm]

BillJ wrote:

---

I think we all understand ratings are not indicative of quality. What the ratings for Deep Space Nine mean: that people that were fans of The Next Generation did not necessarily watch Deep Space Nine. That the built in audience that would watch anything with Star Trek in the title was smaller than Paramount thought.

Even that is probably a simplistic reading. A lot of people watching TNG weren't watching it because it had Star Trek in the name, but because it was practically the only show of its kind on the air, and many people still watched network television exclusively. By the end of TNG's run, Trek had started competing against itself, and there were a lot more sci-fi/fantasy shows on tv.

Also, the ratings decline that began in the late TNG years and continued through DS9, Voyager and ENT corresponds to a steep drop in ratings across all networks and all genres. For example, the evening news' ratings when ENT was canceled were only a fraction of what they were when TNG first aired, due to the rise of cable television (and of the internet).

I think one would at least have to factor in these types of broad shifts in the market to analyse the ratings of these shows in a meaningful manner.

[3D Master]

flemm wrote:

---

Even that is probably a simplistic reading. A lot of people watching TNG weren't watching it because it had Star Trek in the name, but because it was practically the only show of its kind on the air, and many people still watched network television exclusively. By the end of TNG's run, Trek had started competing against itself, and there were a lot more sci-fi/fantasy shows on tv.

Also, the ratings decline that began in the late TNG years and continued through DS9, Voyager and ENT corresponds to a steep drop in ratings across all networks and all genres. For example, the evening news' ratings when ENT was canceled were only a fraction of what they were when TNG first aired, due to the rise of cable television (and of the internet).

I think one would at least have to factor in these types of broad shifts in the market to analyse the ratings of these shows in a meaningful manner.

Indeed, I remember a commercial where some photon torpedoes destroyed Xena's Chakram and some other things from other shows, and then it said, DS9, no 1 syndicated tv show.

[DevilEyes]

3D Master wrote:

---

I'm not the one who brought up cancellation, you did, so YOU should be the one to answer the reverse of that question.

Actually, I wasn't the one who brought up ratings. BillJ did. If ratings figures are being brought up as a measure of DS9's quality, it only makes sense to bring them up the same way for TOS.

We all know that TNG was the most successful Trek show in ratings terms. Would it have the same ratings if it premiered 2 decades earlier, or a decade later? I doubt it. There are too many factors to take into consideration, as noted by flemm above.

flemm wrote:

---

Even that is probably a simplistic reading. A lot of people watching TNG weren't watching it because it had Star Trek in the name, but because it was practically the only show of its kind on the air, and many people still watched network television exclusively. By the end of TNG's run, Trek had started competing against itself, and there were a lot more sci-fi/fantasy shows on tv.

Many people who aren't Trek fans and don't even know much about the franchise are familiar with TNG (same goes for TOS, but mostly through movies rather than the show), which suggests that TNG was a ratings success not because it had a huge built-in audience, but because it attracted a lot of casual viewers and non-Trek fans. Most of those people didn't watch every episode of the show, they watched some of it and are familiar with the characters (Picard, Data...).

[Saxman1]

The TNG movies were ALL crap. First Contact is BORING - The Borg Queen toying with Data slows down the film and puts me to sleep. Picard is Clint Eastwood in First Contact through Nemesis, totally out of character and craps all over the thoughful captain of the TV series. Stewart and Spiner had NO business dictating film content and allowed to hire friends to write scripts ("Nemesis").

Only the characters of TOS work in feature films.

DS9 is in many ways the deepest, most intellectual series.

[Chrisisall]

Saxman1 wrote:

---

DS9 is in many ways the deepest, most intellectual series.

*yawn*
I guess it's
*yawn*
possible.

[Warped9]

Chrisisall wrote:

---

*yawn*
I guess it's
*yawn*
possible.

Nah .

[Chrisisall]

Warped9 wrote:

---

Nah .

In this area, Warped, we agree totally I think, TOS rules, absolutely & completely!!!!