Did Voyager get better or worse when Kes was replaced with 7 of 9?

[teacake]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

before Enterprise started I dictated that I wanted to see a Romulan Ambasador with disruptor rifle in each hand blasting away at the good guys while he's screaming "DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!"

And instead we get pineapple cake.

[delenn13]

Wasn't Maude a spinoff..Edith's cousin, I think. Loved Bea Arthur.

[Guy Gardener]

Never seen Maude.

A lot of stuff was never played or rerun down here.

Not when they could rerun Three's Company again.

[exodus]

delenn13 wrote:

---

Wasn't Maude a spinoff..Edith's cousin, I think. Loved Bea Arthur.

Yes, Maude was Edith's cousin.
Florida(Good Times) was Maude's housekeeper
The Jefferson were Archie's former next door neighbors.
Janet DuBois(Wilona from Good Times) sang the Jefferson's theme song.
Roxy Roker(Helen Willis) is the real life mom of Lenny Kravitz.

Hows that for Trivia?

[exodus]

Dream wrote:

---

Enterprise's first two seasons stank IMO.

People were fed up with their Trek shows need three seasons to get "good". It was tolerated in TNG, but people had gotten so tried of that trend when ENT started.

Yes, that and TNG & DS9 aired in syndication which is a little more laid back with ratings than regular network TV. Voyager and ENT. were on UPN, which was at the time considered network TV and couldn't wait for a show to "get good". They needed success if UPN was going to compete with ABC, NBC, CBS and even FOX. TNG was the first original run show in syndication to break records and have a viewing audience as large as on any major network. It's one of the reasons why Paramount wanted Voyager to be similar to TNG and didn't allow the show to take risks in breaking that mold. That's why there wasn't much conflict between Starfleet & Maquis. It's also why Seven was a big focus, Seven generated interest. Seven's image sold merchandise. Garret Wang got noticed in a popular magazine. Niomi and the Borg Kids were meant to get our children to identify and watch. Anything positive to get your show noticed and bring in revenue is a good thing.

[JirinPanthosa]

But...Voyager's ratings weren't holding strong. They were declining exponentially every season.

Voyager had a habit of focusing more on making an exciting commercial than actual good writing. The episode with The Rock is the biggest example of this, that episode got much higher ratings than most episodes that season, but the viewers who tuned in to see The Rock didn't tune in the next week. All Voyager seemed to really care about was what would get people to tune in that week, not what would cause long term fan loyalty. Even though the show was more accessible than DS9, DS9 had consistently higher ratings, because it did more to establish fan loyalty.

TNG on the other hand was so successful because it managed both. It was accessible and knew how to write a good commercial, but also knew what kind of writing would create fan loyalty.

And Enterprise's first two seasons were far worse than any other Trek's first two seasons.

[exodus]

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

But...Voyager's ratings weren't holding strong. They were declining exponentially every season.

Voyager had a habit of focusing more on making an exciting commercial than actual good writing. The episode with The Rock is the biggest example of this, that episode got much higher ratings than most episodes that season, but the viewers who tuned in to see The Rock didn't tune in the next week. All Voyager seemed to really care about was what would get people to tune in that week, not what would cause long term fan loyalty. Even though the show was more accessible than DS9, DS9 had consistently higher ratings, because it did more to establish fan loyalty.

TNG on the other hand was so successful because it managed both. It was accessible and knew how to write a good commercial, but also knew what kind of writing would create fan loyalty.

And Enterprise's first two seasons were far worse than any other Trek's first two seasons.

Voyager's ratings didn't drop low enough that couldn't do it's intended seven year run. No Voyager didn't hold TNG numbers(no Trek or any other show in syndication before it ever has) but it wasn't in danger of cancellation either. If Voyager got voted to be the 1# Trek show to seen on Blu-ray, then I'd say there's plenty of fan loyalty behind it. It's tells me and Paramount people are still willing to pay for it, again! If Voyager didn't create fan loyalty, then it wouldn't have even held enough ratings to continue for as long as it did and it wouldn't sell and still be selling the merchandise it does. Voyager also has many fans that weren't into Trek before but the laid back style of the show appealed to them (or Seven did)or new fans whom Voyager was their first introduction into Trek.

What also has to be considered is where and how Voyager was shown at the time for it's ratings. In many major cities across the country, Voyager ran at the same time as DS9(on different stations) causing Trek fans to choose which to watch. Many stuck with DS9 because they were already 3 seasons into it. In other major cities, station programing didn't carry UPN or Voyager at all. So how was a show to have ratings that were truly competitive if it isn't being shown everywhere? TNG & DS9 were accessible in far more stations nation wide, thus being allowed to be shown in more households. With that in mind, Voyager is impressive to still hold the audience it did and to last it's full run being carried by less stations and in fewer households. Voyager defied all the odds against it and still succeeded.

[Lynx]

Star Grinch wrote:

---

Obviously not, but if you alienate the core of your fanbase you can't expect to sustain a franchise either. I really always thought one of the reasons Enterprise got canceled was they couldn't even keep their own fanbase interested. In the end, they're the ones who not only watch the show, but spread the word to the casual fans, buy the products and the such. They lost me midway through season 2 when it was originally airing for example.

I agree here. The hard-core fans were the ones who made Trek come back after TOS was cancelled in 1969. They kept the dream alive. Without them Trek would have been a commodity from the 60:s.

A show or any entertainment thing who loses its hardcore fans is doomed. The casual viewers may add money to the box and numbers to the ratings but they can never carry a show. Why? because they are casual viewers. They don't have the heart for it in the same way as the hardcore fans have. If they find another novelty, they might abandon Trek or whatever it is for the new show. The hardcore fans are those who carry the show in difficult times and who can be the deciding factor if the show might stay alive or not.

exodus wrote:

---

Says who, a handful of fans on a message board?

If Trek fans were the only ones watching the shows, Voyager would have ended production after the first season. TNG would have NEVER been as popular or had the ground breaking ratings it did. All the die hard Trek fans globally still isn't a big enough audience to keep a show in production. There is an entire world of viewers out there who aren't represented here. There are casual viewers that watched the show as well. There is a larger majority of the audience that watched the show and didn't have any issues and have no interest in joining a fanbased message board. There is a bigger part of the audience that didn't like Kes over those that did and proved the show can run just fine without your support. J.J. Abrams proved Trek can still find a new audience and be successful without a majority of the fans support.

Too fire an entire writing staff just for the comfort of a handful of the viewing audience is irrational and unrealistic. Fans such as yourself need to wake up and realize you don't run Trek or the choices they make in production. Paramount has accounting and staff researchers that that compile data for things such as this GLOBALLY. Voyager's ratings held strong enough for it to run 7 full years which is exactly what those that created it and Paramount & their accountants hoped for. That's a successful show in the eyes of a TV studio. You don't fire a entire staff if the majority of the audience is holding strong, still tuning and and bringing in the sales you expected it too and you certainly don't based you're production on a small portion of your audience. Voyager just recently got voted #1 Trek series people wanted to see brought to Blu-Ray.(Reported on Yahoo & Facebook) Further proof that the show has a larger audience and that the majority are still willing to pay for it.

Why so hostile to the Kes fans? You know, there are many fans who like Kes, maybe more than those who dislike her. But they aren't as...........persistent on the message boards as some of those who dislike (or in certain cases hate) the character are.

As for sales, even critical fans like me might contribute to that. I recently bought a Star Trek Calender, I bought the latest Voyager book (just to read about Janeway's return) and I might buy the first three seasons of Voyager on Blue-Ray when the time comes. I also watched the Abrams movie, although I wasn't that enthusiastic over it and the scenario which was presented in it.

As for the Abramsmovie, its success was based on two things: Good marketing plus all those Star Trek fans out there who were starving for new Star Trek things and would have watched anything just to see something labeled Star Trek on screen. Then we'll see if they can keep that interest. I personally think that Trek is better as a serie or as a movie.

exodus wrote:

---

Voyager's ratings didn't drop low enough that couldn't do it's intended seven year run. No Voyager didn't hold TNG numbers(no Trek or any other show in syndication before it ever has) but it wasn't in danger of cancellation either. If Voyager got voted to be the 1# Trek show to seen on Blu-ray, then I'd say there's plenty of fan loyalty behind it. It's tells me and Paramount people are still willing to pay for it, again! If Voyager didn't create fan loyalty, then it wouldn't have even held enough ratings to continue for as long as it did and it wouldn't sell and still be selling the merchandise it does. Voyager also has many fans that weren't into Trek before but the laid back style of the show appealed to them (or Seven did)or new fans whom Voyager was their first introduction into Trek.

What also has to be considered is where and how Voyager was shown at the time for it's ratings. In many major cities across the country, Voyager ran at the same time as DS9(on different stations) causing Trek fans to choose which to watch. Many stuck with DS9 because they were already 3 seasons into it. In other major cities, station programing didn't carry UPN or Voyager at all. So how was a show to have ratings that were truly competitive if it isn't being shown everywhere? TNG & DS9 were accessible in far more stations nation wide, thus being allowed to be shown in more households. With that in mind, Voyager is impressive to still hold the audience it did and to last it's full run being carried by less stations and in fewer households. Voyager defied all the odds against it and still succeeded.

I think it differs from place to place. Where I live, TNG was on constant re-runs since it's first airing in the beginning of the 90:s and the latest re-run was two years ago. DS9 was dumped after one season because of low viewing ratings. Voyager had a good following for the first three-four seasons, then the ratings went down and it was moved from a weekly spot to late Sunday evenings (which is not a good time for shows where I live). Enterprise had low ratings from the start and was also moved to late Sunday evenings after a while.

[Bry_Sinclair]

Sometimes, with posts like these I wish a poll would be included. That way it would be easy to see what people thought.

[Lynx]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

Sometimes, with posts like these I wish a poll would be included. That way it would be easy to see what people thought.

Maybe, but you'll only get the results for those who are members of this forum, not the entire Star Trek fan community.

[teacake]

Most people don't chew over this stuff. They're just like.. hey that cute girl is gone, bummer. But Borg boobs, yay!!

[exodus]

Lynx wrote:

---

I agree here. The hard-core fans were the ones who made Trek come back after TOS was cancelled in 1969. They kept the dream alive. Without them Trek would have been a commodity from the 60:s.

A show or any entertainment thing who loses its hardcore fans is doomed. The casual viewers may add money to the box and numbers to the ratings but they can never carry a show. Why? because they are casual viewers. They don't have the heart for it in the same way as the hardcore fans have. If they find another novelty, they might abandon Trek or whatever it is for the new show. The hardcore fans are those who carry the show in difficult times and who can be the deciding factor if the show might stay alive or not.

Yes, yes yes. but hard core fans alone do not make up enough of the numbers to secure a shows ratings. We need the casual viewers to keep a show running. That's why they put Ryan in a catsuit, that's why they brought Worf onto DS9 and added a kick ass warship. These were meant to bring in viewers that normal didn't watch Trek to amp up the cool factor. If we have the casual viewers watching, then fans
won't need to do things to keep the show alive. Having both fans and casual viewers will keep a show running without worry. We need them. Any producer will tell you, we look to fan feed back but they don't run the show. They need us as fans but they're not to going to cater to our every whim because there are more watching then just us.

Don't forget, many of those hard core fans that brought Trek back started out as casual ones. Allot of the TNG fan base stated off as casual fans because TOS fans wouldn't watch it at first.

Why so hostile to the Kes fans? You know, there are many fans who like Kes, maybe more than those who dislike her.

It's not about being hostile but rather stating what I know through my education about the behind the scenes business of how TV production works. Kes fans insist on Lien begin fired was something personal against them, they refuse to understand the decision was a business one which has nothing to do directly with them. For example, you just agreed that there are more viewers that didn't like Kes over those that do, then why are Kes fans so hostile toward TPTB for doing what was clearly in the best interest of the majority of the viewing audience?

If you created a show and the majority of the viewing audience isn't warming up to one or two of the characters, do you still keep that character knowing you could loose the greater majority or to you cut that character and only loose the smaller minority? As someone in charge of a show these are just some of the choices you have to make. You always do what's best to appeal to the majority.

They had a choice to cut the two least liked characters, Kim and Kes. Wang got a gold star for being in People's most sexiest. If the readers of People saw that, then the producers determined that Wang's image had the potential to get those readers to tune in. So the ax fell on Lien. It was a business choice they had too make to keep the larger part of the viewing audience. In the end he didn't but at that moment in time, they had to make a choice based on what they knew then. Paramount has marketing researchers whos purpose is to find out all this information and give feed back based on what info they have available. They know what characters the audience likes as well as the ones they don't. It's why certain characters got more development over others because it's based on audience feed back. For example, lets just say they polled random viewers and found out the the majority thought Chakotay was ok, didn't really like him but didn't hate him either. However, they did find that he got high marks with the female perspective of the audience. So while they might not put any more effort into developing his character, they keep him around to keep the female demographic watching.

So they we're willing to loose the minority but had high hopes in bringing in a larger majority with a character like Seven. While she many not have helped ratings long term, there is no doubt her image made Paramount LOTS of money. So in the end they still won.

As for sales, even critical fans like me might contribute to that. I recently bought a Star Trek Calender, I bought the latest Voyager book (just to read about Janeway's return) and I might buy the first three seasons of Voyager on Blue-Ray when the time comes. I also watched the Abrams movie, although I wasn't that enthusiastic over it and the scenario which was presented in it.

You aren't enough. Paramount want Trek to be just as marketable as Star Wars. Trek has been around decades longer but the there is no reason why with the right marketing every child, every adult be they a die hard fan or not have some type of Trek merchandise in their home. Be it a t-shirt, video game, poster or coffee cup. That's their goal.
As far as J.J. Abrams film, the same argument was made by TOS fans when they announced TNG going into production. TOS fans refused to get on board and watch TNG because it was new and different but TNG found a new audience and millions of new Trek fans were born before the TOS fans gave in and started to watch. Abrams films will find and create a new generation of Trek fans before the old school ones accept it.

[teacake]

exodus wrote:

---

Paramount want Trek to be just as marketable as Star Wars. Trek has been around decades longer but the there is no reason why with the right marketing every child, every adult be they a die hard fan or not have some type of Trek merchandise in their home. Be it a t-shirt, video game, poster or coffee cup. That's their goal.

I like this goal, it's exciting!

[Lynx]

exodus wrote:

It's not about being hostile but rather stating what I know through my education about the behind the scenes business of how TV production works. Kes fans insist on Lien begin fired was something personal against them, they refuse to understand the decision was a business one which has nothing to do directly with them. For example, you just agreed that there are more viewers that didn't like Kes over those that do, then why are Kes fans so hostile toward TPTB for doing what was clearly in the best interest of the majority of the viewing audience?

First of all, I've worked in the entertainment business myself so I know a lot about what sort of business which goes on behind the curtains, not only nice things.

I don't see the dumping of Kes as a personal insult to be or the Kes fans. I see it as a cruel, stupid and unnecessary decision which they tried to cover up with vague statements. "Fury" is another story, that one was a deliberate insult to the Kes fans.

Are you actually reading what I'm writing? In the text quoted above you point out that I agred that there were more fans who didn't like Kes than who did like the character. That's not what I wrote! I wrote that "there are many fans who like Kes, maybe more than those who dislike her".

As for liking, Neelix was clearly the most disliked character on the show but they didn't dump him. Kim wasn't that popular either. So much for "fan feed back"! And if they really cared for the fans, they shouldn't have come up with such an insulting episode as "Fury".

So you mean that if Kes had stayed, the viewers would have abandoned Voyager. Now that is qualified rubbish! And the dumping of Kes was "for the greater good". That's actually cruel. But of course, I didn't know that Kes was the reason for all that's bad in Star Trek. Obviously it was her fault that TOS was abandoned in 1969 and "Enterprise" was dumped after three seasons. Silly me who didn't realize that.

As for dumping Kes "for the greater good", that reminds me of certain "big political bosses" who also "dumped" people "for the greater good", for the building of socialism and who knows what. Isn't it a nice society we have created?

As for hostility to "TPTB", well I got a reason for disliking them. However, I will still give them credit for TNG. That was a good show!

exodus wrote:

You aren't enough. Paramount want Trek to be just as marketable as Star Wars. Trek has been around decades longer but the there is no reason why with the right marketing every child, every adult be they a die hard fan or not have some type of Trek merchandise in their home. Be it a t-shirt, video game, poster or coffee cup. That's their goal.
As far as J.J. Abrams film, the same argument was made by TOS fans when they announced TNG going into production. TOS fans refused to get on board and watch TNG because it was new and different but TNG found a new audience and millions of new Trek fans were born before the TOS fans gave in and started to watch. Abrams films will find and create a new generation of Trek fans before the old school ones accept it.

I took myself and my latest buying of Trek stuff as an example that even a dissatisfied fan might buy some of the few good Trek things available, thus adding to the Paramount hotshot's wallets. Not only happy fans invest in Star Trek stuff.

As for comparing the Abrams movie with TNG, those in charge didn't screw up the Star Trek universe as much in TNG as they have done with this new "Abramsuniverse".

Hopefully they will bring in Yoda and Chewbacca soon. Maybe that's a new campaign for me?

[Guy Gardener]

teacake wrote:

---

I like this goal, it's exciting!

You have thousand of individual items of Star Trek merchandise in almost every room of your house.

You know you do.

If you were feeling charitable, you could go door to door for weeks handing out star trek baubles to many of the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Or is that not how paramount wants every bugger to acquire their trek crap?