RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,557
Posts: 5,401,854
Members: 24,861
Currently online: 663
Newest member: bunty2

TrekToday headlines

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Abrams To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Sep 24

Trek 3 Casting Rumor Reactions
By: T'Bonz on Sep 24

Trek Comics Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Voyager

Voyager There's coffee in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 11 2013, 11:55 AM   #31
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

People look for different things in shows, and sometimes the order in which you watch shows can impact your view of them. For me watching the shows in order, I found very little different in VOY from say TNG. One could say most of the stories VOY told could have been told in the AQ, which is a failure of using their premise.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 12:16 PM   #32
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

I was wondering about this the other day, how many of the fist Voyager scripts were left over unused TNG scripts?

In reverse, the season 3 episode of Enterprise "twilight" was supposed to be the Janweay and Chakotay hooking up script which never found it's way the whole way through production hell... But pon far T'Pol alleviating herself on the closest male medically and then developing attachements after the fact that might have been trillium powered, is a much nicer sort of rape than Chakotay tricking a woman with a brain injury into taking her pants off becuase he's bored and lonely.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 12:54 PM   #33
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Lt. Cheka Wey wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Deep Space Nine and the TNG movies share equal "blame"

Personally, I couldn't give a shit about ratings or finger pointing. I very much enjoyed Voyager (and to a lesser extent, DS9)
What was wrong with DS 9?

Best Trek ever.
When discussing the decline of the franchise in terms of ratings, as the OP's article does, steadily shedding viewers over their runs is what's wrong with DS9, VOY, and ENT, all three. Not only could none of them attract new viewers, they couldn't even keep the viewers they had.

Generally speaking, if all you can see is a show that you like, then you aren't being introspective enough to understand why John Q. Public couldn't stay interested. People found plenty not to like, and fans may have a hard time understanding that.

The fact is, DS9 experienced an even greater decline in ratings over its run than VOY did. Failing to mention that is another thing wrong with the OP article.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 02:33 PM   #34
Shatnertage
Rear Admiral
 
Shatnertage's Avatar
 
Location: Ward Fowler's gofer.
View Shatnertage's Twitter Profile
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Speaking of throwing out Trek episodes, I think I have concrete proof that time travel will never be possible. Bear with me.

If time travel does, in the future, become a possibility, I know for sure that one of the first trips some hardcore demented Trekkie would take would be to wipe "Threshold" from the historical record. The fact that we still have "Threshold" means, therefore, that time travel will never be invented.

Of course, there's always the possibility that originally "Threshold" was even worse, and that the episode we know is the one that resulted from some time meddler, so there goes that theory.

Back to throwing stuff out, I've got to confess that the only Trek I own is a DVD of TAS. Everything else is streaming via Netflix.

Also, a coherent ratings point: I've seen the ratings charts for all the Trek shows, and accept that they all have a decline. But I haven't seen a control group--how do VOY, DS9, and ENT stack up against other shows? What's the expectation for a TV show these days?
__________________
I don't say 'sabotage.' You say 'sabotage.' I say 'sabataage."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlOTRxt-dIw
Shatnertage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:18 PM   #35
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

They're all released inconsistently, to different markets in different GENERATIONS.

The viewing habbits, and how that translates into advertising revenue of a 35 year old in 1988 is going to be different to that of his 12 year old grandson in 2004, even though they both consider themselves die hard Trekkies.

It's ridiculous to compare the series unless you just want to be an ass.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:19 PM   #36
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Shatnertage wrote: View Post
Also, a coherent ratings point: I've seen the ratings charts for all the Trek shows, and accept that they all have a decline. But I haven't seen a control group--how do VOY, DS9, and ENT stack up against other shows? What's the expectation for a TV show these days?
That's an excellent question.

Well, let's consider Friends, a successful show that aired during the turn of the millennium. That's what a successful show looks like: overall, it added viewers.

ER is another example of success. It had a steady run for ten seasons, including over the millennium, and started on its downward trend only in its eleventh year.

Expectation is another matter. Most shows aren't successful, so by definition expectation would be failure. But if you mean, what would be expected in order to be considered successful, or in other words what's the difference between success and failure, the basic answer is ya gotta pay the bills. It's pretty well known that science fiction shows present unique problems in terms of budget that other types of shows don't have to contend with, so other shows might be able to get by on less. It's pretty clear, though, that a steady decline in viewership is unsustainable.

Trek apologists like to point to competition from cable and the Internet to shift blame for the ratings decline away from Trek's shortcomings. The fact is, as demonstrated, there were successful shows with increasing or steady audiences that aired during the same period, so competition from other sources was not an inherent problem in the television market at that time. Given what a success looks like, perhaps such competition was only a factor for the failures.

Another one of the popular whipping boys for Trek's failure is franchise fatigue, AKA an oversupply. Unfortunately, the data doesn't really support that, unless by an oversupply one means "an oversupply of shows that people don't want to watch".

One can't even blame science fiction. Here's a third example, this one from science fiction: The X-Files. The ratings for this show have a more ballistic trajectory. Unlike the post-TNG Trek shows, its ratings actually went up for the first half of its run, and they didn't significantly dip below where they started until the final season. I'm not an expert on The X-Files, so I can't offer well-informed explanations for why it peaked in the middle, but drop-off in the final season is fairly clearly due to the departure of Duchovny. I would suspect ossification of formula as the most likely suspect for peaking in the middle, though.

By the way, adhering to ossified formulas is one of the main problems with all TV Trek, from late TNG onward.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:34 PM   #37
Sran
Fleet Captain
 
Sran's Avatar
 
Location: The Captain's Table
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Shatnertage wrote: View Post
Why the high score for ENT, by the way? I threw out most of seasons 1&2, and kept in most of 3&4. Had it gone on for another 3 seasons, it's possible that number would be a lot lower.
But it didn't go on for another three seasons.

--Sran
__________________
"Many things seem clever to an imbecile." --Captain Thelin th'Valrass, USS Enterprise-- "The Chimes at Midnight"
Sran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:37 PM   #38
Sran
Fleet Captain
 
Sran's Avatar
 
Location: The Captain's Table
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Shatnertage wrote: View Post
Speaking of throwing out Trek episodes, I think I have concrete proof that time travel will never be possible. Bear with me.

If time travel does, in the future, become a possibility, I know for sure that one of the first trips some hardcore demented Trekkie would take would be to wipe "Threshold" from the historical record. The fact that we still have "Threshold" means, therefore, that time travel will never be invented.

Of course, there's always the possibility that originally "Threshold" was even worse, and that the episode we know is the one that resulted from some time meddler, so there goes that theory.
I'd like to believe that the Department of Temporal Investigations helped to resolve the matter.

--Sran
__________________
"Many things seem clever to an imbecile." --Captain Thelin th'Valrass, USS Enterprise-- "The Chimes at Midnight"
Sran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:41 PM   #39
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Sci-Fi like any genre has it's core audiance. If netwoek A schedules a sci-fi show and networks B and C schedule they Sci-Fi shows so that they all air at the same time, all 3 will lose out in terms of numbers. Today's viewing habit's are different from 2002 or even 1992. With DVR some pople might store months worth of episodes and hit them in a marathon session, but those viewers wouldn't be counted in the fina laudiance figure. We also have catch up services like BBC's iPlayer, OnDemand services etc... Some pople might forgoe watching it on TV all together and wait for the DVD/BR release.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:41 PM   #40
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Wikipedia was explaining to me how TNG had this fantastic trick for getting aired almost everywhere... They gave it away for free. Affiliates are supposed to pay through the nose for absolute crap but here's Paramount offering up TNG for nothing if they give them back half the advertising time to use as they want to. Firstrun syndication gave TPTB the possibility of reaching %90 of the house holds in America meanwhile UPN is this tiny cupboard in the wastelands which almost no one had access too.

A horse of another colour entirely.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:52 PM   #41
Shatnertage
Rear Admiral
 
Shatnertage's Avatar
 
Location: Ward Fowler's gofer.
View Shatnertage's Twitter Profile
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Guy Gardener wrote: View Post
Wikipedia was explaining to me how TNG had this fantastic trick for getting aired almost everywhere... They gave it away for free. Affiliates are supposed to pay through the nose for absolute crap but here's Paramount offering up TNG for nothing if they give them back half the advertising time to use as they want to. Firstrun syndication gave TPTB the possibility of reaching %90 of the house holds in America meanwhile UPN is this tiny cupboard in the wastelands which almost no one had access too.

A horse of another colour entirely.
Very interesting; I shall have to meet this Wikipedia fellow.

Did DS9 have a similar deal?
__________________
I don't say 'sabotage.' You say 'sabotage.' I say 'sabataage."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlOTRxt-dIw
Shatnertage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 04:00 PM   #42
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Here we are 8 years after Enterprise ended and 12 years after Voyager, and people STILL complain. How does a show you supposedly never watched because you hated it, ruin Star Trek for you? Another thing I don't get is people who thought Voyager or Enterprise was so bad, yet continued to watch. Why did you continue to watch?

If you didn't like Voyager or Enterprise (or TNG & DS9 for that matter), that is fine. But ruined Trek? When you don't watch a show, how does it ruin the show it spun off from, especially when it has already over for 20+ years? Exactly how does that work?

In fact, I don't get people who criticize TNG and DS9 either, yet TOS could do no wrong, especially when ALL these shows have been off the air so long, now. This is basically like STILL complaining about Galactica 1980. You know, EVERY Star Trek show had its great moments and its stinkers. Like it or not, TNG,DS9,VOY, and ENT is the MAJORITY of Star Trek. And when you talk about basically a combined 25 seasons TNG-ENT, you can't exactly say it was all bad or a failure, because SOMEBODY was watching enough to keep them on the air. And none of it RUINS TOS. For people who say it does, this is the exact same argument that people opposed to the Abrams reboot make, yet people call THAT an ignorant argument.
TheSubCommander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 04:05 PM   #43
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Actually, TOS was so awesome that it got canceled in three seasons!
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 04:20 PM   #44
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

I saw in a documentary on Trek, where some TV exec is saying that the raw numbers for TOS may not have been that great, but if at the time they had known how to break down demographics into age groups as well as sex and income brackets, that NBC never would have cancelled Star Trek.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 04:39 PM   #45
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Voyager accidentally presided over the franchise’s decline

Guy Gardener wrote: View Post
I saw in a documentary on Trek, where some TV exec is saying that the raw numbers for TOS may not have been that great, but if at the time they had known how to break down demographics into age groups as well as sex and income brackets, that NBC never would have cancelled Star Trek.
This has been shown to be probably just another one of Roddenberry's yarns that he spun for PR purposes. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tr...2.80.931967.29, references therein:

Star Trek's first-season ratings would in earlier years likely have caused NBC to cancel the show. The network had pioneered research into viewers' demographic profiles in the early 1960s, however, and, by 1967, it and other networks increasingly considered such data when making decisions;[17]:115 for example, CBS temporarily cancelled Gunsmoke that year because it had too many older and too few younger viewers.[11] Although Roddenberry later claimed that NBC was unaware of Star Trek's favorable demographics,[18] awareness of Star Trek's "quality" audience is what likely caused the network to retain the show after the first and second seasons.[17]:115 NBC instead decided to order 10 more new episodes for the first season, and order a second season in March 1967.[10]:212[19] The network originally announced that the show would air at 7:30-8:30 PM Tuesday, but it was instead given an 8:30-9:30 PM Friday slot when the 1967-68 NBC schedule was released,[20] making watching it difficult for the young viewers that the show most attracted.[10]:218
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.