RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,588
Posts: 5,515,357
Members: 25,158
Currently online: 559
Newest member: Giarc1982

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 23 2013, 04:22 PM   #46
Anwar
Vice Admiral
 
Anwar's Avatar
 
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

SpocksLeftEar wrote: View Post
I don't understand why Berman and Braga just didn't quit when the studio demanded a million things they didn't want to do.
They were under contracts that kept them from doing just that. They just never expected the Studio to become do domineering.

Ron Moore was able to quit the way he did because he was just a writer who WASN'T under that kind of contract.
Anwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23 2013, 04:52 PM   #47
Richard Baker
Captain
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Location: Warrior, AL
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

I liked Enterprise but aside from the last season it was just not telling the stories I would enjoy- the Temporal Cold War was a huge time waste IMO.
A franchise makes money by giving people a product they enjoy and expect. Sometimes it mines all the potential a particular vein and has to reach beyond. Stargate is a perfect example for that- the followup series went further and further each time.
I think leaping past Voyager several centuries would have been interesting- seeing what happened to all the old conflicts and finding new ways to explore. Life on the Enterprise-J looked interesting and with digital sets they could pull it off. Another idea would be to return to the USS Relativity's mission and have a show that visits multiple timelines but for specific missions. The novels involving the Department of Temporal Investigations have some great stories with a much more complicated universe that we have seen before-
Richard Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23 2013, 07:44 PM   #48
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

^^Seasons 1 and 2 weren't terrible, but did suffer from mediocrity. Enterprise didn't hit its stride until season 3. I thought the Xindi arc did improve Enterprise, especially with a more serialized feel. However, I think if the intention was to introduce the Earth Romulan War, the enemy should have been Romulans instead of the Xindi.
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23 2013, 08:51 PM   #49
JirinPanthosa
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

I would set a series maybe 10 years after the end of Voyager so you can see them midway through the process of rebuilding from the war.

Totally new writers, and make sure they're very opinionated writers. That's what Trek needs, writers with fresh ideas and strong personalities who fight hard for their own vision.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23 2013, 09:42 PM   #50
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

Lance wrote: View Post
Coach Comet wrote: View Post
Infern0 wrote: View Post
Than Enterprise?

As much as I liked enterprise, it didn't resonate with the casual audience as much as the other Treks seemed to.

We hadn't had a "traditional" trek show set in the alpha quadrant since TNG ended in 1994. With DS9 being set on a space station, and more concerned with War, politics and religion than exploration and discovery, and Voyager being well... voyager.

What I think they should have done, is gone back to what worked best, have a ship of exploration, and it could have dealt with the aftermath of the dominion war, as well as using new technology that voyager had discovered.

you could have brought back classic trek villains like the tholians and the gorn, maybe pushed out into the beta quadrent.
As the only "improvements," in and of themselves, not likely.

As demonstrated there, the downward slope of the dwindling ratings transcended each series individually. During those years, the whole TV part of the franchise was subject to the same overall trend, and it was down, down, down. Viewers were being shed all along in every series since TNG, at a steady, almost clock-like, rate.
A different scenario: TNG went out on a high in terms of both it's public popularity and also in its place as (by that stage) the proud flagship of the franchise. But do we think it could have maintained that popularity, had it gone on to an eighth, ninth or tenth season?

It seemed to me, both at the time and looking back in retrospect, that TNG had a massive 'casual' following, who it seemed to me abandoned Star Trek after TNG went off the air. DS9 and VOY might have had their followings too, even ENT, but my impression has been that they were more 'devoted' (shall we say) viewers. A lot of that broader, casual audience might not have been among them, and might have lost interest in the franchise when TNG wasn't a regular fixture anymore. Maybe they just didn't carry their interest through to the movies and TV shows that came after.
A lot of people tuned in for the premier of DS9 and then dropped off in droves. DS9: "Emissary" was the most watched episode of Star Trek since TNG went on the air, if not ever.

Similarly, many more tuned in for the premiers of VOY and ENT than stuck with the shows, though with each successive premier, their numbers got smaller and smaller.

The market was there to be had; people just didn't like what they saw, pure and simple. In many cases, people gave the shows a chance, but once they got dissatisfied, they never came back. On the other hand, many kept giving the successive premiers "just one more chance."

Excuses such as that the syndication market was contracting just obfuscate the issue, which is simply that Star Trek, or at least the Star Trek that was being aired, was just another one of the things that people didn't want to watch in large numbers.

To put it another way, things that interested Star Trek fans did not interest most people. This way attempting to solve the problem by changing the century, the specific setting (ship, station, starbase, etc.), or the available species, I think that it's just a symptom of this. For every fan that thinks that these sorts of ideas are totally awesome, there are many more people who think that they're ever more ridiculous. That's a bad equation for a prospective TV show.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23 2013, 11:48 PM   #51
Bad Thoughts
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

Excuses such as that the syndication market was contracting just obfuscate the issue, which is simply that Star Trek, or at least the Star Trek that was being aired, was just another one of the things that people didn't want to watch in large numbers.
I invite you to research the ratings history for shows like Hercules, Xena, Babylon 5, and Baywatch. They parallel the ratings decline of Deep Space Nine. Should we assume that all those shows, all of which found themselves moved from prime time slots on Saturdays to Midnight slots on Sundays (if they were even reordered), were afflicted, at least in part, with the same disease? There was indeed a ratings ceiling that started to emerge--and lower--in the mid-1990s for syndication.
Bad Thoughts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23 2013, 11:54 PM   #52
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

SpocksLeftEar wrote: View Post
Push The Button wrote: View Post
And don't let JJ anywhere near it.
That is a must!!!
You wish.

The man's made Star Trek popular again, and so he's going to be the one in charge or at least still having some input on what's going on in future. There's no way (short of dying) that he won't be a part of Star Trek from here on in.

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
I would set a series maybe 10 years after the end of Voyager so you can see them midway through the process of rebuilding from the war.

Totally new writers, and make sure they're very opinionated writers. That's what Trek needs, writers with fresh ideas and strong personalities who fight hard for their own vision.
They also have to be not afraid of pissing people off or doing things that people wouldn't consider 'moral'.

Last edited by Shaka Zulu; December 24 2013 at 04:00 PM.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 12:53 AM   #53
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

Pel the Yeshiva Ferengi wrote: View Post
Excuses such as that the syndication market was contracting just obfuscate the issue, which is simply that Star Trek, or at least the Star Trek that was being aired, was just another one of the things that people didn't want to watch in large numbers.
I invite you to research the ratings history for shows like Hercules, Xena, Babylon 5, and Baywatch. They parallel the ratings decline of Deep Space Nine. Should we assume that all those shows, all of which found themselves moved from prime time slots on Saturdays to Midnight slots on Sundays (if they were even reordered), were afflicted, at least in part, with the same disease? There was indeed a ratings ceiling that started to emerge--and lower--in the mid-1990s for syndication.
A few things.

First of all, you say "all those shows" as if you're talking about a large sample. You aren't. There are only a few shows there, really. The four shows you mentioned have one thing in common: to a lot of people, if you've seen one of each, you've seen them all. Heresy to a science fiction fan (3/4 of the shows you mentioned besides DS9 are sci-fi/fantasy), but it's a fact of life. Formula, when repeated often enough, wears thin, and viewers bail.

Then again, Baywatch, the non-SF/F example on your list, isn't really like the others. It was actually popular. Very popular. For a time, Baywatch was the most-watched TV series in the world [link]. Sexiness > sci-fi/fantasy?!? I'm shocked, shocked! This was actually a formula people liked; having only niche appeal is a charge that didn't stick to Baywatch.

Second of all, UPN can't count as syndication. It was a full-blown network. There were hit network programs with stable ratings during this era, just on the big three/four. The fact that The Simpsons was able to rise up through the ranks and put Fox on the map meant that with good (i.e., appealing) enough programming, more or less anybody could earn the success normally reserved to the big three, even in a period of so-called market contraction. That means that a lot of "blame" for ratings declines must be laid at the feet of the programming itself (formulaic shows with only niche appeal), and that's especially so for the Star Trek spin-offs, which had their chances again and again.

Third, as I said, the first episode of DS9 was hands-down the most-watched Star Trek episode in post-TOS history. What does the fact that there was an instant drop-off mean, given that it was immediately followed by the downward slope that spanned all post-TNG Trek shows? It means that, in aggregate, viewers found DS9 to be nothing special, and that the same applied for VOY and ENT.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 01:15 AM   #54
Bad Thoughts
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

^Perhaps you didn't see that I brought up market contraction specifically in the context of DS9?

"All those show" were the best performing syndicated shows of the nineties. You may research overall market trends, but you would likely require a university library.
Bad Thoughts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 01:31 AM   #55
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

Coach Comet wrote: View Post
Pel the Yeshiva Ferengi wrote: View Post
Excuses such as that the syndication market was contracting just obfuscate the issue, which is simply that Star Trek, or at least the Star Trek that was being aired, was just another one of the things that people didn't want to watch in large numbers.
I invite you to research the ratings history for shows like Hercules, Xena, Babylon 5, and Baywatch. They parallel the ratings decline of Deep Space Nine. Should we assume that all those shows, all of which found themselves moved from prime time slots on Saturdays to Midnight slots on Sundays (if they were even reordered), were afflicted, at least in part, with the same disease? There was indeed a ratings ceiling that started to emerge--and lower--in the mid-1990s for syndication.
A few things.

First of all, you say "all those shows" as if you're talking about a large sample. You aren't. There are only a few shows there, really. The four shows you mentioned have one thing in common: to a lot of people, if you've seen one of each, you've seen them all. Heresy to a science fiction fan (3/4 of the shows you mentioned besides DS9 are sci-fi/fantasy), but it's a fact of life. Formula, when repeated often enough, wears thin, and viewers bail. .
Huh. I'm not sure exactly what your point is here. Are you suggesting that Xena and Babylon-5 were somehow more formulaic than TNG or DS9?

I mean, I'm sure that for some people all fantasy or sci-fi shows look the same, but I'm not sure the shows cited were more formulaic than any other TV show, be they sitcoms, cop shows, or space operas. And as a diehard Xena fan, I gotta protest the idea that "you've seen one ep, you've seen them all." As with TOS, Xena eps ranged from comedies to dramas to action-adventure--with even a musical or two thrown in, by the Gods!
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 01:33 AM   #56
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

Pel the Yeshiva Ferengi wrote: View Post
^Perhaps you didn't see that I brought up market contraction specifically in the context of DS9?
If the slope of DS9's decline really had to do with it being in syndication, then why was it the same as the slope in the decline of both VOY and ENT as well? The fact that the slopes were parallel, with the decline of one Trek show leading into the next, would suggest that something else might be going on, besides a phenomenon specific to just syndication, or even to just one show alone; something more overarching, yes?

"All those show" were the best performing syndicated shows of the nineties. You may research overall market trends, but you would likely require a university library.
The non-sci-fi one of the ones you mentioned did well. Very well. The others you mentioned were formulaic sci-fi entries with only niche appeal. What more should have been expected? They got their day and then some, as they all stayed on longer in syndication than they could have on network. The results were nothing that couldn't have been expected based on content alone.

---

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Coach Comet wrote: View Post
Pel the Yeshiva Ferengi wrote: View Post
I invite you to research the ratings history for shows like Hercules, Xena, Babylon 5, and Baywatch. They parallel the ratings decline of Deep Space Nine. Should we assume that all those shows, all of which found themselves moved from prime time slots on Saturdays to Midnight slots on Sundays (if they were even reordered), were afflicted, at least in part, with the same disease? There was indeed a ratings ceiling that started to emerge--and lower--in the mid-1990s for syndication.
A few things.

First of all, you say "all those shows" as if you're talking about a large sample. You aren't. There are only a few shows there, really. The four shows you mentioned have one thing in common: to a lot of people, if you've seen one of each, you've seen them all. Heresy to a science fiction fan (3/4 of the shows you mentioned besides DS9 are sci-fi/fantasy), but it's a fact of life. Formula, when repeated often enough, wears thin, and viewers bail. .
Huh. I'm not sure exactly what your point is here. Are you suggesting that Xena and Babylon-5 were somehow more formulaic than TNG or DS9?

I mean, I'm sure that for some people all fantasy or sci-fi shows look the same, but I'm not sure the shows cited were more formulaic than any other TV show, be they sitcoms, cop shows, or space operas. And as a diehard Xena fan, I gotta protest the idea that "you've seen one ep, you've seen them all." As with TOS, Xena eps ranged from comedies to dramas to action-adventure--with even a musical or two thrown in, by the Gods!
Yeah, my point is that to non-sci-fi fans they all look alike. These shows are all inaccessible to people who can't get past the fact that it is fantasy. I'm convinced that most people don't get anything out of these kinds of shows beyond what they get out of the first episode they see. To them, it looks like it's all formulaic, because it literally all looks the same. It's off-putting to most viewers.

Please consider my remarks amended accordingly with this qualification.

---

Edit -

Coach Comet wrote: View Post
The four shows you mentioned have one thing in common: to a lot of people, if you've seen one of each, you've seen them all. Heresy to a science fiction fan (3/4 of the shows you mentioned besides DS9 are sci-fi/fantasy), but it's a fact of life. Formula, when repeated often enough, wears thin, and viewers bail.
I'd also like to revise the bold text to read:

Too much repetition in the eyes of viewers, and viewers will bail.
I think that captures not only what I originally literally wrote (which while itself correct in the abstract, wasn't really applicable in those cases, as Greg Cox pointed out) but also my intent that it's the perception of every episode looking the same that's a problem (irrespective of whether, to the fans, each episode generally speaking has something new to offer, e.g. in the form of novelty, character development, or arc continuation).

---

Edit -

If people can't connect to a show because it all looks the same, then they will bail, because they know what to expect. If they do connect to a show, but find it is too repetitive after a while, then they may bail, because they know what to expect. In the last case, they are more likely to bail, if what they expect to get isn't something rewarding. I guess I was really trying to say these two different things in one sentence.

This puts sci-fi at a disadvantage, even when people can connect with it. When the pay-off in a sci-fi show is the completion of an arc about how the Niloobians' teleplasm is really tetrahedral after all, instead of trigonal as was widely believed, then just exactly what is the viewer supposed to take away to enrich their lives? They have no teleplasm in their lives, and they know no Niloobians. In some fields, such as technical fields, water cooler talk of it might be expected, but I doubt that's generally true. I feel confident in claiming that most people wouldn't feel elated upon knowing this about Niloobians, in a way that's as personally rewarding to them as when they hear a good Seinfeld joke or insight. I think that DS9, VOY, and ENT all suffered from this sort of self-importance. I believe that viewers knew either instinctively or in short order that the shows were going to be about things that mattered only in the world of Star Trek. For most people, there could be no takeaway to enrich their lives, because they don't value the fantasy world.
__________________
CorporalCaptain

Last edited by Cookies and Cake; December 24 2013 at 12:43 PM.
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 05:02 AM   #57
JirinPanthosa
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

TNG retained its casual viewers because it was not challenging and did not require any viewer investment, and also happened to have very good writing. That kind of show, like TNG but moving forward in time is the most likely to keep a big audience. And I think enough time has passed that it would work.

Would it be the show I want to watch? I'd rather Trek go for a small cable audience and be more ambitious.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 05:24 AM   #58
PicardSpeedo
Lieutenant Commander
 
PicardSpeedo's Avatar
 
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
TNG retained its casual viewers because it was not challenging and did not require any viewer investment, and also happened to have very good writing. That kind of show, like TNG but moving forward in time is the most likely to keep a big audience. And I think enough time has passed that it would work.

Would it be the show I want to watch? I'd rather Trek go for a small cable audience and be more ambitious.
I think a new show would be a big sell with the right components. Center the plot around five bikini-clad Starfleet officers (all of varying ethnicities, one of which should ideally be a vampire) who are supermodels by day, but paranormal crime-fighters by night. They'll traverse the galaxy winning beauty pagents for the betterment of mankind, while solving crimes deemed too tough to crack. Each weekly episode will feature heavy and obvious product placement for the sponsors of the week, and once a month, the crew will become marooned on a tropical planet where they must compete against each other to stay on the show. All this excitement and more, coming soon, to a low-rated network near you.
PicardSpeedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 05:58 AM   #59
suarezguy
Commodore
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

Push The Button wrote: View Post
Here's a crazy idea: how about a prime universe Pike-era series, starting right where The Cage left off? Get Bruce Greenwood and Quinto to reprise Pike and Spock. Use the 1964 model Enterprise, giant bridge, spiked nacelle caps and all.
Returning to the prime universe would be confusing to a lot of viewers but bringing back Greenwood and Quinto in a prequel could draw in fans of the movies without having the costs of bringing in the whole cast.
__________________
"Let us punish the guilty! Let us reward the innocent."
suarezguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 06:44 AM   #60
Push The Button
Captain
 
Push The Button's Avatar
 
Location: Smithfield, Rhode Island USA
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
SpocksLeftEar wrote: View Post
Push The Button wrote: View Post
And don't let JJ anywhere near it.
That is a must!!!
You wish.

The man's made Star Trek popular again, and so he's going to be the one in charge or at least still having some input on what's going on in future. There's no way (short of dying) that he won't be a part of Star Trek.

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
I would set a series maybe 10 years after the end of Voyager so you can see them midway through the process of rebuilding from the war.

Totally new writers, and make sure they're very opinionated writers. That's what Trek needs, writers with fresh ideas and strong personalities who fight hard for their own vision.
They also have to be not afraid of pissing people off or doing things that people wouldn't consider 'moral'.
Popular? Certainly. JJ has dumbed Trek down for the masses and turned it into another Star Wars style cash machine, which is wonderful, I suppose. The Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies are popular too, and also show the same lack of respect for the original source material. Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes was a detective with a clockwork intellect, not an action hero. Roddenberry's Kirk was a disciplined, professional Starfleet officer and brilliant tactician, not an impulsive, smug little punk.
__________________
Check the circuit!
Mr. Spock, The Cage
(The very first line of dialogue in the series)
Push The Button 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 01:46 PM.

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