Discussion in 'Star Trek: Voyager' started by Savage Dragon, Jan 30, 2014.
Well there is no rule to say you can't have a tractor emitter on a door is there?
There is one about a large panel that protrudes several meters suddenly becoming recessed double doors, though.
Actually what doomed Trek(as Berman confirms it) was over saturation of the market. How much Trek could you have on at one time? Spin-off's can also divide your audience because you're expecting them to be loyal to all but only have the attention span for one. Trek's fan base was never big enough to handle 3 Treks on at the same time and the general audience isn't that big into Trek to watch all 3 either. Plus, you also can't compare DS9's rating to Voyager due the fact syndicated TV runs on a different ratings system than network.
However, the up swing was Paramount was satisfied enough with the numbers. Even with the ratings drop, it wasn't enough were Voyager was ever in any danger of cancellation. With such a high production cost as Voyager was, they wouldn't have kept production going if they were loosing money on it. The numbers and amount of merchandise Voyager sold(Thank you, Seven!) made them open the Las Vegas Experience & gave a greenlight to ENT. Reheated Sunday dinner reminds people of home.
Yeah, it was Berman's story all right that nothing was wrong with the product itself. Of course it's the audience's fault for not wanting to watch what was being put out, or the only fault the studio made was putting out too much of it.
It's the let's twist words game, I got it.
There's no need for me to twist anything. So, no. I simply find that statement of Berman's to be not only self-serving but moreover completely uninformative about What Went Wrong in TV Trek. If the problem with Trek on TV was truly overabundance, then it was an overabundance of programming that was incapable of holding an audience. There's no need to twist the facts to support that statement, since the facts are that the ratings of post-TNG Trek only went down, down, down.
In my view, the topic of this thread is a symptom indicative of the problem, which was that powers on high stifled innovation and the attempts of creators and writers to try fundamentally new things. Buy into or reject what I'm saying, I really don't care.
TV Trek tanked, and it won't come back at least until the suits at CBS are satisfied that what caused it to tank won't happen again. If the problem was only an overabundance of the product, then expect it to look more or less the same when it finally comes back. Except—wait for it—it won't look the same. It's going to have to actually compete, which means it will have to take at least some risks, especially relative to the expectations of hardcore fans.
What I see to be going on in this thread is that, when we say things like, "No, they really should have done it this more interesting way instead of the way they did it," we're taking another step towards the realization that maybe overabundance wasn't exclusively the problem after all.
Here's an old thread you might enjoy.
And a quick link to a webpage mentioned somewhere in that long thread.
But some of those hardcore Trek fans as you put it are the ones saying, it would have been more interesting if you had done X instead of Y. Trek's failure on TV wasn't down to just one thing but rather a combination of things.
Hardcore fans don't think as a monolithic bloc, that's for sure.
That's no doubt true of many shows. We as viewers can want/expect different things from shows.
If it was that incapable of holding an audience, it would have been cancelled.
TNG made TV history by being the very first show in syndication to make major network ratings.
Anything that followed was automatically going to be less.
It's extremely rare that any spin-off has equal success to the original.
That was a fact before any of these shows aired and well known all studios and those in charge.
Sometimes economics takes point.
I don't see Trek returning to TV for a long while due to the fact space sci-fi fad is long over. Thriller/Horror dramas are the new trend.
The new generation that know Trek from the JJ Abrams films has shown no interest in Trek TV shows nor do many of them care.
It's not part of their generation. TV Trek to them is like Murder She Wrote to us.
IF Trek comes back to TV, we'll be 60 and won't be in the demographic anymore, so our expectations aren't going to matter as much as the younger audience.
Everything would be prefect if life was lived retrospectively.
The problem with the thread is, we can wish it was completely different.
We still never had the power of affect change, so we're just blowing smoke up our own asses.
TV Trek finally was canceled. To his credit, Berman claimed too much TV Trek was a risk, and he was right.
Even though the numbers never went low enough for cancellation during Voyager's run, the numbers for ENT continued down along the same trend. Due to the constant rate of decay in the viewership, eventual cancellation of some Trek show at some point was inevitable and had been all along since the end of TNG.
In terms of viewership, post-TNG TV Trek was never a growing franchise. If it was sustainable, it was sustainable only in a temporary sense, because it had long enough to fall at the rate it was decaying, for the fall to take about a decade.
I agree that there's no sign of it for the foreseeable future. There's not even a blip of it on the horizon. We're not going to be in the demographic, no. Even if it's not set in the JJ-verse, it won't even be set in Prime Universe either, most likely.
Are you repeating what I just said?
The ratings went down because mainstream viewers didn't like DS9 and Voyager.
Donald Trump blames the decline in Apprentice ratings on Martha Stewart. It's equally BS. Forget that the show which focused on the actual competitive business aspects of it in the first season then quickly degenerated into just yelling at people and automatically firing the losing PM rather than making the thoughtful decision about who was actually the worst, then responding to declining ratings by focusing more and more on the transparent gimmicks that alienated the original audience in the first place. TWO SHOWS DAMN YOU MARTHA!
Voyager is generally considered to be lower quality than TNG. DS9 is considered by the hardcore fans to be equal or higher quality but mainstream viewers were alienated by the different tone of the show. Everybody, EVERYBODY who liked TNG gave both shows a chance.
Now, the fact they split the core writing team across two shows probably did contribute to the perception of lower quality in Voyager. They could have made Voyager a dark show about a desperate crew alone, or made it an episodic TNG clone, and if it had better writing it probably would have gotten much better ratings.
I've boldfaced and underlined the words and punctuation that convey I was voicing agreement with what you said. So, no, I'm not a parrot, and since I put those words in, nor did I intend to come off as one.
Tastes come and go and Sci-Fi hasn't totally disappeared, true it's more the type that doesn't use a star ship. So whilst another genre might be the in thing at the moment that can change almost overnight.
In some repsects TV execs play follow my leader when it comes to shows, Studio A takes a chance on X genre, it's a huge hit so studios B, C, D etc... follow suit. So who knows what could happen to the generation that grew up on Sci-Fi the 90's some may one day become studio execs and get nostalgic and commission a new show.
It's only been what 10 years or since Star Trek left the small screen, not a direct analogy I know due to differences, but DW was off the air for 16 years (except for a TV Movie). No doubt many thought it was dead and buried but it managed to regenerate itself into a flagship show for the BBC.
Most of the core audience grew up discovering beer and the opposite sex.
The same can be said about The Wiggles and Blues Clues.
When CSI first came out there weren't ten zillion crime procedurals on TV. Give it time for scifi to come back.
You need a sense of humor.
They never thought to spin off "Quincy".
Separate names with a comma.