The End of Star Trek on TV

[ThankYouGeneR]

The points of view being made in this thread on the demise of television StarTrek are interesting and clearly well thought out. Enjoyable.

The variable I would like to add to this is that these suppositions are based on age, experience, taste, and culture. Here’s the thing, each of us can come up with a logical argument to support almost any position we take in this and it is worth remembering that however logical the conclusions might appear to be they are interesting discussions and do not speak for everyone.

As with the Suliban, Lwaxana, Betazoid, Borg Xindi, Future Guy even Enterprise series itself. Enterprise... as it stands... is held buy some to be the greatest representative of good ST since the OriginalSeries. They have come by their opinion as honestly as everyone else, with strong logical points worth considering.

So these points being made are proof only to the person(s) making them and like minded individuals. But definitely increase as better supported if the variables of age, experience, taste, and culture are also represented in the conclusions.

Actually, to some the Borg are a joke that should never been written or at least not used more than the one time they appeared in Q Who. I have read similar things about the Suliban. I, myself, appreciate Future Guy even more 'because' he is never explained or carried further. The Xindi and arc finds supporters and detractors.

To say regarding Betazoids, surely even one Lwaxana episode was one too many is a valid opinion and worthy of discussion. And for a discussion it is important to dissuade in ourselves the urge that holding that a different opinion implies some flaw in logic. Opinions are not empirical facts like like math. They can have supporting points of personal logic of course. But suppositions and to a large extent personal logic is based on age, experience, taste, and culture.

What mainly caught my eye in the discussion is Lwaxana. For you see *my* experience of this character is that she is one of the finest written and acted characters in ALL of Trek. I would not trade even one episode of her for six Suliban episodes. And I 'like' the Suliban episodes.

 

[eyeresist]

^ I appreciate your peace-making efforts, but if we always agree to disagree we'll have nothing to talk about!

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

nooooooooooo..... NOT!

I LOVE, luv luv luv luv discussions that have different points of view!!! luv luv luv.

PREFER discussions with diversity of thought & experience!



Thank you for the thought though.

Nope nope nope. Ack! I was ineffective in my wording.

Am very much enjoying listening this discussion. Reading it daily in fact. Listening to the points and counter points. Enjoying!

Then I had a thought to add 'to' the discussion.

(But it was very nice that you read it that way. )

 

[IndyTechTrekkie]

It's a big question.


Trek had a very good decade in the sun from about 1986 - 1996, culminating in the 30th anniversary hoopla. A lot of people (maybe not the diehards) naturally gravitate over time toward other things etc.

Thats true and I do think Trek will come again, I had hoped that 2009 was going to be a re-birth with the success of the film.

I just hope not too many years pass before a new attempt is made at a new trek series. Part of the success of the post-TOS series was fans from the original that tuned in.

 

[Mjolnir2000]

I grew up on TNG, and had no trouble enjoying the cheesy charm of TOS, but by the end of Voyager I was definitely struggling to maintain interest. The big problem with Voyager, I think, is that I just wasn't particular interested in any of the characters outside the Doctor. TOS had the wonderful interaction between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, TNG, while lacking somewhat in interpersonal drama, was filled with great role models who you could always count on to do the right thing, and do it well. And DS9, of course, put its characters through hell, and so you couldn't help but sympathize with them. But Voyager...the chemistry just wasn't there, and if they had just decided to randomly kill off half the main cast one day, I probably wouldn't have cared.

And then came Enterprise. Enterprise just failed in it's execution, I feel. It was supposed to be taking place 200 years before TNG, but it never really felt like it was. I'm not sure what they could have done differently, but it just felt like more of the same old stuff. On top of that, the cast didn't work much better than Voyager's (T'Pol being particularly bad - at least Jeri Ryan was able to overcome the idiotic costume by being an excellent actress), and the whole thing from the sets to the CGI just seemed really cheap. The network clearly didn't care about the show, so why was I supposed to?

I think a new series could probably work now, but they'd need to clear the slate somewhat. Not a reboot, because I want to see the universe continue to evolve, but maybe fast forward another 100 years, and have a ship exploring a part of the galaxy we've never seen before, with new characters and civilizations. Titan, basically, but without the TNG era connection.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I think Trek died on TV due to a lack of vision at the top and a declining audience.

Look at the ratings for the TV show.

This pretty much tells the story. While I do think franchise fatigue played a part in Trek's decline. I think TPTB are equally responsible for Trek's decline. They just couldn't keep the show fresh.

You could watch all
178 episodes of TNG
176 episodes of DS9
172 episodes of VOY
98 episodes of ENT
4 TNG movies

and see where Trek made it's wrong turn. The production values and special effects managed to stay up to date but the minds behind Trek didn't seem preoccupied with making sure their product could sell to as many people as possible; despite the declining audience. I don't think Rick Berman or whoever did enough to make the individual properties stand out as much as possible.

DS9 of course stood out but it was competing with VOY for ratings.

VOY was seen by many as TNG-lite

The TNG movies failed to standout apart from the show. All of them with the exception of NEM feel like extended TV episodes. Moreso for GEN and INS and less so for FC.

Reading Michael Piller's book "Fade In", there was a passage where Piller talked about making INS in to a Dominion War film. It would be a go get'em action flick the same way FC was. Piller and Berman decided against that and instead went with their indigenous people forced relocation plot. Piller wrote that on opening weekend he went to 2 theaters to see his film and was surprised to find them half empty. Then the reviews and the box office gross returns came in. Pillar says that if he had the chance to do it over again, he wouldn't. He would hold to his vision despite it not being what people wanted to see.

Ironic that when NEM came out 4 years later, TPTB were hoping that the go get'em action would help sell the film to a larger audience. By then things were different for Trek and even few people showed up to see the film. I know hindsight is 20/20 but I think if Trek had done more to remain popular with fans and general audiences, then things may have been different.

ENT has the same problems though. Berman and Braga had both been on Trek since TNG and had done VOY and 2 movies together. They could not get Trek working. They made the same season 1 and season 2 mistakes TNG, DS9 and VOY made. Jolene Balock had said the show lacked direction and they tried to compensate for poor writing with T&A.

However if you listen to B&B talk about these shows from their POV. It paints a different story.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9HcSB9WDTQ[/yt]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83yH7nWZMSk[/yt]

 

[eyeresist]

I am not about to sit through a THREE HOUR interview with Rick Berman!

There are other graphs of the TV ratings, but I hadn't previously seen a graph that said some episodes rated zero.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I am not about to sit through a THREE HOUR interview with Rick Berman!

There are other graphs of the TV ratings, but I hadn't previously seen a graph that said some episodes rated zero.

Here ya go mate.

Berman on TNG [19:30 – 1:17:15]

Berman on DS9 [1:17:15 – 1:43:10]

Berman on Voyager [1:43:10 – 2:08:20]

Berman on Enterprise [2:08:20 – 2:39:15]

Berman on TNG era movies [2:39:15 – 2:43:40]

Final wrap-up, favorites, and regrets [2:43:30 – end]


More graphs

 

[Orphalesion]

Yes, the ratings also had a bit to do with the fact that ever more shows on ever more networks became available to the Average Joe.

I do agree Star Trek was always a bit hampered by its 60s roots. DS9 was the one that escaped those constrains the most and it gets flag for being "not Star Trek enough".

I also think the characters became repetitive, especially by Voyager, to me the EMH was nothing but Odo done again, who was nothing but Data done again, who, as much as I love him, was very very much inspired by Spock. B'elanna was yet another (half-)Klingon and yet another chief engineer and the series bible is all over having Kes and Neelix around to "provide commentary on humanity frm an alien perspective" which was also something that had been done to death with Odo, Data and Spock and would be done again with T'Pol. Plus Archer and T'Pol always struck me as "let's bring back Kirk and Spock, only this time Spock is a hot woman so they can totally bang"

Actually the very format of the premise limits what types of character you can have, and what roles they fill. Again Ds9 got away from that more than the other Trek shows with people like Kira and Quark, but in the other shows you have mainly/exclusively professional (semi-)military types fulfilling the standard roles of Captain, XO, Doctor, Chief Engineer etc. This coupled with their insistence of keeping the "brand" intact was bound to make everything samey and repetitive after a while.

I still like the concept of this shared universe in which you can tell very different story, but for that they would have had to take more risk. Make a show about a colony, make a show about a civilian trading ship, make a show about the grunts of Starfleet during wartime.

 

[eyeresist]

Actually the very format of the premise limits what types of character you can have, and what roles they fill.

That may be true, but doesn't lessen how likable, interesting and distinctive Spock, Data, Odo and the EMH all are.
It's debatable how far you can move from the exploration base and still be Star Trek. DS9 remained Trek by virtue of its mission to keep the peace and explore the new cultures of the Alpha quadrant. Without the principles of the Federation, it would have been a more generic sci-fi show.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^ Maybe DS9 was a test run for what RDM's BSG would be. Haha

 

[eyeresist]

I was thinking of Babylon 5

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^ Ouch! Talk about 3rd degree plasma burns. I'm going to need a dermal regenerator therapy after that one. Haha

 

[Relayer1]

Do you guys think commercialization had something to do with it?
...
But I also remember being routinely pissed off with Rick Berman and company because I percevied the TNG movies as too safe, and I felt maybe too much commercialization was turning fans away?

Could you explain what you mean by commercialisation? It's not like they had.........a special appearance by Joey from Friends.

Might've helped -

'Let me introduce Seven of Nine.'

'Hey ! How YOU doin' ?'

 

[cultcross]

Yes, the ratings also had a bit to do with the fact that ever more shows on ever more networks became available to the Average Joe.

I do agree Star Trek was always a bit hampered by its 60s roots. DS9 was the one that escaped those constrains the most and it gets flag for being "not Star Trek enough".

I also think the characters became repetitive, especially by Voyager, to me the EMH was nothing but Odo done again, who was nothing but Data done again, who, as much as I love him, was very very much inspired by Spock. B'elanna was yet another (half-)Klingon and yet another chief engineer and the series bible is all over having Kes and Neelix around to "provide commentary on humanity frm an alien perspective" which was also something that had been done to death with Odo, Data and Spock and would be done again with T'Pol. Plus Archer and T'Pol always struck me as "let's bring back Kirk and Spock, only this time Spock is a hot woman so they can totally bang"

Actually the very format of the premise limits what types of character you can have, and what roles they fill. Again Ds9 got away from that more than the other Trek shows with people like Kira and Quark, but in the other shows you have mainly/exclusively professional (semi-)military types fulfilling the standard roles of Captain, XO, Doctor, Chief Engineer etc. This coupled with their insistence of keeping the "brand" intact was bound to make everything samey and repetitive after a while.

I still like the concept of this shared universe in which you can tell very different story, but for that they would have had to take more risk. Make a show about a colony, make a show about a civilian trading ship, make a show about the grunts of Starfleet during wartime.

I think you're absolutely right on two counts - the repetitive nature of Star Trek series set-ups and characters, and the unwillingness to substantially change the Trekverse to shake up stories.

With the exception of DS9, all the Trek shows have the exact same basic premise, and pretty much the same set of characters, with names, genders and odd character traits swapped about somewhat. And even DS9 can't escape a tendency to recycle old character types, although to a lesser extent.

And the Starfleet, Earth, and general Trekverse we saw expanded in the TOS movies is essentially identical to that we saw in Nemesis. No major or significant changes had occurred to this civilisation. We are presented with more touch screens and uniform changes and that's all that seems to have happened to the Federation in a century. I wish they'd had the guts to shake things up a bit more, and stop trying to protect the unblemished universe for the next series or movie. While DS9 tried to go there with bits of the Dominion war arc, it wasn't followed through and there weren't any lasting consequences that carried through into other series. A post-war series focused on political strife and opportunistic new threats (for example) might have been fun. Instead this devastating war was reduced to throwaway lines in the TNG movies.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Franchise fatigue was part of it, but writer fatigue was a bigger part. They tried to keep the same tired creative team instead of bringing in new blood.

Again, why Manny Coto revitalized Enterprise, but at that point it was too little, too late. If someone like that had come in earlier maybe the ratings would have stayed.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I liked all the Trek series, but VOY and ENT did have major problems keeping it interesting.

VOY had Janeway's mixed-up priorities (her own crew's survival and getting home seemed to come last with her), and too many devastating plots wrapped up with the Reset Button. But it also had Seven and the Doctor, two of my favorite characters, great by themselves and absolute dynamite together.

ENT died in the casting phase. There just wasn't enough charisma and chemistry in that cast to justify them getting their jobs. Archer, Hoshi, and Mayweather were utterly bland, while Trip and Reed were outright annoying to me. T'Pol was okay.

In place of a strong guy like Kirk in command of a powerful ship, you had nicey-nice Archer who was always hopelessly outgunned by whatever aliens he encountered. I mean, Kirk would run into powerful antagonists, but Archer went into space with a predetermined inferiority about his starship. I hated that constant sense of weakness.

Add in the lack of new energy in the writing and you have real problems. But even with all that, ENT did have some great moments.

Both shows came into existence making the same promises: this time we're going to shake things up, not play it safe, get real, take it to the edge... promises that would not be seriously attempted until BATTLESTAR GALACTICA came along.

 

[Trek Cruiser]

Perhaps the new question is where will Star Trek appear next? With new distribution and new entertainment technology are we seeing the end of sci-fi TV series in general? Will precision catering to individual tastes in media streaming and on demand viewing bring about the rise to a new Star Trek concept?

 

[T'Girl]

The best venue for a new Trek might be somewhere the it can succeed with a somewhat smaller audience. Most will concede that it couldn't make it prime time on CBS, it wouldn't pull the number of people required. Even pulling the four or five million for cable could be difficult.

There are other possibilities not too far in the future, if CBS will allow it.

 

[2takesfrakes]

By the time -ENTERPRISE- came to television, CGI had been around long enough, certainly, to where it should've been cheap and convincing - it was neither. Sometimes planet surface matt "paintings" - like on Vulcan - looked like something out of a fan film. The ships were acceptable, but tended to look rendered. Even some of the planets. from orbit, had an "unfinished" quality. The absolute worst for me was the CGI characters. They were always piss-poor, like the Gorn, especially. The Xindi insectoid was easier to achieve a realistic look with and even then, it needed more detail, or depth of shadow or something ... and the aquatic species really looked like shit. If STAR TREK ever does return to a weekly format, I just hope like hell that CBS takes the J.J. Abrams approach, instead of the original TRON approach, this time.