Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time

[Mudd]

DS9, VOY, and ENT all had the exact same trajectory in ratings. Their all-time high was the pilot, after which they precipitously declined through the beginning of the first season. This then settled into a period of essentially steady decline which lasted over the entire run (although Voyager arguably stabilized in its last two seasons).

The main difference is each show in turn was starting from a lower base. VOY consistently underperformed DS9, and ENT consistently underperformed VOY.

Yep. The shorthand is "franchise fatigue."

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Saying it was just franchise fatigue is just a polite way of saying "this show sucked". It had a large premiere, so it's not like nobody was willing to give it a chance after VOY's run. Had the quality of ENT actually been strong enough, it wouldn't matter whether it had too many shows preceding it.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

I'm never really willing to trust the consistency of someone's "vision" who was likely using a lot of drugs.

 

[donners22]

People watch STD because it has the StarTrek brand, without which it would have suffered a fate of an unknown run of the mill gritty sci fi show

Actually, quite a few are watching in spite of the Trek brand, not because of it.

A few of my work colleagues who never had an interest in Trek before have given it a go, and are loving it.

I probably wouldn't have seen it if not for it being a Trek show, given I had to sign up for Netflix, but I'm very glad I have.

It had a large premiere, so it's not like nobody was willing to give it a chance after VOY's run. Had the quality of ENT actually been strong enough, it wouldn't matter whether it had too many shows preceding it.

And yet ultimately it lost the same proportion of viewers from its premiere as DS9. DS9 just started at a much higher base off the back of TNG.

If Enterprise's failure to retain viewers can be simply pinned on its quality, the same must surely apply to DS9.

 

[fireproof78]

Actually, quite a few are watching in spite of the Trek brand, not because of it.

A few of my work colleagues who never had an interest in Trek before have given it a go, and are loving it.

I probably wouldn't have seen it if not for it being a Trek show, given I had to sign up for Netflix, but I'm very glad I have.

And that is the point.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And I'm not sure anyone does - a post scarcity economy with no money is so beyond our experience as 21st century humans that we find it very difficult to write it. That's why a) it was never really explained and b) they constantly reverted to money and scarcity as plot points. The only way you can do it is through a handwave and not too close scrutiny. It mostly worked outside of DS9 because they never really had stories where paying for things or obtaining goods was prevalent. But then DS9 came along with shops and a bar and a race that love money, and suddenly the Federation's economics began to look pretty flimsy!

Curiously, DS9 also brought us one of the most direct, and amusing, episodes addressing the lack of money question ("In the Cards").

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Actually, quite a few are watching in spite of the Trek brand, not because of it.

A few of my work colleagues who never had an interest in Trek before have given it a go, and are loving it.

I probably wouldn't have seen it if not for it being a Trek show, given I had to sign up for Netflix, but I'm very glad I have.



And yet ultimately it lost the same proportion of viewers from its premiere as DS9. DS9 just started at a much higher base off the back of TNG.

If Enterprise's failure to retain viewers can be simply pinned on its quality, the same must surely apply to DS9.

I'm not willing to put DS9 in the same pedestal because it did have more handicaps than VOY and ENT. In fact, it's remarkable that it kept going in spite of the changing landscape of syndication, Paramount putting more emphasis on VOY as the face of the franchise, gradually growing away from strictly having an episodic formula, etc. It's not too unfair to accuse DS9 of getting too into itself to be easily accessible to large audiences.

VOY and ENT, for the most part, were supposed to be a continuation of what TNG set out as an accessible sci-fi adventure for large audiences to tune into. The problem is that neither really managed to capture that kind of lightening. VOY maybe for a brief time when it introduced Seven, before settling back into a gradual decline.

 

[Albinator]

Yes, but all the producers admit that the show was coasting on nostalgia for the first two years, and that it only took off when Piller started to shift the focus of stories.

I'm not sure the relevance of that statement.

DS9, VOY, and ENT all had the exact same trajectory in ratings. Their all-time high was the pilot, after which they precipitously declined through the beginning of the first season. This then settled into a period of essentially steady decline which lasted over the entire run (although Voyager arguably stabilized in its last two seasons).

The main difference is each show in turn was starting from a lower base. VOY consistently underperformed DS9, and ENT consistently underperformed VOY.

The big takeaway here for me? Franchise fatigue. The premiere for DS9 was huge because TNG was at its peak. Voyager's premiere was strong, but not nearly the level that DS9's was. Enterprise's premiere-- where all the excitement should have been-- was barely half what DS9's premiere was.

I've enjoyed 'Star Trek Continues' but that said - ONE of the weaknesses it has is that it writes Kirk more like a Picard clone in many respects than the character he actually was in TOS. That's further in evidence by the fact they brought the 'Ship's Counselor' character in (and I love the actress' performance and she's one of the stronger actual actors on the show - BUT, I don't care for her character as written most of the time. She basically takes the place of McCoy in a lot of scenes.)

The fan movies are largely produced and written by amateurs. They are fine for what they are, but anyone who thinks any aspect of them can be held up positively against even the worst Trek is fooling themselves.

Well, maybe they hold up to TOS... but even the worst episodes of Enterprise have FAR more entertainment value than the best Fan Film.

 

[Albinator]

I'm not willing to put DS9 in the same pedestal because it did have more handicaps than VOY and ENT. In fact, it's remarkable that it kept going in spite of the changing landscape of syndication, Paramount putting more emphasis on VOY as the face of the franchise, gradually growing away from strictly having an episodic formula, etc. It's not too unfair to accuse DS9 of getting too into itself to be easily accessible to large audiences.

VOY and ENT, for the most part, were supposed to be a continuation of what TNG set out as an accessible sci-fi adventure for large audiences to tune into. The problem is that neither really managed to capture that kind of lightening. VOY maybe for a brief time when it introduced Seven, before settling back into a gradual decline.

Agreed. DS9 was the bastard child, yet still succeeded. That said, it's relative success compared to Voyager had a lot to do with the fact that Voyager was on a new network that few people were watching. Just like Discovery, it was watched by smaller audiences compared to its competition but was considered a HUGE success for UPN.

 

[Noname Given]

Saying it was just franchise fatigue is just a polite way of saying "this show sucked". It had a large premiere, so it's not like nobody was willing to give it a chance after VOY's run. Had the quality of ENT actually been strong enough, it wouldn't matter whether it had too many shows preceding it.

No - it's saying that after 18 straight years (1987-2005) and 25 Seasons with essentially the same formula (and some occasional tweaks to attempt to 'spice it up') overall, the general audience declined to a point continuing to produce wasn't profitable enough - the ROI was too low.

ENT didn't 'suck' (in fact its 4th season was probably one of the best/most entertaining since TOS season 1) - but between 19 straight years on TV (multiple series at a time for the majority of that time) and a feature film every 2 to 3 years on average, the general audience had 'had their fill'.

This happens to every show or franchise eventually. The belief that: "if it were always 'really good''™ it can continue forever without a break" is ridiculous.

 

[McDuff]

Star Trek is so expansive, it means different things to different people. To some it's about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. To others it's about exploring space and sci-fi gadgetry. To others it's about a specific time period in the Trek chronology, specific alien races.

To me, it's not about any of that. It's about using these stories to explore the human condition and examine moral, ethical, and cultural issues. Whether it's in this timeline or that, whether it's bright and colorful or dark and moody; whether it's got Klingons with ridges, no ridges, hair or no hair; whether it's consistent with cardboard sets from the 60s or not; whether it's a war story or a story of scientific discovery is not important to me, and clearly, it's not important to many other Trek fans.

I know you say that to be respectful of other's people opinion. Which is obviously fair. After all, what we like and don't like is a matter of opinion. But I don't think it's a matter of opinion what Star Trek was about. In the sense that great care was taken by talented writers and people to write the various Star Trek stories. To make Star Trek what it is.

It's not a matter of opinion that all Star Trek series (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise) involved stories to explore the human condition, examine moral, ethical and moral issues, etc. It was intended that way by very talented and inspired people. It's clear the various Star Trek series where written to include the exploration of humanity through various sci-fi action-adventures. The show also involved actions, space battles, new technologies, impact of future technologies and the development of science, visions for the future, humor, topicality, etc, etc.

It truly takes great writers who have knowledge, love for sci-fi and things to say about humanity, our societies and visions of the future, to write series like Star Trek and Doctor Who.

Personally, I think fans who want to dumb down Star Trek into becomine only a war show after war show, or becoming like BSG or GoT, are not watching the same series as it was intended by the writers of Star Trek shows since TOS. I love GoT and Spartacus. But there's something special, solid and very unique about Star Trek. Star Trek is a trend setter and has become one of the most recognizable and influential sci-fi series of all time.

I find people on these forums often views the development of Star Trek as something mechanical (write about this or write about that, don't write about this, don't write about that, the next Star Trek must become this or that) when it's truly the talent of writers and the whole production team that made Star Trek what it is. There's no need to find a magical formula. Just a need to choose inspired and talented sci-fi writers (and a whole production team). Writers who loves Star Trek for what it is not what it is not.

When you truly have talented sci-fi writers (people with knowledge, love for sci-fi, things to say about: humanity, our societies, visions of the future, the impact of technologies and development of science, etc) they can always write great stories encompassing what Star Trek is all about. The way Star Trek (and to some degree similar show like Doctor Who, Stargate, The Orville) is set up, you can write stories about practically everything. Whether it's war, incest, impact of the internet, our fears, heroism, transgender, injustice, politics or the death penalty.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

And yet it still had a healthy opening that showed there was still considerable interest in Star Trek, but what was offered with ENTERPRISE was nothing that maintained that interest.

By saying it sucked, I was referring to the first two seasons, which is what lost a large chunk of the audience, including myself back in first run. The last two seasons didn't have as much of a steep decline likely because it was proving to become a better show by then, but the damage was already done.

Simply, it had a chance, and it didn't deliver on first impression.

 

[Albinator]

No - it's saying that after 18 straight years (1987-2005) and 25 Seasons with essentially the same formula (and some occasional tweaks to attempt to 'spice it up') overall, the general audience declined to a point continuing to produce wasn't profitable enough - the ROI was too low.

ENT didn't 'suck' (in fact its 4th season was probably one of the best/most entertaining since TOS season 1) - but between 19 straight years on TV (multiple series at a time for the majority of that time) and a feature film every 2 to 3 years on average, the general audience had 'had their fill'.

This happens to every show or franchise eventually. The belief that: "if it were always 'really good''™ it can continue forever without a break" is ridiculous.

ENT did suck, and for the very reasons you state. The episodes were pale imitations of TNG, DS9, and VOY episodes. The characters had none of the charisma of the TNG cast, the stories none of the complexity of DS9's tales. What made it slightly better than Voyager was the emphasis on dilemmas both ethical and moral, and the many parables to contemporary issues, whether it was gay rights, HIV/AIDS, bigotry and racism, or terrorism.

Voyager had slightly better rewatch value mostly because of the strength of a few good characters (Janeway, Seven of Nine, and Paris) and some of the more interesting plots. But both VOY and ENT were weak entries because of fatigue: the writers were by that point just exhausted: forced to churn out scripts 26 times a year (as many as 52 between 1992-1999) for 18 straight years.

The fourth season had a few standout episodes, but was just as forgettable as the rest of the series.

 

[Albinator]

I know you say that to be respectful of other's people opinion. Which is obviously fair. After all, what we like and don't like is a matter of opinion. But I don't think it's a matter of opinion what Star Trek was about. In the sense that great care was taken by talented writers and people to write the various Star Trek stories. To make Star Trek what it is.

Well what is it?

It's not a matter of opinion that all Star Trek series (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise) involved stories to explore the human condition, examine moral, ethical and moral issues, etc. It was intended that way by very talented and inspired people.

You're right, and Discovery continues that tradition.

It's clear the various Star Trek series where written to include the exploration of humanity through various sci-fi action-adventures. The show also involved actions, space battles, new technologies, impact of future technologies and the development of science, visions for the future, humor, topicality, etc, etc.

You just described Discovery to a T.

It truly takes great writers who have knowledge, love for sci-fi and things to say about humanity, our societies and visions of the future, to write series like Star Trek and Doctor Who.

Personally, I think fans who want to dumb down Star Trek into becomine only a war show after war show, or becoming like BSG or GoT, are not watching the same series as it was intended by the writers of Star Trek shows since TOS. I love GoT and Spartacus. But there's something special, solid and very unique about Star Trek. Star Trek is a trend setter and has become one of the most recognizable and influential sci-fi series of all time.

Nobody suggested that. You invented that in your head so you could argue with yourself.

I find people on these forums often views the development of Star Trek as something mechanical (write about this or write about that, don't write about this, don't write about that, the next Star Trek must become this or that) when it's truly the talent of writers and the whole production team that made Star Trek what it is. There's no need to find a magical formula. Just a need to choose inspired and talented sci-fi writers (and a whole production team). Writers who loves Star Trek for what it is not what it is not.

When you truly have talented sci-fi writers (people with knowledge, love for sci-fi, things to say about: humanity, our societies, visions of the future, the impact of technologies and development of science, etc) they can always write great stories encompassing what Star Trek is all about. The way Star Trek (and to some degree similar show like Doctor Who, Stargate, The Orville) is set up, you can write stories about practically everything. Whether it's war, incest, impact of the internet, our fears, heroism, transgender, injustice, politics or the death penalty.

I'm not sure what your point is, you seem to be going off the rails.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I do believe if the quality of ENT in its first season was closer to the later episodes in story and character it may have made a difference. Trip was a boring one-note character in the first two seasons, but then became a more interesting with the arc over grieving his sister and how his attitude towards the Xindi evolves from blinding hatred to just wanting a peaceful resolution. Same with Archer, a bumbling idiot in he early years before become a more world weary character trying to find balance between being pessimistic and optimistic as a pioneering explorer.

 

[McDuff]

Well what is it?



You're right, and Discovery continues that tradition.



You just described Discovery to a T.



Nobody suggested that. You invented that in your head so you could argue with yourself.



I'm not sure what your point is, you seem to be going off the rails.

You seem angry against me but I don't know why. I was supporting your position. Discovery is just starting but I think it's pretty good thus far. Time will tell how great the series will become as a whole.

 

[fireproof78]

Personally, I think fans who want to dumb down Star Trek into becomine only a war show after war show, or becoming like BSG or GoT, are not watching the same series as it was intended by the writers of Star Trek shows since TOS. I love GoT and Spartacus. But there's something special, solid and very unique about Star Trek. Star Trek is a trend setter and has become one of the most recognizable and influential sci-fi series of all time.

It was, but has not always been. As much as I enjoy Star Trek, the trendsetter status started to wane after a bit.

Also, the idea that making it a "war show" dumbs it down is an odd one. I don' want GoT or BSG Star Trek, but I'm not offended by DISCO's sensibilities. Because, Star Trek is, first and foremost, entertainment, and has to work within cultural parameters in that fact. DISCO might offer a different take, but I think it is still starting to open itself to a new audience, and that has potential to start that new trend.

Even GR recognize that Star Trek would change with the times.

 

[McDuff]

It was, but has not always been. As much as I enjoy Star Trek, the trendsetter status started to wane after a bit.

Also, the idea that making it a "war show" dumbs it down is an odd one. I don' want GoT or BSG Star Trek, but I'm not offended by DISCO's sensibilities. Because, Star Trek is, first and foremost, entertainment, and has to work within cultural parameters in that fact. DISCO might offer a different take, but I think it is still starting to open itself to a new audience, and that has potential to start that new trend.

Even GR recognize that Star Trek would change with the times.

Don't worry about me. I'm a fan of Rome and Spartacus. TV shows completely different than Star Trek. I will judge Discovery for what is it, not what it is not. Even if it's more or less cerebral, more or less topical or well written than the other Star Trek, I may still love it. I'm just enjoying the ride at the moment. I gave 7 or above in the poll to every episodes of Discovery thus far.

 

[fireproof78]

Don't worry about me. I'm a fan of Rome and Spartacus. TV shows completely different than Star Trek. I will judge Discovery for what is it, not what it is not. Even it's more or less cerebral, more or less topical or well written than the other Star Trek, I may still love it. I'm just enjoying the ride at the moment.

I'm not worried, more observing. It's the tendency to insist that Star Trek must be something special that concerns me, because it doesn't always allow change.

 

[ralfy]

If the vision encompasses the timeline, then we are looking at something like 400 years, with the first hundred consisting of massive collapse and slow recovery, then exploration for the next three hundred.

Given that point that human frailty turns one many times throughout the movies and TV series and is part of the first quarter of that timeline, then one may also argue that STD is part of that vision.