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

[eschaton]

The quality likely has little to do with it. People were simply burned out on Trek. You can only go to the well so many times. I was a huge Trek fan, and every new show simply became "more Trek". I started tuning out.

I think it's more the case that each successive series was really only appealing to the existing Trekkie base. Add to that that they went through their own decisions to "shake things up" which really just alienated a portion of the people who started watching TNG. Things got worse for ENT, as a "third generation" show, as few people who tuned out DS9/VOY would give it a chance, yet invariably it didn't appeal to everyone who liked those shows either.

 

[McDuff]

Your initial rambling post left me unsure what what side of the argument you're on. Your statements could be applicable to agree or disagree with me.

It was not rambling it was a very deep and provocative post. After reading my post , it's perfectly normal to have developed a new respect, awareness and love for all the great writers and people behind previous Star Trek series.

I understand your issue. I didn't follow the whole discussion in this thread, so I don't know anything about your position beside what I read in the post I was responding to. So I guess, my post could contradict other points you made in this thread. I have no idea.

Personally, even if Discovery or any future TV Star Trek show would be 100% different than all Star Trek. It could still be great. Then it would just be a matter of coincidence. It would only be about name recognition and marketing. I think television would have lost something great and unique at least for the time being. If you want to do something completely different. Just pick another name. Why pick Star Trek, beside for markething/studio/$$ reason, if you don't plan to keep the spirit of previous Star Trek alive? It becomes a money, marketing issue (and sometimes it works!!). I think everybody welcomes new and hopefully great sci-fi series.

It's like if they do a Star Trek sitcom. Let's say the only link with Star Trek is the name. If it's very funny, I would still love it. But we would have to agree that they didn't keep the spirit of Star Trek alive. It's just something else like Stargate, Spartacus and GoT that happened to be great too. With the studios, anything is possible, since they are only concerned with money, which hopefully also include keeping the Star Trek brand solid and unique in the world of television.

 

[Albinator]

It was not rambling it was a very deep and provocative post. After reading my post , it's perfectly normal to have developed a new respect, awareness and love for all the great writers and people behind previous Star Trek series.

I understand your issue. I didn't follow the whole discussion in this thread, so I don't know anything about your position beside what I read in the post I was responding to. So I guess, my post could contradict other points you made in this thread. I have no idea.

Personally, even if Discovery or any future TV Star Trek show would be 100% different than all Star Trek. It could still be great. Then it would just be a matter of coincidence. It would only be about name recognition and marketing. I think television would have lost something great and unique at least for the time being. If you want to do something completely different. Just pick another name. Why pick Star Trek, beside for markething/studio/$$ reason, if you don't plan to keep the spirit of previous Star Trek alive? It becomes a money, marketing issue (and sometimes it works!!). I think everybody welcomes new and hopefully great sci-fi series.

It's like if they do a Star Trek sitcom. Let's say the only link with Star Trek is the name. If it's very funny, I would still love it. But we would have to agree that they didn't keep the spirit of Star Trek alive. It's just something else like Stargate, Spartacus and GoT that happened to be great too. With the studios, anything is possible, since they are only concerned with money, which hopefully also include keeping the Star Trek brand solid and unique in the world of television.

God, I hate to invoke it, but how do you feel about Orville, which is a sitcom, but people claim is "true Trek"?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

"Franchise fatigue" is what Berman blamed the failure of NEM on, while at the same time claiming that NEM was "not a problematic movie at all." It takes tunnel vision and blinders to see it that way.

https://trekmovie.com/2009/08/26/rick-berman-talks-18-years-of-trek-in-extensive-oral-history/

This subtext that there is nothing problematic with the ST that was being produced, but rather that there was somehow an oversupply of something otherwise perfectly serviceable, is the particular problem with chalking the decline in ratings in the Berman-era up to "franchise fatigue."

Additionally, the "franchise" aspect of the term is itself misleading, because the ST franchise had, in the preceding two decades or so, already been successfully reinvented several times. If anything, it was the Berman-era iteration, the one that had carried the franchise from the late 1980s into the new millennium, that audiences had gotten bored with. The franchise always was a bigger tent than that iteration, however significant it was. Many of the storytelling formulas and character templates that IMO are major reasons why audiences got bored with the Berman-era are in fact particular to it, relative to ST overall.

 

[McDuff]

God, I hate to invoke it, but how do you feel about Orville, which is a sitcom, but people claim is "true Trek"?

First time, I hear The Orville referred as a sitcom lol but otherwise, I really like it thus far. With Discovery I consider it one of the best TV shows on the air at the moment. I've talked about it in other threads. I see The Orville, thus far, as a series very similar to Star Trek with more humor. Stargate and Doctor Who are also other shows I consider similar to Star Trek (but different at the same time).

 

[Vger23]

Think about how you write, maybe you will understand my position better.

It's pretty obvious you didn't enjoy TNG and Voyager as much as TOS and DS9 and keep blabbering about it. Don't act like a virgin caught in the act.

I can ask you directly. Did you enjoy TNG, DS9 and Voyager? Personally I enjoyed all Star Trek series. I think they are among the best sci-fi series ever produced. Discovery is pretty good thus far.

I'm blabbering about it? No, I don't believe that is true sir. Maybe you are taking personal offense to something you are reading into, but that's on you not on me....

Did I enjoy TNG and VOY?

I enjoyed TNG. I watched every episode except one as it aired in first-run syndication. I do find that it has not aged well, and I find the characters to be unengaging and static now when I try to revisit. I also find the themes to be simplistic and somewhat condescending in some episodes.

I enjoyed VOY to a far lesser degree, because I felt it was TNG redux with a premise that was never really executed on. I also felt the characters were derivative and portrayed by far less capable actors than we had seen in DS9 and TNG. But, I didn't "hate" VOY, which is what you said. That's outright false and emotional / defensive on your part. I still would take VOY over 80% of what's been on television since 1987. But, compared with the rest of the franchise, I find it to be a substandard entry.

Frankly, I don't need to justify any of this to you. But it was fun providing a response.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I think it's more the case that each successive series was really only appealing to the existing Trekkie base. Add to that that they went through their own decisions to "shake things up" which really just alienated a portion of the people who started watching TNG. Things got worse for ENT, as a "third generation" show, as few people who tuned out DS9/VOY would give it a chance, yet invariably it didn't appeal to everyone who liked those shows either.

No, Enterprise was actively disliked in a way the previous series were not. Yes, there were some fans who may not have taken to a particular series, but the anger of Enterprise was deep and broad. Certainly Braga has spoken about fans actively expressing deep disappointment and antipathy in the way that had not in the previous series.

 

[Vger23]

"Franchise fatigue" is what Berman blamed the failure of NEM on, while at the same time claiming that NEM was "not a problematic movie at all." It takes tunnel vision and blinders to see it that way.

https://trekmovie.com/2009/08/26/rick-berman-talks-18-years-of-trek-in-extensive-oral-history/

This subtext that there is nothing problematic with the ST that was being produced, but rather that there was somehow an oversupply of something otherwise perfectly serviceable, is the particular problem with chalking the decline in ratings in the Berman-era up to "franchise fatigue."

Additionally, the "franchise" aspect of the term is itself misleading, because the ST franchise had, in the preceding two decades or so, already been successfully reinvented several times. If anything, it was the Berman-era iteration, the one that had carried the franchise from the late 1980s into the new millennium, that audiences had gotten bored with. The franchise always was a bigger tent than that iteration, however significant it was. Many of the storytelling formulas and character templates that IMO are major reasons why audiences got bored with the Berman-era are in fact particular to it, relative to ST overall.

While I disagree with Berman thinking / claiming that the production of Nemesis wasn't to blame for it's lack of success (in part, it certainly was)...I actually DO buy the "franchise fatigue" excuse as a contributing factor.

When ENT first premiered...I couldn't get interested in it. I just couldn't make myself care. And then the prevailing opinion that it was a garbage series hit and I assumed that I didn't like it because it "sucked" and I just backed out.

That said, now that I've revisited the series 10+ years removed from that timeframe (having gone straight-out from 1987 with overlapping shows)...I found it to be a very enjoyable watch and much more engaging than some of the stuff that is actually thought to be of higher quality by the general popular opinion.

To me, that right there says "franchise fatigue." Each person has their own reaction...but mine was certainly that of fatigue.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

It's like if they do a Star Trek sitcom.

It could be a show about a freighter remodeled into a traveling Bar, that went from port to port every so often, manned by a Human who was a former minor sports star while he pined over a stuck up Cardassian waitress.

First time, I hear The Orville referred as a sitcom lol but otherwise, I really like it thus far.

I love it as well, but it's a total sitcom.

 

[McDuff]

I enjoyed TNG. I watched every episode except one as it aired in first-run syndication. I do find that it has not aged well, and I find the characters to be unengaging and static now when I try to revisit. I also find the themes to be simplistic and somewhat condescending in some episodes.

I enjoyed VOY to a far lesser degree, because I felt it was TNG redux with a premise that was never really executed on. I also felt the characters were derivative and portrayed by far less capable actors than we had seen in DS9 and TNG. But, I didn't "hate" VOY, which is what you said. That's outright false and emotional / defensive on your part. I still would take VOY over 80% of what's been on television since 1987. But, compared with the rest of the franchise, I find it to be a substandard entry.

This is the blabbering I was talking about. You're giving lip service to enjoying VOY and TNG but then you mostly have bad things to say about them. I take it from the post above that you actually hate TNG and VOY. I don't care if you say you actually enjoyed TNG and VOY in some mysterious fashion only known to you. You are just talking about what you don't like about them.

Personally, I truly enjoyed Voyager and TNG. I think they have great replay value too. I'm presently watching the TNG remastered for the first time. I didn't know about the remastering before a few weeks ago. For one, I have forgotten a lot of the plots. And secondly, wow. So beautiful. The color, high definition, special effects. It's almost like totally new again. The dialogue is well thought out, crisp and deep. Often exploring many issues deeply. There's a lot of great writers behind those shows. When you watch TNG side by side, almost for the first time, with many TV shows, you can see how much more cerebral it is. Top quality sci-fi drama. Exploring humanity, our societies, the impact of technology and the future through sci-fi lens. I hope the cost of doing these goes down at one point and we get DS9 and Voyager remastered too. It's magnificent.

 

[eschaton]

No, Enterprise was actively disliked in a way the previous series were not. Yes, there were some fans who may not have taken to a particular series, but the anger of Enterprise was deep and broad. Certainly Braga has spoken about fans actively expressing deep disappointment and antipathy in the way that had not in the previous series.

I dunno. DS9 was very divisive when it first came on, with a large proportion of Trekies attacking it for not being "real Trek" due to the station setting, the darkness of the themes, that many of the characters were flawed, etc. Sisko hating Picard in the pilot didn't help either. I don't think Voyager got the same sort of detailed nitpicking, but people quickly figured out it wasn't high-quality Trek.

What issues in particular did people have with Enterprise at launch? I remember watching the pilot, but didn't really follow the show at that time since that was during my "no TV at all" phase.

 

[Vger23]

This is the blabbering I was talking about. You're giving lip service to enjoying VOY and TNG but then you mostly have bad things to say about them. I take it from the post above that you actually hate TNG and VOY. I don't care if you say you actually enjoyed TNG and VOY in some mysterious fashion only known to you. You are just talking about what you don't like about them.

That perception is entirely your problem. Not mine. I'm not troubled by how I feel about them at all.

I think I went on record (twice now) stating that I don't hate any Trek show. I'm not sure what I would have to gain in a discussion by lying about this. If I hated a Trek show, I'd tell you I thought it was irredeemable garbage layered with wet cold llama feces, and I wouldn't give a rat's ass about your sensitivity to that. In fact, if it were true, I'd probably take some perverse pleasure in seeing you get wound up about it.

So I have no reason to misrepresent myself here.

I can see by the further discussion between you and others in this thread that engaging you in conversation is a mistake, and almost immediately becomes personal.

I bid you a fond adieu, sir.

 

[McDuff]

I love it as well, but it's a total sitcom.

I didn't see it that way. Only the 2 goofy and unprepared spy agents on the Krill ship (the last episode) while the Krill acting oblivious to the whole thing truly gave me that vibe, but the end and beginning of the episode was not like that when Mercer had the conversation with the Krill teacher. It was serious. In the other episodes, I felt the humor was more like tacked on. There was serious moments, intertwined with humor. The humor felt more natural, like Stargate, and came from the characters personality.

 

[Vger23]

I'm not sure I'd agree that TNG was just TOS moved into the future. The individual episode arcs were in a lot of ways TOS like (blatantly TOS episodes at the beginning). But the series was an ensemble cast show right from the start, rather than being built on the three-person dynamics that TOS settled into. And while it was largely episodic, in its later years it did experiment with semi-serialization (recurring guest characters, full on character arcs for Worf and Data, etc) that TOS never touched.

Voyager, the first two seasons of Enterprise, and a fair amount of early DS9 episodes were really just the TNG format ported onto another show however.

Very fair assessment. I think I was pointing more to the "big premise" picture (which is very much the same) than the details (which tend to be quite different, to your point)...but there's certainly enough difference between TOS and TNG to say, in fairness, that they are somewhat different.

 

[McDuff]

That perception is entirely your problem. Not mine. I'm not troubled by how I feel about them at all.

My replied to you made it clear, it's not just a matter of perception. You give lip service to liking TNG and Voyager but then you only have bad things to say about them. You can't act like a virgin caught in the act when I tell you you seem to actually hate TNG and Voyager. I'm only responding to what you write, not what is going on in your brain. (nut) Case closed.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

I didn't see it that way. Only the 2 goofy and unprepared spy agents on the Krill ship (the last episode) while the Krill acting oblivious to the whole thing truly gave me that vibe, but the end and beginning of the episode was not like that when Mercer had the conversation with the Krill teacher. It was serious. In the other episodes, I felt the humor was more like tacked on. There was serious moments, intertwined with humor. The humor felt more natural, like Stargate, and came from the characters personality.

Friends had many serious moments too.

I don't look at sitcom as being an insult. Much of the comedy is situational IMO.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I dunno. DS9 was very divisive when it first came on, with a large proportion of Trekies attacking it for not being "real Trek" due to the station setting, the darkness of the themes, that many of the characters were flawed, etc. Sisko hating Picard in the pilot didn't help either. I don't think Voyager got the same sort of detailed nitpicking, but people quickly figured out it wasn't high-quality Trek.

What issues in particular did people have with Enterprise at launch? I remember watching the pilot, but didn't really follow the show at that time since that was during my "no TV at all" phase.

No, when I say that the reaction to Enterprise was different, Braga says that people let loose with extreme vitriol. It's all in Fifty Year Mission.

 

[McDuff]

Friends had many serious moments too.

I don't look at sitcom as being an insult. Much of the comedy is situational IMO.

A sitcom is not an insult but it's still not how I perceive The Orville thus far. The situation on the Krill ship was like a sitcom but the rest of the show was not like that. As I explained above. A sitcom is not defined as something totally lacking serious moments.

 

[Greg Cox]

This is the blabbering I was talking about. You're giving lip service to enjoying VOY and TNG but then you mostly have bad things to say about them. I take it from the post above that you actually hate TNG and VOY. I don't care if you say you actually enjoyed TNG and VOY in some mysterious fashion only known to you. You are just talking about what you don't like about them.
.

Probably none of my business, but it's perfectly possible to enjoy something and be aware of its flaws as well. Not loving a show doesn't mean you hate it. There's a whole spectrum of responses in-between.

And when you're dealing with something like STAR TREK, that consists of seven shows and thirteen movies, produced by lots of different people over the course of half a century, it stands to reason that, even if you're an ardent STAR TREK fan, you're invariably going to like some shows more than others . . . for whatever reasons.

That's only logical, as they say.

 

[McDuff]

Probably none of my business, but it's perfectly possible to enjoy something and be aware of its flaws as well. Not loving a show doesn't mean you hate it. There's a whole spectrum of responses in-between.

What you're talking about is different. The guy was only giving lip service to liking TNG and Voyager but then only had bad things to say about them...