Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

[fireproof78]

that what I should have done too.
The sad thing is that I find nothing to move on to right now.

Doing good. Being creative. Researching new things to enjoy.

We live in an era of data literally at our finger tips. There's always something to move on to.

Fuck entertainment and escapism if it means a lack of curiosity.

wasn't "The Berman-era formula" which ran the franchise into the ground.

Yes it was. I'm loathed to look at ratings because I find them irksome but the audience engagement dropped off during the Berman era.

Voyager played that formula on repeat and ENT did the same.

 

[Campe]

Fuck entertainment and escapism if it means a lack of curiosity.

This. A hundred times this.

 

[Shawnster]

It wasn't "The Berman-era formula" which ran the franchise into the ground.

It was the stupid decision to create a retro series after VOY which did it.

Yes it was. I'm loathed to look at ratings because I find them irksome but the audience engagement dropped off during the Berman era.

Voyager played that formula on repeat and ENT did the same.

I don't think Star Trek was ran into the ground, but it had grown tired. Stale. And I say this as someone that views Voyager as a guilty pleasure.

Star Trek needed a rest. I'm not much of a fan of current Trek, but the Berman era needed a rest. ENT, in my opinion, was a starship too far. Of course, the mucking about by the network suits did not help. Too many cooks. Too many higher ups to be beholden to and too many people in control who were more in touch with dollars and cents instead of stories that really made sense.

 

[Mage]

I don't think Star Trek was ran into the ground, but it had grown tired. Stale. And I say this as someone that views Voyager as a guilty pleasure.

Star Trek needed a rest. I'm not much of a fan of current Trek, but the Berman era needed a rest. ENT, in my opinion, was a starship too far. Of course, the mucking about by the network suits did not help. Too many cooks. Too many higher ups to be beholden to and too many people in control who were more in touch with dollars and cents instead of stories that really made sense.

I don't think Star Trek needed a rest perse, but something new. Voyager sounded bold, but quickly became TNG-Lite. Enterprise had great potential, considering some of the original plans by B&B, but the studio quickly intervened and demanded things that make it sound and feel like Star Trek people knew and recognized, like Klingons in the first episode. So yeah, had they really been able to do something more unique, who knows what would have happened.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Here's some appropriate trivia that just occurred to me:

Encounter at Farpoint to These are the Voyages was a span of about 212 months. We're currently in month 214 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Deep Space Nine season 7 and Avengers: Endgame come at the same point in their runs. (Which is around the point in the Kurtzman era where Strange New Worlds should be airing its finale.)

At the point that Enterprise reaches season 2 and Star Trek: Nemesis enters cinemas, the MCU gives us Ant-Man Quantumania and The Marvels. (And it's Chris Chibnall's second year of Doctor Who).

From this data we can see that all franchises hit a peak around year 10 and lose their viewers' enthusiasm around their 15th year due to over familiarity... except for James Bond, which released The Spy Who Loved Me and was doing fine. And Classic Doctor Who was in the middle of the Tom Baker era.

Really, I think that people generally want more of what they like, but they want it to be good and they don't want too much at once.

 

[cooleddie74]

Fifteen years after "The Corbomite Maneuver" began filming and the regular series of TOS started production TWOK was already in production or at bare minimum deep into pre-production. Hard to believe sometimes that within fifteen years of Clint Howard donning Balok makeup we had Ricardo Montalban's pecs and muscles.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Hard to believe sometimes that within fifteen years of Clint Howard donning Balok makeup we had Ricardo Montalban's pecs and muscles.

It's not that hard for me, as Khan mentions it in the movie. Well he doesn't mention Balok specifically, but you know what I mean.

 

[CaseyW]

I was very apprehensive about SFA and it certainly has had its ups and downs in the first six episodes but it’s actually pretty damned good. Parody is the last word I would use to describe it.



I think the TNG lighting was a little too much if you ask me. It feels way over lit. I actually don’t mind the lighting in the scene from Picard you decided to show. Season 3’s lighting on the other hand? Yuck.

I can't see the photos that you include, but I've just started watching the streaming series, having only seen the earlier broadcast series until recently. I find the over abundance of light in all of the streaming series I've seen so far quite overwhelming. I don't know how anyone can actually see what they're doing! When everything is garishly lit there isn't enough contrast – by which I mean, if everything stands out then nothing stands out. I hope that tames down in later series when people get over the fact that they can make a lot of noise with colour and light.

 

[Lynx]

I don't see why Star Trek needs to be put to rest. Like any franchise, it can always be reinvented. They can always bring in new people with new ideas on what to do with it.

It needs something that would bring it back to its former glory.

A new series with a new ship, new likeable characters and good stories.

I'm obviously not a moderator, but dare I suggest that it is this thread that needs to be put to rest? A lot of interesting points of view, but I feel like everyone has kind of said their piece at this point. Maybe someone can suggest a different phrasing of the initial question to get things moving in a more productive direction.

You do have a point here.

Maybe the different phrasing would be "how to save Star Trek" or to bring back Star Trek to its former glory".

And if there also could be a room in TrekLit for books about the TOS times and the TNG, DS9 and VOY times.

Instead they seem to want to kill off each and every charakter in those current books to make room for books based on DSC and PIC.

Doing good. Being creative. Researching new things to enjoy.

We live in an era of data literally at our finger tips. There's always something to move on to.

Fuck entertainment and escapism if it means a lack of curiosity.
Yes it was. I'm loathed to look at ratings because I find them irksome but the audience engagement dropped off during the Berman era.

Voyager played that formula on repeat and ENT did the same.

There are a lot of things besides Star Trek I do enjoy.

Unfortunately, some of them, like traveling for example, requires a big wallet, maybe bigger that I actually have right now.

The sad thing is that Star Trek and music has been a pleasant part in my life for many years and those interests will leave big empty holes after them.

OK, I can always cheer for the hockey team in my town. But who knows what happens. Maybe it will endure the same fate as a team I cheered for in another town I lived in which got bankrupt due to mismanagement and idiots in charge.

I can actually agree on your points about VOY and ENT when it comes to how Berman and his gang failed.

ENT should never have been made. Instead they should have come up with a follow-up on the events in TNG, DS9 and VOY about 5 or 6 years after Voyager ended.

A new sereies with a new crew and the possibility to follow up some loose threads from the previous series.

Maybe PIC had been much better if it had been made in 2005. Maybe it could have avoided the overall doom and gloom scenario and the feeling of a funeral that it had.

I don't think Star Trek was ran into the ground, but it had grown tired. Stale. And I say this as someone that views Voyager as a guilty pleasure.

Star Trek needed a rest. I'm not much of a fan of current Trek, but the Berman era needed a rest. ENT, in my opinion, was a starship too far. Of course, the mucking about by the network suits did not help. Too many cooks. Too many higher ups to be beholden to and too many people in control who were more in touch with dollars and cents instead of stories that really made sense.

You do have some points here.

VOY had a great premise but that was ruined by Berman and his gang.
ENT should never have been made. A step in the wrong direction, a pre-TOS series which didn't look like pre-TOS and boring characters.

I don't think Star Trek needed a rest perse, but something new. Voyager sounded bold, but quickly became TNG-Lite. Enterprise had great potential, considering some of the original plans by B&B, but the studio quickly intervened and demanded things that make it sound and feel like Star Trek people knew and recognized, like Klingons in the first episode. So yeah, had they really been able to do something more unique, who knows what would have happened.

As I wrote above, ENT was a step in the wrong direction. It should never have been made.

 

[Campe]

It needs something that would bring it back to its former glory.

A new series with a new ship, new likeable characters and good stories.

First, who gets to define what one means by “former glory?” You seem to appreciate TNG, DS9 and VOY the most. I’m a TOS/DS9/SNW guy. We really only agree on one show. And there are others out there who disagree with both of us. So how do you try to speak to the fanbase (which is, let’s be fair, getting older and dying) and bring in new fans at the same time?

Second, we’ve had what you ask for with Lower Decks, Prodigy and SFA (even if the later isn’t ALWAYS a ship). (SNW has many likable characters, but not all of them are new and the ship certainly isn’t new.) Still, how do you do what you want without falling back into the formula of TNG/VOY/ENT? It’s more than played out.

Honestly, you can speak to ten different Star Trek fans and get fourteen competing definitions on what makes Star Trek good.

 

[BillJ]

A new series with a new ship, new likeable characters and good stories.

One word: Prodigy.

 

[Mage]

As I wrote above, ENT was a step in the wrong direction. It should never have been made.

Here you go again, making ultimate statements. Plenty of fans loved and still love ENT. Who are you to decide it should not have been made simply because you do not like it?
People like what you dislike. So you simply stop watching it and let others enjoy what they like.

I mean, just those words alone... 'As I wrote above". As if your statements are Godlike and The Final Word. They are not. You once replied to my post saying 'why do people get angry when I voice my opinion?'. Because you don't voice opinions, you make statements and expect others to agree with you.
Fine, you don't like ENT. I'm fine with that. But say 'Enterprise was not the type of Star Trek show I enjoy but if others do, than good for them.'
THAT is was an adult way of communicating an opinion is.

For fuck sake.... Anyway, if the mods feel they need to warn me or ban me or something like that, I accept that as a consequence of my actions. I know, comment on the post, not the poster. But this needed to be said.

 

[BillJ]

But this needed to be said.

You might as well have said it to a brick wall.

 

[fireproof78]

The sad thing is that Star Trek and music has been a pleasant part in my life for many years and those interests will leave big empty holes after them

Only if there is an unwillingness to learn and grow.

 

[Shawnster]

First, who gets to define what one means by “former glory?”

The Nielsens?

Star Trek's former glory would, logically, be the time Star Trek was most popular. That is the glory television shows seek - the most viewers over the longest period of time.

Now, this does not mean the TNG era (TNG being the series that had the largest viewer base over its entire run) is the perfect formula and that Trek should return to TNG's style of writing and story telling. Sorry @Lynx but what was popular in the 1990s is not an indicator of what will be most successful in the mid 2020s. That's not how it works.

But those viewer numbers and the longevity of the series is a clear indicator of when Trek hit its high water mark

 

[The Salt Umpire]

The Nielsens?

Star Trek's former glory would, logically, be the time Star Trek was most popular. That is the glory television shows seek - the most viewers over the longest period of time.

Now, this does not mean the TNG era (TNG being the series that had the largest viewer base over its entire run) is the perfect formula and that Trek should return to TNG's style of writing and story telling. Sorry @Lynx but what was popular in the 1990s is not an indicator of what will be most successful in the mid 2020s. That's not how it works.

But those viewer numbers and the longevity of the series is a clear indicator of when Trek hit its high water mark

Ds9 is the peak of TNG Trek, with VOY being the Wilhelm Scream* and ENT being the dead cat bounce**.

* Wasn't Voyager better at the beginning? With adding Seven an echo?

** ENT is the best in...the middle of the bounce

The usual crowd may begin grumbling and sharpening their verbal pitchforks.

 

[cooleddie74]

Sometimes it takes faith to travel that long road.










[*Slowly closes door behind me*]

 

[Ceridwen]

Ds9 is the peak of TNG Trek, with VOY being the Wilhelm Scream* and ENT being the dead cat bounce**.

* Wasn't Voyager better at the beginning? With adding Seven an echo?

** ENT is the best in...the middle of the bounce

The usual crowd may begin grumbling and sharpening their verbal pitchforks.

I don't see how "Ds9" can be the peak of "TNG Trek" when "TNG Trek" is named after... TNG.

It also never reached the viewership that The Next Generation did, it is very literally the beginning of the long, slow decline toward cancellation for that era.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I don't see how "Ds9" can be the peak of "TNG Trek" when "TNG Trek" is named after... TNG.

It's like how Legends of Tomorrow was the peak of the Arrowverse... for the fans that grew to love it.

 

[Campe]

The Nielsens?

Star Trek's former glory would, logically, be the time Star Trek was most popular. That is the glory television shows seek - the most viewers over the longest period of time.

Now, this does not mean the TNG era (TNG being the series that had the largest viewer base over its entire run) is the perfect formula and that Trek should return to TNG's style of writing and story telling. Sorry @Lynx but what was popular in the 1990s is not an indicator of what will be most successful in the mid 2020s. That's not how it works.

But those viewer numbers and the longevity of the series is a clear indicator of when Trek hit its high water mark

Like you said, the audience in the 2020s is not the same as the audience of the 1990s as it’s not the same in the 1960s. Our attention is diverted into so many different areas now. TV, movies, music, the Internet, video games, the list could go on and on and on and does.

It was often suggested in the 1980s, that TNG was lightning getting caught in the bottle twice. The first, of course being the original back in the 1960s. There’s no reason to suggest that it can’t happen again. I don’t believe that we’ve had a series that has truly done that in this modern streaming era. And perhaps, when HBO Max and Paramount+ are combined, there might be new audience members for Star Trek. Overly optimistic? Probably. But it could happen.

We will never have a Star Trek that has the viewership that TNG had at its peak. But that doesn’t mean that Star Trek can’t do new and interesting things. I think it has in the past decade. And SFA season 2 is the last breath of that era, so be it.