News Season 2 will be the last (show cancelled)

[fireproof78]

Some Kurtzman Trek sucks, other parts of the streaming era are fantastic or at bare minimum a lot of world-building fun. Some doesn't work aesthetically or dramatically (and boy, do they not work), but then there were big stretches of Berman Trek that could be tedious and completely uninspired.

"Torpedoed" and "damage" take some heavy lifting, even with some of the sucky content we've gotten since 2017.

It also implies that people stop watching Trek because of this damage. Which, from my reading of various places (not here, where the sky is falling) that people keep watching various Star Trek shows and films despite the "disrespect" and "damage" and torpedoed franchise.

It's crazy that people would keep watching a damaged franchise.

 

[Firebird]

It no longer matters, because Kurtzman and his cronies have torpedoed the ST franchise, arguably causing damage never witnessed before in its 60 years.

The stench of melodramatic hyperbole is rather strong today, innit?

 

[fireproof78]

The stench of melodramatic hyperbole is rather strong today, innit?

George of the Jungle narrator voice: every story needs a great villain and here's ours. Who else would cause damage but Kurtzman and his meddling ego?

 

[Agony_Boothb]

It no longer matters, because Kurtzman and his cronies have torpedoed the ST franchise, arguably causing damage never witnessed before in its 60 years.

Genuinely WTF are you talking about. Berman and Braga did a fantastic job of torpedoing the franchise themselves. The revisionists want to pretend that this isn't the case, but it absolutely is. Trek was effectively dead on television for 15 years because they refused to take risks and kept trying to remake TNG with worsening results. DS9 never reached the same mass appeal that TNG had and Voyager had to resort to objectifying a woman to put a band aid on ratings bleed out and Enterprise and Nemesis put the final nails in the coffin.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

A lot of people say that 'remaking TNG' was the issue, as if TNG itself wasn't a wildly successful remake of TOS. But TNG's ratings never fell, people loved that show, and my theory is that an actual clone of TNG would've done fairly well. If the show didn't promise something it wasn't going to deliver on (Voyager) or completely run out of ideas in the first season and have to bring in the Ferengi out of desperation (Enterprise).

If you look at those dwindling ratings, they always started really high. People tuned in to episode 1 hoping for more of what they loved or something even better. And what they got was Enterprise season 1. I'm not saying franchise fatigue is a completely made up concept, but writer fatigue was the bigger problem.

 

[fireproof78]

A lot of people say that 'remaking TNG' was the issue, as if TNG itself wasn't a wildly successful remake of TOS. But TNG's ratings never fell, people loved that show, and my theory is that an actual clone of TNG would've done fairly well. If the show didn't promise something it wasn't going to deliver on (Voyager) or completely run out of ideas in the first season and have to bring in the Ferengi out of desperation (Enterprise).

If you look at those dwindling ratings, they always started really high. People tuned in to episode 1 hoping for more of what they loved or something even better. And what they got was Enterprise season 1. I'm not saying franchise fatigue is a completely made up concept, but writer fatigue was the bigger problem.

Here's the thing: you have to follow through. VOYAGER promised something different. If they had started out as TNG-lite clone then it would have appealed to people who liked TNG. That would sustain that idea.

But, it didn't. It promised something completely different and violated that premise pretty much from the word go. So, it didn't work. ENTEPRISE similarly lacked any sort of draw for STAR TREK. It got rid of the "STAR TREK" title, going with ENTERPRISE, it gave us a Triumvirate of characters like Kirk/Spock/McCoy that lacked any warmth, and continued on a style of TNG.

TNG was successful for those who liked it. So, lean in to that instead of promising something else. At least with Kurtzman I've been promised an adventure and gone on it for most of it, not more of the same Berman blandness.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Genuinely WTF are you talking about. Berman and Braga did a fantastic job of torpedoing the franchise themselves. The revisionists want to pretend that this isn't the case, but it absolutely is. Trek was effectively dead on television for 15 years because they refused to take risks and kept trying to remake TNG with worsening results. DS9 never reached the same mass appeal that TNG had and Voyager had to resort to objectifying a woman to put a band aid on ratings bleed out and Enterprise and Nemesis put the final nails in the coffin.

Pepperidge farms remembers. These very boards dubbed them "The Killer Bs"

 

[Starflight]

A lot of people say that 'remaking TNG' was the issue, as if TNG itself wasn't a wildly successful remake of TOS. But TNG's ratings never fell, people loved that show, and my theory is that an actual clone of TNG would've done fairly well. If the show didn't promise something it wasn't going to deliver on (Voyager) or completely run out of ideas in the first season and have to bring in the Ferengi out of desperation (Enterprise).

If you look at those dwindling ratings, they always started really high. People tuned in to episode 1 hoping for more of what they loved or something even better. And what they got was Enterprise season 1. I'm not saying franchise fatigue is a completely made up concept, but writer fatigue was the bigger problem.

It's been discussed on here before but I wonder if TNG's success was partly a fluke of circumstance - it didn't have much competition, it had a certain sense of "prestige" (for want of a better word) attached to it that none of the subsequent shows did, and it just had that unique luck some shows have of becoming a cultural phenomenon.

You're right about the ratings, it's interesting that both DS9 and Voyager started out fairly strong and then dwindled, while TNG had the inverse and actually increased (30 million viewers for "All Good Things"!!!). Though iirc both already started out with lower viewership than TNG had at its lowest, and since both declined pretty steadily, both were at less than half of TNG's lowest ratings by the end.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

while TNG had the inverse and actually increased (30 million viewers for "All Good Things"!!!).

That's the very final episode though, they often see ratings spikes, TNG went through a ratings decline too

 

[Turtletrekker]

The Best of Both Worlds cliffhanger caught the public zeitgeist in a way no other episode of Star Trek ever has. I have friends who contacted me out of the blue who were suddenly Star Trek fans. That cast in particular had such incredible chemistry and Patrick Stewart has screen presence unmatched by any other Star Trek captain. And that's not a knock against any of the other captains in the slightest. The public fell in love not with Star Trek, but with that particular crew.

 

[Farscape One]

TNG was also nominated for Outstanding Drama Series Emmy for its final season. (I think it was the first and only syndicated series to ever be nominated for that.)

 

[Starflight]

That's the very final episode though, they often see ratings spikes, TNG went through a ratings decline too

The evidence I've seen suggests it grew and largely maintained its audience in a way the other shows didn't, though I'm terrible at interpreting Nielsen ratings. You can see an episode-by-episode breakdown here:

List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For comparison, you can see DS9 losing viewers fairly steadily:

List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[F. King Daniel]

It no longer matters, because Kurtzman and his cronies have torpedoed the ST franchise, arguably causing damage never witnessed before in its 60 years.

Define "damage"

 

[cooleddie74]

"New content ."

 

[fireproof78]

"New content ."

And content I personally don't like.


Exhibit A: TMP.

 

[Starflight]

Define "damage"

I'll try to back him up without fully agreeing - the Kurtzman era has really stretched Star Trek's brand recognition to breaking point and beyond, and turned "Star Trek" into a vague label that can be slapped on literally anything in a way that I think wasn't the case prior to the last decade.

You could of course reasonably - and correctly - argue that this process began and intensified in the Berman era, but I do think the last 20~ years of stuff with the Star Trek label has made it even harder to market and develop than it already was in 2017 (though of course, a reboot or simple "we don't give a fuck about anything outside the show we're making" approach could sidestep it).

 

[Firebird]

I'll try to back him up without fully agreeing - the Kurtzman era has really stretched Star Trek's brand recognition to breaking point and beyond, and turned "Star Trek" into a vague label that can be slapped on literally anything in a way that I think wasn't the case prior to the last decade.

In what way, specifically?

Apart from Section 31, which everyone distanced themselves from quickly and admitted it sucks, I don’t see how the other series we’ve gotten in the last nine years qualifies as Trek in name only. I’m not seeing the case for the franchise being turned into corporate sludge.

 

[Starflight]

In what way, specifically?

Apart from Section 31, which everyone distanced themselves from quickly and admitted it sucks, I don’t see how the other series we’ve gotten in the last nine years qualifies as Trek in name only. I’m not seeing the case for the franchise being turned into corporate sludge.

Looking at the tone, target audience, and aims of each series, without making any comment on the subjective quality:
Discovery - I think it's fair to say the first season was a shot at the type of prestige drama that was popular in the era, with half an eye on being seen to offer a "deconstruction" of Star Trek. The second season shifted a little toward being something a bit more recognisably "Star Trek", not sure about subsequent seasons

Picard - starts out again as an attempt at prestige drama, obviously becomes a nostalgia/fanfic sort of thing by S3

Strange New Worlds - explicitly billed as a return to the older formula, later develops an interest in worldbuilding/joining up older canon. Designed in large part to appeal to older fans

Starfleet Academy - clearly takes cues from YA/CW drama, intended for a teen audience

Lower Decks - animated comedy with clear Rick & Morty influence

Prodigy - CG animation aimed at young children

Star Trek: Scouts - CG animation aimed at toddlers, I assume meant to emulate Cocomelon-type stuff

I think tonally and stylistically, that's stretched quite thin - you could say it represents a franchise in good health that's robust enough to integrate a wide range of wildly different styles and series, but I'd suggest that even if some/all of these shows are good, it's getting increasingly difficult to market Star Trek as a brand, since it doesn't really cohere into much at this point.

Again it'd be reasonable to do the same blow-by-blow with TOS/TAS/TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT (and the films) and make the case the Berman era had already made it tricky to define "Star Trek", but I'd say the last ten years have made it even harder. If you see the name Star Trek on a series now, it's not really clear what it's promising - no specific setting or era, no specific tone, no specific ethos, no specific character, etc. That's tough to market, and why the license is being used in some fairly unusual ways nowadays (just last week, they announced a base-building game with TOS/SNW aesthetics, and a gloomy Resident Evil-clone survival horror game starring Ro Laren).

 

[Firebird]

Looking at the tone, target audience, and aims of each series, without making any comment on the subjective quality:
Discovery - I think it's fair to say the first season was a shot at the type of prestige drama that was popular in the era, with half an eye on being seen to offer a "deconstruction" of Star Trek. The second season shifted a little toward being something a bit more recognisably "Star Trek", not sure about subsequent seasons

Picard - starts out again as an attempt at prestige drama, obviously becomes a nostalgia/fanfic sort of thing by S3

Strange New Worlds - explicitly billed as a return to the older formula, later develops an interest in worldbuilding/joining up older canon. Designed in large part to appeal to older fans

Starfleet Academy - clearly takes cues from YA/CW drama, intended for a teen audience

Lower Decks - animated comedy with clear Rick & Morty influence

Prodigy - CG animation aimed at young children

Star Trek: Scouts - CG animation aimed at toddlers, I assume meant to emulate Cocomelon-type stuff

I think tonally and stylistically, that's stretched quite thin - you could say it represents a franchise in good health that's robust enough to integrate a wide range of wildly different styles and series, but I'd suggest that even if some/all of these shows are good, it's getting increasingly difficult to market Star Trek as a brand, since it doesn't really cohere into much at this point.

Again it'd be reasonable to do the same blow-by-blow with TOS/TAS/TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT (and the films) and make the case the Berman era had already made it tricky to define "Star Trek", but I'd say the last ten years have made it even harder. If you see the name Star Trek on a series now, it's not really clear what it's promising - no specific setting or era, no specific tone, no specific ethos, no specific character, etc. That's tough to market, and why the license is being used in some fairly unusual ways nowadays (just last week, they announced a base-building game with TOS/SNW aesthetics, and a gloomy Resident Evil-clone survival horror game starring Ro Laren).

To me, none of what you’re describing is diluting what Star Trek is. The shows are experimenting with tone, points of view, and visual styles, but ultimately they are about exploring strange new worlds and better understanding the human condition. We’re 60 years into this franchise; if it were constantly only doing the same thing over and over, that’s stagnation and doesn’t leave any room for growth. Just like people, Star Trek should be able to grow and change with the times.

Whatever the tie-in merch is doing is something wholly separate, and I rarely interact with it since it goes off in different directions.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Apart from Section 31, which everyone distanced themselves from quickly and admitted it sucks

Um...