Where Trek went Wack...

[Silversmok3]

Now that Abrams has revitalized the franchise,what do you guys think caused it to sink in the first place?

Ill start off with this-its several things.One would be TV Trek-it didn't make sense a to average joes coming back from work because the plots were trekkie-centric.Good episodes,but if you didn't know polaron from a tricorder you were lost watching it.

The last two TNG movies were sizeable culprit,because a movie has to make sense *AND* be entertaining to be 'good'.Insurrection made sense but got bogged down in its own philosophy,leading to a TNG-large feel,while Nemesis upped the action at the expense of a sensible plot-and to add insult the disjointed plot was trek-predictable too.So people who expected Nemesis to be better than the previous slop were let down greatly.

I can't comment on the producer/studio side of things,but were it not for the books I'd probably have written off Trek for dead.

What's your take?

 

[Xerxes1979]

I have no interest is appealing to average Joe. Star Trek is where I can get away from cheap domestic beer and monster trucks.

You can't keep a television franchise in continiuous production for years and years without burnout.

Should ER have stayed on for another 5 or 10 seasons?

 

[Lord Garth]

Movie-wise, I think the TNG movies gained a lot of momentum with First Contact which Insurrection brought to a grinding halt. Then they waited four years to come out with Nemesis by which time almost no one cared anymore. In 2002, Nemesis looked like it belonged to another era and was totally out of place next to Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Star Trek (2009), OTOH, fits in perfectly with other movies coming out around the same time.

TV-wise, the problem was two-fold. 2001 was the wrong time to come out with a new Star Trek series. Ratings weren't anywhere close to what they used to be seven years earlier, and most people didn't even know about Enterprise. Of the ones I know in real life who did, most of their reactions were, "They're coming out with another one?!" Another thing is, Enterprise was supposed to be "Not Your Father's Star Trek" but it ultimately was. Battlestar Galactica was pulled off the contemporary feeling much better, and it's Star Trek (2009) that's actually really "Not Your Father's Star Trek". Between BSG and ST 2009, you get what ENT wished it could've been.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The worst mistake was when they kept the VOY writers instead of the much-superior DS9 crew to do the fifth series, thus dooming ENT to failure.

But the larger failure was in hanging onto the dull TNG characters too long for the movies.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I always liked Insurrection, but I think it was plagued by a story and overall feel that really felt more like an episode of the TV series than something the scope and grandeur of a film. Nemesis tried to get back to that, and I think it's got some strong moments, but I think it also suffered from being part of that overall time period where everyone involved with Star Trek (I'm thinking mostly of behind-the-scenes people) just seemed to be kind of burnt out with the whole thing.

I also think Voyager run a lot longer than it should have. No offense to anyone who likes it, but I think they just stretched the whole concept a little further than it should have gone.

Enterprise was a good step, but I think it just came at a wrong time.

 

[miraclefan]

The worst mistake was when they kept the VOY writers instead of the much-superior DS9 crew to do the fifth series, thus dooming ENT to failure.

But the larger failure was in hanging onto the dull TNG characters too long for the movies.

Agreed! I like to put all the blame on this particular mistake on Berman.

 

[Anwar]

The problems began with DS9 and VOY being on at the same time, and the series all beginning right after the other while there were movies being made. The oversaturation of Trek caused disinterest and spread the talent around too thinly for a lot of it to be good.

They should have waited a few years after DS9 to make another series, or focused on the movies instead and then waited a bit before making a new TV series after the movies were done.

 

[Anwar]

The worst mistake was when they kept the VOY writers instead of the much-superior DS9 crew to do the fifth series, thus dooming ENT to failure.

But the larger failure was in hanging onto the dull TNG characters too long for the movies.

Agreed! I like to put all the blame on this particular mistake on Berman.

Blaming Berman for everything is starting to make us all look kind of stupid. It's more complex than that and there are more people to blame for it (and I don't mean Braga either) than just Berman.

 

[miraclefan]

The problems began with DS9 and VOY being on at the same time, and the series all beginning right after the other while there were movies being made. The oversaturation of Trek caused disinterest and spread the talent around too thinly for a lot of it to be good.

They should have waited a few years after DS9 to make another series, or focused on the movies instead and then waited a bit before making a new TV series after the movies were done.

I think we can blame the Paramount higher-up's on that one. If I remember correctly paramount wanted a bright and shiney new trek series to premire there new UPN network.

 

[miraclefan]

Blaming Berman for everything is starting to make us all look kind of stupid. It's more complex than that and there are more people to blame for it (and I don't mean Braga either) than just Berman.

I don't blame Berman for everything, just on this one issue.

 

[tippy]

When the Borg could be beaten rather easily.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Most basically, Star Trek just didn't evolve in style and treatment along with other television and movies. They were making TV shows and movies in the 1990s and the first years of this century which aped the technique of a television series from 1966.

And that outdated technique, in terms of storytelling and dialogue and photography and editing, is most basically what Abrams and his folks jettisoned while retaining all of the significant content and heart of the original series.

 

[I am not Spock]

Insurrection was the beginning of the dark years, I think. FC was a big hit with fans and non-fans, and they were expecting more of the same. Insurrection brought the mid-90s Trek boom to a crashing halt, which it never really recovered from until Abrams' film.

Well, its still too early to tell. Trek 11 may have already owned Nemesis at the box office, but only time will tell how history regards Abrams' movie.

 

[RandyS]

Where Trek went wrong is really a subjective question, but for me, it was when ENTERPRISE came out. For it's first two years it was nothing but a VOYAGER knock-off, and it's third season offered a moronic storyline that offered zero suspense (we all knew Earth wouldn't be destroyed), and therefore, zero reason to watch. By the time ENTERPRISE's one good year got going, it was too little, too late.

For my part, I've never bought into the whole "having two series out at once caused saturation" argument. You can never have too much Star Trek.

 

[Anwar]

Well, it was also "there are movies AND two TV shows all going on at the same time" as well. I mean, with the TOS movies they were the sole source of Trek at the time and Wars didn't have any TV shows (aside from Clone Wars shorts) going on while the prequel trilogy was being made. Plus Wars has always been more accessible and "cool" than Trek.

 

[DarKush]

I think around 1994, at a time when GEN was about to come out and the Star Trek franchise seemed its strongest. I still remember the Time article with Kirk and Picard on the cover. The TPTB got too content and greedy, didn't see the need to change the format, and just rode the wave until it crashed upon the shore without doing much to alter their course.

I think there was too much Trek out in 1994/1995. TNG had just ended, DS9 was just getting started, GEN was rushed into production, and VOY was in the wings. I think TPTB gorged on a good thing instead of concentrating on DS9 and taking their time to make a better version of Generations.

Though I liked GEN, it was a rush job. Splitting the fanbase between DS9 and VOY wasn't a good thing, particularly when it seemed VOY got more love from TPTB than DS9 did, which was a far superior show.

The accelerated plan to produce a Trek movie every two years while both DS9 and VOY were still out was also a mistake. There was just too much stuff out there. TNG was allowed to build an audience largely on its own, with little competition, and no competition from a currently running Trek show.

I think there was creative burnout with Voyager, perhaps helped in part by network interference. I also think that the Trek movies hit gold with First Contact, but then struck out with Insurrection and rock bottom with Nemesis. They made some wrong choices in not playing to the strengths of TNG, which was the ensemble casts, and instead tried to replicate a Kirk-Spock duo with Picard-Data. And letting Stewart and Spiner get too involved in the creative process perhaps limited the movies. I remember when I watched Nemesis, and the one thing that stuck in my mind was how old and tired everyone looked.

VOY limped to a close and then ENT came out, offering nothing new or fresh. If anything, it was a step backward in terms of writing and characterization. In the age of drama, with hard hitting, provocative, or just straight action filled series like 24, Lost, Alias, Smallville, Supernatural, etc. coming out around the same time, ENT just felt flat. Compared to BSG, it felt totally vanilla and boring, poorly written and creatively sterile. BSG felt more like an inheritor to TOS/Trek, albeit a far darker version in terms of social commentary, relatable characters, exploring the human condition. Especially in the first couple seasons of BSG, whenever I looked at ENT it just felt so fake to me, not organic or real at all.

Even the genre flops of the period, shows like Firefly, Invasion, Threshold, Surface, Nightstalker, etc. attempted to be edgy, relevant, or bring a sense of fun. ENT's attempts to do that were clumsy and felt about a decade or more old.

I think the Stargate franchise might be experiencing a similar decline. It will be interesting to see if Stargate Universe will be truly fresh or more of the same.

 

[Myasishchev]

^You know, I wonder if we're going to see a sea change in that regard, Anwar. Maybe it's my own prejudice, but I'd suspect the general public will probably think Abrams' Trek is a lot cooler than anything Lucas has pumped out in the last twenty years.

Anyway, Berman seems to rightfully shoulder a lot of the blame, but in the end only a plurality of it. Voyager was the coffin, and the TNG movies were the nails. Enterprise was the dirt on top of the coffin, I guess. Everyone involved in all of those productions shares the shame with Berman. Frakes' boring-ass direction in Insurrection, Logan's incomprehensibly ignorant scripting for Nemesis, Stewart's action-hero pretensions, Taylor's infallible Janeway, Braga's apparent addiction to psychedelic drugs and total inability to understand basic, well, anything... these all took their toll on the franchise.

 

[Basil]

Most basically, Star Trek just didn't evolve in style and treatment along with other television and movies. They were making TV shows and movies in the 1990s and the first years of this century which aped the technique of a television series from 1966.

That's not exactly true -- if anything, they were making and remaking 80s-inspired takes on a show from the 60s, which is to say they muted a lot of the daring-do that made it all work in the first place, hired actors without much mass appeal (with the possible exception of baldy), confused ponderous with gravitas, and got bogged down in catchphrases and technobabble rather than straightforward talk. Abrams just brought it back full circle, though because his movie is aimed at teens, he also dumbed things down quite a bit so it's more stereotypical PG action flick than space opera.

 

[Thrall]

Fans complain now about that lack of evolution of the franchise is what killed it. Well, they're the ones who wanted that. DS9 was different and a change of pace. But at the time, it was hated(and still is to an extent) by the fans for being just that. So Berman saw the bad initial reaction to DS9 and made an attempt to never rock the boat all that much ever again I think. Granted, it had a really bad first season so the dislike wasn't totally unjustified.

Voyager was an attempt to get the traditional Trekkies back that were turned off by DS9. But it's safe approach to story telling was out of date in a genre that was now evolving. Mostly because of groundbreaking shows like DS9. So what was once considered to be innovative, was now seen as bland and stale. And what was once seen as heretical and uneccissarily deconstructive, was seen as cutting edge. Poor writing on the show also contributed to this decline.

Enterprise was a failed attempt to update the franchise. Mostly because the creative team lacked vision. They wanted to do something fresh and cool here. But they also wanted to cater to hardcore fans as well. So it was fine line they had to walk. Most of their attempts at something new met with failure because fans felt it violated established canon. And when they did try to cater to old fans, it was with the same tired stories that had been seen a million times before. Poor writing of both characters and stories also greatly contributed to it's demise.

 

[jamestyler]

They should have waited a few years after DS9 to make another series, or focused on the movies instead and then waited a bit before making a new TV series after the movies were done.

I think the same thing, for the most part. If you give someone too much of something, they'll start to get tired. DS9 needed to be on it's own for a while and if they wanted a TNG movie they should have waited.

The Voyager and Enterpririse backstage and production issues have been talked about to death, and it can't all be blamed on on person. But on screen it was just too much of the same. DS9 was something different to TNG, it offered a different style of storytelling that TNG and TOS didn't have and it worked. It had enough variation to keep it alive... and I think that with Voyager and TNG being the favourite child, they benefitted from being able to do their own thing.

Voyagers concept could have given it a different angle, but there wasn't enough focus on how dark it could have been and it became a TNG clone of sorts before turning into the Seven of Nine show. Then without a chance to breath Enterprise was on TV...

...and they both lacked something. To me it was like geeks in their basement writing TV. The scrips got worse (which I can understand entirely, burnout always happens without a break) but the fun elements seemed to be written by geeks who wanted their TV to be 'smart' and then they tried to inject something sexy which seemed like it was written by people who'd never felt the touch of a woman. Add to that the promise of something new in Voyager and Ent's concepts always became the same thing over again... whether that was due to listening to the more militant fans or due to fear of deviating from the course - it was bad mojo.

It burned out the team, it burned out the audience and lost some prime elements. with the movie franchise Generations was rushed, and I'll agree tht the Data/Picard thing was too much of a callback to Kirk/Spock. First Contact was the only movie I felt didn't need 'the knowledge' to be enjoyed by outsiders while Insurrection and Nemesis seemed to be directed to fans - fans burned out and fed up by the whole thing.

If they'd taken their time, taken breaks after shows instead of trying to put out as much Trek as they could and put a little bit more faith in DS9... things wouldn't be so bad.