Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

[DevilEyes]

And let's not forget that the massive ratings slide began with the series that reached Trek's full potential, Deep Space Nine.

Very fitting for a franchise that originated from a show that was in danger of cancellation throughout its run and was eventually cancelled after its third season.

Back then the ratings were not very well measured, for one thing, there was no differentiation between gender and age groups. When the new system came into place, after the cancellation, they went to once again redo the ratings, and Star Trek hit all the important target groups. If the new ratings systems had been implemented sooner, Star Trek would never have been in danger of cancellation.

And do you believe that the ratings system today, or in the last 15-20 years, is a very accurate reflection of quality?

 

[3D Master]

Very fitting for a franchise that originated from a show that was in danger of cancellation throughout its run and was eventually cancelled after its third season.

Back then the ratings were not very well measured, for one thing, there was no differentiation between gender and age groups. When the new system came into place, after the cancellation, they went to once again redo the ratings, and Star Trek hit all the important target groups. If the new ratings systems had been implemented sooner, Star Trek would never have been in danger of cancellation.

And do you believe that the ratings system today, or in the last 15-20 years, is a very accurate reflection of quality?

I'm not the one who brought up cancellation, you did, so YOU should be the one to answer the reverse of that question.

 

[BillJ]

Very fitting for a franchise that originated from a show that was in danger of cancellation throughout its run and was eventually cancelled after its third season.

Back then the ratings were not very well measured, for one thing, there was no differentiation between gender and age groups. When the new system came into place, after the cancellation, they went to once again redo the ratings, and Star Trek hit all the important target groups. If the new ratings systems had been implemented sooner, Star Trek would never have been in danger of cancellation.

And do you believe that the ratings system today, or in the last 15-20 years, is a very accurate reflection of quality?

I think we all understand ratings are not indicative of quality. What the ratings for Deep Space Nine mean: that people that were fans of The Next Generation did not necessarily watch Deep Space Nine. That the built in audience that would watch anything with Star Trek in the title was smaller than Paramount thought.

 

[flemm]

I think we all understand ratings are not indicative of quality. What the ratings for Deep Space Nine mean: that people that were fans of The Next Generation did not necessarily watch Deep Space Nine. That the built in audience that would watch anything with Star Trek in the title was smaller than Paramount thought.

Even that is probably a simplistic reading. A lot of people watching TNG weren't watching it because it had Star Trek in the name, but because it was practically the only show of its kind on the air, and many people still watched network television exclusively. By the end of TNG's run, Trek had started competing against itself, and there were a lot more sci-fi/fantasy shows on tv.

Also, the ratings decline that began in the late TNG years and continued through DS9, Voyager and ENT corresponds to a steep drop in ratings across all networks and all genres. For example, the evening news' ratings when ENT was canceled were only a fraction of what they were when TNG first aired, due to the rise of cable television (and of the internet).

I think one would at least have to factor in these types of broad shifts in the market to analyse the ratings of these shows in a meaningful manner.

 

[3D Master]

I think we all understand ratings are not indicative of quality. What the ratings for Deep Space Nine mean: that people that were fans of The Next Generation did not necessarily watch Deep Space Nine. That the built in audience that would watch anything with Star Trek in the title was smaller than Paramount thought.

Even that is probably a simplistic reading. A lot of people watching TNG weren't watching it because it had Star Trek in the name, but because it was practically the only show of its kind on the air, and many people still watched network television exclusively. By the end of TNG's run, Trek had started competing against itself, and there were a lot more sci-fi/fantasy shows on tv.

Also, the ratings decline that began in the late TNG years and continued through DS9, Voyager and ENT corresponds to a steep drop in ratings across all networks and all genres. For example, the evening news' ratings when ENT was canceled were only a fraction of what they were when TNG first aired, due to the rise of cable television (and of the internet).

I think one would at least have to factor in these types of broad shifts in the market to analyse the ratings of these shows in a meaningful manner.

Indeed, I remember a commercial where some photon torpedoes destroyed Xena's Chakram and some other things from other shows, and then it said, DS9, no 1 syndicated tv show.

 

[DevilEyes]

Back then the ratings were not very well measured, for one thing, there was no differentiation between gender and age groups. When the new system came into place, after the cancellation, they went to once again redo the ratings, and Star Trek hit all the important target groups. If the new ratings systems had been implemented sooner, Star Trek would never have been in danger of cancellation.

And do you believe that the ratings system today, or in the last 15-20 years, is a very accurate reflection of quality?

I'm not the one who brought up cancellation, you did, so YOU should be the one to answer the reverse of that question.

Actually, I wasn't the one who brought up ratings. BillJ did. If ratings figures are being brought up as a measure of DS9's quality, it only makes sense to bring them up the same way for TOS.

We all know that TNG was the most successful Trek show in ratings terms. Would it have the same ratings if it premiered 2 decades earlier, or a decade later? I doubt it. There are too many factors to take into consideration, as noted by flemm above.

I think we all understand ratings are not indicative of quality. What the ratings for Deep Space Nine mean: that people that were fans of The Next Generation did not necessarily watch Deep Space Nine. That the built in audience that would watch anything with Star Trek in the title was smaller than Paramount thought.

Even that is probably a simplistic reading. A lot of people watching TNG weren't watching it because it had Star Trek in the name, but because it was practically the only show of its kind on the air, and many people still watched network television exclusively. By the end of TNG's run, Trek had started competing against itself, and there were a lot more sci-fi/fantasy shows on tv.

Many people who aren't Trek fans and don't even know much about the franchise are familiar with TNG (same goes for TOS, but mostly through movies rather than the show), which suggests that TNG was a ratings success not because it had a huge built-in audience, but because it attracted a lot of casual viewers and non-Trek fans. Most of those people didn't watch every episode of the show, they watched some of it and are familiar with the characters (Picard, Data...).

 

[Saxman1]

The TNG movies were ALL crap. First Contact is BORING - The Borg Queen toying with Data slows down the film and puts me to sleep. Picard is Clint Eastwood in First Contact through Nemesis, totally out of character and craps all over the thoughful captain of the TV series. Stewart and Spiner had NO business dictating film content and allowed to hire friends to write scripts ("Nemesis").

Only the characters of TOS work in feature films.

DS9 is in many ways the deepest, most intellectual series.

 

[Chrisisall]

DS9 is in many ways the deepest, most intellectual series.

*yawn*
I guess it's
*yawn*
possible.

 

[Warped9]

DS9 is in many ways the deepest, most intellectual series.

*yawn*
I guess it's
*yawn*
possible.

Nah .

 

[Chrisisall]

Nah .

In this area, Warped, we agree totally I think, TOS rules, absolutely & completely!!!!

 

[Arpy]

Even that is probably a simplistic reading. A lot of people watching TNG weren't watching it because it had Star Trek in the name, but because it was practically the only show of its kind on the air, and many people still watched network television exclusively. By the end of TNG's run, Trek had started competing against itself, and there were a lot more sci-fi/fantasy shows on tv.

Many people who aren't Trek fans and don't even know much about the franchise are familiar with TNG (same goes for TOS, but mostly through movies rather than the show), which suggests that TNG was a ratings success not because it had a huge built-in audience, but because it attracted a lot of casual viewers and non-Trek fans. Most of those people didn't watch every episode of the show, they watched some of it and are familiar with the characters (Picard, Data...).

Now wait just a damn minute, as Dr McCoy would say. Although scifi's taken off since, in part due to the success of TNG, there was still quite a bit of science-fiction on television at the time. Why weren't the other series as big a success? TNG was a hit not because it was the only TV of its kind but because it was great TV period. Credit where due, people.

 

[MoonWater]

Alright here's my unpopular opinions:

I actually really like wesely and nelix

I'm not picard vs. kirk; I'm picard vs. janeway and I think voyager was almost as good a series as TNG(it loses a notch only because TNG was better written.)

oh, and one more that will be pure blasphemy but here it goes:
I really don't like captain kirk and see him as basically a science fiction version of james bond(which is an insult coming from me in case anyone was confused) I look at kirk and all I see, at least in the series itself, is "egotistical man whore".(it's not anywhere near as bad in the movies so there I'm mostly neutral on him.)

 

[Mojochi]

I think Riker should have left the show & accepted his own command after BoBW.

I think Troi shouldn't really be on the bridge, unless called for, like the CMO

I've never really liked "The Voyage Home". It was all just shtick. No Substance. Trek V was far better Star Trek, imo

I like plenty of Geordi centric episodes "The Enemy","Identity Crisis", "The Mind's Eye" "Interface". About the only one I don't like is "Aquiel"

I think Denise Crosby was extremely HOT, in the TNG years

 

[3D Master]

oh, and one more that will be pure blasphemy but here it goes:
I really don't like captain kirk and see him as basically a science fiction version of james bond(which is an insult coming from me in case anyone was confused) I look at kirk and all I see, at least in the series itself, is "egotistical man whore".(it's not anywhere near as bad in the movies so there I'm mostly neutral on him.)

I think you're mistaking JJ's Kirk for the series Kirk.

 

[Danny99]

Stewart and Spiner had NO business dictating film content and allowed to hire friends to write scripts ("Nemesis").

I agree and I'm surprised it didn't cause more of a rift within the TNG cast.

 

[MoonWater]

oh, and one more that will be pure blasphemy but here it goes:
I really don't like captain kirk and see him as basically a science fiction version of james bond(which is an insult coming from me in case anyone was confused) I look at kirk and all I see, at least in the series itself, is "egotistical man whore".(it's not anywhere near as bad in the movies so there I'm mostly neutral on him.)

I think you're mistaking JJ's Kirk for the series Kirk.

What do you mean JJ's kirk?

 

[RandyS]

oh, and one more that will be pure blasphemy but here it goes:
I really don't like captain kirk and see him as basically a science fiction version of james bond(which is an insult coming from me in case anyone was confused) I look at kirk and all I see, at least in the series itself, is "egotistical man whore".(it's not anywhere near as bad in the movies so there I'm mostly neutral on him.)

I think you're mistaking JJ's Kirk for the series Kirk.

What do you mean JJ's kirk?

JJ Abrams, the director of last year's movie.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Ent is highly underrated - its S3 and S4 are the equal of any other trek season and its S1 and S2 are better than the likes of TOS S3, TNG S1, S2, etc.

 

[SPCTRE]

Of the top of my head, two unpopular opinions relating to GENERATIONS come to mind:
1) It's part of my personal Top3 of Trek movies (alongside TUC and FC, but that part wouldn't qualify as an unpopular opinion, I know )
2) I think the shot of the USS Farragut at the end of the movie really drives home just how beautiful the Nebula class really is. There, I said it, I like a kitbashed design. Actually, it's one of my favourite Starfleet ship designs ever - I remember rewinding my VHS copy of GEN time and time again to drool over the Farragut fly-by

 

[Mr_Homn]

Voyager is horrible and really what killed star trek

DS9 is for the most part boring and tedious to sit through

TNG and TOS are on equal ground with me. most fans of one seem to dislike the other. I love these shows more than anything ever on tv.

Enterprise wasn't that bad. It made a lot of mistakes, but it was the first show that had the right spirit of star trek and focus on fun exploration since TNG.


the abrams movie was god awful. I don't mind that people like it, but anyone who thinks it was deep or intelligent is an idiot.