So what killed Star Trek?

[SFRabid]

... it was just too polished and modern for a prequel to TOS.

Isn't that that fault of TOS being so old? They could not produce a show about the future and have CRT screens sitting on the desks or communicators that only communicate vocally.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It wasn't that I'd seen it all before - used to that - it was that we were now being told Archer did all it first. And it was just too polished and modern for a prequel to TOS.

That makes no sense what so ever. Why in the world would a prequel to TOS need to look dirty, dull and archaic? And why should a show made in the 21st Century and set in the 22nd Century use styles and production values from the mid 20th Century?

 

[Satyrquaze]

If anything made Trek dull and therefore "kill it" it would have to be writers being forced to write within "GR's Box".

QFT!

I never went into the show ever dreaming I could hate Star Trek

My thoughts exactly on AbramsTrek.

See, I felt exactly the same way when Paramount backed Voyager over Deep Space Nine and THE Flagship Star Trek show on their soon-to-be canceled network.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For one thing, DS9 and VOY ratings need not have diverged if the general viewing audience perceived no significant distinction between the two shows.

On the contrary, there are reasons that it would have been surprising had they not diverged even if they had been perceived as identical in tone and content.

It boils down to the fact that DS9 was broadcast in first-run syndication and Voyager was broadcast in prime time on a network grid - day-and-date, as they say.

Just as had been true for Star Trek ever since TOS was cancelled off of NBC and entered back-end syndication, local station managers had pretty much carte blanche to run TNG and DS9 at any hour of the week. They could put it wherever they thought it would do them the most good, ratings-wise, in their own market.

Voyager, OTOH, was with UPN an entrant in the network prime-time ratings race - it went up against whatever counter-programming FOX, WB and the big three put on that evening, week after week.

Unless one makes the (pretty much impossible to justify) assumption that the potential TV audience for Star Trek was composed entirely of absolutely dedicated viewers who would choose a Trek show over any other offering on the air no matter what, and that the lifestyles of all of these viewers were completely flexible and open as to when during the week they were free to watch television, there pretty much had to be a divergence.

There was also a difference in national coverage - UPN started out with about 86% market coverage in the U.S.; both DS9 and TNG had a wider reach than that in first-run.

Finally, there's a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison in the ratings themselves. The reported ratings for DS9 and TNG were what were called GAA ratings, based on the fact that during an eight-day window each episode could be shown twice as first-run. UPN ran Voyager twice as well, for the first few years, and they pressed Nielsen to provide ratings data for both airings in the same GAA format rather than as was customary for other network prime-time programming. It's hard to say for sure that however the Voyager ratings were finally calculated they provided an exact mapping to those of the syndicated Treks.

All of which is spilt milk now - the Abramsverse owns the future of Star Trek.

 

[Captain Robert April]

As far as potential goes, remember that "Caretaker" beat out Monday Night Football on ABC. So the audience was there, they just squandered their chance.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

For one thing, DS9 and VOY ratings need not have diverged if the general viewing audience perceived no significant distinction between the two shows.

On the contrary, there are reasons that it would have been surprising had they not diverged even if they had been perceived as identical in tone and content.

...

True, thank you. I was addressing a narrow point assuming all other things were equal or a wash. It is unreasonable to ignore the other relevant factors.

However, isn't it interesting that despite all the factors, the decay rates are similar, and the curves seem to overlap pretty closely? Somehow it suggests to me that the viewers approached the post TNG shows in the same way.

 

[MacLeod]

TNG was an exception to the rule, because it was the first revisit of Star Trek. There was a lot of pent up anticipation and interest. And when it recovered from a faltering start in season 3, it really took off. It was becoming tired by Season 6 and everybody knew it, so the production staff worked hard to try finishing it off with reasonable success. And they sure did. DS9 was too slow, too "soap opera in space" like in the beginning, that it lost a lot of TNG viewers. It did make great strides to recover, but by then the damage was already done--not possible to pull back the lost viewers.

I think a big reason for TNG's success was that it a show that was popular with families. DS9 was a great drama, but it got really dark and depressing at times which probably turned off some viewers.

By the time VOY came on most of the audience that had watched TNG were already gone.

Didn't the sum total of episodes of DSN being the lone ST show on the air amount to something like 6 or 7 episodes. Of course DSN didn't get darker till later in it's run. It's 1st season was telling stories that for the most part could have been TNG episodes.

But if you want to mention DSN, DSN was fairly critically acclaimed so some would argue that it was simply weaker story telling in VOY when compared to DSN that alienated the viewer.

Naturally it's each to their own, for me overall I would rate DSN as very good, that isn't to say DSN didn't have it's poor episodes it did, but these were far outweighted by it's good/great/excellent episodes. Conversely I found the opposite to be true in VOY it had far too many poor/average episodes with only the occasionaly good/great/excelletn episodes. You tune in each week hoping that this week is the week VOY will live up to it's predessors.

DSN had developed a host of secondary characters which added to the stories, VOY meanwhile focused on 2/3 characters, the best of which was the EMH, Janeway almost seemed to change her ideals from episode to episode. And of course there was seven who also had some reasonable character development.

As for the others they didn't receive that much development. Kim didn't advance one grade in rank in 7 years, and I'm sorry I don't buy the whole there is only so many rank positions availble. Lets see the NCC-1701-A had hree captain's onboard her. Even if you say that was the exception to the rule ou want to mix things up when Paris was demoted in "Thirty Days" promote Kim to his superior, you change the character dynamic between those two anbd open up possibities.

As for secondary Characters, out of about a crew of 150, we only really say Vorrik and Carey. Even TNG with access to new personnal had a character recur more times than those on VOY, I mean of course O'Brien who was in something like 55 episodes out of 120 before he transferred to DSN in TNG's sixth season. So he appeared in just under half of episodes that he ould have appeared in.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Of course DSN didn't get darker till later in it's run. It's 1st season was telling stories that for the most part could have been TNG episodes.

Funny you should say that, as just this morning I posted the following elsewhere on the board:

I personally thought Battle Lines was the first truly excellent episode of the series, indicative of DS9's willingness to go significantly darker than TNG.

Battle Lines is episode 1x13. Also first season is Duet, episode 1x19, highly acclaimed and dark. So, while I do agree that they started off with a tone similar to that of TNG, they took the left turn towards darkness while still in the first season.

 

[MacLeod]

But "Duet" is classic ST stroy telling. It's about prejuduce and overcoming it. Similar in respects to TOS "Let That Be your Last battlefield" whilst that was about racisim the theme is simialr. I.e you shouldn't judge people based soley on looks.

As for "Battlefield" the only thing DSN did that the other shows might not have done was it didn't fix the fact that Opaka couldn't leave the moon.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But "Duet" is classic ST stroy telling. It's about prejuduce and overcoming it. Similar in respects to TOS "Let That Be your Last battlefield" whilst that was about racisim the theme is simialr. I.e you shouldn't judge people based soley on looks.

As for "Battlefield" the only thing DSN did that the other shows might not have done was it didn't fix the fact that Opaka couldn't leave the moon.

Well yeah, exactly. That is the most obvious thing that differentiates Battle Lines from TNG, and it is really significant.

Spoiler: Duet

But as for Duet, it had the Gandhi ending. It did make the point that you can and should overcome prejudice and forgive and all, but then went ahead and had Marritza get assassinated anyway by a prejudiced Bajoran, not at all what TNG would have done.

 

[MacLeod]

^True, but "Duet" was about Kira facing those aspects of herself.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I agree, it was about Kira.

But before she could fly off to the vanishing point in a star field for next week's exciting adventure, the way TOS and TNG usually ended, having come to terms with some of her demons, they intervened with this really unhappy surprise ending. It was almost like a twist ending on Law & Order when justice is not served.

I just happen to think it's noticeably darker than TNG's usual fare right at that point.

 

[Rarewolf]

It wasn't that I'd seen it all before - used to that - it was that we were now being told Archer did all it first. And it was just too polished and modern for a prequel to TOS.

That makes no sense what so ever. Why in the world would a prequel to TOS need to look dirty, dull and archaic? And why should a show made in the 21st Century and set in the 22nd Century use styles and production values from the mid 20th Century?

That's just it though, TOS was never dirty and dull, it was colourful.

When they remade the 60s bridge for the Mirror Universe story did they fill it with modern designs and production values, or did they keep it faithful, as if they stepped into the 60s? I've never seen it.

And the exterior of the ship - from a design that debuted in First Contact - looked like it could run rings around Voyager. Not primative.

Perhaps I just set my expectations too high - the only lead actor I knew of before Trek, and that I thought failure was not an option.

It just seems though after DS9 and Voyager, both of which I enjoyed, they thought right, popularity is waining lets fall back to basics. Ship must be called Enterprise nothing else can work. And they still couldn't make it work.

I'm not sure how I feel about Abrams' Trek yet. Only saw it for the first time a few months ago. Right now Trek's future is too infrequent for me to care about. But if each film has to be a bigger and better blockbuster than the one before, if each Trek has to have Kirk and Spock and an Enterprise, I think Trek's worse for it. It's not going forward.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It wasn't that I'd seen it all before - used to that - it was that we were now being told Archer did all it first. And it was just too polished and modern for a prequel to TOS.

That makes no sense what so ever. Why in the world would a prequel to TOS need to look dirty, dull and archaic? And why should a show made in the 21st Century and set in the 22nd Century use styles and production values from the mid 20th Century?

That's just it though, TOS was never dirty and dull, it was colourful.

Which doesnt answer the question. Why would a prequel to TOS be dirty? Why shouldn't the design look modern?

When they remade the 60s bridge for the Mirror Universe story did they fill it with modern designs and production values, or did they keep it faithful, as if they stepped into the 60s? I've never seen it.

They tweeked it a bit, but it was recognizable as the TOS design and uses modern production values. But that was a oneoff ( two off?) and not somethong meant to be seen twenty times a year.

And the exterior of the ship - from a design that debuted in First Contact - looked like it could run rings around Voyager. Not primative.

The shillouette was similar but the elements that actually made up the ship took bits from the TOS design and gave them a "retro spin". The nacelles are not like the Akira and it has a dish like the 1701, to name but two. And its a show made in the 21st Century, its going to reflect the design asthetics/expextations of that time and extrapolate on 21st Century technology, not 20th Century technology. Looks are meaning less. There a lot of car proitypes from 50 years ago that look "faster" than todays designs. But they'd still get blown away.

If anything the look of the NX-01 bridge is too primitive for a show set in the next Century.

Perhaps I just set my expectations too high - the only lead actor I knew of before Trek, and that I thought failure was not an option.

It just seems though after DS9 and Voyager, both of which I enjoyed, they thought right, popularity is waining lets fall back to basics. Ship must be called Enterprise nothing else can work. And they still couldn't make it work.

Star Trek should be about a ship called Enterprise. Just like Bonanza should be about a ranch called the Pondorosa.

I'm not sure how I feel about Abrams' Trek yet. Only saw it for the first time a few months ago. Right now Trek's future is too infrequent for me to care about. But if each film has to be a bigger and better blockbuster than the one before, if each Trek has to have Kirk and Spock and an Enterprise, I think Trek's worse for it. It's not going forward.

There's more to going forward that jumping ahead on the calendar. And thats all Trek had been doing prior to ST09. Taking a show from the 60s or 80s to the 21st Century needs more than saying it's 100 years later than the last show, its on a space station or a different ship so we've moved "forward". And if you think it is, then your expectations are too low

 

[Keith1701]

If given the choices in the poll, I'd go with #1, Franchise Fatigue.

However, the unavailability no doubt played a part, just as with VOY. Not to mention the fact that ENT suffered from people using Tivo-style recording devices and watching it later, the numbers of which weren't included in the ratings at the time.

ENT, and televised Trek in general, had a lot of things going against it which led to it's "death."

I would agree with Frachise Fatigue

 

[Rarewolf]

That's just it though, TOS was never dirty and dull, it was colourful.

Which doesnt answer the question. Why would a prequel to TOS be dirty? Why shouldn't the design look modern?
If anything the look of the NX-01 bridge is too primitive for a show set in the next Century.

Star Trek should be about a ship called Enterprise. Just like Bonanza should be about a ranch called the Pondorosa.

Dirt is the wrong word, its more the lighting, the very industrial feel of it. The modern aspects of it, relate it more to Voyager and the Defiant than Kirk's day.

So if Trek should be about a ship called Enterprise, should it not always be about a Captain called Kirk too?

The thing with any prequel is you limit the danger. Will the crew save the Earth? Well, probably given we've seen its future.

At least the new movie with its altered history does allow all bets to be off. So long as you don't look too closely.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That's just it though, TOS was never dirty and dull, it was colourful.

Which doesnt answer the question. Why would a prequel to TOS be dirty? Why shouldn't the design look modern?
If anything the look of the NX-01 bridge is too primitive for a show set in the next Century.

Star Trek should be about a ship called Enterprise. Just like Bonanza should be about a ranch called the Pondorosa.

Dirt is the wrong word, its more the lighting, the very industrial feel of it. The modern aspects of it, relate it more to Voyager and the Defiant than Kirk's day.

So if Trek should be about a ship called Enterprise, should it not always be about a Captain called Kirk too?

The thing with any prequel is you limit the danger. Will the crew save the Earth? Well, probably given we've seen its future.

At least the new movie with its altered history does allow all bets to be off. So long as you don't look too closely.

Enterprise isn't about Kirk's day. So it doesn't and shouldn't look like Kirk's day. The look of Enterprise is based on the look of modern submarines and spacecraft.

You've seen the "the Cage" right? You'll find the colors and look was a differerent than TOS. Muted colors and lots of grays. Very "industrial."

The lighting? Seriously? You want the show to look like it was lit like a show form the 60s????? Seriously??????? Not going to happen in any show produced today or ten years ago.

"Threats" to Earth are a pretty minor factor. The threats are to the ship and crew. Still, the Star Trek films had threats to Earth while TNG, DS9 and VOY were on the air. Did that bother you? Did you think the Enterprise crews would fail to save the Earth that you knew exisited on the TV shows?

 

[Rarewolf]

[Enterprise isn't about Kirk's day. So it doesn't and shouldn't look like Kirk's day. The look of Enterprise is based on the look of modern submarines and spacecraft.

You've seen the "the Cage" right? You'll find the colors and look was a differerent than TOS. Muted colors and lots of grays. Very "industrial."

The lighting? Seriously? You want the show to look like it was lit like a show form the 60s????? Seriously??????? Not going to happen in any show produced today or ten years ago.

Still, the Star Trek films had threats to Earth while TNG, DS9 and VOY were on the air.

How many that would have rewritten events? One. First Contact.

And even the fact Borg turned up in Enterprise does make Picard look a bit neglect in leaving that technology lying around in First Contact.

You can see the evolution from the Cage to TOS, TOS to the Movies, Farpoint to Nemesis.

Ultimatly you are right, they can't remain faithful to TOS (nothing dates quicker than the future) and if I liked the show I'm sure I'd ignore the inconsitancy. It shows TOS up more than it's sequel shows ever did.

But I stopped caring.

 

[Nerys Myk]

[Enterprise isn't about Kirk's day. So it doesn't and shouldn't look like Kirk's day. The look of Enterprise is based on the look of modern submarines and spacecraft.

You've seen the "the Cage" right? You'll find the colors and look was a differerent than TOS. Muted colors and lots of grays. Very "industrial."

The lighting? Seriously? You want the show to look like it was lit like a show form the 60s????? Seriously??????? Not going to happen in any show produced today or ten years ago.

Still, the Star Trek films had threats to Earth while TNG, DS9 and VOY were on the air.

How many that would have rewritten events? One. First Contact.

And even the fact Borg turned up in Enterprise does make Picard look a bit neglect in leaving that technology lying around in First Contact.

You can see the evolution from the Cage to TOS, TOS to the Movies, Farpoint to Nemesis.

Ultimatly you are right, they can't remain faithful to TOS (nothing dates quicker than the future) and if I liked the show I'm sure I'd ignore the inconsitancy. It shows TOS up more than it's sequel shows ever did.

But I stopped caring.

All of them have threats that challenge the future/present of the Trek Universe. Its kind of what movies are supposed to do.

Yeah, I guess it does. If he knew.

What evolution is that? All you can really see is a change in the way the designers of the shows/movies presented the future. Both the movies and the show redressed sets from the other. Which if taken literally means technology yoyoed back and forth a century on a whim.

"Shows up TOS"??? What does that even mean? That it makes TOS look bad?

 

[Rarewolf]

All of them have threats that challenge the future/present of the Trek Universe. Its kind of what movies are supposed to do.

"Shows up TOS"??? What does that even mean? That it makes TOS look bad?

Yes but if an event in Insurrection effected it's present, it wouldn't effect DS9 or Voyager's past. An event in Enterprise effects DS9 before it even starts.

Now as I say Abram's Trek does that. Vulcan's history rewrites a fair bit of TOS, TNG and Voyager.

Yes I think it does make TOS worse off in comparison. That things were so more advanced in TNG than TOS was to be expected (except the human like androids of course, they vanished after TOS!)

And as I say if Kirk is merely following in Archer's (his childhood hero, according to UK marketing) footsteps, rather than setting the trend, if his Enterprise is mearly named after another pioneer of the warp age it undermines him. IMO.