So what killed Star Trek?
- Thread starter ChristopherPike
- Start date
The studio execs will always have the same constraints - follow the audience - and the audience breaking into smaller niche tastes is not a trend that is going to reverse (why should it? everything is pushing it to keep going). So I only see the situation further away from an environment in which broadcast can do space opera. What's more likely is that broadcast TV itself ceases to exist, in the sense of being less nichey than its cable competition.
The distinction between broadcast and cable is a fake one anyway, now that everything is digital, just based on historical inertia. The only thing stopping "broadcast" from becoming cable is that they'd have a hard time convincing consumers to start paying them for subscriptions. Which makes no sense - why should CBS be free but we have to pay for AMC? Only because we're used to not paying, and it's extremely hard to get people to pay for something they're used to getting for free.
It's not really fair to CBS that they have to compete on that footing, of course they're at a disadvantage. So maybe CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX and CW will go out of business, one after another (not in that order though), and their assets and audience appeal will be redistributed to cable channels or re-formed under the aegis of new cable channels.
And that's how you get people to pay for what they're used to getting for free. Discard the free brand and use the assets to create a paid one. Rename CBS as, say, SBC and you can overcome the resistance to people paying for it, even if all the same employees work at the new SBC, in the same building with a new logo in the lobby. As long as SBC has a new brand image and sells products that seem fundamentally different - and appealing - it doesn't matter that it's just CBS switched around.
Our theoretical new channels SBC, CBA, CBN, and XOF (ooh I like that one
) would still need to figure out how to survive competing with cable. They could be cable-light, sort of like TNT now, as opposed to the more strongly defined channels like AMC and FX.
I could see a Star Trek series on SBC that taps a bit into the cable idea of an antihero as main characters, with a Starfleet captain along the lines of Raylan Givens of Justified - kind of a loose cannon patrolling the frontier of the Federation and fighting evildoers without actually being a Boy Scout himself.
Another way to go is to keep the noble, upstanding Starfleet captain and throw a lot of horrible shit at him, like Rick Grimes of The Walking Dead. The Borg would be a tempting stand-in for the zombies, as long as they are treated with more respect than they were on VOY. Or, the threat could be something else.
Once you've got those cable subscriptions shoring up the budget, you have the freedom to go a bit nichier and not ever need a 20M audience or anything like it. By dispersing the mass audience to cable, you create a bigger market for several TNT style cable-lite channels and increase the odds that one might try Star Trek or other space opera, especially if the cop-on-the-beat elements of TOS could be resurrected to tap into the taste for cop shows.
The distinction between broadcast and cable is a fake one anyway, now that everything is digital, just based on historical inertia. The only thing stopping "broadcast" from becoming cable is that they'd have a hard time convincing consumers to start paying them for subscriptions. Which makes no sense - why should CBS be free but we have to pay for AMC? Only because we're used to not paying, and it's extremely hard to get people to pay for something they're used to getting for free.
It's not really fair to CBS that they have to compete on that footing, of course they're at a disadvantage. So maybe CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX and CW will go out of business, one after another (not in that order though), and their assets and audience appeal will be redistributed to cable channels or re-formed under the aegis of new cable channels.
And that's how you get people to pay for what they're used to getting for free. Discard the free brand and use the assets to create a paid one. Rename CBS as, say, SBC and you can overcome the resistance to people paying for it, even if all the same employees work at the new SBC, in the same building with a new logo in the lobby. As long as SBC has a new brand image and sells products that seem fundamentally different - and appealing - it doesn't matter that it's just CBS switched around.
Our theoretical new channels SBC, CBA, CBN, and XOF (ooh I like that one
) would still need to figure out how to survive competing with cable. They could be cable-light, sort of like TNT now, as opposed to the more strongly defined channels like AMC and FX.I could see a Star Trek series on SBC that taps a bit into the cable idea of an antihero as main characters, with a Starfleet captain along the lines of Raylan Givens of Justified - kind of a loose cannon patrolling the frontier of the Federation and fighting evildoers without actually being a Boy Scout himself.
Another way to go is to keep the noble, upstanding Starfleet captain and throw a lot of horrible shit at him, like Rick Grimes of The Walking Dead. The Borg would be a tempting stand-in for the zombies, as long as they are treated with more respect than they were on VOY. Or, the threat could be something else.
Once you've got those cable subscriptions shoring up the budget, you have the freedom to go a bit nichier and not ever need a 20M audience or anything like it. By dispersing the mass audience to cable, you create a bigger market for several TNT style cable-lite channels and increase the odds that one might try Star Trek or other space opera, especially if the cop-on-the-beat elements of TOS could be resurrected to tap into the taste for cop shows.
Squiggy - I'm thoroughly dismayed that ENT wasn't represented in that video. Though, since they ripped on all the other series, as an ENT fan, I'm also happy about it. 
Another factor is that there isn't really a need for a Star Trek, in the sense that we no longer need a science fiction show to comment on societal ills to get by network censors; mainstream shows with present day settings can now state their observations flat out in plain English.
Now, mind you, sometimes a sci-fi show can make the comment better by coming at you from a slight angle, then slapping you upside the head with the point. Case in point, TNG's "The Measure of a Man", and the discussion between Picard and Guinan about "disposable people."
That's one of those moments that throws you back in your seat, because the story has now taken a major shift in tone.
So, while sci-fi can generally do that sort of thing better than other genres, it's no longer the only genre that can easily get away with it, so there's no longer that driving need for a show like Star Trek.
Makes the sales pitch just a tad tougher.
Now, mind you, sometimes a sci-fi show can make the comment better by coming at you from a slight angle, then slapping you upside the head with the point. Case in point, TNG's "The Measure of a Man", and the discussion between Picard and Guinan about "disposable people."
That's one of those moments that throws you back in your seat, because the story has now taken a major shift in tone.
So, while sci-fi can generally do that sort of thing better than other genres, it's no longer the only genre that can easily get away with it, so there's no longer that driving need for a show like Star Trek.
Makes the sales pitch just a tad tougher.
In Balance of Terror, a atomic weapon just about trashed the Enterprise, it did more damage than other, more "futuristic," weapons used against the ship during the series. Stargate made good use of nuclear weapons. Science fictions novels use them frequently, I'm current reading a Honor Harrington story, the nukes fly like rain drops in a summer shower.
A couple of large caliber gattling guns covering Archers starboard airlock would have worked too.
And that goes double for Malcolm.
You mean he shouldn't have toned down his real accent? I agree.
Most people I know refused to watch Enterprise because
a) they thought the prequel premise was a lame idea
b) the series looked far too advanced to be accepted as a credible prequel
I'm talking about average viewers, mind you ... not some die hard fans.
a) they thought the prequel premise was a lame idea
b) the series looked far too advanced to be accepted as a credible prequel
I'm talking about average viewers, mind you ... not some die hard fans.
The average viewers wouldn't have cared. They just couldn't be bothered by a series that was basically the same as TNG and yet too Trek-specific for the masses to grasp its hidden riches.
Or something along those lines.
Or something along those lines.
I think the general sentiment could best be summed up as, "Jesus Christ, ANOTHER ONE!?!"
But they did! I know lots of average viewers that thought the idea of that visually advanced series called Enterprise was supposed to be set a hundred years before the "Kirk Series" was simply ridiculous, and they were right somehow.
The die hard fans could see beyond that, but the average viewer felt cheated. Other than that, prequels are being met with skepticism anyway, as it often is a sign of creative bancruptcy. I think a post Nemesis series would have worked much better and would have been a lot more convincing.
I wouldn't say that. I knew lots of people looking forward to a new series back then, but went skeptic when they heard it was a prequel and backed off completely after the first episode, for the reasons I stated above.
Really? About the only people I know who (apart from myself) watched this show were not ST fans.
But you're probably right. I haven't done any research, anyway, and was just talking from personal experience.
But you're probably right. I haven't done any research, anyway, and was just talking from personal experience.
I don't know anyone that worried about it being a prequel. Look how many movies are doing prequels. What I observed from the general public was ...
1. Don't care.
2. Afraid to be caught watching or talking about Star Trek and being labled a Trekkie.
3. Didn't know the difference between DS9, VOY or ENT. It was all "The Trek show after TNG."
4. Lost interest after asking "Is Spock in it?"
5. Was too busy talkiing about that new American Idol show and all the other reality junk.
6. UPN? What is UPN?
1. Don't care.
2. Afraid to be caught watching or talking about Star Trek and being labled a Trekkie.
3. Didn't know the difference between DS9, VOY or ENT. It was all "The Trek show after TNG."
4. Lost interest after asking "Is Spock in it?"
5. Was too busy talkiing about that new American Idol show and all the other reality junk.
6. UPN? What is UPN?
Exactly. I'm so sick of prequels!
There used to be a time here in the UK when Star Trek in one form or another was on the tele non stop - now you hardly ever see it. DS9 was on sky 2 there for a while but that's been it.
I'm pretty sure Enterprise was already over and done with before I ever saw an episode, which is a shame because I thought season 3/4 were top class Trek and there was so much more to come from it.
I'm pretty sure Enterprise was already over and done with before I ever saw an episode, which is a shame because I thought season 3/4 were top class Trek and there was so much more to come from it.
Yeah that's true, I think I have 160 channels of which about 145 are naff, I dont have CBS Action or Sky Atlantic - pest really.
In Balance of Terror, a atomic weapon just about trashed the Enterprise, it did more damage than other, more "futuristic," weapons used against the ship during the series. Stargate made good use of nuclear weapons. Science fictions novels use them frequently, I'm current reading a Honor Harrington story, the nukes fly like rain drops in a summer shower.
A couple of large caliber gattling guns covering Archers starboard airlock would have worked too.
And that goes double for Malcolm.
Erm, Malcolm was speaking normal English with an English accent. Being that the character was a Brit being portrayed by a Brit.
