What weakened Trek, and what can restore it?

[The Castellan]

The Prophets represent the more mystical side of sci fi, and I've noticed it's not always a good fit for the rational Star Trek approach. So downplaying that seems like a good idea too.

Nothing wrong with mixing the two. The problem with the world I see it is that the scientific and spiritual elements have been segregated. And many great people in science did have spiritual sides to them. Problem with rationality is that it can be over emphasized.

Like with Albo's line, here:

I'd like to see some of 'the gift' return, as it were.

 

[F. King Daniel]

What weakened Trek,

Too many shitty episodes.

and what can restore it?

Less shitty episodes.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If only it were that simple! But I can think of too many examples of good shows that got unjustly cancelled while garbage endures.

 

[MacLeod]

^Well perhaps part of that is down to audiance expectations. Given the highs of TNG and DSN, perhaps the audiance came to expect a certain level of quality which began to diminish as more and more Trek was made.

Whilst for other shows the audiance expectation of terms of script quality was lower.

 

[Silversmok3]

Problem number 1: The Movies sucked Elephant turds. Generations was trash, First Contact was barely watchable,Insurrection felt like a TV season finale and Nemesis put the final bullet into the franchise before JJ Abrams' movie. For a TV show to function it has to draw viewers and entertain steady viewers. Good luck getting people to choose watching a Star Trek TV show if the last movie they saw was a dung festival of ATVs, illogical villains and plot holes big enough for Jupiter to fly through.

Problem #2:the show has to be relevant. The 1960s concept of technology curing mankinds' ills is noble, but the average citizen living in the year 2012 understands technology doesn't change anything about a man. If man has used every piece of technology from the first sharpened stick all the way up to the Atom Bomb to kill, maim, and exploit his fellow man, what's so special about warp drive? We have starships now, so we as a multi-billion person society suddenly don't care about money or power? To that, lots of casual TV watchers said "yeah right" and clicked the channel. Its hard to retain viewers if they think the foundation of the show is a pipe dream.

Voyager's problem was that , within the realm of plausibility as the series was written, the crew would never have made it back to Earth alive. Since Voyager blowing up would pose serious writing challenges, the writers kept hitting the reset button, which took the fun out of watching an episode. What's the point of tuning in when you know no matter what alien ship attacks, what regulation Janeway breaks or who dies in the episode, that ship will somehow wind up intact with an intact crew by the end of the episode via some lame Deus Ex Machina situation.

Both TNG and Voyager suffered from relevance problems, and just plain bad writing.DS9 is a pretty good show for the same reasons TNG and Voyager crashed and burned-the plots made sense, the characters grew, and people and aliens behaved in logical, understandable, and sometimes questionable ways. Sisko and Co. didn't delve into pointless speeches about justice and ethics in Ops during battle, nor did the station magically avoid damage and permanent consequence after every bad event . Unfortunately, the name "Star Trek" kept folks away.

What Battlestar Galactica 2003 is, is what Star Trek could have been with halfway-competent writing. Instead the series turned to manure, and the consequences are upon us now. To go forward, we need competent writing & logical stories with permanent consequence and relate-able characters. If that's not possible, better to not even green-light another TV series. Lord knows there's enough garbage Trek TV.

 

[MacLeod]

Well to be fair, we did see DSN suffer damage from to time and it to be fully reapaired by the start of the next episode, (remember when the pylon was blown off?).

But with the first 3 shows, it wouldn't be unreasanable to say the Enterrpise put into spacedock between episodes. And Starbase Deep Space Nine being a front line station recieved priority for repair etc...

So VOY was not alone in hitting the reset button for damage between stories. However due to it's premise it's use was more glaring on VOY.

And yes I'm a DSN fan.

 

[R. Star]

Quality of work, while subject to personal and varying opinions, is only part of the issue. Some like TNG best, I happened to like DS9 best, VOY and ENT had wide critics for various reasons. But that's not all of what killed Trek.

Let's rewind back to the 90's when TNG and DS9 were in their prime. There were less channels and choices back then. Your standard cable package back in the early 90's had like 20 channels. Today my standard cable package has over 200. That's more things people can be watching at any time when Trek comes on. And people are naturally going to switch the channel to what they like, even if Trek is something they'd find mildly entertaining.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

To draw new viewers into a Trek series, there would need to be a well-known actor/tress involved, someone who people might decide, "I liked him/her in that other thing they did, so I might give this a watch and see".

And by well-known I don't mean someone who had a quirky hit in the 80s and a catchphrase.

Oh boy.

 

[DWF]

To draw new viewers into a Trek series, there would need to be a well-known actor/tress involved, someone who people might decide, "I liked him/her in that other thing they did, so I might give this a watch and see".

And by well-known I don't mean someone who had a quirky hit in the 80s and a catchphrase.

Oh boy.

Scott Bakula was far better known to the public whem Enterprise started than Patrick Stewart was to Americans when TNG started.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

TNG had the benefit of being the first Trek series on TV in almost 20 years, during a time when TV was simpler. Now with so many channels and shows, it would need something to bring in new viewers, whilst tighter writing and better story-telling will restore the existing fans faith in the franchise.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The lead actor casting is pretty crucial, especially the credibility that the actor has for any given audience. For instance, let's pretend that the next series might show up on FOX. (Unlikely to get CBS approval but you never know.)

Since the show Kiefer Sutherland is currently on is probably going to get canned this coming season, FOX will be looking for another show to put him in, because they know he's more bankable than any particular show they ever get pitched, if he agreed to do a show, it's chances of getting greenlit would increase greatly. And since he's a talented and professional actor, there would be no need to worry that his starship captain would be too Jack Bauerish. Audiences would quickly adjust.

Or, there's also the example of Kevin Bacon headlining another FOX show this season - a movie actor doing TV for the first time gives th show credibility because movies are still seen as more prestigious than TV even though TV offers better roles now, which is why aging movie actors are willing to make the switch. So think of actors in their 30s and 40s or even older whose movie careers are fizzling.

 

[Greg Cox]

The lead actor casting is pretty crucial, especially the credibility that the actor has for any given audience. For instance, let's pretend that the next series might show up on FOX. (Unlikely to get CBS approval but you never know.) .

I'm not sure genre shows really need a name star. As you've pointed out, WALKING DEAD is a hit and that wasn't launched with a lot of star power.

Genre shows, perhaps more than most, tend to be sold on their high concept more than their cast, at least at first.

 

[Knight Templar]

I think better writing would cover a multitude of sins.

 

[The Transformed Man]

Perhaps, but the slow decline of TV ratings is not why Enterprise plummeted from something like 12 million to 5 million viewers in one season. That was because the show was boring and casual Trek fans were not interested in it.

Enterprise NEVER had 12 million viewers. The show debuted with 5.9 million viewers (I know some sites claim 12.5 million viewers, but the Neilsen rating for the premiere of Broken Bow was a 7.0... I suspect the 12.5 million total came from total viewers from the week as local syndicates were showing the premiere of Enterprise on the following Sunday too), the final episode had 3.5 million viewers.

here's a great article (from this very website) which dispels a lot of the myths perpetuated about the viewing numbers of Trek over the years:

http://www.trektoday.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml

A lot of the problem with Trek in later years had less to do with the product and more the ill fated decision to move Trek from syndication to the struggling UPN Network, which throughout both VOYs and ENTs run had difficulties determining just what kind of network UPN was and was bleeding stations throughout both shows runs.

Yancy

 

[DWF]

Sorry but if DS9 was as great of a show as it's made out to be it would've gotten the ratings TNG got, instead of eventually getting beaten by Hercules and Xena in the same markets. TNG was put up against Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune in syndication and they were giants getting far higher ratings then TNG was capable of getting in their early years.

There's no real way to ignore Trek's overexposure in the '90s. People were more inclined to give a fledging series like The X-Files a chance on a then minor network, FOX.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Sorry but if DS9 was as great of a show as it's made out to be it would've gotten the ratings TNG got, instead of eventually getting beaten by Hercules and Xena in the same markets.

Not when it constantly had to fight it's "cousin" shows and do it without studio support.

Berman's general disdain for the show is well known and documented from writer/producer interviews. (Though that turned out to be something of a blessing as well as it allowed them to get around his idiotic restrictions as to story tone and content). That disdain meant few crossovers/cross-promotions, lack of support from Marketing, and cheap shots like trying to Destroy the Defiant in First Contact.

There's no real way to ignore Trek's overexposure in the '90s.

They could have let DS9 carry the torch solo and the "overexposure" would have been reduced, but NOOOO, that would mean acknowledging it was a show with value, far superior to the smarmy, self-righteous and pretentious later years of TNG or the vapid, paint-by-numbers "reset button" Voyager.

DS9 had stronger writing, better-drawn characters who were allowed to live and breathe instead of being locked into their cookie-cutter archtypes, and an amazing 7-year through story that showed us a more realistic look at the Federation, warts and all.

 

[DWF]

Sorry but if DS9 was as great of a show as it's made out to be it would've gotten the ratings TNG got, instead of eventually getting beaten by Hercules and Xena in the same markets.

Not when it constantly had to fight it's "cousin" shows and do it without studio support.

Berman's general disdain for the show is well known and documented from writer/producer interviews. (Though that turned out to be something of a blessing as well as it allowed them to get around his idiotic restrictions as to story tone and content). That disdain meant few crossovers/cross-promotions, lack of support from Marketing, and cheap shots like trying to Destroy the Defiant in First Contact.

There's no real way to ignore Trek's overexposure in the '90s.

They could have let DS9 carry the torch solo and the "overexposure" would have been reduced, but NOOOO, that would mean acknowledging it was a show with value, far superior to the smarmy, self-righteous and pretentious later years of TNG or the vapid, paint-by-numbers "reset button" Voyager.

DS9 had stronger writing, better-drawn characters who were allowed to live and breathe instead of being locked into their cookie-cutter archtypes, and an amazing 7-year through story that showed us a more realistic look at the Federation, warts and all.

Voyager and Enterprise had far moer restrictions than DS9 did and there was really one crossover, Birthright. And it was Worf who was added to DS9 to try and punch up their ratings. DS9 and Voyager weren't in competition one was in snydication and the other a network show.

In the end DS9 faded away just as Voyager adn Enterprise did and only TNG has remained in the public eye of the modern Trek shows. And there's no proof that letting DS9 carry the torch by themselves would've made a difference, DS9 was having a hard time beating Hercules and Xena and it was B5 who won two Hugos in a row.

 

[MacLeod]

I think better writing would cover a multitude of sins.

I would tend to agree, even the best actors can struggle to overcome a mediocre script.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

What weakened Star Trek?

From my observation in my lifetime, it was the failing health and death of Gene Roddenberry that lead to the weakened Star Trek. I say lead because Rick Berman was Gene's handpicked successor. In numerous interviews that Mr. Berman has done, he has consistently stated he hated The Original Series and let his own bias degrade Star Trek from what it was originally to the drivel they called Enterprise. What was his stated reasons for the deviations from The Original Series canon and chronology? He hated it and this is why he let writers denigrate and destroy what Gene had worked hard to build originally with The Original Series.

What can restore Star Trek?

The only way to restore Star Trek is to get an executive producer that not only understands the original vision behind Star Trek, but also respects it. This means that they would have to act decisively to remove or explain away anything that contradicts The Original Series canon and/or those things that do not fit with the well written and established vision of Gene Roddenberry. If that ruffles some feathers and creates fan outrage, so be it. If an executive producer can do this and stand by it then we will see a restored Star Trek.

I would even be bold enough to say that the executive producer should hire a series curator that will go through every episode with a fine tooth comb to determine if what was written by those that wanted to destroy Gene's vision canon or not.

However, there must be a single concession from Gene's original vision. Star Trek is fine as an alternate timeline from our own, while still hammering home the message of hope for our future. Part of the problems with the writing with later shows is the refusal to accept that this is an alternate timeline while maintaining this is our future. This presents a false extreme with alternate timeline being one and our future being the other. There can be a happy medium between the two as long as we, as a species, learn from what is being taught to us by Star Trek. In this aspect, Gene was very shortsighted, but that does not diminish what he has given us to begin with.

 

[F. King Daniel]

This means that they would have to act decisively to remove or explain away anything that contradicts The Original Series canon and/or those things that do not fit with the well written and established vision of Gene Roddenberry.

And what do they do where The Original Series contradicts The Original Series? You'd have a very, very small Star Trek canon left over at the end.