A Cause for the Decline in the Trek Series

[Brolan]

There may be many reasons for Trek's failure the last few years but saturation is not one of them.

If it is good people will watch it. The two proofs for this idea are Law & Order and CSI. Both have been on for years and have had multiple spin-offs of what are essentially the same program. And yet they are still wildly popular.

We need to look elsewhere for Trek's faults.

 

[ktanner3]

Anwar said:
Yes, and WHY did the shows go to shit? That's what we're asking.

And no, it wasn't because of B&B, that's too simple and easy an explanation.

I think I'm pretty clear in my post. The writing went to shit. Period. The actors were great thru all the series.The sets,costumes,etc...The directors knew their stuff. Who does that leave?

 

[Anwar]

Considering the decline began with DS9, not VOY I'd say it was something more complex than that.

 

[anti-matter]

Well I don't want to start a sh!t storm but felt from the beginning that Scott Bakula was a poor choice as Captain of the Enterprise. For the most part he was sullen too mean spirited and lacked that command presence we've grown use to with the other Trek Captains. He did have his moments though.

The lack of compelling characters with a sense of humor didn't help either. Now Shan was compelling just like when he played Weyoon...sometimes I wonder if it was the just the makeup...I dunno. Just wanted to say he's a very good supporting actor and for me I rather have 2 or 3 Shan types circulating in and out of stories to keep me interested.

 

[ktanner3]

Anwar said:
Considering the decline began with DS9, not VOY I'd say it was something more complex than that.

Decline in what? Popularity? If you're talking about ratings then I'd suggest that was due to the fact that there's more programming on T.V than there was in the 1980s.It's easy to dominate syndication when your only competition is game shows.TNG never had any real competition because there wasn't any sci-fi shows on at the time. If TNG had to go against shows like Babylon 5 you would have seen a big difference.

If you're talking about decline in the quality of the show, that is purely objective and IMO it started with Voyager.

 

[Anwar]

It started with UPN and Paramount deciding Trek was a cash-cow due to the TNG formula alone, and thus began their conservatism over how the Trek series would be done from that point onwards.

 

[Noname Given]

ktanner3 said:

Anwar said:
Considering the decline began with DS9, not VOY I'd say it was something more complex than that.

Decline in what? Popularity? If you're talking about ratings then I'd suggest that was due to the fact that there's more programming on T.V than there was in the 1980s.It's easy to dominate syndication when your only competition is game shows.TNG never had any real competition because there wasn't any sci-fi shows on at the time. If TNG had to go against shows like Babylon 5 you would have seen a big difference.

If you're talking about decline in the quality of the show, that is purely objective and IMO it started with Voyager.

Yep, I bet that explains why TNG's numbers continued to rise a bit in seasons 6 and 7 - yet the corresponding seasons 1 & 2 of DS9 continued to decline because we all know who well TNG was written in its last two seasons.

Sorry, but that fact alone blows the 'it's all due to bad writing' argument out of the water (imo). Yes, writing WAS a factor; but it wasn't a mjor one for the general piopulace; which was where the audience fall off happened.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

*blames the fact that Star Trek ended up competing with itself rather than other tv shows and movies*