Maybe the milk you get at home doesn't have the same flavors.
Why do people go to bars when they can get their drinks at home for much less money?
Did Voyager Just Fail to Adapt The Changing Landscape of Televsion
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Maybe the milk you get at home doesn't have the same flavors.
Why do people go to bars when they can get their drinks at home for much less money?
Things getting stale didn't stop you watching.
If "failing to adapt the changing landscape of television" means failing to adapt to the unfortunate current trend of doom, gloom, bickering, blood-splatter and political correctness of the TV series of today, then it did and I'm personally happy that it did that.
As I see it, Voyager's failure was that the writers couldn't handle neither the excellent premise of the show, nor the excellent characters and actors it had.
As I see it, Voyager's failure was that the writers couldn't handle neither the excellent premise of the show, nor the excellent characters and actors it had.
They wanted 7 years.
They got 7 years.
Winning?
Winning!
Now you could argue that it was a financial failure, or even a critical failure, but Voyager made the 7 years it set out to make unlike Enterprise who is not only a failure but has the gall to blame Voyager for cheesing off the fanbase until they had absolutely nothing to work with by the time they were up to bat.
They got 7 years.
Winning?
Winning!
Now you could argue that it was a financial failure, or even a critical failure, but Voyager made the 7 years it set out to make unlike Enterprise who is not only a failure but has the gall to blame Voyager for cheesing off the fanbase until they had absolutely nothing to work with by the time they were up to bat.
Last edited:
"Enterprise" was doomed from the start.
I mean, they have this wonderful 24th century universe with all the possibilities for good stories. Loose ends from the previous series which could have been followed up into something new and exciting but still familiar. And what do they do? They start a retro series about Star Trek before Star Trek! It's like if the music industry would go back to recording like they did in the forties with that technology and 78 rpm records.
Not to mention uninteresting characters, weak stories and constant screwing up of established Trek history
I mean, they have this wonderful 24th century universe with all the possibilities for good stories. Loose ends from the previous series which could have been followed up into something new and exciting but still familiar. And what do they do? They start a retro series about Star Trek before Star Trek! It's like if the music industry would go back to recording like they did in the forties with that technology and 78 rpm records.
Not to mention uninteresting characters, weak stories and constant screwing up of established Trek history
Berman's ridiculous notion that Hoshi wasn't the hottie we were all crushing on.
"Put Jolene in a tighter bodysock, so that maybe, finally the nerds will stop liking my Star Trek wrong."
"Put Jolene in a tighter bodysock, so that maybe, finally the nerds will stop liking my Star Trek wrong."
Last edited:
That looks a teensy bit too Battle Star Glactica dark for my tastes. Though I could be wrong with that.
On the other hand: yay! A continuation of the 24th century!
I still wouldn't want it much darker than Ds9.
Anyway if, IF, CBS would accept or even consider the proposal they would be likely to change it around a lot anyway.
Any new Star Trek Show would be a continuation of the new movies.
Paramount wanted Berman out and Movies in.
Berman had a 10 year contract.
In his last year, they aid him millions not to make anything, because if he started anything, he was allowed to finish it, even if finishing "whatever" exceeded the time-limits of his then current contract.
After all that fuss... If Paramount went back to the TV universe, would they have to pay Berman to use versions of his characters/concepts? What exactly does he own the rights to still?
Paramount wanted Berman out and Movies in.
Berman had a 10 year contract.
In his last year, they aid him millions not to make anything, because if he started anything, he was allowed to finish it, even if finishing "whatever" exceeded the time-limits of his then current contract.
After all that fuss... If Paramount went back to the TV universe, would they have to pay Berman to use versions of his characters/concepts? What exactly does he own the rights to still?
TNG "A Matter Of Time."
TV is pc? How?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ[/yt]
The off thing about the current climate is that you can same some of these words on TV but only during certain hours, and other times only X number of times per hours.
I saw someone say fuck on TV a could days ago and then they bleeped the next fuck uttered twelve seconds later.
High-larious.
The off thing about the current climate is that you can same some of these words on TV but only during certain hours, and other times only X number of times per hours.
I saw someone say fuck on TV a could days ago and then they bleeped the next fuck uttered twelve seconds later.
High-larious.
All your examples are sci-fi - what about other shows? "E.R" started in 1994 and definitely changed the landscape of (US) television.
Michael Piller was definitely ahead of the curve. It was him that really pushed for longer story arcs, like the Kazon/Paris as traitor thing. Regardless of what you thought about that particular arc, it's clear Piller was championing a different way of doing things.
It wasn't just the "serialisation" of shows that Voyager failed to act upon though. Just the pacing of a TV show had changed by the mid-90s. I love TNG, but the sheer length of some of those plodding scenes is hard work, and the way shots were framed (one character close up, another character close up, back to first character etc) - almost like watching a stage play. Voyager simply continued this. This isn't a "stupid TV audience needs lots of fast cuts in order to enjoy anything" kind of thing, but I definitely think a revamp of how an episode was shot/edited together etc would've helped Voyager as well.
I'd say the internet has done a lot to make this ubiquity of swearing socially acceptable. The idea that language should be tailored for different social situations is going the way of the dodo.
The guy in charge of the bleeps dozed off...
The whole 'Gritty doom and gloom' trend didn't really start until 2001, though.
I don't think Voyager failed to adapt to the changing landscape of television. I just think it failed to change. It failed to give viewers something they weren't already used to. They needed more new blood in the writing staff.
I don't think Voyager failed to adapt to the changing landscape of television. I just think it failed to change. It failed to give viewers something they weren't already used to. They needed more new blood in the writing staff.
You don't expect the writers to fire themselves though.
I don't disagree really, especially about the 'shooting style' thing. A lot of the way those shows were shot by the end were very static. Audiences were definitely expecting things to be more pepped up by 2001.
The reason I didn't overtly compare Trek to something like "E.R." was simply a genre thing. I kind of expect something domestic, set in a police station or a hospital, to have some degree of serialisation by default; but it was things like "Buffy" that brought that to the mainstream in the Sci-fi/Fantasy genre. Those were the trendsetters IMO.
(Of course, as you know, UK television was well ahead of US TV in this regard, heavily serialising sci-fi shows from almost the very beginning with your Nigel Kneale's and the like.)
I never quite got the obsession over "shooting styles" of shows. I know it's been a hot button topic with a lot of television, indeed when Enterprise was cancelled some folks like Ron Moore blamed the fact the shows have been shot in the same manner since TNG began. I'm not saying I object to shaky cams and all the other tricks being done these days to make the camera "a part of the action" but at the same time, if none of that is present it doesn't bother me. Never have I looked at a scene and thought "nice camera work."
Although sometimes, this does get taken overboard. Most infamously, the Abrams Trek movies with the overdone lens flares, a supposed reaction to supposed "wooden feel" of previous Treks. In all honesty, I'll take TOS at its cheapest 1960s production value over another damn lens flare any day of the week.
Although sometimes, this does get taken overboard. Most infamously, the Abrams Trek movies with the overdone lens flares, a supposed reaction to supposed "wooden feel" of previous Treks. In all honesty, I'll take TOS at its cheapest 1960s production value over another damn lens flare any day of the week.
