Fans, why did the ratings slide?

[Warped9]

This is something of a companion thread to "Fans, why do you like..." I just don't want to derail that thread and risk it getting too far afield because I'm finding it informative.

But as devoted fans: why do you think the ratings slide continued downward and never reversed?

After TNG's peak in the early '90s why couldn't VOY reverse the slipping ratings?

Was the mainstream audience turning its back and why?

 

[Warped9]

Not to seek to derail this thread...

But I presume you are planning to start a thread on why The Original Series was never a big success, during those original NBC broadcasts?

I recognise how you hold Star Trek to a higher standard than any of its spin-offs, but this latest round of topics per series does seem to carry more of a bias.

Fair enough. I was just trying to think how to reword the question there.

As I mentioned I'm writing up something of a retrospective for the franchise. I have my own thoughts on all this stuff, but thats only my perspective. As in many things I suspect there's always more than one or two reasons why something is popular or conversely unsuccessful. In fairness I want to offer up other views. It isn't sufficient to simply say, "It tanked because it sucked." You have to at least try to be more articulate and specific as to why something worked or not.

 

[Jaespol]

1. An increase in competition - there were many other sci-fi shows and fantasy shows on at the same time that were also successful.
2. Trek fatigue
3. People got fed up of the complete lack of attention to continuity in Voyager and just gave up.

 

[Karnbeln]

The switch to being shown exclusively on the rookie network of UPN rather than nationwide syndication probably didn't help, either. Over the years while going to various sites I've heard many complain that they never got to see Voyager during its run because their area had no UPN affiliate.

Conversely, this probably also hurt DS9, which stayed syndicated, because in markets that did have UPN it was separated from its more advertised sibling when on a different channel and forced into less prime tv slots when on a UPN affiliate since UPN took over the channel after 8 on weekdays and after 7 on weekends. It got lucky where I lived because it aired right before Voyager's 7 o'clock Saturday showing, but then it was still a Saturday afternoon show.

I'd also assume the switch to being networked also hurt it due to the producers having to bow to the wishes of the network. UPN, I've been told, wanted to make the show as much like TNG as possible and rejected any recurring storylines to make the show as purely episodic as they could. The result probably helped give the show its overly sterile feeling.

Voyager was also sort of out of place on UPN. Aside from a few other sci-fi efforts like "Seven Days" and "The Sentinel", which both didn't last long, the network was populated by second-rate sit-coms that constantly circulated in and out and, later, "WWE Smackdown!". The target demographic of UPN, especially as time went on (it is especially jarring during Enterprise) did not mesh with Star Trek.

This also has no proof, but I get the impression that the public consciousness's view of Star Trek and Star Trek fans continually dropped from its high point during the TOS movies and middle TNG during the 90s and 2000s. The image of the anti-social, out-of-touch-with-reality, living in-mom's-basement, acne-covered, canon-questioning, fat, white male as the stereotypical Trek fan was in full effect and no one would even give something with the word "Star" in the name a chance (no, not even "Star Wars" was truly cool at the time. The exposure from the prequels brought it back into prominence, and the growth of "geek chic" made being a slight nerd (but only a SLIGHT) cool, and things like "Star Wars", superhero movies, and video games fit that bill). The public, even if all other things worked out perfectly, would have never watched it anyway. They never knew about the reset buttons or wooden characters or contrived coincidences or excessive technobabble (the public may be aware of technobabble, but they were exposed to it in TNG and parodies of Trek) or any other thing Trek fans like to nitpick about Voyager because they never watched an episode anyway.

 

[kimc]

Personally I think the show was mismanaged by UPN. From the way the suits allowed their nervousness over a woman captain to influence the actresses acting style to the way the cheesy/misleading advertising insulted the viewers' intelligence. Also, there was some time slot shifting as I recall.

 

[Tachyon]

Ya'll make it sound like Voyager was a flop. Which it was not.

 

[AuntKate]

It was mismanaged before that, KimC. UPN was a new network and tried to use Voyager to force independent TV stations to join up. If a market area's indy stations refused, UPN wouldn't consider letting them carry the series. So, from day one, Voyager was NOT shown in all markets. That may not seem like a big deal until you realize that St. Louis, for example, is one market that didn't have Voyager. That's not small potatoes. From what I've read, only about 85% of the viewers in the U.S. had access to the network. The rest of the programming was so abysmal and spotty that people quickly forgot about it. Too bad for Voyagerl.

 

[teya]

^ It wasn't exactly a hit--either in audience or critical terms.

A lot of the problem was Trek burnout--they simply expanded too much, too fast.

And as Ron Moore commented in a recent article about NuTrek, the franchise was choking on its own continuity. There was just too much history to be able to be fresh. I found that an interesting point.

 

[Jaespol]

There was just too much history to be able to be fresh. I found that an interesting point.

The whole point of Voyager was to get away from that however.
I think Voyager and DS9 would have faired much better if they had no been mistrated, I could see them doing well in a primetime slot on a main network (NBC, CBS etc) - it attracts exactly the right demographics.

 

[teya]

There was just too much history to be able to be fresh. I found that an interesting point.

The whole point of Voyager was to get away from that however.
I think Voyager and DS9 would have faired much better if they had no been mistrated, I could see them doing well in a primetime slot on a main network (NBC, CBS etc) - it attracts exactly the right demographics.

But Voyager is still part of the Star Trek universe, so could never be divorced from canon.

And given the television trends of the time, no, it wouldn't have done well on a major network. Although it is heresy to say to sci-fi fans, the genre just isn't hugely popular to the mainstream.

 

[freak]

I think the ratings declined simply by it not being continuous and was getting tiresome to some fans. I found myself getting annoyed around year five or so. Also, there was a lot of competition with sci-fi shows at the time..but I do know that Voyager was the most picked up show on UPN..it just had way too much competition and not enough people watched the show for what it simply was-an exciting sci-fi adventure about a ship getting stranded across the galaxy, far away from Starfleet. WHEW!

 

[The Grim Ghost]

Crap network + general loss of interest in Trek I believe.

On a side note, people like to make out that Voyager was a complete failure and that just isn't true.

The show was on for SEVEN years. Shows that aren't making money "upn flagship show" or not just don't have runs like that. Granted a lot of it probably came from merchandising, but seriously how many science fiction programs are on for seven years?

 

[Fish1941]

People got fed up of the complete lack of attention to continuity in Voyager and just gave up.

And yet they tolerated the lack of attention to continuity in the TREK movies, Next Generation and Deep Space Nine?

Gee, how tolerant of them. I guess they preferred turning a blind eye to TNG and DS9's continuity flaws and ranting over VOY's continuity flaws.

 

[TheGodBen]

Gee, how tolerant of them. I guess they preferred turning a blind eye to TNG and DS9's continuity flaws and ranting over VOY's continuity flaws.

Voyager aired at a different time than TNG, the television landscape and sci-fi in particular had moved towards a more serialised format. Voyager failed to adopt this approach and it felt like it was living in the past. DS9 on the other hand at least tried a semi-serialised format. It wasn't perfect, but they managed to keep most of the balls in the air while dropping a few.

And when people talk about continuity flaws on Voyager, they're not talking about messing up minor details mentioned in previous episodes, they're talking about the fact that the show rarely referenced past events. If you're looking for an example of this read my "hater revisits" thread and read on from The Killing Game which I watched a few days ago. The Hirogen captured the ship and completely trashed it, Janeway blew up sickbay, the hologrid was destroyed... but in the next episode the ship is miraculously repaired and Tom has apparently been goofing off in the holodeck for "a few weeks". That's the sort of thing I'm complaining about when I say Voyager had bad continuity.

 

[Tachyon]

I don't think your average viewer is even thinking about continuity issues out there and by average viewers I mean people outside of hard-core Trek fandom. And such people did watch Voyager then and they do watch its reruns now.

So I am with destro with this one.

Voyager was not as successful as TNG for instance, but it was not a failure either. And I don't remember that there was any uncertainty whether there would be seventh season of Voyager like there was in DS9's case. So I guess some ratings did a little sliding for DS9 as well. And I shall not write how many seasons Enterprise had. Lol.

 

[Karnbeln]

They may not be nitpicking how things contradict with statements from several episodes ago, like the hardcore fandom, but if they're watching at all from week to week, they may just think, "Wait. Wasn't that just blown up?" as in the hologrid example. I'd give people more credit than that (although I do agree with your general point that most aren't pulling apart the series like we are, and some forget this).

 

[Tachyon]

On the other hand, if average viewer jumped in an episode of DS9 on some random week and a big story arc was going on, perhaps such a person would have watched the episode in hand for five minutes, asked "WTF" and switched the channel.

Could have happened. Continutity can work either way. (And I believe that was the reason TPTB didn't want to make so many story arcs with Voyager)

 

[Fish1941]

Gee, how tolerant of them. I guess they preferred turning a blind eye to TNG and DS9's continuity flaws and ranting over VOY's continuity flaws.

Voyager aired at a different time than TNG, the television landscape and sci-fi in particular had moved towards a more serialised format. Voyager failed to adopt this approach and it felt like it was living in the past. DS9 on the other hand at least tried a semi-serialised format. It wasn't perfect, but they managed to keep most of the balls in the air while dropping a few.

And when people talk about continuity flaws on Voyager, they're not talking about messing up minor details mentioned in previous episodes, they're talking about the fact that the show rarely referenced past events. If you're looking for an example of this read my "hater revisits" thread and read on from The Killing Game which I watched a few days ago. The Hirogen captured the ship and completely trashed it, Janeway blew up sickbay, the hologrid was destroyed... but in the next episode the ship is miraculously repaired and Tom has apparently been goofing off in the holodeck for "a few weeks". That's the sort of thing I'm complaining about when I say Voyager had bad continuity.

I'm sorry, but this does not convince me that VOY's continuity issues were worse than TNG or DS9. I still believe that all three shows, along with the movies had, occasionally, some series continuity issues. And yes, DS9 dropped the ball . . . a lot. But that did not stop me from being a TREK fan.

 

[Jaespol]

On the other hand, if average viewer jumped in an episode of DS9 on some random week and a big story arc was going on, perhaps such a person would have watched the episode in hand for five minutes, asked "WTF" and switched the channel.

That's very true, there has got to be some sort of middle ground, continuous enough so that you wouldn't be pissing off fans but not too continuous you might alienate new viewers, its tricky.

Gee, how tolerant of them. I guess they preferred turning a blind eye to TNG and DS9's continuity flaws and ranting over VOY's continuity flaws.

Voyager aired at a different time than TNG, the television landscape and sci-fi in particular had moved towards a more serialised format. Voyager failed to adopt this approach and it felt like it was living in the past. DS9 on the other hand at least tried a semi-serialised format. It wasn't perfect, but they managed to keep most of the balls in the air while dropping a few.

And when people talk about continuity flaws on Voyager, they're not talking about messing up minor details mentioned in previous episodes, they're talking about the fact that the show rarely referenced past events. If you're looking for an example of this read my "hater revisits" thread and read on from The Killing Game which I watched a few days ago. The Hirogen captured the ship and completely trashed it, Janeway blew up sickbay, the hologrid was destroyed... but in the next episode the ship is miraculously repaired and Tom has apparently been goofing off in the holodeck for "a few weeks". That's the sort of thing I'm complaining about when I say Voyager had bad continuity.

I'm sorry, but this does not convince me that VOY's continuity issues were worse than TNG or DS9. I still believe that all three shows, along with the movies had, occasionally, some series continuity issues. And yes, DS9 dropped the ball . . . a lot. But that did not stop me from being a TREK fan.

I'm sorry but you really need to watch Voyager again. I watched the whole season over the course of the summer and the huge lack of continuity was blinding - and keep in mind I had never read any forums or any online reviews, it was just my honest view.

 

[TheGodBen]

But that did not stop me from being a TREK fan.

I'm not saying it should, I'm still a Trek fan even though I recognise Voyager's many continuity issues. DS9 did drop the ball such as when the Jem'Hadar destroyed one of the pylons in To The Death and it was back in the next episode, and yes, that did piss me off too. But in the end DS9 had much greater attention to detail and they followed through on past events, such as Nog's psychological problems after losing his leg in Siege of AR-558. Perfect? No. Better? Yes.