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 ENT reverse the slipping ratings? ENT was supposed to take the franchise back to its roots yet why couldn't it turn things around?

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.

 

[Mach5]

Because ANiS was shit

 

[SFRabid]

When TNG aired the first two seasons were horrible. Star Trek fans suffered through because there was nothing else. Three seasons of the original Star Trek created in the 1960's and nothing else. There was not much science fiction period on TV. But we watched and it was available to everyone.

When ENT aired the first two seasons were horrible. Star Trek fans had four other Star Trek series plus a host of other science fiction shows to watch on TV. Shows like B5 raised the bar and Star Trek was not even considered the best scifi on TV. Fans were impatient, intolerant of story lines that did not go the direction they expected, and half of us were excluded from getting to see Enterprise at all.

If TNG and ENT were swapped in time it would be ENT that went 7 years and became popular, and TNG that was canned by executives of a network looking for a new direction for their failing business. We would be sitting around saying "Wow, that 3rd and 4th season of TNG was great. Too bad they canned the show."

 

[Mach5]

If TNG and ENT were swapped in time it would be ENT that went 7 years and became popular, and TNG that was canned by executives of a network looking for a new direction for their failing business. We would be sitting around saying "Wow, that 3rd and 4th season of TNG was great. Too bad they canned the show."

Exactly!

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

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.

Because ANiS was shit

Consider ENT on UPN vs TNG in syndication. UPN was a quasi-network that was only available in part of the US, and struggling to keep any kind of audience. Its target demographic was not the same as that for ENT. The show was also frequently pre-empted for sporting events, and viewers who looked for it couldn't find it. And UPN wasn't promoting the show very well after the first season; I rarely saw any print ads after the initial episode of each season. I often saw references after ENT went off the air where a person would say words to the effect of, "Enterprise? Wow, I didn't know they made another Trek show." Bakula said in an interview that he would encounter people (post-ENT) who didn't know he had been on TV starring in a series for four years.

Also factor in the way viewers were tabulated during ENT's initial run. The second weekly showing of ENT wasn't factored in, nor was TIVO viewership, which I seem to recall seeing somewhere was quite high, relative to other shows.

Hopefully a Google search would turn up articles that go into more detail.

 

[Penguin]

To support Mach5, Ent tanked because of SHITY writing. Uneven as Hell. No direction that fans could follow. Not until the Xindi Arc was there any kind of continuity.

The fact that, to my mind, the Xindi Arc could have succeed if there had been one Xindi species instead of five totally diferent species which made it stupid.

Writing picked up a bit once Mannny Coto took over but he seemed to be hampered by interference from above.

No one seemed to know who was on first base.

 

[Mach5]

But ANiS was sort of a breaking point. It was the last ENT episode to draw in more than 6 million viewers, after that, it was a bumpy way down.

 

[Starbreaker]

1. Because I don't have a Nielsen box
2. Because Star Trek aired at 3 am on Saturday on a CBS affiliate during it's run in my neck of the woods.

 

[commodore64]

I encourage Mach 5 and Penguin to look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Trek_Enterprise_ratings_chart.png

ANIS was a spike anomaly, which tells a different story. Why a spike, the ratings had been down ever since season 1 after Broken Bow except for one huge jump.

I think lots of things:
1. Nemesis didn't do well, a perceived thought that interest in Star Trek was waning
2. As Scott Bakula has said, the support at Paramount for Star Trek wasn't there (asked to leave) to fight for Enterprise
3. It didn't cover, I think, the things Trekkies are dying to see -- Romulan war, Federation, etc., at least on first pass

Also factor in the way viewers were tabulated during ENT's initial run. The second weekly showing of ENT wasn't factored in, nor was TIVO viewership, which I seem to recall seeing somewhere was quite high, relative to other shows.

Agree with this, too. I don't think Trekkies and sci-fi fans, which are typically on the cutting edge of technology, have Nielsen boxes. Most of us use TiVo or DVR.

 

[Mach5]

I encourage Mach 5 and Penguin to look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Trek_Enterprise_ratings_chart.png

I saw the chart before I posted. And this may sound funny, but when people tuned in to watch ANIS premiere, they knew about it only as much as they saw in the promo, which promised a fun little gem (see it here, it literally says: "you gotta see it to believe it!") and I can definitely understand the curiosity it aroused (hell, I was curious too).

The fact is, 6,3 million people saw shit, and many of them decided that ENT wasn't worth the effort any more. Sad but true. It takes a lot more than a single bad episode (after so many good ones) to turn me away from the show that I like (love).

 

[Middleman]

But ANiS was sort of a breaking point. It was the last ENT episode to draw in more than 6 million viewers, after that, it was a bumpy way down.

I don't know if ANiS was the "straw that broke the camels back" for the fans, in terms of fans giving up on the series. Mostly because I didn't even know Enterprise even existed back when ANiS first aired so I can't speak about that with any intelligence. However, I will say that ANiS, IMO, is one of the worst Star Trek episodes ever produced; it ranks right up there with TATV and "Spock's Brain". ANiS certainly has a prominent place in my "bottom 5" Enterprise episodes.

 

[Mach5]

it ranks right up there with TATV and "Spock's Brain".

I suppose you never saw Voyager's "Threshold" or TNG's "Sub Rosa" then...

 

[CDR6]

It took a nose dive mostly because of Braga (sp?) wanting to do a dark-gritty-failure oriented show...An Star Trek is nothing even remotely like that, lets face it it turned people off. Most people want an up beat-positive approach to the show.

 

[Prons]

I also wonder if the naming had anything to do with it; unless you're on the ball with the Trek you probably didn't think "Star Trek" when you hear the title Enterprise.

 

[Mach5]

I also wonder if the naming had anything to do with it; unless you're on the ball with the Trek you probably didn't think "Star Trek" when you hear the title Enterprise.

Completely disagreed. I actually think that adding "Star Trek" in S3 was I bad idea.

 

[Middleman]

I also wonder if the naming had anything to do with it; unless you're on the ball with the Trek you probably didn't think "Star Trek" when you hear the title Enterprise.

Question for you: Over the last 30 years, when someone hears the word "Enterprise", what do you think this the first thing that comes to their mind?

 

[Middleman]

I suppose you never saw Voyager's "Threshold"

I've seen maybe 4 Voyager episodes in my life.

or TNG's "Sub Rosa" then...

I'm assuming it was after season 2 so the answer would be no.

 

[Penguin]

Over the last 30 years the first thing I think of when I hear Enterprise?

The aircraft Carrier Enterprise. I was on it once when it made a port Call.

 

[commodore64]

Mach5, I don't think you looked at the chart. What happened is that after Broken Bow, the stats went down significantly and continued this trends *UNTIL ANIS*, where a lot of people tuned in. And then it went back to the stats that existed before ANIS.

It'd be interesting to see which shows got the most advertising and what happened. For example, just on the surface of things I think Harbinger got the same advertising and the same kind. I don't think there was a major spike for it, although a spike.

I liked Spock's Brain. It's fun. So's ANIS. Why are things: THAT SUCKED!!! or THAT ROCKS!!! And there's no middle road?