How Come Stargate goes on but Star Trek died?

[Silversmok3]

To evaluate why stargate is still around,and Trek in TV format is dead,we must look at the two on the same playing field-TV shows,not movies ,DVDs or other franchise accesories.

Speaking strictly of TV shows,Stargate 'beat' Trek on TV because Stargate focused where TNG,Voyager,and ENT lost focus:The characters.DS9 was better than the aforementioned shows in this area,which may be why it lasted so long,but Stargate was able to focus on the characters instead of tap-dancing over 40 years of franchise history.

And Enterprise's budget is probably what sunk the series.A bigger budget means exponentially worse oversight from TV executives wanting a return on their investment.If the writers wanted to take Enterprise on a different direction for the fans they have to get permission from the money guys first,who care about quaterly earnings and ratings,not Trek canon or character develpment.

Since Stargate spent less money as a small franchise,the writers and staff didn't have the network anvil hanging over their heads,so they could be as creative as they wanted to.And it showed ,which is why Stargate got as big as it did.

And now that the series is an established moneymaker,the same issues of complying with Stargate *canon*, recycled storylines,moronic network interference, and the weak episodes due to such interference are challenges that Stargate now faces.Challenges which sucessfully kicked Trek off TV.

 

[xortex]

Berman and Piller were getting two million a year. You could get far better talant for far less money, it seems.

 

[flandry84]

I think that the poker-faced seriousness of the Trek shows is seriously offputting for casual viewers.Add that to Treks reputation for continuity porn and well,lets face it ,the trekkie image.
Those factors added to the unremitting pedestrian storytelling of Voyager(sorry,this is not an anti-Voy rant) and a lack of exciting visual "wow" moments damaged the Trek brand.IMO.

As for the increased budgets,I've got to admit that the Trek shows do not look more expensive than the SG shows.In point of fact,the saminess of the Trek alien design,set dressing,even the incidental music,all make Trek look like the ultimate cribbers.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Well, Stargate is making Direct-to-DVD movies, and Star Trek is getting a $150-million blockbuster on the big screen made by one of the most popular Hollywood teams right now. Which one are you calling dead?

"Stargate". What is this thing called "Stargate"? Wasn't that a sci-fi movie way back in the early 90s or something?

You know, the various "Stargate" TV spin-offs, despite the interesting sounding premise, has managed to stay off my radar all this time. The little snippets I've accidentally seen of it, the coverage in "Starlog", the odd reference to the show's actors... it has never demanded, "Watch me!"

which is why Stargate got as big as it did.

How big did it get? Someone posted the numbers earlier in the thread. "Stargate" has miniscule numbers.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Does Wormhole X-treme count too?

Only about as much as "Galaxy Quest" does for Trek.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I mean Stargate isn't exactly that awesome yet it marches endlessly on, and a third series is coming and everything. Was Enterprise that bad of a series that all trek had to die?

Not really - it certainly wasn't as bad - that is, as trite or repetitive or lazy - as the last eight or nine years or so of the "Stargate" shows. Just different business models, different expectations from their respective studios and the channels/networks that delivered them.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

"Stargate". What is this thing called "Stargate"? Wasn't that a sci-fi movie way back in the early 90s or something?

You know, the various "Stargate" TV spin-offs, despite the interesting sounding premise, has managed to stay off my radar all this time. The little snippets I've accidentally seen of it, the coverage in "Starlog", the odd reference to the show's actors... it has never demanded, "Watch me!"

Good point. Pretty much everyone has heard of Star Trek. Interview 10 people walking down the street any given day, and you'll be lucky to find even one who can name one character from the Stargate TV shows.

And as has been pointed out, the original premise of this thread is wrong. Stargate is an obscure, low-budget TV series with a very small audience. Star Trek has a huge-budget theatrical feature coming out this year helmed by one of the hottest directors in Hollywood, and it's been getting an enormous amount of buzz recently as potentially one of the big blockbusters of 2009.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Right. It's important to belittle other good science fiction (by which I mean SG1 and mostly not Atlantis) in order to show your true Trek fandom.

Can't we just agree they have both produced stuff better than 90% of what's on TV?

 

[gastrof]

I mean Stargate isn't exactly that awesome yet it marches endlessly on, and a third series is coming and everything. Was Enterprise that bad of a series that all trek had to die?

Stargate SG-1 got cancelled by SciFi Channel in the middle of a story arc.

They refused to let MGM bring the show to any other channel, insisting their contract allowed them the right to first run of the episodes in the United States, even if they'd cancelled the show.

The resolution to the story arc had to be done as a direct-to-DVD movie, rather than an 11th season of the show.

SciFi has also cancelled Stargate Atlantis, again with no resolution to a great many story threads.

Supposedly there's gong to be a new series called "Stargate Universe", but with the trackrecord SciFi and its NBC owners have had, I don't give the new show much hope.

"SciFi...where we run wrestling shows and slasher movies, with a little science fiction thrown in here and there...so we can ruin it."

 

[flandry84]

Well,examine both shows.As is inevitable,certain concepts and scenarios crop up in both franchises.Both shows tackle the "rapid aging" scenario,the "enemy within" old chestnut.There are many other examples.
Question is,which show was the most entertaining,inventive,fun?Which cast was the more sympathetic/likeable?
I will always be a trekker,but I'm not loathe to admit that sometimes(increasingly more often)Star trek,in it's later incarnations,simply was not good enough.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Right. It's important to belittle other good science fiction (by which I mean SG1 and mostly not Atlantis) in order to show your true Trek fandom.

Can't we just agree they have both produced stuff better than 90% of what's on TV?

I don't know if I could say that? I've never watched a whole episode of "Stargate", and nothing makes me feel like I need to.

Ditto the rebooted "Battlestar Galactica". I did sample episodes of "Babylon 5" but found I much preferred any version of "Star Trek".

 

[Dayton3]

For one thing, though Enterprise (in my opinion) was better than Voyager, it was not BETTER ENOUGH.

The early buzz and high expectations for Enterprise dwarfed those of Voyager. Voyager was mainly noted for having a female captain.

But Enterprise was a return to the series named starship, with a mission profile that reminded people of the original series, and a fairly well known male lead (Scott Bakula) who had a good reputation with the science fiction community.

In short, much was expected from Enterprise. It delivered "some" but nowhere near "all".

I expect something like this will happen with Star Trek XI.

But budget is so huge. The wait so long. It won't be enough to be simply "good".

It will have to blow the doors off the box office, be a critically reviewed triumph and single handedly rejuvenate the franchise not be considered a failure.

 

[gastrof]

...Speaking strictly of TV shows,Stargate 'beat' Trek on TV because Stargate focused where TNG,Voyager,and ENT lost focus:The characters.DS9 was better than the aforementioned shows in this area,which may be why it lasted so long,but Stargate was able to focus on the characters instead of tap-dancing over 40 years of franchise history...

DS9 lasted no longer than TNG or Voyager. All three ran seven years.

DS9's length of run shows no superiority over the other Trek series.

As for Stargate and how "well" it does, see my post above.

 

[Gotham Central]

I think that the whole premise of the thread is fundamentally flawed.


Enterprise was the Star Trek franchise's FINAL life line, but the franchise had been in poor health for years. The Trek franchiise had been in retreat long before Enterprise finally got the ax. The TNG movie franchise was in serious trouble during Insurrection. Nemesis' dismal performance killed the film franchise. On TV the inept writing on Voyager BADLY fractured the fan base, and alienated many trek supporters in the press and critical world. (on top of that the all important merchandising stopped selling) Enterprise was Trek's last chance. Unfortunately Paramount did nothing about the leadership problems in their staff. Thus the same people that had made such poor creative decisions on Voyager and in the films were left in charge of Enterprise. Thus it was no surprise that its pitiful ratings and the poor critical response served as the final nail in the coffin.

the reason Star Trek died was that the OVERALL quality had severly declined. The franchise had become a laughing stock. Indeed every subsequent sci-fi endeavour had to prove how much it was NOT like Star Trek. The moment that Star Trek stopped being known as a quality and money making product was what ensured that it would not endure on TV.

 

[USS Triumphant]

DS9 lasted no longer than TNG or Voyager.

All that Bajoran mysticism and wormhole alien stuff sure could make it seem like it did, sometimes, though.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Becuse they are following the trail Star Trek blazed. We've had Stargate: DS9 (Atlantis) and soon Stargate Voyager ( Universe). Next will be Stargate: Enterprise and then we get a new movie.

 

[gastrof]

A remake movie with a new cast playing beloved characters!

I can't WAIT to see who'll play Jack!

Maybe Kurt Russell?!?!?!?

 

[Silversmok3]

I realize this is gonna bruise some egos,but it must be said:Stargate ,both SG1 and Atlantis,in a lot of instances beats trek TV at its own game.To say otherwise is putting fan loyalty above the truth.

Not only is SG1/SGA more approachable to the non-fan mainstream,it brings forward the issues that Trek used to be known for

Example of this,to pick one,is SG1's Absolute Power.It deals with the same issues as star trek TV's litany of episodes of corruption of power,but dispenses with the technobabble,weak plot devices (heisenburg conpensator,anyone?),and predictable ending(oh look,Voyager beat the Borg again!Didn't see that coming...not).

Besides, the average layman can relate much more to a modern military using modern,flawed tech to solve alien challenges much more than a 24th century military that can create planets at will.

 

[trekkerguy]

ENT wasn't horrible. It just was at the tailend of 20 years of Star Trek and
Trek was getting old to the public, and ENT wasn't good enough to keep
their interest.

Stargate SG-1 however, I could ask any number of people I know and they
would know it and find it cooler than any Trek they've ever seen. Why?

Trek got way to "talky" and lost sight of one thing people enjoy... fun.
SG-1 has always had good writing and it's a fun show to watch, Trek's
writing was dropping in quality and the shows long ago lost the fun factor.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Right. It's important to belittle other good science fiction (by which I mean SG1 and mostly not Atlantis) in order to show your true Trek fandom.

Can't we just agree they have both produced stuff better than 90% of what's on TV?

No. In fact, a great deal of and maybe even "most" dramatic television is better than the "Stargate" franchise. That's not "belittling good science fiction;" it's recognizing what "Stargate" is - mediocre programming, science fiction or otherwise.

There was some good stuff sprinkled through the first three years or so of "SG-1" and they occasionally produced the watchable episode up until the end - mainly, whenever they treated the show as a comedy. "Atlantis" was a derivative, directionless bore.

SCIFI Channel, however, has found "Stargate" renumerative even while its ratings have always hovered at about the level - or lower - that got "Star Trek" canceled on UPN. Different programming and business models.