Over-saturation?

[MikeS]

I was just clicking through all the TNG novels on Memory-Alpha and it occured to me that one of the reasons Trek was retired in the 2000's was because of it's own success. Many of the novels I looked at, and those that I've read, seem to be nothing more than "pulp-fiction" churned out to earn a "quick buck" for the publishing houses (with one or two rare exceptions). Perhaps a smaller number of more "thoughtful" novels rather than the mass produced trash we got would have kept people interested. The same applys to the television series'.

I know the "Big Bird of the Galaxy" himself said that the galaxy's a big place and there are hundreds of stories to be told, but there are only about six distinct types of stories. There were many times in Voyager or Enterprise where I thought "I've seen this before somewhere". The one that pops into my head right now is Good Shepherd and Lower Decks.

Anyway, something to think about for all those clamouring for a new series or more movies. Perhaps one movie every other year isn't such a bad thing. Keep the quality and interest high.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Star Trek XI definitely benefited from being the first new Trek production in four years though (how many Trek fans actually didn't see it versus those that did?).

But quality is always a subjective thing, though. Star Trek I (TMP) benefited from being the first (live action) Trek production in ten years, but both fan and critical response was rather lukewarm to the movie's actual story.

It perhaps wouldn't be so far to say that if Trek fans go for too long (several years) without any new onscreen material, they'll flock to almost anything that might have Star Trek in its title after awhile, regardless if the story leaves something to be desired or lacks originality, IMO. They can always biatch about it later...

 

[JarodRussell]

The is no such thing as over-saturation in my opinion. You can't be over-saturated with something that is great. You only get "over-saturated" if you no longer like what you see. Quality, not quantity, is the deciding factor.

 

[Saxman1]

There are obviously many points of view as far as ST goes. One school says (and there is some legitimacy to this IMHO) they should have waited a much longer time to produce the first TNG theatrical film and not thrown it out there approximately 5 months after the series ended. Not only would there have been possibly a much better film with more thought involved, perhaps there wouldn't have been the corporate dictates of a bridge film, Kirk dying as well as Picard's family, etc., no forced tear jerking.

Many have mentioned in the past that perhaps DS9 should have started in September of 1994 or maybe January of 1995 (the time of Voyager's premiere) and Voyager or a different ST series should have started after DS9 concluded its run. Not only would the TNG writing staff not have been split between two series, there wouldn't have been the over-saturation which eventually pulled Trek off the air. However, you wouldn't have had the team that eventually made DS9 a masterpiece.

Back in the early/mid 1980s, we had a quality TOS cast film every other year or so and those were highly anticipated. We're back to that with the reboot cast and have all the ST series and films to enjoy (in my case TOS cast films, even though a huge TNG fan, I much prefer the series - I don't think Berman was a good theatrical film producer at all). I really loved the 2009 reboot film and I say this as a first run TOS fan. I look forward to the next film. Not a bad place to be, IMHO.

As far as the books, difficult to comment as there are many writers on this blog and I don't want to come off as some kind of jerk. I do feel the TNG relaunch overdid the Borg over and over again in every novel as the black hat and some of the creative decisions and deaths of certain characters I take issue with. Did they pump out way too many books? Yes. Are they all schlock? Of course not.

 

[Bishop76]

Oversaturation is a very real thing and all you need is an understanding of the most basic economic idea - supply and demand. As supply decreases, demand increases; as supply increases, demand decreases.

It's very likely that being Trekless for 4 years drove demand up to the right level and I think that keeping it a bit rarified is a good call. Toward the end of the shows, there was a lot of flinging of shit at a wall to see what sticks and the result was Voyager and Enterprise. Now, Enterprise at least started course correcting in season 4 by getting rid of the old guard, but by then it was too late. Voyager is largely an irredeemable piece of junk with a handful of good episodes scattered throughout.

I personally think the tie-in novels are an odd place to look to to place blame, though. The vast majority of people don't read them and if they do, they kind of go in expecting schock and are surprised when you get something good by, for example, David Mack or Christopher Bennett. Even when I was much younger, I knew pretty much what to expect from tie-in fiction.

 

[JarodRussell]

I see quantity and price, where's quality?

Do you also think that Stargate: Universe, Blade: The Series, Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles, etc... died because of over-saturation?

 

[Bishop76]

Again, you're arguing something completely different than the original premise. The premise here is "did oversaturation kill Star Trek in the mid 00's?", not did the low quality of Star Trek kill Star Trek. I think the answer is yes to both, actually, but I also think that oversaturation tends to lead to lower quality.

 

[sonak]

Yes, over-saturation definitely played a role in Trek's decline in the mid-to-late nineties and greater demand definitely played a role in Star Trek XI's success.


Having two television series on while a movie franchise was beginning was a lot to deal with in terms of being expected to maintain quality. Star Trek is hard to write, and it's hard to keep developing fresh stories.

Look at box office numbers from the first four Star Trek films compared to the numbers once there was a Star Trek television series on -there's a clear trend, bucked only somewhat by Star Trek: First Contact.

 

[JarodRussell]

Again, you're arguing something completely different than the original premise. The premise here is "did oversaturation kill Star Trek in the mid 00's?", not did the low quality of Star Trek kill Star Trek. I think the answer is yes to both, actually, but I also think that oversaturation tends to lead to lower quality.

Why, my point is that oversaturation in the form you mean it doesn't exist, and I simply continue with that argumentation.

 

[Bishop76]

Okay, you keep saying it wasn't oversaturated, but you have given no argument whatsoever as to why you think that way other than that Trek dropped off in quality. That's true. But I think it's also true that it was oversaturated. They don't have to be mutually exclusive things. And in fact, as I said earlier, the oversaturation is probably what caused the quality drop off as the same group of writers was expected to keep writing new and interesting stuff and it was so very clear by the end of DS9/beginning of Voyager that this creative team was dry.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'd say it was oversaturated. Having Voyager and DS9 concurrently, then going straight into Enterprise afterwards with a new film coming out every few years on top of all that was overdoing it.

One of the reasons cited for STV's financial disappointment was the start of The Next Generation: Who's gonna go to the cinema to see Star Trek when it's on TV for free every week? Star Trek Nemesis came along when Enterprise was at it's weakest (artistically) and ratings were spiralling down - and it was a huge flop.

The novels are too niche to have had any impact on the big picture of Star Trek. That they're still doing 12 novels a year when the series' they're based on ended long ago shows there's still a demand for them.