S1 vs. S2 vs. S3 (comparing seasons)

[Ssosmcin]

I disagree. I think Star Trek was going strong right up through Voyager's end in 2001. Back then, everyone was still buzzing about Star Trek like crazy.

I dunno. Were they? Apart from 7 of 9, was Voyager really setting the world on fire? I seem to remember it was faltering in the ratings but was still UPNs most successful series at the time, peaking for event shows (like the multi-part epics).

Most people I knew back then who liked Star Trek didn't know Enterprise existed. People loved GENS, FC, and INS. All three of these movies had great high-energy advertising too.

Enterprise was highly promoted, we all knew it was there. Generations was received with decidedly mixed responses, but yeah, First Contact was very popular. Rightfully so.

Insurrection, though, was not. I remember it clearly, it opened on by birthday. The film was crushingly average with misplaced humor, a weird idea that Picard would risk everything to save non-indigenous white naturists against ugly people and a non-descript Admiral, with a finale that jaw droppingly has Picard beamed out in the nick of time while Riker leaves the villain to die. The general concensus was that it was a fairly soft TV episode that pretty much mimicked Star Trek V: strong dark premise watered down by too many cooks, asking for humor and a redone ending, saved only by the performances and Jerry Goldsmith. There was no feeling of "OMG I can't wait for the next one!"

All three of these movies had great high-energy advertising too. The trailers for Nemesis just felt old and tired. The movie looks and feels old and tired, and it's just 4 years after the previous film. I think that had a lot to do with people having a "meh" reaction to it. It just lacked the "fun" of the previous 3 films.

I agree that Nemesis' ads were a little lackluster but they still had a great air of mystery about them. As for how the film felt and looked....well, nobody went to see it to form that decision. Which is pretty much the basis of my feelings for its failure. Nobody even tried it. I went opening night with my wife, mom, and sister and I was shocked at the nearly empty theater. As I said, even Star Trek V had a big opening and the entire plot of that film was spoiled in the National Enquirer weeks earlier.

UPN cancelled Enterprise and didn't want to do another series.
Paramount hired the absolute wrong director for Nemesis.
Paramount had no idea what to do for #11 until JJ Abrams came along.

Reasonable POV?

Not saying your POV is unreasonable, just I think just not factoring in that by the time we got to Nemesis, this version of Trek was on life support creatively. Enterprise was highly anticipated as a return to the excitement of an earlier time with a new spin and what they delivered was more of the same. The same writers, Ferengi, Borg, bland characters, emphasis on the catsuits and de-con scenes and "that damned song!" Ratings plummeted and we got a - really good - final season simply because they wanted to make it a better package for reruns.

So, I'll say that while people may not have been tired of "Star Trek" per se, they were tired of the Rick Berman style of Star Trek. They wanted something new and Abrams, for good or bad, delivered that in 2009.

The sad thing is, Nemesis isn't a bad "movie" is just a weirdly off and derivative Star Trek film. It's a really good action space opera with excellent effects, pacing, sound design and score. The performances are excellent. I had a great time with it as a movie. But most of what made me enjoy the characters was missing.

 

[BillJ]

I disagree. I think Star Trek was going strong right up through Voyager's end in 2001.

It wasn't. Someone around here has a ratings chart that shows the steep decline, that started when TNG ended.

Maybe, @Mudd?

 

[fireproof78]

disagree. I think Star Trek was going strong right up through Voyager's end in 2001.

Ooff, definitely not.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Ooff, definitely not.

Clearly it was, or we wouldn't have Enterprise and Nemesis.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Voyager's ratings were lower than TNGs by a wide margin and TNG was a hit until the end. Voyager was profitable enough to warrant another series, but it was by no means "going strong." DS9 also struggled in the ratings. Notice they didn't have two shows at once this time. UPN wanted only one.

Enterprise: which immediately hemorrhaged viewers after it's highly rated premiere.

As for Nemesis, Insurrection did well enough to merit another movie with $117 million in worldwide box office of a $70 mil budget, but it was by no means a blockbuster and fell pretty short of First Contact which did a global $146 million. Insurrection came in a hair under Generations box office of $118 million, but that film also had a smaller budget at $35 mil. Insurrection had twice the budget as Generations and made about the same amount. So, no, that's not "going strong." It's just "going."

But it was enough to greenlight another movie which got pushed back a year or so and by then, Enterprise was shitting the bed.

 

[Firebird]

It wasn't. Someone around here has a ratings chart that shows the steep decline, that started when TNG ended.

Maybe, @Mudd?

Was it this chart?

 

[BillJ]

Was it this chart?

Definitely something similar.

 

[StarTrek1701]

GEN should never have killed Jim Kirk.

That's why Kelvinverse brought him back...in a different way.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Was it this chart?

Holy F#CK! Those ratings difference between TNG and other Trek is insane! That sharp DS9 fall is eye opening.

 

[fireproof78]

Clearly it was, or we wouldn't have Enterprise and Nemesis.

It was not strong. It just was Paramount's biggest brand to try and be competitive. And the rights were still divided TV side and film side so one did not lead to other.

Was it this chart?

That's a thousand words right there.

 

[BillJ]

Clearly it was, or we wouldn't have Enterprise and Nemesis.

They were trying to prop up an ailing cash cow.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

It was not strong. It just was Paramount's biggest brand to try and be competitive. And the rights were still divided TV side and film side so one did not lead to other.

That's a thousand words right there.

Not a thousand words, statistics. Why do you think UPN wanted another series, and why do you think Paramount wanted a 10th movie?

 

[Ssosmcin]

Not a thousand words, statistics. Why do you think UPN wanted another series, and why do you think Paramount wanted a 10th movie?

We already touched on reasons:

Star Trek was UPN's flagship series and still their highest rated dramatic show, even if it wasn't nearly what is used to be.

Star Trek Insurrection made enough to not be a bomb, but they still waited 4 years to get one out there.

In other words, they were going to grind out Trek as long as they were making some kind of money off it.

You keep saying Star Trek was going strong and everyone was "buzzing about it like crazy" when this wasn't the case. It wasn't a sudden death in 2003, it was steep drop off when TNG ended and then a slow decline until Paramount finally threw in the towel.

 

[fireproof78]

Not a thousand words, statistics. Why do you think UPN wanted another series, and why do you think Paramount wanted a 10th movie?

UPN was using Trek as a flagship to keep up ratings, which were constantly failing.

Paramount wanted a cash cow to compete with some rather big hitters at the time, especially Spider-Man, Lord of the Rings, and Episode 2 Star Wars. So, they kept pushing through, while wanting something new for a casual audience.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Paramount, like WB, has a plethora of idiotic decision makers that not only cut down on absolute cash cows, they also fail to prop up anything new that's good for them.
After 2009, Paramount should have gone all in with Trek but they dragged their feet till Into Darkness came about.
What Marvel did after Iron Man 1 should be the gold standard for studios to follow.
Instead Paramount just let Abrams slip away because he decidedly wanted the Kelvin Timeline to get primary attention but the bean counters at Paramount were too scared to lose the classic fans.

 

[Phoenix219]

Paramount, like WB, has a plethora of idiotic decision makers that not only cut down on absolute cash cows, they also fail to prop up anything new that's good for them.
After 2009, Paramount should have gone all in with Trek but they dragged their feet till Into Darkness came about.
What Marvel did after Iron Man 1 should be the gold standard for studios to follow.
Instead Paramount just let Abrams slip away because he decidedly wanted the Kelvin Timeline to get primary attention but the bean counters at Paramount were too scared to lose the classic fans.

idk. i woudln't have returned to the franchise if it was all Kelvin from then on.

 

[StarTrek1701]

idk. i woudln't have returned to the franchise if it was all Kelvin from then on.

But that's what it was created for. Wash away the weight of old canon, bring in the new.
Too bad they couldn't comit to it.

 

[Phoenix219]

But that's what it was created for. Wash away the weight of old canon, bring in the new.
Too bad they couldn't comit to it.

thank god they couldn't commit to it.

i would have been done with Trek permanently.

just like the new 52 ended comic books for me, and the end of what is now called Legends ended star wars for me.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

thank god they couldn't commit to it.

i would have been done with Trek permanently.

just like the new 52 ended comic books for me, and the end of what is now called Legends ended star wars for me.

I loved the Kelvin movies, gave the New 52 a fair try, and I've enjoyed like 80% of current Star Wars, but I can really relate to this. Hitting the reset button on continuity to make a 'jumping on' point for new fans has a side effect of giving current fans a 'jumping off' point, and any boost to viewers or sales is often short-lived.

You can't wipe the canon away by hitting a reset button as it's always there in the older stories. As long as they exist in people's minds, streaming services and wiki pages you can only make a franchise more convoluted as now people have to keep track of another variation of the characters and their backstories. You just have to look at DC Comics to see how that works out. On the other hand, we've got the acclaimed and beloved Star Trek: Prodigy and Lower Decks as an example of what we can get when the old continuity continues.

We've got plenty of examples of how to make a long running franchise accessible to new fans by being constructive instead of destructive, like the Doctor Who revival and Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the Kelvin Timeline did the job just fine as well. The trick is to write like the audience has no clue what anything is and no emotional investment in anything, reintroduce things when they're relevant, and then give people a reason to care.

 

[BillJ]

Not a thousand words, statistics. Why do you think UPN wanted another series, and why do you think Paramount wanted a 10th movie?

Enterprise was nearly canceled, twice, before getting the axe after season four. They were hoping to get to 100 episodes, for strip syndication. Even though that market was undergoing massive changes and there was little interest in the show. It ended up on HDNet, for a while.

One of the truths of the corporate world, is that if one has no better ideas, they will continue to commit to the old ideas, until they are drowning in red ink.