So, in the final analysis......

[M'Sharak]

Coto was providing a reach-around for long-time fans in Season 4. There was nothing "great" about most of it beyond masturbating the hard-core.

In your opinion. That of the elitist, self-loathing fan that turns on something they were once proudly part of because it's the "kewl" thing to do...

Buzz was good and increasing and the writing staff was pulling out all the stops and cranking out the best Trek in YEARS. They just needed time, which Moonives and/or UPN wouldn't give them.

But then, everyone involved understood that the show was being cancelled at the end of Season 4.

Drexler has been cited as having said (in his own blog) that as late as mid-season they thought they still had a 50/50 chance.

I follow Drexler's blog, but I must have missed where he said that.

Regardless, the writing was on the wall even before Season 3; nearly all of the folks at Paramount who had been in support of Star Trek continuing on TV were replaced by the time of the break between the second and third seasons, and Enterprise was very nearly cancelled at the end of Season 3. You speak of "needing time", and the fourth season was supposed to be a last chance of a sort, but ENT would have had to pull spectacular ratings for there to have been any chance of a fifth season, and they didn't come close to that. I liked the show, but the facts are that it just wasn't drawing the numbers.

Oh, and "elitist, self-loathing fan that turns on something they were once proudly part of because it's the "kewl" thing to do..."? You may not agree with Dennis' assessment of ENT Season 4, but your comment in reply was unnecessarily personal and it was out of line; I do not want to see anything like that in this forum from you again -- if you feel you must go after Dennis, save it for TNZ, because it won't fly here.

Now, if we can get back to the OP's topic?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You speak of "needing time", and the fourth season was supposed to be a last chance of a sort, but ENT would have had to pull spectacular ratings for there to have been any chance of a fifth season, and they didn't come close to that. I liked the show, but the facts are that it just wasn't drawing the numbers.

And the fact is that the network and the studio had agreed on a fourth year for the show, and that was that. Some folks working on the series may have held out hopes, but those weren't founded on the ratings, or on the planning of the people who actually were in control of the situation. Neither Paramount studio nor UPN executives habitually briefed production staff on such things, you know.

For Drexler to say on his blog, as he did, that "we figured it was 50/50" is not the same as for him to have explained exactly who "we" included, on what basis other than a hunch or hopefulness they "figured" that the odds were even or any other such thing. If that statement is what darkwing is basing his claims on, then he's reading a ridiculous amount into a vague statement - his claim is essentially groundless.

Four years was it for Enterprise - that was known from the point at which it was renewed. If the ratings had gone through the roof, one supposes that the bean-counters might have changed their minds - but since the ratings continued to decline, that is a moot point.

 

[Chrisisall]

Oh, and "elitist, self-loathing fan that turns on something they were once proudly part of because it's the "kewl" thing to do..."? You may not agree with Dennis' assessment of ENT Season 4, but your comment in reply was unnecessarily personal and it was out of line

I didn't take it that way M', but that may just be me.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I follow Drexler's blog, but I must have missed where he said that.

Regardless, the writing was on the wall even before Season 3; nearly all of the folks at Paramount who had been in support of Star Trek continuing on TV were replaced by the time of the break between the second and third seasons, and Enterprise was very nearly cancelled at the end of Season 3. You speak of "needing time", and the fourth season was supposed to be a last chance of a sort, but ENT would have had to pull spectacular ratings for there to have been any chance of a fifth season, and they didn't come close to that. I liked the show, but the facts are that it just wasn't drawing the numbers.

Not according to what Doug heard. I quote my citation of him from another thread:

From a response to a question I posed on Doug Drexler's blog:

Would you be kind enough to provide the link?

^ I did ask that too. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Drexler had to pull the comment. Probably not wise to badmouth any employer (a past or a potential future one). Although personally I don't see how personal comments enter into it... as their disclaimer goes "views stated in these commentaries do no reflect the opinion of CBS Corporation". But you hear cases of employees being fired for spouting off in an online blog.

As of right before I type this, it's still up:

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/nx-01-enterprise-class/

He talks about Berman's allergy to anything "loud" in the main post, but the portion I quoted is in the responses at the bottom:

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/nx-01-enterprise-class/#comment-13623

and the post is still up as of this time:

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/nx-01-enterprise-class/comment-page-1/#comments

Scroll down about 2/3 of the way, my question was posted on June 13.

*edit to add Doug's reply*:

We had heard that Mr. Berman, and the new CBS bosses were not clicking, and that did not bode well for a 5th season. We figured it was 50/50. Enterprise never had really bad ratings. It actually was pulling better numbers than Galactica, which was a hit for Sci Fi. What really killed it, IMO, was Les Moonves, the head over there. He didin’t get Star Trek, didn’t care for sci-fi, and there was no love loss between him and Mr. Berman (or so I’ve heard).

Oh, and "elitist, self-loathing fan that turns on something they were once proudly part of because it's the "kewl" thing to do..."? You may not agree with Dennis' assessment of ENT Season 4, but your comment in reply was unnecessarily personal and it was out of line; I do not want to see anything like that in this forum from you again -- if you feel you must go after Dennis, save it for TNZ, because it won't fly here.

If you haven't seen it already, there's a PM headed your way...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

See previous post.

 

[omegaone]

I liked the new trek movie timeline, I can see special effects and costs improving in a few years for a feasible Trek TV series and maybe do it in similar style to SGU? (Personally I'd like a rebooted/retooled enterprise prequel series but doubt that will happen)

 

[darkwing_duck1]

See previous post.

Let's see:

Choice A) the opinion of someone actively working on the show at the time

or

Choice B) the opinion of someone whose professional ties to the show were what...10-15 years out of date?

Guess who I believe more...

 

[PhasersOnStun]

Love the new movie.
Love the new timeline/look/feel
Love the new actors/chemistry of the crew
Excited to see where they'll take it

Think that until we see the next movie, we can't know if it will be a hit or miss, but I'm left very upbeat about the future!

(And my childhood memories are all intact, I have all the TOS on Blu-ray and the new movie doesn't change anything I love about the old series )

 

[ThePlumsofWrath]

....is the Trek universe worse off than it was 3 years ago?

Did Abrams Trek destroy Star Trek or has he built a platform from which to create and sustain something we'll all care for and want to go on watching?

Did anyone feel truely 'raped' or can they now concede that they overreacted to the whole notion?

Was there no end of overreaction to the new USS Enterprise?

Were the actors parodies of what we had seen before?

Was it as bad as some people made out it would be?

I loved it, I enjoyed it for what it was, a big budget blockbuster with amazing special effects. Was it as good as TWOK? No but it was better than any TNG film and it certainly would appear to have reinvigorated the franchise.

But does it remain in the conciousness of the general public? Keep seeing Trek toys in half price bins outside toy shops, does this mean anything? Perhaps there are longevity issues?

Things are certainly different BUT are they any worse or better?

That's the question.

Geez what a question...I think the answer is obvious....

RAMA

We discuss it, bat it around a bit, play with it because it's a forum.....

 

[Temis the Vorta]

A new Trek was born with this movie. This is what future Trek movies will be like for the forseeable future. The old style Trek will still live in a future TV series. It costs too much money to do the kinds of things they do in the movies on a TV series.

What new Trek? I honestly don't see much in terms of real substance that Abrams has changed from the best-of-Trek template he was following. He's placed the story in what is technically a new reality but so similar to the old one to make no difference. Abrams just jettisoned the crap that hadn't been working and highlighted the elements that are Trek's strength.

Old Trek (whatever that is) won't live anywhere except maybe in fanfiction, fan movies and novels. If there's a TV show, it will be tethered to Abrams' vision because the only reason CBS might decide to make a TV series is to ride Abrams' very profitable coattails. What other motive could there possibly be? Even with a blockbuster movie, Trek on TV is far from an obvious slam-dunk, particularly by CBS' standards (remember, of all the networks, CBS is by far the healthiest and therefore the least motivated to take any risks).

This is the most positive I've been about Trek since DS9 left the air.

Same here.

I liked the new trek movie timeline, I can see special effects and costs improving in a few years for a feasible Trek TV series and maybe do it in similar style to SGU?

A well written and well acted Trek series can survive without slam-bang pricey SFX. But rather than drag (shudder) SGU into this, can we use BSG as the template instead? That was a series where the production values never looked cheap-ass (dry-erase boards notwithstanding), although given the ratings, they couldn't have had a huge budget.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

CBS will never do a Trek TV series as long as Les "I hate sci fi" Moonives is in charge.

 

[Daedalus12]

....is the Trek universe worse off than it was 3 years ago?

Nope it's definitely better. More like a 180 degree turnaround from a headlong fall into the abyss of history. It was a successful reboot. I didn't like XI that much but obviously a lot of other people did.

Did Abrams Trek destroy Star Trek or has he built a platform from which to create and sustain something we'll all care for and want to go on watching?

The franchise before XI was already in the postmortem twitching stage by any fan's standard. Abrams couldn't have done anything to destroy it further. As for the potential future success of the reboot franchise. I think it's still too early to tell. I didn't like the storyline of Trek XI at all. I had some other writing and set design related issues which I mentioned months ago in this forum. But like I said before it appears that most fans are satisfied with XI and are very much excited about the sequel.

Did anyone feel truely 'raped' or can they now concede that they overreacted to the whole notion?

I think the whole "my childhood is being raped" response is by definition overreacting hence anyone who felt "raped" by a movie is most definitely overreacting.

Was there no end of overreaction to the new USS Enterprise?

Both the external view and the interior of the new ship looked stunning and breathtaking. The only problem I had was the design of the engine rooms.. The brewery has to go in the next movie.

Were the actors parodies of what we had seen before?

None of them were atrocious. Urban did the best job and Quinto did the worst IMO. And I couldn't really see Pegg as Scotty to be honest.

Was it as bad as some people made out it would be?

As a rule of thumb nothing in life can be as bad as the most negative opinion of all people.

I loved it, I enjoyed it for what it was, a big budget blockbuster with amazing special effects. Was it as good as TWOK? No but it was better than any TNG film and it certainly would appear to have reinvigorated the franchise.

Yes the big budget indeed was a shot of ephedrine to the system that was already comatose. However like I said before other than the effects and most of the set design I wasn't really impressed with the movie.

But does it remain in the conciousness of the general public? Keep seeing Trek toys in half price bins outside toy shops, does this mean anything? Perhaps there are longevity issues?

Things are certainly different BUT are they any worse or better?

That's the question.

Well things can certainly be worse than trek toys being ignored. Trek toys have never sold well (at least on the level of transformers) AFAIK.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

CBS would do a Trek television series if the people in charge had any reason to believe that the ratings would justify the expense. The "Moonves hates sf" angle is something that Trekkies are far too invested in.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

CBS will never do a Trek TV series as long as Les "I hate sci fi" Moonives is in charge.

I'm sure he'd love the frak out of sci fi if there was as much money in it as police procedurals and reality TV. Just look at CBS's history with attempts to create a sf/f genre series (and not even as adventurous as space opera) - Jericho and Moonlight most recently. Tons of internet buzz and fan hysteria, but you can't take that to the bank. In the end, neither could live up to CBS's high expectations for ratings. Much as I hate to say it, if I were Moonvies, I'd be skeptical about Star Trek, too.

Check out CBS' 2010-11 development slate. This early in the cycle, it's just an approximate sketch. A lot of this junk will never see the light of day, but it's worth noting the overall trend here, and what it reveals about CBS's mindset. Do you see one single thing that sounds remotely original or interesting? I sure don't. Yet CBS is the most successful network, so I can hardly fault them for regurgitating the formulas that have served them well so far.

Just for comparison, I checked it versus NBC's development lineup - a lot of the same sort of cop/doctor/comedy crap, but at least there were a few intriguing ideas - some sf/f stuff, Bryan Fuller's quirky "home shopping network" show (the next Glee?) and I sure hope this one makes it into production:

UNTITLED LARRY CHARLES PROJECT - comedy - a group of sci-fi fanboys in a small town who shoot their own version of a canceled tv show

FIREFLY!

 

[Brolan]

A new Trek was born with this movie. This is what future Trek movies will be like for the forseeable future. The old style Trek will still live in a future TV series. It costs too much money to do the kinds of things they do in the movies on a TV series.

What new Trek? I honestly don't see much in terms of real substance that Abrams has changed from the best-of-Trek template he was following. He's placed the story in what is technically a new reality but so similar to the old one to make no difference. Abrams just jettisoned the crap that hadn't been working and highlighted the elements that are Trek's strength.

Old Trek (whatever that is) won't live anywhere except maybe in fanfiction, fan movies and novels. If there's a TV show, it will be tethered to Abrams' vision because the only reason CBS might decide to make a TV series is to ride Abrams' very profitable coattails. What other motive could there possibly be? Even with a blockbuster movie, Trek on TV is far from an obvious slam-dunk, particularly by CBS' standards (remember, of all the networks, CBS is by far the healthiest and therefore the least motivated to take any risks).

New Trek is marked by the relentless pacing where action and special effects are more important than the story. Don't tell me you didn't notice the huge holes in the plot. The movie works anyway because you just get pulled along with it in a big, fun, thrill ride.

A big buck 150 million motion picture can afford to do this, a TV show cannot.

 

[Spider]

CBS would do a Trek television series if the people in charge had any reason to believe that the ratings would justify the expense. The "Moonves hates sf" angle is something that Trekkies are far too invested in.

This.

Star Trek exists to make money for the owners, that's it. As long as it continues to make money, there will be Star Trek in whatever form that makes them money.