So what killed Star Trek?

[Agenda]

Enterprise had the deck stacked against it, that's for sure. But ultimately it just wasn't good enough.

After years and years of "forehead of the week" aliens, the powers-that-be decided that we need more forehead of the week aliens. And that's how it was for two years - basically a retread of TNG and Voyager - until they started getting their act together in years 3 and 4. But by then it was too little too late.

Now I'm not saying that if it had been more original at the start, the series would have lasted the full seven years. After all, the ratings continually decreased from years 1 to 4. But I don't see how boosting a stale franchise by starting off with two stale seasons really helped matters. TNG could afford to do that partly because Trek was relatively fresh back then and there was little competition for that type of show.

Ultimately, Enterprise had to be much better - and original - than your average Trek series in order to survive. But it wasn't.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Except for the Andorians, that is.

 

[Saxman1]

Les Moonves, who was the head of TV programming at the time at CBS, hated Sci-Fi and Star Trek in particular. IIRC, they had to practically break his arm to get him to green-light a 4th season of ENT to have enough eps for a decent syndication package. UPN was dying anyway and the lame sit-coms that made up most of UPN's programming didn't fit with ENT, which didn't help.

I'm not going to lie, the Space Nazis at the end of season 3 turned me off so much I never watched season 4 first run. Then when I did, I felt like a decent season - long arc in season 3 was ruined by a poor retelling of "City on the Edge of Forever" minus the love interest. It was also the VOY thing with Starling, "First Contact" with Cochrane and the DS9 Gabriel Bell two parter all over again. We'd seen it too many times at that point: all of history is changed and the Federation doesn't exist unless the time line is fixed. ENT even did that at the end of the season 2 cliffhanger with the temporal cold war. I threw up my hands in disgust and in the process missed a great 4th season except for the first eps and of course, the horror that is TATV.

 

[Albertus]

I think ENT was the final nail in the franchise coffin.

When I heard there was going to be a prequel of Star Trek I was quite excited. Then I saw 'Broken Bow' and felt quite miffed.
First off, B&B didn't have the courage of their conviction to even identify it with Star Trek, calling it simply 'Enterprise', only later, when ratings began to slide was the Star Trek appellation added.

A theme song that jarred with many as being too much of a thematic departure from all previous series.

A ship that was so similar to a 24th century design that it was dubbed the 'Akiraprise' by the fans. (It was the ship's design that really annoyed me the most.)

Then there was the mucking around with Canon and the Timeline, Klingons turning up where the shouldn't etc, etc.

I think that B&B took too many liberties with the franchise and tried to 'sex it up', with disastrous results.

What killed Trek? Complacency, lack of vision and poor judgement.
That said, I don't really consider ENT as part of Trek canon, I place it in the same category as TAS and the novels, that way I can enjoy watching it and not have to worry about all of its flaws.


Albertus

 

[Skywalker]

Most of the things you're complaining about were UPN's doing, not B&B's.

And nobody's going to take you seriously with that "not canon!" attitude.

 

[SFRabid]

I think ENT was the final nail in the franchise coffin.

Does JJ know Trek is dead?

When I heard there was going to be a prequel of Star Trek I was quite excited. Then I saw 'Broken Bow' and felt quite miffed.

Quite a few of us felt this way, but we gave it a chance and got over it.

First off, B&B didn't have the courage of their conviction to even identify it with Star Trek, calling it simply 'Enterprise', only later, when ratings began to slide was the Star Trek appellation added.

Do you think no one got the connection?

A theme song that jarred with many as being too much of a thematic departure from all previous series.

Too different from previous Trek? At least you are not complaining about Enterprise being a rehash of older Trek.

A ship that was so similar to a 24th century design that it was dubbed the 'Akiraprise' by the fans. (It was the ship's design that really annoyed me the most.)

I thought only haters called it Akiraprise.

Then there was the mucking around with Canon and the Timeline, Klingons turning up where the shouldn't etc, etc.

Like the first season of TOS. Lots of canon confusion.

I think that B&B took too many liberties with the franchise and tried to 'sex it up', with disastrous results.

TOS waited until the 3rd episode before they showed Kirk without a shirt and changed the uniforms so the women wore miniskirts. How many uniforms did he rip open at the chest? I need to go back over my DVD's and see if Shatner is wearing the same torn uniform over and over in season 1.

What killed Trek? Complacency, lack of vision and poor judgement.

What was that CBS executive's name?

That said, I don't really consider ENT as part of Trek canon, I place it in the same category as TAS and the novels, that way I can enjoy watching it and not have to worry about all of its flaws. :tech man:

Maybe that is what killed Trek. Fans with the "my way or no way" mentality of the younger generation. Fans were complaining about the new movie a year before it was released.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Cmon folks, if it really was "franchise fatigue," then surely that's disappated by now. Or is one two-hour movie every three years enough to satisfy all Star Trek demand? If so, that's not what I would call a "franchise." That's barely any demand at all.

The correct answer isn't on the poll, so I clicked the one that said "UPN," since at least it contains one correct word.

Here's what really killed Star Trek: UPN was transitioning to becoming the CW. The CW was going for a young female demographic so they could target those advertisers and compete with larger, less-targetted networks. Perfectly reasonable strategy, but it left no place for Star Trek, which skews male.

So, CW aside, why hasn't Star Trek been picked up as a TV series since? To answer that question, look at the other space opera shows on TV. Well, you can't because there aren't any. Even SyFy has given up on it.

And that's because it ain't just Star Trek. Space opera as a genre has vanished from TV, because it is too expensive and caters to too small of a market.

This has become a problem as TV has divided up into two broad-based survival strategies - real mass market stuff on broadcast and niche-taste on cable.

But space opera is pretty nichey even by cable standards, and CBS's only cable outlet is Showtime. Some cable outlet might be interested in Star Trek someday - TNT, FX, even AMC? - but they'd have to do a deal with CBS, and is anyone motivated to go to all that trouble? Would Showtime be interested in a brand name associated with free TV?

There are a lot of business-based barriers to Star Trek on TV. That's what "killed" it. Not franchise fatigue, not disloyal fans, not poor scripts, not Scott Bakula and not Berman and Braga.

I voted for franchise fatigue, but it was more fatigue of substandard material, i.e., folks weren't tired of Star Trek, they were tired of BAD Star Trek.

There are plenty of bad shows on TV. Why can't bad Star Trek survive, too?

As for the theme song, I hated it too. So I just zapped it every week. That's not a reason for a show to get the axe.

I think ENT was the final nail in the franchise coffin.

Does JJ know Trek is dead?

Nope, just as he was blissfully unaware that Star Trek was suffering horrible franchise fatigue at the same that he was launching plans for a blockbuster movie. (I remember the nattering in Future of Trek about franchise fatigue and how Star Trek needed to take a ten or fifty year break right up to the time when the movie was announced. )

If Star Trek can be successful enough to place #7 in box office for 2009, then there is plenty of unmet demand that could easily translate to a TV series, as long as the business and corporate obstacles can be overcome (starting with CBS owning the rights to a brand that doesn't fit easily into its strategy). A Star Trek series would probably sell well overseas for instance - sci fi series generally do, and Star Trek is a global brand. That could go a long ways towards offsetting production expenses.

Fans were complaining about the new movie a year before it was released.

And they're still complaining! Which didn't stop it from being a huge BO smash hit. So don't blame fans for killing it on TV either, when it's really the larger trends in the TV business, combined with the unwillingness of CBS to find a way to make it work despite those trends, that really killed it.

 

[SFRabid]

I sometimes with ABC owned Trek instead of CBS. At least Disney would do something with it and younger kids would be exposed.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No thanks, its not a kids show.

 

[DarKush]

I don't think Star Trek is dead. They are gearing up for a new movie for next year. There's the Star Trek Online game and Trek lit is still getting published. More Trek comics are coming. Star Trek isn't dead.

It's not as popular as it was 20 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's on life support. But since this is asked in an ENT forum, I will share my thoughts on Enterprise's contribution to its current condition.

ENT didn't kill Trek, but I can't say it largely helped Trek either. Can't argue about the erosion of ratings that happened during DS9 or VOY, nor the lackluster reponses to Insurrection or the cratering of Nemesis, all of which showed that Trek was on fumes creatively speaking and losing relevance for the general audience.

I think ENT just felt behind the times coming out the gate, in the new age of drama. It had some pretty gripping, exciting competition in shows like Alias, LOST, and 24. New BSG, while doubtfully ever matching ENT in ratings, got the critical attention and a lot of genre fan excitement. Firefly got a lot of fan love too. But ENT didn't have a lot of gripping storylines or engaging characters. There wasn't a lot of surprise twists and edge of your seat action. It sort of just muddled along, particularly in the first two seasons.

Things improved in Season 3, as B&B started to catch on to the fact that 21st century audiences didn't mind arc based storytelling, and seemed to prefer it.

They wanted stories that sucked them in, that gave them pieces of a much larger story, that weren't necessarily wrapped up in a neat bow by the end of each hour. I think ENT was operating, at the beginning, on an outdated storytelling model. And it was too conservative and even clumsy at times in creating vibrant, sexy characters that might get people hooked into watching them. I mean how many times was ENT ever a topic of water cooler conversation? Or that something that happened on ENT was talked about the next day on the news?


One of the great unfulfilled promises with ENT was that it was supposed to present humans more like us, and outside of a few attempts early on, the humans of ENT could've easily fit in the 23rd century (Archer, Trip) and everyone else in either the 23rd or 24th century.

In short, ENT was behind the times and didn't take enough risks. Also it didn't have enough fun with the prequel concept until the last season. I think these things left many people bored with ENT and this might have been projected onto the whole franchise. The movie injected some much needed fun back into the franchise.

 

[DarKush]

No thanks, its not a kids show.

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of kids watched TOS and I know I got into TNG around about 12/13, so why be so adamant about cutting off an audience with the potential to expand the longevity of Trek. The older fans are dying off and moving on. They need to replenish the ranks.

For a long time I've thought that they needed an animated Trek show. It could really delve into all of the cool aliens and worlds that we rarely see on Trek, due to budgetary constraints. Plus it could provide some cool action and fun and get kids hooked. It would be great to see Trek toys right alongside the Star Wars in the store.

And speaking of Star Wars, can you really say that Clone Wars is a kids show? There is a lot of killing on that show and even discussions of politics and stuff deemed too heavy for kids. I think it's a show that appeals to kids and adults. And that's what a Trek animated show could be.

 

[SFRabid]

No thanks, its not a kids show.

That's the problem. Nothing is being done to bring in a younger audience. By the time kids are "old enough" for Trek they've already been taught that Trek is not cool. The best shows are written for any age. Kids can be entertained with the monsters while adults pick up on the higher meanings behind episodes. Trek needs a counterpar to Star Wars Clone Wars. A lot of kids watch that and become Star Wars fans.

 

[Aquarius]

No thanks, its not a kids show.

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of kids watched TOS and I know I got into TNG around about 12/13, so why be so adamant about cutting off an audience with the potential to expand the longevity of Trek. The older fans are dying off and moving on. They need to replenish the ranks.

Yes and no.

While I wasn't around yet when TOS was first-run on prime time, I was born shortly after that and watching it in syndication from the play pen. I was 3 or 4 when the animated series came out, and I remember being alternately bored and annoyed with it, because even in my preschool mind, "That's not *really* Star Trek." My mom will back this up.

I was 17 when TNG debuted, a senior in high school. I recognized Wesley as an obvious grab for the teenage audience. I could maybe see the appeal for elementary and junior high kids, but at the time, everyone I knew who was high school age didn't care so much for Wesley and were more interested in what the adult characters were doing. We also hoped for more Cool Vulcan Mojo (TM); for my generation, finally being old enough to understand that Spock was going home to not just have a wedding ceremony but to have sex was a pretty important coming of age moment in a Trekkie's life. Some of us got it earlier than others, and those who did gleefully explained it to the rest of the group. It was like being in on a big secret.

So, you don't have to pander specifically to children in order to get those new fans, or for them to be able to get something out of the show. For those of us who grew up with TOS, TOS was able to grow with us because we got more and more out of it on subsequent viewings. Our life experiences changed and we were able to see it through a new lens every time. When you start aiming stuff squarely at kids, I think you lose that. The viewer will grow and change, but there will be nothing new to discover in the show. At best, it'll be that thing the viewer remembers fondly later on, but it doesn't become a part of the person's life the way Star Trek has for so many of us.

 

[Aquarius]

I think ENT was the final nail in the franchise coffin.

Does JJ know Trek is dead?

When I heard there was going to be a prequel of Star Trek I was quite excited. Then I saw 'Broken Bow' and felt quite miffed.

Quite a few of us felt this way, but we gave it a chance and got over it.



Do you think no one got the connection?



Too different from previous Trek? At least you are not complaining about Enterprise being a rehash of older Trek.



I thought only haters called it Akiraprise.



Like the first season of TOS. Lots of canon confusion.



TOS waited until the 3rd episode before they showed Kirk without a shirt and changed the uniforms so the women wore miniskirts. How many uniforms did he rip open at the chest? I need to go back over my DVD's and see if Shatner is wearing the same torn uniform over and over in season 1.

What killed Trek? Complacency, lack of vision and poor judgement.

What was that CBS executive's name?

That said, I don't really consider ENT as part of Trek canon, I place it in the same category as TAS and the novels, that way I can enjoy watching it and not have to worry about all of its flaws. :tech man:

Maybe that is what killed Trek. Fans with the "my way or no way" mentality of the younger generation. Fans were complaining about the new movie a year before it was released.

THIS.

(apologies for the double post.)

 

[Reanok]

I originally saw the three seasons of Enterprise on my local CBS station on Saturday nights instead of Wednesday night when it first aired on UPN it was difficult to watch the First season of Enterprise because it was constantly interrupted to show local college football games.I had to wait t six months before I finally saw Desert crossing.I did see al 3 seasons of the show but they switched their around when Enterprise was made it really was frustrating not being able to watch the show in it's entirety.my local Cbs station Canceled Enterprise right before the fourths eason was to air and the local FOX station showed Enterprise on Friday nights when it was shown on Friday nights we finally got to see the last season without interfernce from football games

 

[MacLeod]

It was no doubt to a combination of factors such as

changing viewing habits, i.e DVR's
franchise fatigue
lacklustre story telling
scheduling

Too much focus on US only revenue (though some will disgaree with me)

Unfortunatly time-shifted viewing on devices suchas a DVR is bad news fore ad revenaue as people can just fast forward through them.

As others have said in the US it was pre-empted for sport events, moved around the scheules which can make building an audiance hard.

There has been a natural decline in viewership over the years for TV, so with three shows preceeding it each with smaller vieweing figures than the last. Should have made expectations lower y the studio.

ST unlike some other shows was shown and made by the same coporation. So every cent it earned no matter where feed back to the same coporation. I find it hard to believe that once International revenues where factored into the bottom line it was losing money.

In the early seasons it went with the same old episodic format, which does have its advantages but a quite a few shows around that time where more arc based. Conversly when the later season moved to a more arc based approach quite a few people would say the show improved. In the last season it actually seemed to shift more towards what the majority of the fanbase expected about a prequel show. i.e. Federation Building.

 

[Aquarius]

I think that another important factor to consider was the fact that the broadcast networks hadn't yet accepted the fact that they were permanently getting a smaller piece of the ratings pie because more people than ever had cable/satellite dishes, and therefore more programming choices. Ratings that got Enterprise canceled back in the day are now generally considered pretty good.

These days, how much a show costs to produce will often determine its fate as much as if not more so than ratings. You don't think we have all those "reality" shows on TV now because they're really all that popular, do you? No. It's because "unscripted" television is cheap to produce. Pit that against a critically acclaimed hour long drama that has built a solid audience over several years, with stars who have been gathering more and more name recognition and therefore bigger and bigger salaries at contract negotiation time...and factor in other things like specialized props, sets, and special effects that might not go into other shows...so yeah. That's why SyFy has wrestling and a cooking show and something like FOUR versions of Ghost Hunters now.

Also, high ratings don't necessarily mean that a network thinks a show is doing a good enough job. To give you an example, in the late 1960s, CBS dominated the Nielsen ratings, its shows consistently coming in at number one. So why did it retool its lineup in the fall of 1970? Because the people who were watching were over 40 and not that magic 18-? demographic that they feel has the disposable income to spend on the products their sponsors advertise. So a lot of high-rated shows went by the wayside because CBS felt it was reaching the wrong people. While Enterprise never was a ratings giant, it could be argued that UPN felt that it was drawing the wrong audience.

In syndication, however, that decision is up to the individual stations, or the owners of groups of stations. You can better tailor your programming to your local market that way by putting things on on a night/time when YOUR viewers will be more likely to watch it, versus when the network says to put it in. That's why the "action blocs" of the 90s gained so much popularity.

 

[T'Girl]

That's why SyFy has wrestling and a cooking show and something like FOUR versions of Ghost Hunters now.

I've read other posts similar to this and find it a bit confusing.

Today on SyFy there is a rare Ghost Hunters marathon, and there is two hour of wrestling on Friday nights, but that's it for both of them. Usually the rest of week in the evenings there is original Sf and fantasy programing, and lots of SF and fantasy movies and old TV shows like Star Trek and Stargate.

And while yes, some of the movies are Megashark verse Giant Octopus, this week there is also Blade Runner and Devil's Advocate.

Never have seen a single cooking show.

Sounds like you're getting a different SyFy than I do.

 

[Anji]

Sorry, you're all wrong. Bad writing is what killed the franchise. Star Trek was almost dead in the early 1980's and then along came TWOK and put it back on the boards.

If your writing is good, they will come.

 

[DarKush]

No thanks, its not a kids show.

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of kids watched TOS and I know I got into TNG around about 12/13, so why be so adamant about cutting off an audience with the potential to expand the longevity of Trek. The older fans are dying off and moving on. They need to replenish the ranks.

Yes and no.

While I wasn't around yet when TOS was first-run on prime time, I was born shortly after that and watching it in syndication from the play pen. I was 3 or 4 when the animated series came out, and I remember being alternately bored and annoyed with it, because even in my preschool mind, "That's not *really* Star Trek." My mom will back this up.

I was 17 when TNG debuted, a senior in high school. I recognized Wesley as an obvious grab for the teenage audience. I could maybe see the appeal for elementary and junior high kids, but at the time, everyone I knew who was high school age didn't care so much for Wesley and were more interested in what the adult characters were doing. We also hoped for more Cool Vulcan Mojo (TM); for my generation, finally being old enough to understand that Spock was going home to not just have a wedding ceremony but to have sex was a pretty important coming of age moment in a Trekkie's life. Some of us got it earlier than others, and those who did gleefully explained it to the rest of the group. It was like being in on a big secret.

So, you don't have to pander specifically to children in order to get those new fans, or for them to be able to get something out of the show. For those of us who grew up with TOS, TOS was able to grow with us because we got more and more out of it on subsequent viewings. Our life experiences changed and we were able to see it through a new lens every time. When you start aiming stuff squarely at kids, I think you lose that. The viewer will grow and change, but there will be nothing new to discover in the show. At best, it'll be that thing the viewer remembers fondly later on, but it doesn't become a part of the person's life the way Star Trek has for so many of us.

I don't agree. There are a lot of us who grew up on GI JOE, Transformers, He-Man, and Thundercats, and there is still a lot to discover or rediscover in those shows, even today. And they are popular enough to be revisited and rebooted, in the attempt to bring in younger fans. I don't always care for the newer versions, but I can appreciate the attempt to grow the audience.

Our life experiences change for 'adult' live-action shows as well as 'kiddie' cartoons. And we look at things differently, with time and experience, period. So the potential to move on isn't restricted to animated shows.

Clone Wars is a show designed to appeal to both young and older viewers. I don't think it's pandering, so I don't see why Star Trek couldn't do something similar? Trek did an animated series back in the day, so there is precedent for it.