So what killed Star Trek?

[BrownShatner]

^^ On the other hand, UPN kept Star Trek on the air about 10 years longer than it deserved to be. As far as I can tell, the show never did the network any favors. The VOY/ENT audience would switch channels immediately after the credits rolled, despite the fact they tried numerous times to build a "scifi night". (The rest of the week, the network was mostly 'urban' programming.)

By "core audience", I was implying they had an opportunity to focus in on "smart young guys", like the original series did. I'd bet CW would have seriously considered keeping Enterprise if it had a large teen audience, male or not. Instead the show featured an easy listening theme song, Scott Bakula, and Just For Men commercials; leading one to believe it was just trying to make another buck from aging boomer/genX Trek fans.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'd bet CW would have seriously considered keeping Enterprise if it had a large teen audience, male or not.

They were strongly focused on building a female audience from the start. They needed to focus on some demographic slice of the pie, so that they'd have a good sales pitch to advertisers that could compensate for being at such a disadvantage - a small player going up against the big dogs of network TV.

They decided the niche of "young females" was not being served and that was the best possible strategy. FOX had staked out the young male audience; the CW knew they couldn't go head to head with FOX. The fact that they're still in existence has validated their approach, regardless of whether you like angsty teen vampires.

If ENT had had a disproportionately young female audience, that might have salvaged the situation, but I doubt that's the case. If you want to see sci fi shows slanted for a female audience, look at what SyFy has now - they've been going away from space opera because they're finding the quirky-cop-romantic comedy approach locks in a female audience so well.

Space opera is indelibly associated with military stories, usually as main characters but if not, like Farscape, at the very least as villains. That's where you lose the female audience. In theory, a space opera could be crafted for the female audience. Just make it about space cops, one male and one female, with plenty of sexual tension, romping through planet-of-the-week adventures, with a light serialized plotline relating to one of them having a shady/tragic past that threatens their relationship. This sounds like sarcasm, but it's not - honest! I really think of SyFy tried that formula, they could have a show that does as well as Haven or Warehouse 13 (whether they could do it cheaply enough is another matter.)

By "core audience", I was implying they had an opportunity to focus in on "smart young guys", like the original series did.

First off, nobody focuses on smart anybody in the (ad supported) TV biz. Smart people don't watch ads and when they do, they aren't as influenced by them. Dumb people are easier to influence and therefore, they are the ones the advertisers want. This explains why TV is stupid - it's intended that way!

TOS didn't focus on smart young guys because there were only three networks back then, and nobody needed to do the kind of narrow targetting that you commonly see nowadays. All the networks were trying to get the mass audience. One-third of the entire country would be the fair share for each network, and that's a far larger mass audience that even American Idol and CSI get today (which get well under 10% of the population.) TOS was considered mainstream fare for the average American family - mom, dad and kids watching TV together.

 

[BrownShatner]

Temis, I can't argue with your analysis at all. Only that the real issue was Enterprise's audience wasn't so much the gender but the age. It was a Geezer show in its very conception. Old music, old stars, old plots.

If the show had made even the slightest effort to capture viewership outside of the TNG audience, I might have more sympathy for the fate of televised Trek.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Good point.

If anything, the proper time for ENT would've been concurrent with TNG, not a decade later.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Age and gender both killed it - too old, too male for the CW. There was no other likely home for it, since it was too expensive for SyFy, which wasn't part of the same company anyway.

Star Trek would need to be totally reconstituted on another channel - definitely cable. The specifics would be determined largely by where it ended up, and what the audience there expected of any series.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Considering the number of female Star Trek fans that have always been there, I always have to wonder about this "too male" label...

 

[ChristopherPike]

When the cancellation announcement came in February 2005, the first thing fans clamoured for was an idea that Spike could pick it up. So the male demographic fits. Right affiliate too, in bed with Viacom but even less likely to be able to afford it than Sci Fi, despite the slashed budget Season 4.

Star Trek Enterprise just fell through the cracks in the early stages of the Paramount split between the Motion Picture and Television Series producing arms. One was going into the hands of CBS, whose soon to be appointed CEO had already given the go-ahead for Star Trek to end its 17 year run. A cost saving measure presumably given the hindsight he had? Or a demonstration to the shareholders CBS would soon be in good hands?

 

[Squiggy]

Considering the number of female Star Trek fans that have always been there, I always have to wonder about this "too male" label...

There are indeed female fans, but not enough to carry a show on a primarily female oriented network.

 

[Deckerd]

Considering the number of female Star Trek fans that have always been there, I always have to wonder about this "too male" label...

There are indeed female fans, but not enough to carry a show on a primarily female oriented network.

They could have made it more generally appealing to females by having one hot male crew member who regularly had romantic entanglements. Sort of like, oh I dunno, Kirk? In this respect they completely squandered Scott Bakula, who although a bit long in the tooth was totally buff. I can guarantee if he managed to get his kit off every second episode the female following would have soared.

 

[Dola chi-Trei]

The tragic thing is that after season three, once they were done with the temporal cold war concept that was too action-oriented and caused too many continuity issues, Enterprise actually turned out to be a very decent show. Season four was excellent, with the notable exception of the final episode, but that's just because they had to hasten to a close.

The first two or three seasons of a series are usually meant for a show to find their way. Enterprise could have done without the second half of season two and without most of season three, though.

I think what killed it was the temporal cold war story line. It was way too contrived, it alienated long-time Trek fans because it wasn't faithful to established canon and then, when the show improved in season four, hardly anyone was watching any more.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Considering the number of female Star Trek fans that have always been there, I always have to wonder about this "too male" label...

There are indeed female fans, but not enough to carry a show on a primarily female oriented network.

Space opera as a genre skews male. When a network thinks about doing a speculative-fiction show that appeals to females, this is what it comes up with:

1. Vampires
2. Cops - male/female partners with plenty of UST (unresolved sexual tension)

You've got a mandate to create a speculative fiction series that will attract a female audience. You can do a vampire-cop show just as easily (easier, even) than a space opera. Why would you do a space opera and get lower ratings and maybe get fired when the vampire-cop show will make your job so much more secure?

I'd go for the vampire-cop show and I don't even want to watch a vampire-cop show. But people making the shows aren't making them for themselves. They're making the shows that will get ratings so they'll continue to have a job in a very risky industry.

The CW has actually shown a smidgen of interest in space opera. A couple years ago, there was a series called Plymouth Rock that didn't make the final cut, but got far enough to have a name and a description: "drama about young people on a ship traveling to a distant planet in order to colonize and save the human race."

So, basically a lot of hot young twentysomethings having romantic escapades on a spaceship which is occasionally threatened by asteroids or whatever. I'm still not certain we missed out on anything when that didn't go to series. ABC pussyfooted around with Defying Gravity as a relationship-heavy space opera series for women, but the results were rather awful. Plymouth Rock would have probably been more like that than anything like Star Trek.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Considering the number of female Star Trek fans that have always been there, I always have to wonder about this "too male" label...

There are indeed female fans, but not enough to carry a show on a primarily female oriented network.

They could have made it more generally appealing to females by having one hot male crew member who regularly had romantic entanglements. Sort of like, oh I dunno, Kirk? In this respect they completely squandered Scott Bakula, who although a bit long in the tooth was totally buff. I can guarantee if he managed to get his kit off every second episode the female following would have soared.

And don't forget slash. They were on the right track when they had Archer and Trip running around the desert half naked!

But (semi) seriously, a space opera series for women wouldn't be all that hard to envision. It would take more creativity and effort than the vampire-cop show, so odds are, the vampire-cop show will be on the 2012-13 roster and still no space opera series in sight.

But being optimistic...to start off with: What do we know about Star Trek ratings and what do they say about what works and what doesn't? TOS and TNG got good ratings and after that, they fell off a cliff. I've been attributing that to changes in the TV business, and that's still a huge factor, but what TOS and TNG have in common that the other series don't have is the Space Cop Factor.

Kirk wasn't just an explorer and soldier, he was also the cop on the beat. His beat was the fringes of the Federation. If there's something fishy going on at a looney bin, or an alien parasite attack at a colony, or mysterious deaths at a mining operating, it's Kirk's job to investigate and solve these problems. That's a cop-show format.

Now look at sci fi in general - Fringe, Warehouse 13, Haven, Alphas, etc. - the successful series today are sci fi cop shows. Sci fi shows are attempted that aren't cop shows, but they don't survive. So why couldn't a sci fi cop show in space succeed? Is everyone allergic to space? The planets of Star Trek look like iterations of Earth anyway.

Just go back to the basics of TOS and amp up the cop show elements. They can also still get involved in the Federation's diplomatic and military tussles, because those stories wouldn't be too far afield from the cop show idea. Personal stories and space-amoeba-attack stories always would fit into the mix. The least workable is the format that ENT relied on - actual exploration. If there's no law enforcement/military element, then what's the sense of urgency? Who cares if you visit planet XYZ if it's not a threat in some way that matters?

Star Trek has been led astray by the "going boldly" mantra. That was never what TOS was about anyway. They went boldly with an agenda. Just shove the agenda out there, front and center. It's what the audience (male and female) wants anyway, judging from the dominance of cop shows, including cop shows dressed up in scanty sci fi garb.

Also make sure there's a strong male/female lead pair, of the Janeway/Chakotay variety. But they need to be equals in some way, so perhaps the Chak character needs to be a civilian adviser or guide of some sort. The Archer/Trip slashy couple is also a good idea, but should be two different characters, don't make Chak do double duty.

And whatever you do, don't bring Seven of Nine into the mix to upset the Janeway/Chakotay dynamic. A "spoiler" character like that might be okay as long as she's Janeway Junior. No catsuits.

 

[Satyrquaze]

So what killed Star Trek?

I did, in the conservatory, with the lead pipe.

Or maybe it was Shatner's mad directing skills.

 

[TroiFan4ever]

So what killed Star Trek?

Deanna Troi destroying the NX-01 Enterprise after Will Riker took her on a tour of it.

 

[Gary7]

I don't know why anybody would say being on UPN was partially responsible for Enterprise failing. I could care less what network the show appears on. Don't you watch shows for themselves, not who hosts them?

I think science fiction had already shown a rather strong shift towards other content, namely vampires, ghosts, and supernatural abilities, coupled with "reality show" decorations. Space faring shows were losing popularity. And then if you alienate people who liked Star Trek for what it was, you lose even more chances for success.

Enterprise was the nail in the coffin for Star Trek related series. I don't think there could have been much done to revive it. Enterprise had its failings, unfortunately up through season 2. By the time Season 3 started reshaping Enterprise towards something decent, it was too late.

I don't think the technology and ship design were a problem--actually, I thought that they fit well to the time line. The story writing, dialog, and direction is what really lacked. Combining that all together with mostly mediocre actors, and you get mediocrity. Scott Bakula is a pretty decent actor, but I don't think there was enough of a solid idea of who he was supposed to be, either by the producers, directors, or Bakula himself. This muddied the character.

The other issue was the progress of alien encounters relative to the start of TOS. TOS began almost like Starfleet was beginning. Their alien encounters were rather basic up through the first season. ENT started out in similar fashion, but quickly progressed and surpassed TOS significantly, especially once things got up to the Xindi story arc. And then introducing the Borg was a HUGE mistake. I didn't mind ENT introducing the Andorians much more extensively than TOS. But so many other alien encounters were handled without any regard to TOS.

I really feel ENT was a kind of "reboot"... and yet, the expectation the producers set was that it wasn't. The whole "temporal cold war" smelled of shift. And then things just went so far out of line with what TOS established. I've seen plenty of postings where TBBS members were bothered by them.


Anyway, my main point is that the genre on TV was becoming tired and that Enterprise didn't help at all in attempting to revive it. Is Star Trek dead? No... Abrams has another movie coming out. But I have a feeling he will be done with it by then. Will someone else pick up the mantle? I highly doubt it. Star Trek will only live on in fan based incarnations for the foreseeable future.

 

[Captain Robert April]

As far as space/cop shows on CBS, I have two words for you: Space Rangers

 

[Temis the Vorta]

From 1993? That may as well be 1993 BC for how relevant it is.

I don't know why anybody would say being on UPN was partially responsible for Enterprise failing.

Being on UPN is what killed ENT and, by extension, Star Trek on TV because nobody was going to move it over to the CW when UPN went into the transition to the CW. Didn't have the right audience.

If it had gotten fantastic ratings, maybe they would have been motivated to try to craft it into something that would fit the CW lineup, or find another home for it.

I could care less what network the show appears on. Don't you watch shows for themselves, not who hosts them?

Matching a series to the channel its on is hugely important to its survival, even when the channel isn't undergoing a transition from one audience focus to another, which is what sealed ENT's fate but was an unusual situation.

Any new show must appeal to the existing viewers of that channel, first and foremost, because that is where most of the viewers will come from. That's because the show will be advertised most heavily on that same channel - it's free ad space because the channel already owns it.

If there's another channel where the advertising would be more effective, you have to wonder why the show isn't being aired on that other channel. Ideally, all shows should be shown on the channel where ads for the shows would be the most effective. That's a good content-audience match.

Or to put it another way: what's the audience for your show? Once you know that, go find the channel where the audience most closely matches your show's ideal audience. That's where your show needs to run. If there is no existing channel that is a good match for your show's audience, that's a sign that you need to change your show's content because nobody is going to create a new channel for just one show.

Also, shows are expected to pair well with their lead ins and/or lead outs. Channels like to have a solid, successful prime time block from 8pm to 11pm. They don't want people watching one show and then tuning out because the next show doesn't interest them. Getting viewers in the first place is hard. Once you've got them, you need to keep them.

All this points to one very crucial lesson: if you want a Star Trek show to survive, you need to start by identifying which channel's audience is the best fit. Then tailor the show to specifically appeal to that audience. Star Trek is flexible enough that it could be tailored to HBO, Showtime, the CW, TNT, FX, AMC or the Cartoon Network and probably other places without losing its essential character (the CW and FX would require the most radical departures from what we expect, and TNT the least). But the show's content and budget would be very different on each of those outlets.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Y'know, with the CBS audience skewing older, a Star Trek show on CBS could possibly work, but it'd have to be the best damn Star Trek show ever made to live up to the hype (of which there would be a' plenty). And for all the talk of "getting back to the original concepts", this one would have to deliver on that promise, and not be just another regurgitation of TNG or VOY, or a case of dumb-it-down-for-the-bubbas like the last movie. Too smart or too dumb and it won't make it past thirteen weeks.

It would also help if there was some audience research indicating that the viewers were out there in enough numbers to support having a new show on the air in the first place.

 

[Deckerd]

To Temis: I don't know why someone hasn't done vampire cops before. I've thought for a decade at least that it's the perfect combination.

 

[MacLeod]

^They have, it was called Forever Knight, it ran in the mid 90's it's lead character was a Vampire who worked as a Police Detective.