The Sundered
Star Trek:EXCELSIOR ....a lost series?
- Thread starter Galileo7
- Start date
The Sundered
^ Thanks.
The way I see it, the only way "Star Trek: Excelsior" could have worked would be if they'd made it instead of Deep Space Nine. It's in the immediate aftermath of Star Trek VI so there's still some momentum there, and the aftermath of the First Khitomer accords (with Qo'nos still in crisis) makes for an interesting setting. Keeping Sulu is mandatory but you can recast the rest of the crew (although keeping Rand and Valtane could be good) and start airing in January 1993.
(George Takei isn't a master thespian but he's a decent actor, and I liked his performance in Star Trek VI. If it's a concern, then the obvious solution is to take some of the focus off him and make Star Trek: Excelsior a genuine ensemble piece.)
Any later than that, and an Excelsior series just wouldn't work. Star Trek as a whole has moved on, and all the focus is on the 24th century: "Generations" was a Next Generation movie with a 23rd-century prologue tacked on, and both Deep Space Nine and Voyager were effectively spinoffs of TNG. Nobody really wanted to go back to Excelsior time. And by the time 2001 rolls around and both DS9 and VOY have finished, Takei is too old to play captain anyway.
So, yeah, the only time I could really see "Star Trek: Excelsior" going ahead would be in place of Deep Space Nine. And, to be honest, I'm glad they picked Deep Space Nine.
(George Takei isn't a master thespian but he's a decent actor, and I liked his performance in Star Trek VI. If it's a concern, then the obvious solution is to take some of the focus off him and make Star Trek: Excelsior a genuine ensemble piece.)
Any later than that, and an Excelsior series just wouldn't work. Star Trek as a whole has moved on, and all the focus is on the 24th century: "Generations" was a Next Generation movie with a 23rd-century prologue tacked on, and both Deep Space Nine and Voyager were effectively spinoffs of TNG. Nobody really wanted to go back to Excelsior time. And by the time 2001 rolls around and both DS9 and VOY have finished, Takei is too old to play captain anyway.
So, yeah, the only time I could really see "Star Trek: Excelsior" going ahead would be in place of Deep Space Nine. And, to be honest, I'm glad they picked Deep Space Nine.
Expo67
Captain
Deep Space Nine was pretty much Babylon 5 in the Star Trek universe. It was not all that great. The same can be said for Voyager and Enterprise.
They should have gone the Starship Excelsior route.
And to be honest, George Takei is a good actor. He can still play Hikaru Sulu as well as he did 45 years past.
They should have gone the Starship Excelsior route.
And to be honest, George Takei is a good actor. He can still play Hikaru Sulu as well as he did 45 years past.
Yeah, that's why I like it.
I think B5 is better, but Deep Space Nine is still definitely a good series. In my opinion anyway.To be honest, I don't think Excelsior would've been a particularly good series. You just know that Excelsior would've been the "flagship" series once TNG ended (given that it would star a member of the original series cast) and so would've had all the same problems Voyager did with executives heavily leaning on it to stay conventional, episodic and basically imitation-TNG so they could continue that success. So Excelsior would be the one with the poor characterisation, the over-the-top treknobabble and the abundant use of the reset button.
(But then again, if Voyager did still get made, maybe that'd be the series which gets mostly ignored by execs and so is able to push the envelope a lot more, as DS9 was. Imagine, Voyager as run by Ira Behr... that could've been awesome.)
Yeah, that's why I like it.
...
(But then again, if Voyager did still get made, maybe that'd be the series which gets mostly ignored by execs and so is able to push the envelope a lot more, as DS9 was. Imagine, Voyager as run by Ira Behr... that could've been awesome.)
Quoted for truth. B5 was amazing and Voyager could have been so much better than the trash that it was. It had such a good premise...
This would have been terrible - thank gods they did Enterprise instead.
Expo67
Captain
And look what happened to Enterprise after four years.
That spin-off, along with Star Trek-Nemesis and Rick Berman's mishandling of the franchise is what nearly led to "the final nail being hammered into Star Trek's coffin".
As a writer, surely you would know that the mishandling of something on an artistic front(sacrificing integrity and quality)will only lead to that work being run into the ground.
What Rick Berman and others at Paramount(UPN, or whatever it was called)did during his tenure as the executive producer is proof positive of that.
As much as I dislike what Berman did creatively, he had to have been doing something right to keep his franchise going for as long as he did. Abrams' reboot might not have even been necessary if UPN had let him take a break between Voyager and Enterprise so he could fine-tune the ENT concept, instead of forcing him and Braga to rush right into the new series with hardly any development time.
I think there was a certain momentum that kept the series going, not anything Berman did. TNG had a great run and I think TPTB were trying desperately to recreate that. None of the post-TNG series had any real significant ratings success largely because they just weren't up to snuff. DS9 went it's own way - a bit dark for a lot of Trek fans and if you weren't a Trek fan, B5 was frankly the better show on at the same time. Voy and Ent just recycled plots and ideas from TNG over their runs until the 4th season of Ent when they replaced the creative team. But, it was really too late by then. Trek had no viewers left.
If you're going to tag Berman with what went wrong with Modern Trek (rightfully so), then you have to credit him with what went right. He was there since the beginning in 1987. During his run The Next Generation was the number one syndicated show for most of its' run, Deep Space Nine continued that success, Voyager was UPN's number one show for most of its' run... only Enterprise was considered a failure and it debuted with 13 million viewers. Plus you add in a feature film franchise that was profitable when looked at overall.
There is no way you can describe his run on Star Trek as anything other than a financial success.
And any vehicle that would've had Takei as a centerpiece would have been in the ratings dumpster right from the get-go.
I don't agree with your interpretation of events. I do agree that he did good work on TNG. No argument there. DS9 never had good ratings, though, and saying Voyager was the number one show on UPN is like saying that the sun is the number one rated sun in our sky. UPN had no other shows. And Enterprise had the same problems as Voyager - low ratings.
There are no events to interpret, Star Trek was a financial success under Berman's stewardship. Star Trek: Voyager was put on UPN to give the network some credibility... I don't think anyone expected it to draw 20 million viewers a week on the two dozen low-power UHF stations that made up UPN. What exactly did you want from Deep Space Nine? Yes it bled viewers but if you look at it as a continuation of The Next Generation it was going too. Not many shows that are on the air for 10 - 20 years have continued audience growth (not to mention that it was competing with both TNG and VOY). But it continued to be the number one syndicated show during its run and that was still so even though many stations dropped it because Paramount was overcharging for rights fees.
Now you can debate whether or not it was a creative success under Berman. Some think it was, others not so much... but that comes down to personal taste.
Expo67
Captain
It may have been a financial success, but it was still a clear indication of Paramount mishandling the entire franchise. At that time, Star Trek was Paramount's huge source of income(i.e. a cash cow). As a result of that unwise business decision, artistic integrity, quality, and originality were discarded and flagrantly disregarded. Something which started that downward spiral for the franchise and later franchise fatigue period.
Bottom line is that it was the wrong execution of the right idea.
I'm confused. Business success is measured in dollars and cents and Rick Berman provided that to Paramount by providing shows and movies that were both on time and on budget. You CANNOT blame Rick Berman for problems that were created by Paramount. Such as stacking one series on top of the other which led to franchise fatigue, nixing the idea for a year long Year of Hell story arc or the Temporal Cold War.
The things people seem to blame Rick Berman the most for were beyond his control.
Expo67
Captain
That's what some people said about George W. Bush during his presidency. Even though in that situation, those people were wrongheaded in their views.
All that aside, you are correct that Berman cannot be blamed entirely for problems created by Paramount. I stand corrected, there. Nevertheless he can still be blamed partially for those problems. He was an employee of Paramount. He was partially responsible for that downward spiral and the events that would follow.
So essentially, he was part of the problem, and he, like the rest of Paramount did not help matters.
To quote Jim Kirk "Too much of anything is not necessarily a good thing."
All that aside, you are correct that Berman cannot be blamed entirely for problems created by Paramount. I stand corrected, there. Nevertheless he can still be blamed partially for those problems. He was an employee of Paramount. He was partially responsible for that downward spiral and the events that would follow.
So essentially, he was part of the problem, and he, like the rest of Paramount did not help matters.
To quote Jim Kirk "Too much of anything is not necessarily a good thing."
I really disagree. If I'm a fan, I do have concerns about the creative direction Trek took under his watch beyond Paramount's interference... if I'm the guy above him at Paramount all I can do is give him a big
for all the money the guy made me and the company.
Expo67
Captain
I understand and respect your opinion, sir. However, I'm looking at this issue from an artistic viewpoint.
Technically speaking, it's like what the late Charlton Heston said when he was asked about his involvement in the Planet Of The Apes sequel. "The story has been told. Any further adventures would be among the apes."
In a sense that also applies to Star Trek. Paramount and Berman(as a group whole if you will)took way too many trips to the well, forsaking quality, originality, and integrity on an artistic level. Hence, why ratings dropped for the spin-offs that came after TNG.
If they had just focused on either a series about the Excelsior or just the movies in general(after TNG ended), then Star Trek would not have reached that level of franchise fatigue.
Technically speaking, it's like what the late Charlton Heston said when he was asked about his involvement in the Planet Of The Apes sequel. "The story has been told. Any further adventures would be among the apes."
In a sense that also applies to Star Trek. Paramount and Berman(as a group whole if you will)took way too many trips to the well, forsaking quality, originality, and integrity on an artistic level. Hence, why ratings dropped for the spin-offs that came after TNG.
If they had just focused on either a series about the Excelsior or just the movies in general(after TNG ended), then Star Trek would not have reached that level of franchise fatigue.
It's a bit more complicated than that. It would've been perfectly possible to have done TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise and still kept Star Trek fresh and engaging if they hadn't been afraid to change things more than cosmetically. All of them had great premises but Voyager never delivered, and Enterprise only started to near the end.
The pressure to keep Voyager as similar to Next Gen as possible made it effectively like what TNG would've been like if they'd kept it going for fourteen years instead of seven. Same with the first two seasons of Enterprise: they were effectively TNG seasons 15 and 16 as well. Then when they did the Xindi arc the show finally became interesting, simply because they were doing something different -- and then the fourth season had the show properly embracing its own prequel nature and becoming a lot better as a result.
So, in summary, the "franchise fatigue" wasn't inevitable.
