What weakened Trek, and what can restore it?

[indolover]

I think essentially Paramount's issues re Trek are self-imposed.

Voyager was an excellent concept, but categorically mal-produced (Harry as an Ensign for seven years lol..) Enterprise's failings was concept, since the production staff jumped on the Hollywood prequel fad of the era.

I think personally Paramount should do a new TNG, similar setting but different actors. At the least, it would draw on the popularity of the show, and to some extent draw in some ratings. I loved DS9, but the issue is ratings/pop culture appeal. Nobody outside of Trek or wider sci-fi circles knows who Sisko is.

Another thing is perhaps Trek should perhaps get some noted actors, and not necessarily cult sci-fi figures (like Bakula from Quantum Leap).

 

[MacLeod]

Several Factors were at work

Franchise Fatigue

Greater compentition

Poor storytelling in so much as that previous incarnations of Trek had done similar stories better.

Little to no character growth.

In some series a shift towards episodic storytelling when the audiance at that time was shifting/had shifted towards favouring arc based.

But the big ones are lack of character growth and poor storytelling.

Yes there were some great episodes, in VOY and ENT.

TOS, TNG are similar, the third show DSN did something different. VOY was similar to TOS/TNG.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Trek in the movies is doing just fine. In the top ten for 2009. Wooeee! That shows that there's a healthy demand for Star Trek out there, as long as it doesn't put the audience to sleep. The audience is not the problem.

On TV, Paramount is not involved. It's CBS's baby. There, the problem is business related. space opera in general has died on TV. Too expensive for the niche audiences that now characterize the TV landscape outside CBS itself, which only goes for cop shows, sitcoms and reality, sci if need not apply. CBS audience doesn't go for sci fi. Star Trek needs to go where the audience is, and be crafted for that audience.

So, someone needs to figure out how to get Star Trek on subscription based TV, where you can have a pricey production and smaller audience. That's Showtime, HBO, Starz, Netflix, even Amazon.

Bob Orci is talking about a new TV series after the next movie is a big hit, so that CBS is fully convinced that Star Trek is a viable TV brand. It's a viable brand right NOW if handled right, but the bean counters need to have their asses covered by assurances that it's a sure thing.

So to get Star Trek back on TV, everyone go to see the next movie ten times and tell everyone they know to do likewise. Even if you object to whoever Cumberbund ends up playing. Now is not the time to be fussy! To the barricades!!!

 

[BillJ]

Two things and one is a by-product of the other.

Over saturation and changing the concept. People fell in love with the show as one-hour self contained sci-fi with characters we liked and understood.

It was simple and straight forward. People say shows like that can't survive now, yet both TOS and TNG continue to thrive in reruns. So much so that both shows have received unprecedented HD makeovers.

 

[The Overlord]

Two things and one is a by-product of the other.

Over saturation and changing the concept. People fell in love with the show as one-hour self contained sci-fi with characters we liked and understood.

It was simple and straight forward. People say shows like that can't survive now, yet both TOS and TNG continue to thrive in reruns. So much so that both shows have received unprecedented HD makeovers.

Voyager tried to recreate the magic TNG created and failed. In fact the first season of TNG tried to be a clone of TOS and that was worse season of that show. When TNG tried to copy the 60s show, it failed, when it did its own thing and became a more 80s style show.

If the next Star Trek show will just be a clone TNG and doesn't adapt to today's TV environment, which means shows with arc story telling, it will fail. It may appeal to old fanboys, but it won't appeal to the new generation of viewers.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

No new Star Trek series can be produced if all it can expect is the same audience as reruns get. Reruns don't demand a big audience for the obvious reason that they are already paid for.

 

[MacLeod]

Whilst TNG is similar somewhat to TOS it worked perhaps part of it was the almost 20 year gap between the end of TOS and the start of TNG. As well as a lack of Sci-Fi on TV at that time.

DSN did something different than TOS and TNG

So the first three Trek shows had something going, the later being time and difference. Then VOY and ENT come along and we have neother of those. That isn't to say VOY and ENT did have their moments but it was case of we've seen this already (recently).

 

[BillJ]

Voyager tried to recreate the magic TNG created and failed. In fact the first season of TNG tried to be a clone of TOS and that was worse season of that show. When TNG tried to copy the 60s show, it failed, when it did its own thing and became a more 80s style show.

No it really didn't. It introduced artificial conflict with the Maquis and gave us a cast of unlikable/wooden characters.

If the next Star Trek show will just be a clone TNG and doesn't adapt to today's TV environment, which means shows with arc story telling, it will fail. It may appeal to old fanboys, but it won't appeal to the new generation of viewers.

It doesn't have to be a TNG clone. What it has to be is exciting, engaging science fiction with a cast of characters people like. This all-or-nothing arc non-sense is exactly that non-sense. People watch TV to be entertained. Some episodic series succeed, some fail. Some arc based series succeed, some fail.

It'll be interesting to see a new Trek produced. Because if the producers try to turn it into something it's not, it'll be one of the most spectacular failures in the history of TV and will be the final nail in Trek's TV coffin.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Well of course the new series should be entertaining and good. But it's naive to say that there are no characteristics of TV series that can be sorted on the basis of where they air. What works on CBS is very different from Showtime, the CW, TNT, FX, etc. Any new show on any channel must fit the general characteristics imposed by that channel or it will be rejected by that channel's audience and will fail. Of course it would never get that far anyway because the gatekeepers for that channel will reject it before spending any money on it.

 

[The Overlord]

Voyager tried to recreate the magic TNG created and failed. In fact the first season of TNG tried to be a clone of TOS and that was worse season of that show. When TNG tried to copy the 60s show, it failed, when it did its own thing and became a more 80s style show.

No it really didn't. It introduced artificial conflict with the Maquis and gave us a cast of unlikable/wooden characters.

If the next Star Trek show will just be a clone TNG and doesn't adapt to today's TV environment, which means shows with arc story telling, it will fail. It may appeal to old fanboys, but it won't appeal to the new generation of viewers.

Except Voyager quickly dropped the Maquis conflict and the show quickly became about technobabble and anomalies of the week. It wasn't exactly like TNG, it was the poor man's TNG, a cheap knock off. But the fact that Voyager and the first part of Enterprise added nothing new to Star Trek in terms of new ideas, helped the franchise collapse. If the next Star Trek series falls into the same trap as Voyager, it will fail pretty quickly. A Star Trek series has to bold and daring, not playing it safe and just trying to repeat the exact same formula as the last couple of shows. The formula needs a bit of shake up.

Enterprise only became interesting after it introduced arc story telling in the third season, it was too late to save show, but it certainly made the show more interesting in its last two years.

It doesn't have to be a TNG clone. What it has to be is exciting, engaging science fiction with a cast of characters people like. This all-or-nothing arc non-sense is exactly that non-sense. People watch TV to be entertained. Some episodic series succeed, some fail. Some arc based series succeed, some fail.

It'll be interesting to see a new Trek produced. Because if the producers try to turn it into something it's not, it'll be one of the most spectacular failures in the history of TV and will be the final nail in Trek's TV coffin.

DS9 had a story arc and people on this board really like that show. The best shows on TV today are arc based, whole most of the crap on network TV not. DS9 had the best examples of character development in the Star Trek franchise, compared to Voyager where most of the characters remained static.

The problem on lot of Star Trek shows is continuity would not matter, the crew would find some new technology and it would never be mentioned again.

 

[BillJ]

DS9 had a story arc and people on this board really like that show. The best shows on TV today are arc based, whole most of the crap on network TV not. DS9 had the best examples of character development in the Star Trek franchise, compared to Voyager where most of the characters remained static.

I'll reply but first I'll wait for you to finish watching your Blu-ray copy of Deep Space Nine: The Movie. Oh wait. Well I'll let you finish watching the episode you're currently into as we all know that Deep Space Nine plays quite a bit on American broadcast and cable outlets. Oh wait.

What people on this board like or dislike doesn't matter one bit to CBS.

Deep Space Nine's ratings went down every year it was on and it struggled in strip syndication on both broadcast and cable outlets. Even in the era of everyone loving arc based shows. The same holds true for Voyager and Enterprise. The ratings for the latter never went up even with the introduction of a more overt arc-based format (they finished out with under two million viewers a week).

I simply think that people who watch Star Trek, by and large, don't like to be jerked around for weeks on end for the smallest snippet of where a story may go. I will speak only for myself, but I like getting a complete story from week to week with a little bit of ethics and a little bit of phaser play tossed in.

The problem on lot of Star Trek shows is continuity would not matter, the crew would find some new technology and it would never be mentioned again.

If it's not important to the stories they want to tell, I'd rather they discard it after they're done.

 

[Satyrquaze]

When TNG tried to copy the 60s show, it failed, when it did its own thing and became a more 80s style show.

But, by the time TNG was going it's own thing wasn't it 1990?

Are you saying that by that point it was almost a decade behind the times?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Deep Space Nine's ratings went down every year it was on and it struggled in strip syndication on both broadcast and cable outlets. Even in the era of everyone loving arc based shows. The same holds true for Voyager and Enterprise. The ratings for the latter never went up even with the introduction of a more overt arc-based format (they finished out with under two million viewers a week).

All this seems to say is that there's no causal link between arc based and standalone shows.

Shows with arcs don't necessarily have to jerk people around like Lost did. It's just nice to actually have a continuity between the shows instead of having episodes like "Hard Time" where there should have been noticeable repercussions and character changes afterward. I think a fair example of that was "Family" or even any of the TNG Klingon arc stuff. It would be nice to see more of that or more episodes bleeding together.

I remember when Enterprise aired people would flip out just hearing a mention of something that happened in an earlier episode. It was because this rarely happened in some of the other shows, and probably because it makes things feel more coherent. Some fans like to have continuity (not the usual type of continuity blathered about here) and possibly even some payoffs for watching the series instead of just an episode here or there with little impact on the characters.

 

[BillJ]

I remember when Enterprise aired people would flip out just hearing a mention of something that happened in an earlier episode.

Voyager mentioned past episode events quite frequently during its run.

Some fans like to have continuity (not the usual type of continuity blathered about here) and possibly even some payoffs for watching the series instead of just an episode here or there with little impact on the characters.

This was the greatest strength of Star Trek, at least for me. It allowed my imagination run wild. I didn't need storytellers to spell out every detail for me (and take eight weeks to do it). I loved to sit around and dissect the events of an episode, all the possibilities that existed.

I just don't get that giddy feeling from arc based shows. They put you on a track and lead you to the end and that's it. They have no real rewatchability for me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think essentially Paramount's issues re Trek are self-imposed.

After seven hundred-plus hours of it no one but hard cord trekkies cared any more - and there aren't enough of them to keep a show on the air.

People were bored by Star Trek, pure and simple.

 

[RAMA]

Trek in the movies is doing just fine. In the top ten for 2009. Wooeee! That shows that there's a healthy demand for Star Trek out there, as long as it doesn't put the audience to sleep. The audience is not the problem.

On TV, Paramount is not involved. It's CBS's baby. There, the problem is business related. space opera in general has died on TV. Too expensive for the niche audiences that now characterize the TV landscape outside CBS itself, which only goes for cop shows, sitcoms and reality, sci if need not apply. CBS audience doesn't go for sci fi. Star Trek needs to go where the audience is, and be crafted for that audience.

So, someone needs to figure out how to get Star Trek on subscription based TV, where you can have a pricey production and smaller audience. That's Showtime, HBO, Starz, Netflix, even Amazon.

Bob Orci is talking about a new TV series after the next movie is a big hit, so that CBS is fully convinced that Star Trek is a viable TV brand. It's a viable brand right NOW if handled right, but the bean counters need to have their asses covered by assurances that it's a sure thing.

So to get Star Trek back on TV, everyone go to see the next movie ten times and tell everyone they know to do likewise. Even if you object to whoever Cumberbund ends up playing. Now is not the time to be fussy! To the barricades!!!

Its funny how everyone jumps to conclusions because there is no "space opera" on tv right now(which in itself is inaccurate), it's all cyclical..when one decent space show comes on others will copy it for awhile, and when they run their course, there will be a lull till the next good show.

..and then of course there is this:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=182210

I now give the next ST series a 50/50 chance of being produced in the JJ universe and produced by that team.

 

[The Overlord]

DS9 had a story arc and people on this board really like that show. The best shows on TV today are arc based, whole most of the crap on network TV not. DS9 had the best examples of character development in the Star Trek franchise, compared to Voyager where most of the characters remained static.

I'll reply but first I'll wait for you to finish watching your Blu-ray copy of Deep Space Nine: The Movie. Oh wait. Well I'll let you finish watching the episode you're currently into as we all know that Deep Space Nine plays quite a bit on American broadcast and cable outlets. Oh wait.

What people on this board like or dislike doesn't matter one bit to CBS.

Deep Space Nine's ratings went down every year it was on and it struggled in strip syndication on both broadcast and cable outlets. Even in the era of everyone loving arc based shows. The same holds true for Voyager and Enterprise. The ratings for the latter never went up even with the introduction of a more overt arc-based format (they finished out with under two million viewers a week).

I simply think that people who watch Star Trek, by and large, don't like to be jerked around for weeks on end for the smallest snippet of where a story may go. I will speak only for myself, but I like getting a complete story from week to week with a little bit of ethics and a little bit of phaser play tossed in.

And Voyager was episodic, how did that work out for them? Being episodic didn't make Voyager a quality program and certainly didn't make it a ratings hit. Like I said Voyager and the first couple of seasons of Enterprise did more damage to the Star Trek brand then anything else, because they offered no new ideas and came off as a rehash of TNG. If the next show doesn't shake up the formula a bit, it won't get anywhere with today's audience. They have make a star Trek show for today, that follows a lot of today's TV trends, not trying to recreate a show from 1967 or 1987.

So were people who watched the Wire or are watching Game of Thrones every week "getting jerked around"? You can do an arc show well and the audience won't feel "jerked around", done well it enhances the narrative.

No offense but it seems like you want to live in the past, most of the sci/fantasy genre programing has been moving towards arc story lines, having an episodic show at this point would make it seem like a dinosaur in today's market.

The problem on lot of Star Trek shows is continuity would not matter, the crew would find some new technology and it would never be mentioned again.

If it's not important to the stories they want to tell, I'd rather they discard it after they're done.[/QUOTE]

Except when there a bunch of times when such tech comes in handy and it just seems foolish they. Also its way easier to have character development in an ongoing narrative, instead of an episodic format, where the events of previous episodes don't have an impact.

When TNG tried to copy the 60s show, it failed, when it did its own thing and became a more 80s style show.

But, by the time TNG was going it's own thing wasn't it 1990?

Are you saying that by that point it was almost a decade behind the times?

The early 90s were pretty similar to the late 80s, its only a little later that 90s came into its own.

 

[Satyrquaze]

^ Fair enough.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I never said this wasn't cyclical. If another space opera series made a big splash, it could change everyone's minds. Hollywood is a herd of cows.

But there's no good example out there to provide that sense of security that yes space opera is a slam dunk. There's The Clone Wars, and maybe other cartoons, but they're primarily for kids. (The dead giveaway is how the Neilsens are reported - for kid age groups.) Falling Skies has spaceships and aliens, but is modern day and Earth based. Not really space opera and not the strongest ratings ever, either.

 

[Ian Keldon]

I think essentially Paramount's issues re Trek are self-imposed.

After seven hundred-plus hours of it no one but hard cord trekkies cared any more - and there aren't enough of them to keep a show on the air.

People were bored by Star Trek, pure and simple.

People were bored by Berman's Trek. Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses were generating excitement and buzz and turning Enterprise around, but the bean-counters refused to give them the time they needed to do the job completely.