• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What weakened Trek, and what can restore it?

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.

The ratings were still going down. That is the key. Neither the Xindi arc not the TOS love fest of season four stopped the slide.

The bean counters cut the fee they were charging UPN in half and UPN still wasn't making money on the show nor was it a strong lead-in for other programming.
 
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!!! :D

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.

The ratings were still going down. That is the key. Neither the Xindi arc not the TOS love fest of season four stopped the slide.

The bean counters cut the fee they were charging UPN in half and UPN still wasn't making money on the show nor was it a strong lead-in for other programming.


All of TV's ratings went down, they still are...everything is becoming more custom tailored to people's interests instead of mass consumption, factionalizing the audience, we saw the start of it in the 90s as syndication disappeared.
 
Poor execution of concepts, storylines and characters is what weakened Trek, IMO.

VOY was a really good idea, a lone starship, braving the unknown to get home, making contact with more aliens and seeing more that any other crew in the history of Starfleet. But instead it just seemed to be a walk in the park which ended with them firing on every species they came across. There was nothing made of the need for resources, the loss of even the lowliest redshirt (in a situation where no crew replacements will be coming every single person is needed), no decimated morale from being so far from home and family. It all just seemed too easy, I mean look at how many times they beat/outsmarted the Borg (the Borg for heaven sake!).

Characters not being written in a consistent manner, some who were so annoying you just wanted to kick them in the crotch, and others who were so dull it would have been more fun watching plants grow in the hydroponics bay.

Yes there were some good episodes and character moments, but they are the silver-lining on some very large, dark and thundery clouds.

As for ENT, the prequel idea had merit. Go back and see how things began, but the continuity errors were just too many to let them get away with. As too was their reliance on already overused species (Klingons) and others who were supposed to have been met for the first time centuries later (Borg and Ferengi). Instead of looking at the birth of the Federation and the difficulties it would have faced in its early years, instead we go further back to mankinds first deep space mission, on a ship that looked far too advanced.

Add to that a Captain who was so inept I wouldn't have trusted him as a conductor on a train, an obviously token black guy, and the very-English English guy.

Again there were some nice storys and character moments (Trip and T'Pol saved the show in my eyes), and a season-long story arc was a nice touch (though DS9 had already done something similar with the Dominion War). But to me it was the wrong setting, the wrong ship and definately to wrong Captain.

What could save Trek?

Develop more rounded, better thought out and compelling characters, people who we actually care about or love to hate. Map out how characters will grow and evolve.

Don't rehash old storylines from previous series, or dredge up aliens who have been done to death (its a big galaxy out there). Look at telling interestingm thought-provoking stories that examine the human condition and current events in a sci-fi context, this will mean some dark plots now and then but so is life--the Trek optimism can be found by how the characters deal with these situations and grow.

Move away from the stand alone episodes, have longer arcs, an underlying backgroud plot, or storylines that keep cropping up.

Take risks. Don't play it so safe. Try something new and be daring. If something fails or doesn't work, learn the lessons and move onto something else. Put the characters through hell at times so we can watch as they rise to the challenge (or not) and succeed (or fail), and what that means for them afterwards.

Again, all this is just my own rambling opinions and thoughts, hopes and dreams. :)
 
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!!! :D

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.

The ratings were still going down. That is the key. Neither the Xindi arc not the TOS love fest of season four stopped the slide.

The bean counters cut the fee they were charging UPN in half and UPN still wasn't making money on the show nor was it a strong lead-in for other programming.


All of TV's ratings went down, they still are...everything is becoming more custom tailored to people's interests instead of mass consumption, factionalizing the audience, we saw the start of it in the 90s as syndication disappeared.

Perhaps, but the slow decline of TV ratings is not why Enterprise plummeted from something like 12 million to 5 million viewers in one season. That was because the show was boring and casual Trek fans were not interested in it.
 
Even an excellent Star Trek series (and even if everyone could agree on what excellent means, ha ha) would be wise not to expect much more than 5 million viewers nowadays.

Or to put it another way, whoever produces Star Trek has better be planning to get no more than that level of viewers and still be able to survive. And that's not going to happen on broadcast, even pathetic NBC would want more than that. Maybe it could fly on Fridays where everyone has given up, but not on a space opera budget. A Grimm budget is more like it. NBC doesn't own Star Trek in any case.

So it's a moot point whether ENT tanked only because it stunk. It would have tanked anyway, and the situation has only gotten worse in the time it's been off the air.
 
well, this is what made me love TNG in early 90

1. Cool Ship : I consider the Enterprise as very cool; epic, luxury, and mighty; with a lot of high tech gadgets and technology that we can only imagine it in our dream. I proudly call TNG as science fiction because they had cool tech that we can't even imagine to be happen in real life at that time.

2. Cool characters : Well, I never realize it that TNG characters are actually X-Men in space. They were all cool, a group of heroes that banded together in a starship and explore the universe. everyone have their own roll. Captain as captain, and not captain as super hero that solve everything by himself.

So what do we get from later Star Trek? Same tech style, same style of ship, etc. There is no more novelty from this. Even the real world technology today has surpass the supposedly cool gadget that we get from watching Star Trek. So rather than Science Fiction, Star Trek has fall into a fantasy in Space.

So I think, if we still want to stick in the same universe, there is no more Star Trek that we can be told in the future

Rather than that, I think we must reboot Star Trek. Change everything. From technology, alien that encountered, to the starship style and look.

The Enterprise should be the vision of a futuristic Star Ship that make 21st centuries people say "WOW!" They should give the vision better tomorrow; not a starship that use a kind of Ipad and slim monitor like in the Enterprise.

And the Alien should be more believe able. A pointy ear Elf in space called Vulcan can't be considered as Alien anymore in the eyes of today general Audience. They are human in costume.
 
I think that putting more fight scenes in Star trek could easily restore it.I heard this from lots of peoples "I consider star trek is boring,all what they do is talk talk talk...i wanna see a space fight!Also many peoples are to stupid to understand scientific episodes and they are consider them boring.Also more realistic approach should be good ,for example less things like prophets wee seen in DS9.

And yes!Making a gdamned official ST site with all ships statistic,race info,maps,etc... i am sick of speculating!
 
I think that putting more fight scenes in Star trek could easily restore it.I heard this from lots of peoples "I consider star trek is boring,all what they do is talk talk talk...i wanna see a space fight!Also many peoples are to stupid to understand scientific episodes and they are consider them boring.Also more realistic approach should be good ,for example less things like prophets wee seen in DS9.

And yes!Making a gdamned official ST site with all ships statistic,race info,maps,etc... i am sick of speculating!

So essentially don't make it Star Trek, just use the title?
 
I think that putting more fight scenes in Star trek could easily restore it.I heard this from lots of peoples "I consider star trek is boring,all what they do is talk talk talk...i wanna see a space fight!Also many peoples are to stupid to understand scientific episodes and they are consider them boring.Also more realistic approach should be good ,for example less things like prophets wee seen in DS9.

And yes!Making a gdamned official ST site with all ships statistic,race info,maps,etc... i am sick of speculating!

So essentially don't make it Star Trek, just use the title?

There's no contradiction. Star Trek is an optimistic view of the future in which humanist values triumph in the end. There's no reason at all that that process can't include plenty of action, from fistfights to multiship warfare, just as that theme doesn't preclude a darker approach. It's always darkest before the dawn.

Star Trek is not renowned for its realistic approach to science, so I assume that comment means, less technobabble please. No great loss.

The Prophets represent the more mystical side of sci fi, and I've noticed it's not always a good fit for the rational Star Trek approach. So downplaying that seems like a good idea too.
 
I think that putting more fight scenes in Star trek could easily restore it.I heard this from lots of peoples "I consider star trek is boring,all what they do is talk talk talk...i wanna see a space fight!Also many peoples are to stupid to understand scientific episodes and they are consider them boring.Also more realistic approach should be good ,for example less things like prophets wee seen in DS9.

And yes!Making a gdamned official ST site with all ships statistic,race info,maps,etc... i am sick of speculating!

So essentially don't make it Star Trek, just use the title?

There's no contradiction. Star Trek is an optimistic view of the future in which humanist values triumph in the end. There's no reason at all that that process can't include plenty of action, from fistfights to multiship warfare...

Exactly. Heck, the very first episode of Star Trek, "The Cage," began with Pike mourning the loss of some crew members in a battle against some giant barbarian monsters! As well as some more "cerebral" speculation about telepathic illusions.

No reason you can't have plenty of action in Trek, and maybe a little less technobabble.
 
Someone should write to CBS, informing them that Trek's dwindling ratings were caused by the aliens in Star Trek: Voyager's fourth season episode, "Scientific Method", which was the the seventh episode of the year, and debuted on October 29th, 1997. It was set during Stardate 51244.3, in the fictional year 2374. They need to include all this information, ensuring that they appear every bit the crazed Trekkie of legend.

And then they need to enclose a check for $200 million.

Hah! Trekkies have no lives? Then how did this dude wind up with $200 million to fund the next live-action series, hm? Hm?

Of course we'd need someone with $200 million.

Alternatively, we can just hope all the well-detailed outlines of what must happen for Trek's triumphant return to airwaves, courtesy of Temis, eventually come true. Theoretically, it's only a matter of time. Theoretically.
 
I think that putting more fight scenes in Star trek could easily restore it.I heard this from lots of peoples "I consider star trek is boring,all what they do is talk talk talk...i wanna see a space fight!Also many peoples are to stupid to understand scientific episodes and they are consider them boring.Also more realistic approach should be good ,for example less things like prophets wee seen in DS9.

And yes!Making a gdamned official ST site with all ships statistic,race info,maps,etc... i am sick of speculating!

With that, I doubt we'll see any more Author Clark type writers ever again.

Those are the folks who can't get by unless, every couple of minutes, there's pointless battles, explosions everywhere, every 5th word being a swear word, cast members whispering all their lines (used to make up for their bad acting, one of my theories, anyhow), garish CGI, and silicone double D's flopping about. F*ck them, I say, 99% of what's on screen these days caters to these guys, whom I call "The TMZ crowd", too much already. It's folks like them whom, as my friend Batmanmarch once said online, "Most stuff on TV today is CRAP!"

If that's what they want, let them go watch Star Wars or some other show, when Trek becomes a victim of catering to the lowest common denominator, I'm packin' all in for good and turning over my fan badge or whatever.

And how is less stuff like prophets more realistic or preferable? The Force in Star Wars seem to be doing well for the Star Wars fans.

I say find a good, competent writer or writers, who are Trek fans, and let them find away to make Trek enjoyable for everyone.....the dedicated fans, and the joe sixpack TMZ'ers. Otherwise, I say drag Trek behind the barn, get a revolver and you can make out the rest.
 
Considering that all that's on TV there days are "Who wants to marry an apprentice bachelor survivor?", 'talent' shows where folks make fools of themselves on stage, just to have some sexually ambiguous British guy tell them they suck, celeb gossip TMZ type shows, and a constant coverage of either political scandal or murder trials that won't effect our lives in any important way......finding any programs that don't sap the intelligence out of one's skull is a miracle.
 
Considering that all that's on TV there days are "Who wants to marry an apprentice bachelor survivor?", 'talent' shows where folks make fools of themselves on stage, just to have some sexually ambiguous British guy tell them they suck, celeb gossip TMZ type shows, and a constant coverage of either political scandal or murder trials that won't effect our lives in any important way......finding any programs that don't sap the intelligence out of one's skull is a miracle.

That's a bit harsh. There's plenty of fun stuff on TV these days besides reality shows: Castle, Warehouse 13, Leverage, Teen Wolf, Bunheads, American Horror Story, Dexter, True Blood, Big Bang Theory--and that's not counting imports like Dr. Who, Lost Girl, Merlin, etc.
 
The examples of The Walking Dead and Hatfields & McCoys show that Hollywood's assumptions about what people do or don't want to watch are very limited.

Give people something distinctly different, that taps into an unmet need, and you can have a ratings bonanza that takes everyone by surprise. if they really were in touch with what the audience wants, they shouldn't be surprised, but Hollywood is amazingly blinkered.

My hunch is that there's a big unmet hunger for a particular kind of space opera, a throwback to the old fashioned style of TOS, with plenty of action and adventure and fun, without going to the extremes of nuBSG but not mindless, either. Star Trek may not be the show to tap into that audience, but something will, and it could suddenly validate the whole concept and inspire a slew of imitators.

The moral of the story: never assume that what's on TV now is the whole universe of what could be, or what would find an audience.
 
DS9 and general over exposure in the early '90s is what eventually killed off Star Trek. The ratings started a downhill slide with DS9 and other than a few spikes they continued a downward spiral.
 
The 60's TV format was old and tired, even in 1987, and it didn't change through ENT's run.

The plots relied on too much technobabble to get our heroes out of jams.

the stories were too preachy at times, and only got worse and more cringeworthy over time

From the music, to the format, the the technobabble to the look and feel of the shows, they didn't "evolve" over their almost 18-year run.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top