When Did We Die?

[RobertScorpio]

Star Trek seemed to be on such a high, in the mid 1990s. It was even hip to be a trek fan. What the hell happened? What single event pushed us over the edge and down to the bottom of the curb?

When..did we die?

Rob

 

[Piper]

A mixture of oversaturation, Voyager's struggles to find its way, and the mediocre Insurrection ruined the fun I'm afraid.

 

[Joshua Howard]

It is hard to see where "die" fits into the picture in the wake of a massively successful film and in the prelude to new Trek sequel films.

I think the general concensus is that Trek saw a decline due to over-saturation of the market and, as a result of too many shows too quickly, debatably poor writing.

Ultimately, these things depend on funding and available direction; and those are elements which depend on large companies willing to take on the project.

That leads us to competing titles. Star Wars was shinier than the 60's Trek. The Star Wars Prequels, and new Sci-Fi shows such as BSG were more likely to be popular than TNG. Other unrelated titles, like The Lord of the Rings dominated the early 21st century, as did the rising popularity of computer and video gaming as a new entertainment source.

The simple answer to your question is distractions. The world has changed remarkably in the 40+ years since Shatner made his first appearance aboard the Enterprise. Nevertheless, there is nothing dead about Star Trek.

 

[CaptainStoner]

It is hard to see where "die" fits into the picture in the wake of a massively successful film and in the prelude to new Trek sequel films.

I think the general concensus is that Trek saw a decline due to over-saturation of the market and, as a result of too many shows too quickly, debatably poor writing.

Ultimately, these things depend on funding and available direction; and those are elements which depend on large companies willing to take on the project.

That leads us to competing titles. Star Wars was shinier than the 60's Trek. The Star Wars Prequels, and new Sci-Fi shows such as BSG were more likely to be popular than TNG. Other unrelated titles, like The Lord of the Rings dominated the early 21st century, as did the rising popularity of computer and video gaming as a new entertainment source.

The simple answer to your question is distractions. The world has changed remarkably in the 40+ years since Shatner made his first appearance aboard the Enterprise. Nevertheless, there is nothing dead about Star Trek.

this

 

[Rarewolf]

It hit a high in 1996 - the original's 30th Anniversary (and they were all still alive) TNG had First Contact, DS9 and Voyager were doing comfortably. So there was only one way it could go from that high.

Voyager may never have reached its full potential, but it lasted the course. Enterprise going back to the basics and still failing killed it off. Even a successful movie series will probably only give you 2 hours every 2 years, and how long that lasts remains to be seen.

 

[Finn]

It was never hip to watch Star Trek.

 

[JustKate]

The popularity of anything peaks and subsides. If you're lucky, the thing you like peaks and subsides...but then peaks again! But then it'll subside again. But then maybe it peaks again! And so on.

Why should Star Trek be any different? We're just lucky that it has, so far, always managed to come back, eventually, and we're really lucky that there's still plenty of stuff for those of us who enjoy it to watch and read and think about.

So what's the problem? I don't really care if it's "hip" or not, considering how much utter schlock becomes, at least for a while, "hip." I don't care if anybody else thinks it's hip or not, so long as I enjoy it.

 

[RobertScorpio]

The popularity of anything peaks and subsides. If you're lucky, the thing you like peaks and subsides...but then peaks again! But then it'll subside again. But then maybe it peaks again! And so on.

Why should Star Trek be any different? We're just lucky that it has, so far, always managed to come back, eventually, and we're really lucky that there's still plenty of stuff for those of us who enjoy it to watch and read and think about.

So what's the problem? I don't really care if it's "hip" or not, considering how much utter schlock becomes, at least for a while, "hip." I don't care if anybody else thinks it's hip or not, so long as I enjoy it.

Well, I do agree. But for a while, until XI, trek was neither popular nor fun for me...now it has its MOJO back. And so do I!

Rob

 

[JustKate]

Well, that's nice. It's always been fun for me, and what the heck is "mojo," anyway?

 

[tharpdevenport]

Voyager was the first nail in the coffin. A failed premise, a poorly done series, studio interference, then constant overuse of the Borg.

Didn't help either that DS9 became one long emotionally lacking war story around the end.

The second nail wasn't necessarily Insurrection, since it was really no better or worse than First Contact (both very lacking TNG film efforts), but rather "Nemesis" -- which was fucking terrible (though, to be more precise, it was the "third" nail, if we count timeline wise).

And finally the third & final nail in hte coffin was the alien space nazi, badly done series "Enterprise", which if not for the name "Star Trek" attached to it, would have been shit canned after the first season.


The new J.J. film is nothinbg more than pissing on the grave.

 

[AnyStar]

even more important than ratings are what advertisers actually want to advertise on your show, and dating all the way back to TOS, they never fully realized the potential of what their audience was, or could provide to the marketplace.

Trek has had several great revivals, but untill someone realizes that they keep "barking up the wrong tree" and make something that we actually would expect Trek to be, rather than "a fresh new direction" sadly it will continue to fail in the future.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Well, that's nice. It's always been fun for me, and what the heck is "mojo," anyway?

Sexual charm....[at least, according to Austin Powers....and Wikipedia].

 

[RandyS]

A mixture of oversaturation, Voyager's struggles to find its way, and the mediocre Insurrection ruined the fun I'm afraid.

I never bought the oversaturation argument. I find it hard to believe that there is such a thing as "too much Star Trek" particularly when practically everything else on TV is absolute shit. But I do agree that what we did get was mediocre. The last five years of Voyager and pretty much all of Enterprise were lackluster at best, and Insurrection was horrible. But, at least the TNG movies went out on a high note with Nemesis, regardless of Data's stupid death.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

I think by Voyager Berman stopped being as careful with the Trek franchise, he really only focused on formulas and numbers at that point and the franchise suffered as a result.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Even in the mid 90's, it was most certainly not hip to be a Star Trek fan. That's just a combination of rose tinted glasses and some adjustment of history based on the current movie's standing.

Back then the franchise was on a high certainly, but even I remember several critics mauling First Contact based on some prejudice they had about fan stereotyping... like that woman who wanted to serve jury service by wearing a Starfleet uniform. TNG and DS9 certainly had no widespread watercooler moments where I worked. Moments that shows like House, CSI or even 24 enjoy today next day in the office. Being a Star Trek fan was something you generally had to keep quiet or risk having the piss taken. Actually ridicule based on what your average person knew, which tended to be the dodgier moments of TOS. I recall my old boss moaning about all those TV shows with guying wearing rubber foreheads. He couldn't tell a Star Trek show from Babylon 5... or Buffy in all probability. They were all the same to him. That's about as close to recognition as I think of. Maybe I was hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Actually strike that - there was one talking point during a run of 17 continuous years... namely "The Best of Both Worlds" cliffhanger. That summer in 1990 was the last time I experienced anything approaching the current coolness factor. Even then that didn't last and was gone when Season 4 got underway. Even when it came time for the launch of another series, I don't really have any strong memories of excitement from those around me. I loved every minute of seeing each and every all new episode of Star Trek, well into the closing months of Enterprise... but they rarely came up as the topic of casual conversation.

 

[JustKate]

Well, that's nice. It's always been fun for me, and what the heck is "mojo," anyway?

Sexual charm....[at least, according to Austin Powers....and Wikipedia].

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Rob meant. Isn't there a Doors song? But now that I think about it, it makes even less sense than Austin. So never mind.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Dunno, but when DS9 started I was excited, when Voyager started I was excited. Somehow by the time I heard about Enterprise I wasn't bothered. In part that was probably to do with me, but it still felt that Star Trek was sort of... over.

 

[carlmarx]

I agree with the oversaturation thing. I remember on Saturday afternoons Fox used to show TOS at 2, 2 episodes of TNG at 3, the new Voyager at 5, and the new DS9 at 6. At the same time, the WB was showing TNG at 6 and DS9 at 7. That would be a bit much to viewers.

Plus, I think with Voyager, UPN of the producers or whoever totally misread their audiences. The franchise was evolving with DS9, the show got really good as it explored darker themes, and had the multi-episode story archs- yet with Voyager, we got TNG mark 2, but with mostly rigid characters and some of the most cliched writing in Trek's history. I enjoyed Voyager when it was on, but I think it was a complete misfire for the franchise. That's when I personally started losing interest, when DS9 ended and we were left with status-quo-enforcing Voyager. There were just no new ideas after that, and fans want something fresh, not rehashed ideas, shallow plotlines, and little-to-no character development.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Trek left the mainstream interest when TNG ended.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I agree with the oversaturation thing. I remember on Saturday afternoons Fox used to show TOS at 2, 2 episodes of TNG at 3, the new Voyager at 5, and the new DS9 at 6. At the same time, the WB was showing TNG at 6 and DS9 at 7. That would be a bit much to viewers.

Plus, I think with Voyager, UPN of the producers or whoever totally misread their audiences. The franchise was evolving with DS9, the show got really good as it explored darker themes, and had the multi-episode story archs- yet with Voyager, we got TNG mark 2, but with mostly rigid characters and some of the most cliched writing in Trek's history. I enjoyed Voyager when it was on, but I think it was a complete misfire for the franchise. That's when I personally started losing interest, when DS9 ended and we were left with status-quo-enforcing Voyager. There were just no new ideas after that, and fans want something fresh, not rehashed ideas, shallow plotlines, and little-to-no character development.

I agree that the mainstream tuned out after TNG ended. I tuned out after DS9 because, like you, I found Voyager a step backward towards the 'on-off' story telling done so well by TOS/TNG. It felt like TNG, but with newer cheaper actors. Good actors to be sure, but almost like if the Yankees were to dump their starting nine players and brought up the minor league players.

The oversaturation can not be denied. Everyone involved with TREK seems to point at that as well. (which is the main reason I hope TREK does not return to TV while the new movie series is active)

Rob