When Did We Die?

[STR]

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.

Compared to today, when I can guarantee, that somewhere on basic cable there is an episode of Law and Order (pick a show) AND a CSI (whichever series) playing right now. I'm not talking 7PM on a weeknight, I'm talking about when YOU read this. Both series are going strong, with multiple shows. "Oversaturation" is an excuse invented by Rick Berman and Co. to avoid admitting that they torpedoed one of the largest franchises in media history. No one, on any planet, at any time gets tired of good TV. People get tired of crap. They get tired of formula. They leave after Fonzy jumps the shark.

Voyager was Crap. Enterprise was uninspired. Insurrection was bland. Nemesis was a #### up. THAT and THAT ALONE caused a 5 year hiatus (which is hardly dead in Hollywood, it was 15 years between Terminator sequels).

 

[Alientraveller]

Well as a kid growing up when DS9 and Voyager were on, Star Trek was generally not very popular with kids, my generation generally saw it as 'boring', and I suppose I was the oddball getting out a book from the library on the making of TOS, TNG and the launch of DS9. I did like TNG when I got round to watching it despite its slow pace because of the good acting and droll humour, as well as classic moments like Locutus as mentioned already in the thread. I didn't see Nemesis until it was on the telly and wasn't interested in Enterprise (I am now interested in the last season and watching it on YouTube because it's so TOS-oriented), so I am an example of how a general viewer was uninterested in the franchise.

Then of course it was announced Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman were working on a remake and I started watching repeats of all five series, and I watched as much as I could, and read as much as I could, as the film that made me a Trekkie approached...

 

[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.

Compared to today, when I can guarantee, that somewhere on basic cable there is an episode of Law and Order (pick a show) AND a CSI (whichever series) playing right now. I'm not talking 7PM on a weeknight, I'm talking about when YOU read this. Both series are going strong, with multiple shows. "Oversaturation" is an excuse invented by Rick Berman and Co. to avoid admitting that they torpedoed one of the largest franchises in media history. No one, on any planet, at any time gets tired of good TV. People get tired of crap. They get tired of formula. They leave after Fonzy jumps the shark.

Voyager was Crap. Enterprise was uninspired. Insurrection was bland. Nemesis was a #### up. THAT and THAT ALONE caused a 5 year hiatus (which is hardly dead in Hollywood, it was 15 years between Terminator sequels).

I agree. I don't think oversaturation was the MAIN issue by any means, just that it may have contributed to the problem under the circumstances, which were:
Trek got taken in the wrong direction. I think DS9 was on the right track. Lots of fans may criticize it for eps like "In The pale Moonlight" or the whole Section 31 thing, saying it betrayed Roddenberry's vision. But regardless of those opinions, the franchise was evolving into something that could still have a place in the mainstream. DS9, while controversial to some fans, I think gave Trek an edgy-ness that could appeal to most fans and still maintain a mainstream fanbase.
With Voyager and Enterprise however, I feel like the producers totally ignored that and instead tried to shit out formulaic, TNG-style shows that just don't work when a franchise has already evolved past that point. If a band has been around for 20 years, their musical style will generally change drastically. Fans may complain, but if the artists tried to write music that sounded like their first album 20 years later, it would sound contrived and lame, most likely. This is what I feel happened with Trek.

 

[Anwar]

It was oversaturation and marginalization. Same producers and writers spread out too thinly and used up after 4 shows one after the other (two of them at the same time). It's better to have one series, then wait a few years before another one. Gives more time for the audience to actually WANT the product, while also allowing the writers to either refresh themselves or get new writers for the new blood.

Plus, Trek was no longer Mainstream after TNG ended. Modern Trek found its niche and became the domain of the genre audience once again, out of the mainstream.

Paramount got greedier with the movies. There shouldn't have been TNG movies while there were TV series, and if there were TNG movies they should have put real money into them like with Trek XI instead of making them all on the cheap.

I said this before, so I'll say it again:

"Well, at that point Trek was a cash cow. Typical corporate reaction to a cash cow is never EVER deviate from what worked before and make sure to squeeze every drop of milk out.

A better technique would be to treat the cow gently, let it do it's own thing as long as it doesn't hurt itself (as in, go directly against what Trek is) and offer it good grass to eat and a little nookie on the side.

That would mean less money in the immediate time, but an ultimately longer-lasting and healthier cow. "

 

[StarryEyed]

As much as I hate to say it (because I'm a niner) DS9 was the beginning of the slide as far as mainstream fans are concerned. You pretty-much had to be a geek to love it. I think Voyager actually helped stem the slide because it brought in a new generation of chick fans - even if they were more interested in 'ships than starships. Janeway (for all her faults) was a very strong female character. Seven of Nine was both physically and mentally superior to the rest of the male crew. That went beyond Uhura and Guinan for female fans.

Enterprise was the real end because it had nothing new to offer.

 

[Anwar]

Eh, by ENT it was pretty much a lost cause.

I guess we can add UPN's stupidity to the equation as well. VOY would've turned out better without them, and ENT probably wouldn't have existed until 2003 or 2004 and given some time for Trek to recuperate.

 

[I am not Spock]

I think it was a mix of Insurrection, Trekkies, and the Star Wars prequels.

Trek was on a high in the mid 90s. TNG, DS9, VOY, and the movies were doing well. The 30th anniversary was a big success. But the lukewarm Insurrection ruined all that. The movie Trekkies put a big nail in the coffin. That jury duty person with the full Trek uniform. How the hell were we ever supposed to live that one down?

Then interest shifted from Trek to the Wars prequels (and look how well they turned out). I've heard people defend Wars by saying Trek has a lot more junk. Excuse me? GL managed two, count them, TWO good films, before ROTJ and the prequels wrecked all that. Not to mention the Ewoks films and the Clone Wars mess. How can people honestly still think Wars is hip after all of that? If SW can survive Jar Jar, Trek surely should be forgiven for Insurrection and Nemesis.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I think it was a mix of Insurrection, Trekkies, and the Star Wars prequels.

Trek was on a high in the mid 90s. TNG, DS9, VOY, and the movies were doing well. The 30th anniversary was a big success. But the lukewarm Insurrection ruined all that. The movie Trekkies put a big nail in the coffin. That jury duty person with the full Trek uniform. How the hell were we ever supposed to live that one down?

Then interest shifted from Trek to the Wars prequels (and look how well they turned out). I've heard people defend Wars by saying Trek has a lot more junk. Excuse me? GL managed two, count them, TWO good films, before ROTJ and the prequels wrecked all that. Not to mention the Ewoks films and the Clone Wars mess. How can people honestly still think Wars is hip after all of that? If SW can survive Jar Jar, Trek surely should be forgiven for Insurrection and Nemesis.

Well...as i have always said, as bad as NEMESIS was, and it was the worst of all the movies (yes V is better) it was Insurrection that killed the golden goose.

Rob

 

[Anwar]

All it did was speed up the process that had already begun.

But it's all a moot point, Trek never "died". It was exhausted, not extinguished. Now Abrams and the new blood introduced to the series have become the spark necessary to restart the smoldering-but-burning woodpile into a mighty bonfire once more.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

We died when everything died.

Pop culture has balkanized into ever proliferating niche tastes. Used to be that TV shows could get incredible ratings like Roots:

On average, 80 million people watched each of the last seven episodes. 100 million viewers, almost half the country, saw the final episode, which still claims one of the highest Nielsen ratings ever recorded, a 51.1 with a 71 share.

Those ratings look surreal now. Today, "half the country" would be 150 million people. The highest rated series nowadays, such as American Idol, get more on the order of 30M. Scripted dramas like Roots don't even do that well - CSI might get 25M. Most shows are lucky to get 10M.

 

[StarryEyed]

If Insurrection killed mainstream interest in Trek than we don't want mainstream interest. Inssurection is quintessential Star Trek. Star Trek is about philosophy and morality stories. Always was - all the way back to the original series. There's room for space battles and killer special effects but that's the frosting - not the cake.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Fads always fade away. Star Trek's popularity in the 90s was faddish. No other explanation is necessary, and in fact any further explanation is symptomatic of taking it all too seriously.

 

[Anwar]

Exactly, it was a side-effect (or the direct effect) of the Trek revival thanks to TNG. It faded, and now another one happened due to nuTrek. It's cyclical.

 

[Shaw]

Any time Trek is aimed at being popular rather than having something to say, it really has no reason for continuing.

Trek on the big screen is a joke, Trek on the small screen only works because every once in a while a good story will sneak in despite the fact that most of the people pulling the strings would otherwise reject them.

The one person who could really save Trek is John Lasseter. At Pixar he wouldn't let just any sequel be made to cash in on the popularity of a property... there had to be a compelling story reason. The people running Trek today only care about milking it for all it is worth rather than trying to re-instill value.

Trek today is like the Fourth of July... a lot of fireworks and not much else. I like the Fourth of July as much as the next person, but I'm very happy it's only once a year!



And frankly, if anyone is basing their enjoyment of Trek on how popular it is... you've got more serious problems in life than Trek does! If you like something, don't worry if no one else does.

 

[STR]

It was oversaturation and marginalization. Same producers and writers spread out too thinly and used up after 4 shows one after the other (two of them at the same time). It's better to have one series, then wait a few years before another one. Gives more time for the audience to actually WANT the product, while also allowing the writers to either refresh themselves or get new writers for the new blood.

People have to stop saying that. "Oversaturation" is made up rationalization. There have been 3 "Law and Order" series running concurrently since 2004. That's in addition to a glut of similar shows and imitators, some of which also have spin offs.

With Voyager and Enterprise however, I feel like the producers totally ignored that and instead tried to shit out formulaic, TNG-style shows that just don't work when a franchise has already evolved past that point. If a band has been around for 20 years, their musical style will generally change drastically. Fans may complain, but if the artists tried to write music that sounded like their first album 20 years later, it would sound contrived and lame, most likely. This is what I feel happened with Trek.

Now, irrelevancy is not rationalization, and is a symptom of a larger problem: crap writing. Crap writing because VOY and ENT all tried to recapture TNG's magic, but TNG was a good fit for its time, not the 90's and certainly not the 2000's. And by "recapture the magic" I mean re-doing the exact same cast, setting and stories. If people wanted to re-watch TNG, they'd get the VHS or later the DVD's. They do not want second rate actor's rehashing it on a second rate ship.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It was oversaturation and marginalization. Same producers and writers spread out too thinly and used up after 4 shows one after the other (two of them at the same time). It's better to have one series, then wait a few years before another one. Gives more time for the audience to actually WANT the product, while also allowing the writers to either refresh themselves or get new writers for the new blood.

People have to stop saying that. "Oversaturation" is made up rationalization. There have been 3 "Law and Order" series running concurrently since 2004. That's in addition to a glut of similar shows and imitators, some of which also have spin offs.

Of course there's the possibility that those shows have yet to reach saturation while Star Trek did. And those procedural cop shows do tend to have larger mainstream audiences, while Trek has always been sort of cultish with occasional dips in the mainstream, IMO.

But now that I think of it, I think Law & Order has reached a saturation point with three shows, because I recall at least two attempts at a fourth L&O show failing...

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Any time Trek is aimed at being popular rather than having something to say, it really has no reason for continuing.

Most pop cultural stuff has nothing to say, but that doesn't stop them does it?

The business of entertainment just doesn't support the mass-market genre approach of TNG and that's most likely gone for good. Okay by me - I didn't like that style so much anyway. The future will be smaller audiences for stranger stuff.

Look at cable for the future: Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, Dexter, Big Love - very specific topics and approaches, not very accessible to the mass market, highly off-putting to many people, but those who like these shows tend to be devoted because they are so unique and there aren't easy alternatives. You want a show about a sympathetic serial killer, you got one choice.

The content is strange, specific and lots of fun for the small subset of the total audience that wants that content. The only frustration is - where the heck is the sci fi in this mix? Skiffy isn't holding up its end of things - BSG and soon Caprica are the only shows that fit the model. Other cable networks could step in, like AMC with The Prisoner, which by all accounts sounds very strange and specific, and people will probably either love it or be bored and confused and wonder why anyone would bother making something like that.

Mainstream networks are hopeless. Lost is an outlier. The best we can expect from them is V - an okay premise executed in a very mainstream and not-too-creative way.

People have to stop saying that. "Oversaturation" is made up rationalization. There have been 3 "Law and Order" series running concurrently since 2004. That's in addition to a glut of similar shows and imitators, some of which also have spin offs.

No kidding. How many CSI shows are there now? How many Saw movies have been made? Check out CBS sometime - it's nothing but police procedurals and interchangeable sitcoms! "Oversaturation" is such a bullshit argument. Give people the crap they want, and they'll gobble it up and demand more, more, more!

Now, irrelevancy is not rationalization, and is a symptom of a larger problem: crap writing.

Sorry, too many shows survive with crap writing for me to think that's a very good argument, either.

 

[shadowedgalaxy]

Star Trek didn't die, it was merely... resting.

 

[Captain Randy Hall]

As much as I hate to say it (because I'm a niner) DS9 was the beginning of the slide as far as mainstream fans are concerned. You pretty-much had to be a geek to love it. I think Voyager actually helped stem the slide because it brought in a new generation of chick fans - even if they were more interested in 'ships than starships. Janeway (for all her faults) was a very strong female character. Seven of Nine was both physically and mentally superior to the rest of the male crew. That went beyond Uhura and Guinan for female fans.

Enterprise was the real end because it had nothing new to offer.

That again brings up the question if it's such a good idea to be popular with the masses. DS9 was a fantastic show in which every episode was like a Christmas present. Good writing, good acting, good directing, good everything. Voyager brought in new female viewers for a while, but a lot of fans had started leaving by that time, and many of them did not come back for Enterprise.

If we love the new cable shows with their very focused topics, then Trek is a natural for that kind of format. It's not easy to be loved by the fans and the public at the same time, so maybe we should be glad for a break from several Trek shows at the same time

 

[StarryEyed]

I don't think it's a good idea to try to make Star Trek popular with the masses because in doing so, you compromise what Star Trek is. Of course, practical realities intervene. I would rather Star Trek die a noble death though than pretend it is is something different from what it is.