When Did We Die?

[CoveTom]

There is a difference between the state of Trek for the fans and the state of Trek for the general public.

Trek experienced something very rare for a sci-fi franchise during the late 80's and early 90's. It broke through and achieved mainstream popularity. People who were not sci-fi fans, let alone Star Trek fans, were into Star Trek.

That started in 1986 with the phenomenal success of The Voyage Home and continued through 1994 with the equally phenomenal success of The Next Generation. I think people today forget just how popular TNG was. Hell, at one point it was beating mainstream network shows, including Monday Night Football, in the ratings, which is quite an achievement for a syndicated sci-fi Star Trek show.

But, for whatever reason, that mainstream interest did not carry on past TNG. Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, the TNG movies. None of them received the reception from the audience that TNG did. You can discuss and debate all the reasons you want. For me, it's just that elusive "magic" that some shows have and others don't. Why is one a hit and another is a flop? Something about TNG clicked with the general public. The other shows did not.

So, in that sense, the Star Trek high died in 1994.

That, of course, does not necessarily speak to when the quality of the shows began to decline, when fan interest waned, etc. I personally would argue that really didn't happen until Voyager. And I don't think it's due to oversaturation, per se, but rather having the same creative team doing the same franchise for way too long. Anyone will suffer burn out after 20+ years of doing the same thing. And I'm not just talking about the writers. The producers, the directors, the art department, the visual effects people, the composers. Everyone was basically the same. And that was too much.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Star Trek Nemesis was one bad thing. Terrible movie. I doubt anyone liked the final product of the film. It basically killed the film career of Tom Hardy, who went off the deep end. (supposedly with heavy drug use.) Patrick Stewart was on record saying that this will be the end of his involvement with the franchise.

Voyager was not that great of a series, but it was watched by enough people, mostly die hard Star Trek fans, and it did 7 seasons like TNG and DS9.

Enterprise was (in my opinion) a bad show, from beginning to end. Most people like me have the same opinion on the series since it lost more than half of their viewership over their four seasons. This means that the core Trek fans gave up on it. For me, I'll watch anything with "Star Trek" stamped on it, but I gave up on this. (Note: I have seen everything Trek has ever done, it doesn't mean I enjoyed all of it.)


All the Trek shows forward of TNG were broadcasted over the smaller, independent networks like UPN. If you get cancelled from UPN, that means that no one watched your show.

Science fiction fans are a niche group. People got tired of Trek and moved on to other Sci-Fi and similiar genre. Sci-Fi is expensive as hell to make, so for a series or a movie to come out, there should be some certainty for a chance at success. Sci_Fi is coming back, and in the future, a new Trek series will be reborn, but this time maybe on CBS or FOX and not on some crap UPN.

 

[AnyStar]

if i had to rate trek in order of my favorites, it would break down like this

TOS
TNG
VOY
DS9
ENT <- most likely candidate for nail in the coffin too

or by films

TMP
TVH
GEN
FC
TUC
TWOK
TSFS
TFF
NEM
INS

For me, I'll watch anything with "Star Trek" stamped on it, but I gave up on this. (Note: I have seen everything Trek has ever done, it doesn't mean I enjoyed all of it.)

same with me, and i saw every episode of ENT, except most times i found myself watching simply to "see what part of my beloved trek gets butchered by this interpretation THIS week"
well, it may not have been THAT bad, but that the frame of mind i usually watched it in...

 

[Smiley]

I wonder what might have happened if DS9 had started in 1994 or 1995 after TNG ended. If it had been marketed as the successor to TNG instead of a supplement/alternative/side story, would the masses have latched onto it more than they did?

 

[DWF]

I wonder what might have happened if DS9 had started in 1994 or 1995 after TNG ended. If it had been marketed as the successor to TNG instead of a supplement/alternative/side story, would the masses have latched onto it more than they did?

It was marketed as the successor to TNG, the whole idea was to replace TNG's spot in the syndication market. And it did take TNG's time slots in a number of markets. Even during the TNG finale DS9 was adverstised as continuing the legacy of Star Trek.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I wonder what might have happened if DS9 had started in 1994 or 1995 after TNG ended. If it had been marketed as the successor to TNG instead of a supplement/alternative/side story, would the masses have latched onto it more than they did?

I think it would have done better in the ratings if TNG had left when DS9 started. The oversaturation started right there and then.

Rob

 

[Unicron]

There is a difference between the state of Trek for the fans and the state of Trek for the general public.

Trek experienced something very rare for a sci-fi franchise during the late 80's and early 90's. It broke through and achieved mainstream popularity. People who were not sci-fi fans, let alone Star Trek fans, were into Star Trek.

That started in 1986 with the phenomenal success of The Voyage Home and continued through 1994 with the equally phenomenal success of The Next Generation. I think people today forget just how popular TNG was. Hell, at one point it was beating mainstream network shows, including Monday Night Football, in the ratings, which is quite an achievement for a syndicated sci-fi Star Trek show.

But, for whatever reason, that mainstream interest did not carry on past TNG. Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, the TNG movies. None of them received the reception from the audience that TNG did. You can discuss and debate all the reasons you want. For me, it's just that elusive "magic" that some shows have and others don't. Why is one a hit and another is a flop? Something about TNG clicked with the general public. The other shows did not.

So, in that sense, the Star Trek high died in 1994.

That, of course, does not necessarily speak to when the quality of the shows began to decline, when fan interest waned, etc. I personally would argue that really didn't happen until Voyager. And I don't think it's due to oversaturation, per se, but rather having the same creative team doing the same franchise for way too long. Anyone will suffer burn out after 20+ years of doing the same thing. And I'm not just talking about the writers. The producers, the directors, the art department, the visual effects people, the composers. Everyone was basically the same. And that was too much.

Agreed.

 

[Klaitu]

I don't think there is any big single event that took Trek to the mat. Obviously Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection, and Nemesis were all devastating body blows, but I think the franchise was weakening before that.

I think it was the beginning of the end when DS9 went off the air, and they decided not to use the most excellent writing staff of DS9 on Voyager, and instead let Voyager be flooded with useless garbage episodes.

I think the new Trek film is a second wind for the franchise, and it's getting back on it's feet, but Trek still looks shaky. Anyone wanting to make a new Trek show will be tempted to go with the movie continuity, and I have no interest in that continuity except perhaps as a popcorn movie during the summer.