This is why many fans are perpetually dissatisfied with Star Trek and other skiffy tv shows: the entertainment industry is in the business of making money by entertaining people.
Why do they still let Braga do TV shows?
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
This is why many fans are perpetually dissatisfied with Star Trek and other skiffy tv shows: the entertainment industry is in the business of making money by entertaining people.
LOVE the way you worded that!
And that about sums up Braga's whole problem - his vision was myopic. Though he was the only one there on his level doing all the heavy lifting. Menosky is gone and the others have moved on to brighter pastures. Coto symbolized the fat lady in the opera, nothing more. Did the guy who wrote "tin Man' pitch to the show? as they shut the door on the open submission policy after 9/11 of course keeping out any future Hillery Baders and the like.
I pitched Voyager, yeah - it was a lot of fun, but of course I didn't sell anything to them. I'd gotten to know the producer I was pitching well enough, though, that when he passed on one story he outlined how they were about to re-establish communication with the Alpha quadrant (a change in format that ran over the story I was pitching). At that time it was quite a big deal (for the series, that is) and I was flattered that he trusted me not to dash off and post it all over the Internet. 
Braga's only "problem" was that he was working on Star Trek as people became bored with it, IMAO.
Braga's only "problem" was that he was working on Star Trek as people became bored with it, IMAO.
If the thing with Jolene is true then I can see it being that as he worked through the ranks on TNG he was a talented writer who was learning the ropes of the show, had a writing partner to work ideas and scripts through with and could take criticism from the higher ups if it meant his scripts getting on the screen.
As he got to a point where he was the higher up, his arrogance got the better of him, he fell out with his writing partner, he didn't have to worry about his scripts making it on the airwaves so didn't have to work on them quite so hard and he had no-one above him telling him the strengths and weaknesses of his work, just underlings too scared to criticise him because he was big boss man, so his writing was a couple of drafts away from being good.
Feeling like you're invincible isn't the greatest driver of quality work, sometimes you need that pressure from above to keep you on your toes and making your stuff better.
This is just my conclusions based on the titbits of information we've had in this thread so, y'know, if you don't agree, oh well, that's just MY opinion.
But I've seen it before, many times....human nature, sadly.
As he got to a point where he was the higher up, his arrogance got the better of him, he fell out with his writing partner, he didn't have to worry about his scripts making it on the airwaves so didn't have to work on them quite so hard and he had no-one above him telling him the strengths and weaknesses of his work, just underlings too scared to criticise him because he was big boss man, so his writing was a couple of drafts away from being good.
Feeling like you're invincible isn't the greatest driver of quality work, sometimes you need that pressure from above to keep you on your toes and making your stuff better.
This is just my conclusions based on the titbits of information we've had in this thread so, y'know, if you don't agree, oh well, that's just MY opinion.
But I've seen it before, many times....human nature, sadly.
^ Link?
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
Hardly. Sisko took responsibility for what he did himself as well as for what Garak instigated at his implied behest.
So Sisko would have to rape a female Vorta prisoner before you would consider him "properly dark and edgy" and credit the writers with "balls"?Hell, you don't even have to wander off the skiffy reservation to find shows with more balls than that - Rupert Giles once did his best to protect the world by breaking a helpless man's neck and killing him.
I'm so sick of the modern notion that the Jack Baur type is the epitome of what modern lead characters should aspire to in order to be "truly edgy" (whatever the frak that means).
See above. You wouldn't be satisfied unless SIsko personally slit Vrenak's throat...which is NOT how a 24th century Starfleet officer acts, even in time of war.
Jack Baur-s and Admiral Cain's are the cop outs...ramp up the violence, tone down the conscience and throw the raw bloody meat at the audience for them to fight over like dogs fighting over scraps from the master's table...
Never mind that your format is in part predicated on the idea that man CAN improve himself culturally and morally.
Picard is never wrong...even when he's wrong he never takes any ownership of that wrong in TNG. He starts becoming a bit more believable in the movies, but while the show was on the air he was the very model of smarmy, self-certain, self-righteous "perfection".
Even when he ranted about religion enslaving people.
Even when he had to be shamed into helping a dying planet where the aid could have been given without them even knowing.
Many many people who were part of the production team have commented on the "perfect people" rule, and how it played hob with their ability to keep any dramatic tension going from ep to ep.
No, his problem is that he was too much a Berman clone creatively and couldn't or wouldn't break out of that box the way the DS9 writers did.
None of which changes the fact that the drop in audience had more to do with changing business demographics than it ever did with show quality.
TNG itself couldn't get, let alone hold a big enough audience in today's market to stay on the air, and you hold it up as some sort of epitome of Trek.
People keep making this claim, yet no one's been able to post any fact-based argument to back it up. Can you, while also dispelling the other oft-repeated narrative, that Star Trek was suffering from general franchise fatigue?
Picard is never wrong...even when he's wrong he never takes any ownership of that wrong in TNG. He starts becoming a bit more believable in the movies, but while the show was on the air he was the very model of smarmy, self-certain, self-righteous "perfection".
Even when he ranted about religion enslaving people.
Even when he had to be shamed into helping a dying planet where the aid could have been given without them even knowing.
Many many people who were part of the production team have commented on the "perfect people" rule, and how it played hob with their ability to keep any dramatic tension going from ep to ep.
No, his problem is that he was too much a Berman clone creatively and couldn't or wouldn't break out of that box the way the DS9 writers did.
None of which changes the fact that the drop in audience had more to do with changing business demographics than it ever did with show quality.
TNG itself couldn't get, let alone hold a big enough audience in today's market to stay on the air, and you hold it up as some sort of epitome of Trek.[/QUOTE]
When was Sisco ever wrong? And where's the proof that TNG couldn't get and maintain a big enough audience to stay on the air? It's the only one of the modern Trke series that's stil on the air and it's being remastered which means it'll get yet another round in syndication
Seven hundred hours or so of Star Trek is going to bore most people, and it did. There's nothing more complex involved than that.
A kid who discovered Star Trek at the age of eleven with TNG was in his/her twenties when Enterprise premiered. Fans might like to believe that discovering the Franchise is the beginning of a life-long love affair, but most people's tastes in fact change and they tend to outgrow entertainments that fascinated them as children. Likewise for all the parents in their thirties and forties who'd settled down on Saturday and Sunday evenings to watch Picard and company with their children.
The claim that what happened to Trek had much to do with a "changing business climate" is unexamined foolishness - more people just liked Xena than DS9 - and everything to do with over-familiarity and boredom.
I'm pretty much tired of DS9 fans attacking other Trek series as if only their taste was good. Braga did a great job with TNG and Voyager. TNG got really good at the third season when he was made head writer with others. Other series he did were good, but I didn't like or watch much of Terra Nova. DS9 was a very good series, one of my favorite ever, but if all series were like it, it would get boring and redundant pretty fast. They still let Braga or anybody else do TV shows because they make money off of them and many people like their shows. It's business.
Braga was a WGA intern during TNG's fourth season; he was nowhere near a "head writer" in the third.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Top-Rated_Programs
That is the overall trend of the Nielsen rating for the top rated show every year since 1950. When TNG started, the top show got a 27.8, by the time ENT ended, the top show had a 16.5. That's a 40% drop. Star Trek's drop may have been larger(I don't have the ST numbers handy), but the general trend in broadcast TV has been lower ratings every year. You can't view the ST numbers in a vacuum and instead need to think about it in the broader TV landscape.
According to http://www.madmind.de/2009/05/02/all-star-trek-movies-and-episodes-in-two-charts/, Star Trek's drop in ratings from the beginning of TNG to the end of ENT was in fact substantially larger than 40%. It was about an 80% drop.
Furthermore, TNG's ratings actually increased over its run. It was the post-TNG shows that exhibited a steady decline. In fact, each of them suffered noticeable sharp drop-offs very early on in their runs. The drop in ratings from the beginning of DS9 to the end of ENT is thus even steeper, about an 85% drop.
No doubt you have a piece of the puzzle, but it's not the only piece, and it doesn't look like the biggest piece either. In fact, upon putting the numbers you've provided with the numbers I linked to, one could easily get the impression that post-TNG Star Trek shows were not delivering what the audience wanted as much as other contemporaneous shows were. (ETA: Ah, never mind. As pointed out by My Name Is Legion, your chart is the wrong chart to consider. Silly me, I had accepted your numbers on face value.)
You're referencing a chart on network ratings. The big three.
Yes, it makes a difference.
Where did all those viewers go?
Oh yeah, cable - and syndication.
Xena did fine; Oprah did fine. Other first-run syndicated shows saw their fortunes rise as Trek sank. What finally did in the first-run market in many ways was UPN and the CW.
The syndication market did change over time - everything does - but that doesn't provide the excuse for Trek's diminishing ratings. People who weren't trekkies just got tired of watching Star Trek.
Yes and no. UPN's urban audience was the wrong audience for Star Trek. There was even one show there with two black guys in their hoopty space craft exploring the galaxy. Not working. DS9 fared better syndicated on WPIX. It had a better picture too in NY. An artistic channel like AMC or the rising netflix titan would be better places and homes for it with more appropriate audiences who can still tolerate self righteous Captains somewhat. At this point I'd rather see a series based on 2001 and see how that works first.
Braga was all alone on Enterprise it seems and in over his head with Berman and Coto riding him and it into the ground. Who else was there at the end? Just a couple of greedy people. Even Billinglsy said greed and excusionary tactics are what killed Enterprise and this coming from a guy who had his own hand in the till.
Braga was all alone on Enterprise it seems and in over his head with Berman and Coto riding him and it into the ground. Who else was there at the end? Just a couple of greedy people. Even Billinglsy said greed and excusionary tactics are what killed Enterprise and this coming from a guy who had his own hand in the till.
Ienjoyed the half of the Xindi Arc I saw, but, Coto's S4 was everything I expected outta the gate for a TOS Prequel when it was announced. I was bummed it was too late by the time Coto took over, and we even ended up with him being crowded out of the finale, so Fans could be given "A Valentine". A S5 with Coto at the helm and Shran a regular, could've propelled the Series into overall greatness, IMHO (Storywise for me, if not popularity-wise)
VOY and ENT aired on network TV. Maybe not the big 3, but it was still a broadcast network. And your point about cable is exactly the point I was making. Viewers fragmented. There used to be 3 networks, then there were 4, then there were 4 networks plus syndicated shows, then there were 6 networks, and finally 6 networks plus 100 cable channels. Of course there was overlap between these stages and the timing isn't precise, but the point is the same number of viewers are being split more ways.
When TNG started there were trekkies and then there were viewers who watched because nothing better was on. Some of those viewers became trekkies, but a lot didn't. By the time ENT aired, a casual viewer who used to only have 3-5 choices of shows to watch now had 100, plus what they had recorded on their dvr, and what they had in their DVD collection. They may have still liked ENT better than whatever was airing on CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. But they now had a lot of other choices which meant that a lot of the viewers found something they liked better elsewhere.
The viewer fragmentation has meant that even the most popular show today gets 60% of the viewers it got 20 years ago. There are just only so many viewers and tv hours to go around. Maybe the average ratings of broadcast shows would have been a better measure, but those numbers weren't as easy to find. The fact remains all shows get lower ratings today than they did 20 years ago, and Star Trek is no different.
UPN was just fine for Star Trek - its ratings kept declining there at the same rate that DS9's declined in first-run syndication.
In any event, that has nothing to do with why the weblets diminished the syndication market - it was because a preponderance of larger independent stations in many markets signed up to run UPN 's or the WB's schedules rather than buying programming independently.
A Toyota Yaris is a car. Maybe not a Porsche, but it's still a car. So what?
Your ABC/CBS/NBC chart has nothing to do with anything but those networks and has no real relevance here. In fact both UPN and WB were among the competitors causing the decrease in viewership for the networks. As Star Trek was doing worse in the early 1990s, competing shows were doing better. The "changing marketplace" didn't doom Trek; familiarity and boredom did.
