Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

[C.E. Evans]

except for the fact that Trekfans can be hyper critical.

That is one of the best points made in years really, and we all now it but have never wanted to admit it. I mean, a bad episode is just that really, but fans have this way of going critical-mass when their high doesn't deliver. Perhaps I'm a minority, but if I don't an episode or movie, I just move on and watch what I did like.

It's always been that way. The only difference between now and "back in the day" is the internet, whereas it used to be confined mostly to local clubs and conventions. Criticizing and nitpicking Trek has been going on since day one, it's just that now, more people can see it and there's more to critique and nitpick with every new production.

But the majority of people who like Trek are silent, IMO, but they speak with their viewership or box office tickets.

 

[Mage]

except for the fact that Trekfans can be hyper critical.

That is one of the best points made in years really, and we all now it but have never wanted to admit it. I mean, a bad episode is just that really, but fans have this way of going critical-mass when their high doesn't deliver. Perhaps I'm a minority, but if I don't an episode or movie, I just move on and watch what I did like.

It's always been that way. The only difference between now and "back in the day" is the internet, whereas it used to be confined mostly to local clubs and conventions. Criticizing and nitpicking Trek has been going on since day one, it's just that now, more people can see it and there's more to critique and nitpick with every new production.

But the majority of people who like Trek are silent, IMO, but they speak with their viewership or box office tickets.

I suppose so. I'm from the Netherlands and 31. The Trek fanbase is not that big over here, and huge conventions is something we just don't have. So, my first real interaction with other fans was online. To me, the attitude as displayed on fora across the internet has been my biggest impression of how fans commune with eachother. Not the best view to have of other fans I suppose.

 

[suarezguy]

While I mostly liked it, the 24th century setting and style had grown too old and, after the Dominion War, complicated for new viewers; a Starfleet Academy could have been different but could also be considered boring.
Enterprise was a good concept but the execution was not fresh enough and the characters not appealing enough. It also faced the particular challenge of trying to please the fans who wanted primarily new and those who wanted primarily classic aliens; using antagonistic Vulcans and the Nausicaans alienated both.

As for its bad episodes, these weren't any worse than the bad episodes of other TV shows, except for the fact that Trekfans can be hyper critical.

OTOH, most shows that have too many bad or mediocre episodes early on don't last more than a season if that.

 

[Greg Cox]

[plus fans now liking it better than the current movies]

While I'm sure there are groups that do feel this way, I don't believe it's more than a small minority.

Point taken. However, the media focus on those fans at the convention in San Fran saying that STID was the worst Star Trek movie ever seems to suggest that these fans are in the majority more than anything else. .

That fan poll in SF was wildly overplayed by the media. Only a minuscule fraction of the fans at that particular convention even voted in the poll and I believe the people running the poll had an axe to grind against the new movies, so the whole thing was pretty much meaningless; it just got a lot of press because "Trekkies Hate New Movies!" is a sexier headline than "Trekkies Have Wide Range of Opinions on New Movies!"

Similar polls, conducted at other Trek conventions, have yielded different results. So it can't be stated conclusively that "the fans" preferred Enterprise--whatever that means.

In real life, of course, the idea that "the fans" speak with a single voice and all want the same thing is ridiculous. As this board proves every day, we're an opinionated bunch--and we never agree on anything!

 

[PicardSpeedo]

Enterprise had lame stories and lame characters wrapped in lame execution, that's it. The stuff I mentioned here isn't a reason for failure, only from a Trekkie's perspective.

There is no such thing as a "franchise fatigue".

Enterprise wasn't just bad Star Trek - it was bad *TV*, which is worse.

 

[bbjeg]

I spoke of this in my "If they made a 25th century TV series, would you watch it?" thread but I thought they should have done a similar TOS to TNG leap into the 25th century, also that Berman should have passed the torch in the process.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

A better written, better cast show would have been more of a success.

But, I don't know if it could have lasted longer than Enterprise. Trek was oversaturated at the time and all but the die-hards were tired of it. Just, it might have retained a higher percentage of its initial ratings before getting cancelled.

 

[Anwar]

I would have just done what Berman wanted to do in the first place with Voyager, and just wait until DS9 was done. IE, only do one show at a time, and not immediately one after the other either (like a year between).

Not oversaturating and taking their time with each series would've helped a ton. Instead of milking the golden cow.

 

[BillJ]

After Voyager was over they should've put the franchise on hiatus for five years then came back with new producers.

 

[JarodRussell]

A better written, better cast show would have been more of a success.

But, I don't know if it could have lasted longer than Enterprise. Trek was oversaturated at the time and all but the die-hards were tired of it. Just, it might have retained a higher percentage of its initial ratings before getting cancelled.

You don't get tired of something that is good.

 

[SpocksLeftEar]

I don't understand why Berman and Braga just didn't quit when the studio demanded a million things they didn't want to do. Instead of becoming a slave to the studio's demands they should have kept their dignity intact and leave - or at least threaten to do so. By obeying every wish the studio made they robbed themselves of their dignity.
Besides, a prequel show was the worst idea they could come up with. Prequel movies are mostly rubbish (see Star Wars), but they only last two hours (thank heavens for that). It was inevitable to get in contact with all the races that are part of Star Trek, otherwise they would have discovered 50 new races that were never heard of in TOS, TNG and so on. It was doomed long before the pilot aired. Sorry to say so, but it's the truth.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I love what Rick Berman did for TNG. He was the right man for the right job. After that, it was just keeping on the gravy train. STAR TREK deserved to have another creative team look at the franchise with fresh eyes. We would've had a J.J. Abrams type of series a long time ago and it would've succeeded wildly ... And if ENTERPRISE is enjoying any kind of resurgence now, it's just because it was made this Century, unlike the others.

 

[Lance]

Than Enterprise?

As much as I liked enterprise, it didn't resonate with the casual audience as much as the other Treks seemed to.

We hadn't had a "traditional" trek show set in the alpha quadrant since TNG ended in 1994. With DS9 being set on a space station, and more concerned with War, politics and religion than exploration and discovery, and Voyager being well... voyager.

What I think they should have done, is gone back to what worked best, have a ship of exploration, and it could have dealt with the aftermath of the dominion war, as well as using new technology that voyager had discovered.

you could have brought back classic trek villains like the tholians and the gorn, maybe pushed out into the beta quadrent.

As the only "improvements," in and of themselves, not likely.

As demonstrated there, the downward slope of the dwindling ratings transcended each series individually. During those years, the whole TV part of the franchise was subject to the same overall trend, and it was down, down, down. Viewers were being shed all along in every series since TNG, at a steady, almost clock-like, rate.

A different scenario: TNG went out on a high in terms of both it's public popularity and also in its place as (by that stage) the proud flagship of the franchise. But do we think it could have maintained that popularity, had it gone on to an eighth, ninth or tenth season?

It seemed to me, both at the time and looking back in retrospect, that TNG had a massive 'casual' following, who it seemed to me abandoned Star Trek after TNG went off the air. DS9 and VOY might have had their followings too, even ENT, but my impression has been that they were more 'devoted' (shall we say) viewers. A lot of that broader, casual audience might not have been among them, and might have lost interest in the franchise when TNG wasn't a regular fixture anymore. Maybe they just didn't carry their interest through to the movies and TV shows that came after.

 

[bbjeg]

A different scenario: TNG went out on a high in terms of both it's public popularity and also in its place as (by that stage) the proud flagship of the franchise. But do we think it could have maintained that popularity, had it gone on to an eighth, ninth or tenth season? ...

Yes, well at least I do.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

... they just didn't carry their interest through to the movies and TV shows that came after...

Considering the ratings decline in many shows, including DS9's, were directly related to the contraction of the market for syndicated TV, TNG would likely have suffered as well.

 

[Lance]

True. It's a hard call to make. But maybe something skewed more towards being a true follow-up to TNG might still have been able to reignite the franchise's popularity in some fashion?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

^Wasn't Voyager that show? It was based on a ship, largely driven by encounters with the species of the week. It even took on TNG's most visible adversaries, the Borg and Q.

 

[Lance]

^ I was thinking more in terms of what Bearded Bloke said up thread, about rebooting Star Trek with a "25th century" era show. Taking the mold that TNG used in 1987 and running even further ahead in timescale.

Part of the reason TNG created a buzz was the degree of seperation it had from the TOS era -- setting it a century later opens up all kinds of possibilities for where things have changed, developed or otherwise since TOS. More story possibilities. VOY was set in the 'present day' of the TNG era; and ENT, pitching itself as a prequel, already had the strike against it that it was alleged to take place during previously established parameters... so what was there to hook the audience into giving it a try?

 

[Sector 7]

Besides, a prequel show was the worst idea they could come up with. Prequel movies are mostly rubbish (see Star Wars), but they only last two hours (thank heavens for that). It was inevitable to get in contact with all the races that are part of Star Trek, otherwise they would have discovered 50 new races that were never heard of in TOS, TNG and so on. It was doomed long before the pilot aired. Sorry to say so, but it's the truth.

I said this from the very beginning, although I did give ENT the benefit of doubt.

 

[E-DUB]

I would like to see a new series set after the events of Nemesis, not immediately after but not so long after that contemporary Trek actors couldn't guest without (too much) aging make-up.