You think Voyager and Enterprise failed because of their designs? They failed because they were insipid and a big part of the reason they were insipid was because the writers were trapped in a tired and incoherent fictional history that allowed for no risk-taking.
DS9 failed to about the same extent as "Voyager," and most fans seem to think that it was something other than insipid.
"Failed" in the context I was using it in was a critical assessment, not a commercial one. DS9 generally is critically well-regarded. Voyager and Enterprise - not so much.
"Star Trek" failed because there was just too much of it, for free, for too long and because it's ultimately all very much alike.
"All very much alike" is somewhat what I was getting at with insipid. Though I wouldn't really say Voyager and Enterprise were much like any Star Trek that came before, even as the producers seemed to be trying to replicate a formula. Sadly it was a formula they didn't understand. Previous to those two shows every Star Trek series was a major risk. It was a huge risk to put TNG out there, and it got as much, if not more, hostility as this movie is getting. DS9 was an even huger risk because it upended the Star Trek formula while using the same universe. Voyager started off with a risky premise, but retreated from it into the safest possible storytelling. Enterprise mostly just flailed about trying to be TNG, then trying to be TOS, then trying to just appeal to the lowest common denominator. There is still every chance in the world that Star Trek, which started as an off-the-wall out there SF series when no one was doing that sort of thing and which has now become the most profitable franchise of all time (yes, even more so than Bond), won't be able to take the risk that is the very core of what makes it good. We'll just have to see if they've still got those kind of balls over at Paramount.
xortex said:
Yea, but in the King Aurther tales they didn't change the swords into six shooters. History and design are two different things.
The Mists of Avalon made Morgana le Fey the heroine when she was traditionally the villain. The Once and Future King made King Arthur a frivilous, rather cowardly yougn boy when he'd traditionally been a stalwart king.
What do you think is the difference between history and design? It's impossible to have a discussion if you won't define your terms.
