Should Star Trek Die?

securitas writes "The New York Times Television reporter William S. Kowinski writes about questions of the Star Trek franchise's viability due to overexposure, audience fatigue and creative exhaustion. Star Trek actor and director LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge) is in favor of a hiatus, and is quoted as saying, 'Star Trek's just not special enough, not anymore.... They need to shut the whole thing down, wait five years, create an interest, an excitement, a hunger for it again.' Also quoted are Leonard Nimoy (Spock) and executive producer Rick Berman. The article is particularly salient given the recent announcement of Star Trek Online, a massively multiplayer online game scheduled to launch in 2007. Remember that Activision sued Viacom over the Star Trek franchise last year, ending the license despite a 10-year licensing agreement that originally expired in 2008. So the question is: Should Star Trek die?"

Comments

BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!!

[MoxCamel]

Levar and company are right, Nimoy is high. (not that that's a bad thing...) Although I'd give it even longer, say ten years. It's all a pipe dream though. ST is just too hot a property, and I seriously doubt they'll have the patience to wait two years, let alone five. Coming to a WB station near you: Star Trek Babies!

But a simple hiatus won't fix ST. ST needs better writing, fresher ideas, and to get away from this fixation of techno-babble saving the day. And while I'd be the first to jump into a goo chamber with T'Pol, the "FOX approach" is simply gratuitous and insulting.

ST needs to get back to it's cerebral roots. (yeah the current line in Enterprise is better, but after living through Voyager, it would be hard to get worse.) It needs a rest, but it also needs intelligent direction. coughfirebermancough.

Overexposure?!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Overexposure is what Madonna has.

Star Trek is "not special anymore" because it's been taken over by people who can't understand what made it special. Bring in some real writers who understand why Threshold and Meridian were terrible stories and why The Inner Light was a great one, and the viewers will follow.

Re:Overexposure?!

[abb3w]

Overexposure is what Madonna has.

As opposed to what T'Pol has?
Not that I mind having something to appeal to my baser instincts, as long as you can do it while actually telling a thoughtful SF story. And frankly, Bujold's the only author in SF who's had anything new and thoughtful to say about sex since about 1975. Yes, the repetitive calisthenics are fun, but so what?

Re:should star trek die? yes

[Ansonmont]

Can someone just mod this whole "story" a Troll?

Wouldn't bother me much...

[ThosLives]

It wouldn't bother me at all to see the current generation of Trek put on hold. I can't really stand any of it since TNG ended (I don't even enjoy the movies all that much). I had such high hopes for Voyager, and that was a let down (I've maybe seen 10 episodes). I had such high hopes for Enterprise, and I think I only watched the pilot.

I'd agree that there is too much exposure, lack of creativity (it's the same old plots over and over) and way too much trying to be uber-politically-correct and "visionary". It was better when they put the social commentary in without ramming it down your throat.

I love the idea of having a great spacefaring future, but the best new sci-fi / space shows out there were canned (Farscape and Firefly). I don't really care too much for Stargates; too sappy for my tastes.

While it may be sad to have no new Trek, I think it would be best if they just let a good thing go and not risk tarnishing the franchise any further.

yes, the creativity is gone

[holy_smoke]

It was a fun ride but it got old a long time ago. Same with the Star Wars family.

good things are only good until they get ruined by over-indulgence. They've explored all the angles into a mind-numbing state of mediocrity.

Star Trek = cool
too much Star Trek = boring, repetitive, predictable, stale.

Better to spend their energies creating the next cool thing instead of re-hashing and desecrating the last cool thing.

Priorities

[rlp]

What makes a good sci-fi series is:

1) The quality of the writing
2) The quality of the acting
3) The quality of the special effects

Many shows get this backwards (such as the current ST series and the horrendous ST Voyager). The old Dr. Who series with Tom Baker had ultra cheap special effects (the special effects budget must have been about five pounds) - but are still enjoyable when viewed today. The original ST's special effects were not special by today's standards, and Shatner's acting - well 'nough said. But, the quality of the writing created the whole franchise. B5 and Star Gate (though I'm a little worried about the later) were good because of the many excellent scripts. Forget overexposure - get some decent writers that understand science fiction and can write interesting, thought provoking scripts. That will revive the franchise. Anything else, and it's doomed.

Death Before Social Commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else wish Star Trek would stop trying to be profound with its social commentary episodes?

In this article Levar Burton mentions a future episode where they hope to parallel questions and concerns about the war in Iraq to some civil war on Vulcan. I know geeks love this kind of stuff, but most of the non-rabid Trek fans hate it.

Why? Because Trek moralizing is geek moralizing. It's that naive, "I live in an ivory tower mommy and daddy paid for" philosophizing that makes the series so unapproachable. You know the storyline is going to end with a darker hand shaking a lighter hand, and the entire universe commiserating about how stupid and violent we humans are. It's goofy and embarassing - you know, like that stupid poem Data recited about his cat.

Trek needs to get cool again, and it needs to get cool again fast. Why don't people realize that the reason people liked Kirk was because he was a man's man? He took his ladies and he beat up his enemies. He didn't recite Shakepeare at them.

Re:Death Before Social Commentary

[Morpeth]

Ummmm... there was plenty of social commentary in the original series. A black female communications officer on the bridge, along with a Chinese-American and a Russian? You don't think that was social commentary, not heavy handed perhaps - but very much a statement, especially given when the original series was filmed

Sure Kirk had his butt kicking episodes, but there was often references to (at the time) contemporary or historical issues. Perhaps because they didn't interest you, you've forgotten them, which is fine, I'm just saying the commentary was clearly there.

I think if you do it without going over the top, being too obvious, too black-n-white or simplistic, social commentary can be very interesting and effective. Personally, I'd get tired of a program that just did action all the time with no context or reference point, that's was FPS's are for :)

My 2 cents anyhoo

Um...

[StarKruzr]

I think you mean "death rattle."

Seriously though, are you going to try to tell me Enterprise is not a better show than Voyager? It's good SF - not GREAT SF, with a few exceptions - but it's well-written and well-acted.

Can you people give me some good reasons why you seem to hate Enterprise so much?

(I mean, hell, I'll give you Voyager ;)

Re:Um...

[NanoGator]

"3) Over-reliance on time travel. TOS wasn't exactly time traveless, there had to be 5 or 6 involving it... but every other episode of Enterprise uses this stupid cliche."

That's the basis of the series! Do you have this complaint about Doctor Who as well?

"8) Zero character development. For god's sake, even Andromeda has characters that grow and learn, and exist outside of their duty to the ship."

Been watching?

"11) Insistence on tying in every damn thing that the other series did. Let's see, romulans, klingons, borg, Risa, Enterprise E, and a host of others."

Again, that's the point of the show. (Never mind that the Enterprise-E and the Borg are what kicked it all off to begin with.)

I don't care if you like or hate Enterprise, but when the question is asked "Should Trek die", people start pulling things out of their asses to prove their point. Never mind that the question is completely irrelevant if it still commands an audience. "I don't like it, so nobody else should like it either."

Not overexposure, but context.

[plover]

I think Star Trek isn't special anymore because the times have changed.

Back in the 1960s, in the days of Commies and Sputnik and the Space Race, a show about astronauts warping around space with a dashing captain punching the Evil Empire in the nose was exactly the right formula to grab America's attention. Surround him with beautiful but deadly women, tear his shirt off in a fight over them every so often, and it captured the interest of teens and young men and women all over the country. And since there were three whole networks of TV channels to choose from, competition for attention was scarce.

But now, there are hundreds of channels with thousands of shows. The internet is high speed and in the kids' bedrooms. Soccer moms spend every waking minute taking their kids from activity to activity. Kids just aren't interested in Star Trek. It's now just a show for their dads and moms to watch; there is no excitement for kids, nothing new in these movies and series. There's no evil villain that they could show that these kids haven't already virtually shot a thousand times in their Nintendos.

Star Trek won't die as long as we adults keep hanging on to our memories of Captain Kirk. But we can't expect our kids to hold him in the same "reverence." And no matter how "special" the stories might be to us, they're just another level in a video game to the current generation.

Re:Not overexposure, but context.

[wwest4]

> But now, there are hundreds of channels with thousands of shows.
> The internet is high speed and in the kids' bedrooms. Soccer moms
> spend every waking minute taking their kids from activity to activity.
> Kids just aren't interested in Star Trek.

Mine thinks of nothing else. I'm lucky if I can convince him to go out for a run or a bike ride - he'd rather play starship creator or throw in a DVD and watch episodes. When he flips through the hundred channels, guess where he stops? Trek Uncut. When he's not staring at his SETI@home screen, he's searching google for a Zephram Cochrane birth announcement. His last class project was about his visit to Vegas, and he spent a disproportionate amount of his energy on the side trip to see Trek at the Hilton... in spite of the impact of seeing the strip, GameWorks, In-and-Out, the Hoover Dam, Grand Canyon, and Zion. It's not just another video game to him. He just gets it.

Trek hasn't really changed. It's always been about flashing some scandalous bits to attract general viewership. The spoils (occasional good bits of sci-fi, ideas, imaginary worlds and histories) go to the geeks. The difference now is that many older geeks have tired of their dependence on the general viewers and want to divorce the real meaty center of star trek from the filler that keeps Joe Sixpack in his seat and, by the way, the shows on the air. Well, I say that the only way you can really ever divorce yourself from the filler is by creating something on your own. Geek kids understand this intuitively. Some start with Trek as a base and some start something new, but by the end, Trek just whets one's appetite and does not sate it. That's why my son isn't happy only to sit and watch episodes or wait idly for the next movie. He's building ships, coming up with his own stories and characters, and looking for signs of trek-like progress in the real world.

There is also the argument that there is too much popular filler and Trek has become diluted, but that's another thread...

Re:yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard TOS episode:
The Enterprise or the Federation are menaced by a mysterious and deadly force. Kirk finds a way to destroy it.
Hidden agenda: The electic collection of different writers promote an interesting and occasionally contradictory mixture of left-wing liberalism, American jingoism, and Judeo-Christian egocentrism.

Standard TNG episode:
The Enterprise or the Federation are menaced by a mysterious and deadly force. Captain Picard asks it to please stop. It does.
Hidden agenda: Gene Roddenberry's personal viewpoints (secularism, humanism, collectivism, communism, pacifism, gay rights, sexual equality, atheism, political isolationism, etc). Disclaimer: I am an atheist and a humanist, but not a communist, so I had decidedly mixed feelings about this agenda.

Standard DS9 episode
DS9 or the Federation are menaced by a mysterious and deadly force. Sisko blows it up with cool special effects and lots of technobabble in order to appease the rock 'em, sock 'em crowd, then he turns around and subjects the audience to an agonizingly self-righteous lecture on the evils of violence and the horrors of war, in order to appease the intellectual crowd. If the writers are completely out of ideas, we get to to hear about their weird homegrown Bajoran religion.
Hidden agenda: None. The writers' only real agenda is to milk the Star Trek cash cow.

Standard Voyager episode
Drop Kirk's military control and aggression. Drop Picard's principled strong leadership. Keep Sisko's self-righteous monologues and dalliances with offbeat spirituality themes. Appease crucial lonely male Trekkie demographic with 7 of 9's large busom. Appease spiritual types with constant references to native American vision quests.
Hidden agenda: None. The writers' only real agenda is to milk the Star Trek cash cow.

Standard Enterprise episode:
Copy Voyager's modus operandi, but insert different personalities and different large busom. Annoy longtime Trek fans by ignoring continuity with TOS. Lonely male teen demographic is very excited about this new show.
Hidden agenda: None. The writers' only real agenda is to milk the Star Trek cash cow.

Re:What series' did you watch?

[MoxCamel]

In all of those, however (even being a Trek fan), I fail to see any semblance of a cerebral root.

Then you may want to go back and rent some TOS DVDs. Were they all cerebral? Hell no. Some of them were downright awful. But when you put them in the context of the era (late 1960s) they were powerful but subtle. They addressed issues of race, politics, social issues, sexism, and more. It seems a simple space western today, because we don't have the context.

Even the worst episodes of TOS were better than many "better" episodes of later series, because the writers seemed to care.

Boycott ENTERPRISE .. it's just that bad.

[jeff13]

Since ENTERPRISE began it has been hailed as being the very worst Star Trek ever done... and after Voyager that's quite an accomplishment. Now, after three seasons of fascistic, racist, and horrifically mysoginistic story lines the TV viewing public, who avoided this show like dog shit on the sidewalk, will get more.

Why?

Well, we don't know why. But we can guess. And the best guess always goes with the money.

Paramount, rather like NBC losing 'Friends', is horrified to learn that their long standing Star Trek franchise is dead. Dead dead. No one cares for the material except a very, very, smelly and small number of Fan boy freaks. You know... the kind who have no life but fetishizing dolls and other 'collectibles'. Forget those who appreciated the intricate and smart stories from the original series 40 years ago... those people are looong gone. Paramount has opted to do what all giant Corps. do when faced with an artistic crisis... they buy more. They market more. They keep it going even if it looses millions simply because they still have no idea what to do. So they keep doing what they are doing.

Notice how popular shows (can we think of one? Hmm... something by that Joss guy) get the shaft while "franchises" get perpetuated as if they deserve too. The lesson being that a brand name is far, far, more important than a good show.

Worse, Enterprise is also the producers sycophantic pro George "Dubya" Bush cream dream. Notice how the protagonist, Capt. Archer, is the son of a "great man" who was held back by the (liberal) Vulcans. As the show progresses, Archer becomes increasingly more angry and with a terrorist attack on Earth by an alien race he agrees to "do what it takes" to ... well, the actual goals aren't defined. Stop the bad guys? Sound familiar? Propoganda is not what I watch Star Trek for let alone a soft sell for the War in Iraq. It's become painfully obvious that Enterprise means to present the 'War against Islam" as a great adventure. Sick.

Then, just to undermine the characters rather like on Voyager... soldiers are brought into the show to "solve the problem". Enterprise just failed first year English... sad.

Looking at the original Trek compared to ENTERPRISE one has to wonder why in 1965 they had a multi-racial show that portrayed a ship full of different people while today they can't even give the one black guy on the show lines. The producers lack of giving a shit or even basic morals becomes more apparent. There is an asian girl who is portrayed rather like all women on Enterprise; a weak willed child who's job is so unimportant the stories forgot about her main skill early on. And just when you thought you'd seen the main characters turned into put upon tokens Enterprise will come along with an ep about fundamentalist suicide bombers that deserves an award for being the most racist and ignorant story put on TV in some years.

If this weren't bad enough I can't leave without bringing up the horrifically mysoginistic undertone of Enterprise that is personified by the character T'pol. Even from the first show we see a woman who is attacked by Archer and yet she is drawn to him like a battered wife (and is a psychology T'Pol demonstrates consistantly. I think it's the producers true feelings about women. Scary). Make sense? Only to certain sexually twisted fanboy writers. Anyho', this has continued and is sure to keep on going. Lately, T'Pol has inexplicably decided that wearing a silly cat suit isn't enough to degrade herself so she has become a sort of ships whore by fucking the engineer... again for no apparent reason.

And now for what might be the real reason ENTERPRISE should go away... it's a joke on the Star Trek fans! The producers of this show have, I can only divine, seemingly tried to turn Enterprise into a kind of childish 'Capt. Proton' (if you get me) that takes gleeful joy in ignoring, destroying, or just plain making fun of everything Trek that came before. Noticeably all the good stuff Paramount doe

Re:What series' did you watch?

[Tassach]

Did you notice that DS9's change in tone corresponded with B5 beating it in the ratings game? Competition is good. Of course once B5 went off the air it was back to the same old Star Drek.

Re:What series' did you watch?

[Firethorn]

Well, considering that the Original Star Trek is probably older than half the people on this board, I'd agree that people don't get how 'edgy' TOS was for the time. Heck, the very idea of a female bridge officer! Do you remember the black/white episode? It might seem obvious and overdone now, but back then?

Re:What series' did you watch?

[Abcd1234]

*sigh* Not you again. There's crap in every medium. There is a metric buttload of *bad* books out there. Worse yet, everyone has a different idea of what defines "bad"... for example, I think the Count of Monte Cristo is a bad book (oh, I've tried to read it... how I've tried), but there are many who would disagree. Same goes for movies, music, and, yup, you guessed it, TV! The key, since you seem to have missed it, is to find quality material that you enjoy. Of course, if you choose not to do that, that's fine, but don't criticize an entire medium (and, by proxy, the people who view it) just because *you* have decided that it's worthless. After all, millions of very smart people (many probably smarter than you or me) watch TV every day (they also probably read books, watch movies, and listen to music... variety is, after all, the spice of life).