Slashdot Mirror
Trek Producers Will Provide World A Break
David Crumpton writes "Star Trek Producers have finally agreed that Star Trek fans are oversaturated with the show, and are planning to provide a break. This does not mean they wont bring something new to the screen; they will just wait a few years. They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."
Fans are tired of Star Trek. Fans are tired of THEIR Star Trek. And, this choice was hardly theirs to make.
>They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."
That, and the stupid Enterprise theme song they would never apolgize for.
Mr. Bermann, I am looking in your direction.....
Won't all new star trek series compete against reruns? They'll probably still have reruns of old Star Trek in a few years.
:) /Erik
I'm hoping the break won't be too long. I'm not "saturated" with Star Trek
Erik Dalén
If Enterprise was offed due to TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY reruns, how the hell is any other future series going to make it? Paramount isn't going to just pull those 4 moneymakers off the market.
Let's try: "this show sucked bad, but we just don't have the cajones to admit we failed Gene Roddenberry (again)."
Seriously, did they clone Bill Gates and Steve Jobs so as to hide within their own Reality Distortion Field and sling piles of FUD at the fans? Brannon Braga wanted a baby of his own from the start, he got it, and fans said "hell no". End of story, have a nice day.
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
if they dont bring anything new the stations will certainly bring re-runs which is probably much worse...
They should remember that no matter how long they wait, a new 'Trek' as bad as enterprise won't get good ratings eigther.
I would much rather re-watch a episode of the original series, TNG or DS9 than a brand new episode of Enterprise. Which says more about Enterprise than it does about any of the older series.
They simply need to do better than enterprise, otherwise a break will have no effect on ratings.
I am tired of hearing this "trek needs a break" comment from the producers of Star Trek. Trek does NOT need a break for the reasons the producers say! What it needs is good writing. It needs to break itself away from being a action-oriented series where every episode is predictable. All of those episodes are nothing more than an old western gunfight redressed with new technology. Its all been done before.
The reason why nobody was watching Enterprise was that there was real reason to watch it. The writing was okay at best. It seemed like there were too many episodes that were created to titilate, and not enough episodes to provoke thought. We need to have some depth in the characters. In Enterprise, there is only depth in T'pol and Tucker. I have found their relationship to be one of the hilights of the series. OTOH, there is the pilot Mayweather who is still on the opening credits, but hasnt had any significant development since the first season. Why do you have a character in the spotlight, yet give us nothing intriguing about him?
What we need is another DS9. That series was great in that it had continuity. The characters actually *gasp* changed over the few years! I find it sad that we know more about Garak, a plain simple tailor, than we do Jonathan Archer. Or Will Riker.
I will welcome a new Trek series with open arms, IF they can provide character development worthy of my time.
Being on UPN probably didn't help much either.
Maybe it just plain sucked. Not all of it, and I'm not bashing the actors involved but the writing and plots...who wants to watch that kind of garbage?
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Leave it to the producers to blame anything or anyone but themselves! If they had some original IDEAS and good WRITING, Enterprise would be an enduring hit, and people would prefer it to reruns of the other series. They need people in charge who will think outside the cookie-cutter.
They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.
:-)
:-)
Gee, sounds like Microsoft's main problem; they're competing against Windows 98.
Seriously, though. Would you rather watch a classy show like TNG any night of the week, or watch a crappy show like Enterprise that is bad even by normal Sci-Fi standards to say nothing of Trek standards on Friday night? Put a bad show in the death slot and ratings go down. Put a good show in the death slot and ratings go down. That's why it's called the death slot. Duh.
Enterprise's competition isn't reruns of old Trek, it's wanting to do something entertaining on a Friday night.
Wait about 3-4 years, then bring back the Enterprise Season 4 team (Manny Coto, the Reeves-Stevenses, etc.), and make sure that Berman and Braga are not permitted anywhere close to the sound stage, and you'll probably get a good show out of it.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
I'm sure a majority, if not all, of these same people use the internet... that doesn't mean much... they're sick individuals that need help... doesn't matter what they watch...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
No Berman, we're not tired of the franchise.
We're tired of you.
So, the true test will be seeing how STE does against those re-runs once IT becomes a re-run.
They have it wrong. The ratings didn't drop because Enterprise was competing with Trek reruns. They dropped because it couldn't compete with Trek reruns.
From the NY Times article:
As Jolene Blalock, who played the Vulcan officer T'Pol on "Enterprise," explained: "The stories lacked intriguing content. They were boring." A lifelong "Star Trek" fan, Ms. Blalock said she was dismayed by early "Enterprise" scripts that seemed to ignore basic tenets of the franchise's chronology, and that offered revealing costumes instead of character development. "The audience isn't stupid," she said.
Bingo. That is exactly what is wrong with Enterprise. I'm personally a fan of it, new to the trek series (always liked the movies), but I knew that this was different from the theme of the previous shows and movies. I never really liked the any of the series but Enterprise was an exception. Maybe it is because of the unusuality of it that cought my attention. Still, the lack of character development and cheesy scripts in the begining seasons (those that I really didn't watch) was enough to drive almost anyone away. I really didn't get into it until it's fourth season. Oh well, sad to see it go but maybe a break will bring in new creativity. Or, perhaps they'll just finally let Star Trek die after 30? years.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
TOS, TNG, and DS9 had great writing.
TOS: Yes lots of the writing was kitchy and the humor as mostly slapstick, fine but mostly it was well placed. The plots were not new, they in many was resembled westerns or adventure stories. Still they managed to ask some questions and do things that were not possible in those more conventional genres at the time. When they did use kitch and slapstick it was not over done, except in a few episodes, "Trouble with Tribbles" anyone?
TNG: Largely continued the traditon of TOS. There was a little more character development which gave the show a little more dimention but the writers did a great job of not over doing to th point where the show had to become serial. They also took the kitch down an notch. All and all the show was very inteligent like what had come before it and felt like it had some more depth. They still had an incredible freedome of plot to do anything they wanted and keep the show mostly fresh for its entire seven years.
DS9: Ok, I felt this was a radical departure from the TNG and TOS. It had a much stonger focus on charater development and relations ships then the others, and it was a serial prime time soap, lets just face it. Still there was plenty of chance for variety. It was a busy port where different charater could resonably come and go. The writing never felt streched or unnatural it was consistant with the timelines the other shows had established and played by the rules created in the other series. The new format allowed them to expolre some political issues that could not be address in the episodal format of the other series.
VOY: Holly crap! Lets write ourselves into a corner with the very first episode, the flog the plotline out for seven years. Yes the show had its moments but there was really only one goal they could have from day one. The first seasons had long streches of "What clever trick to advance our homecomeing will we find and fail at this week?" it got old real fast. The writing was miserable the dialog was not even kitchy more just bad. Then they started introducing plot arcs like the borg and breaking all the rules. Come on the Borg were supposed to be this highly adaptive and terrible enemy which nearly vanquished the entire starfleet. In TNG every tangle the enterprise had it incurred serious damage and often needed repairs at space dock. The Enterprise, a bigger more war-ship inspired vessal usually had help too. Where exactly did Voyager a science ship all alone refit, how did they survice the attacks with no backup? Sure they did it in the writing but it seemed so far feched and generally inconsistant. I think that had to irritate lots of true fans.
Enterprise: Personally its a step up form Voyager I don't care what anyone says. It still suffers terribly for consistancy problems regarding the transporter, the state of technology at the time and lots of other stuff. Archer's character is irratic at best, wholly inconsistant at worst. The relationship with the vulcans is entirely to close, in TOS we get the impression humans and vulcans have peaceful relations some exchange of goods and technology but little real cultural connection, to the point that they barely understand each other. Yet on Enterprise years earlier then TOS humans and vulcans are in constant meetings and already serving together. It feels like they are at least trying to get it write unlike VOY which it felt like they were throwing the story to the wind.
We don't need a break we just need someone besides UPN sheparding the writers. UPN is trying to go for cool or sexy as the shows cake when that has in the past been the icing. Past Treks worked because they were philisophical stories and often played with some actual science even in their world of fantasy and embelishment. These things were just not present in VOY and ENTERPRISE.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
However, I think Berman needs to understand that, by and large, fans think that the last few years of Star Trek have been pure, utter crap. Only the most rabid Trek fans have enjoyed anything from DS9 on. DS9 was a soap opera (much more so than the last two seasons of TNG; at least TNG had some compelling story lines) and Voyager and Enterprise just plain old sucked. This from a guy who can more or less recite lines while watching Wrath of Khan.
Berman, Braga, just think about this: I hear more sci-fi fans talk about Andromeda than Enterprise. In that case I think it's more due to the fact that Andromeda is in syndication and local channels use it to fill out their lineup, as well as Sci-Fi and WGN, among others, carrying it. I mean, c'mon, guys, you're being beaten out by something that carries Gene's name! I'd much rather watch one of the Stargate shows or the modern Battlestar Galactica than watch that dreck you call Enterprise. Why? Well, it may not be the best acting, but the shows are just better. And that's sad, because compared to old Trek, all of them suck.
No, Rick, it's not merely oversaturation; if oversaturation was the only key problem, sitcoms would have died out years ago. No, Rick, it's you and Paramont. Craptacular story lines, craptacular acting, and no offense to LeVar, but craptacular directing too. Add to that that the show is stuck on the least-popular network in the U.S., and it's not hard to figure out why Trek is dead.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I rarely actually sit down in front of the TV. I have a lot more time on the computer when I can have a video window open on another monitor.
So I picked up torrents for some Enterprise episodes in HD, thinking "hey, I'll just watch it here, and if I really like it, I'll make time for it."
A group called BayTSP started sending abuse notices to my ISP, threatening to sue me if I didn't stop sharing Enterprise episodes. So I stopped. And I don't watch it. I do, however, watch Battlestar Galactica, for which I have not received any file sharing complaints.
I didn't watch enterprise for a reason, I saw the first eppisode, they showed the klingons as they were in TNG NOT as they were in TOS as they would have been in TOS and that would have been closer to thier time... but that's not the big thing that bothered me, I didn't like the show because it was going backwards, every star trek out there was getting bigger better technology, we were watching not only the technological evolution, but also the relationships between the species, it was an excellent show, but enterprise went back to the begining of the star terk universe when the federation first started, they couldn't even do warp 6, if you compare the technology it couldn't even survive a battle in 23rd century, the show enterprise was going against everything we were used to.
I loved DS9, TNG, and VOY, yes even TOS when I was a kid I loved to watch DS9 and TNG re-runs, but the thing is TNG and DS9 where in the same time frame, they had similiar technology, we got to meet up with character from the other show (Thomas Riker on DS9, and Bashir in TNG)the only thing the I didn't like about VOY was that they weren't in thier classic federation dealing with the klingon/romulan empire and it was all these small (in comparison)groups that Voyager needed to depend on to get home I still enjoyed Voyager.
to finish up I'd just like to say that we didn't lose interest in Star trek, Star Trek was going in another direction. I would love to see a Star Trek series that takes place from the same time era as TNG maybe slightly more into the furutre with newer technology, dealing in the classic ferdation situation going out on a mission of peace, exporing and from time to time dealing witht he klingon/romulan empires, and of coarse meeting the other species the the federation as met b4
Like I said on my EpiosdeList blog, oversaturation isn't the answer, just look at Law and Order, and CSI, they run just about everyday with new and re-run episodes on many different channels, and are still going strong.
The demise of Star Trek has more to do with lack of direction and vision. Ever since the passing of Gene Roddenbery (ok he coun't write), the shows have lost their purpose and direction.
The totally obsurd storylines on Enterprise (come on a Temporal Cold War!, Aliens taking a pivitol part in WW2?!?!) are the reason for Star Trek demise.
Started with the introduction of the Borg queen and breathed it's last breath near the end of voyagers 2nd season and midway through it's third. The female captain thing induced a politically correct brain fart causing overlooked obvious storyline's and potential series direction. She's still my favorite captain from any star trek series but in the desire of doing something special because of the exception of her being a her, ordinary cast character progression/growth suffered.
The original idea of the borg was one of no central intelligence, just rudimentary command structures. The concept was new and had a firm foundation in reality.
They had a lot of opportunity with voyager in offering a healthier well-balanced male/female relations with parodies found in the disease ridden, pathological creating, dysfunctional popular media. Instead they chickened out and attempted to gain more female viewers which alienated their demographic majority.
Poor choices in where the series should go and constant erosion in the quality of scripts (seemed to choose partisanship unimaginative copy/paste scrips with good ones getting rejected), character direction/collaboration under the directors and acting coaches. Lastly, the 25,000 threating letters to their fan base over mostly frivolous IP infringement left a sour taste in just about everyone's mouth.
No... just tired of _bad_ Star Trek.
The article you mention is a joke. Not once does it mention Enterprise airing only on UPN, unlike previous Star Trek successes.
Further, the article mentions that when Enterprise first aired, it had over 12 million viewers, then dwindled quickly. Then it goes on to hypothesize things like saturation and a poor matchup with UPN content. If that was the problem, Enterprise wouldn't have started out with 12 million viewers.
In the world of science, if something fails when it had always succeeded, we identify the differences, and hypothesize that the differences cause the failure. In the world of Star Trek, the genuises at UPN find bizarre reasoning, rather than identify the obvious. Sad really.
The sad thing is that this mania seems to affect even decent writers who happen to be Trekkies. The Reeves-Stevens, for example, have done some decent non-Trek SF -- but their collective IQ seems to drop about 30 points whenever they do a Star Trek script.
If they could lock these idiots out of the process and hire some real writers, you could maybe come up with a decent Star Trek series. But that's not possible. For one thing, thestudio can't seem to resist all the free material. (Rick Berman is usually blamed for this, but in fact it goes back to Gene Roddenbery, who was notorious for ripping off material whereever he could.) For another, this mania is the only reason Star Trek didn't die a natural death years ago.
Here's what's going to happen. Paramount will continue to push the franchise wherever it can. Mostly this will be in the form of paperbacks, because there will always be enough manic trekkies to make this profitable. Every once in a while, they'll make another pathetic stab at a movie or TV show. These will always have bad scripts and fail horribly. Despite these failures, Trekkie mania will keep the franchise alive for the foreseeable future. Those of us who used to love Star Trek but were never into the religious aspects will do our best to blot the whole miserable thing out of our minds.
I stopped watching all trek shows back a few weeks after Deep Space Nine started.
;-)
I was a huge fan of Deep Space Nine, I thought it was an utterly fantastic show. Granted, it had too many plot themes based around Quark and the like that nobody really cared about, and also stands guilty for having one of the biggest deus ex machinas in history by having the Prophets make the enemy war-fleet disappear into thin air, but it had some very good moments, especially in the later series when the Dominion plot arc really panned out - if you really did stop watching Trek altogether just a few weeks into DS9, you missed out on a very good show once they worked out the right balance between Space-Opera and Sci-Fi action, something TNG had from almost the very beginning and Voyager/Enterprise never quite managed to find.
For the record, while I'd call myself a huge fan of Deep Space Nine, I'm only a casual fan of Trek in general - I couldn't recite facts about Dilithium crystals, but I could probably look them up in my DS9 Technical Manual that someone once bought for me
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
I don't know what it is with some of these new networks. People, generally, want to watch a series.. every week at the same time, all the time, until the end of the series for the year.
I personally *hate* sitting down, only to find out that it's a re-run again... surprise! New episodes are 3 weeks away! In many cases, I miss new episodes because of this very thing.
Idiots.
The only thing worse are annoying TV logos, the worst of those being the "morphers". Personally, I've stopped watching TBS and a few other networks because of them. Everything TBS has, is available on other networks, after all.
"Oh boy! Let's put annoying logos over 1/10th of the screen, and change it all the time, and cover up parts of the episode and distract people! Let's annoy them all to hell, so they LEAVE our station and go to another!"
Well, you've succeeded TBS! I don't even subscribe to you anymore!
Hell, I've started looking at MythTV's source code... with the primary purpose of patching it to REMOVE those ANNOYING FUCKING LOGOS! Since most are translucent, there is a possibility that good results could be obtained on some logos...
>They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."
I am SORRY. The problem is not the re-runs. The problem are the people who are there in charge now. Rick Berman and his staff have continued to turn out LAME scripts. NOTHING new. Designing a prequal that looked like it was a century above the next gen series, yet smaller. TERRIBLE casting choice for the Captain. Scott Bakula is not captain material. They'd have bene better off with Michael Ironsides or Someone more captainly. I stood beside the producers when they selected a Woman for the role of the Captain in Voyager. I stood behind alot of the dumb coices made. Deep Space Nine, while not the best of the new stuff (TNG is WAYY better), it did not make sense within the Star Trek ethos. How can you go boldy with no starship?? That's why they added the Defiant. The Defiant and the War with the Dominion is what saved DS9 from sinking into mediocrity. Star Trek was known for thought provoking plot lines and for translating the current events to the show. Where's the terror attacks and idiotic security? If Berman and crew think they can just take a couple years off and come back with the same screenwriters and producers, you got another thing coming. Unless there's MAJOR changes AT THE TOP, you won't see a difference in the new trek series in a couple years.
Gorkman
This is why I would never become an actor, regardless of how much fame and fortune I could make. I didn't get to read the NYTimes article (can someone please post a non-subscription link?) but your quoted paragraph above lets me see her in an entirely new light. Up until this moment, I had thought her to be a brainless piece of eye-candy who knew nothing about Star Trek and simply needed a job. And the reason I had that impression is because the character so plays is so terrible and so unvulcanlike I assumed she had no idea what she was supposed to be doing. I guess the problem with her character is really writing and directing. And here's the problem: as an actor you are ultimately required to do what someone tells you to. You are little more than a living marionette.
Don't underestimate a good opening sequence. A good opening sequence in Anime can estabilish much of the plotline and cast of chartacters while giving a sampler of the animation as well (consider the Sakura Wars TV opening sequence). A great opening sequence will close the deal without having seen anyting else (consider Coboy Bebop or Noir)
Which to choose, which to choose?
...
On the one hand, it's an entirely new episode of Enterprise
On the other hand, it's a repeat of a show with dated material, bad effects and hilarious acting. Looks like it will be the repeat.
Isn't it strange how none of the other series on TV have to compete with reruns?
Will people skip the new Batman movie to watch the old Batman and Robin TV show?
Will people skip the latest hospital drama to watch reruns of Emergency!?
Did anyone skip Firefly to watch reruns of Space 1999?
I think I'll skip CSI and re-watch some old Columbo and Baretta episodes.
Right.....
Blasphemer!
Wrath of Khan was an utterly splendid piece of cinema. I can't think of another film that managed to generate such massive amounts of tension and drama between its main protagonists, and here's the real kicker, without them ever meeting.
Plus, bonus points for Ricardo's Moby Dick death scene.
"Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!"
~Harcourt Fenton Mudd
>> ...I liked Star Trek: TNG for the ethical dilemmas, the hints at mankind's potential, goodness, discovery, and the general sense of something bigger than our own petty modern squabbles...
To each their own, but conflict and combat have aways been key components of Star Trek, and every other drama. Shows depicting a bunch of ethically mature humans displaying their wholesome goodness while they unobtrusively research the galaxy would be thundersously boring.
When one of the Trek series, like TNG, had the budget we'd see conflict and war as grand battles between starships. This has the effect of depersonalizing the conflict. On series with smaller budgets, like TNG and Enterprise, conflict and combat were often depicted as phaser and disruptor fights between a few actors on a set. Or, worse yet, between Trek heroes and a Monster of the Week.
I'm not sure what "payback" you've seen as a theme in Enterprise. The Zindi arc was the most combative and it was about preventing an attack on Earth, not payback. The long Dominion War dominated DS9; Klingon culture made its debut in TOS; and the Borg wreaked havoc in TNG.
In the end, Enterprise and the last few movies were brought down because they weren't telling good stories. Tell a good story and people will watch.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Then, DS9 came out. The first few episodes were interesting, because it was a "different" kind of Star Trek, but taking place in the same time period as TNG. Unfortunately, there were only a few really innovative episodes. DS9 got old fast because it degenerated into a political show based in a science fiction environment, but with hardly any good wholesome science fiction. Seemingly, every episode was about some political problem with the Cardassians and how it was going to be solved with various political maneuvering. If I had wanted to watch politics, I could have switch to Fox News and seen it there. Those politics get me worked up enough; why should I get any more worked up over nonexistant politics in a nonexistant place, with nonexistant people?
Nearly all TOS and TNG episodes had this interesting quality that no show was about one specific thing. In other words, there was always some overall plot, and then there were other things happening concurrently that complicated things. This was good because the overall plot was usually solved by pushing some button or reprogramming the scanner array or something, but the other things made the episode interesting and thought provoking. DS9 episodes didn't have that quality. There was usually just one thing going on, and personally, it didn't provoke any thought.
When Voyager came out, it once again seemed interesting. Here was yet another show taking place in about the same time period as TNG. Unfortunately, it quickly became quite boring as well. Here they are, 70 years from home, assuming they travel nonstop at maximum warp speed, right? How come everybody there speaks English? Am I supposed to believe that some universal translator exists that can immediately translate languages it never heard? Even the Klingons had their own language, for crying out loud, and they were much closer to home! Then, the question arised of why in the heck they would make so many stops if it will take so long to get home anyway? At this rate, they'll get there in 140 years! Once again, most episodes lacked that quality present in TOS and TNG episodes. It quickly lost its luster.
When Enterprise came out, I only saw the first episode, and I came to the conclusion that I just didn't care anymore. It didn't seem right for some reason. I had grown to know Star Trek as being a show with Kirk's crew or with Picard's crew. Those crews gave the shows some kind of feeling that all these other crews just tried to hard to mimic.
I hope they release a DVD boxed set of all TOS and TNG episodes; I'd buy it in a minute.
TOS = The Original Series
TNG = The Next Generation
DS9 = Deep Space Nine
something like "Stargate: 2030". Take the Stargate scenario from the present to about 15 years in the future, and throw in a similar feeling like in Space Above & Beyond. (Instead of the Chigs, you get the Goa'Uld, the Aschen, the Wraith....) Now THAT would rock. The show would be about mankinds first real steps to space colonization - the Stargate would be public knowledge by then, obviously.
As for Star Trek, I would like a show that:
a) does not throw around with lots of technobabble
b) does not imply time travel
c) has a consistency in the introduced technologies (for example, there was an advanced cloaking technology built by the federation allowing not only invisibility but flying through matter too - this technology was never mentioned again. Stargate SG-1 actually makes use of past storylines)
d) get the federation consistent again. first, they were utopia. then, in DS9, they became something else. in voyager, they were utopia, in a manner of speaking. whats going on?
e) no more episode-by-episode only, please.
f) use some of the less known races! what about the breen, for example? they appeared in ds9, but thats it.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
That's because, in the Mirror Universe, Bergman & Braga got killed before they ruined the series.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
That's the sad part of it. This season has been of a substantially higher quality than the past 3. But I guess the mediocrity of the first 3 seasons turned a lot of people off so they didn't come back to see the new and improved story lines. A shame.
The greatest opening theme ever is of course Star Blazer's one. It really shows what the series is about.
Robotech's opening theme is also a great one, again setting the tone for what is to follow.
Generally, an epic quest needs a symphonic soundtrack.
I have three words that will reveal that any and all variations on the "too much Trek" argument as unequivocally wrong. Those three words?
Law and Order
Just like Trek, every episode of Law & Order is "competing" with decades of its own reruns -- the original L&O is currently airing its 15th season, Special Victims Unit its 6th, and Criminal Intent its 4th. That means there's 22 (14 + 5 + 3) years of L&O reruns on cable right now.
Star Trek has 24 years of reruns in play at the moment -- 3 for the original, and 7 for each of three spin-offs. (Enterprise reruns aren't syndicated yet, and the cartoon isn't airing anywhere.)
I'm pretty sure L&O reruns air more often than Trek reruns, so let's consider it even -- Both franchises have an unhealthy number of old episodes to "compete" with. Yet Dick Wolf and NBC can get general audiences to watch four new episodes of Law & Order every week, while UPN and Berman/Braga can't get a fraction of the same audience to watch one episode of Enterprise.
See my point? If the problem was as simple as "general audiences" burning out on over-exposed franchises, they would have given up on L&O, too. But they didn't. The problem isn't in the audience. It's in the the show.
We could argue all night long about why L&O has longer legs than Trek. I figure L&O has two things going for it -- better marketing (NBC is just better at promotion than UPN) and consistency -- whether you like L&O or not, you have to admit that it's pretty much the same show it was 15 years ago. (The producers know their franchise's strengths, and stick to them.) The last ten years of Trek on the other hand, have been all over the place. Star Trek has no quality control.
Which is my long-winded way of agreeing with half the posters here: The problem isn't "too much Star Trek", it's "too much bad Star Trek". Trek's been going downhill since Voyager and it's not going to get better with hacks like Berman and Braga. Even letting the show "rest for a few years" won't help, unless they get some new, smarter producers.
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three
Uh, what?
Dude, Voyager was a UPN show. Not one of the great Star Treks, but it did better (ratings-wise) than Enterprise.
Which only works, of course, if the differences are real.
I agree that the "saturation" argument is bogus. I think you're underestimating the "poor matchup with UPN content". Enterprises's premiere got 12 million viewers because UPN heavily promoted the show outside UPN -- Billboards, magazine stories, commercials on cable channels, etc.
After the premiere, however, they mostly depended on advertsing the show on UPN, which is where the "poor matchup" becomes a problem. As the NYT article points out, most UPN shows skew "young female" (Veronica Mars, America's Next Top Model). That's not an audience that can be turned Trekkie with mere commercial. (Another "mismatch" the NYT is too polite to mention -- UPN's entire sitcom line-up is aimed at urban African-Americans, another demographic that's less enthusiastic about science fiction than the white males who form Trek's (and Slashdot's) core audience.)
Never underestimate the power of a "network demographic". Unlike it advertises off-net, UPN can only market its shows to people who already watch UPN. That makes it hard to promote shows that don't match the existing viewers. Shows that aren't promoted well usually don't suceed. It becomes a vicious circle that's hard to escape. (Look at CBS. They've spent years trying to get a younger demographic, but they had trouble promoting "young" shows, when all the people watching their commericials are retirees.)
Considering that Enterprise was a bad show saddled with poor promotion, it's a wonder it lasted as long as it did.
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three