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.....
when this same sentiment is expressed on slashdot at least once a week, every week for over a year?
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Today's NY Times also has an article on the impending death of Enterprise.
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
I have to admit though that the show in the last 4 episodes here are keeping me right on the edge of my seat. Even the different opening and "The Alliance" theme was just awesome to watch. yes the "alternate universe and timelines" plot is old, but to see it played out on Enterprise is awesome. Not to mention Jolene looks great in that alliance outfit - NICE!
Or perhaps the ratings dropped... because they decided to replace strong plots and good character development with gratuitious sexual situations in order to attract UPN's 18-25 year old male target audience. Or perhaps they relied too much on time travel stories, which have become rather cliche in Trek of late. Or perhaps not calling it Star Trek for two years didn't help? Or perhaps the really BAD theme music for Enterprise? Or the tortured script of Nemesis, which was an obvious attempt to combine the elements of the higher rating treks into a new movie? Or Berman and Braga not understanding what Trek audiences really like?
Just a thought...
voice type="Haley Joel Osment"
I see dumb people. And the worst part is, they don't even know that they're dumb. They don't see each other. They just believe what they want to believe.
If they want a show to compete against other trek reruns, then give us something we WANT TO WATCH other than what we've already seen dozens of times. It says something about the quality of the show if you think that people would rather watch TNG (which I would) than this Enterprise crap. Voyager was better than this.
.
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.
That, and the stupid Enterprise theme song they would never apolgize for.
I consider their changing it for a parallel universe to be an apology.
if they dont bring anything new the stations will certainly bring re-runs which is probably much worse...
Star Trek Producers have finally agreed that Star Trek fans are oversaturated with the show, and are planning to provide a break. ... but after the moratorium, what we want are new producers.
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.
Not even! The reason people didn't watch is because the writers kept doing stupid things like using the Borg, Nazis, and time travel. All these alien races to have first contact with, and a damn Borg cube shows up on screen.
Oh yeah, the opening theme was substandard too.
Being on UPN probably didn't help much either.
I found this posted originally to another article and modded flamebait, but I think it raises issues pertinent to Star Trek and which should concern all Star Trek fans.
--
This has very little to do with the article, but a few days ago the L.A. Times published an article regarding the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit that focused on their fight against child pornography ("Sifting Clues to an Unsmiling Girl"). They are the law enforcement organization that photoshopped the victims out of child porn photos in order to get the public's assistance in identifying the backgrounds (it worked). In any case, the article had this amazing claim:
Wow. All but one in four years. Seemed rather unlikely to me.
So, I called the Child Exploitation Section of the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit and spoke to Det. Ian Lamond, who was familiar with the Times article.
He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources?
Nevertheless, Det. Lamond does confirm that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest." They've arrested well over one hundred people over the past four years and they can gauge this interest in Star Trek by the arrestees' "paraphenalia, books, videotapes and DVDs."
I asked Det. Lamond if this wasn't simply a general interest in science fiction and fantasy, such as Star Wars or Harry Potter or similar.
Paraphrasing his answer, he said, while there was sometimes other science fiction and fantasy paraphenalia, Star Trek was the most consistent and when he referred to a majority of the arrestees being Star Trek fans, it was Star Trek-specific.
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?
When Voyager came out it had to compete with DS9 new episodes as well as TNG and TOS reruns. But I guess it's foolish to expect them to say "yeah, Enterprise sucked, sorry." The whole premise of the show was stupid. Kirk's crew was supposed to be "the first" and Enterprise ruined all of that backstory time and time again. I remember when they were brainstorming ideas for the new show, one of them was like Star Fleet special ops or something, I felt sure they'd go with that since it really sounded interesting. I even said "Man, they'd never do a show that predated Kirk, the fans would throw a fit," but apparently they aren't that in-touch with their fanbase. Which I guess is logical, since Star Trek isn't that popular, and finding fans must be very difficult.
ST: Nemesis was also a flaming pile of dung, rivalling Star Trek V in the crap department. No need to rehash the reasons that movie sucked. But suffice it to say that while oversaturation probably contributed to people being sick of the show, the quality of the content they're producing has gone down the tubes.
rooooar
The problem here is that most episodes of "Enterprise" suck. The writing, the directing, and the acting is horrible.
Here is proof of the accuracy of my analysis. Consider "Star Wars". You could argue that our society has been saturated by "Star Wars" themes: action figures, late night jokes, the 2 sucky pre-quels, etc. Yet, why will "Star Wars III" rival the the popularity of "Star Wars IV", "V", and "VI"? Good writing, directing, and acting is the answer.
"Right, you are! At the opening in May, see you!" exclaims Yoda.
For the "Enterprise" finale, the writers should use the situation in Tibet as the basis for a story. That would be an excellent basis for a story, which just might bring back some disenchanted fans.
"May the force be with you!"
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.
They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.
I can attest to this. When the choice became suffer through another episode of Enterprise vs watch a re-run of TNG (both in the same Wednesday timeslot, TNG on SpikeTV), I chose TNG every time. If Enterprise had been even almost as good as TNG, the choice would be different. But when the only advantage it has is that it's new, forget it.
$ make work
make: *** No rule to make target `work'. Stop.
Umm, ya, that's the ticket, blame the fans ! Damn oversaturated lot of 'ya ;)
Regards, Lex
>They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs."
somewhere in a darkened room rick berman sits against the wall...with his fingers in his ears and quitely whispers...
"I'm a GOOD Star Trek producer...and GOOD Star Trek producer...by stories are epic gems...EPIC GEMS!
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
I want to weep now.
That was beyond watchable. it was entertaining.
Screw a break, I want a series based of the Mirror Universe.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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
Voyager was better than this.
Whoa whoa whoa, going a little too far there are we?
I may be crazy, but I have the sneakiest suspicion that Garak is, in fact, more than just a simple tailor. There's something about his eyes, but I can't quite pin it down.
Oh well, I guess we'lll never know more.
--
RumorsDaily
Yeah. I was also fairly dissapointed. They have no feeling for development at all.
All the Star Trek "history" at hand, and what do they do? Show technology and species not even seen in TOS. And what about all the species found in TOS? Most begin appear in the 4th season. Previously, there seemed to be more species from later series than from TOS.
And couldn't they do the story without a transporter? Photon torpedoes? Or sub-space communication? Or phaser? Would be starting with a laser be so bad?
Couldn't be space traveling and making contact with new species challenging enough? No, they had to invoke a new earth destroying time-war in a unheard region with unheard species.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
The best Trek series I've seen in years just ended its season a few weeks ago.
Battlestar GalacticaNO MORE TIME TRAVEL!
Seriously, time travel episodes are really silly. And over done. A lot.
Did i mention they were over done?
The lack of continuity. Show one new episode.. and then three weeks of reruns? Not a way to keep a captive audience..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
In other news, Saddam Hussein declares he will provide the Iraqi people a break from his rule, due to oversaturation of his dictatorship...
Any good sci-fi helps the other works in the story, not subtracts from them.
For example, I read the Hobbit as a kid and liked it. Then found out about LOTR. Read those and loved them. Found out there was essentially a prequel, The Silmarillion. Read that and loved it.
None of these books subtract from the experience of any other. Why? Because each book adds to the experience of the other. When Aragorn is singing about Luthien, it's a beautiful moment. After you read the Silmarillion, you know what he's singing about and why - and it adds to the moment.
But the new Trek shows don't do this.
They take off on their own and (to me anyways, this is all opinion, YMMV, etc) don't add to the story.
A good example is Khan. Seriously great villain. But now when I look at Khan, I have to picture that ship full of whiny kids pining for Brent Spiner. Doesn't add to it.
And most of the new stuff feels that way to me. Seems like right after DS9 decided it was a war show, the whole magical exploration thing that I liked so much was lost, and it never really came back.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
>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
BitTorrent is not your friend. NNTP + newzbin + nzb-o-matic is your friend. get a pay news server for $15 a month and you're good to go.
Being on UPN probably didn't help much either.
It hasn't helped that they have shown fucking baseball games the last two weeks.
If there have been new episodes, I have been unable to see them! >:|
Guess I'll have to find out the episode number/names so I can find them on eMule or some sort of bittorrent.
Damned UPN! Even more-so, DAMNED SPORTS!
bork bork bork!
I'm of the belief that taking it from syndication to a station that is not widely available, or at least to a station that won't expose the show nationwide as did syndication is the single largest factor.
Let's face it, we can nitpick to our hearts' relative desire about each show. There have been stinkers in each series but what series doesn't have them?
As for the references to using sex this confuses me. Has anyone ever seen the original series? Kirk gets it almost every episode and the women on the show were, for the time I believe, far more provactive than what we get on Enterprise or Voyager.
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.....
You know what, you've got something there...
How about a Klingon series? How would a Vulcan do in a Klingon culture?
I personally would like to see a Trek series where each Season bore no resemblance to the past - Short Stories if you will...
For instance, how about a series, where for season one, the story follows the Klingons from the point of view of Gowron, and the Duras element, with occasional battles between the Sisters followers and the Council at the end of it? It could unearth some really interesting elements, I think.
Then, Season Two goes into the Romulan empire, pre-Nemesis era, with the struggle of the Remans, maybe starting with how the situation got to be that way.
Season Three would follow the beginnings of Vulcan emotion suppresion, moving from a war-like race to a culture of peace (supposedly).
I think it could work well, with each Season lasting just a half-season length (12 episodes?) and telling the stories with the knowledge that you're not going to please everyone with one concept, so why not have many?
Oh, and get rid of Brannon/Braga, get the cast in on the writing (Blalock seems to know what she's talking about...) and generally think about situations that people can relate to, rather than doing a piss-poor job of "nine-elevening" everything in sight...
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"
How PC is that ? Why you ask. Remember Vulcan women don't look manly ; Vulcan series with spock needing to go home to find a mate ,Vulcan women dress like women.
They made her hair like a man and dressed her as a man. What a 'penis' turnoff.
Bring Back Kirk and Spock and the miniskirts with hot women. Where is the good action ? Hot women like in the original series. Most beautiful chicks in the world ! = Good ratings.
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
...was that the vulcan chick was not nearly as hot as Seven of Nine. Naked chicks + Borg = Good show
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.
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.
I sure hope somebody sees this and mods you Insightful because that is _*IT*_. The problem is idiots like Berman are so egotistical and blind to the fans that they figure if the ratings are low it's the fans' fault. Their stories are perfect--who could ask for better?--so it must be for some other reason that the show is dying.
The best thing for Star Trek would be if Berman and Braga simply disappeared.
Just for fun, here's an example of just how stupid (coral cached link) the last Trek film was. Funny, yes, but sadly accurate.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
But for most different reasons than Berman suggests. He seems to imply that too much of a good thing is just too much no matter what the subject is. I disagree. Life Long Star Trek fan but like a lot of people, I started losing interest in the Deep Space Nine 9 era. For me the shows got worse and worse each iteration (although there are some great Next-Gen epsiodes that rival what the original did) but it finally reached the point where that bar was way below what was acceptable to average people. Star Trek Fanatics might argue that Enterprise is improving but for me 0+1 isn't exactly a big leap. Too many repeated concepts and themes. It seems like the show really had run out of steam way back at DS 9 and that's before Voyager, and Enterprise ever hit the air. I just think a break from Trek is overall a good thing. There is plenty of precendent from other media. The Batman movies, Battle Star Galatica, Dr. Who, etc. I think we need to have a break for some time to pass and someone to bring it back with a new take and a new vision but still holding on to the core concepts of what makes the show special. I'm at a lost myself to point specifically at any one thing except to realize that the franchise has been off-track for a long time. I'm glad Enterprise is done. I'm glad Star Trek is done for a bit. And here's to someone coming along in a few years to breathe some life into it. It's not like Star Trek is going away forever or anything. The franchise is too valuable and has made too much money for it to ever go away. Someone just needs to have a new compelling vision for the show that resonates with a modern audience. In other words I need to miss it before I can welcome it back.
What was great about Trek was the sence of explortion that it gave you. The feeling of wonder. Where has that gone? They need to find it before they start another serries.
When i herd of Enerprise I thought they would go and explain how things all started, how they got shields, transporters, and so on. How they made the fedration and met all the races we know now.
that Trek needs a break.
What Enterprise suffered from was poor writing, especially in Seasons 1 and 2. The classic example of this is the ep where Archer takes his dog on a diplomatic mission...rubbish.
Contrast that with Seasons 3 (to some extent) and Season 4, with Season 4 in particular being excellent.
I think that Berman and Braga are full of shit and are trying to cover their ineptitude and lack of originality.
I had almost given up on ENTERPRISE last season, when I heard that Berman and Braga were essentially stepping back and letting Coto take over as producer.
My reasons for giving up were the pointless story arcs and liberal re-imagining of the TREK Universe until it was barely comparable to the initial vision of Roddenberry...and being a survivor of the "Arnold Wars" for the heart and soul of Trek, I saw this coming a long time ago.
When I found that Berman and Braga had written ENTERPRISE into a corner last season for Coto to resolve without help, it showed Berman and Braga for what they were...petulant weasels who desired all credit and spread all blame.
Considering what Coto was left with, he did a brilliant job of pulling the series out of the corner, and eliminating the 'Time Wars' arc at the same time.
But Berman and Braga had done their damage...if the fans didn't like _their_ version of TREK, then Coto would be the 'fall guy' for their errors...and he is.
Berman and Braga are _NOT_ science fiction fans, let alone writers...they are TV hacks, trying to cash in on the work and imagination of others, and being given the keys to the kingdom through control of TREK.
They wrested control of the TREK franchise from Gene when he had his stroke, and they cut out Majel, reducing her to comic relief or computer voices. They ignored quality of content for T&A and shoot-em-ups.
A simple check of IMDB on their records indicates that they have no real experience in production of programming, aside from the pocket universe of TREK; it's not unreasonable to presume that they chafed under Roddenberry's "rules" and decided to change the TREK Universe completely to their own interpretations.
Mind you, this is not to argue that the TREK Universe is inviolate...but their interpretation of the original concepts that Roddenberry laid out bear little or no resemblance to those concepts.
We could do worse than Manny Coto...in fact, we _have_ done worse with Berman and Braga.
We would all be better served by getting Paramount to remove those two and letting Coto, or anyone else with a _real_ programming/writing background, take over the TREK Universe.
Roddenberry created his universe with people who have worked on cop shows, soap operas, adventure shows and films, and all manner of programs, having done the same himself.
Berman and Braga have incestuously drawn the circle of TREK so tightly that it has developed the same stagnation we would see in inbred hillfolk...the hideous and pointless sterility that we would expect has hit TREK because of them.
Dump Berman and Braga...let in some 'fresh' genetic material to allow TREK to regenerate as it moves along, and not lock it away for Berman and Braga to continue screwing it all up again.
"Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming
Obviously you never watched the original series, which was all about baseball. Remember "The Omega Glory"? Its talk about the "yangs" and the "kohms" is nothing but a thinly veiled reference to the New York Yankees and Commisky Park, home of the Chicago White Sox.
Remember the scene where Kirk holds up the flag and sings the national anthem?
Remember the three-run homer by Sulu at the bottom of the fifth?
Remember Spock and Sox commentator Harry Caray singing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" in the seventh inning stretch?
Remember Scotty's cry of "Captain, my arm cannae take much more of this!"
Ah, the good old days, before ST:Voyager and MLB:Free Agents. Sigh.
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