Is Star Trek dying?

While I don't think Star Trek is dying, and I do like Enterprise, I believe that they reeally need to do something 'new' to get people interested again. As others have already pointed out, Enterprise is just another crew, on another ship, sailing around the galaxy.

DS9 had it's faults, IMHO, but it did take some risks wit hthe setting, and broke some new ground. Enterprise doesn't do that. Which is a shame.

Though unlike some lunatics (Trek BBS anyone?) I bear no grudge against B&B, who are, after all, just trying to do a joband make money. There are far more people in the world deserving of vitriole than a couple of TV producers.

I voted for the "in a lull" option. I believe we're at one of Trek's lower points, but I'm not sure if things are going to get better or worse from here.

ST Titan?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cmdr Powers
Nah.. it ain't dead yet. I saw STN twice as well, also enjoying it the second time. Heck, I'm looking forward to Star Trek: Titan!

---

Dying??

NO!

As long as there were players and GMs playing the rpg star trek will never die!!

I do believe this is more than a lull. I agree with those who feel it is dying. It is not dead and on life support. It can come back with major help but the wrong doctor will send it into the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter

Though unlike some lunatics (Trek BBS anyone?) I bear no grudge against B&B, who are, after all, just trying to do a joband make money. There are far more people in the world deserving of vitriole than a couple of TV producers.

---

Oh, trust me, I have plenty of venom to go around. :p

And while I undersand they're trying to do their job and make money, they're in the business to maintain and expand Trek viewing audience. If they can't impress somebody like me, then perhaps they should do something simple like a sitcom. They can make money from that, right?

For me, Trek went into convulsions the minute the producers said they were only going to do episodic format because arc-heavy series would have trouble appealing to the casual viewer. Now, I don't know about the US, but here in Blighty even soap operas have story arcs, yet the unwashed masses have no difficulty tuning in.

The next bad sign was the lack of character development on Voyager, not to mention the Magic Reset Button and "Technobabble is your Friend" philosophies. At this point a defibrillator was needed.

Then we got the Busty Borg Babe. Now, don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with casting an attractive woman. And, if she can act as well as Jeri Ryan can, there's even less wrong. But, c'mon! Like she wouldn't still be attractive if dressed normally instead of in a spandex bodysuit that pushes even the phrase "skin-tight"...

And now Enterprise. Don't even get me started. Shower scenes. Yet another busty but sexually unattainable science officer (Do you think Braga might have issues, here?). Rehashed plots (Ooh, look! The plot for the upcoming episode "Dawn" appears to be a retread of "Enemy Mine"!! Surprise!". The most popular character is the beagle for Pete's sake!!!

I look back at DS9 and the better episodes of TNG and wonder where it all went wrong...

I understand the desire some have for a pause, but I'm not convinced this is what Trek needs.

First off, I think people underestimate the dangers of totally ceasing production - if it goes off the air, it may never come back on. Shows rarely cease production for a couple years and then come back.

Secondly, what will change? For whatever reason, Trek does not have the appeal it once does. People don't watch it now, whether it is on the air or not will not make a difference - the audience that Trek does not have will not even know it is no longer being aired if it takes a break. And therein lies the problem.

Trek is dying. The ratings of the shows and box office take are the greatest indications of that - you can argue quality all you want, the most important thing in the businsess is money. TOS made gobs of money for Paramount in syndication. TNG was a huge moneymaker. The later incarnations less so, with each passing year. Forget about competing with the glory days of TNG, I read Enterprise cannot match the numbers of its prior season. Nemesis fell from 2nd to 9th place - yes, Lord of the Rings came out, but seven other movies fared better than Nemesis.

My wife and I have yet to see Nemesis. We'll try to, but we're now parents, our options in going to the movies are limited. We arranged for a babysitter Saturday night - $30 right there. If we're lucky we make it to a movie every 6-8 weeks. Which did we want to see more, knowing we get out to the movies only rarely - Lord of the Rings, easily. And we're both Trekkies. I've been a fan since the 70's, I've got tons of DVDs, RPGs, you name it. I collect deckplans - heck, I help edit deckplans. I've playtested for the RPG. I am not a casual fan. And if I'm not excited enough by the first Trek movie in four years, how likely is it that the casual fan is.


The solution, I don't know. I can speculate. But something needs to be done to energize the franchise. That probably means a risk, one that might fail. Yet staying the course seems doomed to fail.

I look at other long-running franchises. Star Wars is not quite a valid comparison, as it is simply a single storyline, spread out over six movies. But look at the others - Bond, Superman, Batman, etc. These have all had the luxury of reinventing themselves. You can make a Superman movie tomorrow if you wanted to, and the makers would not worry about contradicing the events of Action Comics #89, published in the 1940's. Yet Trek made the choice to keep the universe consistent - while that has huge advantages, I wonder if that decision is now beginning to crush the franchise. The die-hard fans go nuts if the word Romulan is mentioned and the casual fans get tired of shields always failing. ;) It starts to feel the same.

I've heard people mention a fresh start being needed. I think it's a good idea, but that's not just a new production crew setting a show on a new ship in a new time period, it's re-evaluating everything. Who should the main characters of the show be? How many do we need? What should the setting be? Do the 25 or so seasons of Star Trek history present an advantage or obstacle to good storytelling? Is the show to be set aboard a ship? The only show to even question this in the slightest was Deep Space Nine, and to be honest, it wasn't the most radical of changes. My opinion? Question everything. Be prepared to throw out "sacred cows".

Perhaps it should just end. Think about it - 25 or so seasons of science fiction - only Dr. Who rivals that, typically with shorter episodes and seasons. Not a bad run.

And the kicker - I'm still an Enterprise fan, just not an overly energized one. I'd hate to see someone who doesn't like Enterprise.

Trek is still big to me. Between working on stuff for the RPG and writing short stories for the annual Strange New Worlds contest, Trek will never be gone for me. I also have DS9 on DVD to look forward to in 2003.

I'm not watching ENT and I haven't seen Nemesis yet, but I'm still a Trek fan. I'd like to see Paramount take a break, clean house, then hit Trek fresh with something new and exciting.

(1000th post! Whoohoo!)

It was reported somewhere that Patrick Stewart made a call out to the fans to make a strong showing on opening weekend. So when some of the strongest fans on this site have NOT seen Nemesis yet, some ten days after release, that tell you that Trek is gone.

Let it go into hibernation again. Let another "generation" go by and maybe, just maybe, Trek will be revived. If Paramount does suck the very last drop of creativity out of it.

At first I couldn't figure out why so many critics didn't like Nemesis, because I thought it was a great movie.

Then I read Roger Ebert's review, in which he didn't attack Nemesis, he attacked Star Trek in general. He said he was sick and tired of shields failing all the time, and big ship battles, and sparks flying, and all that jazz. Basically, he said he was tired of seeing the very things that all of us love on this board.

Then I realized something. For us, the movies are different because we've seen all the episodes. Big ship battles and epic stories don't happen that often in the television series, so the movies are a big-budget change of pace. But if the only Star Trek you got was from the movies, they would all start to blend together and seem the same by now.

Think about it. Pick any sub-genre you like, but aren't nuts about (Star Wars, Highlander, Tolkien, Spiderman, you name it ...). Two or three movies could be great. But do you think that anybody but a die-hard fan would keep going back after the fifth or sixth movie in the series? Heck, the Superman movies starting going downhill on the third movie, and really tanked by the fourth! And even if they had all been great, how many people could really be counted on seeing Superman 5, or Superman 8, or Superman 10?

There were about 75 episodes of TOS. Add to that 175 episodes of TNG, 175 episodes of DS9 and 175 episodes of Voyager. Even without seeing the movies or Enterprise, most of us on this board have seen 600 hours of Star Trek. 600 hours!!! So watching a tenth movie is just part of the fandom for us. But for Joe/Jane Average out there, just watching ten movies on the same subject is a bit too much to expect.

The Star Trek fanatics -- the ones of us who have seen every episode of TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager -- are a miniority of the population. The average person, however, is getting tired of Star Trek. And those average people -- not the rabid fans -- are the ones who bring in the money Paramount needs to keep the franchise going.

The only way I think to keep Star Trek going is to make it so different that it seems to most people like a totally new series. It needs new writers and new directors willing to take it a whole new direction. That's what happened with TNG. And that's what needs to happen now. Only even more so.

Otherwise, Star Trek will fade away largely unnoticed to all but its strongest fans. Like the last closing hour of Northern Exposure. Like the last episode of The Incredible Hulk. Like the last episode of The Bionic Woman. Who remembers watching those episodes?

I think Dan made some good points here - Trek has become something too big. It's an utopia, an universe, a certain philosophy, a certain type of plots, a certain type of heroes... and also some hundreds of episodes.
So the trouble here is, no matter what the writers do or how talented they are, there are some fans who won't like it - be it because it has already done before, because it disrupts continuity, because it's not daring enough, because there's not enough action, or whatever.
I don't know if a pause could solve this problem - it will be the same in 30 years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabara Eris
Think about it. Pick any sub-genre you like, but aren't nuts about (Star Wars, Highlander, Tolkien, Spiderman, you name it ...). Two or three movies could be great. But do you think that anybody but a die-hard fan would keep going back after the fifth or sixth movie in the series? Heck, the Superman movies starting going downhill on the third movie, and really tanked by the fourth! And even if they had all been great, how many people could really be counted on seeing Superman 5, or Superman 8, or Superman 10?

---

Lots of good points in your post, Jabara Eris. One remark : the James Bond franchise managed to pull out something like 20 movies, and remain rather successful. Maybe the exception to the rule...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by C5
Lots of good points in your post, Jabara Eris. One remark : the James Bond franchise managed to pull out something like 20 movies, and remain rather successful. Maybe the exception to the rule...

---

Yeah, but the James Bond franchise is centered around lots of mindless action and scantily-clad chicks.

It that really what we want Star Trek to become?

This message has been removed on request by the
poster