What Happened to Trek?

[Megamanfan]

The folks from startrek.com would call me a non-fan but oh well, here goes...

What happened to Star Trek? It seem downhill ever since DS9. TNG was great, DS9 was excellent, but VOY just seemed, I don't know, flat somehow. ENT just looks lost; it's like the writers are drowning in a pool and are flailing around to try and swim themselves to shore, only to sink further.

So what happened? Personally I've always thought that it's move to UPN is part of the reason, using the "sex sells" model to pull in a few extra ratings.

Or maybe it was Berman and the rest of the old boys?

Maybe it's something else entirely.

Any thoughts? Facts? Ideas?

[RaconteurX]

Try doing a search using appropriate keywords like "Voyager" and "suck"... you'll turn up plenty of reading material and not annoy the rest of us with the endless rehash.

[JonA]

"Captain! Iceberg ahead!!"

[AslanC]

Networks are always bad news for Sci-Fi shows. It can be seen at FOX in spades.

I don't think there is a "magic bullet" here, I think many reason have been suggested for the percieved decline of Trek, some valid, others subjective.

Regardless of which, this is a polarizing topic. One that tends to fray nerves and cause rudness.

For that I apologize for the rudeness your post attracted, honestly that is not what this place is about.

You've just hit a sore nerve on a much flogged horse.

[Ineti]

I'll skip the comments on the quality of post-DS9 Trek shows and just say I think it's partly a matter of Paramount drawing from the Trek well too many times in a short period. We got TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT almost non-stop since 1987.

A lot of the same people were involved on most of those series, and I think 17 years on one thing burns people out. I think they need to get away from it for a few years, and bring in some fresh faces and minds.

[Scarecrow]

I wholeheartedly agree with Ineti. That, I think is what the problem is.

Crow

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by JonA
"Captain! Iceburg ahead!!"

"Excellent, I've been looking for the the lost city of 'Iceburg' for two years. Prepare to make port!"

[JonA]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
"Excellent, I've been looking for the the lost city of 'Iceburg' for two years. Prepare to make port!"

Ha ha



Edited.

Now get back to "Be a Winner".

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by RaconteurX
Try doing a search using appropriate keywords like "Voyager" and "suck"... you'll turn up plenty of reading material and not annoy the rest of us with the endless rehash.

Easy there.

[RaconteurX]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Easy there.

I thought was being very polite, giving Megamanfan useful advice on where to find prior threads on this subject (much like I would direct him to message archives or a FAQ on a mailing list) rather than immediately assuming he was a troll. What search terms would you use on this site to get a broad spectrum of Trek-bashing discussions?

[Megamanfan]

Originally posted by AslanC
For that I apologize for the rudeness your post attracted, honestly that is not what this place is about.

You've just hit a sore nerve on a much flogged horse.

Ahh, I see. I've never discussed this before on a message board, so I thought it would make for a discussion. Guess it wasn't a good idea then...

[D.S.McBride]

Originally posted by Megafanman
Guess it wasn't a good idea then...

Not at all...that is what this board is here for. It's simply that this topic has been batted back and forth to a considerable degree at this stage of the game, and some members have reached the point where their "cup runneth over".

[Tricky]

Ok, i dno't know how this is going to sound, so let me preface my comments with a disclaimer:
I am a big Trek fan; I like all the Trek shows. I am not a "Paramont Studios" Drone, content to "suck down the Pablum they serve us".

The problem with Trek isn't so much with the show, it's the audience.
Or, rather, the intended audience.
Basicly, what I'm saying is that the people they are aiming for, males 18-40, are the problem. The average viewer in that catagory does not want to, at least in Hollyweird's interpetation, sit and watch a show where societies problems are discussed alegorically, deep issues are handled with respect, and there is a sense of wonder.

Hollywood feels that these men want 'splosions, hot alien women in tiny/tight/invisible outfits, story arcs handled in an hour or less, themes that appeal to their interests, and some pretty CGI spaceships, perferably in battle, with 'splosions aplenty!

It's the same reason why the remake Dawn otd zombies ran, Greedo shot first, the remake Planet of the Apes had NO social commentary, the rise and continuing success of reality TV, and Ashton Kusher is a star.

Case in point: A few years back, a Tv sitcom pilot was being promoted to network execs. It had stars we all know (John Laroquete was one), wonderful, witty humor, and was considered the funniest, smartest show since MASH.
It was shelved because it was "too Smart" for American TV!

[strict31]

While there may be something to be said for posting new threads about old topics, there's nothing wrong with megafanman posting his thoughts on the matter. If it's considered "rehashed," there is no imperative for the person who believes so to respond or even to click on the thread.

After all, there's nothing new under the sun. If a person believes he has the only original thoughts or viewpoints on the web, chances are someone has thought the same thing. So, as long as it remains polite, who cares one way or the other?

The guy came here to put forth his thoughts. Simple as that.

The truth of it is that no one has a single answer and everybody has an opinion. People get hot under the collar about Enterprise bashing, especially on startrek.com. To a degree, I can understand this; while I am not a big fan of the show, I continue to hold out the hope that it will get better. And While I have bashed the show, I have always said (here) that I like the writing of this season.

As far as Tricky's comments about the target audience:

I gotta say I disagree. I think the 18-40 male demographic has always been a part of the Trek audience. Of course, I also believe the Trek audience is comprised of a variety of demographics. Why do I say this? Trek has always had Splosions and hot alien chicks. Seven and T'Pol aren't exactly new. I certainly know that if I were a captain in TOS, I'd be dropping my PADD quite a bit just to watch my yeoman bend over to pick it up, likely tempting any nearby vulcans to remark, "You know, it's not just that humans are illogical...they are also icky."

Also, I like it when things get blow'd up good, too. I figure, there's no problem a Pakled or an orion pirate can create that a photon torpedo can't solve.

Of course, I also like episodes where the characters reach some deep and basic truth about themselves, or gain a new and fascinating understanding of the universe or culture or what-have-you. I mean, hey, all of these things are a part of life. People die. They get blown up. There is sex. Humor, sadness, enlightenment.

You know, the thing is, the Star Trek audience is composed of basically the same basic human as any other audience; but we come at things a little bit differently than other humans watching TV or movies. I've watched trek since I was a kid. As I was growing up, sliding into the 18-40 arena, I found that very few other 18-40 males knew much about Trek beyond the fact that it wasn't a Lakers game. Of course, they would have though the short skirts of TOS were fly. I submit that most members of the trek audience, when gathering at work or play with other common members of their general demographic would also find that few shared their interest in Trek. My mom loved Trek since it was first on. But when she went to work and hung out in the teacher's lounge with other women of her age and financial status, she found only one who gave a flying crap about trek. Does this mean women are not in the trek audience? No.It means that the women of the trek audience are just a bit different. And the same goes for the 18-40 male pigeon-hole.

It should be said, that I don't believe B&B were trying to hit the 18-40 male audience. Not per se. They already had as much a share of that demographic as Trek is going to get. I think that, like the Sci-Fi channel, they were trying to go for a much different demographic, an unrealistic one. I don't know the name of it, so I'll clump them in one bag: the audience that routinely watches Friends and Survivor etc. above anything else. The one that has a very disposable income, that also has very little interest in things like Trek. This is why the show went to such lengths to distance itself from the trek franchise, even going so far as to remove "Star Trek" from the original title of the new show. They wanted to make Trek appeal to a new audience, not to the one they already had. I guess B&B figured the old audience would stick around no matter what.

In large part, that had the effect of alienating many members of the Trek audience. Not necessarily because it was an insult; but rather, because less focus was placed on making good TV. Obviously, there are also a lot of fans who will stick around, even if (like me) it is only with the hope that things will get better. But for me, Trek used to be a "non-miss" show. I would rush home from work or tape it every week. Ever since Voyager, Trek has become a show that I will often forget about. hell, I wanted to see "Azati Prime" but still nearly slept through it. And didn't feel overly bad about missing the whole first thirty minutes.

I'm still willing to give the show a chance, but I just don't care as much about it. And I think a lot of the Trek audience is feeling the same.


Strictly Speaking