ENTERPRISE strongly rumored to end this year

[Thoth Amon]

Maybe it is time for a break from Star Trek for a little while

Yeah, bring back B5! Oops, wrong group

[Stokar]

I just came back on to fix that mistake. My bad.
I really like Enterprise, I think the writing has been really good, the characters are devoloping nicely, and thats something Voyager really lacked.
Star Trek doesnt need a rest (maybe from movie making) its just that Trek fans need to lighten up a bit.

[strict31]

I think Trek could use a rest. Five years ago, I would have said that there must always be Trek if only to counter the poop shovelled about on the rest of TV. The problem I see with trek today is that every new show has to have a bloody gimmick. We don't need gimmicks. We just need a good tall ship and a strong script to sail her by. The only gimmicks you really need are space, the future and a ship. Even DS9 needed a ship.

I don't think Trek fans need to lighten up so much. I think we are largely justified in being insulted by the fact that B&B ignored us an a loyal audience in favor of the eighteen to thirty-something, largely female audience that was watching Survivor. It's not so much that Enterprise sucks; it's more that seeking a new demographic was more important than appealing to the steadfast audience that would have watched anything Trek-flavored.

It should be noted that this was why Farscape was cancelled in favor of making crap like Scare tactics and tremors: the Series. Sci-Fi already had an audience with the numbers, but they wanted a different one. Same with B&B. Already had/have an audience. They just wanted a shiny new one.

Strictly Speaking

[Balok]

To be fair to the networks, the advertising is why they air programs, and the advertising pays according to the demographic. The 18-40 demo is highly sought because those are the people with the most discretionary income: they have it, and they don't generally answer to others about how to spend it. Past 40, and many people spend less as they think about retirement or putting a kid through school. Below 18, and what money you have may be earmarked for your own education, or dispensed at the discretion of your parents.

[Thoth Amon]

I never understand these folks who want to turn Star Trek into Starship Troopers.

Well, if someone pays $30 for a gamebook they damn well should use it how they wish.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by Thoth Amon
Well, if someone pays $30 for a gamebook they damn well should use it how they wish.

Yeah, except we're not talking about using a gamebook (of course everyone should use their books however they wish, no one said otherwise), we're talking about what sort of Star Trek TV show (not game) people want. Perhaps next time you should bother reading all the comments before jumping to conclusions.

[AslanC]

Originally posted by UDT/Frogman
because i kind of getting tirred to see captan Janway or pockard leading the charge in their coloreful uniforms its like starfleed sr offisers are expendible, i think that there is more than enough more trained cannon fodder to send into battle

Slightly off topic, but anyone remember Space: Above & Beyond? I have heard o end of fans singing the praises of that show, but for my money I could never get past the idea of taking highly trained pilots (who should all be officers) and then using then as ground forces. Made no sense to me, ever.

At least Trek's tradition is from the Spanish Main mentality of Away Teams, that I can get a lot easier. But even then it is a bit much.

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by AslanC
Slightly off topic, but anyone remember Space: Above & Beyond?

To me, either, actually. But, Aslan, you should call the show by it's true title...."Melrose Space."

Marines should never be whiny. We leave that to the Air Force.

[strict31]

Originally posted by Fesarius
To be fair to the networks, the advertising is why they air programs, and the advertising pays according to the demographic. The 18-40 demo is highly sought because those are the people with the most discretionary income: they have it, and they don't generally answer to others about how to spend it. Past 40, and many people spend less as they think about retirement or putting a kid through school. Below 18, and what money you have may be earmarked for your own education, or dispensed at the discretion of your parents.

I'm not talking specifically about age, only the age of the demographic they were looking for. I don't fall into that demographic, but I am between 18 and 40. I don't mean to be overly confusing...

Most of the folks I encountered on the Star trek.com boards were between 18 and 30+...a wide variety of ages who were all Trek fans. My point is that they were specifically ignoring the Trek fans in favor of a parallel audience which is very highly unlikely to be interested in Trek, no matter how much B&B tried to divorce it from the franchise. And they did try to divorce it cosmetically at least. They removed the "Star Trek" from the title, they removed the typical music and came up with a pop song for the theme. Utterly changed the opening graphics.

Here's the problem: while Trek fans may watch shows like Survivor from time to time (and may even enjoy those shows) the people who comprise the audience to which Survivor (and co) is directed don't typically watch sci-fi at all. or if they do, it's only in passing or because they are bored. They'll never be interested in Trek, no matter how well written, how well produced or how glitzy. And the end result is a show which has limited appeal to the audience they had previously already secured (simply on the name of the franchise), and which still has zero appeal to the audience they seek to secure. We have seen this bourne out by the poor ratings the show has gained (even though this season is generally better than the first two).

I'm a Trek fan, and I'll try to watch the show when I can get to. I'd wager that more than a few Trek fans here do the same, and some are probably strong fans of the show. But I'd also wager that the people in the Survivor demographic couldn't care less. And they probably don't see much difference between Trek and Star Wars in the first place.

But I'll be the first to admit, I've never understood the science of TV marketing. Consultants stuff the audience into different demographics based on age, profession, sex, income...but hell, we all need to buy shampoo, right? Or soap? or cars? And many of us flip channels when the commercials come on so we can see commercials from other shows, right?

Anyhow, with the proliferation of TiVOs and VCRs out there that can deftly evade commercials, and DVD compilations that thankfully avoid them, how in the hell can they guarantee that we'll be watching their adverts in the first place? ::sighs:: it boggles my simple minded ass, I'll tell ya!!

But ultimately, I return to the point that B&B tried for a new audience when they really shouldn't have. And the poor ratings are a direct result. If the demographic of Trek fans can't support an ongoing TV series (and maybe it can't, even though it's done this three times already), then maybe it's time to change the format from regular ongoing series to an occassional TV movie or miniseries. The value of this is that it builds up a thirst for Trek in the absence of it. And hey, less money than with an ongoing series. Make each Trek an event that will partially hype itself.

Just a thought is all.


Strictly Speaking

[strict31]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
To me, either, actually. But, Aslan, you should call the show by it's true title...."Melrose Space."

Marines should never be whiny. We leave that to the Air Force.

Man...Space Above and beyond started with so much...potential, which petered out largely by the third or fourth episode. A squad full of lieutenants? Who could they order around? Pilots consigned to ground-pounding? Even when the air arm was just a branch of the Army, this never happened, and I imagine in WWII, they were pretty desperate for ground forces. Are they pilots? Are they grunts? I JUST DON'T KNOW!!!

I know it was an all-out war. And they were desperate for guns and bodies in the dirt. But a single hammerhead was worth any battalion of ground troops, plain and simple. Those pilots were just too damned valuable to dump into the bush with a rifle and a helmet...

Additionally, they were not hard.


Strictly Speaking

[Balok]

strict31, I don't disagree: B&B had an established audience. But remember that they don't call all the shots. The networks have to sell advertising, and the advertisers are entirely about answering two basic questions: "How many can you deliver, and how old are they?"

Given that, the networks put pressure on producers to create shows they can make the most money selling.

The problem was that B&B aren't clever enough to figure out how to rope in younger folks while staying true to the established Trek audience. At least, that's my view.

Beyond that, the *real* problem was the creation of UPN. When that happened, and when the executives decided that a Trek show would be the tentpole, the needs of a network became far more important than they ever were in the days when Trek programs could carve out a niche in syndication.

It was a huge risk: making Trek anchor a network could payoff hugely for Paramount. They stood to make a lot more money than they were with syndication deals. But like a lot of high risk things, it took more skill than they had available to pull it off.

And that, in my view, is what gave us first Voyager, and now Enterprise, the two series' I consider to be the worst of all of them (my ranking would be: DS9, TNG, TOS, ENT, VOY -- sometimes DS9 and TNG change places depending on my mood).

As always, YMMV.

[Sea Tyger]

While I disagree with Fesarius about what Trek shows are "the best" and "worst," I do agree that making Trek the flagship of a "minor" network like UPN hurts the show and the franchise, especially since said network isn't available in many places around the country (I live two hours south of San Francisco, and I don't have a dedicated UPN network here).

That said, I love the heck out of ST: Enterprise and hope it gets its 7-year-run...even if that would leave us in the middle of the Earth-Romulan War...

(For the record, it's TOS-ENT-DS9-TNG-VOY )

[strict31]

Originally posted by Fesarius
strict31, I don't disagree: B&B had an established audience. But remember that they don't call all the shots. The networks have to sell advertising, and the advertisers are entirely about answering two basic questions: "How many can you deliver, and how old are they?"

Given that, the networks put pressure on producers to create shows they can make the most money selling.

The problem was that B&B aren't clever enough to figure out how to rope in younger folks while staying true to the established Trek audience. At least, that's my view.

Beyond that, the *real* problem was the creation of UPN. When that happened, and when the executives decided that a Trek show would be the tentpole, the needs of a network became far more important than they ever were in the days when Trek programs could carve out a niche in syndication.

It was a huge risk: making Trek anchor a network could payoff hugely for Paramount. They stood to make a lot more money than they were with syndication deals. But like a lot of high risk things, it took more skill than they had available to pull it off.

And that, in my view, is what gave us first Voyager, and now Enterprise, the two series' I consider to be the worst of all of them (my ranking would be: DS9, TNG, TOS, ENT, VOY -- sometimes DS9 and TNG change places depending on my mood).

As always, YMMV.

*nods*

I wouldn't necessarily blame B&B, and didn't until I read an excerpt from an interview that Berman was giving on the subject of the fans. I wish I had a link, but it was posted a couple years back on st.com. Basically, he was saying that the opinions of the hardcore fans weren't terribly important to them; that they were seeking a new audience with the show. This seemed to me to be a smokescreen for clumsy writing and poor strategy.

It probably was a mistake to shift Trek from syndication to a network flagship. But the fact that they did decide to do that speaks to the projected strength of the fanbase. Voyager was perhaps the worst choice to be that flagship because it stood on the strength of a gimmick (namely the quest to get back home). They felt that Trek was too boring to go with the standard wagon-train formula of TOS and TNG.DS9 had allegedly poor ratings compared to TNG, though, and it was based on a gimmick as well (namely, we're on a station this time, not some dumb ole starship). Luckily, DS9 took a page from TOS and picked up a starship that they could use, as well as a very large page from JMS and B5 with an ongoing storyline instead of an episodic format. I wish more American TV shows did this, to be honest.

But yes, it was high risk, and the risk hasn't really paid off, I guess.

But here's my main problem. Trek didn't "fail" because of the lack of an audience. Rather it was because of the quality. The ratio of "good" episodes to temporal/spatial anomaly episodes was higher in Voyager than any other Trek show. In the first season they encountered more crazy technobabble cosmic phenomena than ever before. It streessed believability dangerously. I remember releasing a sigh everytime they had to deal with another quantum transverse subspace fracture or temporal consarned donut hole or what-have-you. It was like, that somehow became the focus in many episodes, and it was just too much.

Primarily though, it was the character writing. The majority of the crew were all bland re-writes of Trek archetypes. Poor Ensign Kim was perhaps the blandest character to ever be shrouded in a Starfleet uniform. Janeway was a joke. And not because of the basic character concepts...I remember being excited when I first heard about janeway. She was supposed to be a return to a more Kirk-esque style of captaining, but with a woman. She turned out to be something rather less than that. And by the time Jeri taylor got finished with her, it was easier to imagine her knitting a tea cosy for Neelix than it was to see her running a lone Starship in an unknown section of the galaxy. The actors themselves complained about it; the lack of writing for their characters. But it didn't become widely known until the series was nearing its end.

Instead of fixing the problem, they brought in the lush Jeri Ryan as a shapely band-aid, and created a new stand-by for Trek, which i call the sex-pot. I'm comofrtable enough with my own dull-witted, visual-based male sexuality to admit that I certainly tuned in to watch Seven jiggle and be blonde. She's one of my favorite Trek characters. She had some good writing done for her...but mainly because she was um...well...stacked...But even the Platinum Borg could not keep me watching regularly. Ultimately, she wasn't a solution, she was a stop-gap. I feel the same about T'Pol. She's a vaguely interesting character, but really, she's just filling the Sex-Pot role. Both characters are distractions from generally poor writing.

And the thing that irks me is that B&B would rather blame the poor ratings on an insufficient audience than on the writing. Oh, they went on at length about trying to conform to gene's and majel's dictates that the characters engage in as little petty conflict as possible. But that was buck-passing. Sure, these are 24th century people; they're more evolved than us. But conflict drives character. DS9 had some of the best characterizations in Trek. because there was conflict. And I don't mean gunfights and ship-to-ship battles. There was culture clash. There was sexual tension. There was dissatisfaction. paranoia, betrayal, you name it. They had a lot of baggage on that show. And it makes sense that humans will always have baggage on shows.

Voyager seemed like it had its own built-in tension; two separate crews crippled by events beyond their control. That sounds good. But within a few episodes, the maquis were happily in bed with the Fleet...because they had such evolved sensibilities? Or because their conflict had to take a back seat to quantum subspace vortices? When there was conflict, and tension, it was almost an after thought. Oh, maybe for sweeps we should have the maquis take over the ship...Or, let's bring Ceska back. We haven't seen her in a while...

Don't get me wrong, there were some really good episodes, and some really good writing. But generally, these centered on a handful of characters, like the Doctor, or Seven, or paris. It's like, for the most part, Janeway Tuvok and Chakotay got shafted. These were interesting characters, but they were written so blandly and poorly, and you can't blame that all on Gene's characterization dictate, or on the audience not tuning in.

The audience is not tuning in and hasn't been because of the writing. Not because suddenly we no longer exist. We're still here and we're still loyal. Some have been loyal ever since TOS.

If you build it, they will come. But if you build it well, they'll stay.

Strictly Speaking

[Stokar]

Voyager really annoyed me. The show never really went anywhere interesting. The crew always seems to be whining. And wow Seven of Nine, the stupidest move ever. She could not even act. The character was so dry, and the idea was useless. At least they made the bad move with a bad series.
Enterprise has been so good. Its nice to see the technology that we got use to seeing not there or having to be created on the fly. Its something Trek needed. I agree the advertising and taking the Star Trek name off was stupid. But for show quality it has been really well done.
I am so sick of the whining that people are doing. The rest of TV is just pathetic, at least we have a very good quality show to turn on. It isnt all mindless violence and sex that has taken over the airwaves.

[strict31]

Originally posted by Stokar
It isnt all mindless violence and sex that has taken over the airwaves. [/B]

Yeah, Enterprise has only mindful sex and violence.



Strictly Speaking