ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Did ST:Enterprise kill good Star Trek?

Newkemall

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 9:18 am

The common consensus is that the series run itself into the ground (too much trek on TV). My opinion is quite different, they took a backwards step and lost the imagination of viewers (viewers like me). I was 18 when Voyager ended and I had greatly enjoyed the ever expanding star trek universe, and then they moved to enterprise, which was set in the past. I immediately realised that the great exploration of a fascinating universe I had been following was over as writers were more interested in exploring “history” which I saw as a backward step that would lose all the exciting technology (imagine a star trek with transwarp drives etc!) and aliens (like The Borg!) and so I lost interest. I think a lot of people did (most fans I knew). Instead of realising this, they blamed the amount of trek on the TV (rather than admitting they screwed up with a terrible idea that lost everyone’s interest) and killed the franchise off for a "reboot". The new film is all guns and flashing lights, great, but the star trek I love died the day Voyager ended and Enterprise was hashed together - that world we all love will never be brought back *lump in throat*... and the new movie follows the same mistake.


Big whoop for the fact so many people went to see it, but I think previous movies would have done better if they had based them on the established universe plots rather than using isolated meaningless stories like Nemesis and insurrection that did nothing to push the boundaries like the 3 core TV series did.


I dont think glitter and fireworks will sustain this new trek much past 2 or at a push 3 movies. Lets hope if a series is made they can drag themselves out of their own backsides, admit they took a massive wrong turn, and get back to pushing forward towards the 25th century!!!!!!!!

Newkemall

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 9:23 am


Another point I wish to make (Paramount listen up!) is that you may get a few more bums on seats in the cinema with a more generic action packed, sexed up and dumbed down Star Trek - but its the real fans that spend the money on box sets and merchandise so remember that in the long run you are hurting the franchise by turning it into something for the masses (who will drop it as a whim) and alienating the true fans who will stick by it for a life time!

Doc Boomstick

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 178

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 10:10 am

I was never in favor of the prequel idea, but I've recently begun watching ENT and so far I'm really enjoying it. I only caught pieces when it originally aired, but I've already decided that it is better than VOY. I do agree that it started a move away from the GR style of imagination-driven stories into something with more action and subplot driven. However, I think you can attribute this to the change in the appetites of the audience, and this also applies to the movies.


There has always been a disconnect between the type of show Trek was and the type of movies they can make. TMP was their first attempt and it was basically a 2hr epside of TOS, but it just wasn't that good. Some formats just don't work as well on the big screen, so the movies had to adapt. Looking at First Contact, if you remove the time travel aspect (it only really serves to get the Enterprise alone), it's really just an action scifi movie, and it was awesome. If that had been an episode of TNG, there would have been some kind of time loop, telepathic energy being, etc. involved.


On the money side of things, I doubt you are right on this. There are people who study these things pretty closely and if they thought that there was more money to be made by taking a different route, than they would. Unfortunately, scifi and trek have always been a small part of the TV audience and these shows are expensive, particularly so now since they are competing against reality TV. As for the movies, I think JJ's Trek was more successful on a mainstream level than Trek had ever been, so I'm not sure if they are losing money by offending their core base, who mostly saw it anyway.


I will concede that the heart of Trek was always on TV and the "real" Trek stories can only be told in that format, so the lack of a TV show probably does mean the end of the "real" Trek, but I don't think it's ST09's fault. I don't think that movie is any different than other Trek films in the ways that you mention. Your idea that the old films would have done better if they had been bogged down with Trek backstory doesn't sell to me. Scifi has enough trouble being sold to the mainstream without requiring a knowledge of the TV shows.

Constable_Odie

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 10:23 am

The answer to the title question is IT ALMOST DID.

Constable_Odie

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 10:27 am

And DB's last sentence is true. We need to be able to sell Trek to 'tweens', and Abrams did JUST THAT. We should COMMEND him, not CONDEMN him.


Star Trek: giving hope for a brighter future since 1966.

Newkemall

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 12:49 pm


Nice answer Doc Boomstick, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I do think that the best Movie was First Contact - it was an extension of the TV series and followed on from the TV back story, they just did a great job of filling in the back story with Picard's dream at the beginning. You don’t need to know every in and out of the entire ST TV plot lines to continue onto the big screen as only a single plot line needs to be used - like the Borg and Picard's history with them.


In light of no ST TV series I am going to give ENT another try, but I do find it not to my taste...


I am not sure why trek feels a need to trap the Tweenies - I am 28 and I know plenty of smart people in their twenties and teens who love star trek for what it is. I think there are enough teen movies out their without having to rape Star Trek's integrity. Are we really meant to take Abram's ST seriously? Are we to accept that the Star Fleet we know would put kids fresh out of the academy into command of the flag ship of the fleet??? Come on.... he’s just playing around with the franchise like its bit of retro fun to play with and mock. If you strip back the visuals that wows so many what have you got? A silly plot and a teen movie. American Pie: The next generation. :-D

Deep Space Steve14

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 25

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 1:04 pm

I do love my Trek. I've never seen Enterprise and can only watch DS9 episodes on a regular basis. However I do get the feelings from all the threads I've seen on this sot of thing that Enterprise and the new ST movie have destroyed Star Trek. I do think this is a serious point to adress. Star Trek is about the story. You've got to ask when directing a movie like this: WHat do you want to do?


Get as much money as possible or ear the respect of loyal Trekkers? Trek is unique in that it isn't all about guns and violence and special effects! It's about the story, people relating, and above all bringing people into a common interest which discusses the issue's of today's society. Trek is not mainstream, it is better; far better! With any luck, our Trek will come back, not some mainstream middle of the road SF which has no soul!


With any luck threads like these will bring the real Star Trek back to life!!!


I concur as Tuvak would say!



Everyday is a good day to be a Trekkie!

Mantaray

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2793

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 3:08 pm

I think the death nell for ST on TV was Voyager.  


If it wasn't the linch pin for the failed UPN Network, Voyager would have have been cancelled after it's third season.  


I thought ENT was an improvement, but Voyager killed any chance for me to watch another ST series.


 

Newkemall

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Aug. 09 2011, 11:04 pm

Quote: Mantaray @ Aug. 09 2011, 3:08 pm

>

>I think the death nell for ST on TV was Voyager.  

>If it wasn't the linch pin for the failed UPN Network, Voyager would have have been cancelled after it's third season.  

>I thought ENT was an improvement, but Voyager killed any chance for me to watch another ST series.

>


 


I think youre on youre own on that one unfortunately my friend. I take your point about trouble with early voyager, but season 5, 6 and 7 were solid and some of the best Trek there has ever been. Viewing figures were solid for these also. My favourite aliens are the Borg so I may be slightly bias, but viewing figures were good! Back to Ent - that bombed - it was a backwards step and lost the universe and narative that everyone was following - new movie is the same.

Newkemall

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Aug. 10 2011, 5:16 am

I completely agree Mashall8472 - I will give Enterprise another shot as there seems nothing else will come along now, I do hate prequiles though. Damn Star Wars started this crap being fashionable.... Heres hoping the next 24/25th Century Trek TV series is just around the next corner!!!

Christopher_Pike

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 318

Report this Aug. 10 2011, 5:51 am

Don't be silly. You can't kill Star Trek. Enterprise didn't. Voyager didn't... although it went on a year or two longer than it should have, in my opinion. You can bet somewhere in the CBS ivory towers, potential producers (with good track records) pitch series ideas for more Star Trek every year since and they've all been turned down. They can see the not-we aren't too interested in Space Opera shows. Think of all the attempts that haven't succeeded since. BSG got to stick around because it was cheaper to produce, got made in Canada, similar ratings to ENT (at its lowest point) being considered a success story on SyFy.


That style they started out with in Seasons 1 and 2 was rapidly going out of fashion. That was the mistake - NOT leaving the 24th Century behind, NOT doing a prequel (that was the smartest move to me), NOT upping the action or trying to make it accessible to non-fans... BUT rushing it to follow hot on the heels of Voyager. That was the problem. By the time a great direction was found, fans were putting the boot in for randomly tuning in and still finding inconsistency... the week before it had often been great before bouncing back to being below average again.


I really liked Enterprise but it had just as many uninspiring episodes as TNG/DS9/VOY had every year. Shows where they were just making the budget go further to make up the numbers.


The way sci fi series run on TV now, 13 episodes of strong plot driven arc - they'd jettison the other 13 alien or phenomena of week style plots... losing stuff that's never going to be seen or heard from again. It would have to build toward something solid, with just the odd stand-alone to break the run up. Pretty much like Season 4 did. That's the year I can't get enough of and wanted to see continue. Then that extra farewell for TNG characters happened to spoil my fun...


Photobucket

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Aug. 10 2011, 8:56 am

The common consensus is that the series run itself into the ground (too much trek on TV).


Yes, that's what the most people believe, including ENT creators Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, who were in control of the franchise at the end. 


My opinion is quite different, they took a backwards step and lost the imagination of viewers (viewers like me). I was 18 when Voyager ended and I had greatly enjoyed the ever expanding star trek universe, and then they moved to enterprise, which was set in the past. I immediately realised that the great exploration of a fascinating universe I had been following was over as writers were more interested in exploring “history” which I saw as a backward step that would lose all the exciting technology (imagine a star trek with transwarp drives etc!) and aliens (like The Borg!) and so I lost interest. I think a lot of people did (most fans I knew). Instead of realising this, they blamed the amount of trek on the TV (rather than admitting they screwed up with a terrible idea that lost everyone’s interest) and killed the franchise off for a "reboot".


I think the idea that Berman and Braga had, going back in time to an earlier era, was a really good one.  They wanted to get rid of the Gene Roddenberry TNG edict that humans, especially SF humans, had not flaws, as well as getting characters who were a bit rawer and less experienced.  In short, they wanted a show where the characters were more relatable.  That was the right way to go imo.  Now, saying that, from what I saw of ENT (very little) and what I've read about it, I think they could've done a better job.  It didn't look or feel to me like it was significantly different from TNG and VOY.  Ex-DS9 producer Ron Moore and ex-VOY producer Bryan Fuller said the same thing.  After sitting through VOY's seasons 1-6, I was just burned out on Berman-Trek.  I thought VOY was just a TNG-retread with characters I cared less about.  When I saw ENT, it frankly looked to be more of the same and not the return to a more TOS-like show which is what I wanted and expected.  I just got tired of the TNG-formula and, based on the Nielsen numbers, I definitely was not the only fan who felt this way.  Most of the fans checked ENT out and then promptly left, but then, the numbers had declined steadily since TNG left the air, so the attrition in the fanbase happened over years.  ENT itself wasn't responsible.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I ultimately found ENT more to my liking than VOY if I actually sat down to watch the rest of it.  Several people here that I respect have said as much.  If I ever get the time and the DVDs, I'll check it out. 


The new film is all guns and flashing lights, great, but the star trek I love died the day Voyager ended and Enterprise was hashed together - that world we all love will never be brought back *lump in throat*... and the new movie follows the same mistake.


The new film is a lot more than "all guns and flashing lights."  It had great story beats and a great cast that actually did a commendable job in playing the iconic TOS characters.  More to the point, I really felt that TOS's energy, humor, sexiness, and fun again, the first time in a very very long time, thanks to Berman's lackluster leadership of the franchise.  That's what I, and, apparently, a lot of the other fans wanted, and that's what Abrams, Orci, Kurtzmann, and Lindelof delivered.  I thought ST09 was a long overdue breath of fresh air to the franchise.  It ultimately died with ENT (though ENT certainly wasn't the cause of death, the franchise jumped the shark earlier with VOY) and the dreary NEM and Abrams and company brought it back to life.  It's the most successful ST film ever, both in terms of critical acclaim and box office.


Big whoop for the fact so many people went to see it, but I think previous movies would have done better if they had based them on the established universe plots rather than using isolated meaningless stories like Nemesis and insurrection that did nothing to push the boundaries like the 3 core TV series did.


If they'd tied the films more into the events of the series, which they already kind of did with the TNG films, since shows ran concurrent with them, they would've run the risk of making them even more insular to just the fans and that's a problem.  If you actually look at the Nielsen numbers for TNG to ENT its a steady downward trend from TNG to the end of ENT.  And the last two TNG films did not do well at all, either critically or in terms of box office, especially NEM which completely bombed on both fronts.  All this indicates that the fans were losing interest and that not enough new, younger fans were coming to the franchise.  Why make films that cater only to a diminishing fanbase, which the TNG films were doing, according to Berman, Spiner, and others?  It was a failing strategy.  In a lot of ways, NEM was Berman's last chance to give the franchise a shot in the arm.  It needed to do really well to turn things around and, thanks to some more poor creative decisions by him regarding both the story and the director, he got, at best a lackluster film that the fans didn't even care enough about to want to see, after reading the terrible reviews and the word of mouth from those who went to see it on the opening weekend (like me). 


In contrast, Abrams and company created a film that people actually liked and wanted to see.  What's more, they did it by returning to the base of the franchise, TOS.  Unlike Berman, they understood why TOS worked and why it was a classic and they were able to get some of that magic back.  Nimoy knew they got it and so he came onboard to pass the torch to the new cast. 


I dont think glitter and fireworks will sustain this new trek much past 2 or at a push 3 movies.


That's ok.  Like I said, ST09 was obviously more than "glitter and fireworks."  That's why the critics loved it and hated the Transformers films.  


And all they're planning is at most 3 movies anyway, so there shouldn't be a problem of "franchise fatigue" here.


Lets hope if a series is made they can drag themselves out of their own backsides, admit they took a massive wrong turn, and get back to pushing forward towards the 25th century!!!!!!!!


Obviously, ST09 wasn't a mistake.  It was a huge success with the majority of fans, the critics, and the mainstream audience.  I don't even think ENT was a mistake.  I think it was the right way to go, although I'm not sure it was executed as well as it could and should have been.  And, honestly, if the 25th century is anything like the end of the 24th with VOY and NEM, count me out. 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Aug. 10 2011, 9:04 am

Quote: Newkemall @ Aug. 09 2011, 11:04 pm

Quote: Mantaray @ Aug. 09 2011, 3:08 pm

>

>

>I think the death nell for ST on TV was Voyager.  

>If it wasn't the linch pin for the failed UPN Network, Voyager would have have been cancelled after it's third season.  

>I thought ENT was an improvement, but Voyager killed any chance for me to watch another ST series.

>

 

I think youre on youre own on that one unfortunately my friend. I take your point about trouble with early voyager, but season 5, 6 and 7 were solid and some of the best Trek there has ever been. Viewing figures were solid for these also. My favourite aliens are the Borg so I may be slightly bias, but viewing figures were good! Back to Ent - that bombed - it was a backwards step and lost the universe and narative that everyone was following - new movie is the same.


I agree with Mantaray.  Yes, the decline in viewers began with DS9, but I think it was with VOY that the franchise began to die.  Heck, even VOY co-creator Michael Pillar and producer Bryan Fuller have admitted that VOY wasn't all it could and should have been.  It's easy to see why.  The guy in charge, Rick Berman, was adverse to taking risks and Paramount wanted the show to be TNG's replacement, so that's what it ultimately ended up being, TNG-lite.  I generally liked VOY, but I certainly didn't love it like I did TNG, and, again, by the declining numbers, I obviously wasn't the only one.


And, sorry, viewing figures were not good.  The numbers were steadily declining.  Heck, I remember checking the rankings in the paper from time to time.  VOY was always near the bottom. 


Finally, ENT did not bomb.  A bomb would indicate a steep decline in the Nielsen figures and that did not happen with ENT.  It was just at the end of an almost linear decline beginning with DS9. 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

Newkemall

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Aug. 10 2011, 12:00 pm

I think we are seeing the school of people who like TOS and are pleased with the end of the Rick Berman and Brannon Braga era and then there are those of us that are TNG/VOY/DS9 fans who don’t like the retro TOS and ST'09. We are never going to agree. I respect your opinions Rocketscientist, even if I don’t agree with what you say.



The new film is a ratings success, but I don’t think it holds up to the likes of First Contact (IN MY OPINION - CONTACT WAS LINKED TO THE SERIES AND HAD PLOT DEPTH). Its just a shame that they didn’t realise that movies with a direct story line from the TV series works best and isolated stories bore people (NEM/INS). I have a friend who hated star trek because he thought it was geeky but loves the new movie because it is "cool" and the women are sexy (his words). If that is the new fans that they are after I will warn them, they wont stay very loyal for long. Ditch our Rick Berman and Brannon Braga universe and you are ditching 15 years of fan base for a few new fans who will ditch you the second the next star wars prequel comes out.



So now we have a story line where a bunch of cadets are flying the flag ship of star fleet. But hey, the explosions were cool...

Mantaray

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2793

Report this Aug. 10 2011, 12:51 pm

Quote: rocketscientist @ Aug. 10 2011, 9:04 am

>

>I agree with Mantaray.  Yes, the decline in viewers began with DS9, but I think it was with VOY that the franchise began to die.  Heck, even VOY co-creator Michael Pillar and producer Bryan Fuller have admitted that VOY wasn't all it could and should have been.  It's easy to see why.  The guy in charge, Rick Berman, was adverse to taking risks and Paramount wanted the show to be TNG's replacement, so that's what it ultimately ended up being, TNG-lite.  I generally liked VOY, but I certainly didn't love it like I did TNG, and, again, by the declining numbers, I obviously wasn't the only one.

>And, sorry, viewing figures were not good.  The numbers were steadily declining.  Heck, I remember checking the rankings in the paper from time to time.  VOY was always near the bottom. 

>Finally, ENT did not bomb.  A bomb would indicate a steep decline in the Nielsen figures and that did not happen with ENT.  It was just at the end of an almost linear decline beginning with DS9. 

>


I agree with mostly everything you said, but the problem with the ratings theory is that your comparing Primetime "BROADCAST" ratings (UPN) versus late night syndication.


DS9 was one of the top rated syndicated series during its run.  No, it didn't have TNG syndicated ratings, mainly because TNG ran in mostly the Primetime Access time slot (7-8pm) on most stations, where as DS9 (ran mainly in Late Fringe (11pm-2am) on most stations as this was the only place to run it since its first year or two in ran while TNG was still on.   Paramount negotiated that if TV stations wanted the ratings gold of TNG they had to pick-up DS9 and the only available time for syndicated programs was late fringe.


VOY ran in PRIMETIME, which had the additional advantage of being on all local cable carriers.   So in theory this should have blown DS9 ratings out of the water based on total audience available, but it didn't.


I think the lack of quality of VOY turned people off towards ENT before it had a chance.


 


 

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum