Why Startrek is Dead (Opinion Thread)

[BrooklynKnight]

Many many people have opinions and reasons for why Startrek has declined.

10 years ago Startrek still pulled in high ratings, in fact it still does today. TNG and DS9 on Spike TV have drawn more viewers then episodes of Enterprise (at least during the marathon runs). Factoring in the fact that most of TNG was available on DVD and half of DS9 was as well, thats pretty impressive. (Or pathetic depending on how you see it).


Here are my "reasons" for why Enterprises ratings are so low.

Inconsistent writing
Inconsistent production values
Fluxuating format
Time Slot
Network Aired on.

To be more specific, TNG and DS9 (and even VOY) had much more consistent quality in terms of the storyboards and direction of the series. The production values of their episodes were higher and there were fewer "shifts" in the direction of the series along their careers. TNG was always an episode to episode type series. DS9 had one major shift in direction, which worked (the Dominion War, the change is highlighed by the return of Worf) , and one minor change (season 7 with the departure of the actress who played Jadzia) which worked less, though the series was on its way out anyway. Voyager had a consistent theme the entire series, which was hard to keep up. There are only so many ways to tease them with ways home before it became stale. The shows primary problem was overuse of time travel, more so then any other Trek series before it. However it returned to the roots of Trek, exploration, and thus it held its ratings till Season 7. ENT however changed its focus and direction EVERY SEASON. Not to mention it soured fans Right out of the gate with a bad themesong, and basically spitting in the face of trek continuity.

So, Ent started by shooting itself in the foot, but what really killed it?

Enterprise aired on UPN. UPN a fairly new network (compared to NBC, ABC, CBS, and even FOX) had more trouble finding its niche then the WB. There were various attempts at Sci-fi shows over the years from Seven Days, Special Unit 2, and Jake 2.0, however none of these shows were really given time to shine. UPN slowly became a "network" BET. In many places here in NYC you can find HUGE billboards with an all black cast advertising "UPN, RATED NUMBER 1 AMONG AFRICAN-AMERICANS". Obviously UPN cared more about getting ratings (and revenue) from its "target" crowd then from an established entity like startrek. Because of this Startrek was often shafted and placed in bad time slots competing against shows which drew on the same ratings pool.

According to various sources (mine are my Broadcast Textbooks, all published within 2 years ago, and these facts should be easily verified on the net) 98% of homes in the US have TV's and 92-95% have Cable (or Satelite, or Digital TV or some sort of service which delivers more then what they can receive in their local broadcast area).

Today, Enterprise competes with Stargate and Battlestar Galactica....two extremly well done SCI FI series. Done better then Enterprise. Its no guess to see why Enterprise has crappy ratings.

Unfortunatly UPN (and their parent company Paramount, which i beleive is owned by Viacom) and Brennan/Braga dont care enough about the Trek Franchise, or its potential to give it the proper treatment.

"Whats the proper treatment?"

The 4th season of ENT was finally getting on Track in terms of Production Values and Writing, though ratings werent rising due to competition. ENT, or any startrek show, needs to be coupled with another sci-fi series, on a friendly network, at a timeslot that does not compete for the same ratings pool.

For example, if Enterprise were coupled with The SG1/Atlantis/Galactica block on Sci-fi its ratings would surge. What geek could resist a 4 hour block of Sci-fi at its best?

Alternativly, moving to Spike TV and coupling with re-runs of another trek series, or a new/fresh sci-fi show would do wonders too.

Paramounts/UPN's attitude has killed 2 incredible shows, 7 days, and Jake 2.0 (one of which has found a home on Spike TV), due to their unwillingless decide what their true audience was. Now its killing a 3rd...(4th if you count Special Unit 2, 5th if you count Nowhere Man).

This whole "rant" was brought on in my Broadcast Management class at college. It got me an A+ too.

 

[trancejeremy]

6th if you count "Homeboys in Outer Space"

(It was a parody of both cheesy sci-fi and blaxploitation shows, a concept which many people didn't seem to get. Since I guess it was a pretty unique combination)


But to answer your ST question, I think a large part had to do with the timeline. It was set in the past. Yet, it really wasn't the past as developed in any of the other shows, it was almost on it's own.

Also, the sets were too grey.

 

[James Heard]

For example, if Enterprise were coupled with The SG1/Atlantis/Galactica block on Sci-fi its ratings would surge. What geek could resist a 4 hour block of Sci-fi at its best?

Just to be clear though, at least around here Enterprise IS part of the 5 hour block on Fridays. I know because it took some kicking and screaming to get it programmed correctly into my DVR - It's Andromeda (which usually gets summarily ditched)/Enterprise/SG-Atlantis/BSG/SG1 IIRC. With only one flip. It's was a whole lot easier than convincing the devil machine to record Lost and Smallville at the same time, let me tell you.

Anyways, the block works - just not without going to a second showing. I sort of figured it was Scifi hedging its bets with the viewing audience by programming things that way really. But yeah, I get what you're saying. Universal has so mismanaged the license for the past several years that SciFi couldn't hardly screw up worse - even if they resorted to flatulent puppets and Kevin Sorbo.

Actually I've been thinking that perhaps the truly daring approach to Star Trek might be in reinventing it entirely- look at BSG. It might magnificently offend purists and canon-freaks, but it's not as if the essence of the show isn't reinventing the same wheel-shaped ship and cast each time anyways. Maybe a musical.*





*Just kidding.

 

[gtJormungand]

even if they resorted to flatulent puppets

Sci-fi's Farscape had one of those... it was helium, too.

 

[Shemeska]

5th if you count Nowhere Man).

God I loved that show...

 

[BrooklynKnight]

God I loved that show...

There were more too, does anyone remember FX the Series?

There were also some lower budget but still "good" shows, The Sentinel (also on Spike Today), Team Knight Rider (i know I loved it, as campy as it was), and a show that revolved around a car that morphed itself into a high-tech crime fighting machine.

None of these shows were ever given their due because of the terrible management at UPN.

Even Buffy wasnt given its due on UPN. (Though I do admit I loved the Musical)...


I was hoping to stir some more conversation with my post, hrm.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

Actually I've been thinking that perhaps the truly daring approach to Star Trek might be in reinventing it entirely- look at BSG. It might magnificently offend purists and canon-freaks, but it's not as if the essence of the show isn't reinventing the same wheel-shaped ship and cast each time anyways. Maybe a musical.*





*Just kidding.

An argument can be made that Enterprise WAS that attempt. Couple the complete lack of respect for continuity, with the bad design (a 22nd century ship that looks more advanced then a 24th Century Akira Class? What?) One reason ENT was "always" lax on ratings was because it alienated the fans from the start by not respecting the franchise to begin with.

Sci-fi Channel, it appears, has always respected the franchises they have taken over. Stargate is one really big shining example of this.

 

[DaveMage]

Several things doomed Enterprise from the start, but there are three that stand out for me:

1. It was a prequel that messed with an already-inconsistent canon.
Such as:
Suddenly vulcans aren't our friends.
All the races which we supposedly don't meet face to face until in later series are here:
(borg, ferengi, romulans), yet it's revealed that the Romulans have made contact with
the vulcans. Okay, sure.
Prequels are about the past, while Start Trek (IMO) should be about the future. Stupid to make a prequel of a franchise that takes place in the future. It got old when not only did they have humans mispronounce "Klingon" in the pilot, but then to have Sato mispronounce "Romulan" the first time she hears it. Gah! We get the joke already.

2. The opening credits. The producers said they wanted to portray Enterprise as it's own show and not the "same old" Star Trek. They failed to realize that there are a very large number of Star Trek fans who love familiarity. Suddenly, this opening credit sequence is not what we've become used to for the franchise. Gone (for seasons 1-3) are the words "Star Trek", and gone was a familiar classical theme. In its place we have a song. A song that has nothing to do with traditional Star Trek, rather it's a theme about having faith to fulfill your dreams. Great. After the first episode, Enterprise was in space, and the song was stale.

3. UPN. Until 4 months ago, we didn't have a UPN station. Trying to *find* Enterprise became a season-to-season challenge. Originally, it aired on the local WB network at 10:00 PM a few days after it was shown on UPN. Then in later years it was on Fridays at 4:00 pm on a CBS station. Sometimes it would be pre-empted when said CBS station showed a basketball tourney, or somesuch. Pathetic.

I say let the franchise rest until a legitimate cable network demands a new ST show. From what I'm hearing about Star Trek XI, it looks like Berman just doesn't get it. He's talking about a whole new cast and a whole new plot - in the past.

 

[James Heard]

An argument can be made that Enterprise WAS that attempt.

Oh, I know - but I'm saying that maybe the way to go was to head off toward a Trek that respected continuity only as much as say Star Fleet Battles does. Something obviously related, but completely seperate.

Unfortunately, as it's been said, continuity has never been Trek's strong suit in the first place so it might be difficult to automatically seperate itself from canon right from the start without confusing the average viewer. BSG gets away with it mostly because the tone of the plot is almost a complete 180 from the old series, and I think that would be the exact wrong way of distinction for a Trek series. I suppose if one were really brave you'd recast Kirk and shoot something that would force people to shriek in horror at first, a quick sink or swim right from the get-go (because the acting would have to absolutely top notch and flawless at least at first).

 

[Orius]

Why Star Trek is dead?

Because it's constantly beaten like this on the Internet much like a deceased equine.

Seriously though, I've been arguing the UPN is part of the problem for a while. They're not going to pull in big ratings when UPN is only aired in larger TV markets; how are they going to compete with ABC/CBS/NBC or even Fox, which have stations all over the place? There's no local UPN station here, but at least Enterprise stayed in a stable synidcated time slot. Voyager however kept bouncing around. That sort of crap's going to kill the market.

Then it doesn't help when you don't have the right audience on your network for the show in the first place. WB at least got its act together fairly quickly, and found some success in airing programs that appealed to teens and young adults. UPN spent about 10 years airing all sorts of stuff like it was a Big 3 network back in the old days. Only within the last few years did UPN find it's own niche, which I understand is urban minorities and 18-35 women. Not exactly the demographics for sci-fi. It didn't help when WB stuck Smallville in the same time slot (can't stand when networks pull nonsense like this). So what do they do? They pull the genius move of putting it on Friday night, which is a bad night for viewership in the first place, and in the second place has become a big night for Sci Fi to air their big shows. So naturally the ratings tanked. Maybe if Viacom execs had half a brain, they would have pulled Enterprise off UPN and put it somewhere it could thrive becore it tanked.

I think some blame should be placed on Berman and Braga's heads, particularly Braga, but Viacom's mismanagement of Star Trek played a significant role.