• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Why Startrek is Dead (Opinion Thread)

WizarDru said:
DS9 started out strong out of the gate, but lost me by the third season. As someone else mentioned above, it didn't follow through on it's original premise. The intial conflict between the Bajorans and Cardassians was excellent, and whenever characters like Garak were given air-time, it was golden. However, many episodes felt very Trek formulaic, so when the many shifts started happening (the addition of Worf, the Dominion War) they felt forced to me, and I gradually lost interest. When I tried to come back, I'd found that the doctor had become a super-genius ("All those times we nearly died in the past? I was just pretending! Guys? ...Guys?") and they'd cycled a few actors. I just found it kind of forced. Some solid plots, but for various reasons, I dropped out. Biggest missed opportunity, to me? When Cisco and Quark are held prisoner by the Jem'hadar, Quark berates Cisco for the Federation's snide attitude about the Ferengi, hastening to point out how his race may be greedy and calculating...but they've never had genocidal wars, either. It was a great thread that could have been followed, making the Ferengi more than just comic relief, but it was never followed.
Perhaps, but to me it gave us good stories when they decided to do a Dominion War arc. Granted, the original premise were decent to begin with, but they notice they're losing audience, so they did what no other Trek show could deliver: a multiple season war story arc. And more importantly, they defied Rick Berman, who thought that by virtue of succeeding Gene Roddenberry, that Trek should not focus too much on wars.

IMHO, DS9 have better well-written stories than all of the contemporary Trek series combined.

As for Enterprise, the original premise just plain suck. I never did like the Temporal Cold War arc, whether this is supposed to be one of the crucial element that paved the way for the Birth of the Federation. Now, I'm afraid that with Berman & Braga having penned the series finale episode, we're going back to it. :(
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ranger REG said:
IMHO, DS9 have better well-written stories than all of the contemporary Trek series combined.
Couldn't agree more. The last 4 seasons of DS9 is some of the finest sci-fi on TV ever. Characters to love, characters that you love to hate, characters that you didn't know if you loved or hated and a plot to bring them all together.

Ranger REG said:
As for Enterprise, the original premise just plain suck. I never did like the Temporal Cold War arc, whether this is supposed to be one of the crucial element that paved the way for the Birth of the Federation. Now, I'm afraid that with Berman & Braga having penned the series finale episode, we're going back to it. :(
The TCW was bleh, but I am a sucker for time-travel stuff so it was watchable for me. However, it was terribly uninspired. Trek has used time travel too much recently and for seemingly no really good reason.

I'm not concerned about the series finale simply because the B's have had a little rest from writing for a while and may pull something cool out of their hats. I'm not holding my breath.
 

Ranger REG said:
And more importantly, they defied Rick Berman, who thought that by virtue of succeeding Gene Roddenberry, that Trek should not focus too much on wars.

IMHO, DS9 have better well-written stories than all of the contemporary Trek series combined.

Well, if Ron Moore is to be believed, it owes more to the fact that Berman was too busy prepping Voyager to pay attention, and later more because he felt DS9 was a marginalized, lost cause...not a 'true' Trek, as it were. I'm not sure if DS9 had more well-written stories...though I certainly remember it did have some. But for every excellent episode I saw, like the one about the Cardassian pretending to be a war criminal, I also saw an episode where Jake tries to get his Dad a baseball card. Not necessarily bad, but very predictable and somewhat trite.

The war picked up dramatically later, but at the time, it seemed like the war was just a 'jumping the shark' plot moment, allowing them to convienently forget that a war was going on whenever they wanted to. A big problem Trek always presented was that the universe always seemed to return to a 'Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms' situation when all was done. They may have changed this later, but when the Dominion first showed up, and then everything seemed hunky-dory but the end of the first episode of season 3...I started to mentally tune out. Especially in light of the no-holds-barred wars that were happening simultaneously on B5.

As for Enterprise, I thought the concept of 'Birth of the Federation' could have made for some compelling stories. That's not what I got, though. I got Temporal Cold Wars and standard Trek plots. It felt...boring.

As an aside about Time plots...in one of Peter David's ST:TNG novels, a research team comes aboard the Enterprise, to study temporal anomalies. Riker asks where they plan to go, and the team informs him 'right here'. When Riker asks why, the team leader explains that the Enterprise is a lodestone for these kind of things....why in the last five years, your ship has been host to nearly a dozen time anomoalies alone. That's more than most of the rest of the fleet! :)
 


John Crichton said:
The TCW was bleh, but I am a sucker for time-travel stuff so it was watchable for me. However, it was terribly uninspired. Trek has used time travel too much recently and for seemingly no really good reason.

Same here, although I looked it up: the amount of time travel episodes Voyager and Enterprise have had is greater than the amount TOS, TNG, and DS9 have had. And Enterprise, on average, has had the most.
 

Vigilance said:
Something Manny Coto said that really shows how out of touch Berman is, Manny wanted to do shows that tied into TOS. Berman said no because "there are only 3 fans of the old show left".

Berman seems to know squat about fandom. I remember well a discussion on the net right before First Contact came out that he kept insisting that the inventor of Warp Drive be a hot woman who could be a love interest for Picard, and his comeback to the entire backstory of Zephram Cochrane being well established in Trek lore (and even an appearance in TOS) was:

"Less than 1% of the fans are even going to know or care about something like that!"

I think that sums it up, B&B don't know Trek half as well as a typical fanboy Trekkie and don't really care. I think most of the successes on their watch have come in spite of them, not because of them.

Trek now has 10 movies, 3 seasons of original Trek, 7 seasons of TNG, 7 seasons of DS9, 7 Seasons of Voyager, and 4 Seasons of Enterprise. That's around 700 hours of footage (and just the canonical stuff, leaving out the animated series and the hundreds of novels, comic books, video games ect.) That's enough that playing it 24/7 it would take more than a month to watch all of Star Trek. They may well have mined out the basic Trek format of "starship flying around our galaxy from world to world, seeing earthlike cultures that provide social commentary on modern America and occasionally getting into fights with aliens who have ships a lot like ours and funny bumps on their heads".

Also, the fans place a high value on continuity of the setting, the producers never really have. In the beginning of the first series, they didn't really make up any background about the Enterprise or where it came from or what authority operated it, because they figured it wouldn't come up. Before "Starfleet Command", they talked about "Space Central", "Space Control" and "United Earth Space Probe Agency" being their agency before settling on Starfleet. The original series was lucky to have what little continuity it did, during the TNG Roddenberry era he was afraid to even mention the old show for most of the time so it felt half-detached, and for the B&B era they only paid lip service to continuity. I feel almost a little sorry for Mike Okuda when he penned the official Star Trek Chronology and had to put in so many notes and acknowledgements of places where it just didn't add up at all (although he did an admirable job against a formidable task).

Personally, I place a lot of the blame for the failure of Enterprise on UPN. I hate just about every show on the network except for Enterprise (it's fixation on "urban" programming, which is a euphimism.) They schedule Enterprise for constantly changing, inconvenient times and treat it like a burden and obligation instead of the Crown Jewel it was presumably supposed to be. TOS became a big hit in syndication, TNG and DS9 became big in syndication, and at least Voyager was syndicated out in the later seasons so first-run went to UPN but back seasons went to other channels.

Also, for the longest time Trek was it with regards to TV Sci-Fi in the US. It was the first real non-anthology Sci-Fi show in the country, and for the longest time it was the most well known and visible one (thanks to syndication, which meant it could be on all over the dial). Since then you've had shows like Babylon 5, which in terms of writing and acting consistently outdid Trek.

For a long time, if you asked a Trekkie why Trek was successful, they'd say something about Roddenberry's "Vision" of a perfect future and the standard response of Trek providing a vision of a positive future for humanity. I believe that's nonsense. The over-the-top blatant moralizing of Trek always seemed to be almost talking down to the audience. People who want Sci-Fi and want it well, Trek was the best thing you had for a long time (realize that Lost in Space was the big contemporary). However, the field has grown and developed, but Trek has felt comfortable to rest on it's laurels and trade on it's name while recycling the same basic plotlines and themes over and over with different casts on different ships. Stargate, Babylon 5, (New) Battlestar Galactica have all shown a creative spark that hasn't had in a long, long time.
 

wingsandsword said:
For a long time, if you asked a Trekkie why Trek was successful, they'd say something about Roddenberry's "Vision" of a perfect future and the standard response of Trek providing a vision of a positive future for humanity. I believe that's nonsense. The over-the-top blatant moralizing of Trek always seemed to be almost talking down to the audience. People who want Sci-Fi and want it well, Trek was the best thing you had for a long time (realize that Lost in Space was the big contemporary).

This part, I don't agree with. It's what made Trek great, the future that said, we not only survived, but thrived.
 


John Crichton said:
Couldn't agree more. The last 4 seasons of DS9 is some of the finest sci-fi on TV ever. Characters to love, characters that you love to hate, characters that you didn't know if you loved or hated and a plot to bring them all together.
I think one of the greatest parts of DS9 is Gul Dukat. There are points in the show where he almost, ALMOST seems like he might be somewhat of a decent guy and then he does something horrible like
sell Cardassia out ot the Dominion
. And that episode where
Damar murders his daughter and the station is retaken by the Federation and Dukat just cracks
. That's a great episode there.

WizarDru said:
They may have changed this later, but when the Dominion first showed up, and then everything seemed hunky-dory but the end of the first episode of season 3...I started to mentally tune out. Especially in light of the no-holds-barred wars that were happening simultaneously on B5.
As the series got further and further along, the Dominion War came to more and more the focus of the show. I'll agree that when the Dominion was first introduced, there would be long strings of 'Defiant discovers weird new planet in the Gamma Quadrant' type episodes before going back to the Dominion.

Actually, the 'war' really didn't begin until Season 5 or so.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top