| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| New York post talks Star Trek; Say it ain't so | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 7 2003, 06:11 PM (425 Views) | |
| Cool Vulcan | Dec 7 2003, 06:11 PM Post #1 |
|
Captain
|
Heres the link December 5, 2003 -- TIME is catching up with the ageless "Star Trek" franchise. Born during Lyndon Johnson's administration, it is showing its age - and signs are in the stars that this could be the end of one of TV's longest and most popular series. The series' fifth spawn, UPN's "Enterprise," is in the ratings dumps. And even the last "Trek" movie, 2002's "Nemesis," tanked at the box office, garnering only $18.5 million its opening weekend - the lowest opening ever for a "Trek" movie. "I think 'Star Trek' still could be viable, but I don't think it needs to be a weekly [TV] series anymore," says industry maven Marc Berman. "'Star Trek' has been around for 40 years, and we've gotten a lot out of it." "Star Trek" merchandise, once a powerhouse, has warped into a shadow of its former self - and even the show's official publication, Star Trek: The Magazine, has folded. UPN, in a bid to drum up more interest for "Enterprise," changed the show's title to "Star Trek: Enteprise" this year - but ratings were still off 10 percent last month versus Nov. '02. TV Guide even ran a feature titled "How to Fix 'Star Trek.'" So, the question needs to be: Is the franchise still viable? "If ratings for 'Enterprise' continue to go down next season, it's going to hurt the franchise," Berman says. "They can still do a movie or a TV special if there's not a weekly series - it is and will always be a viable franchise if treated properly." To be fair, "Enterprise" had the bad luck to open this season against the dramatic baseball playoffs - which notched the best ratings in years. "Enterprise" has taken a further pounding from The WB's popular "Smallville," its timeslot competitor Wednesdays at 8 p.m. Series creator Rick Berman (no relation to Marc), who is notoriously press-shy, wasn't available to comment - but he did tell trektoday.com that he thought UPN didn't effectively promote the show's early start date this season. "UPN is never going to take 'Enterprise' off," Marc Berman says. "'Star Trek: Voyager' launched UPN and gave them the advantage over The WB, and that show lasted for seven years. "But 'Voyager' was not as popular as 'The Next Generation' - and 'Enterprise' isn't as popular as 'Voyager,'" he says. Officials at Paramount TV, which produces "Enterprise," declined to comment. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Dec 8 2003, 12:00 AM Post #2 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
With Enterprise having the amount of trouble it has had it seems inevitable that the news media will start printing Trek's pending demise. Even when Voyager came along, some critics wondered just how many more times Paramount could "go back to the well." All this reiterates to me that the franchise needs a well deserved rest so that fans can get anxious for it again... But hey, at least Mayweather got his picture in the paper... (Taken from the online article cited in the initial post)
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| jjtrek | Dec 8 2003, 08:55 AM Post #3 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
As ok as the November episodes were, overall the NYPost is correct. Enterprise is the least popular of the Trek series. In my opinion, Rick Berman erred in 3 ways: 1) He ignored Gene Roddenberry's vision which stressed exploration and whose stories were character driven instead of situation driven. 2) He totally ignored the core fans (the long-term fans) who know Gene's vision and have nurtured it throughout the 37 years of this Franchise. 3) Created a series that went BACKWARD in time instead of FORWARD as Star Trek was meant to go. I agree with Swidden. Best thing for this Franchise is to drop off the air for about 10 yrs or so and let the fans hunger for it again. Then, get SOMEONE ELSE to helm the Franchise so Star Trek can continue to go "Where No One Has Gone Before". Julia |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 8 2003, 03:34 PM Post #4 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Berman still could have created a series based before Kirk that looked forward, the problem is that all he and Braga seem to have done is modify older scripts from different series. These episodes are not character driven, but driven either by an event that occurs in reality, or is ginned up for the series. The whole "Expanse" is a season of "9/11" type of episodes. In other episodes, something always happens to the ship or shuttlepod, but it gets neatly taken care of by the end of the episode. How many times have pirates raided a damaged ship in this series? (Three). Why are all of the characters cardboard cutouts from a politically-correct central casting office? Instead of the TOS characters many of us grew up with, the current cast has been massaged and prettified: In Archer, we see what happens when Alan Alda morphs with William Shatner. You get a wussy captain who uses the word "ass" a lot to sound edgy. We have a politically-correct Vulcan who can't act, but looks nice in a catsuit and seems to find ways to dress in the skimpiest of fashions. Oh yeah, she wants to experiment with emotions and seems to get into positions only fifteen year olds would fantasize about. We have the token southern good-ol-boy whose accent doesn't match his supposed point of origin (Central Arkansas instead of Central Florida), and runs around in his undies a lot. We have the token smart asian female who can translate a foreign language in seconds, but says "eeek" every time something happens. We have the prissy Englishman who was supposed to be gay but now is all guns and glory (and devoutly hetero). We have the token goofy alien who shows us the inferiority of everything human in every other episode. Last, but not least, we have the token black guy who is, for lack of a better term, a chauffeur. The ship's helmsman/navigator is supposed to have the most experience in space, yet has had maybe three lines of dialog in this season. Berman/Braga tried to give us the "bizarro" version of the original enterprise crew, but has given us these cardboard character cutouts. Ratings are in the toilet because the ORIGINAL fans... the folks who put up with years of reruns and kept the franchise alive, have departed; because the newer fans (TNG and onward) don't see a lot of synchronicity with the Trek they enjoyed, and lastly... the Dawson's Creek fans can still watch... Dawson's Creek (and Smallville). I'm not surprised that the TV Guide contest never printed my suggestion to fix the series: "Fire the current people associated with the series and bring in fresh blood, preferably from fans." Hey, is anyone going to watch Galactica tonight? I'm interested in finding out how Moore's version turns out. If I like it, I'll watch the other half. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| KiraAnara | Dec 8 2003, 03:42 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Ensign
|
Much like it was back on TNG? It seems rather lame that the same people who complain about how ENT fixes problems fast don't complain that TNG did the exact same thing (not saying you are like that, but others I have seen). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Cool Vulcan | Dec 8 2003, 05:13 PM Post #6 |
|
Captain
|
I feel they should've made it on the Enterprise in 2245, under April. That would be fasinating. Kira you are a little wrong, The ship was only captured once in TNG and it was called Rascals. The ENT complainer are from all the other shows mostly Voyager fans. Some fans are 24th century Star Trek era not 23rd like Admiralbill and starbase63, they and some of the others here have grown up with Kirk and Spock and McCoy. The likes of myself and others who were born in the late 70's early 80's grew up with Picard, Riker and Data. The same with later generations. As for Voyager I feel was a mistake doing a new series right after one ended is a wrong move. They did it with Enterprise, by doing it right after Voyager. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 8 2003, 07:08 PM Post #7 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I don't know about TNG... there are a few dozen episodes I missed. I'm a TOS fan. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Dec 8 2003, 07:25 PM Post #8 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I'll second that, with a strong nod to DS9. I remember an article quite a ways back now that had a quote from Avery Brooks, I believe, wherein he described his show (to paraphrase) as not so much you father's Star Trek, but more like your big brother's when it came to the attitude of the series. I have long agreed with that sentiment... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Dec 8 2003, 07:51 PM Post #9 |
|
Admiral
|
Agreed, and I'll third that. TOS followed by DS9. Oh, and TAS is underrated, too.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Cool Vulcan | Dec 10 2003, 07:04 PM Post #10 |
|
Captain
|
I just got to thinking. If this happens what will become of the fans on the internet? Like wouldn't it mean startrek.com (in general of course no longer exists) Trektoday or Trek Nation go out of bussiness, SisterTrek losing future patental users? My God! I am just over reacting or what? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Dec 10 2003, 07:37 PM Post #11 |
|
Time to put something here
|
For me it all comes down the formula of the show, the creators tried to make Enterprise with the formula used to make hit TV shows in the new millennium. They thought that if they made star trek more like everything else out there then they would breath new life into the franchise by getting a whole new audience. What they failed to relies is that no matter what you do with star trek it will always have the stigma of being a geeky show and so this new millennium formula (which appeals to the young) would never work because the young of today are to afraid to be uncool (more so then another generation IMO) and would never watch a show that is thought of as geeky (no matter how many beaitufil woman you put on the show, because lets face it any kid with a computer can see more porn then enterprise will ever have to offer). So before they even got out the door with their new star trek, it was doomed to fail because this "new audience" would never except it as being cool to watch. Add on top of that, the fact that most real fans of star trek like trek because it is different, because it flies in the face of conventionality, and because it doesn’t cater to the norm. So by Enterprise trying to be just like all the new shows out there does not appeal to the real trek fan, because it goes against what they love about the show. So trying to bank on a audience that for other reasons would never watch star trek, the franchise is losing the fans that it does have. It is no wonder it is doing so bad. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 11 2003, 07:36 AM Post #12 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Excellent analysis. You're spot on about the formula they use to create this (or any other) show)! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Cool Vulcan | Dec 11 2003, 09:59 AM Post #13 |
|
Captain
|
Quite true Dan, quite true.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Dec 17 2003, 10:00 AM Post #14 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
hmm so the arguments were- 1.this generation the most fearful of seeming uncool / trek only for geeks 2. Trek is supposed to be different. I agree with no.2 , but I think youre way off with number 1 - there are more geeks out there, more teens addicted to PC games,the definition of uncool has changed. There is not enough action in ENT to keep the target audience - male teens- still for an hour, when they can chose between PC,Net,Playstation2,Cable,DVDs,other Tv channels. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Dec 17 2003, 10:19 AM Post #15 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Captain Proton - you may be right about the interests of the target audience. One question though - do you think that possibly the problem is that they have gone after the wrong target audience? In my opinion when one is running a franchise the worst thing to do is to tell the audience that you already have that they are not your target audience. Do the hormone crazed teenagers have the money to go to Las Vegas and see the Star Trek Experience? Do they have the money to travel all over to Conventions? Middle aged people buy products too, and we have a lot of money. The biggest mistake they made with Enterprise was forgetting who the typical Star Trek fan was. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Enterprise · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2


(Taken from the online article cited in the initial post)



3:29 AM Jul 11