Space Ramblings

Conversations on Star Trek’s Decline – Part 2

> Point well taken, but how capable are Berman and co. at this point in
> recognizing those scripts, or are they burnt out and sticking to formula?

Braga was certainly producing much more original stuff on Voyager than
he’s doing on Enterprise. But then Enterprise is supposed to be the
‘Down to Earth’ Trek series which is part of the problem, since so far
Down to Earth = Dreary and Repetitive.

> Good point, but especially in the case of Voyager I believe that were
> attempting to start with a fresh perspective, then panicked when ratings
> dropped. In Voyager’s case they dropped their new villains Kaazon (sp?) and
> brought back the Borg.

Well in all fairness the Kazon couldn’t have stuck around for seven
years. Voyagers premise had the ship traveling tens of thousands of
light years so even having the Kazon stick around for two years was
too long.

– Hide quoted text –
– Show quoted text –
> >> I disagree with your point that Star Trek could not be put on the shelf and
> >> brought back. Other properties have done so and have been brought back,
> albeit
> >> not always successfully. I think a multi-year break would give the
> “dwindling”
> >> fan base a chance to take a breath. Too much of anything is bad, and we’ve
> >> probably had too much of Star Trek. Let the fan base coalesce, and then
> build
> >> up anticipation for an entirely different take on Star Trek.

> >Television is much more crowded these days, people have a shorter
> >attention span and Star Trek’s core fanbase is aging. In a few decades
> >far fewer people will be able to name Kirk or Spock than can today,
> >and it goes without saying that they won’t know what Star Trek is
> >anymore. Today people may not watch, but at least they know.
> >Furthermore Paramount is more likely to invest money in maintaining an
> >existing franchise than in reviving a dead one.

> If Paramount is to continue to invest money in maintaining an existing series,
> what is the solution? Improve the writing of Enterprise? Have the next series
> take place in the Next Generation time period? Remake TOS?

I don’t know that there is a simple answer. I think that if ENT
follows the trends of previous shows, its writing will improve
somewhat and it will find its voice, for better or worse. UPN needs
Enterprise to keep its network afloat as it needed Voyager to keep its
network afloat. So as long as Viacom is commited to UPN, it will also
continue being committed to Star Trek.

> And I disagree…even if there are ten thousand channels in the future, if Star
> Trek is put on the shelf it would be brought back in the future, at some point.
> Unfortunately it might not be 5 or 10 years, but something like 20-30 years. It
> has too much history not to be brought back at some point. If someone can
> resucitate Land of the Lost, I couldn’t believe that Paramount or ultimately
> another studio would not take another stab someday at a new Star Trek series.

Star Trek is expensive to do and without a fanbase, there would be no
real reason to do it. Star Trek today exists because of merchandising.
Take away the series and you cripple the fanbase and thus the
merchandising. And if Star Trek is ever brought back again, it will
likely be in an extremely distorted and perhaps nearly unrecognizable
form…the way that other SciFi franchises have been ‘revivied.’

– Hide quoted text –
– Show quoted text –
> >> And as for Nemesis, I think this is why it has failed domestically (perhaps
> it
> >> will make back its money overseas, but unlikely). Had there been no
> Enterprise
> >> or Voyager since Star Trek:Insurrection, the opening weekend would probably
> >> have been much stronger. Again – I know I’m repeating myself – the market
> has
> >> been oversaturated by this franchise, and in my opinion the field needs to
> be
> >> allowed to go fallow for a while.

> >Had Nemesis not opened in the most crowded period of the year 5 days
> >before TTT, it would have done well at the box office. Far worse films
> >like Insurrection managed it after all.

> Yes, it would have had a bigger opening, but where is the repeat business? If
> Nemesis were a superior film, you would have had a lesser second week drop-off.
> Instead of going from 18 million to 4 million, the second week gross would have
> been 10 or 9 million.

Except that Nemesis walked into TTT which was demographic suicide
because Star Trek and LOTR have a lot of demographic overlap.

Related posts:

Post Navigation

Custom Avatars For Comments
UA-32485431-1
%d bloggers like this: