Berman: New Trek may have come too soon (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

http://www.trektoday.com/news/171202_02.shtml
Well, no shit sherlock. It also could have been GOOD

 

[Jason Seaver]

I've said it before, I'll say it again - good writing will help the franchise ten times more than not being on the air will.

But, hey, Berman's not exactly in a position to say "Brannon and me - we suck. We had a couple good years on TNG, but, man, we've shot our wad and have no good ideas left, although that doesn't stop us from writing damn near every script for Enterprise or pushing Ron Moore off Voyager because we saw him as a threat to our chances to run the next show."

 

[Andrew Beacom]

Jason,

Well he could say that. I've been wondering if it might be better for Enterprise to get cut loose than have 5 more years of the same crap.

If it's cancelled soon then it's a failed experiment. If it goes on for 7 years it could do major damage to the fan base.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

That's what'll kill the show more than anything. If the studio detects the franchise is in jeopardy. And frankly, after Voyager sucked hard, and Enterprise is even WORSE, I'd say those red flags should be waving right around Feb sweeps

 

[Jack Briggs]

I once said the franchise should be put in stasis. Meaning I'm agreeing with Berman for the first time in, oh, nine or ten years.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Ah, but doesn't the very fact that Berman is saying this make you wonder if maybe you were wrong?
Of course, if I were running Paramount Television, I'd read that and start thinking that maybe it's time to get a more enthusiastic guy running the show.

 

[todd s]

I don't think it needs to be put on the backburner. I just think we need new leadership. Bring in a new creative team and that solves most of the problems.

 

[Jordan_E]

A new team behind ENTERPRISE? But would that mean the end of the "sexier" episodes!

 

[Jack Briggs]

Seriously, given this Trek-saturated era (remember, we once had DS9 and Voyager running simultaneously), I doubt that even good scripts can save the franchise now. People are tired of Star Trek, and only the hardcore fans are propping it up presently. All those bad stories from Voyager and, now, Enterprise, certainly didn't help and probably left a bad taste in the mouths of casual fans and onlookers.

You could get Ron D., Maurice, Ira, Rene, and all the good guys back and it probably wouldn't make any difference at this stage. People have an impression about current Star Trek, and it isn't a good one.

The big wind of ill will at Paramount, though, is the audience indifference to Nemesis. What with the new Rings movie already breaking records, Nemesis will crash faster than the Enterprise-D did in Generations.

These are bad times for Star Trek. Give it a rest.

Even the idea of a Riker/Troi-centered series doesn't sound good.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Seriously, given this Trek-saturated era (remember, we once had DS9 and Voyager running simultaneously), I doubt that even good scripts can save the franchise now.

What you say has merit, Jack, but I do think quality will win out. Consider Law & Order; while it's not a niche show like Trek has been since TNG, it certainly has saturated (three shows on NBC, two of which run on USA, with reruns on TNT after propping up A&E's schedule for years). And yet, it's still tremendously successful, because the quality is there.
Now, if L&O were to suck for five years and then launch a comeback, would it work? Don't know; don't see it happening - Dick Wolf is smart enough to keep it from getting stale, by regularly turning over the cast and crew.
Don't forget, TNG and DS9 ran concurrently for a while, too, and that certainly didn't hurt the franchise. It wasn't until Voyager arrived, and underwhelmed, that the ratings started to tail off.
Indeed, what the franchise might need is a little more saturation. Create a second show (Jake Sis... ) that creates some excitement around the franchise, reminds people why they love Star Trek, and it might draw more people to Enterprise, the next movie, etc.
The only way I can really see shutting down as helpful is if it purges B&B and, when things are restarted, they're restarted with great, energetic writer/producers (Jane Espenson, Thania St. John... Hell, throw a lot of money at Joss Whedon). It's probably too late to save Enterprise; I can't think of a show that's been revamped and gained audience. But make a splash and see what happens.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

MMMmmmmm, Jossian Star Trek..........

I honestly don't think he'd really work on the show. MAYBE TOS but no other Treks.

What they really need to do is wind the clocks forward another 70 years and see where it goes. Get Ron Moore balck after Battlestar Blasphemy concludes and let him run amok.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I honestly don't think he'd really work on the show. MAYBE TOS but no other Treks.

I'm not saying stick him on Enterprise. I'm saying hire him to creat the next show with the sole stipulation that it takes place in the TNG/DS9/Voyager era and let him do whatever the hell he wants. He might not do it because he doesn't want to be a hired hand, but there's got to be a part of him that would find being in charge of Star Trek (have Rick Berman's job) awful tempting.
If not Joss, though, bring some heavy artillery to the next series. That was partly the idea with Bakula, but do something that will get noticed beyond sci-fi fandom. Get Steve Bochco, say, or look through the talent deals Paramount has. Who expected Kiefer Sutherland to be doing TV two years ago?
The mistake Paramount is making is that they're taking their most recognizable brand and stuffing it with lesser ingredients. When casting Enterprise, they were talking about guys who would be happy to be working - who'd heard of anyone but Bakula?
Instead, cast and crew this like you would a show for a big-three network, and then give them something to work with. Paramount can afford to - it's Star Trek. Give it a chance to be Star Trek again.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I actually agree with the points being made here. But giving the franchise a rest is compelling too. Look, Bill Clinton was a popular president, the economy was skyrocketing, and times were good, but there was the ever-present problem in 1999-2000 of "Clinton fatigue." What we have here is Star Trek fatigue. It's Paramount's best-known brand, true, but non-hardcore fans pretty much think they have the franchise figured out, and they're apathetic--and it's the non-hardcore fans who need to be brought back for the numbers to go back up.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Well Jack, the Federation is a tad TOO utopian. How about a series set say, 200 years where the whole thing is breaking down? Where those goofs on Risa may be proven right?

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jason Seaver wrote:

Law & Order's also not a "science-fiction" ("niche") show, upon which---and I've said this many times over---the burdens of producing and maintaining suspension of disbelief are so much greater than on run-of-the-mill earthbound fiction. No way saturating the place with Trek will be good or successful at this point. In the older first-syndication markets of the 80's and early 90's maybe. Not now.
I do agree with you that taking the backdrop out of the usual Trek milieu of 24th century and "Alpha Quadrant" has been one of Paramount's big, BIG blunders. Also, totally exploiting your backstory to me is like eating your own young.
But will Paramount Television ever learn?

 

[Jason Seaver]

a "science-fiction" ("niche") show, upon which---and I've said this many times over---the burdens of producing and maintaining suspension of disbelief are so much greater than on run-of-the-mill earthbound fiction.

Well, sure. The point is, if it wasn't good, it would have burned itself out. Wolf & Universal have made sure that doesn't happen, though, whereas Paramount has allowed B&B to malinger, and that's not healthy for anyone, long-term - not Star Trek, and not them. When they finally leave Trek, will they find work as quickly as the folks from DS9.
So maybe Star Trek: Series Six will have to be great, week-in, week-out. I'm not saying it will be easy - but it won't be easy five years from now, either. And if a lay-off just means it can come back half-assed and be successful in the ratings because it "seems" new (or, worse, nostalgic) - well, screw that.
The things about Star Trek is that in this day and age, it's one of the few sci-fi properties that can be as complex as a "regular" TV show but doesn't have to get relegated to niche status on television. TOS and TNG were popular enough that the general public knows Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, Warp Drive, Transporters, Borg, and Ferengi, even if they've never watched the show. Work with that, at least at first - they're what people know, so they're what will draw the audience in.
And then, when producing the show, don't settle for less than you woud if you were producing ER or NYPD Blue or, yes, Law & Order. Just because the sci-fi audience has traditionally settled for less isn't an excuse.
Aside: I got so sick of how, last month, the good reviews of Solaris were about how, because it was character-focused and, well, good, it "wasn't really science fiction". Well, it was, and is, and that's what Star Trek should aspire to - being of such high quality that people associate it with great TV shows, not science-fiction, even if it is exposing the audience to completely SFnal ideas.
Do all this, and Star Trek can be huge again. I think Paramount's problem is that they're not shooting high enough - TOS and TNG were mainstream successes, and the franchise is uniquely positioned to be one again, if Paramount were to go for that, rather than worrying about drawing a specific demographic to a second-rate network.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jason Seaver wrote:

Quote:

It has almost never done that. Its creator, Gene Roddenberry, never made any bones about what the show was to be: "Wagon Train to the stars". It was always conceived as, and has pretty much always been, an "action-adventure" show in a futuristic, deep-space setting, that, oh, by the way, had the intelligence and the luxury of actually exploring some real "science-fictional" ideas on occasion.
Some of us "serious science-fiction types" have wished it would be or become more like what you're describing, but it has never become so, and never will, I think.
It's not a matter of "settling"; it's a matter of wising up with age. I suspect that will happen to you as well.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Spun some TOS last night in the bedroom player, and thought of this thread. Excellent comments, and all points of view seem valid. But I can't help feeling that Trek's best days are forever behind us. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

 

[PhilipG]

Hey, I have an excellent idea how to improve the season two ratings: every episode, kill off a regular cast member. Put them all in deep trouble and keep them there. At the end of season two, there's just Hoshi and Archer. In the last minute, Hoshi reveals herself to be a Romulan agent and shoots Archer, stealing Enterprise. Season three is about Earth trying to find Enterprise and get revenge (cue well-known actor from the movies taking command of the seek-and-destroy mission). Unfortunately, Hoshi and a fake crew have destroyed a small Klingon colony. War breaks out. Earth is attacked. etc. I'll take that idea over the Temporal Yawn War any day.

 

[Barry Woodward]

If UPN wants to put Star Trek on hold why not pick up Firefly and Farscape to take its place?