Scott Bakula is right... | Report this post to moderator
By: Ace Reports (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:16:36 on Jul 30, 2005

Even beyond Rick Berman, Paramount is the reason why TREK failed. Rick Berman is employed by Paramount, they needed to buy him out of his contract. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Berman, he is not at the top of the food chain here. Paramount couldn't or wouldn't do what was necessary to nurture the show to health. ENT was like the runt of the litter. It needed care and it was thrown in the gutter. ENT should never have been made when it was made.

Paramount is ultimately to blame. All of the other problems the show had beyond that stem from the fact that Paramount was in no position to do anything with ENT when it was being launched. Paramount should have ensured that the stories for ENT were up to par, Paramount should have canned Berman and/or Braga, Paramount should have made sure the show was promoted properly, and even offered it in alternative outlets in places where UPN isn't available.

But the debacle that was Enterprise may have a good side, it helped to define what Star Trek isn't in some of the most detailed voicing of opinions I've ever seen. When Star Trek returns, it will be both familiar and new at the same time. The break from TREK will be beneficial.

--------

"Um... excuse me Mr. Schroedinger, have you seen my cat around here anywhere?

Reply

Quote

Battlestar Galactica would have flourished on the golf channel | Report this post to moderator
By: GreatCzarsGhost (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:36:33 on Jul 30, 2005

As long as we keep blaming things like the day or time Enterprise was on or the network or what kind of spark plugs were in Bakula's car.. the problems with Star Trek wont be fixed and will indeed doom any new show or movie.

I believe the problem with Star Trek is us fans. I'm sorry to say that but we keep demanding shows based on Gene's original concepts from the 60's. American/World culture has changed a lot since then. Current TV and movies is all about Action and Conflict. With few exceptions, as soon as you get "conceptional" your audience changes channels or dozes off.

Now, a show can incorporate concepts into the action and make it work. That's why Battlestar Galactica works. For the next Trek show/movie to be successful, it will have to be more like BG in concept. Trek and us fans need to change with the times. We need to let this great Trek universe adapt to a changing audience.

Battlestar Galactica would have flourished on the Golf network. The more I read articles blaming stuff like this the more I fear Trek is not going to recover and return. Bummer.

Reply

Quote

Limited markets | Report this post to moderator
By: Polly_Scy (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:04:18 on Jul 30, 2005

UPN isn't available everywhere. We have competitive cable markets here, and UPN had an exclusivity agreement with one company. The only way to get UPN was to go with Cox, something I wasn't willing to do even for Trek.

Bakula is right. How can a show find an audience when the audience can't find the show?

Reply

Quote

Good points. | Report this post to moderator
By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:08:37 on Jul 29, 2005

Bakula has some very good points. Although a great deal of Trekkers have their preferences and something against this or that, Paramount and UPN did very little to promote Enterprise. The media is a powerful tool, to influence opinion, to advertise and generate a hype. That's how the good businessman uses it.

Reply

Quote

heh | Report this post to moderator
By: Logic Incarnate (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 03:26:46 on Jul 29, 2005

These guys will say anything other than the simple truth - the show was crap.



--------

1

Reply

Quote

I would like you people to tell me... | Report this post to moderator
By: rowboat (Odo's file, contact) @ 23:57:40 on Jul 28, 2005

what Scott Bakula said in that article that warrants these petty putdowns. NEWSFLASH- UPN was NOT the appropriate network to air this series. With the exception of their halfhearted acquisition of Buffy, they typically went after the younger or urban groups. That's a fact.

And if you geniuses would read between the lines, you would understand that he WAS saying the writing was bad. Look above this post and notice how he said he said Archer should have been this and that.. everything he wound up not being on the show. Good heavens people, pay attention!

Reply

Quote

What the...!?!?! | Report this post to moderator
By: Hepkat (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:24:12 on Jul 28, 2005

The man is mad! Viewer apathy began after the airing of the very first episode. By the end of the first year, ratings had already dropped to a mere fraction of what it was on the night of the premiere. And this ass would have us believe that the network ran the series into the ground?

I've noticed lately the propaganda rounds being made by the Powers that Be, first claiming "viewer fatigue", and after we soundly gave them a piece of our minds for that unpardonable piece of offence, now they're touting "network mismanagement".

Funny that none of them has the guts to admit that it was POOR WRITING that ran the series aground.

Reply

Quote

Whine, Whine, Whine... | Report this post to moderator
By: katefan (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 18:41:21 on Jul 28, 2005

Okay, seriously, what other major network would have put up with those piss poor ratings? Firefly got pulled for larger ratings, people.

And people complain that the show wasn't promoted enough. If you people didn't notice, Enterprise kept the same day and time for three years! You know how rare that is for a struggling series? Quantum Leap got tossed around mercilessly to the point where hardcore fans had no idea what night/time it was on.

Bakula is full of shit. If he wants to look for the reason Enterprise failed, look no farther than the Killer Bees and Bakula himself. I thought Archer was pathetic, the worst of all captains. A whiny little bitch. I liked Janeway better than him. You have no idea how sad that is...

--------

All right, enough - so be it

So be it, then:

Let all Oz be agreed

I'm wicked through and through

Since I can not succeed

Fiyero, saving you

I promise no good deed

Will I attempt to do again

Ever again



No Good Deed, sung by Elphaba, the Wicked Witch, from the musical Wicked

Reply

Quote

It was on the wrong network... | Report this post to moderator
By: Brikar (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:03:45 on Jul 28, 2005

... but it had the wrong production staff, too. There are numerous reasons and excuses for ENT's ultimate failure, but the absolute CHIEF among them is that the writing plain blew. The audience simply didn't like what they were watching. UPN didn't support the show, yeah, we know that. But despite that lack of support, 12 million people watched the first episode. The support stayed the same, the audience numbers dwindled.

--------

"Serenity" is the movie "Star Wars" prequels wish they could be.

Reply

Quote

I don' t care anymore | Report this post to moderator
By: dashock (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:17:27 on Jul 28, 2005

I can't wait for the day when there is something else Trek related to read than another opinion of why Enterpise failed.

Reply

Quote

whatever. | Report this post to moderator
By: slapynutz (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:02:43 on Jul 28, 2005

The network wasn't the issue. It contributed, but ultimately Enterprise would have failed regardless of which network it was on. It was the fault of poor plotting, weak dialogue, and (occasionally) suspect acting.

I find it odd that Bakula, Berman and Braga feel the need to constantly justify themselves. And I have to disagree with Bakula about his character's arc. Though it wasn't entirely his fault, there were many, many instances where Archer was written and acted out of character. He was a captain cut of the Janeway logic-and-reason-be-damned mold, not of the Kirk or Picard molds.

A Night in Sickbay best frames Archer ... more concerned with his dog than the ship or its crew.

The poorly-written Archer is a part of the reason Enterprise failed, at least as responsible as was UPN and its lack of support.

Reply

Quote