RE: I have to agree. | Report this post to moderator
By: NCC-1701 (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:08:01 on Jul 09, 2005

#2 Cashcow? What on earth is #1?

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top

RE: I have to agree. | Report this post to moderator
By: shart (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:56:35 on Jul 09, 2005

I have to agree. Paramount should sell Trek since they are not doing anything to promote it. What Bakula said is true and a big reason why Enterprise was canceled was because Paramount would not support it. The fans supported Enterprise and loved the cast! Trek does need some new writers to bring some new creativity to an old but good idea. The cast was great and not their fault the show was canceled. Getting rid of UPN and moving to a better network would also have helped the show.

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top

RE: I have to agree. | Report this post to moderator
By: Sennik (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:45:39 on Jul 07, 2005

Like others have said below, I do think Paramount is actually doing the smart thing for once. They're perfectly well aware that Star Trek has an audience, which will bring in money for them. First Contact showed them that it can still be a big draw at the box office, and Enterprise's 12 million viewers for the pilot showed them that it can still pull in viewers on TV as well.

Remember, there's a new crop of people running Paramount now, and Bakula's right, none of them seem to be fans of Star Trek. At least, THIS Star Trek. This Star Trek has been seen as only watchable by nerds, geeks, losers, and people of below average intelligence who like bright shiny explosions and bumpy head aliens. Oh, and lets not forget female main characters in skin tight jumpsuits. No, the new Paramount has determined that Rick Berman's Star Trek must go.

I suppose they could just buy out Berman's contract, send him on his merry way, and replace him tomorrow if they wanted to. But why spend the money to do that when his contract will expire all by itself at the end of 2006? By that time, the current writers will have moved on, people will start looking at the franchise as something they might want to tackle (as JMS and Coto have already done), and it will become something Paramount can market again. Right now, to the general public, when you say Star Trek they usually groan. In a few years, with someone new at the helm, the time will be right for that to change.

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top

RE: I have to agree. | Report this post to moderator
By: Hepkat (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:48:58 on Jul 07, 2005 | (1)

I think it's not so much that Paramount isn't a fan of Star Trek per se, but rather they're not a fan of THIS particular incarnation of Trek, so they pulled the plug in order to wait out the contracts of this current crop of writers, producers in order to start fresh in a few years' time. Not too bad an idea when you consider the massive size of the franchise and the unacceptable level of risk that has come to be associated with ENT.

Quote:
It is very clear that the management of Paramount are incompetent fools because to sit there and watch your #2 cashcow die just shows a complete lack of good business sense.

Contrary to your statement, I think THIS is Paramount's way of saving the franchise, by not sitting around and risking yet another season to thinning audiences. Let's face it, the show debuted with an audience of around 12 million, and by the time of cancellation barely 2 million were tuning in each week. These 2 million, we can safely assume, are the true, die-hard Trek fans, but as admirable as their loyalty is, a shrinking audience of 2 million nerds is not an attractive prospect for advertisers who increasingly find it difficult to support a series that no longer attracts the niche market for their products.

Pullng the plug on the franchise seems to have been the best way to actually save it in the end.

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top