I am quite certain I’m opening a can of worms, but would like to pose an hypothesis:
Trek fans destroyed the Trek franchise.
I believe, when Trek was not taken so seriously, when the story and the adventure was the driving factor, Trek flourished. Over time, however, Trek fans began to insist on a unified timeline and actual technical explanations for every piece of technology or deux ex machina that was introduced. Each episode or series had to strictly ascribe to the universe as they, the Trekkers, had created it. This effectively bound the hands of anyone, no matter how well-intentioned, who attempted to add to the Trek universe. This stricture led to the abandonment of the “heart” of Trek, which was the human element. The basic items that would drive any story - conflict, emotion, redemption and the like - were left behind in the effort to assure that all episodes conformed to the universe as Trekkers envisioned it to be. The details of the Trek universe had reached a level of such minutiae that by the time details were attended to in each episode, there was nothing left for creativity.
Of course, this did not happen overnight, but over a course of what is now approaching 40 years. Forty years of novels, movies, fan fiction, role-playing games and new series has taken its toll. The near-rabid demand from Trekkers for higher and higher levels of technical detail, so they could more completely immerse themselves in Trek-ology, has essentially choked out the ability for writers to create new, interesting stories for the entertainment of the masses.
It has been asked why there are so many time-travel stories in the later Trek series’. The simple answer is that time-travel gives the writers room to move around creatively that the existing time-line and Trek universe simply does not allow. The same could be said for the development of the “reset switch” that has also been lamented. Both devices restore the writer’s ability to play with the circumstances which the characters face.
So I put it to you, fellow Trekkers: have we actually been the victims of our own enthusiasm?
The franchise is in the hands of Rick Berman who, by all accounts, isn’t One Of Us. His wishes trump those of the more embarrassing Trekkies. They’ve scrapped continuity when it benefited the storyline. If we’d been proper and respectful, Trek would have ended completely 36 years ago. I think the high points have been worth the low ones.
To the OP: No, we are just fans. We payed to the franchise by watching the TV and going to the movies. If we had actually been part of the creative process, then you have a point. But, we weren’t asked, we were just given. And we partook. Worlds without end, amen.
Very capable argument, though. Kudos.
I think an even more compelling argument could be made for threadbare recycled plots written by hacks with no sense of wonder and acted by uninteresting, poorly cast characters. But that could be just me.
Also, fan fiction, novels, and role-playing games are not and have never been considered canon and are disreagarded at whim, as they should be. And I would echo disagreement that it has been the wishes of the trekkers that has influences where the series has gone. On the contrary, although the fans look for continutity, the producers disregard it much more freely than the fans would wish. Additionally, by trying to expand interest to the non fans, the producers often have dumbed the series down or have made silly additions for the sole purpose of adding sex. The producers know they have the hardcore fan - they have no reason to cater to them.
Continuity and technical accuracy do not hinder a show. Look at Babylon 5, heck, look at E.R. both have good continuity and stick close to what we know of science and it didn’t hinder the drama did it?
The OP is clearly under the assumption that the Trek franchise is destroyed. However, I think that it’s more likely that “destroyed” in this case means “not how I like it”. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it seems more than a little subjective to say that Star Trek is dead when there are lots of people who still enjoy it.
But more than that, I would reiterate that a desire for continuity had little to do with any loss of “heart”, which I am also not convinced is missing. As dumb as many of the original series plots were, I can see an argument that plots have been lacking from Voyager and Enterprise. However, I completely disagree that the humanity and characters and acting are any worse than in the original series.
Are you sure you’re not getting Star Trek confused with Star Wars?
[hijack]
Damn, I hate Ferengi’s.
Im just watching the episode of Voyager where they are willing to sacrafice the whole crew for their own personal gain of nano-probes.
Sigh…they were so close to getting home…
Damn, I hate Ferengi’s.
[/hijack]
I think it has degenerated in quality due to poor writing and attempting to pander to a greater audience. ST:TNG was so bad the first few years they actually failed to complete some stories just sort of ending them. The strongest and most consistent quality writing of any post TOS series was DS9 and most people disliked the setting (not me, I loved it).
The problem is they have trouble telling a compelling story because they do focus on the gee whiz factor (or the sex factor) and kind of leave telling stories in the dust.
If by “fans” you mean Berman and Braga, then yes. Otherwise, look to the talentless hacks at the top, and the merciless thrashing of the franchise to extract every nickel no matter how poor the work product is.
The TVGuide articles on Enterprise’s producers have been a hoot, if only to show how out of touch they are.
The Trek franchise was severely damaged (I won’t say “destroyed” because I think it can come back) but creators and programmers who thought they could slap “Star Trek” on any piece of crap and get a guranteed audience. And that goes all the way back to The Original Series and the horrid, out-of-character, technobabble scripts Roddenberry, Coon and Justman allowed to air.
The fans noticed it right away. Sure, some of them nitpicked why when O’Reilly was the navigator he did things one way, while Checkov did them differently. But a lot more of them were arguing about why Kirk always found time to have a romance with the hot blond alien chick of the week, how Beverly Crusher could pick up and leave her son in deep space for an entire season and so on.
Wonderful! This is precisely what I was looking for: I created the OP as a postulate; an hypothesis, to see if it “had legs.” I’m gratified to see that it doesn’t. Let me say that there are things which created my line of reasoning, the foremost of which is the gritching I hear from other Trekkers “on the street” and on this board, the sheer volume of which led me to believe that perhaps the franchise was “destroyed,” or irredeemable in the eyes of the true Trek fan. That said, could it be that the series has merely “run out of gas?”
DirkGntly I wouldn’t say it’s dead. Rather I would say its on life support. They have no more movies in the pipeline (Next Generation seems to be done), and Enterprise is facing a make or break season. Should Enterprise fail and the bungling duo of Berman and Braga remain at the helm, then its officially dead, IMHO.