<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: What killed Star Trek?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://unwinnable.com/2012/12/18/what-killed-star-trek/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://unwinnable.com/2012/12/18/what-killed-star-trek/</link>
	<description>Stories about Culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:55:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Matholameu		</title>
		<link>https://unwinnable.com/2012/12/18/what-killed-star-trek/#comment-71750</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matholameu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://unwinnable.com/?p=38769#comment-71750</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://unwinnable.com/2012/12/18/what-killed-star-trek/#comment-46003&quot;&gt;@MannyDuran&lt;/a&gt;.

Hmm... could you tell me next weeks lottery numbers?
Because apparently you can see into the future. Star Trek Neflix is on route, good call.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://unwinnable.com/2012/12/18/what-killed-star-trek/#comment-46003">@MannyDuran</a>.</p>
<p>Hmm&#8230; could you tell me next weeks lottery numbers?<br />
Because apparently you can see into the future. Star Trek Neflix is on route, good call.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Guest		</title>
		<link>https://unwinnable.com/2012/12/18/what-killed-star-trek/#comment-46019</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Guest]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:35:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://unwinnable.com/?p=38769#comment-46019</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I agree with all of your points. But I think you don&#039;t go far enough. The fans have to accept some blame here, too.  
 
Star Trek Enterprise was a better series than Star Trek Voyager. The characters were tighter. The stories were tighter though the overriding plot of time travel was kind of weak. It was a step in the right direction.  
 
But, in the age of the internet, it has become far too easy to complain. The fans were relentless in their complaints about this series. This drove the creators to battle and change their own show in an effort to please a community that was simply nitpicking. 
 
These changes gave us the Xindi War, a blatant way to try to capitalize on current events. Then we got a group of marines on the Enterprise. Another blatant capitalization that was needless. The marines didn&#039;t do anything to drive the stories that ship&#039;s security couldn&#039;t have done. 
 
Finally, whenever a show is in trouble. The networks always turn to sex to solve the problem. When Star Trek Voyager was ailing, we got Seven of Nine. She became a great character but the only reason she was introduced was sex appeal. When Star Trek Enterprise was on the ropes, we got T&#039;Pol in heat and Trip in the bedroom. 
 
All in blatant, weak attempts to please the fans. So, in the end, we all have to share the blame for Star Trek&#039;s eventual demise. RIP Star Trek 1.0. Hopefully, the new Star Trek will focus on telling good stories instead of gimmicks or sub-space anomalies. Or am I asking too much?  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with all of your points. But I think you don&#039;t go far enough. The fans have to accept some blame here, too.  </p>
<p>Star Trek Enterprise was a better series than Star Trek Voyager. The characters were tighter. The stories were tighter though the overriding plot of time travel was kind of weak. It was a step in the right direction.  </p>
<p>But, in the age of the internet, it has become far too easy to complain. The fans were relentless in their complaints about this series. This drove the creators to battle and change their own show in an effort to please a community that was simply nitpicking. </p>
<p>These changes gave us the Xindi War, a blatant way to try to capitalize on current events. Then we got a group of marines on the Enterprise. Another blatant capitalization that was needless. The marines didn&#039;t do anything to drive the stories that ship&#039;s security couldn&#039;t have done. </p>
<p>Finally, whenever a show is in trouble. The networks always turn to sex to solve the problem. When Star Trek Voyager was ailing, we got Seven of Nine. She became a great character but the only reason she was introduced was sex appeal. When Star Trek Enterprise was on the ropes, we got T&#039;Pol in heat and Trip in the bedroom. </p>
<p>All in blatant, weak attempts to please the fans. So, in the end, we all have to share the blame for Star Trek&#039;s eventual demise. RIP Star Trek 1.0. Hopefully, the new Star Trek will focus on telling good stories instead of gimmicks or sub-space anomalies. Or am I asking too much?  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Eric Brasure		</title>
		<link>https://unwinnable.com/2012/12/18/what-killed-star-trek/#comment-46014</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Brasure]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:06:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://unwinnable.com/?p=38769#comment-46014</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This is a bit of a shallow read on Star Trek and especially the development of serialized drama in the 1990s and 2000s. While it&#039;s true that serialized drama became the fad (and especially de rigueur for genre television) Star Trek didn&#039;t fail because it wasn&#039;t serialized, or at least that wasn&#039;t a primary reason. Mostly it failed because Voyager was a completely lazy piece of television, and Enterprise, while a little better, wasn&#039;t much better. The people in charge of the franchise were not well-suited to it and ultimately ran it into the ground because they were coasting on the success of The Next Generation. 
 
It&#039;s interesting to note that Deep Space Nine, long considered the black sheep of the franchise, has in my opinion aged the best of any of the series and has become more relevant over time, rewarding repeated viewings and revealing shades of character, plot, and themes that are not apparent on a first viewing. DS9 also averaged higher ratings than either Voyager or Enterprise. It was less of a black sheep than it was just slipping under the Paramount radar--they were too busy finishing up TNG and launching Voyager and UPN to care that much about it, and it allowed the writers on DS9 to experiment with serialization and themes that they wouldn&#039;t otherwise have gotten away with. It&#039;s also interesting to note that DS9 was a strong example of a writer&#039;s room show, at a time when the prevailing wisdom is that serialized dramas need to have a strong showrunner at the helm. 
 
As for serialized television--The X-Files and Buffy are both early precursors, of course (Stargate SG:1 is decidedly not--it was about as serialized as TNG, which is to say, it wasn&#039;t), but you&#039;re missing Twin Peaks and Babylon 5, arguably both more important (if less popular) influences on all the serialized genre shows that came after. At the end of the the day though, the rise of serialized television can&#039;t be pinned down to one show or even a few, and there are a lot of causes for it. 
 
 ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a bit of a shallow read on Star Trek and especially the development of serialized drama in the 1990s and 2000s. While it&#039;s true that serialized drama became the fad (and especially de rigueur for genre television) Star Trek didn&#039;t fail because it wasn&#039;t serialized, or at least that wasn&#039;t a primary reason. Mostly it failed because Voyager was a completely lazy piece of television, and Enterprise, while a little better, wasn&#039;t much better. The people in charge of the franchise were not well-suited to it and ultimately ran it into the ground because they were coasting on the success of The Next Generation. </p>
<p>It&#039;s interesting to note that Deep Space Nine, long considered the black sheep of the franchise, has in my opinion aged the best of any of the series and has become more relevant over time, rewarding repeated viewings and revealing shades of character, plot, and themes that are not apparent on a first viewing. DS9 also averaged higher ratings than either Voyager or Enterprise. It was less of a black sheep than it was just slipping under the Paramount radar&#8211;they were too busy finishing up TNG and launching Voyager and UPN to care that much about it, and it allowed the writers on DS9 to experiment with serialization and themes that they wouldn&#039;t otherwise have gotten away with. It&#039;s also interesting to note that DS9 was a strong example of a writer&#039;s room show, at a time when the prevailing wisdom is that serialized dramas need to have a strong showrunner at the helm. </p>
<p>As for serialized television&#8211;The X-Files and Buffy are both early precursors, of course (Stargate SG:1 is decidedly not&#8211;it was about as serialized as TNG, which is to say, it wasn&#039;t), but you&#039;re missing Twin Peaks and Babylon 5, arguably both more important (if less popular) influences on all the serialized genre shows that came after. At the end of the the day though, the rise of serialized television can&#039;t be pinned down to one show or even a few, and there are a lot of causes for it. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 
Lazy Loading (feed)
Minified using Disk

Served from: unwinnable.com @ 2026-04-20 10:40:59 by W3 Total Cache
-->