h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

star trek was not a flop, but was instead discredited by the neilson? index, a simplistic method of analysing viewing figures that was itself discredited. When the figures were reanalysed a few years later, it was found that star trek perfectly fitted the group of college students and similar people, which no other program fora long time succeded in catching. The program was amazingly succesfull with most unbiased audience, but was killed by the network by failing to understand it's audience (nothing new there then!) and then by putting it on late on a friday night (when their audience was at the pub) and persistently cutting the funding. It was brought back not by the movie, but by fanzine writters and readers migrating into books, which then caused both the movies and the other series. It was also the first of the "common universe" types of "hard science fiction", and very optimistic, which is why it succeeded. NOTE, the same type ofthing happened to doctor who in britain, but the bbc failed to leave the option of restarting it open.

No it was a flop

If it was such a flop, why did it receive a standing ovation at the sci-fi conference where it was first screened, and why has it been in continuous syndication ever since?

Because, like a large proportion of it's viewers, it is shallow, mindless and predictable and is only in production today because it is such an immense cash cow for Paramount. All IMHO, of course. But I have had experience on both sides of the fence in this situation, having once been a fan.

Marwood,

You are right in stating that Paramount has turned ST into a cashcow. The commercialism is nauseating nowadays.

However, when you state that ST was a flop when it first came out, you do not do justice to it. It is also definitely incorrect. If you wish to make sure for yourself(I doubt it ) I can give you the ISBN-numbers of the relevant books.

BTW : There WERE no Nielsen ratings in 1968!! They started with those One Year after ST folded and the tv-network indeed found out that they had missed a huge opportunity. People were actually fired over this issue.

BTW : I do not wear ST-clothes, I do not speak Klingon, I do not go to conventions, etcetera. I do have a large collection of ST-vids but then again : I also collect Bab-5, Edge of Darkness, Monthy Python, SF-movies, etcetera...

StarTrek is not the holy grail of SF and it will never be. It did help to make tv-sf more mature. Not because StarTrek was so good, but because of that blooper the tv-network made and because of the innovative work the creator(s) did with special effects. Just draw up a list of 'good' SF-series that were made before StarTrek:The Original Series and draw up a similar list of whatever happened since.


Oh, one thing : If StarTrek is such rubbish what would you call 'V' ? Talk about holes in the script ? These aren't holes ! Conquering Earth to get our watersupply when you can get it all for free(and without a fight) on another planet in our solarsystem... Really...Even "Nutating the phaserfieldfrequency on a rotating basis" sounds better...

Or how about Space1999 ? Stranded on the moon adrift through the galaxy because of a nuclear waste explosion ? Teeheeheeeee... And wasn't it convenient that they would always be captured by the gravity of whatever celestial body they would encounter ? Of course that gravity only worked for 50 minutes(excluding commercials).

To (mis-)quote DNA : "StarTrek is mild by comparison".
I think that StarTrek was to SF-tv what 2001 was for sf-movies. Not the best SF ever made but both opened doors.

All the best,

TM.

Let me be clear on this: I dislike Star Trek. Of the four (thusfar) Trekkie series, I like the original the best.

But regardless of what Trekkies believe these says, NBC cancelled Star Trek because it's ratings were really quite dreadful. It was when the show was re-run that it was realised that although the ratings were bad, the demographics were marvellous and sure to drag in a fortune from advertisers.

This lead to the inception of the Star Trek: Phase II series, later to become Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

And to quote one time Trekkie script writer Harlan Ellison "The greatest science fiction series of all time is Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one or all in a bunch to back it up!".

but it's ratings were dreadful because they put it on when their ordience couldn't watch it. It would be like puting scooby doo on at 11pm and then wondering why there were no children watching it.

How ironic then that the best sf-series of all times so far turned out to be Babylon-5...

TM.

Not that I am putting down B5, but it does tend towards "coronation street in space". If you miss one or two episodes, it can take you weeks to fill in the background that you missed. Admittedly DS9 has this problem a little as well, but nothing like as bad.

Xyroth,

I don't think that's bad. It just proves that the general span of attention of the average SF-watcher is about 50 minutes plus commercials.

The point you're missing is that Babylon-5 WAS written before they started shooting it(the overall story-arc was anyway).
StarTrek and lots of other fixed format shows are based on a standard setting(e.g. the Enterprise). It is only then that they actually start writing the contents of the episodes.

And hey : if you skip a chapter in a book won't you miss out on things too ?

TM.