so why do Trek series end after 7 seasons?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Star Trek: The Next Generation
everymanaking6488 — 9 years ago(August 11, 2016 08:48 PM)
I recall reading online that TNG ended by decision of the producers and not by the network. Apparently they wanted to jumpstart the film career of the TNG cast (which makes sense) but why did that occur after 7 seasons? why not in say 1993 for example when season 6 ended? Or why not in say 1995 after an 8th season?
Also why did both DS9 and Voyager also end after 7 seasons? was it just seen as the magical number of seasons to end the series? Because honestly Voyager could have ended after 5, no reason to have been kept on for so long.
Even Enterprise was setup for a 7 year run. It just got cancelled way early.
Envisioning a 7 year run for any series seems incredibly problematic. -
WyldeGoose — 9 years ago(August 11, 2016 10:07 PM)
I'm not sure. That is to say, we know the reasons why TNG got to seven seasons, and then onto the big screen, because by 94 it had been three years since we had a Star Trek film and the TOS actors were getting on in years, so Paramount wasn't going to let that franchise wither out from not getting out there to the movies. As for the other shows, I have some speculations.
I personally think it has to do with expense. Most studios really don't care for TV sci-fi because they're expensive to make. TNG reportedly cost a million dollars an episode, and a lot of that is eaten up by special effects. The more expensive a show is, the riskier it is to produce if the ratings aren't too good, and if the ratings aren't good networks won't buy the syndicated product. So I think maybe that seven seasons of a show like Star Trek was agreed to as a good number to call it quits. As the show progresses and the actors start to show their age (and ask for new contracts for more money), it'll get riskier and riskier to sell the show. But if you make a new show with fresh faces, that's a lot less risky and less marginally expensive than the previous one.
ENT got cut after five seasons for a lot of reasons, most of which, I think, had to do with bad writing based on taking the Trek audience for granted, that they'd love anything associated with Star Trek and they would help offset the costs of production. Viewership was dropping even among the fanbase due not just to the lackluster scripts laden with technobabble, but all the other shows on all the new channels and such. The internet was coming into maturity as well. ENT had a lot more to compete with than TNG or DS9, but maybe about the same as VOY, and it just couldn't hold up in the ratings. I think UPN also was a part of the problem. It wasn't a really good network. -
Kruleworld — 9 years ago(August 26, 2016 09:53 PM)
by cjh8504
Pretty sure Enterprise only lasted 4 seasons
They had plans for more after season 4, but got canned due to poor ratings. The stories were improving at that point, but by then most of the fans had moved on.
"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok" -
everymanaking6488 — 9 years ago(August 12, 2016 11:03 AM)
I wonder if it helped the creative angle for the writers/producers knowing they'd have a legitimate amount of time to tell their story.
I'm sure the actors enjoyed that they might have a secure 7 year gig. Though once a ST series is over the actors tend to never find good work again. Is it just typecasting or perhaps the actors never being that talented in range enough to begin with? -
WyldeGoose — 9 years ago(August 12, 2016 08:55 PM)
I wonder if it helped the creative angle for the writers/producers knowing they'd have a legitimate amount of time to tell their story.
Not really. Because Star Trek, throughout the franchise, is written mainly by about a dozen or so writers and story editors, some doing just one episode and some corroborating on a few, here and there. And they're all on a deadline. Some episodes are on a tighter deadline than others because of where the producer wants that episode to occur during the season. This was the main reason why TNG was nearly canceled during the first two seasons, due to the Writer's Strike; if you can't come up with scripts necessary to complete your projects, you have no episodes to sell through syndication and no networks looking to buy it, especially if the show doesn't look like it'll be finished on schedule.
Doing 24-26 episodes a season is a lot of hard, stressful work. A lot of good writers get burned out very quickly on the whole thing, especially if they're regular writers for the series.
Having said all of that, deadlines are essential. If you don't give a writer a due-date to finish his work, odds are he won't finish it. I know, because I have to give myself incentives just to finish what I do on time, and most people are not self-starters. Deadlines focus the writer's energy and mind and talent, and they often get very creative as a result. Not all people work well under pressure, of course, but deadlines are pretty much the standard way any writing work gets done in the business.
I'm sure the actors enjoyed that they might have a secure 7 year gig. Though once a ST series is over the actors tend to never find good work again. Is it just typecasting or perhaps the actors never being that talented in range enough to begin with?
I attested to the uneasy, anxious nature of being an actor on the TOS board. It's a nerve-wracking job, because even if you're a trained actor who's got lots of experience on stage and screen, you can never really be sure if what you're doing is any good, bad, or indifferent, in order to gauge how well you are doing and correct your problems, if any. A good performance with rave reviews and lots of box office receipts doesn't mean you're going to have a good career ahead of you. This means that your career isn't based so much on how good you are, so you have no real control over how your career turns out, because producers may not choose you for a part for reasons that have nothing to do with you personally, or how well you perform.
I'm sure a lot of actors who would be given a seven year stint on a show would be glad to have it, and count their blessings. But, they have to think past that last year, and in fact, they always have to be ready to jump ship in case they get better offers. That's what their agents are for.
Range, in my opinion, is overrated, especially if you're talking about film and television. For that kind of market, most producers aren't looking for range. They're looking for an image, a face, a persona, something that might put butts in the theaters, or cause people to tune into the show. Stage productions, on the other hand, is looking for range. Hollywood producers don't care about range, they care about what the audience liked before, and often because of that you'll see actors like Tom Hanks play characters that are roughly the same as the other characters he's played before, with slight variations. Sure, he's shown off his range in Forrest Gump, The Terminal, and Cast Away, but by and large he's also known as the modern Jimmy Stewart, an actor who plays very straight-forward roles that convey a certain sense of seriousness that he developed over the years.
Typecasting may be a part of why they don't see to much work again after a show, but there are a lot of other reasons that have nothing to do with the actors themselves. Mostly it's competition and age. As an actor gets older, if he's not A-List, he's going to find it harder to compete with the newer faces coming up, who are often more dynamic. It's usually younger people from the 18-34 demographic who watch the most TV and movies, so that makes it harder for older actors to land leads as they used to. -
bjlevine — 9 years ago(August 12, 2016 11:09 AM)
In the case of TNG, there was no network. The show was syndicated. Paramount did want to continue making Trek movies, but they were a little leery about whether audiences who had just had 7 years of TNG would go for a feature movie, hence the crossover concept.
In retrospect, it probably would have been better to wait a couple of years and then do a TNG only movie, but that would have made it a 5 year gap between films.
DS9 was also syndicated. Voyager and Enterprise were aired on UPN. Voyager was the anchor show for UPN (as Phase II was intended to be for the Paramount Network), which may explain it's 7 year run. Enterprise was cancelled in 2005 after 4 seasons, and UPN went off the air in 2006. Most people think it's last season was it's best.
Over 20,001 Tacos ReturnedAS GARBAGE! -
cjh8504 — 9 years ago(August 14, 2016 05:42 PM)
They were actually. They were all signed up for an 8th Season, as a matter of fact. But, they decided to, what with DS9 and VOYAGER on the horizon, to have three Trek shows at once was a little over kill, I guess.
X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR. -
cjh8504 — 9 years ago(August 15, 2016 05:19 PM)
Well, they could've postponed VOY. TNG was still very popular. I would've rather seen an 8th season of TNG than the movies.
X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.