EmperorTiberius wrote:
It looks like I stepped on some fanboy's toes. I'm not going to go off topic and discuss how pathetic your favorite movie is.
|
This is a childish comment.
For me,
Star Trek 2009 is not my favorite movie by a wide margin. But if I'm a studio exec betting studio money and my job on Trek, I'm going to go with the iconic characters.
|
About characters, Star Trek is not about characters as much as setting and general themes. Yeah Kirk, Spock and McCoy were great and certainly played their part, but only to further the theme that Rodenberry had in mind. Gene didnt' want emotions like hatred, jelaousy, lust, infighting etc in Trek, which removes your options of too many character driven stories. He rewrote most of TNG season one. If Kirk and Spock were in some western, nobody would be talking about them today, it was the setting that made them famous.
|
You do realize for twenty plus years that Kirk, Spock and McCoy were
Star Trek. TNG may have been watched by more people in its original run, but they simply didn't have the staying power of the original characters. And the spin-offs are barely a footnote in TV history.
Oh yeah, Roddenberry's final credited story for TNG was
Datalore (which was the 12th episode) and there's some disagreement on who was actually rewriting the episodes, Gene or his attorney.
EmperorTiberius wrote:
Yeah, apparantly new series with original ideas would be immitations, but a faux Kirk and Picard wouldn't. 
|
If I'm a studio head and I see the diminishing returns that each successive series brought, I'm going to go with recognizable characters when attempting to sell the series to the public.