Did Abrams really save the franchise?

So when Russell T. Davies brought Doctor Who back to the TV screen, he didn't save/resurrect that show anymore than J. J. Abrams did with Star Trek?

 

Generally speaking: Beatles > Jesus > Star Trek.

 

This is so typical of Trekkie grandiosity. Everyone knows Chekhov was merely Davy Jones of the Monkees!



If you like the movies, Star Trek was saved. If you don't, it wasn't. The box office is irrelevant and doesn't prove a damn thing. And it's still absurdly early to imagine that his version is going to be remembered and exploited. Will people really be so blown away when Into Darkness is remade in an alternate universe version where it is Uhura who dies, and Scotty who yells Khaaaaaan, and an even bigger Enterprise bursts forth from the clouds?

 

Oh, you daydream believer, you . . ..

 

Fixed that for you.

 

If a franchise who's "bread and butter" is TV shows and movies isn't making TV shows and movies, I think its dead. Musical performers and actors are something different as they cant produce new material once they're gone. The licensed stuff is nice, but that's not really what Lucy, the Beatles or Star Trek were created to sell.

 

This.

 

My soul is not at risk - but then, Star Trek is not my religion.

 

Why would you so flagrantly risk the wrath of the Roddenberry? Heathen!!!

 

It's fandom, of course they will. They'll also be bitching that the only real Uhura is Zoe Saldana.

All "saved" means is that Star Trek is an ongoing concern now. Liking or disliking the movie doesn't alter that. The box office will determine how long it will be, so yes that is relevant and means a damn thing.

 

It was dead. This is why Paramount permitted - in all likelihood, encouraged - the new creative team to reboot it. They're done with oldTrek, which had finally run its course as a going commercial concern.

From now on, whoever is producing it will have a much freer hand in using and rearranging the parts of Trek's previous continuity that suit their project while discarding or ignoring what was inconvenient.

This is a good thing.

 

I have to say, when we're talking about the state of the Star Trek Franchise, we usually mean the series and the movies. It's what I mean, anyway.

Star Trek merchandising has been alive and well since the '60s.

The franchise is a completely different story. It was dead in 1969. It was dead in 2005. It was revived in 1979. It was revived in 2009.

The merchandising is what comes out of the franchise. TNG on Blu-Ray, for instance, is merchandising. You can only merchandise something that's out of production so much and for so long. It's not the same as having something out that's new.

 

Just a by-the-way question: How much is a director actually responsible for a movie?

So in case of JJ, what was hi his sole doing, were no one else had any input?
Did he pick the script?
Did he decide on the CG?
...

 

Films are usually thought of as a directors medium. What's on the screen is usually their choice.

 

Still doesn't mean he saved a franchise from obscurity because Star Trek was not at all obscure from 2005-2009.

1) Respect was mentioned in regard to two aspects. Whether JJ respected the original source materiel and whether his films could be respected by the broader audience. I say "no" to the first part, but your mileage may vary. As to the latter part respect is irrelevant in regard to whether he saved the franchise or not. TPTB couldn't care less if it was totally incoherent as long as it makes them money.

2) That's also irrelevant to whether he supposedly saved the franchise because it has to be shown to be dead which it wasn't because it continued to generate revenue and enjoy a healthy interest.

3) Refer back to 1 and 2. It could be crap, but as long it makes money TPTB couldn't care less. It still doesn't established that he resurrected something dead because it wasn't.

Star Trek was not an obscure, unfamiliar and forgotten property from 2005-2009. And those who own the rights to it continued to foster interest by introducing new merchandise and generating revenue from it. That is an ongoing business.

And it's been going, through highs and lows, since 1966-1969.

 

Aren't you contradicting yourself: "STAR TREK: 1964-1991"

 

Rats! You figured me out!



Summary of thread thus far: The stockholders are well pleased, despite the annoying interruptions by people talking about uninteresting topics, i.e., anything but money.

What can I say, but, spend your money wisely!

 

Not at all. 1964-1991 is my way of expressing the period I preferred and found the Star Trek I most enjoyed even with its low points. My preference is irrelevant to whether it continued to be an ongoing business interest.

 

Then how would you categorize J. J. Abrams' and his creative efforts towards Star Trek in the context of your original question?