Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[lurok]

Well, that's told me. I'll just grab my coat...

[Mach5]

The franchise needed an overhaul, that much was obvious, and has been obvious since the last few seasons of DS9. And as Dennis said, Enterprise was supposed to be IT, but it wasn't. And these expectations of ours were way to fucking high considering the show was being made by the same two schmucks who haven't delivered anything of any real value since the mid nineties.

But as much as Trek needed an extensive overhaul, I don't think a reset button was all that necessary.

[Dale Sams]

Prancer the Sith wrote:

---

The franchise needed an overhaul, that much was obvious, and has been obvious since the last few seasons of DS9. And as Dennis said, Enterprise was supposed to be IT, but it wasn't. And these expectations of ours were way to fucking high considering the show was being made by the same two schmucks who haven't delivered anything of any real value since the mid nineties.

But as much as Trek needed an extensive overhaul, I don't think a reset button was all that necessary.

Your assesment of DS9 is way off. And it became obvious immediatly that Enterprise wouldn't be it as soon as the notes of that theme song started to play.

And as you said it was helmed by those two schmucks.

[Mach5]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

Your assesment of DS9 is way off.

Not an "assessment".



Just an observation.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

Your assesment of DS9 is way off.

Only to the extent that he consigns its failure to carry the Franchise successfully forward to only its last seasons.

In fact, DS9 lost viewers consistently throughout its run beginning from the second episode aired. You can have your own opinions about its quality, but not your own facts about its success.

[Dale Sams]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Only to the extent that he consigns its failure to carry the Franchise successfully forward to only its last seasons.

In fact, DS9 lost viewers consistently throughout its run beginning from the second episode aired. You can have your own opinions about its quality, but not your own facts about its success.

Is it possible that the very nature of syndication at the time of DS9 and what the post TNG shows had to compete with as opposed to TNG had an effect? I'm actually asking.

edit: I can certainly see why they would lose viewers immediatly though after the first few eps. DS9 is a 'dirty' looking show (as opposed to TNG)....and I've always hated those jumpsuits... Top that off with Bajoran mysticism, Bajoran politics etc...I suppose I meant I objected to the notion that (at the time you mention) a very-well written and done show needed an overhaul, not seeing you meant from a business standpoint.

[Mach5]

DS9 was, for the most part, a great successor to The Next Generation. The only problem was that non-fans couldn't give a shit about the post-occupation Bajor, Cardassians, Klingon political intrigue and such. The same stuff that gave most of us (fans) nerd-gasms the "normal folk" found pretty much unwatchable.

I suppose I meant I objected to the notion that (at the time you mention) a very-well written and done show needed an overhaul, not seeing you meant from a business standpoint.

The fact is, the general audiences never found any appeal in DS9. And instead of learning from that, CBS gave us TNG's ugly annoying younger sister (Voyager), followed by the "Faramir" of TV shows (TNG's geeky little brother ENT, which could have held its own with some encouragement, but sadly, no one ever saw it).

[los2188]

Just to try and clear a few things up about my post. Again, I have no problem with the reboot. The reboot was very clearly successful. Mission accomplished. When I said that the reboot wasn't NEEDED, I emphasize the word NEED or NEEDED. I also stated that I don't think anyone can argue that it was absolutely needed. The reason I say that is because to think that there isn't one writer, producer, director, etc out in this planet that we call earth that couldn't re-imagine and come up with new and exciting Star Trek movies and stories in what ever way they see fit to release it and it be in the prime timeline and it be successful like current Trek is, seems to me to be a ridiculous statement. Am I making any sense? I understand that Kirk and Spock are icons, but to say there couldn't be a new crew introduced or a re-telling of some older stories, or stories of Kirk and Spock that were not ever told, not be a success is again a huge stretch to think. Again I have no problem with the reboot, but to say it was NEEDED, as in there was no other option and without it, Trek would die, is a huge stretch and unlikely. But when it's all said and done, the reboot worked (the success of the reboot is all that really matters) and I'm very happy with what they've done and am excited to see where things go from here. Does that clear things up a bit from where I'm coming from?

[lurok]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the studio talked with anyone - say, a Bryan Singer - about a post-NEM movie? I know there's been talk about TV series, but not movies.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Chronius Fawkes wrote:

---

...Furthermore, it seems as if "fans" can rationalize anything, even if its just a faint resemblance to what its supposed to be...

Yes, they can. That makes it even more confusing why some of those same fans seem to become totally unable to fit Abrams Star Trek into the body of work that is "Star Trek" as a whole...

...Actually, let me rephrase that. I think they ARE "able" to do it, but for some reason they are unwilling to do it. It seems some of them just WANT to hate AbramsTrek, so they suddenly become very stubborn and uncharacteristically nit-picky about continuity and canon.

[Mach5]

jinglebellrok wrote:

---

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the studio talked with anyone - say, a Bryan Singer - about a post-NEM movie? I know there's been talk about TV series, but not movies.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star..._The_Beginning

[Greg Cox]

los2188 wrote:

---

Just to try and clear a few things up about my post. Again, I have no problem with the reboot. The reboot was very clearly successful. Mission accomplished. When I said that the reboot wasn't NEEDED, I emphasize the word NEED or NEEDED. I also stated that I don't think anyone can argue that it was absolutely needed. The reason I say that is because to think that there isn't one writer, producer, director, etc out in this planet that we call earth that couldn't re-imagine and come up with new and exciting Star Trek movies and stories in what ever way they see fit to release it and it be in the prime timeline and it be successful like current Trek is, seems to me to be a ridiculous statement. Am I making any sense? I understand that Kirk and Spock are icons, but to say there couldn't be a new crew introduced or a re-telling of some older stories, or stories of Kirk and Spock that were not ever told, not be a success is again a huge stretch to think. Again I have no problem with the reboot, but to say it was NEEDED, as in there was no other option and without it, Trek would die, is a huge stretch and unlikely. But when it's all said and done, the reboot worked (the success of the reboot is all that really matters) and I'm very happy with what they've done and am excited to see where things go from here. Does that clear things up a bit from where I'm coming from?

Understood, but why does it matter so much if it was NEEDED? It was an option, they took it, it worked . . . end of story. It's a done deal now. Why worry if it was NEEDED at this late date?

When it comes to fiction, few things are absolutely NEEDED. Did King Kong NEED to climb the Empire State Building instead of some random skyscraper? No, but it worked. Did they NEED to bring back Spock after he died? No, but I'm glad they did . . . .

[lurok]

^^ Thanks Interesting that's still a 'back to beginnings' rather than continuing timeline.

[King Daniel into Darkness]

Prancer the Sith wrote:

---

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star..._The_Beginning

A script review of that, which was a Romulan war movie set between the final two episodes of Enterprise, here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34635

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

Is it possible that the very nature of syndication at the time of DS9 and what the post TNG shows had to compete with as opposed to TNG had an effect? I'm actually asking.

edit: I can certainly see why they would lose viewers immediatly though after the first few eps...

DS9 kept losing viewers, every week, until the end of its run.



You'll notice that the loss of viewers runs parallel to but slightly above Voyager - which was not syndicated - and the curve continues with Enterprise. There's nothing different or special about Enterprise's collapse of viewership, it's just later on the same flattening curve.