RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,946
Posts: 5,479,429
Members: 25,056
Currently online: 619
Newest member: JeremiahJT

TrekToday headlines

USS Enterprise Press-Out And Build Manual
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

New QMx USS Reliant Model
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Star Trek Thirty-Five Years On 35MM: A Retrospective
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 23 2013, 07:33 PM   #76
ConRefit79
Captain
 
ConRefit79's Avatar
 
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

No. He simply produced 2 movies that have so far been successful. But if it's anything like Batman or Spiderman, It will reboot again after 3 or 4 films. Do we really want to keep starting over and over?
ConRefit79 is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 07:35 PM   #77
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
CaptPapa wrote: View Post
I understand the references to the ‘dark early days’ of the ‘70s. I doubt they were meant to be condescending. Yes if you study history (history of Star Trek in this case), then you can learn what happened, but if you lived through it, you understand what happened.
It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending. I lived through those early days. I missed TOS in its original run, but started to watch it in 1970.

By dark days I meant to convey a sense of how many of us felt. Unlike today without the Internet many fans could feel isolated with little idea other fans could be just down the block or around the corner. Many of us could feel other fans were scattered wide across the country (or continent) with little idea how many there really were. Our only tie to Star Trek were books and merchandise and conventions if you were able to go (or even knew they existed). David Gerrold's book The World of Star Trek really opened my eyes to the fandom that was out there. Those publications and finally attending a convention in 1976 finally brought home the realization of how real and widespread the fandom was.

For years we wished Star Trek could be granted the respect and recognition many us felt it deserved. Like them or not TMP and then TWOK were the signs that Star Trek need no longer be our little secret passion.

For me thats how it felt.
Exactly. I didn't discover organized fandom until the late seventies. Before then, I had, like, one friend who was also into Star Trek and Doc Savage and Marvel Comics and such. And, yes, I devoured David Gerrold's books as well!

As I like to joke, Logan's Run costumes were still fashionable when I discovered fandom!
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 07:35 PM   #78
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

It's long since reached the point where hard core fandom holds Star Trek back from the kinds of changes necessary to appeal to current tastes - and therefore drags down its chances of survival, much less success.

It wouldn't hurt to reboot Kirk and Spock every so often. It might well be the best way to go with a new TV series, given that the current cast and the kind of production involved in the movies would not be practical for TV.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 07:36 PM   #79
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

RXTT wrote: View Post
Some other person would eventually have made a new Trek movie, and it could just as easily been as successful.
This like saying the guy who pulls someone drowning out of a pool didn't save that person because someone else could have easily done it.

And, yes, Star Trek was drowning.


I think what the new movies did is give new fans the feeling that they are IN on the ground floor of something fresh. The Trek films always benefited by the mass of stored data in our collective brains regarding the Trek world. This made it hard for non-fans to appreciate.
Canon has always been Star Treks Achilles. It never benefited anyone besides those who worship it.

Now, did JJ make new fans of Trek? or did he just make fans of this new action/adventure movie franchise? we shall see.
All Trek series have been extremely popular (some of the most watched) on the various streaming sites as of late.

I personally HATE re-boots, because it is the easy way to go. It does not take any true caring for the subject matter of let's say, Green Lantern, to re-boot the story. the same goes for Trek. JJ did not like Trek. he admits it. he grew to love it though, as he has stated.
Nonsense. The history of human storytelling boils down to reboots.
CorporalClegg is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 07:37 PM   #80
RXTT
Lieutenant
 
RXTT's Avatar
 
Location: Gamma Quadrant
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

and it boils down to a lot of boring crap tooo
RXTT is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 07:38 PM   #81
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Nonsense. The history human storytelling boils down to reboots.
There was a time, after all, when every oral retelling of a popular story was a kind of reboot. The Odyssey was old when Homer wrote it down, and even when we introduce written literature stories continue to be changed when they're rewritten - and they are rewritten. Shakespeare borrowed the story of Romeo and Juliet from earlier writers.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 07:43 PM   #82
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
It's long since reached the point where hard core fandom holds Star Trek back from the kinds of changes necessary to appeal to current tastes - and therefore drags down its chances of survival, much less success.

It wouldn't hurt to reboot Kirk and Spock every so often. It might well be the best way to go with a new TV series, given that the current cast and the kind of production involved in the movies would not be practical for TV.
A reboot was inevitable.

Back before TMP there was talk of recasting the familiar characters with big names. Back then it would have been a very questionable thing to do and perhaps even a huge mistake as the original cast was still young enough to reprise their roles. For that generation Shatner was James T. Kirk. Paul Newman or whoever wouldn't have cut it.

Now that can't happen anymore. The original cast is no longer fit and in their prime to reprise their roles, picking up where they left off, and some of them are no longer with us.

So a reboot with a new cast was inevitable. The question comes down to what kind of reboot. There seems to be a widespread belief that the current reboot had to be done the way it was done. I could (and have) certainly argue that.

But that really isn't the question of this thread.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 07:45 PM   #83
CaptPapa
Commander
 
Location: I really do not know . . .
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
CaptPapa wrote: View Post
I understand the references to the ‘dark early days’ of the ‘70s. I doubt they were meant to be condescending. Yes if you study history (history of Star Trek in this case), then you can learn what happened, but if you lived through it, you understand what happened.
It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending. I lived through those early days. I missed TOS in its original run, but started to watch it in 1970.

By dark days I meant to convey a sense of how many of us felt. Unlike today without the Internet many fans could feel isolated with little idea other fans could be just down the block or around the corner. Many of us could feel other fans were scattered wide across the country (or continent) with little idea how many there really were. Our only tie to Star Trek were books and merchandise and conventions if you were able to go (or even knew they existed). David Gerrold's book The World of Star Trek really opened my eyes to the fandom that was out there. Those publications and finally attending a convention in 1976 finally brought home the realization of how real and widespread the fandom was.

For years we wished Star Trek could be granted the respect and recognition many us felt it deserved. Like them or not TMP and then TWOK were the signs that Star Trek need no longer be merely our little secret passion.

For me thats how it felt.

I meant to agree with that overall tone. I was trying to make a counterpoint to the other poster (sorry forgot the name) that seemed to take exception to it. I interpreted his comments to mean that if you study a past time period, you know all you need to about it. In my opinion, if you lived through it, you understand it better than someone who did not.
Now on to a better thought - the internet's influence on fandom; I'm amazed by some of the things I find there such as the movie Of Gods and Men. That had much more emotional impact for me then the 2009 movie. I won't get a chance to see the new one until next week.
To me, all the books, comics, and fan films are a part of the entire picture. Seems some folks only indulge in the movies and series episodes. Their loss in my opinion.
__________________
ME, what did I do?
CaptPapa is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 07:50 PM   #84
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

CaptPapa wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
CaptPapa wrote: View Post
I understand the references to the ‘dark early days’ of the ‘70s. I doubt they were meant to be condescending. Yes if you study history (history of Star Trek in this case), then you can learn what happened, but if you lived through it, you understand what happened.
It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending. I lived through those early days. I missed TOS in its original run, but started to watch it in 1970.

By dark days I meant to convey a sense of how many of us felt. Unlike today without the Internet many fans could feel isolated with little idea other fans could be just down the block or around the corner. Many of us could feel other fans were scattered wide across the country (or continent) with little idea how many there really were. Our only tie to Star Trek were books and merchandise and conventions if you were able to go (or even knew they existed). David Gerrold's book The World of Star Trek really opened my eyes to the fandom that was out there. Those publications and finally attending a convention in 1976 finally brought home the realization of how real and widespread the fandom was.

For years we wished Star Trek could be granted the respect and recognition many us felt it deserved. Like them or not TMP and then TWOK were the signs that Star Trek need no longer be merely our little secret passion.

For me thats how it felt.

I meant to agree with that overall tone. I was trying to make a counterpoint to the other poster (sorry forgot the name) that seemed to take exception to it. I interpreted his comments to mean that if you study a past time period, you know all you need to about it. In my opinion, if you lived through it, you understand it better than someone who did not.
Now on to a better thought - the internet's influence on fandom; I'm amazed by some of the things I find there such as the movie Of Gods and Men. That had much more emotional impact for me then the 2009 movie. I won't get a chance to see the new one until next week.
To me, all the books, comics, and fan films are a part of the entire picture. Seems some folks only indulge in the movies and series episodes. Their loss in my opinion.
To my mind no question the Internet is a boon to fandom (of all kinds). I'm interested in Trek's scientific and technical aspects, something that really got going with the publication of Franz Josephs' Booklet Of General Plans and Star Fleet Technical Manual back in the mid '70s. It was fun then, but it's small compared to seeing whats out there today and most of it generated by devoted fans.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 07:51 PM   #85
CoveTom
Rear Admiral
 
Location: CoveTom
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
Sources?
Books and magazines over the years.

I'll see if I can dig some out later if time permits.

EDIT: Seems like I'm not the only one who remembers Shatner...

36. Simon - January 3, 2013

I’d also like to know, as has been pointed out by #24, how Shatner is suddenly an expert on a show he never watched or had anything to do with. Not to mention resenting the show and blaming it for the failure of THE FINAL FRONTIER…Trekkers had “fresh turkey sandwiches” every week and weren’t so hungry for the film “Thanksgiving” anymore.
http://trekmovie.com/2013/01/02/will...g-doc-details/
The quote in question about "fresh turkey sandwiches" vs. "Thanksgiving dinner" actually comes from Harve Bennett, but is printed in Shatner's Star Trek Movie Memories book. I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't quote it verbatim, but essentially Bennett says that regardless of what TFF was or was not, it was hurt by the fact that TNG was now on the air on a weekly basis, and since fans didn't have to wait 2 years between new Trek stories, a Trek movie wasn't the special event it had been with the first four films.
CoveTom is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 08:00 PM   #86
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

I think Star Trek would have been revived in some form at some point, it's too big of a franchise not to be, but Abrams brought it back much stronger and much sooner than it otherwise would have been, and for that I'm glad.

If the 2009 film had bombed, I don't know when we'd have seen new Trek on TV.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 08:01 PM   #87
CaptPapa
Commander
 
Location: I really do not know . . .
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

To my mind no question the Internet is a boon to fandom (of all kinds). I'm interested in Trek's scientific and technical aspects, something that really got going with the publication of Franz Josephs' Booklet Of General Plans and Star Fleet Technical Manual back in the mid '70s. It was fun then, but it's small compared to seeing whats out there today and most of it generated by devoted fans.[/QUOTE]

edit: Sorry - didn't make this quote clear. The above was from Warped9


That's the fantastic part of Star Trek - something for everyone. Technical and scientific books, novels, comics - both official and otherwise, series episodes and movies.
I love it!
__________________
ME, what did I do?
CaptPapa is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 08:03 PM   #88
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

CaptPapa wrote: View Post
I interpreted his comments to mean that if you study a past time period, you know all you need to about it. In my opinion, if you lived through it, you understand it better than someone who did not.
I "lived through it" from the beginning. NBC, 1966.

sonak wrote: View Post
If the 2009 film had bombed, I don't know when we'd have seen new Trek on TV.
Of course, we still don't.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 08:21 PM   #89
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

RXTT wrote: View Post
fiction is written by humans to talk about things that would otherwise not be allowed.


No, fiction is written to entertain.

You may share in/enjoy .001% of what the world has to offer if you only use your own experience. That way breeds ignorance, prejudice, and tyranny
I have no idea what that has to do with the conversation.

as far as Obi-Wan, like I said, it is more about metaphysics, and a really slapdash metaphysics (which Lucas destroyed with his subsequent introduction of mitocondria or whatever is supposed to give you the "force". he ruined his own metaphysics and tried to make it be anatomy-based.)
My reference to Obi-Wan was a joke. See the smiley, there ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline  
Old May 23 2013, 08:26 PM   #90
RXTT
Lieutenant
 
RXTT's Avatar
 
Location: Gamma Quadrant
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

I did see it. I just got beef with Lucas.
RXTT is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.