RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,749
Posts: 5,433,285
Members: 24,838
Currently online: 406
Newest member: Mei'konda

TrekToday headlines

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17


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 25 2013, 10:48 PM   #286
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

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.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline  
Old May 25 2013, 10:50 PM   #287
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
If a franchise who's "bread and butter" is TV shows and movies isn't making TV shows and movies, I think its dead.
This.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old May 25 2013, 10:51 PM   #288
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

plynch wrote: View Post
What does it profiteth you if you gain all the ticket sales in the world and lose your soul?
My soul is not at risk - but then, Star Trek is not my religion.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old May 25 2013, 10:54 PM   #289
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
plynch wrote: View Post
What does it profiteth you if you gain all the ticket sales in the world and lose your soul?
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!!!
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old May 25 2013, 10:57 PM   #290
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

stj wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
The Beatles and Star Trek are not in the same cultural ballpark. They aren't even in the same national park.
I don't know. I'm pretty sure Chekov was the fifth Beatle.
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?
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.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline  
Old May 25 2013, 10:58 PM   #291
Count Zero
Decidedly something
 
Count Zero's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Awesome
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
Count Zero wrote: View Post
Harvey wrote: View Post

Very broadly. There are few musical icons more widely recognized in the United States (and, I would guess, abroad).
Yeah, they're certainly better known than Star Trek.
Generally speaking: Beatles > Jesus > Star Trek.
__________________
"Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates." Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi
Count Zero is offline  
Old May 25 2013, 11:10 PM   #292
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
So you credit Abrams with keeping the Star Trek franchise alive.
It wasn't dead to begin with.
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.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 01:39 AM   #293
Lord Garth
Captain
 
Lord Garth's Avatar
 
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

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.
Lord Garth is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 01:49 AM   #294
Hando
Lieutenant Commander
 
Hando's Avatar
 
Send a message via ICQ to Hando Send a message via AIM to Hando Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Hando Send a message via Yahoo to Hando
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

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?
...
Hando is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 01:54 AM   #295
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Hando wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 02:15 AM   #296
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

J. Allen wrote: View Post
J.J.'s Star Trek (2009) received critical praise, and took in more money than any previous Star Trek movie. Hell, in terms of financial success, and adjusted for inflation, it's domestic box office take alone was 4 times that of Star Trek: Nemesis' entire worldwide box office take.
Still doesn't mean he saved a franchise from obscurity because Star Trek was not at all obscure from 2005-2009.

J. Allen wrote: View Post
What I've gathered so far from you is that:

1) Respect doesn't matter.
2) Financial success doesn't matter.
3) Critical acclaim doesn't matter.
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.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 02:40 AM   #297
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
J.J.'s Star Trek (2009) received critical praise, and took in more money than any previous Star Trek movie. Hell, in terms of financial success, and adjusted for inflation, it's domestic box office take alone was 4 times that of Star Trek: Nemesis' entire worldwide box office take.
Still doesn't mean he saved a franchise from obscurity because Star Trek was not at all obscure from 2005-2009.

J. Allen wrote: View Post
What I've gathered so far from you is that:

1) Respect doesn't matter.
2) Financial success doesn't matter.
3) Critical acclaim doesn't matter.
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"
beamMe is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 02:57 AM   #298
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
stj wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post

I don't know. I'm pretty sure Chekov was the fifth Beatle.
This is so typical of Trekkie grandiosity. Everyone knows Chekhov was merely Davy Jones of the Monkees!
Oh, you daydream believer, you . . ..
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!
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 02:58 AM   #299
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

beamMe wrote: View Post
Aren't you contradicting yourself: "STAR TREK: 1964-1991"
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.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 03:14 AM   #300
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
Aren't you contradicting yourself: "STAR TREK: 1964-1991"
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?
beamMe 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 11:46 AM.

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