RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,597
Posts: 5,424,389
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 565
Newest member: David Ellerman

TrekToday headlines

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12


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 26 2013, 11:05 AM   #316
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Maurice wrote: View Post
The number people I've met who "really liked" JJ's Treks but who wouldn't be bothered to watch what came before indicates to me that he did "save" the show by broadening its audience beyond the dwindling and ossified hardcore fanbase whose idea of "good" was "more of the same, please".
If you think something is good, why wouldn't you want more the same?
Shazam! is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 11:06 AM   #317
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
At the risk of repeating myself: no more movies and tv series for a franchise based on those media is what we call "dead".
It's what you call "dead," but what I see as a rather narrow definition.
Well it seems better than your definition, under which no franchise is ever dead.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 11:52 AM   #318
Keith1701
Rear Admiral
 
Keith1701's Avatar
 
Location: Warner Robins Georgia
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Saved? I don't know.

But he sure made a couple of big, enjoyable movies.
I agree.
J.J. Abrams did reboot the series and I think his efforts has enhance STAR TREK for many years to come!!!!
__________________
Keith1701
Live Long, and Prosper....
"Make It So" -- ENGAGE!!!!
Keith1701 is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 12:14 PM   #319
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Belz... wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
At the risk of repeating myself: no more movies and tv series for a franchise based on those media is what we call "dead".
It's what you call "dead," but what I see as a rather narrow definition.
Well it seems better than your definition, under which no franchise is ever dead.
That's an assumption on your part. If something isn't bringing in any money and is basically ignored and forgotten then it would indeed be obscure and dead. But Trek in 2005-2009 was nowhere near that state.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now  
Old May 26 2013, 12:19 PM   #320
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

That's what I said. Under your definition, as long as someone thinks about it, it's still alive. That definition is next to useless.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 12:28 PM   #321
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Belz... wrote: View Post
That's what I said. Under your definition, as long as someone thinks about it, it's still alive. That definition is next to useless.
No, that's not the same thing. You can think about it all you want, but if you're not managing it and not bringing in money then you're not viable. Trek as a property was being managed and continuing to make money with new and existing merchandise. That's an ongoing business. It was also still well known and widely recognized with an engaged customer base.

You can argue JJ broadened the audience as was done with TNG, but he didn't save the franchise because it wasn't a forgotten and ignored write-off.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now  
Old May 26 2013, 12:30 PM   #322
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Yeah I know what you're saying, but I disagree that the secondary market is relevant to the OP.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 12:36 PM   #323
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Belz... wrote: View Post
Yeah I know what you're saying, but I disagree that the secondary market is relevant to the OP.
And that's fine. I don't for one second pretend to believe that I will convince anyone of anything. My assertion is essentially a different and less restricted perspective that some might consider.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now  
Old May 26 2013, 12:59 PM   #324
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
I don't for one second pretend to believe that I will convince anyone of anything. My assertion is essentially a different and less restricted perspective that some might consider.
Hey, this is the internet. Isn't the whole point to argue endlessly about unimportant stuff ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 01:10 PM   #325
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
Yeah I know what you're saying, but I disagree that the secondary market is relevant to the OP.
And that's fine. I don't for one second pretend to believe that I will convince anyone of anything. My assertion is essentially a different and less restricted perspective that some might consider.
Its just a subtle way for you to bang on the Abrams films some more. Your "less restricted perspective" is simply designed to take credit away from what Abrams accomplished.

I stand by my "I don't know" answer, because I simply have no idea what was going on behind the scenes at Paramount/CBS regarding Trek when Abrams made his pitch to reboot. But I don't think it was looking good as they had already rejected Star Trek: The Beginning.
__________________
"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 26 2013, 01:31 PM   #326
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
Yeah I know what you're saying, but I disagree that the secondary market is relevant to the OP.
And that's fine. I don't for one second pretend to believe that I will convince anyone of anything. My assertion is essentially a different and less restricted perspective that some might consider.
Its just a subtle way for you to bang on the Abrams films some more. Your "less restricted perspective" is simply designed to take credit away from what Abrams accomplished.

I stand by my "I don't know" answer, because I simply have no idea what was going on behind the scenes at Paramount/CBS regarding Trek when Abrams made his pitch to reboot. But I don't think it was looking good as they had already rejected Star Trek: The Beginning.
And thats fine for you. Believe what you want.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now  
Old May 26 2013, 02:12 PM   #327
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
My assertion is essentially a different and less restricted perspective that some might consider.
Its just a subtle way for you to bang on the Abrams films some more. Your "less restricted perspective" is simply designed to take credit away from what Abrams accomplished.
Yep. This.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline  
Old May 26 2013, 02:52 PM   #328
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
My assertion is essentially a different and less restricted perspective that some might consider.
Its just a subtle way for you to bang on the Abrams films some more. Your "less restricted perspective" is simply designed to take credit away from what Abrams accomplished.
Yep. This.
Whatever.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now  
Old May 26 2013, 03:07 PM   #329
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Whatever.
It's not that it isn't an interesting discussion to have, but is it one you really wanted to have?

It's tough to take your position seriously when every post is dripping with contempt for the Abrams films. It also doesn't help when you use such a broad definition of "dead" that hardly anything produced in the history of TV qualifies.

Just my two cents.
__________________
"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 26 2013, 03:21 PM   #330
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Did Abrams really save the franchise?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
Whatever.
It's not that it isn't an interesting discussion to have, but is it one you really wanted to have?

It's tough to take your position seriously when every post is dripping with contempt for the Abrams films. It also doesn't help when you use such a broad definition of "dead" that hardly anything produced in the history of TV qualifies.

Just my two cents.
Hey, I've said my peace enough about it before. If you want to see an agenda in everything someone says then knock yourself out. I certainly don't have anything to apologize for.

I don't have to like Abrams' work to look at and discuss this issue. Your insinuation is that unless I'm a fan then I can't discuss it or be taken seriously. I can just as easily charge someone with blind bias for being a fan so it cuts two ways.

If you want to address the issue then stick to that rather than trying to impugn an individual for putting forth an opinion.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now  
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 11:56 PM.

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