RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,441
Posts: 5,507,483
Members: 25,133
Currently online: 550
Newest member: jokerone

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 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 > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 8 2013, 12:45 AM   #16
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

I suppose it's possible*. I just wonder if it isn't one of those things that the networks think is an inevitability more "because of reasons" than because it's really true -- in the same way that they (falsely, it would seem) thought Star Trek Enterprise shouldn't kill anybody too gorily or have dangerous transporters or use story arcs because prior Trek hadn't done so.

* How could claiming U.S.S. Enterprise as a CBS trademark possibly work? Isn't it the name of multiple actual naval vessels and space vehicles? Doesn't seems to me like it should withstand a challenge...
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 12:53 AM   #17
David.Blue
Lieutenant Commander
 
David.Blue's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

Methinks C.E.Evans is saying the money people, those who back new t.v. series, they're the ones assuming the name Enterprise is so necessary.
__________________
David.Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 12:55 AM   #18
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

That's the sense I'm getting as well. Which I could certainly see happening.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 01:36 AM   #19
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

BigJake wrote: View Post
* How could claiming U.S.S. Enterprise as a CBS trademark possibly work? Isn't it the name of multiple actual naval vessels and space vehicles? Doesn't seems to me like it should withstand a challenge...
It only pertains to intellectual properties. It won't prohibit the U.S. Navy or anyone other real-life organization from naming a ship the Enterprise. It will, though, stop some other entertainment studio, network, or company from creating a sci-fi series with their own starship/spaceship called the Enterprise (and more importantly, from making any merchandising money off it).

David.Blue wrote: View Post
Methinks C.E.Evans is saying the money people, those who back new t.v. series, they're the ones assuming the name Enterprise is so necessary.
No, I'm saying that it's the general public that associates the Enterprise with Star Trek, which makes its necessary for "the money people" to continue using the name. Like it or not, the Enterprise is a permanent fixture of the Star Trek Universe, and there never will be a time in which the name will be retired forever. We can have spinoff shows with other ships or whatever, but if you're going to kick off a brand-new era of Trek (be it a new century or a reboot), it'll definitely start off with the Enterprise.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 01:40 AM   #20
David.Blue
Lieutenant Commander
 
David.Blue's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

Okay. Not sure if I agree, but the argument is valid enough. Note I did name this ship Enterprise, put a Kirk on board and give it a special craft called Reliant. I'm clearly hoping to cash in on familiarity.
__________________
David.Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 01:43 AM   #21
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
No, I'm saying that it's the general public that associates the Enterprise with Star Trek, which makes its necessary for "the money people" to continue using the name.
Ah. Okay, well, I think that's wrong. Although it would have seemed a more solid fact in 1987. (I do think it's something fans think the general public thinks but that it's a case of projection; either J.Q. Public is receptive to the Trek brand or he isn't, it's mostly fans in my experience who would accept or reject a show based on the name of the ship.)

Although in fairness, the belief in the Enterprise's necessity to any Trek pitch is still very widespread.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig

Last edited by BigKrampus; October 8 2013 at 01:59 AM.
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 02:11 AM   #22
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

BigJake wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
No, I'm saying that it's the general public that associates the Enterprise with Star Trek, which makes its necessary for "the money people" to continue using the name.
Ah. Okay, well, I think that's wrong. Although it would have been a solid fact in 1987.
It's a solid fact in 2013.
Although in fairness, the belief in the Enterprise's necessity to any Trek pitch is still very widespread.
Singer's pitch seems to fall into the idea (covered in the rest of my post) of using the Enterprise to kick off a new era after a period of time has passed.

The same was true of the aborted Star Trek: Final Frontier animated web series proposal. Although it featured a 25th-Century in which Starfleet had moved away from the traditional saucer-based designs of centuries earlier and towards more utilitarian (i.e., more rugged, less pretty) designs, with the Enterprise being a key example of this new philosophy.
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/...Enterprise.jpg
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 02:23 AM   #23
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's a solid fact in 2013.
I wouldn't say so. The name has a mixture of good and bad baggage at this point thanks to the intervening adventures and misadventures of the brand, I'd say it's at best a toss-up.

It's hard to quantify though because nobody that I can find conducts surveys of the general public about this kind of thing. You may well be right; all I can say is that I've never met a non-fan who really cared about what particular ship was featured in a Trek show, that just seems to me to be a fandom thing.

Singer's pitch seems to fall into the idea (covered in the rest of my post) of using the Enterprise to kick off a new era after a period of time has passed.
That's why I cited it.

To come back to the trademarking thing, BTW:

It will, though, stop some other entertainment studio, network, or company from creating a sci-fi series with their own starship/spaceship called the Enterprise (and more importantly, from making any merchandising money off it).
I wonder how they would be able to refute someone who simply said their Enterprise was based on historical vehicles of the same name, as Trek's originally was. It sounds like what they're essentially trying to control is the right to derive fictional properties by historical analogy; about all they should be able to claim rights to should be the Enterprise as it actually appears in their shows (the ship design, fictional registry, political affiliation and fictional history).
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 10:44 AM   #24
NightJim
Commander
 
NightJim's Avatar
 
Location: Scunthorpe, UK
View NightJim's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

See, to me, fandom is easily more accepting of other ships, because of Voyager and Deep Space 9, and to a lesser extent the Excelsior, Titan, Excalibur and numerous others that the expanded media have followed.

However, go outside of fandom and there's two shows that people talk about. TOS and TNG. I think you could get away from Enterprise but only if you had a Kirk as THE main character. You need one of the two, ideally I'd say both which is one thing I really like about David.Blue's idea. Especially as Kirk's a she and not the captain.
NightJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 12:47 PM   #25
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

BigJake wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's a solid fact in 2013.
I wouldn't say so. The name has a mixture of good and bad baggage at this point thanks to the intervening adventures and misadventures of the brand, I'd say it's at best a toss-up.
I wouldn't say that all. Outside of a few fans who may be tired of the name, the Enterprise name is still extremely strong with the general public, perhaps as strong as it ever has been.
It's hard to quantify though because nobody that I can find conducts surveys of the general public about this kind of thing. You may well be right; all I can say is that I've never met a non-fan who really cared about what particular ship was featured in a Trek show, that just seems to me to be a fandom thing.
Nah, it's well beyond fandom. You've got people who really aren't Star Trek fans, but even they know the Enterprise is that "Star Track" ship. It's a world-wide thing. I think the only people who don't associate the Enterprise with Star Trek are those who really haven't heard of Star Trek or heard anyone talk about it at all.

To come back to the trademarking thing, BTW:

It will, though, stop some other entertainment studio, network, or company from creating a sci-fi series with their own starship/spaceship called the Enterprise (and more importantly, from making any merchandising money off it).
I wonder how they would be able to refute someone who simply said their Enterprise was based on historical vehicles of the same name, as Trek's originally was.

It sounds like what they're essentially trying to control is the right to derive fictional properties by historical analogy; about all they should be able to claim rights to should be the Enterprise as it actually appears in their shows (the ship design, fictional registry, political affiliation and fictional history).
The whole point of trademarking something is to prevent someone else from making money off something you're using (regardless of its origin) without permission or a fee. It really has little to do with controlling the right to derive fictional properties and more about dollars. But I think it only extends to the use of "U.S.S. Enterprise" and "Starship Enterprise" for licensing purposes (the same I think as been done for the Voyager).
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 03:28 PM   #26
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

Oh, I'd completely agree that Enterprise is the best-known ship, but isn't it sort of begging the question to say that it's therefore necessary for Jane Q. Publica? Those aren't the same thing. Similarly, Juan Que Publico most certainly knows the names Picard and especially Kirk, but that's a vastly different proposition from actually needing them to be in a show in order to watch it.

It would be like me telling you in the mid-Eighties that Trek shows have always had a Vulcan and therefore we must have either Spock or a relative of Spock on any Trek show, because the "general public" expects the whole "live long and prosper" thing and everybody knows that hand salute Nimoy does. The latter statements would be true, but that the general public [Julius Quo Publicus?] knows a thing doesn't mean they necessarily care all that much. (Same with needing the name "Kirk" on everything. TNG in televised form was pretty much the decisive disproof of that.)

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm fanatically against using the name or anything. I'd watch the shizznit out of a 31st-century show about the galactic zombie apocalypse starring the Enterprise-Z and Bruce Campbell in the role of Commodore Jamison Thelonius Kirk the Twelfth. I am not even kidding you. It's just that once one is far enough into the alphabet it's worth wondering if it starts to seem too much like one is perhaps overrelying on a trope.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 04:16 PM   #27
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

NightJim wrote: View Post
See, to me, fandom is easily more accepting of other ships, because of Voyager and Deep Space 9, and to a lesser extent the Excelsior, Titan, Excalibur and numerous others that the expanded media have followed.

However, go outside of fandom and there's two shows that people talk about. TOS and TNG. I think you could get away from Enterprise but only if you had a Kirk as THE main character. You need one of the two, ideally I'd say both which is one thing I really like about David.Blue's idea. Especially as Kirk's a she and not the captain.
The problem is the vast majority of the general people(this being the people who don't regularly follow Trek) have no idea what Excelsior, Titan and Excalibur are and only a few of the older ones may vaguely recall DS9 or Voyager as one of those other Star Trek shows.

To get the non-fans even remotely interested in watching you have to give them something they can relate with.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 04:33 PM   #28
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

BigJake wrote: View Post
Oh, I'd completely agree that Enterprise is the best-known ship, but isn't it sort of begging the question to say that it's therefore necessary for Jane Q. Publica? Those aren't the same thing. Similarly, Juan Que Publico most certainly knows the names Picard and especially Kirk, but that's a vastly different proposition from actually needing them to be in a show in order to watch it.
It's all about familiarity and what aspects can most people relate to. This is true not just for Star Trek, but for anything. In the case of Trek, the Enterprise is a familiar household name that more people than not instantly associate with Star Trek, regardless of what else changes.

It's easier to move away from the Enterprise once a new era has been established for awhile as it was the case with DS9 and VOY both being spinoffs of TNG.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 05:08 PM   #29
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's all about familiarity and what aspects can most people relate to. This is true not just for Star Trek, but for anything.
Not to beat the horse into glue, but I suppose I'd say familiarity is the concept of spacemen on adventures. I don't see why it would have anything to do with the name of the ship, any more than TNG needed to keep the same characters to get new viewers. The concept and the brand is already familiar.

(I'm picturing a writer... let's call him "Homer"... pitching a story idea for Greek Heroes: Odyssey about a group of mariners having crazy adventures at sea, with monsters and witches and deadly enemies and whatnot. Do we tell him the ship should be named the Argo-Epsilon and one of its crew should be a relative of Jason, because that's "familiar" to audiences? )
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 05:22 PM   #30
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

BigJake wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's all about familiarity and what aspects can most people relate to. This is true not just for Star Trek, but for anything.
Not to beat the horse into glue, but I suppose I'd say familiarity is the concept of spacemen on adventures. I don't see why it would have anything to do with the name of the ship, any more than TNG needed to keep the same characters to get new viewers. The concept and the brand is already familiar.
But that also included a ship named Enterprise. That was part of the concept and brand too, and it still is.

Star Trek XI could have easily used another hero ship other than the Enterprise (and really played up the alternate universe aspect), but they chose to go with the ship name audiences identified the most with Trek.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:39 AM.

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