Did Abrams really save the franchise?

It might have been ongoing, but it was business interest with diminishing returns. No movies. No TV shows. Fewer books. No nonfiction books. I don't really follow gaming or models, but I recall some setbacks in those areas as well. Fan films were pretty much the only "growth industry" in Star Trek.

 

I think your post is rather disingenuous. By your standards, nothing has ever been a success, or a failure. That's not even moving the goalposts, it's believing that there is no end zone.

 

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".

 

^ Love that Serling quote, BTW. The man was a genius.

 

Maurice wins the thread.

Topic's over, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along...

 

Well, we could discuss if Video really killed the Radio star.

 

No, let's talk about The Limousines instead. Internet Killed the Video Star. Step it up.

Don't look at me funny. Just because I didn't like the new movie doesn't mean I can't like new music.

 

You kids with your internet.

 

In general I drifted from Trek in the mid '90s because it was evolving in a way that didn't much speak to me anymore. When I discovered Babylon 5 that pretty much killed contemporary Trek for me. I still periodically dropped in on Trek to see what was happening because after being involved with Trek since 1970 I still liked the universe and the potential for what could be done with it even if I didn't care for what was being done with it. After early TNG and a handful of DS9 episodes Trek basically died for me personally.

That said, of course, I couldn't claim that Trek as an ongoing franchise and business interest had stopped. It certainly continued even if current Trek didn't interest me anymore. But I have to say a part of me was saddened because I wanted to enjoy new Star Trek, but TPTB weren't producing something that worked for me.

I really disliked VOY as it seemed to perpetuate everything I grew to dislike about contemporary Trek. I had a sliver of hope for ENT because in its basic concept it had potential to reinvigorate what I felt had grown stagnant. But it didn't pan out as it was (to me) essentially VOY redressed.

Now we come to JJtrek. The idea of a reboot had possibilities to get me interested in new Trek particularly as the TOS era is my favourite Star Trek. But, again, it didn't happen. In fact I found it even worse than what had proceeded it.

In context of my original question.

Abrams redrew the TOS concept and era by throwing away so much of what I loved about the original and replaced it with mindless hyperactivity without substance. He followed the pretty much established play book of summer popcorn fare while using familiar names and references. Nonetheless he was successful in catering to a generally uncritical general audience and made a lot of money even as he ditched all that made the original special. He reduced it all to cliches and caricature.

From a personal perspective he certainly didn't save Star Trek because he failed to revive what I had loved about it when it was good whether it be TOS, the films or TNG.

From a business standpoint I don't think he saved Star Trek because that would be presuming it was dead and soon to be forgotten, which it most certainly wasn't. No, it was no longer in its heyday, but its owners continued to foster and cultivate interest with fans and audiences by keeping the pre-existing series and films available and in circulation as well as introducing new tie-in merchandise that all continued to generate revenue. Star Trek was far from being a dead and forgotten property.

Was JJ's effort the right one? That depends on your perspective. Did he revive the things that had made TOS special and distinct? I say an emphatic "no." Did he generate a lot of money for the franchise? Can't be argued. Was his approach the only way that could have succeeded? No.

There is this notion that smart or well thought out and entertaining are mutually exclusive. I don't subscribe to that notion.

Star Trek at its best, whether in television or film, was well crafted while being highly entertaining. And Star Trek is but one example. Perfect? No. But you don't have to be perfect. You just have to be good or very good.

If one thinks Star Trek (and in this case particularly TOS) was never anything more than mindless escapism then JJtrek can wear those shoes. But if one thinks Star Trek did aspire and managed more often than not to be something beyond convention then, well...JJtrek doesn't cut it and largely because he embraced convention.

 

Many people have, and many people need to stop. This franchise is a space opera and has been from the beginning; if you want philosophy, read a novel by Issac Asimov, or one by Karl Schroder (in particular this one.)

 

And yet Abrams himself labelled Star Trek as "too philosophical."

 

Pseudo-philosophical and terminally boring as a result.

 

At the risk of repeating myself: no more movies and tv series for a franchise based on those media is what we call "dead".

Do you mean that you liked B5 ? Because there's a lot of parallels with DS9. Those are my two favourite series.

 

Someone posted this excerpt from the writer's bible for TOS here the other day. I think it's relevant to this discussion.

 

It's what you call "dead," but what I see as a rather narrow definition. It was a widely known and recognized ongoing business being maintained and generating revenue. That's not grounds for hanging up an "out of business" sign.

 

If you think something is good, why wouldn't you want more the same?

 

Well it seems better than your definition, under which no franchise is ever dead.

 

I agree.
J.J. Abrams did reboot the series and I think his efforts has enhance STAR TREK for many years to come!!!!

 

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.

 

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.