A TOS resurgence?

Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by Warped9, Apr 22, 2014.

  1. Noname Given

    Noname Given Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    None Given
    ^^^
    Given the ACTUAL history of Gene Roddenberry's involvement with TOS in particular; I don't think you really want to open that can of worms as there's AMPLE evidence during Star trek's development just how much 'talent' GR had in this regard.

    (Gene's vision seemed to be - 'Let me profit off what I can, and bang as many young actresses as I can while Executive Producer - and I'll claim all the ideas contributed by other like Gene L. Coon and claim I was the one who came up with them.")
     
  2. thumbtack

    thumbtack Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork
    Who's pissy?

    Well, okay.
     
  3. Vger23

    Vger23 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    New England
    This is a total cop-out, unfortunately.

    The argument (TIRED argument, by the way) about the JJTrek movies simply comes down to personal preference in this case. If you're going to be dismissive of the only "objective" measures for success in the entertainment industry (critical acclaim, box office, and general audience reaction), then there really no argument.

    You're basically just being the little kid who puts his hands over his ears and sings so he doesn't need to listen anymore.

    Look, it's okay for someone to not like the movies. Trek fans generally hate just about everything. It's nothing new. But, to deny the truth just because it doesn't align with your preferences is delusional.

    I don't care what anyone says. Star Trek was a beached whale with an irrelevant and impotent fanbase in the years between Nemesis and 2009. It was a joke that had staled and over-stayed its welcome. Just because a few novels were being written means nothing. There's a lot of $hit novels out there, and I wouldn't call that a base for a thriving franchise.

    It's like I said earlier...you can't be "thriving" or even "surviving" without evolution and growth. The JJTrek films certainly represent evolution and the fanbase definitely was infused with new blood and new imaginations.

    Regardless of our personal feelings, and regardless of how chagrined we may be that this isn't "our Star Trek" it is absolute denial to say this didn't save the franchise. Trek may not have been dead, but it was slowly bleeding to death.

    Not so much now.
     
  4. Robert Comsol

    Robert Comsol Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    USS Berlin
    Ouch...:eek:

    Khan's blood? :rolleyes:

    Just to add my 0.02 $ here, but the latest product of a franchise mustn't necessary constitute "evolution" and "growth" in a postive sense.

    This probably applied for NEM or the Star Wars prequels. I don't think either two added to the popularity of the franchises in a positive manner. In the case of Star Wars it's mostly the imaginative storytelling of the Clone Wars CGI animated series, that undoes some of the prequel damage, IMHO.

    Bob
     
  5. 2takesfrakes

    2takesfrakes Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    "... impotent"?!

    :rommie: >>SNORT!!!<<

    I am fully functional, sir! Nothing wrong with my equipment!

    Otherwise, I'm prepared to accept that Rick Berman had driven STAR TREK into the ground, to keep he and his cronies on the Gravy Train. It's great to see what J.J. Abrams has done with, and for, the franchise ...
     
  6. Vandervecken

    Vandervecken Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Location:
    Kobold
    No can of worms. The worst Enterprise eps are better than Abrams Trek.
     
  7. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    Which is non-sense, of course. Showing that you have a real bias where Star Trek is concerned.
     
  8. Vandervecken

    Vandervecken Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Location:
    Kobold

    This is a total mischaracterization of the truth, unfortunately.

    MANY people share this opinion of fauxTrek; I am hardly alone. More than that, it is perfectly reasonable to render artistic judgments and criticism of media; your "argument" boils down to "it's all subjective personal opinion, you're opining in a vacuum." No, some things are BAD, and some things are GOOD. Van Gogh's The Starry Night is GOOD; a cheap Wal-Mart-sold painting of a matador and bull is BAD. Funny how for years everyone agreed TFF was bad. But that was just "personal feelings," eh?

    What we have now isn't Trek any longer. Abrams trek is to real Trek what the Body Snatchers would be to humans.

    "I don't care what anyone says," (fairly telling position) the "beached whale" of Star Trek wasn't revived and returned to sea, it was made a pod cetacean. Destroying Trek isn't my idea of saving it. There were a lot of years between TOS and TNG; the franchise could have waited again. For someone with talent and respect for the core material. Abrams Trek is NOT Trek, it's a sad, empty, soulless shell with a Trek logo stuck on. You're in denial if you don't see that.

    What is absolute denial is to paint Abrams Trek as somehow the "savior" of Trek; for one thing, you can't possibly know that Abrams "saved" Trek, as that is itself a hypothetical, an attempt to predict, not just a future, but an alternate future, one where Abrams never wrecked the franchise and it remained as it was in 2009, waiting for someone with talent to get his or her hands on it, and thus is far more your personal opinion than any value judgment of fauxTrek, a real thing in the real world that people are entitled to render real judgments on with far more justification than those positing alternate timelines have; and for another, gutting the material and pretending it's Trek isn't saving it.

    Talk about tired arguments--"Abrams the savior of Star Trek, because somehow the franchise would not have survived but for him." So old--and so far removed from reality--it creaks.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2014
  9. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    ST is not now, nor has it ever been viewed as one, cohesive franchise. Some are unwilling to admit that the "dead" part of anything with the title "Star Trek" was tied to the TNG-ENT end, which performed a slow suicide of sorts. Each new production shoved the blade in another inch, but the fatal action never touched TOS. Mentioned earlier, the then-new series tried so hard to distance themselves from TOS, that the eventual audience rejection was centered on TNG-ENT.

    Culturally, TOS is always here in one way or another (even as the TNG-ENT productions circled the drain), but where is the same treatment/reaction for TNG-ENT? Finally, the question has to be asked again: when the JJ film went into production, why not use the NG-ENT as the template? Because it was the problem--the part of ST that the public wanted no part of.

    The same could not be said of TOS, with a legacy free of endless hours of unappealing, inferior concepts. It is not hard to conclude why JJTrek ran screaming to TOS.
     
  10. Vger23

    Vger23 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    New England
    But that's solely your opinion based on your tastes and values. Who are you to judge whether something has advanced in a positive manner or not?

    If you were to ask the younger generation, they got a tremendous amount of joy from the newer Star Wars movies. Additionally, it introduced them to the originals, that we all know and love. And, dare I say, that claiming what appeals to the younger generations (or even other individuals) is "not as good" as what appeals to you is a narrow, non-diverse viewpoint.

    We need to drop the selfishness here, folks. These stories and franchises aren't "ours." They should be made to provide enjoyment and inspiration to everyone. Our own narrow, selfish needs overwhelm that thinking sometimes...but we need to step back and let go. Our values and viewpoints can't be the only factors considered here.
     
  11. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Location:
    CommishSleer
    An Animated series could be that Star Trek Justice league idea they were proposing for ST09.

    Where they pick selected team members from each series and put them together in a team. I'd have a young team though to appeal to the younger audience. That wouldn't exclude Picard though. They'd just select him from an earlier point in time. Where he's less of a fuddy duddy.
     
  12. Vandervecken

    Vandervecken Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Location:
    Kobold
    We are the ones who buy the tickets and watch the series, and that's what makes us the ones to judge. You might as well dismiss any criticism as entirely subjective and unworthy of consideration. This viewpoint, invoked by those who simply want to ignore inherent worth in evaluating nuTrek, results in nothing being good, and nothing being bad---a position hardly reflective of consensus reality, even when people can't reach consensus. One thing that most people do have consensus on is that there is good, and there is bad--and we are as fit to judge good and bad as many movie critics. More fit, because it's unlikely that any given movie critic is as steeped in the background material as we are.

    Therefore this constant refrain of "that's your opinion," without any real answer to the opinion (because, as I think those who say/write that know, the opinion can't be cogently countered, and thus can only be dismissed in this airy fashion without real thought) is conveniently but unwarrantedly and nonsubstantively dismissive. As I wrote above, I think it's far more reasonable to dismiss as meaningless, divorced-from-reality speculation any opinions on alternate futures, ie, "Trek would be dead without Abrams." How can anyone know that? But we can know our own minds about Trek entries that exist in the present.
     
  13. T-Rex

    T-Rex Cadet Newbie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    I'm not sure why it matters if he "brought the franchise back from the dead" and "made it popular" again. Does it need to be popular and well-regarded for you guys to enjoy it?

    And really, TOS has been dead since the end of the 1960s, since it bears little similarity with the TNG/VOY/DS9/ENT series, which all feel much more similar to each other than to TOS. So even if Abrams did revive it, there's not going to be any new episodes or anything.

    I'm 18 and I love TOS, couldn't get into the other series as much. I don't think many people my age like TOS or any series of Star Trek, but the ones that do seem to like TNG the most. So to answer your question, probably not.
     
  14. Tallguy

    Tallguy Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Location:
    Beyond the Farthest Star
    You know, I just thought of something else that TOS has that TNG and the other Treks do not: The Wrath of Khan. People like First Contact, sure. But it doesn't hold a candle in terms of cultural awareness to TWOK.

    There are just more things "Star Trek" that point back to TOS than other aspects of Trek.

    I guess it's like Doctor Who or Star Wars. If there's a big anniversary it will always be for 1963 and 1977. Never 2005 or 1999.
     
  15. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Yes perhaps Abram's Trek might not be the same in tone from TOS, but any long running franchise has to change and grow with the times. I seem to recall hearing/reading thant TNG will never work it's just a copy of TOS, DSN won't work because it's set on a space station. WHilst to a certain extent those two managed to establish an dientity of there own. And whilst some will disagree with this, VOY became knonw in parts as TNG-lite, and ENT like VOY failed to live upto to it's premise only coming into it's own during the last two seasons. Note I don't dislike VOY or ENT, and if I'm channel hopping I'll watch them. It's just that they are lower down on my favourite lists.

    As for the newer Trek films sure they have flaws but so do a lot of films, I think I preferred the first film (2009) than Into Darkness but each to theri own.
     
  16. albion432

    albion432 Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    The question of Star Trek's popularity during its initial NBC run is no longer open to debate. Marc Cushman's excellent three part book series, These Are The Voyages, (each book covers one season) has released the Nielsen rating for the entire TOS series to the public for the first time ever. The author had to pay a leasing fee in order to obtain the publishing rights to these ratings. What they reveal is that Star Trek consistently placed 1st or 2nd in it's time slot for at least the first two seasons (book three of These Are The Voyages has not yet been released). Also, Star Trek placed very well overall when ranked with all network shows airing at the time. In fact, when Star Trek premiered almost 47% of all televisions in America tuned in to see what all the hype was about. That was the highest rated episode of all, but once the rating leveled off, the show still did very well. Star Trek's poor ratings has been proven to be a myth.

    Star Trek captured the attention and admiration of the public from the beginning, and the interest in the series, though it has waned at times, had NEVER gone away. The overwhelming success of JJ Abram's homage to the original series is just the latest example of this continued interest.

    I dare say Star Trek is here to stay, and may someday be the only surviving relic of an ancient media platform known as tv.
     
  17. Shaka Zulu

    Shaka Zulu Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    Bulawayo Military Krral
    Like who?
     
  18. Shat Happens

    Shat Happens Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    they gave Star Wars to JJ Abams , too. Is seems fans' opinions are irrelevant. But, I wonder who the so-called "general audiences" are. I dnt knw anyone.
     
  19. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Seth MacFarlane? Couldn't do worse.
     
  20. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    My concern with him is that we'd get a lot of TNG/Berman-era continuity porn in any ST series produced by him. Plus, it opens up the possibility, however remote, of Brannon Braga slithering back into the ST fold in some capacity. I'll pass.