Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Warped9, May 23, 2013.
That could have improved Nemesis.
And up until the end of Enterprise Star Trek was so respected by the production people that it turned into Lenin: hollow, with nothing much left of the original.
Being respected is largely irrelevant. There is tons of crap out there making money which is fine for the bean counters and the fans of said materiel. I (and others like minded) care nothing for the Abrams' films and don't think they're worthy of any respect, but that's also irrelevant.
TOS got little respect for the longest time. Getting a measure of recognition is something else.
Abrams (with the input of a lot of other people) produced and directed a pair of Star Trek movies which have proven it to be a commercially viable motion picture franchise (again). Harve Bennett, Nicholas Meyer, and Leonard Nimoy did the same thing in the early 1980s. If what the latter group did is considered "saving the franchise," then certainly Abrams and his collaborators should receive the same credit.
But, much of this thread obviously has no interest in the question posed by the title.
It's a shame you didn't like it, and I don't mean that in any insulting way. J.J.'s directing style is apparently not your cup of tea. That's cool. There are Trek movies people love which just do not appeal to me, and that's okay, too.
It's a "to each their own" kind of thing. I have friends who love Star Trek: Voyager, can quote episodes line for line, but for me it leaves me cold, and I really have no interest in the show. Does that make it bad, and my friends wrong for liking it? Nope. It's all about taste.
Then why bring it up?
I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else who brought it up.
The difference is that there were fewer channels and shows to choose from back then.
No story is really original, if you want to play that game.
I think it's fair to examine your motives, however. I found that my own preconceptions influence what I feel about a movie or whatever greatly. Maybe you were dead-set against the idea of that movie ?
Wrong cast of characters.
Did they "save" the franchise? Likely no more than Abrams did.
They continued it.
Of course we all have a measure of preferences and even bias regarding practically anything. It's likely impossible to be totally objective about anything.
But I am a Star Trek fan. I understood and accepted a reboot was likely and possible. I can see how a reboot done in a particular way could appeal to me. But in this case (in my opinion) Abrams did everything wrong as did his writers.
There you go.
So you credit Abrams with keeping the Star Trek franchise alive.
So you did.
Didn't seem as irrelevant to you in that post.
Oh, Yes, to your original question.
What was the buzz about a new Star Trek Film before Abrams became involved? My recollection is that both film and TV iterations of Star Trek were dead in the water.
It wasn't dead to begin with.
It was in a coma and on life support.
Which, compared to it not continuing, sounds like saving to me.
We've been through this before: dead means no more movies and series. Who cares about fans like me who watch their DVDs ?
Whoever is making money off the sale of those DVD's and other merchandise. If money continues to come in then there's evidently at least a pulse.
In your opinion.
I don't think so. I seriously doubt that the OP is asking us whether, without Abrams, toys would still be sold and fan fiction written.
So nothing ever "saved" the franchise, even if they resurrected it from obscurity and made it commercially viable (TWOK, TNG, Abrams), except the second episode, when there was no franchise to speak of. Perfectly logical.
Separate names with a comma.