Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Warped9, May 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    So when Russell T. Davies brought Doctor Who back to the TV screen, he didn't save/resurrect that show anymore than J. J. Abrams did with Star Trek?
     
  2. iguana_tonante

    iguana_tonante Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Italy, EU
    Generally speaking: Beatles > Jesus > Star Trek.
     
  3. stj

    stj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Location:
    the real world
    This is so typical of Trekkie grandiosity. Everyone knows Chekhov was merely Davy Jones of the Monkees!:scream:

    :guffaw:

    If you like the movies, Star Trek was saved. If you don't, it wasn't. The box office is irrelevant and doesn't prove a damn thing. And it's still absurdly early to imagine that his version is going to be remembered and exploited. Will people really be so blown away when Into Darkness is remade in an alternate universe version where it is Uhura who dies, and Scotty who yells Khaaaaaan, and an even bigger Enterprise bursts forth from the clouds?
     
  4. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Oh, you daydream believer, you . . ..
     
  5. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Fixed that for you. :techman:
     
  6. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    If a franchise who's "bread and butter" is TV shows and movies isn't making TV shows and movies, I think its dead. Musical performers and actors are something different as they cant produce new material once they're gone. The licensed stuff is nice, but that's not really what Lucy, the Beatles or Star Trek were created to sell.
     
  7. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    This. :techman:
     
  8. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    My soul is not at risk - but then, Star Trek is not my religion.
     
  9. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Why would you so flagrantly risk the wrath of the Roddenberry? Heathen!!! :eek:
     
  10. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    It's fandom, of course they will. They'll also be bitching that the only real Uhura is Zoe Saldana.

    All "saved" means is that Star Trek is an ongoing concern now. Liking or disliking the movie doesn't alter that. The box office will determine how long it will be, so yes that is relevant and means a damn thing.
     
  11. Count Zero

    Count Zero Watching Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Location:
    European Union
    :D :techman:
     
  12. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    It was dead. This is why Paramount permitted - in all likelihood, encouraged - the new creative team to reboot it. They're done with oldTrek, which had finally run its course as a going commercial concern.

    From now on, whoever is producing it will have a much freer hand in using and rearranging the parts of Trek's previous continuity that suit their project while discarding or ignoring what was inconvenient.

    This is a good thing.
     
  13. Lord Garth

    Lord Garth Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    I have to say, when we're talking about the state of the Star Trek Franchise, we usually mean the series and the movies. It's what I mean, anyway.

    Star Trek merchandising has been alive and well since the '60s.

    The franchise is a completely different story. It was dead in 1969. It was dead in 2005. It was revived in 1979. It was revived in 2009.

    The merchandising is what comes out of the franchise. TNG on Blu-Ray, for instance, is merchandising. You can only merchandise something that's out of production so much and for so long. It's not the same as having something out that's new.
     
  14. Hando

    Hando Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Just a by-the-way question: How much is a director actually responsible for a movie?

    So in case of JJ, what was hi his sole doing, were no one else had any input?
    Did he pick the script?
    Did he decide on the CG?
    ...
     
  15. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Films are usually thought of as a directors medium. What's on the screen is usually their choice.
     
  16. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Still doesn't mean he saved a franchise from obscurity because Star Trek was not at all obscure from 2005-2009.

    1) Respect was mentioned in regard to two aspects. Whether JJ respected the original source materiel and whether his films could be respected by the broader audience. I say "no" to the first part, but your mileage may vary. As to the latter part respect is irrelevant in regard to whether he saved the franchise or not. TPTB couldn't care less if it was totally incoherent as long as it makes them money.

    2) That's also irrelevant to whether he supposedly saved the franchise because it has to be shown to be dead which it wasn't because it continued to generate revenue and enjoy a healthy interest.

    3) Refer back to 1 and 2. It could be crap, but as long it makes money TPTB couldn't care less. It still doesn't established that he resurrected something dead because it wasn't.

    Star Trek was not an obscure, unfamiliar and forgotten property from 2005-2009. And those who own the rights to it continued to foster interest by introducing new merchandise and generating revenue from it. That is an ongoing business.

    And it's been going, through highs and lows, since 1966-1969.
     
  17. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    Aren't you contradicting yourself: "STAR TREK: 1964-1991"
     
  18. stj

    stj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Location:
    the real world
    Rats! You figured me out!



    Summary of thread thus far: The stockholders are well pleased, despite the annoying interruptions by people talking about uninteresting topics, i.e., anything but money.

    What can I say, but, spend your money wisely!:techman:
     
  19. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Not at all. 1964-1991 is my way of expressing the period I preferred and found the Star Trek I most enjoyed even with its low points. My preference is irrelevant to whether it continued to be an ongoing business interest.
     
  20. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    Then how would you categorize J. J. Abrams' and his creative efforts towards Star Trek in the context of your original question?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.