If we're being honest with ourselves (rare, I know) this is another reason CBS have no interest in making more of "The Real Star Trek".
Star Trek's Troubling 50th Anniversary
- Thread starter MakeshiftPython
- Start date
If we're being honest with ourselves (rare, I know) this is another reason CBS have no interest in making more of "The Real Star Trek".
Some comic book fans are the same way. Want to start a fight? Ask who the "real" Green Lantern or Batgirl is . . . or which DC continuity is best.
And don't get DARK SHADOWS fans started on the Tim Burton version . . .
Based on those sales, CBS may not be interested in making more Star Trek, period. It may have to come from someone licensing the property from CBS. But the costs of licensing may kill a TV project before it ever gets off the ground.
That article seems pretty negative compared to my thoughts on Trek. I'm optimistic but I can empathize with those that are worried. They probably feel the same about Star Trek as I feel about the Resident Evil series of video games going from survival horror to worse and worse until Resident Evil 6. (Luckily RE HD remastered is coming out on PS4 for fans of the original!)
I can't get behind being fashionably detached from the whole thing. It's natural to have hopes and expectations for something you're invested in.
I can't get behind being fashionably detached from the whole thing. It's natural to have hopes and expectations for something you're invested in.
Another article saying that Star Trek is dead/dumbed-down/shallow/etc?
I'll pass.
STID "insulting." My ass.
I'll pass.
STID "insulting." My ass.
I have a feeling we will see more pieces like this questioning the state of the franchise as we approach the 50th Anniversary.
Along with that, we will continue to see the "but it made X amount of $ which is the only real way to measure quality, and any criticisms are just from a bunch of crybabies anyway" argument.
"We are all very pleased", indeed.
Along with that, we will continue to see the "but it made X amount of $ which is the only real way to measure quality, and any criticisms are just from a bunch of crybabies anyway" argument.
"We are all very pleased", indeed.
But then somebody will pull up Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic or some other review aggregator as a means of gauging critical appeal. (STID and 09 recieved near universal acclaim.)
That same person will be completely ignored and people will still say that Abrams ruined Trek and we don't know what we're talking about.
Rinse, dry, repeat. Waiter, check please.
That same person will be completely ignored and people will still say that Abrams ruined Trek and we don't know what we're talking about.
Rinse, dry, repeat. Waiter, check please.
I don't care either.
I find the whole idea of pop culture anniversaries to be some sort of obligatory pomp and circumstance to be a bit silly. They're all inevitably more about marketing than celebration.
Besides Trek has gone way overboard in the past. Was it the 30th they had that ridiculous gala? That was an embarrassment.
I find the whole idea of pop culture anniversaries to be some sort of obligatory pomp and circumstance to be a bit silly. They're all inevitably more about marketing than celebration.
Besides Trek has gone way overboard in the past. Was it the 30th they had that ridiculous gala? That was an embarrassment.
I have a feeling we will see more pieces like this questioning the state of the franchise as we approach the 50th Anniversary.
Along with that, we will continue to see the "but it made X amount of $ which is the only real way to measure quality, and any criticisms are just from a bunch of crybabies anyway" argument.
"We are all very pleased", indeed.
Well, I don't believe the argument is that $ necessarily means quality, whatever quality is, but rather it's that $ means success in the only way that makes the commercial franchise viable.
For those fans who are not satisfied with that: watch a fan film. Be glad that CBS is allowing fan films to thrive. Take that as your 50th anniversary present!
I have a feeling we will see more pieces like this questioning the state of the franchise as we approach the 50th Anniversary.
Along with that, we will continue to see the "but it made X amount of $ which is the only real way to measure quality, and any criticisms are just from a bunch of crybabies anyway" argument.
"We are all very pleased", indeed.
Well, I don't believe the argument is that $ necessarily means quality, whatever quality is, but rather it's that $ means success in the only way that makes the commercial franchise viable.
Good point. It is easy to mistakenly think of box office and Rotten Tomato scores as indicators of anything other than commercial viability.
Last edited:
I think Rotten Tomato scores show whether or not an audience likes a particular piece of entertainment. Both Abrams movies scored well among audiences.
So it may not be indicative of the mythical "quality" people keep bashing us over the head with, but it does show that people generally enjoyed what they saw.
I know what you mean. I haven't even read the article, but I'm guessing I've already heard it all before.
It's kind of like how, back when I was frequenting the XENA boards, every few weeks somebody would bring up--for the umpteenth time--the burning issue of whether Xena and Gabrielle were "just friends" or not.
After awhile, you never need to read another thread on topic because you pretty much know all the arguments by heart . . .
Yeah, seems he lost all hope.William Bradley said:
I know many get (easily) peeved when STID gets thrown under the bus, but that doesn't mean that those who were disappointed by that think Trek is totally ruined. This is why I called the article level headed, because it even acknowledges that Trek has had bumps in the road in the past and recovered well. Actually read the full article, don't dismiss it as just another hater that thinks the Abrams films were the death of Trek or whatever.
Who tries to "measure quality" by commercial success?
We measure popularity by commercial success.
We don't pretend to measure quality, unless we want to be ridiculous. We disagree about quality. We have opinions about quality. We have differing tastes, where quality is concerned.
I have read the entire article. It was a waste of time.
Pretty much. There might be an original thought or three in there, but a lot of it is plenty familiar. Overall, the article strikes me as being less about Trek and the 50th anniversary than it is about one fan's idea of what Trek is, has been and/or forever should be. YMMV
I could see some people feeling "insulted" ( for lack of a better word ) by some of the decisions that were made in the production of the film, but that doesn't prevent it from being enjoyable.
I suppose it was futile that many here would dismiss the article as being "too negative". Having any mixed feelings simply means you're just an angry fanboy. :roll:
Similar threads
