Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Greg Cox]

But what they did to Alien with the reprehensible and reviled snuffing of Newt, Hicks and Bishop was loathsome to me; an abuse and violence done upon the franchise itself and perhaps to the character of the little saved girl too. What they did to Star Trek was *nothing* like that and deeply respectful and entertaining in comparison.

But surely it's easy to pick examples like that from any franchise? (Off the top of my head, the killing of Kirk in Generations or the racism of Code of Honour.)

Isn't the best response simply to go on and just ignore the part you don't like, as Greg has suggested, instead of going back to dredge it up so you can "officially" ignore the part you don't like?

I'm not an activist. But when it comes up in conversation, I'll discuss it.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about conversations. Heck, we're having fun dissecting fifty-year-old episodes every day.

I was talking about the actual movies and series having to establish "officially" what's still in the continuity, as though there's an office somewhere, complete with a notary public, that can revoke a movie's status as canon. When it comes to making the future movies, you don't need to rule that, say, THE FINAL FRONTIER isn't "canon" anymore. You just never mention Sybok again if there's no need to.

Doesn't mean he's been stricken from the continuity. Just means that nobody is in a hurry to bring him back anytime soon--or put him on the cover of a novel!

Or, to cite another example, even if the Prime Universe comes back, don't expect to ever see a sequel to "Spock's Brain" or "The Way to Eden." They may have happened, but they're not likely to inspire any future stories.

 

[JWPlatt]

But what they did to Alien with the reprehensible and reviled snuffing of Newt, Hicks and Bishop was loathsome to me; an abuse and violence done upon the franchise itself and perhaps to the character of the little saved girl too. What they did to Star Trek was *nothing* like that and deeply respectful and entertaining in comparison.

But surely it's easy to pick examples like that from any franchise? (Off the top of my head, the killing of Kirk in Generations or the racism of Code of Honour.)

Isn't the best response simply to go on and just ignore the part you don't like, as Greg has suggested, instead of going back to dredge it up so you can "officially" ignore the part you don't like?

I'm not an activist. But when it comes up in conversation, I'll discuss it.

I have to add to my previous post because it didn't occur to me before. In my life as a male it has been a challenge to understand females, but I have made it a priority to try. One of the things I have come to understand is that it is a particularly male point of view to internalize and dismiss our displeasures in life because "dredging" up things make them worse instead of the concept of alleviating our displeasures through discussion and sharing. I have grown fond of the latter because it works better.

As for Trek II in particular, that is a bad example to use, as TMP was the film that alienated the fans the most, due to the lack of fun, humor, or inter-crew dynamics, all things Trek II fixed. Trek II did not face anywhere near the backlash with existing Trek fans as JJ Trek did.

Yet there were a group of fans sure that TMP would be the one remembered instead of TWOK.They made the same noised that TWOK wasn't "real" Star Trek.

But a movie maker has to be true to their own vision. They can't allow themselves to be persuaded by the whims of fandom on any given week. Imagine if Paramount had decided to pull TNG after 13 weeks because there was a group that decided it wasn't "real" Star Trek.

It's true an artist should have faith in and be true to their vision. But that doesn't preclude listening to the fans and evaluating what they have to say.

 

[Greg Cox]

But a movie maker has to be true to their own vision. They can't allow themselves to be persuaded by the whims of fandom on any given week. Imagine if Paramount had decided to pull TNG after 13 weeks because there was a group that decided it wasn't "real" Star Trek.

But that doesn't preclude listening to the fans and evaluating what they have to so.

But, again, fandom does not speak with one voice. As this board proves every day!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But, again, fandom does not speak with one voice. As this board proves every day!

Splitter!

 

[drt]

Of course if there is a return to the Prime universe as either an early 24th or 25th Century show, the producers are going to keep what they like and disregard what they don't (as well as create an entirely new bunch of continuity problems) that it's going to be called "Prime Universe In Name Only" no matter what anyway.

 

[Amaris]

There's no universal rule that dictates that only a "small core of fans" will reject each and every reboot whose voices of dissent then fades off into obscurity. A reboot still needs to win over the audience. It doesn't do so just because it's served up by the company that owns the property or because it is new and therefore automatically better. It is dependent on how well it's executed. And there are plenty of examples of mishandled franchises even in this thread alone to prove that theory out, Alien, Hulk, Superman, etc...

As for Trek II in particular, that is a bad example to use, as TMP was the film that alienated the fans the most, due to the lack of fun, humor, or inter-crew dynamics, all things Trek II fixed. Trek II did not face anywhere near the backlash with existing Trek fans as JJ Trek did.

That's because Trek II didn't have the internet to lambast it before its premiere. There are a number of critics, fans, and publications, though, that tore the shit out of the film, saying essentially the same things about Star Trek II that some fans say about the new Star Trek films.

And remember that KHAN was the first Star Trek movie or TV show that Roddenberry had no say over. That alone would be enough to make it suspect in the eyes of some fans.

And, yes, I remember people complaining that it was just an action-packed,shoot-em-up, space opera about a larger-than-life super-villain compared to the lofty ambitions of TMP. And how dare they kill Spock!

Exactly. This is where I like to heed the great Rick Nelson's advice, when he said "you know you can't please everyone so you gotta please yourself."

 

[JWPlatt]

But a movie maker has to be true to their own vision. They can't allow themselves to be persuaded by the whims of fandom on any given week. Imagine if Paramount had decided to pull TNG after 13 weeks because there was a group that decided it wasn't "real" Star Trek.

But that doesn't preclude listening to the fans and evaluating what they have to so.

But, again, fandom does not speak with one voice. As this board proves every day!

It is possible to consider the spectrum, much as a survey does.

 

[BillJ]

It is possible to consider the spectrum, much as a survey does.

No. I simply don't want movies made that way. Put someone in charge, have them put their creative vision on screen then I can decide whether I like it or not.

 

[Relayer1]

TMP and Wrath of Khan are probably my favourite Trek movies. TMP because of Gene's vision, Khan because he was sidelined.

The big 2001ish TMP couldn't have carried on - very few would have gone to see sequels in that style. Dumping Gene was vital. TNG benefitted from dropping him too. I can't take all the credit away from him, but he wasn't the best choice to guide Trek.

JJ Trek ? Here to stay I'm afraid. I've enjoyed the two movies while in the cinema and have pretty much forgotten them by the time I got home. They don't feed in to my ongoing fascination with Star Trek.

I'd love prime Trek back on T.V., but any new series will almost certainly be a JJverse spinoff.

 

[JWPlatt]

It is possible to consider the spectrum, much as a survey does.

No. I simply don't want movies made that way. Put someone in charge, have them put their creative vision on screen then I can decide whether I like it or not.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding just to be contrary? Movies don't have to be made by committee when listening the spectrum of the fan voice. "Consider" and "evaluate" means the artists can throw out anything they don't like and morph or keep any brilliance that inspires them. If it fits the artists' vision and they want to include it, that's their choice and intent. Both the artists and you CAN decide whether you like it or not.

 

[BillJ]

It is possible to consider the spectrum, much as a survey does.

No. I simply don't want movies made that way. Put someone in charge, have them put their creative vision on screen then I can decide whether I like it or not.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding just to be contrary? Movies don't have to be made by committee when listening the spectrum of the fan voice. "Consider" and "evaluate" means the artists can throw out anything they don't like and morph or keep any brilliance that inspires them. If it fits the artists' vision and they want to include it, that's their choice and intent. Both the artists and you CAN decide whether you like it or not.

I understand perfectly well what you're saying. What I'm saying is that I don't need a pat on the head like a well behaved child from the creators of the media I consume. I don't need them to act like I'm important. YMMV.

 

[JWPlatt]

No. I simply don't want movies made that way. Put someone in charge, have them put their creative vision on screen then I can decide whether I like it or not.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding just to be contrary? Movies don't have to be made by committee when listening the spectrum of the fan voice. "Consider" and "evaluate" means the artists can throw out anything they don't like and morph or keep any brilliance that inspires them. If it fits the artists' vision and they want to include it, that's their choice and intent. Both the artists and you CAN decide whether you like it or not.

I understand perfectly well what you're saying. What I'm saying is that I don't need a pat on the head like a well behaved child from the creators of the media I consume. I don't need them to act like I'm important. YMMV.

Marketing is just one aspect of listening. They hardly pat you on the head or believe you are important except to the bottom line. And the artist and studio often compromise based upon the data you eschew. It's not so black and white or done in isolation in clean-room conditions.

 

[Darren Mooney]

The spectrum of Star Trek fandom is far too diverse and scattered - not to mention too damned insignificant - to produce a useful and meaningful consensus for the purposes of marketing a movie.

These forums should be proof that we can't agree on anything, and any attempt to "average" that would not only be a false compromise, it would be terrible.

But, as I've said and Bill's said and Greg's said, Star Trek should not be pandering or catering to us. That's part of how Star Trek died in the early years of the twenty-first century, it stopped caring about people who weren't fans.

We are welcome to enjoy any future Star Trek, but we are not entitled to have it service our "Star Trek needs."

 

[chardman]

I don't have a problem with multiple continuities, even when they directly contradict each other. I don't care that "Sherlock" doesn't jibe with "Elementary" or the "Sherlock Holmes" series of films by Guy Ritchie, and all of the other dozens of other incarnation of that fictional universes. I can accept them all, and judge them on their own merits.

Thus, I can easily do the same with the piddling few incarnations there are of of "Star Trek", particularly as several have already embraced the concept of the Many Worlds Theory.

I'd be thrilled to see an entire series of alternate Trek "histories", spead throughout the whole Trek multiverse, where the stories specifically and intentionally ignore established continuity.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't have a problem with multiple continuities, even when they directly contradict each other. I don't care that "Sherlock" doesn't jibe with "Elementary" or the "Sherlock Holmes" series of films by Guy Ritchie, and all of the other dozens of other incarnation of that fictional universes. I can accept them all, and judge them on their own merits.
.

So, have you seen the trailer for "Mr. Holmes" yet?

But, yeah, exactly. I figured out when I was nine that not all Dracula movies take place in the same seamless continuity. Didn't bother me one bit.

 

[chardman]

So, have you seen the trailer for "Mr. Holmes" yet?

Yup. Anxiously awaiting the film. One which likely violates some aspect of the continuity of virtually every previous incarnation of the Holmes character.

 

[Greg Cox]

But that doesn't preclude listening to the fans and evaluating what they have to so.

But, again, fandom does not speak with one voice. As this board proves every day!

It is possible to consider the spectrum, much as a survey does.

But one also has to make allowances for the fannish echo chamber effect--and remember that what a vocal clique of fans want may have little or nothing to with what audiences in general are looking for.

Sure, if you go to the right convention or website, you can probably get 750 people to sign a petition asking for a VOYAGER movie.

Doesn't mean there's really a market for it.

 

[fonzob1]

If the franchise ever moves on from the TOS crew in the NuTrek universe, this man should be cast as a younger Captain Picard.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608031073104299032&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

[Converted to link. Embedded images should be hosted on your own web space or on an image-sharing account registered to you. - M']

 

[JWPlatt]

The spectrum of Star Trek fandom is far too diverse and scattered - not to mention too damned insignificant - to produce a useful and meaningful consensus for the purposes of marketing a movie.

These forums should be proof that we can't agree on anything, and any attempt to "average" that would not only be a false compromise, it would be terrible.

That doesn't understand what I wrote. No consensus is necessary, required or recommended. The artists listen, then unilaterally do as they choose. For example, ten million fans might want something in particular, but a single voice with a brilliant idea might make a difference to an artist. It could be a fan, a friend, or their spouse.

But, again, fandom does not speak with one voice. As this board proves every day!

It is possible to consider the spectrum, much as a survey does.

But one also has to make allowances for the fannish echo chamber effect--and remember that what a vocal clique of fans want may have little or nothing to with what audiences in general are looking for.

Sure, if you go to the right convention or website, you can probably get 750 people to sign a petition asking for a VOYAGER movie.

Doesn't mean there's really a market for it.

Limiting it to fandom is the wrong thing to do. The typical mantra for movies is that they want movies accessible to everyone - not just the fans.

I hope the above two responses provide a better understanding of where I'm coming from.

 

[Makarov]

That's part of how Star Trek died in the early years of the twenty-first century, it stopped caring about people who weren't fans.

Is that really true? I thought they were always trying to get the general audience. They always actioned up the movies compared to the TV show. And they did the Kirk meeting Picard plot that seems popular to the general audience. Then there are things they didn't do which fans might have wanted, such as Voyager having continuity and Nemesis / Enterprise not sucking. And those ideas probably aren't unappealing to the general audience either.