Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

Tsunkatse pandered to a different fan base not to a broader audience. And it was the exception, not the rule.

What did Voyager actually do to grow the fanbase? The Next Generation was a pretty cutting age show for the late eighties. However, Voyager just kept fetishing that model of storytelling into the twenty-first century. It added a sexually objectified female character, but that was pandering to what it perceived to be the target market - nerds who like boobs. I love Jeri Ryan's performance, and like her character arc, but the addition of Seven as the new focus character was the point at which it was clear this was not a show that saw itself aiming towards a broad audience, but towards shut-ins who think "sexy" is a painted-on catsuit.

(Whatever about the infamous "male gaze" scene in Into Darkness, it was a single short scene, and had an accompanying "female gaze" scene with Khan in the shower that was unfortunately cut.)

By the time that the first two seasons of Enterprise had committed to doing "what TNG had defined as Star Trek stuff" with "awkward sexy stuff because nerds like boob, right?", the franchise was terminal.

 

TNG's viewership might have reached 17 or 18 million for one single episode at some point, but it generally was in the 12-13 million range at its height of popularity. Not shabby.

It wasn't so much a "cutting edge show" in terms of content - look to network dramas like Bochco's for that - but it was a very novel show. There was nothing else like it.

 

The first Wolfman movie takes place in Wales, actually, but Talbot relocates to Europe when he goes in search of Doctor Frankenstein in the sequel.

How exactly he gets from Wales to Europe in a horse-drawn gypsy wagon remains a mystery . ...

(P.S. You're forgetting the hulking American playing the Monster inbetween the Brit and the Hungarian.)

 

How many different versions of the Monster have there been? Which one (other than Karloff) was the best?

That might be good for a poll, and an interesting topic of discussion.

 

In the Prime Frankenstein Universe, ie the movies that are part of the original Universal continuity, the Monster was played by:

Boris Karloff
Lon Chaney, Jr.
Bela Lugosi
Glenn Strange

Strange's version is probably seen in merchandise and publication as often if not more often than Karloff's, but people seem usually to think they're looking at Karloff. The look of Herman Munster, for example, is derived pretty directly from Strange.

 

You could also simply call him Adam Frankenstein, it is his name afterall.

 

The entertainment industry looks to things like revenue not fan focus groups. That's the "input" that matters.

 

But he's never called that in the Universal movies.

Heck, the original movies changed Dr. Frankenstein's name from "Victor" to "Henry."

And I've read that when Karloff died, some papers ran photos of Strange as the Monster by mistake.

And then, of course, there was a later series of Hammer FRANKENSTEIN movies starring Peter Cushing as the doctor, creating a different monster in each film!

 

A lot of hard core Trek fans don't belong to Star Trek's target audience.

 

I know, but he is in the novel and the 2013 movie.

I'm interested to see what Universal's Combined Monster Universe series calls him, or who they get to play him, around 2017-18.

Heh, Van Helsing (2004) and the CMU for Universal Monsters both have drastically different reboot origins for all of them, while we're on the topic of re-imaging.

 

Well told!

 

I don't follow. If Star Trek isn't for us geeks, then who the hell is it for??

 

The millions of (mostly young) people all over the world who line up to buy tickets for the nuTrek movies - just like any other movies. Most moviegoers are not Trekkies.

 

In my humble opinion, Randy, I've always felt that Star Trek is for everyone who wants to partake of it. It's long been my opinion that Star Trek has something for pretty much everyone. That is why the episodes are largely different, except where story arcs show up. The movies, save for TMP and TVH have largely had an action element to them, especially the Abrams films, but even they (mostly) have a little something for everyone.


Despite my feelings about him, which I will not give further voice to because I am trying to get beyond my rather assholish tendencies, Gene Roddenberry may have had a great idea for a tv series, and a great idea for one possible future, but I don't think he intended it for geeks and nerds. He intended it to be entertainment with a hopeful message. And when one sets out to make any show or movie, one does so with the intent of reaching out to as many viewers, and hook them as possible. It's not that he intentionally reached out to nerds and geeks, but that nerds and geeks have adopted it as their own.

Again, this is only my humble opinion. I cannot speak for Gene Roddenberry.

 

I didn't think the book actually did establish him as being named Adam, that's just how Shelley herself admitted to thinking of him. He compares himself to Adam, but makes a point that his father never named him.

Although from our POV his 'mother' did name him and...that's too meta for me to dwell on.

I wonder what Universal fans made of Penny Dreadful? Now that's a 'reimagining'. It's like some hybrid between impressive faithfulness and shout outs to the original novels, a straight-up sequel to many of them, and is also a big, long 'monster mash' movie from the 30's/40's.

 

Wait, wait, is Frankenstein going to be in primeTrek or nuTrek?

Maybe I clicked on the wrong thread.

 

I can't help noticing a difference between ``what the audience wants'' and ``what the audience thinks it wants''.

 

Same audience as the Avengers movies or the Nolan Batman movies. Anyone who might be interested, geek or not.

The Next Generation was a mainstream show. It got an Outstanding Drama nomination at the Emmy's. It was not a show that pandered to "us geeks."

And, again, it seems like "give a fan what a fan wants" translates as "give me what I want." Which I can understand why you'd want that, but call a spade a spade.

It seems like the self-labelled "fans" are a minority among movie-goers or cinema-fans. How would it make any sense (financially or otherwise) to cater to their needs ahead of a larger audience?

 

I don't understand why you would think that Star Trek films should be aimed primarily at an audience that couldn't possibly financially support the franchise. Are they supposed to be hundred-million-dollar charity cases?

 

Until they become fans because they like what they see and want more of it. Then they automatically are removed from the target group.


The growing fanbase of Bare Chested Muscular Males and the fanbase of Females In Tight Leather Outfights gets pandered to a lot, though. They get what they want.