Has the Trek franchise exhausted itself

[TREK_GOD_1]

But your probably right though in the general imagination TOS remains paramount(no pun intended). It's all very difficult though for the uninitiated to be a fan of a complex franchise like doctor who or Star Wars or LOTR or Star Trek or Harry Potter or whatever requires(these days) to have a large amount of knowledge of the material, real enthusiasm for said material, and usually you end up with a devoted fanbase that can talk for hours about the world of Harry Potter or the difference in Jedi vs Sith doctrine or how the Borg are better villains that than the dominion or who the best companion was for the Doctor. In a way fandoms become their own subcultures with jargon their own societies in which the general public has limited knowledge of.

But its not just about "insider knowledge" versus the "outsider"--in both TOS and SW-OT, those original productions left such a powerful impression in the popular culture landscape that all other versions have failed to live up to its effect, and in one way or another, new productions (e.g. NuTrek & Discovery) race back to the most important/popular chapters of the franchise. Producers are not just doing that for the "insiders"/die hards, but general audiences. Going back to those aforementioned most important/popular chapters only speaks to what is believed to be the best known, best chance for the franchise to survive.

This applies to Star Wars--TFA did not earn attention based on Rey or Finn, but on the idea of the "Big Three" returning. Rogue One jumps right back to the period before ANH as a direct prequel--you cannot help but think of what major characters and events are around the corner.

Remove the callbacks / mining the original/most popular material, and what's left is rather dried up--exhausted as a concept.

 

[David.Blue]

Here is my take...

Trek is a modern myth, about what we want to be and whether we can stay on that road. Its viability lies in being able to connect with an audience--the characters and stories, as well as the details of world-building. Honestly the TOS Klingons were a weird blend of the Soviet Union and Red Menace--appropriate enough for the 1960s. Yet latter iterations transformed them into a type of fierce Samurai Vikings in space. Thus we find new ways to tell the story of Trek, just as JJ Abrams did with the most recent motion pictures. Not everyone will agree on the quality of different versions, or on every aspect, but different strokes and all that. What matters most--in terms of the life of the myth--must be its continued connection with readers, viewers, etc.

Currently we see at least four "official" versions of Trek. First are the novels and comic books. Second must be STO, a radically different 'platform' to be sure but still part of the same myth. The movies, which may or may not continue in the current form. We'll see. And then we have Discovery, about which we can almost nothing for certain since they haven't even finished casting yet! Yet we know this much--it seems a genuine attempt at re-imagination, at least as much as TNG and the Abrams films. If it proves popular, then this myth we all love gets an extra spark, some more power and life. But should it fail, that will probably cut off any such television series for years.

Yet at the worst, the books and STO remain. So too fanfiction and fan films. As long as those continue, I cannot see how we can call Trek exhausted. Should they dwindle a lot, probably over a long time, then almost by happenstance we can call the myth exhausted, barring someone adopting it and bring it back to vibrant life (as happened with Battlestar Galactica).

But it does seem to me, personally, that if some kind of re-imagination that breaks from the past while retaining the core of the myth does not succeed, then Trek will probably be on the road to exhaustion--not theoretically, but for all practical purposes. My own feeling is that the myth is growing stale, somewhat. Too reliant on formula. Taking far too few risks. Fans obsessing over too much trivia too much, or tending to.

Too soon to call it exhausted, though.

 

[Ralphis]

I want to see Discovery before I judge whether or not Star Trek is exhausted as a TV franchise. I think Star Trek could be a perfect fit for today's 10-16 episode serialized storytelling format. I'd like to see it on a more established platform rather than CBS All Access, but since it's only $5.99 a month, I mean, I've ate slices of pizza that cost more than that.

As a movie franchise, the $343 million Star Trek Beyond made at the box office is only disappointing because it had a budget of $185 million. If they were to scale back that budget to about $100 million, or even $80 or $90 million, suddenly the returns look a lot better. You can still make a Star Trek movie with that type of budget. You'd have to rely more on sets and green screens than practical effects and shooting on location, but it can be done. Don't forget that from Wrath of Khan to Nemesis, the budgets were modest at best. Example: Star Trek VI: TUC had a budget of $27 million, which would be about $48 million today.

The issue with scaling back the movie budget, of course, is whether or not Paramount is willing in abandon their efforts to morph Star Trek from a niche property into a blockbuster franchise. I bet it's pretty unlikely they will. Which is why I think $100 million (give or take) is a good compromise. You can still make something blockbuster-y, but at the same time it can also be a little more Star Trek-y as well.

 

[KelisThePoet]

But its not just about "insider knowledge" versus the "outsider"--in both TOS and SW-OT, those original productions left such a powerful impression in the popular culture landscape that all other versions have failed to live up to its effect, and in one way or another, new productions (e.g. NuTrek & Discovery) race back to the most important/popular chapters of the franchise. Producers are not just doing that for the "insiders"/die hards, but general audiences. Going back to those aforementioned most important/popular chapters only speaks to what is believed to be the best known, best chance for the franchise to survive.

I agree, but is the Trek franchise unique or even unusual in this respect? As you point out, the same things can be said of Star Wars, a franchise no one seems to think is exhausted. The original, core characters will always be the most popular and well-known. The question becomes whether the franchise can trade on that popularity to continue telling stories and (sometimes) give the popularity of the lesser-known stuff a boost.

 

[Mudd]

The biggest problem Trek faces is that everything about its "future" is outdated.

 

[Greg Cox]

The biggest problem Trek faces is that everything about its "future" is outdated.

Well, we don't have transporter beams yet.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The biggest problem Trek faces is that everything about its "future" is outdated.

My solution is to make up new stuff.

 

[Voth commando1]

Do you mean the tech or the optimism

 

[Nerys Myk]

Do you mean the tech or the optimism

Tech. The tech should always be futuristic. Once it's not.. Forget about it.
Optimism never goes out of style.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree, but is the Trek franchise unique or even unusual in this respect? As you point out, the same things can be said of Star Wars, a franchise no one seems to think is exhausted. The original, core characters will always be the most popular and well-known. The question becomes whether the franchise can trade on that popularity to continue telling stories and (sometimes) give the popularity of the lesser-known stuff a boost.

The difference comes from the fact that Star Wars, among other franchises, as constantly worked to stay in the spotlight, to have new ways of reaching younger audiences and build up the world in a way that older members might enjoy it as well. Star Wars has taken some risks too, with the Clone Wars film, and then series, as well as the newer films.

What has Star Trek done to reinvent itself or take a risk? Kelvin Universe is great, but there isn't a marketing force behind it to make it accessible to newer audiences. CBS relies upon the Prime Universe to sell itself, which is fine, but it doesn't step out beyond that.

Star Trek may not be "exhausted" but it certainly doesn't feel fresh either.

 

[Jacob Bos]

Yes, it's been creatively exhausted.

That does not mean it's going away.

I wouldn't it's been creatively exhausted; there are a plethora of avenues to explore... not that they ARE being explored.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The biggest problem Trek faces is that everything about its "future" is outdated.

Really? I don't see Phasers, warp drive, massive starships with artificial gravity, transporters, ships capable of time travel, legitimate alien contact, communication devices that can reach orbiting ships, replicators, being current, real world standards, or things that are now a part of the past.

 

[Nyotarules]

It seems to me that people have been fretting about whether STAR TREK is dying for as long as I've been a Trekkie . . . and we're talking decades here. As noted, it waxes and wanes at times, but here we are, fifty years and counting . . . .

Most shows from the sixties wish they were this "exhausted."

Fifty years is just two generations in human terms, and those folks are still alive including the original cast. Whether it will survive when children born in 2001 are grandparents is another matter.

 

[Nyotarules]

Well, we don't have transporter beams yet.

And humans still treat each other like dirt

 

[KelisThePoet]

The difference comes from the fact that Star Wars, among other franchises, as constantly worked to stay in the spotlight, to have new ways of reaching younger audiences and build up the world in a way that older members might enjoy it as well. Star Wars has taken some risks too, with the Clone Wars film, and then series, as well as the newer films.

The Clone Wars film and series was dominated by characters from the Star Wars prequel movies, and especially by cross-over prequel characters from the original movies like Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda. The newest movies trade primarily on nostalgia for the original three main characters (The Force Awakens) and the era of their original adventures (Rogue One).

I'm not saying anything about the quality of this stuff, and right now it does seem to be more successfully using nostalgia for the original Star Wars to sell new material than Star Trek is successfully using nostalgia for its original show to sell new material (a couple of decades ago, the situation was reversed). But in the case of both franchises, the original remains the most popular and culturally relevant, so I wouldn't point to that simple fact as evidence of the exhaustion of either franchise. How the respective franchises manage that similar situation may be a different story.

 

[Shikarnov]

This may be a symptom of my holding a hammer and seeing nails everywhere, but I honestly think Star Trek's problem is one of branding.

Whatever TOS may have been in the 60s, the franchise -- especially in the Berman era -- became what NBC thought of the first pilot: too cerebral. Its reputation became one of a storyline for geeks. When I was in middle and high school in the 90s, very few of us liked Star Trek, and we were all considered antisocial outcasts, geeks, and nerds -- the kind you'd see in Trek documentaries wearing uniforms and Vulcan ears. That kind of stigma is difficult to overcome.

And while the Abrams' reboots have made Trek more accessible to general audiences (I still can't believe they had James T. Kirk make a reference to Uhura's "talented tongue" ), I think the franchise still suffers from its perception as being for uncool people.

How do you fix a damaged brand? There are only two ways that I can think of. (1) You restage and relaunch it like Abrams did, and then you wait for time to overwrite old impressions. Or (2), you replace the damaged identity and conventions and launch something perceived to be entirely new and different.

(Of course, I would disagree that Trek's brand is damaged at all. But if Viacom/Paramount was my client trying to turn Trek into something that performed to their desires, that would be my advise. In truth, though, I think they have a strong brand in its own right, which can turn a very healthy profit if they'd only make investments appropriate for the market it attracts.)

 

[Balok's Decoy]

In truth, though, I think they have a strong brand in its own right, which can turn a very healthy profit if they'd only make investments appropriate for the market it attracts.)

This I think gets to the heart of the matter. I don't really think Trek should try to be all things to all people, or to capture the ridiculous box office gross of the MCU and Star Wars. Star Trek, and correct me if I'm wrong, has pretty much always had a core audience, and it speaks to that core audience. That core audience is quite large, but did Trek ever have crossover appeal into general audience territory? I think there's value in trying to bring in new viewers, increasing Trek's appeal, sure. I definitely want to get more people into the fold. But I think Trek's history, and its rather accurate reputation for being cerebral and nerdy but not in a cool way, is just going to naturally turn some people off. I mean, Beyond is one of the coolest Trek films ever made -- it's sleek, fast-paced, fun, and has an exciting story. But my girlfriend's mom said she didn't care to see it because "Star Trek is too heady and philosophical."

 

[fireproof78]

The Clone Wars film and series was dominated by characters from the Star Wars prequel movies, and especially by cross-over prequel characters from the original movies like Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda. The newest movies trade primarily on nostalgia for the original three main characters (The Force Awakens) and the era of their original adventures (Rogue One).

I'm not saying anything about the quality of this stuff, and right now it does seem to be more successfully using nostalgia for the original Star Wars to sell new material than Star Trek is successfully using nostalgia for its original show to sell new material (a couple of decades ago, the situation was reversed). But in the case of both franchises, the original remains the most popular and culturally relevant, so I wouldn't point to that simple fact as evidence of the exhaustion of either franchise. How the respective franchises manage that similar situation may be a different story.

I agree with your point to a certain degree. I'm not saying that the originals don't have their appeal, because they certainly do (Big Three in Force Awakens, Spock Prime in 09, etc). What I am saying is that Star Wars has taken that appeal and tweaked it to suit different target audiences. Clone Wars started with Obi-Wan and Anakin, but introduced Rex and Ahsoka, who have become incredibly popular from there on. Rebels has actually had more original characters and then introduced more classic characters.

I agree that both franchises trade in nostalgia, but Star Wars uses it to gain capital with younger and younger audiences, while Star Trek has felt largely inaccessible, or, as stated by others, "damaged," to outsiders or younger generations.

Reinventing doesn't always have to mean discarding the nostalgia. Trek 09, in my opinion, paid a great deal of respect to TOS in spirit, while embracing several contemporary elements, themes and commentaries. But, it wasn't as accessible to the younger crowd.

I don't think that Star Trek needs to go full Star Wars, but there needs to be a healthy middle ground between the current way and Star Wars machine.

 

[KelisThePoet]

Picard and Data are more culturally iconic than Rex and Ahsoka.

Personally, I love the Abrams' movies (much more than I personally like stories about Picard and Data), but maybe Star Trek would have more success now if they followed the model Star Wars used with Rex and Ahsoka, a variation of the model Roddenberry and Berman used with Picard and Data. Don't just reboot the most recognizable characters and material. Combine or balance that nostalgia with some novelty, some characters a new generation can adopt as theirs. Jaylah from Beyond might be a good candidate to use in this way.

 

[fireproof78]

Picard and Data are more culturally iconic than Rex and Ahsoka.

Personally, I love the Abrams' movies (much more than I personally like stories about Picard and Data), but maybe Star Trek would have more success now if they followed the model Star Wars used with Rex and Ahsoka, a variation of the model Roddenberry and Berman used with Picard and Data. Don't just reboot the most recognizable characters and material. Combine or balance that nostalgia with some novelty, some characters a new generation can adopt as theirs. Jaylah from Beyond might be a good candidate to use in this way.

First of all, to be fair, Rex and Ahsoka are not as old as Picard and Data. But, your point is well taken.

I agree that there needs to be a blend of nostalgia and newer material, as well as a reaching out to a younger generation. Right now, Star Trek feels very isolated and limited. Star Wars at least branches out to other facets of the culture, even if they are only tangentially related.

Now, I'm not arguing for mass marketing like Star Wars. I just think that more can be done with Star Trek.