Why do they keep going back to the Kirk era?
- Thread starter Mattadd
- Start date
1) people that have never seen a minute of Star Trek are just as likely to know who Picard or Janeway are as Kirk
2) who cares what people who have never seen a minute of Star Trek have heard of? If they've never watched a minute of Star Trek by this point they're not likely to start now
2) who cares what people who have never seen a minute of Star Trek have heard of? If they've never watched a minute of Star Trek by this point they're not likely to start now
1. You're kidding yourself if you think Janeway and even Picard have the same general public awareness as Kirk and Spock. That is just not the case.
2. Any producer of a new series who says that kind of thing will be out on their ass and washing cars in Burbank before the words are even out of their mouths. New shows are meant to draw in new viewers as much or more than retaining the fans you already have. And god, the idea of a show being made specifically to pander to the fandom makes me wanna throw up.
EDIT: Also, as a lifelong fan of Star Trek, nothing makes me happier than hearing about new fans who just discovered this franchise. The more the merrier. The new Trek stuff the last couple years has brought in tons of new fans and there will be plenty of people who get into Trek for the first time through DSC and I think that's awesome. I am looking forward to the new fans.
I doubt that. The name "Captain Kirk" is thoroughly embedded in the cultural zeitgeist in a way that none of the others are (and I say that as someone who wasn't born yet when TOS was canceled and who grew up on TNG).
You could have said the same thing in 1987, but plenty of people who had never seen TOS tuned into TNG. Plus, any franchise that doesn't attract new fans is doomed by attrition.
You guys have turned this into a series popularity contest. Yes, TOS is very recognizable. No, stories do not or at least shouldn't need to be created based potential recognition. Yes, it (may) make a show more profitable, but, we viewers are not profiting from it.
Does star wars need more x-wings vs tie fighters and death stars because they are so recognizable? Should they keep going back to that? Or any of the endless reboots coming out annually. Should they do a new set of TOS reboot films with a new Kirk and Spock in 5-10 years from now? I mean they are the most recognizable Star Trek characters...
I read recently that 7 out of the ten highest grossing films last year were reboots, reimaginings, sequels or prequels. That doesn't give me the urge to say "More!" It rather just makes me sad.
And all of the shows were successful and popular except maybe Enterprise which experienced 2 sharp drops in viewers its first 2 years in a row. Ratings are relative to year, competition, timeslots, and many other factors. TNG itself had a ratings decline in its last season or 2, but 25 seasons and 500+ episodes under the same producer is nothing to sneeze at, especially for sci if show. That's approaching Law and Order. In 2002, a show needed to be above 3% to be considered profitable and viable. In 1968, it was 33%
TOS had very good viewership ratings. It often 2nd place in its timeslots. So that means it held 1/3 of all viewers in the US plus some, or 33+%
Does star wars need more x-wings vs tie fighters and death stars because they are so recognizable? Should they keep going back to that? Or any of the endless reboots coming out annually. Should they do a new set of TOS reboot films with a new Kirk and Spock in 5-10 years from now? I mean they are the most recognizable Star Trek characters...
I read recently that 7 out of the ten highest grossing films last year were reboots, reimaginings, sequels or prequels. That doesn't give me the urge to say "More!" It rather just makes me sad.
And all of the shows were successful and popular except maybe Enterprise which experienced 2 sharp drops in viewers its first 2 years in a row. Ratings are relative to year, competition, timeslots, and many other factors. TNG itself had a ratings decline in its last season or 2, but 25 seasons and 500+ episodes under the same producer is nothing to sneeze at, especially for sci if show. That's approaching Law and Order. In 2002, a show needed to be above 3% to be considered profitable and viable. In 1968, it was 33%
TOS had very good viewership ratings. It often 2nd place in its timeslots. So that means it held 1/3 of all viewers in the US plus some, or 33+%
Anyone who saw the last three movies, the first of which is the #12 best-selling Blueray ever and the second made half a billion dollars in theatres.
No issue with any of this. But it doesn't contradict the facts as I stated them - TNG, DS9 and Voyager ran seven years and finished on their own steam. No threat of cancellation. TOS was cancelled after its second, then limped through a third.
I've made my peace with the fact that the Star Trek I enjoyed most died with Nemesis. I can tolerate small doses of Enterprise, but can't suffer the stiffness, sexism, and hammyness of TOS. That era, therefore is of zero interest to me.
The TOS film era though, now that's another story.
Anyway, I'm fully aware I'm talking here about what my preferences are. I would say that the 'general public' do know who Kirk and Spock are and have no idea who Sisko and Janeway are. That seems pretty obvious, even to me. But knowing these characters doesn't mean they're interested in tuning in to see them. It doesn't even mean that they like them. I suspect a lot of people 'know' these characters as anachronisms from a decade very, very long ago and I'm not sure how that translates into viewer numbers.
So, does positioning Discovery as 'before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise' draw in an audience of people who only know those characters from memes? I'm voting no, but it seems the owners of the Star Trek property disagree and that's their right.
Really? I did not get that memo........
Why would you possibly consider moving the franchise forward when you can go back and bastardise it to your hearts content?
More original show bashing, that's all it is.
Perhaps this will sound naive to some people, but I also think Fuller chose this time period specifically because there is a story in this time period he wanted to tell. He's talked about this in interviews. There's an event in this era that he wanted to explore. Even though he's no longer working on the show, that still seems to be the show's focus.
So I think it's a little cynical to say the show is set in the TOS era solely because of brand recognition. Fuller is a legitimate creator with a vision for his shows and at least with season 1 of DSC we will see the story he wanted to tell, even if it's through the mouth of a translator. The show hardly looks like TOS to begin with.
So I think it's a little cynical to say the show is set in the TOS era solely because of brand recognition. Fuller is a legitimate creator with a vision for his shows and at least with season 1 of DSC we will see the story he wanted to tell, even if it's through the mouth of a translator. The show hardly looks like TOS to begin with.
^still, I think that in terms of 'personal brand recognition' there would be an appreciable gap between Kirk/ Picard and Janeway. And again, between Janeway and Sisko/Archer.
Yes, he did, but Fuller was just one of many producers or writers that pitched shows to P/CBS. It was his show that they chose. Others had pitched their own Star Trek shows, people like Joss Whedon, Bryan Singer, David Foster, and of course, Michael Dorn. (I'm pretty sure on Whedon )
EDIT: I think I was wrong about Whedon. I couldn't find any details on it.
Last edited:
That's a pretty narrow audience sample.
You seem to have a lot of faith in these studio projections. If one presented an example of a studio doing their homework, investing a great deal of money, and producing an utter flop, would that cause you to question the idea that studios "know what's going to appeal?" If other studios have failed to forecast audience tastes accurately, is it possible Paramount and CBS suffer from the same lack of information?
