You had right until this point. How did Star Trek grow it wrong in the first place? The fan base helped keep Star Trek alive, and is part of the market CBS wants to attrached.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Sure the fan base keeps it alive, but Star Trek as a franchise has been a mismanaged mess for a long while and grew under either individuals too naive as to how to properly build a franchise, those looking to bolster their egos, or those aiming to just milk the cash cow. From Gene and Rick to the current production teams of Paramount/CBS appointees Star Trek has always had the issue of finding one path to work that fans have had the unfortunate duty of trying to piece together and make something clear of it. If Star Trek had grown under one unified and mature vision maybe it would not be the fractured state it currently is. Don't get me wrong Gene had a vision, but he had little to no understanding of how to grow it up and properly keep that vision his own. On top of that with not understanding how TV and Film production worked in the 60s and 70s the studio executive sharks ate Gene up and created the first major crack in the armor of Star Trek. Since then its been growing from Rick Berman essentially ousting Gene and going on his own power trip all the way to ENT, and now with CBS doing their streaming service cash grab it's clear that Star Trek has been an abused child indeed. So again yes the fans have kept Star Trek alive, but should a franchise be running on life support provided by the fans along with the fracturing it currently suffers from? I'd say no. Which is why Star Trek really needs to be in the hands of someone who will not only maintain a singular vision for the franchise, but also look to produce dedicated content with heart and positive growth in mind. Will that happen, probably not as TV/film production doesn't work that way anymore but in the end is why Star Trek really just needs a new start.
You're making an important point about one thing here: all the talk of "general audiences" comes down to nothing more nor less than business interests. But I (or you, or any other fan) really have no motivation to look at things from a business point of view. I'm not a CBS executive or shareholder. What I'm interested in is the show's creative integrity and entertainment value. I really don't give a flying fuck if it's financially successful for CBS if it's not actually good on those terms.
Indeed, if it's not good I rather hope it isn't successful, because not-good things making money just gives studios incentives to make more not-good things. Lowest-common-denominator shows and movies may pull big audiences, but they're seldom remembered for their creative qualities.
Joss Whedon's Firefly lasted all of 13 episodes (and one movie). Is there anyone who thinks they'd be happier if Whedon had handed over creative control to the kibitzers at Fox, and the show had stayed on the air longer, but only as a shadow of what it was intended to be?
So why defend them? That's not how Trek started off, and I'd hate to think that's what any of us want it to become.
(Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by the word "extremes" here. My sense is that you're using it to signify anything that doesn't pull big "general audiences," but feel free to clarify...)
Not defending them. Merely what it is until either they choose to or are forced to sell the property (believe me I'd prefer it not be a CBS property in current). Extremes would be individuals who are clearly rooted in a "my way or the highway" mentality concerning the franchise. I'd say they're a loud minority of fans but none the less a component that is visible and brightly so that does make it harder on everyone else. As for how Trek started like my post above, yes it started with Gene's vision but once he naively feel for the studios going into the 60s & 70s it was downhill from there not that i'm a big fan of Gene either but at the least he had a pure vision.
Exactly. It's entirely arbitrary, because TOS and TNG/VOY and DS9 and ENT and DSC have different feels anyway. The movies, to a few exceptions such as TFF and INS, don't feel like their series either. So what one considers to be "true Trek" is entirely subjective.
I do, and I think you should. Because if the franchise is not successful, it'll cease to be, and you and I won't be getting new chapters. If it IS successful, then we will get new chapters; some good, some bad. Isn't that better? I think so. So it's in both our best interests if Star Trek appeals to more than just our personal sensibilities.
When the 2009 movie came out, and before I saw it, my principal wish was that the movie be successful, not that I liked it, for that very reason: Star Trek would endure, and at some point down the line I'd get a series or movie I'd love. And if not, then at least the franchise would live on for other fans rather than none.
I honestly think that is giving Gene way too much credit for what he meant to start. If he had his vision, why did he plan to abandon it so many times? He had been in TV long enough to know how it worked and play the studio games. In point of fact, he got burned early on by NBC and didn't trust the studios after that.
As much as I like Star Trek, it never had a plan as a franchise. It simply became one, and Gene and others used it to continue making money. The whole cash grab thing has been part of Star Trek from the beginning.
Honestly, if Star Trek is on life support, as you suppose, then perhaps it just needs to die. If it doesn't have anything relevant to say or add to contemporary culture then why continue it? Star Trek had its impact upon culture and now other things are doing so.
I honestly disagree. If the bad outweighs the good, we're better off without it.
Star Trek would be no less fondly remembered (and the good stuff no less watchable) if VOY, ENT, and the Abrams films had never been made. (It would be more fondly remembered if the franchise owners had taken the shot of creative adrenaline that was offered to them some years back in the form of Straczynski's reboot pitch... but alas, no such luck.)
I used to like this restaurant, but then the management changed and ever since then the food has been disappointing. But I keep coming back regularly, in the hope that one day they'll get it right again...
Sounds perfectly reasonable. It's not that it can't offer something new and meaningful, but if that's not how it's being handled, if it's just another retread franchise being milked for the last dime, then again, we're all better off without it.
And I don't expect it to offer something new and meaningful. I think ST 09 and ID came the closest, certainly more engaging for me on a personal level.
But, if Star Trek is so beholden to its fan base that it can't move forward, then it needs to be allowed to rest and something else carry forward. There is no need to watch something just because "Star Trek."
To be clear, this isn't me hating on the franchise. But, the list of franchises that I enjoy that are currently still having content produced for the them is short enough to be counted on one hand. But, I still find enjoyment in those franchises that have been retired.
New and meaning really are found at a personal level, not from entertainment.
That seems illogical to me. You're better off with zero good movies than with fewer than not?
"Remembered"? I want good Trek in the future, not the past. I've already got my DVDs and Blu-Rays.
This goes back to what I said in my earlier post about fans; some of them are just caught up about nostalgia and don't want it to change. It's only a question of where they draw the line. I don't care how Star Trek is remembered by history. I want to get more of it for me and others to enjoy, and that's what the studio is trying to do, so I'm not complaining, even though I didn't like Beyond very much.
I just can't understand your way of thinking. You're basically saying that, if you can't personally enjoy most of Trek, then no one else should have that option, either.
If it's your favourite restaurant in the world, yes. But the analogy fails because the two experiences are not comparable: there are plenty of other restaurants, but only one Star Trek.
That pitch was awful. Typically, those two wanted to turn TOS into another long, dull "puzzle" arc - Crusade, but leveraging the resources of other people's shows that had been actual popular successes.
There's a link to it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/3u0vpn/j_michael_straczynskis_2004_series_pitch_star/
I didn't know this existed. Will read the whole thing. But this sounds promising:
When I read the pitch years ago, all I could think was Crusade 2.0
Way off topic, but I am not a fan of having Trek at any cost.
Well, no...it's easy enough to just not watch.
Last edited:
No but as Serveaux said, you can walk away from it rather than hope it dies off.
When I figured out Voyager was not going to work for me I stopped watching. I still checked out Enterprise and Discovery.
Similar threads
