Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over

[Vger23]

IMHO the reason why TOS was rebooted, but the TNG era (or later shows) have not been is basically the following:

1. TOS is culturally iconic, but sadly unwatchable to a large number of people. I know many Gen-X/Millennial Trekkies who simply will not watch TOS episodes (although they will watch the TOS movies). In contrast, people of my age cohort regularly do rewatches of the other Trek series.

2. The TOS cast was partially deceased, and otherwise elderly, when ST09 came out. Thus you'd need an entirely new cast to revisit the era with the same characters. At that point you might as well reboot. In contrast, every TNG cast member is still alive, in relatively good health (even though they're nearly all 60+), and still active as actors. It would be insulting to revive now with a younger sexier cast. Worse, it would trigger nerd rage about why they didn't just get the old gang back together again. Better to let the whole thing lie low for another generation.



Once again, why are we debating about what would have "crossover appeal?" As long as new Trek TV is in the ghetto of CBS All Access, it's only going to be hardcore fans who will shell out cold hard cash to see it. No one else will sign up for the free preview just because they're curious about this Star Trek thing.

Oh...and your very first sentence under #1 is it. That's absolutely the entire reason. Every other reason you wrote is literally in the margins. Bottom line is that TOS is a cultural icon. The spin-offs are good, well-liked, often highly enjoyable NICHE products. You don't reboot niche products in a gamble to revitalize a major motion picture franchise. You reboot major cultural icons.

And TNG and friends ain't that.

 

[Refuge]

Precisely my point.

But even more to the heart of it-- what makes more sense:

1. Star Trek Voyager, which endured a lukewarm run on network television with declining ratings is now suddenly a cult classic and massively popular in Netflix rewatches, which is a fact that somehow eludes Paramount and CBS as they fight to market the franchise

Or

2. People watch VOY on Netflix more than TOS or TNG because they likely didn't even watch much of VOY in first run, it wasn't nearly as played in syndication, and people probably didn't bother with the DVDs...so it's a cheap and easy way to get up to speed?

That doesn't make it popular, good, marketable or relevant.

And we will never know the truth because it's data without context.

Or... people who had Neflix just like, wanted to watch what they watched. Entertainment works that way

 

[Vger23]

Or... people who had Neflix just like, wanted to watch what they watched. Entertainment works that way

You really want to believe it, don't you?
Look, I don't have time to argue...I need to go watch VOY on Netflix!!

 

[Refuge]

You really want to believe it, don't you?

Do you think Neflix lied? Maybe they did - it's a conspiracy, lol.

Yes I do believe that for whatever reasons people who tune in to watch Neflix watch what they want to. That's what I do.

 

[eschaton]

Oh...and your very first sentence under #1 is it. That's absolutely the entire reason. Every other reason you wrote is literally in the margins. Bottom line is that TOS is a cultural icon. The spin-offs are good, well-liked, often highly enjoyable NICHE products. You don't reboot niche products in a gamble to revitalize a major motion picture franchise. You reboot major cultural icons.

But culturally iconic is not the same thing as popular. Elvis, for example, is culturally iconic. But a lot less people listen to Elvis now on a day-to-day basis today than listen to Drake or Taylor Swift.

 

[CorporalClegg]

But culturally iconic is not the same thing as popular. Elvis, for example, is culturally iconic. But a lot less people listen to Elvis now on a day-to-day basis today than listen to Drake or Taylor Swift.

You're comparing apple/oranges. But if someone were to update or "reboot" Elvis for the 2010s, the end result would look a lot like Taylor Swift.

 

[fireproof78]

Well if you want to source more, go for it The Netflix audience preferences are a matter of record so who knows what you might find.

The implications are still in question.

 

[Vger23]

Do you think Neflix lied? Maybe they did - it's a conspiracy, lol.

Yes I do believe that for whatever reasons people who tune in to watch Neflix watch what they want to. That's what I do.

You missed my edit!

 

[Refuge]

You missed my edit!

Oh I did.

That's the spirit, lol. Enjoy

 

[Vger23]

I think there are a few people who are looking at some things with a considerable bias given their own personal affections for particular segments of the franchise.



But that's none of my business of course.

 

[Vger23]

Oh I did.

That's spirit, lol. Enjoy

And I'm not joking! Getting "Bliss" up right now...

 

[fireproof78]

I think there are a few people who are looking at some things with a considerable bias given their own personal affections for particular segments of the franchise.



But that's none of my business of course.

I prefer to labor under my own preconceived notions.

 

[Refuge]

And I'm not joking! Getting "Bliss" up right now...

Well I really do hope you enjoy it. I understand it's not everyone's favourite iteration and the respect for it is a personal preference, but it's family.

 

[Mudd]

Eh, I dunno. If every fucking superhero in existence can get their own Netflix show, I don't see why we couldn't have some Trek series which focused on more small-bore stories away from the "core" of Trek.

Because people want to watch superheroes. Fact of the current market, duh.

CBS is already making one Trek show that manages to entertain a little group of trekkies while being ignored by everyone else: STD. Why do you think you're entitled to one of your own?

TNG might get another go one day because in it's time it was a mainstream phenomenon. It's the only Trek other than TOS that's true of.

 

[eschaton]

Because people want to watch superheroes. Fact of the current market, duh..

Yeah, I know. I don't understand why comic book shows are so popular, they seem boring as hell to me personally. But that's probably because the appeal of comic books is basically entirely about character, which honestly falls way, way down in the list of things that I'm interested in when it comes to fiction.

CBS is already making one Trek show that manages to entertain a little group of trekkies while being ignored by everyone else: STD. Why do you think you're entitled to one of your own?

TNG might get another go one day because in it's time it was a mainstream phenomenon. It's the only Trek other than TOS that's true of.

I don't expect, or even want, a DS9 reboot, as much as I love that show.

 

[Jayson1]

If people want to know what is the most popular Trek show you should just ignore the facts and go with your gut instinct. That will tell more than anything else.

Jason

 

[Jadeb]

I can't say I understand the notion that the mainstream audience would flock to a remake of a show they consider unwatchable cheap tat because they think it's somehow culturally important.

I tend to think the success of a new Trek spinoff/reboot/whatever would depend a lot less on previous Trek shows than on how slick/cool/exciting/non-nerdy the marketing makes the new show look (and on the general buzz and Rotten Tomatoes score).

The average person couldn't tell you when Voyager was set, what it was about or when it was on TV. For attracting non-fans, the time period is irrelevant.

 

[LJones41]

TNG might get another go one day because in it's time it was a mainstream phenomenon. It's the only Trek other than TOS that's true of.

You really think so? I don't.

Ok, so on that basis...it's a fact that VOY is the second-least popular show in the franchise, based on the fact that it has the second-least number of initiated discussions in its forum.

You're basing the popularity of any Trek show, based upon the number of discussions . . . on this forum?

Personally, I don't think the level of popularity for each Trek show should really matter. Every single one of us have different tastes on which shows we like and which shows we don't like. What's the point in beating the drum for a particular show, when there is going to be someone who prefers something different? Wait . . . I take that back. What is the point in pretending that all of us share the same tastes in Trek shows or any other form of entertainment?

 

[cultcross]

I can't say I understand the notion that the mainstream audience would flock to a remake of a show they consider unwatchable cheap tat because they think it's somehow culturally important.

I tend to think the success of a new Trek spinoff/reboot/whatever would depend a lot less on previous Trek shows than on how slick/cool/exciting/non-nerdy the marketing makes the new show look (and on the general buzz and Rotten Tomatoes score).

The average person couldn't tell you when Voyager was set, what it was about or when it was on TV. For attracting non-fans, the time period is irrelevant.

This. When playing to those outside the fanbase, which really should be the point if we want the franchise to be sustainable, the nerdy details of when in a fictional timeline it's set or what alternate universe it is matter not one jot. What matters is whether the public think this is an exciting/engaging show which they want to watch. If you can drop some culturally familiar elements in there, like the Delta badge, a handful of names of people, ships and places, great, it helps ground the product in a particular franchise, but that's it. Nobody is sat there hoping that this new show will finally address the aftermath of the Dominion war.

 

[Firebird]

You're basing the popularity of any Trek show, based upon the number of discussions . . . on this forum?

No, they were taking the piss out of whom they were replying to.