...person who shouldn't voice their opinion. Correct? They were successful because they made tons of money, they made tons of money because there is a built in audience for anything Star Trek. Put "Star Trek" on the marquee of any theatre and people will flock in and pay, regardless of what is being shown. But will it be considered "classic" in fifty years? Did it attract new fans to any degree, or just reel in the old ones again? "Reinvigorated"? What needed to be reinvigorated? Something that had been consistently popular for, at that point, over a half century, with five TV series, nine or ten movies, and a warehouse of merchandising? No, what we got was not "reinvigorating" it was reinventing; dump all that has gone before, keep the names and terminology, and create something entirely different that appeals to those raised on the internet and iphones, for whom anything over a year old is outdated and must be updated - all flash and noise and chaotic action scenes with frat boy heroes and little vision, concept, or depth. And I see this as the direction of any new ST, which I do not consider "true" ST so will not watch. (Let's "reboot" Gunsmoke with Marshall Dillon and Miss Kitty as alien vampires and Festus as a zombie; I've no doubt such a movie would be quite popular today ...but would it be "Gunsmoke"?) It is time to let ST rest in peace. "All In the Family" - excellent writing, acting, direction; well deserving of its status as a classic ...until the departure of Mike and Gloria, which removed the entire concept of the show - the conflict between the ultra liberal Meathead and the ultra conservative Archie, mediated by Dingbat and Gloria. They should have pulled the plug then. But no, there are still sponsors waiting, money in hand. So the next season sees Archie and Edith take in a boarder, a liberal Hispanic lady (written in such a stereotyped style I'm surprised this got on the air even back then); didn't work, she was gone at the end of the season. The next season saw them resort to that hoary old plot line that is the staple of TV writers bereft of creativity - bring on the cute precocious little kid; so the bunkers get custody of Stephanie. And what was once a program of social commentary and satire becomes the stale sitcom stereotype of grumpy old man and cute precocious kid. The sad deterioration of a once great show all because they wanted to milk a cash cow til they killed it. As for Happy Days' sequels ... Laverne and Squirrely was one of the most idiotic, inane programs I've ever seen, there was not one likable character on it. And that is why it was so popular, it was LCD programming (least common denominator) - make something dumb enough that anyone can watch it and they will. Just my opinion.
Absolutely. Everything on TV, broadcast or cable, and now everything on the internet, is all about profits. Which I find irksome whenever a local broadcast station touts something as "presented as a public service by this station" ...then why does it have as many commercials as anything else you show? But some programs transcend this by offering something to the public, and often the stations, beyond their purely monetary status. The Hallmark Hall of Fame broadcasts never generated enough revenue to pay for themselves, but were seen by networks and stations as status programs. And many programs become popular because they have something to say; eventually they have nothing more to say but are kept on the air not by their producers but by the network suits who want to perpetuate the income stream rather than retire the show and devise something else as good. Nothing lasts forever.
No, not correct. All opinions are allowed; just the opinions that immediately blame Abrams for all things horrible with Star Trek get extremely old extremely fast. Not remotely true. Star Trek Nemesis was a box office flop. Even hardcore Star Trek fans didn’t bother with it. The reason why the Abrams films were successful was because people who under ordinary circumstances would never go see a film with “Star Trek” in the title went to see them. I doubt any Star Trek production since TOS will ever be considered “classic” to anyone other than Star Trek fans. I would assume it did, but that’s irrelevant. What matters is that CBS realized that Star Trek was still enough of a viable property to commit to producing several new shows. You’re joking, right? Star Trek as a property was dead after ENT got cancelled, after consistently poor and dropping ratings, and several box office bombs movie-wise. In the nicest way possible, I’m going to say that all of the above diatribe is so one-sidedly biased as to not even be worth my time to deliberate.
So nice to encounter open minds. Every comment here is biased to that person's viewpoint, including yours. Again you imply I should not voice my opinion.
Re-running DSC and PIC during the summer wouldn't be a bad idea, to give the shows more exposure and entice people who haven't subscribed to CBS All Access to do so if they want to catch new episodes sooner and they fall into the "I can't wait any longer! I'm subscribing now!" category.
Hardly consistently popular; it was in obvious and objective decline. Box office which peaked in 1986, consistently weak box office outside the US, continually declining US TV ratings from the end of TNG, a brand so on the nose that its name was dropped from one series in a failed attempt to bring in viewers - all culminating in a cancelled show and a movie which was a critical and commercial failure. It’s fine to not be a fan of the recent instalments. Patronising and dismissing those who are is just being the sort of toxic fan who discourages people from getting into Trek.
Yep, exactly. It's kind of like the Breaking Bad effect. Not many people were watching it until it appeared on Netflix. But then suddenly a lot of people were watching it, and AMC viewership went up significantly the next season mostly due to the new fans that saw the show on Netflix.
In a manner condescending, disrespectful, and certainly not open minded. If my opinions are not worth your time, then do not waste your time on them.
Enjoy whatever you like. But be open to honest critique and different impressions. The state of Star Trek today is, for me, like many of the recent superhero movies. As a kid I loved comic books, had literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of them (oh, if i had them today they would probably pay for a nice house); I see promos for movies and wonder, "did we even read the same comics?!" In a reader's/writer's group on Farcebook recently someone posted an image from a new Superman "graphic novel" (apparently the modern term for "comic book") - a muscle bound figure in a shiny black outfit with a face like death warmed over, I thought this was the villain ...no it was "Superman". I am all for creativity and individuality, but believe once you stray too far from the original concept of something it is time to leave it alone and develop your ideas as a new creation.
Have you read my posts? I merely state my own opinions, but those who disagree feel a need to castigate me for that. "Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course, without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objective, and by considering each and every one's valid perception, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what the hell I was going to say."
Pointing out how your opinions are wrong based on evidence is not being condescending, disrespectful or non-open-minded. It’s simply that you just don’t like hearing the truth. And I’m fine with no longer replying to your posts.
??? Just pointing out that for most of us, even up through the movies, Superman has always been an athletic, handsome guy in a red/blue suit with a cape, now he has suddenly become a grotesque, musclebound, character in a black suit with no cape. I assume because this goth (?) look is popular. But I contend this is not Superman. If someone wants to create this character, fine, give him whatever powers you like, write whatever stories you like; but don't call him Superman.
People liked the first Abrams film because it was the first time in a long while that Trek was actually fun to watch. You couldn't say that about Star Trek when all it offered was ENTERPRISE and NEMESIS, and they rightfully tanked because of how mediocre they were. I personally don't think the recent iterations of Trek have yet matched the best the franchise has offered in the past, but it's at least more enjoyable than the doldrums of the early 2000s. I didn't even think the 2009 film was all that great, but boy it no longer felt like the franchise running on Valium like when I saw "Broken Bow" in 2001.
The point he's making was that comic books have a long history of having a gimmicky cover in order to draw readers in to understand the context of that cover. What you describe sounds no different to what comics did even as far back as the 1950s like this:
That's a lot of assumptions. I haven't read the comic in question, but did you consider there was maybe an in-universe reason for Superman's look? It's like season 2 of Discovery, and the backlash against Spock's look. People said he was hipster, emo, goth but guess what? He looked that way because he'd been on the run and was mentally impaired following a mind meld. He hadn't the opportunity for a haircut or shave.
That and the whole “SPOCK IS WANTED FOR MURDER!”, which of course turned out to be bunk, as it usually is in gimmicky hooks as far back as TOS like when Kirk was accused of murdering a subordinate because there was video footage, which turned out to be doctored.