• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Poll Should the fans be running the show?

Should the fans run the show?


  • Total voters
    114
That would be a hell no. Fandom in general can be excruciatingly anal, insular and prone to gatekeeping. It would be disastrous and destroy whatever any minor appeal the show has to a general audience and potential new fans.

However, I’m all for fans who happen to be extremely talented writers and creators taking charge; those who understand the importance of pushing forward, taking chances and not just delivering Easter eggs and fanwank.
The show should be run by professional TV creatives.
Big bonus if the creatives happen to be fans of Star Trek too - without Akiva and Terry and Henry we wouldn't have gotten anything close to the show we actually got.

Well, it might surprise you that most singers, unless they are a singer-songwriter, don't compose their own music anyway. Most of it is bought or sold-to, or written specifically for them by other musicians.
I'd imagine a good chunk of them know what they want to sing and hire a composer to translate their ideas into music.
 
Stuart Baird wasn't a fan of Star Trek. RDM was.

So there's that.

But if we're talking Average Joe BBS warriors? There's a long list of reasons why it's a no, but one that sticks out would be the zero percent mass appeal premises they'd concoct e.g. a Klingon-focused series, or the adventures of the multidimensional Enterprise-AA in the 48th century.
 
Big bonus if the creatives happen to be fans of Star Trek too - without Akiva and Terry and Henry we wouldn't have gotten anything close to the show we actually got.
However, I wouldn’t go that far
If on the other hand, you have a show that's being run by somebody who's utterly contemptuous of the original source material, you get William Dozier's Batman (you know, the one that starred Adam West and Burt Ward).
 
If on the other hand, you have a show that's being run by somebody who's utterly contemptuous of the original source material, you get William Dozier's Batman (you know, the one that starred Adam West and Burt Ward).
Insurrection has entered the chat
 
If on the other hand, you have a show that's being run by somebody who's utterly contemptuous of the original source material, you get William Dozier's Batman (you know, the one that starred Adam West and Burt Ward).

While that's an excellent point, considering how much of a bastardized version of the source Dozier's Batman had been, an argument can be made for someone not fond of comics capable of creating a great adaptation (though an extremely rare case), such as Kenneth Johnson, who brought The Incredible Hulk to TV, and as far as i'm concerned, its the best, most mature take on the character ever put before cameras.
 
If on the other hand, you have a show that's being run by somebody who's utterly contemptuous of the original source material, you get William Dozier's Batman (you know, the one that starred Adam West and Burt Ward).

Hey, at least it isn’t Velma.
 
A fan whose sole interest/experience is with Trek....no.

A fan who loves the franchise and surrounds themselves with other points of view, including those who aren't fans/didn't grow up with the franchise, yes.
 
The Batman comics had been silly for much of the time prior to the TV show (especially from the late 50s to 1964) and didn't start becoming really dark and serious until after the show was cancelled and Dennis O'Neill (with artists like Neal Adams) brought the comics back to the original 1939 roots.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top