Is confusion driving away new fans?

[Joshua Howard]

...I was thinking about how many Star Trek movies and shows there are, and the amount of difficulty that a potential new fan or audience might have knowing where to start.

I am 19, and for the greater part grew up oblivious to the 'Star Trek Universe' as fans would call it; I started off on coincidence by buying STTMP, but at that time I was extremely confused when it came to how the TV shows were related to the movies, what order the movies were supposed to be in, and why there was more than one TV show. I think as a younger demographic consumer I was actually turned away from the Star Trek phenomena for a certain period of time simply because of it's dynamic as such an expansive media collection.

Just to toss it out there, do you think it might be beneficial for marketing if product packaging reflected a bit more concise "History" (explaining, for example, TOS's relationship to TNG, etc.) and actually incorporated all of the shows and movies in a numerical order by stardate - so that someone new to Trek would automatically assume that TOS precedes TMP, and soforth. Perhaps a paper paphlet that would explain the history and orientation of Star Trek as a whole and be imbedded with the product would suffice?

Expanding the thought to the progress of Star Trek in the future - If the new generation that didn't grow up with Star Trek doesn't understand the dynamics of the series as they are portrayed in the present collections, it's that much harder to build the cult interest that potentially could be spawned (or revived) with something such as STXI coming out next year.

 

[Therin of Andor]

...I was thinking about how many Star Trek movies and shows there are, and the amount of difficulty that a potential new fan or audience might have knowing where to start.

JJ Abrams is calling his movie "Star Trek" for just that reason.

I think as a younger demographic consumer I was actually turned away from the Star Trek phenomena for a certain period of time simply because of it's dynamic as such an expansive media collection.

So start fresh with JJ Abrams' movie.

Just to toss it out there, do you think it might be beneficial for marketing if product packaging reflected a bit more concise "History" (explaining, for example, TOS's relationship to TNG, etc.) and actually incorporated all of the shows and movies in a numerical order by stardate

Stardates? That is a rather geeky way to intimidate new viewers. And not too much in ST has to be seen in any particular order anyway.

Perhaps a paper paphlet that would explain the history and orientation of Star Trek as a whole and be imbedded with the product would suffice?

A pamphlet? In 2008? And "embedded' in what? If you mean the DVD boxed sets, they already have little guidebooks in the ENT episode sets that cross reference all the aliens and events mentioned later in the other series and movies.

And Titan's ST magazine does similar retrospectives.

There is a book coming out in September called "Star Trek 101" by Paula Block and Terry Erdmann for Pocket Books (Paula is the person at CBS Consumer Products who vets all licensed ST tie-in manuscripts and proposals), its purpose is to be a primer for new ST fans. A guide to the episodes of each series, major characters. That should suffice.

Either that, or hop online to "Memory Alpha".

it's that much harder to build the cult interest that potentially could be spawned (or revived) with something such as STXI coming out next year.

that's why you can start fresh. With JJ's movie, then you can expand your horizons at your own pace while waiting for a sequel.

 

[Lynx]

No, I don't think that is driving away possible new fans.

I mean we have 3 CSI series and 2 Stargate series which attracts many new fans.

I think that the problem is the sad reputation Trek has gotten for being "geeky" and "nerdy".

I don't understand why because I find a phenomenon like Star Wars more "nerdy" in that aspect (although I actually like Star Wars as well).

 

[-Brett-]

If someone's as dumb as you're suggesting, Star Trek's not for them anyway.

What order do the movies go in? That number in the title is a not-so-subtle hint.

Voyager and Enterprise were dumbed down in an effort to appeal to a wider audience. Look how successful that strategy was.

 

[Green Shirt]

To cut through all the confusion, they can try this simple solution -- look up the date when the production was made. That's no more challenging than looking for the expiration date on a bottle of milk.

 

[Michael]

If someone's as dumb as you're suggesting, Star Trek's not for them anyway.

I think that's a wierd way to look at it. Star Trek is for everyone. And how is one stupid just because he can't figure out where in the Trek timeline the movies are set? Or the different spin-offs? I fail to see where that is stupid.

 

[Captain Kate]

I think 'Star Trek' and 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' are fairly obvious, but I can see where a newcomer could get confused with exactly what Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise are at first. The films aren't always referred to by their numbers, so if you weren't au fait with how they correspond I can see how it could be a bit unclear. Not enough to 'put off' new fans, though, as these days it only takes a quick look at imdb or somewhere.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Sorry but I don't understand the confusion. Sure, the characters change everytime the studio gets a 7-year itch... but I really can't think of any long-running series where the original line-up stuck together from beginning to end.

If they're flying around space at warp speed, exploring, talking about phasers, referring to each other as Captain -- Engineer -- Doctor... then what else could you be watching?

If there's anything driving viewers away, that's more to do with the fact they really don't like Star Trek! That's fair enough in my book. There's plenty of other formulaic entertainment out there that I don't see the appeal of either...

 

[The Wormhole]

To cut through all the confusion, they can try this simple solution -- look up the date when the production was made. That's no more challenging than looking for the expiration date on a bottle of milk.

I work in a grocery store. You'd be surprised how confused people can get by expiry dates. Just a few months ago, someone actually pointed to the date which was written SEP142008 and asked "how do I figure out what date that is." Worse yet, this person was a fellow employee of mine.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I think they should bring out a box set with the entire collection of Star Trek in chronological order. It should go: Remastered TOS, the older Trek movies, TNG, the TNG Movies, DS9 and then Voyager. It should also include a DVD explaining Star Trek so people can understand it better before watching.

It would be the ultimate box set.

 

[The Wormhole]

I think they should bring out a box set with the entire collection of Star Trek in chronological order. It should go: Remastered TOS, the older Trek movies, TNG, the TNG Movies, DS9 and then Voyager. It should also include a DVD explaining Star Trek so people can understand it better before watching.

It would be the ultimate box set.

I think back in 2005 Amazon was selling a set of Star Trek in its entirety.

 

[Phoenicianknight]

You forgot to include TAS....

 

[Green Shirt]

To cut through all the confusion, they can try this simple solution -- look up the date when the production was made. That's no more challenging than looking for the expiration date on a bottle of milk.

I work in a grocery store. You'd be surprised how confused people can get by expiry dates. Just a few months ago, someone actually pointed to the date which was written SEP142008 and asked "how do I figure out what date that is." Worse yet, this person was a fellow employee of mine.

Well, with the date all run together like that, it does look like its in stardate format.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Lack of publicity is the main factor here. No new first-run Star Trek on TV and no movies means that few people would think about renting DVDs and catching up. The reruns probably draw in a few folks - showing Star Trek on the Sci Fi Channel especially (you'd think Sci Fi viewers would already know Trek, but I'm not so certain about that, especially among the Ghost Hunters crowd). Just wait till Trek XI hits theaters.

If someone's as dumb as you're suggesting, Star Trek's not for them anyway.

I think that's a wierd way to look at it. Star Trek is for everyone. And how is one stupid just because he can't figure out where in the Trek timeline the movies are set? Or the different spin-offs? I fail to see where that is stupid.

And it's not a question of stupidity but of motivation. Someone wants to be entertained. There's something easy, like CSI, or something that takes additional work, like sorting thru all the Star Trek series. A person can be very smart but still lazy enough that they'd prefer entertainment that doesn't take work.

 

[Sector 7]

Responding to the OP: I can see how it would be intimidating for a 'newbie'.
Forget the inane comments saying they are dumb or should know better. I think the biggest intimidation comes from 'know it all' idiots who make fun of anyone who doesn't know every little detail of every episode. It takes away the enjoyment of Trek.
If you DON'T get stuck on canon, you can really enjoy Star Trek at any part where you start.
Early movies have numbers, but other than that... just enjoy the stories told. Most are not that dependent on other episodes.
Like someone said, Memory Alpha is a good resource and learning tool. Sadly, the worst resource is asking someone who is a Trek geek. They will have you so confused you will start watching BSG!

 

[Rabid Trekkie]

...I was thinking about how many Star Trek movies and shows there are, and the amount of difficulty that a potential new fan or audience might have knowing where to start.

I am 19, and for the greater part grew up oblivious to the 'Star Trek Universe' as fans would call it; I started off on coincidence by buying STTMP, but at that time I was extremely confused when it came to how the TV shows were related to the movies, what order the movies were supposed to be in, and why there was more than one TV show. I think as a younger demographic consumer I was actually turned away from the Star Trek phenomena for a certain period of time simply because of it's dynamic as such an expansive media collection.

Just to toss it out there, do you think it might be beneficial for marketing if product packaging reflected a bit more concise "History" (explaining, for example, TOS's relationship to TNG, etc.) and actually incorporated all of the shows and movies in a numerical order by stardate - so that someone new to Trek would automatically assume that TOS precedes TMP, and soforth. Perhaps a paper paphlet that would explain the history and orientation of Star Trek as a whole and be imbedded with the product would suffice?

Expanding the thought to the progress of Star Trek in the future - If the new generation that didn't grow up with Star Trek doesn't understand the dynamics of the series as they are portrayed in the present collections, it's that much harder to build the cult interest that potentially could be spawned (or revived) with something such as STXI coming out next year.

The movies are rather self explanatory until you get to Generations.

Now the tv series can be a bit trickier, especially since Paramount decided to run a prequel series. Still, each series stands on its own. DS9 played around with the world of Trek more than any of the other series, and even then you can keep up if you don't know who Kor, Koloth, and Kang are or have never heard of a Tribble. Still if someone is looking for a series it can't hurt to ask the guy behind the counter, he should at least know which one has Spock in it. With each series relatively standing on its own, it should be easy to start with one, and if you like it just look up the others online and decide which to get next.

 

[JoeZhang]

New fans (in significant numbers) are attracted by new things - which Star Trek currently doesn't have.

 

[Philo]

Temis and Sector 7 have pretty much got it as far as I'm concerned. I can easily imagine that if it were me, I wouldn't necessarily find it confusing but I would definitely find it intimidating and way too much work. Which isn't laziness btw, Temis. It's...well, why would I go to that much work if I didn't even know if I'd like the thing?

Edit to add: I also feel a lot of pressure added when something is very popular (and Trek would seen as that, even now, by virtue of it's large and intense fan base). It builds in expectation that takes away from watching something objectively and for fun.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Which isn't laziness btw, Temis. It's...well, why would I go to that much work if I didn't even know if I'd like the thing?

I couldn't think of a single term for it, really. It's lack of motivation combined with the distraction of other entertainments that are more attractive partially just for being easier.

 

[Kryton]

You forgot to include TAS....

Nobody "forgets" to include TAS.