The Sobering Effect of the Star Trek XI Trailer

[AlanC9]

TOS' ratings, when analyzed by current criteria, would've had Star Trek declared the Number One show on NBC back in '69, and were actually higher than TNG, at least initially (eventually, TNG's numbers did get a bit higher). At least until the first run syndication got more crowded with Hercules, Xena, and Babylon 5.

Also of note is that "Turnabout Intruder" garnerd a 8.8 rating, its lowest point, which was somewhat higher than Enterprise's premiere.

Well, directly comparing ratings from different TV eras isn't very useful. But the main point is correct; TOS had good ratings, unrecognized in the era because it was often watched on the second TV in a household, IIRC. I'm not sure the demographics were very good, though; did advertisers of that era want to reach the people that TOS was reaching?

As for the general topic, not feeling like TOS is probably a good thing. Honestly, I know a lot more people who think of TOS the way they think of the 60s Batman series than think it was a really great show. If people thought the film was going to feel like TOS this project would be dead, dead, dead.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Also of note ...

No, not really of any note at all. Posting that reveals a lack of understanding of the context of the ratings.

And "Star Trek" never approached being the highest rated show on NBC, no matter how the numbers were analyzed ("correctly" here translates to "in the manner that best supports my position"). A bit of fannish myth-making, there, that later generations have been too willing to buy into.

 

[Neopeius]

My teenaged sons think the trailer looks so contrived.

Then they must be morons?

Seriously, my 4-year-old just saw Doomsday Machine and she was gritting her teeth and crossing her fingers when it looked like Kirk was going to die at the end there. She was also very upset at Decker's sacrifice.

TOS has still got it and always will. NuTrek is flavor of the month.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

People like that phrase, "flavor of the month."

Does anyone ever stop to remember why "flavor of the month" is a marketing tool that works?

Here's a clue: it's got nothing to do with trying to draw attention to a product that isn't selling, so just skip that mistake going in.

 

[AlanC9]

TOS has still got it and always will. NuTrek is flavor of the month.

Do you mean the movie, or anything past TOS?

It's great that TOS works for a 4-year-old. I'm just worried about the teenagers.

I often feel that we give TOS a pass in places where a newer edition wouldn't get one. Like "Galileo Seven," where apparently nobody involved with the production actually knew what "orbit" meant.

 

[Neopeius]

TOS has still got it and always will. NuTrek is flavor of the month.

Do you mean the movie, or anything past TOS?

It's great that TOS works for a 4-year-old. I'm just worried about the teenagers.

I often feel that we give TOS a pass in places where a newer edition wouldn't get one. Like "Galileo Seven," where apparently nobody involved with the production actually knew what "orbit" meant.

Ah, I think we were critical then too. The Constellation looked like a melted model kit. Galileo Seven had many problems, orbit being just one We loved TOS, warts and all.

 

[Neopeius]

People like that phrase, "flavor of the month."

Does anyone ever stop to remember why "flavor of the month" is a marketing tool that works?

Here's a clue: it's got nothing to do with trying to draw attention to a product that isn't selling, so just skip that mistake going in.

Dennis, when are you going to finish Exeter? That was a quality product.

 

[trevanian]

TOS has still got it and always will. NuTrek is flavor of the month.

Do you mean the movie, or anything past TOS?

It's great that TOS works for a 4-year-old. I'm just worried about the teenagers.

I often feel that we give TOS a pass in places where a newer edition wouldn't get one. Like "Galileo Seven," where apparently nobody involved with the production actually knew what "orbit" meant.

I thought TNG was a really bad offender early on, and that was 20 years into trek, when you'd figure they had enough experts to avoid a goof.

Whereas at the time of g7 on TOS series, they were still getting sealegs (look at how badly Spock is written in the ep as an example of same, and much worse IMO than the orbit stuff.) As opposed to during VOYAGER, after several hundred eps of other TREK, when they decide you cannot turn while in warp, which flies in the face of all of TOS, the major maneuver in TMP (the vger intercept) and probably most of ModernTrek as well.

Now you can say the orbit one is a bigger deal because it is 'real' -- but in terms of trek, where warp drive is maybe THE important given, then having some kind of consistency about it IS significant.

 

[Neopeius]

Actually, reading the transcript, I'm not sure what the problem is. How did they use the term "orbit" incorrectly?

 

[AlanC9]

Whereas at the time of g7 on TOS series, they were still getting sealegs (look at how badly Spock is written in the ep as an example of same, and much worse IMO than the orbit stuff.) As opposed to during VOYAGER, after several hundred eps of other TREK, when they decide you cannot turn while in warp, which flies in the face of all of TOS, the major maneuver in TMP (the vger intercept) and probably most of ModernTrek as well.

Now you can say the orbit one is a bigger deal because it is 'real' -- but in terms of trek, where warp drive is maybe THE important given, then having some kind of consistency about it IS significant.

I was picking on the orbit thing -- as opposed to all of the other juicy targets the episode offers -- because any person of ordinary intelligence should have known that by definition you do not keep your engines firing to maintain orbit. Anyone who had paid any attention during the Mercury or Gemini missions would have known very well that the capsules did not stay up the way aircraft do. This is real-world knowledge, and blowing it is simply inexcusable.

But if you want to say that the Voyager goof was worse for Trek, since orbits don't typically figure into Trek but warp drive often does, I won't protest.

The really annoying part is that the episode would have worked fine if the characters had said that the shuttle only had enough power to achieve suborbital flight. Since the first couple of Mercury flights were suborbital, this would have been clear to most of the audience, even in 1967.

 

[Superman]

Well, Cogs, I'm with you all the way. Though my own views on this film are far harsher. However, I'll refrain from jumping into that right now.

I do want to address one idea you brought up: the original TOS actors were like friends to us. How true. And like you said, these aren't our friends.

The truth is, what bothers me most about this whole thing is that, even if the film does very well, Star Trek will only be back in a temporary fashion. By this I mean that this cast will not have the staying power of Shatner and Co. They're not going to inhabit these roles for another 40 years. They're going to maybe make the inevitable trilogy and then move on to other roles, should this film be a success.

And if it isn't, there won't be any sequels, so these actors will split up and move on to other work.

This is why I think a re-casting is a fundamentally flawed idea. You can't really do it with the TOS cast. A lot of people have brought up the Bond franchise, the Batman franchise, and other franchises that have seen re-casting work. But NONE of those ever once saw an actor or set of actors stay in place for four decades. That's a tremendous legacy that can never be equalled or surpassed.

I'm sure an apologist will pop in and say, "so what?" (probably Dennis Bailey) But that doesn't change the fact that Trek is now no longer a family legacy experience. It's now truly a series franchise to be whored out. And while Paramount did this by rushing the post-TNG series into being, those series still managed to last longer than three movies and four to six years and contained new characters and a shared continuity.

My point: I just don't see a reason to get invested in this new Trek. I'd be getting invested in maybe three films, and then what...more re-casting? And Trek truly becomes just any other series of films like Bond or Batman?

I think not. Star Trek TOS exists on my DVD shelf and contains three seasons and six feature films.

And I'm just fine with leaving it at that.

Sometimes, not having to have more of a good thing is itself a very good thing.

\S/

 

[AlanC9]

I'm sure an apologist will pop in and say, "so what?" (probably Dennis Bailey) But that doesn't change the fact that Trek is now no longer a family legacy experience. It's now truly a series franchise to be whored out.

Ummm... if those are the only options, then Trek is dead anyway, and it's just a question of when we bury it.

 

[JoeZhang]

I'm sure an apologist will pop in and say, "so what?" (probably Dennis Bailey) But that doesn't change the fact that Trek is now no longer a family legacy experience. It's now truly a series franchise to be whored out.

Ummm... if those are the only options, then Trek is dead anyway, and it's just a question of when we bury it.

What? that doesn't make any sense anyway - does Alan think that the studios were making star trek out of love? "Now truely a series franchise" - wake up and smoke the coffee, this is 1987 calling!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I'm sure an apologist will pop in and say, "so what?" (probably Dennis Bailey) But that doesn't change the fact that Trek is now no longer a family legacy experience. It's now truly a series franchise to be whored out.

Ummm... if those are the only options, then Trek is dead anyway, and it's just a question of when we bury it.

Actually, believe it or not, that's what SHOULD happen... in a sense.

The thing that bugged me about the transition between TWOK and TSFS was that they gave Spock this wonderful, believable death scene... and then said "Whoopsie! Just kidding! HE'S BAAAAACK!" afterwards. Which pretty much turned all the drama of TWOK into one big fake-out.

One of the most important characteristics which makes for deep, meaningful drama is that there must be CONSEQUENCES... and consequences does require a degree of permanence.

SO... as far as I'm concerned, TOS should be "left dead." It's the historical grounding of everything Trekkian. It should be revered, honored, and recognized... but otherwise, ultimately, left alone.

I'm one of those who objected to the idea of revisiting these characters, not because I don't want to see them again (I do) but because I know them, very well, and I don't want to see them HARMED.

Imagine, if you will, that someone got ahold of Abraham Lincoln's DNA and created a "Clone Lincoln." That would be... a little disconcerting. Now... imagine that someone told you that this was the new "Real Lincoln," because he has a few things in common with the original... but in all the meaningful ways it's not the same guy.

It does not good to the memory of the original, and it's not REALLY a "recreation." It's just a "cheap copy" which can only do harm to the image of the original.

NOW... as time went on, I was led to understand that this wasn't going to be a story about "The Star Trek crew having another adventure of the week." That it was, instead, just going to fill in a blank in the history of the lead characters and tell us a little more about them. And that was just fine... I became comfortable with that idea. Why? Because it didn't mean tossing aside the stuff that was already there.

My comfort level remained relatively high until I saw the first indication that they were, in fact, tossing aside prior stuff. At first, just a few indications... the use of the "Enterprise chevron" for everybody, for instance, not just the Enterprise., for instance. This qualified as "warning bells" that it wasn't going to "fit" completely. But I was willing to give that a pass.

At this point, though... we know a lot more. And even given the possibility of a "reset switch" in this film (which, while an obnoxious cheat, is the only hope I have for the movie to even marginally avoid being in total contradiction to everything which has come before over 40+ years) there will still be massive changes which weren't necessary and don't really add to the storytelling.

So... I'm pretty much in acceptance that this isn't part of Star Trek, as it's existed for my entire life. This is something new. And the changes aren't really improvements... they're just changes. A few are "improvements," a lot more are (in the eyes of many, at least) more a matter of "damage" than "improvement" and far more are simply "just because we can."

Now... is it possible that this could be a "Star Trek Reborn" sort of thing, where an entirely new generation of fans will come to love this as much as we all did? Possible... but given what I've seen so far, I doubt it very much. This will be a "one-shot flick" that people will enjoy, and then forget about. It'll get decent, but not fantastic, box-office. It may lead to a sequel... but that's far from a given. But if it DOES have a sequel, that's a sequel to this movie... this NEW franchise... and will (like this movie) not be part of what's been special enough to keep us all talking about it for what's rapidly approaching a half-century now.

"MY Star Trek" is dead. But I can still go back and watch my old family 8mm movies. This new "Star Trek" isn't the same... and it's not even really related. It's just an imposter. And I doubt, very much, that it's going to spawn the amount of "family dedication" that the old one did... it's just the equivalent of an "Elvis Impersonator" for Star Trek.

 

[JoeZhang]

so because of a film that was out 25 years ago they shouldn't make any more trek? Most of the target audience weren't even alive then!

 

[ST-One]

Well, Cogs, I'm with you all the way. Though my own views on this film are far harsher. However, I'll refrain from jumping into that right now.

I do want to address one idea you brought up: the original TOS actors were like friends to us. How true. And like you said, these aren't our friends.

The truth is, what bothers me most about this whole thing is that, even if the film does very well, Star Trek will only be back in a temporary fashion. By this I mean that this cast will not have the staying power of Shatner and Co. They're not going to inhabit these roles for another 40 years. They're going to maybe make the inevitable trilogy and then move on to other roles, should this film be a success.

And if it isn't, there won't be any sequels, so these actors will split up and move on to other work.

This is why I think a re-casting is a fundamentally flawed idea. You can't really do it with the TOS cast. A lot of people have brought up the Bond franchise, the Batman franchise, and other franchises that have seen re-casting work. But NONE of those ever once saw an actor or set of actors stay in place for four decades. That's a tremendous legacy that can never be equalled or surpassed.

I'm sure an apologist will pop in and say, "so what?" (probably Dennis Bailey) But that doesn't change the fact that Trek is now no longer a family legacy experience. It's now truly a series franchise to be whored out. And while Paramount did this by rushing the post-TNG series into being, those series still managed to last longer than three movies and four to six years and contained new characters and a shared continuity.

My point: I just don't see a reason to get invested in this new Trek. I'd be getting invested in maybe three films, and then what...more re-casting? And Trek truly becomes just any other series of films like Bond or Batman?

I think not. Star Trek TOS exists on my DVD shelf and contains three seasons and six feature films.

And I'm just fine with leaving it at that.

Sometimes, not having to have more of a good thing is itself a very good thing.

\S/

In another thread someone talked about modern audiences preferring to have their movies spoon-fed to them. And he was wrong about that.
Modern, flexible audiences can adapt and enjoy new versions of old stories or franchises.
Your display of intellectual inflexibility shows that you can't.
You and all those like you are actually the ones who want to be spoon-fed with the ever-same tasting, ever-same looking product.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

so because of a film that was out 25 years ago they shouldn't make any more trek? Most of the target audience weren't even alive then!

Not what I said.

Kirk, Spock, McCoy, the NCC-1701... those are dead, and should be left to rest in peace.

NewKirk and crew, and the NCC-1701-'09 aren't the same. And I sincerely doubt that they'll ever reach the same level of "magic" that the original did. A few could, but most... nahhh... not gonna happen.

This doesn't mean "no more stuff in the Trek universe." But... this movie isn't even in that same fictional reality, is it? It's in a NEW "2.0" version... and it inherently tosses out every other Trek series, film, book, etc, for the past 40 years. It's "starting over." And in the process, it's abandoning everything that, to me (and to many others) makes it be "Star Trek" anyway.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... the success, or failure, of this movie will define whether or not any other "Star Trek" project will be green-lit at any point in the foreseeable future. The studio leadership is treating this as a test... to see if it's Star Trek that's dead, or simply the "Berman-era production style" that's dead.

The fact that this movie is losing the support of the only "reliable market segment" for Trek can't be a favorable thing, from the studio heads' perspective, can it? So if the "fan base" is LOST, well... the movie has to go that much further in grabbing new "hardcore fans" in order for the studio to see it as a success. I don't see it being THAT successful with the "dude, what movie should we see this weekend?" crowd.

 

[JoeZhang]

The fact that this movie is losing the support of the only "reliable market segment" for Trek can't be a favorable thing, from the studio heads' perspective, can it? .

That's not true no matter how many times you repeat.

NewKirk and crew, and the NCC-1701-'09 aren't the same

No to the new fresh eyes they will be THE kirk and crew and one day they'll be watching the telly and see an episode of TOS and think "hey some old geezer show has the same characters" and that's fine by me.

The fact that this movie is losing the support of the only "reliable market segment" for Trek can't be a favorable thing, from the studio heads' perspective, can it? So if the "fan base" is LOST, well... the movie has to go that much further in grabbing new "hardcore fans" in order for the studio to see it as a success. I don't see it being THAT successful with the "dude, what movie should we see this weekend?" crowd.

I think as Frank use to say "use your mentality, come back to reality" - do you think that the studio spunked $200 million on a film to attract the fan base of the cult show lost? I just cannot take your posts seriously, you are unable to look at anything from a rational dispassionate perspective and that's why you make such bizarre statements.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

In another thread someone talked about modern audiences preferring to have their movies spoon-fed to them. And he was wrong about that.
Modern, flexible audiences can adapt and enjoy new versions of old stories or franchises.
Your display of intellectual inflexibility shows that you can't.
You and all those like you are actually the ones who want to be spoon-fed with the ever-same tasting, ever-same looking product.

I think that's an unfair mischaracterization. While I'm not QUITE as strongly inclined this was as Superman is, I share his concerns.

But I don't "want to be spoonfed the same thing I've always had." In fact, I never wanted to see "Kirk, Spock and the gang" back at all. I want things that are different, yet consistent.

Example... I'd love to see a new TV series, set in the TOS timeframe or slightly before, on a totally different sort of ship on a totally different sort of mission. Let's say, for the moment, a purely military mission set on Vektor's "Vanguard" design. Not "boldly going" and "seeking new life and new civilizations" (which is what we've been spoon-fed, as you say) but something a bit...edgier.

It's a big galaxy... there are lots of stories that can be told.

The problem here isn't that people are afraid of change... it's just that the WRONG THINGS are being changed, and the wrong things are being kept.

They're keeping the names of the characters and the ship. That, they could change. And if the characters and ships and so forth aren't going to be the same... they should be changed completely... no "bait and switch" thing.

They're keeping the formula... "Mustache-twirling villain plans to blow up the universe unless our intrepid heroes stop his nefarious plans." That, or "new planet of the week where our heroes lecture the lesser-evolved natives on why our idealized Southern Californian culture is superior," make up the two main "formula" plots Star Trek has repeatedly fallen into since 1988 or so. GOD, but I'd love to see those get dumped... and start dealing with some actual creative writing.

"Nero blows up Vulcan." At least it's not another attempt to blow up Earth... (sigh)

I'm fine with TOTALLY DIFFERENT TAKES on everything... new characters (with new names), new ships (with new names), new missions, new PLOTS. So I'm far from "afraid of change."

The problem is that they're keeping the wrong stuff. They're tossing out the history. And that means not just the "in-universe history," it also means the "tv, film, and print history."

That, they should keep.

 

[Neopeius]

I was picking on the orbit thing -- as opposed to all of the other juicy targets the episode offers -- because any person of ordinary intelligence should have known that by definition you do not keep your engines firing to maintain orbit. Anyone who had paid any attention during the Mercury or Gemini missions would have known very well that the capsules did not stay up the way aircraft do. This is real-world knowledge, and blowing it is simply inexcusable.

Doesn't bother me I'll tell you why:

Spock called it a decaying orbit. I'm not going to lecture to you since you likely know a lot about astronomy and orbital mechanics already. Suffice it to say, if the shuttle couldn't go high enough to get out of the atmosphere, or if the density of the Mutara Nebula was high enough to also be a drag, then you would need some sort of additional thrust to keep the shuttle in orbit.

All low orbit satellites burn some day. The Galileo could only attain an unfortunately low orbit.

I had far more problems with the characterization in that episode than the science. That's my Folsom point.