Done with Star Trek?

[Doug Otte]

Of course you are. Even though Doug's opinion doesn't really make much sense. What he's saying is that even though a shitload of people went to see the movie and will most likely go to see the sequel, it will still not make them "long-term fans [of TOS]," and that if you're not a fan of the original series, you can't by default be one of the "new generation" of Star Trek fans. Huh?

OK, let me be more clear. The vast majority of people who enjoyed Abrams' Trek are not Trek fans at all. They are regular moviegoers who just enjoy a ride w/ 'splosions 'n' stuff. In fact, many probably thought of the last movie as just a novelty. They probably won't go to the next one based upon their interest in Trek, nor even their foggy memories of the last movie. They'll just go based upon word of mouth regarding people who've seen the next movie.

Nothing wrong with that - I'm just saying that Abrams' Trek's success might not have anything to do w/ a resurgence in interest in the Trek legacy.

Doug

 

[Dukhat]

Of course you are. Even though Doug's opinion doesn't really make much sense. What he's saying is that even though a shitload of people went to see the movie and will most likely go to see the sequel, it will still not make them "long-term fans [of TOS]," and that if you're not a fan of the original series, you can't by default be one of the "new generation" of Star Trek fans. Huh?

OK, let me be more clear. The vast majority of people who enjoyed Abrams' Trek are not Trek fans at all. They are regular moviegoers who just enjoy a ride w/ 'splosions 'n' stuff. In fact, many probably thought of the last movie as just a novelty. They probably won't go to the next one based upon their interest in Trek, nor even their foggy memories of the last movie. They'll just go based upon word of mouth regarding people who've seen the next movie.

Nothing wrong with that - I'm just saying that Abrams' Trek's success might not have anything to do w/ a resurgence in interest in the Trek legacy.

Doug

OK, Doug, I get what you're saying. However, think of it this way: If a ton of people who are not Trek fans went to see the movie because of whatever reason (word of mouth, JJ Abrams lovers, lovers of action/popcorn films, etc.), and made the film a success, it stands to reason that the same people will go to see the sequel. Just look at Batman Begins and the Dark Knight if you don't believe me. (And do you honestly think anyone in the audience of those two films were fans of the original '60's Batman TV show?)

Now, how does this equate to people who are Trek fans? Well, it's very simple. If these movies are successful (which they're proving to be), then it's much more likely that a new Trek television series will be produced (at least more likely than if the film flopped). And who's going to be watching that series? Not the popcorn-loving moviegoers...but the Star Trek fans.

So who really cares if Trek fans or non-Trek fans go to see these movies, as long as they're successful? Either way it can only help us. Get it?

 

[Warped9]

Will Abrams' movie encourage established fans?: some yes and some no.

Will Abrams' movie cultivate new fans from the general audience? Likely some yes and others no. I suspect many who liked it will probably give a sequel a chance, not primarily because they have become fans, but more likely because they enjoyed the first film enough as a diversion. To that end I don't think the fan base will grow all that much.

Will Abrams' movie get new fans interested in older Trek films and series? I'd say at least some out of curiosity, but I suspect most not.

Will new fans of the Abrams' movie get interested in and like older Trek? I'd say some, but likely not most.

I suspect would could happen, assuming the sequel is at least marginally successful, is that Trek fandom will have yet another schism as has been happening with every new incarnation of Trek.

 

[Dukhat]

I suspect would could happen, assuming the sequel is at least marginally successful, is that Trek fandom will have yet another schism as has been happening with every new incarnation of Trek.

I'm not sure why that would even matter, or affect the people who like older Trek in any meaningful way. Just because there are different incarnations of the same thing doesn't mean that you have to like them all, or preclude still being a fan of the concept as a whole, knowing there are weaker elements of said concept in existence.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I suspect many who liked it will probably give a sequel a chance, not primarily because they have become fans, but more likely because they enjoyed the first film enough as a diversion.

Dude, except for people working on it, Star Trek is a diversion. If you think it's something else, I dunno, an obsession, a religion, or a way of life, I think that might be the problem.

I suspect would could happen, assuming the sequel is at least marginally successful, is that Trek fandom will have yet another schism as has been happening with every new incarnation of Trek.

What schism? You talk like it's a matter of life and death, Unionists vs. Confederates, NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact. Sure, some people like TNG more than TOS, or DS9 more ENT, but in the end it's not such a big deal. Call me again when they start to kill heretics and infidels.

 

[ST-One]

I suspect many who liked it will probably give a sequel a chance, not primarily because they have become fans, but more likely because they enjoyed the first film enough as a diversion.

Dude, except for people working on it, Star Trek is a diversion. If you think it's something else, I dunno, an obsession, a religion, or a way of life, I think that might be the problem.

This.
Sooo This.

 

[Warped9]

I suspect many who liked it will probably give a sequel a chance, not primarily because they have become fans, but more likely because they enjoyed the first film enough as a diversion.

Dude, except for people working on it, Star Trek is a diversion. If you think it's something else, I dunno, an obsession, a religion, or a way of life, I think that might be the problem.

This.
Sooo This.

Every new incarnation of Trek has cultivated new camps of fans, those who are interested in mostly and even solely one version or another. And yes there are fans that like more than one. It's happened with every new incarnation.

When TNG bowed some of the older fans embraced it and some didn't, while some new fans brought in because of TNG didn't want anything to do with TOS while some discovered and liked TOS. It happened again with DS9, VOY and ENT. It even happened with the '80s films. So we're not talking about anything new here.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Whatever the currently successful version of Trek is, it drags the "legacy" along in its wake and people who like it interpret previous versions - to the extent they care - with reference to it. A single example would be the development of the Star Trek Experience attraction in Las Vegas - it was made viable not by the limited success of the TOS movies but by the broad popularity of TNG and the resulting "modern Trek" version of the Franchise, and it was designed to reflect that era.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Why "should" Enterprise have had a 5th season?

No, "I wanted one" isn't a valid answer.

Because, as people have already said, it was finally finding it's footing and becoming a good show under new leadership.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why "should" Enterprise have had a 5th season?

No, "I wanted one" isn't a valid answer.

Because, as people have already said, it was finally finding it's footing and becoming a good show under new leadership.

That doesn't matter, if not enough people were watching it to justify the expense of its continued production.

Having said that, the financial situation there was at least a little ambiguous. Had the network been willing to re-up for another season the studio might well have been willing to continue production - every version of Trek pays out for them, at least a little, in the not-so-long run.

 

[AMQ]

Why "should" Enterprise have had a 5th season?

No, "I wanted one" isn't a valid answer.

Because, as people have already said, it was finally finding it's footing and becoming a good show under new leadership.

Enterprise also had so much potential to develop both characters and the story.
New leadership should've got more time mostly because they proved to know how to make ST that most people liked - even those who didn't like the first two or three seasons.
I wanted three more

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Why "should" Enterprise have had a 5th season?

No, "I wanted one" isn't a valid answer.

Because, as people have already said, it was finally finding it's footing and becoming a good show under new leadership.

That doesn't matter, if not enough people were watching it to justify the expense of its continued production.

Having said that, the financial situation there was at least a little ambiguous. Had the network been willing to re-up for another season the studio might well have been willing to continue production - every version of Trek pays out for them, at least a little, in the not-so-long run.

That, and there were other ways it could have been done. There was talk of partnering with Sci-Fi, who would have LOVED to have a Trek caliber show. There was talk of doiing a "Vancouver Maneuver", which would have cut costs. There were even private sponsorship offers on hand.

They didn't even try, because Les didn't (and doesn''t) like Trek, and everyone knows it.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Why "should" Enterprise have had a 5th season?

No, "I wanted one" isn't a valid answer.

Because, as people have already said, it was finally finding it's footing and becoming a good show under new leadership.

Enterprise also had so much potential to develop both characters and the story.
New leadership should've got more time mostly because they proved to know how to make ST that most people liked - even those who didn't like the first two or three seasons.
I wanted three more

Have you ever looked up some of the things Coto was working out for S5? To quote Kor: "It would have been GLORIOUS..."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What "everyone knows" is, in this case as in so many others, arrant nonsense. The folks running UPN had reasons for wanting to get Enterprise off the schedule - "so-and-so doesn't like it" was not a big one, sorry. It was a matter of dollars and cents, pure and simple - when I say that the financial situation was "ambiguous" I'm talking about the studio's commitment to the show, not the network's.

But hey, folks do love their "bad guys" - the less likely they are to meet them or to know anything real about them, the better.

 

[Gary7]

Yeah, it was probably the two guys cuddling...
But I agree that BaF dragged on horribly. Especially in the second part.

That's what I found distasteful, the scene dragged on too long. The relationship could have been depicted with much better pacing. It felt like they were just trying to overemphasize "hey, we've got a major gay scene here". On top of the fact that the whole 2nd part "dragged on horribly" as you put it, didn't help.

 

[Gary7]

Why "should" Enterprise have had a 5th season?

No, "I wanted one" isn't a valid answer.

Because, as people have already said, it was finally finding it's footing and becoming a good show under new leadership.

That doesn't matter, if not enough people were watching it to justify the expense of its continued production.

Having said that, the financial situation there was at least a little ambiguous. Had the network been willing to re-up for another season the studio might well have been willing to continue production - every version of Trek pays out for them, at least a little, in the not-so-long run.

Exactly. The series will continue making residuals in syndication and through DVD releases. I think the lackluster first two seasons was a big problem. How do you "recharge" interest in the series? They did make some good moves and the series got better in the 3rd season. But there wasn't enough word-of-mouth and advertising about it. It's like, by the time people began to realize that the show was becoming very promising, the plug was already being pulled. Real bummer.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, it was probably the two guys cuddling...

Sorry, no. There were more than enough problems with the "cuddling" scene that would have been just as evident if it had involved a hetero couple (although if the chick were naked from the waist up I'd have been more personally interested than I was in this version - just not in any way that would require listening to either of them).

I won't discuss this further, because as a matter of practice I ordinarily see no sense in critiquing every fan film from the standpoint of how professional it is in every respect (although when such a film succeeds or at least stays afloat in every department it's worth singling out for praise, IMAO). BaF is a long way from Phase II's best, but it's an impressive show in many ways and the producers have every right to be proud of it.

 

[AMQ]

They just let it go, without any fight - maybe it just needed a little push in advertising.
I don't think that even drastically better numbers from the viewers could've helped it, they already gave up after first two seasons.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's like, by the time people began to realize that the show was becoming very promising, the plug was already being pulled. Real bummer.

Well, really there's no evidence to be found in the numbers that people ever began to realize that - other than the folks who were still keeping track of the show and had been all along. Some fans liked it better in the last year or so than they had before, but that doesn't mean that the larger audience that had deserted it ever showed an interest in resampling it or could have been persuaded to.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

What "everyone knows" is, in this case as in so many others, arrant nonsense. The folks running UPN had reasons for wanting to get Enterprise off the schedule - "so-and-so doesn't like it" was not a big one, sorry. It was a matter of dollars and cents, pure and simple - when I say that the financial situation was "ambiguous" I'm talking about the studio's commitment to the show, not the network's.

But hey, folks do love their "bad guys" - the less likely they are to meet them or to know anything real about them, the better.

Moonives' opinion of sci-fi in general and Trek in particular is well known, Dennis.

And Trek was the flagship of UPN...you really think that the UPN draw was their pathetic "urban comedies"? Occasional z-grade movies of the week or Wrestling?

Trek was the jewel in their crown.