Is the great rift repairable?

[Lynx]

I don't know if it's repairable or not. Trek's been splitting up in factions for a very long time.

As for me, I simply ignore the things I don't like. I'm stuck in the 24th century and I like to stay there.

However, I must add that annoying the old fans and losing them is definitely not a good idea. I doubt that the new fans are as loyal and die-hearted as many of the old fans.

As a rock fan, I've seen some pathetic examples of bands selling out to current trends and being abandoned by the old hard-core fans. The new fans they gained because of the sell-out have forgotten the band in a couple of months, heading for some new commodity and in all cases it have meant disaster for the once so popular band. I'm afraid that the current development of Trek might be the beginning of the end for "official" Star Trek.

But Star Trek will continue to live on in re-runs, DVD.s fanfictions and projects started by the old, die-hard fans.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

However, I must add that annoying the old fans and losing them is definitely not a good idea. I doubt that the new fans are as loyal and die-hearted as many of the old fans.

If the studio isn't making enough money off of them to continue production it doesn't matter how loyal the few determined loyalists are. What's definitely not a good idea is pandering to them when they're few enough and far enough out of the mainstream to be discounted. Losing them can't hurt a bit if they're not doing you any good.

 

[bismarck_1892]

However, I must add that annoying the old fans and losing them is definitely not a good idea. I doubt that the new fans are as loyal and die-hearted as many of the old fans.

If the studio isn't making enough money off of them to continue production it doesn't matter how loyal the few determined loyalists are. What's definitely not a good idea is pandering to them when they're few enough and far enough out of the mainstream to be discounted. Losing them can't hurt a bit if they're not doing you any good.

Maybe, but they have watched loyally and diligently all these years. Bought the merchandise and drank the cool aid. There is not that few of them. They made the studio a lot of money. Shows like these (sci-fi) will always depend on the loyalists because they are ultimately not for the "general" public consumption. Star Trek is still for many a "geeky" show/movie to watch. Ultimately, I believe, the fall of Trek TV correlates to the fall in the shows quality rather than pandering to the fringe or any other excuse.

Understandably, there is never enough money for the studio. And really, that's what its all about. But attempting to sell the franchise to everyone will result in no one buying it.

 

[Kelso]

But attempting to sell the franchise to everyone will result in no one buying it.

That's exactly why the 2009 film flopped. You should be working for Paramount.

 

[USS Lancelot]

But attempting to sell the franchise to everyone will result in no one buying it.

That's exactly why the 2009 film flopped. You should be working for Paramount.

Uhm...well considering the film grossed $385,680,000 worldwide, I highly doubt the studio thinks it "flopped." I think it's safe to say that that amounts to a whole buttload of people "buying it."

I also have to agree with Dennis -- I doubt the studio has shed one bloody tear over the fact that they might have lost some of the hardcore fanbase. And why should they? We may be loyal, but we're not nearly the numbers that we were, say, in the 1990s. Questions of its quality aside, there weren't enough of us to keep ENT on the air (during its fourth season, out of 74 shows tracked by Nielson, ENT was 73), there weren't enough of us to keep Star Trek, The Experience in Vegas open, there weren't enough of us to keep Star Trek Communicator in publication, and there weren't enough of us to keep Pocket Books publishing 24 novels a year (they scaled back to 12 a year in 2005). If there are a couple dozen or couple hundred or several thousand loyal fans that hate the new Trek, that pales in comparison to the 35 million or so people that went to see the new movie.

But, if the powers that be really give a rat's ass about such matters, then they're also probably well aware that much of the fanbase did enjoy the movie. There are plenty of us that have been with Trek for decades that liked it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If you look at the whole history of the Franchise and how audiences have responded in the lean years that are interspersed between the periods of real popular success, you get a sense of the size of the dedicated fanbase. One fan publication estimated it at about four million people in the U.S. - which seemed like a huge number at the time. It seems to never dip much below four million, or stay dependably higher than that.

 

[Kelso]

But attempting to sell the franchise to everyone will result in no one buying it.

That's exactly why the 2009 film flopped. You should be working for Paramount.

Uhm...well considering the film grossed $385,680,000 worldwide, I highly doubt the studio thinks it "flopped." I think it's safe to say that that amounts to a whole buttload of people "buying it."

*sigh*

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Trek doesn't do irony; sometimes neither do the fans.

That four million fan figure, BTW, looks more plausible if you consider the context - we're talking about four, maybe five million Americans who watched DS9 to the bitter end, watched "Voyager" and "Enterprise" no matter what. The U.S. population is a little over 300 million, so we're saying that out of every seventy-five people or so there's probably one who knows the combination to Kirk's safe and worships the ground Jeri Ryan walks on. One out of every seventy-five who will tell you that if Paramount would pony up money for proper effects we could all see that Star Trek V was a brilliant movie.

 

[Kelso]

Four million sounds about right. That means that every single die-hard fan bought two tickets for Nemesis so that his mom could come along.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Really, you have to figure that even the lowest week of Enterprise ratings - or the Nemesis box office - represents at least nine out of ten American hardcore Trek fans showing up along with some percentage of additional casual viewers. If only aficionados watched Trek, it would be Farscape (which I learned to love, BTW).

 

[bismarck_1892]

But attempting to sell the franchise to everyone will result in no one buying it.

That's exactly why the 2009 film flopped. You should be working for Paramount.

Like I said in a prior post, the money that the movie makes is and will be its ultimate judgment of success by the studio making it. 2009 had an excellent advertisement campaign to boot. This contributed greatly to its success. The question remains, will this trend continue and will the quality of the films improve? Time will only tell. But if the quality does not improve, and the films begin to make less money (which is a real possibility) then Trek will have nothing and no one to fall back on, except its fans.

 

[bismarck_1892]

But attempting to sell the franchise to everyone will result in no one buying it.

That's exactly why the 2009 film flopped. You should be working for Paramount.

Uhm...well considering the film grossed $385,680,000 worldwide, I highly doubt the studio thinks it "flopped." I think it's safe to say that that amounts to a whole buttload of people "buying it."

I also have to agree with Dennis -- I doubt the studio has shed one bloody tear over the fact that they might have lost some of the hardcore fanbase. And why should they? We may be loyal, but we're not nearly the numbers that we were, say, in the 1990s. Questions of its quality aside, there weren't enough of us to keep ENT on the air (during its fourth season, out of 74 shows tracked by Nielson, ENT was 73), there weren't enough of us to keep Star Trek, The Experience in Vegas open, there weren't enough of us to keep Star Trek Communicator in publication, and there weren't enough of us to keep Pocket Books publishing 24 novels a year (they scaled back to 12 a year in 2005). If there are a couple dozen or couple hundred or several thousand loyal fans that hate the new Trek, that pales in comparison to the 35 million or so people that went to see the new movie.

But, if the powers that be really give a rat's ass about such matters, then they're also probably well aware that much of the fanbase did enjoy the movie. There are plenty of us that have been with Trek for decades that liked it.

Well, I don't think there were enough of us because people began tuning off. Fans began tuning off. I don't include as fans only those men and women who wear Starfleet uniforms to work. I'm not including only hardcore fans in this conversation, or those who post on message boards. There are in my opinion three main groups of people who watch Trek, (and everyone in between). The hardcore fans, the fans and the casual viewers. The fans began tuning off, and I was one of them.

Besides I disagree with any idea that making a film for the fans would somehow exclude making one for the casual viewer. I don't believe that the story is mutually exclusive. The studio, however, has learned to believe that (perhaps due to some very hardcore fans, and their expectations of the franchise). These groups should not be confused.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But if the quality does not improve, and the films begin to make less money (which is a real possibility) then Trek will have nothing and no one to fall back on, except its fans.

Which, from the business POV of the people who own it, is the same as "nothing," period.

Some long-time fans are still struggling with the "denial" phase of grief. The simple bottom line here is: oldTrek finally died, commercially. It was incapable of returning enough money to keep anything other than a few ancillary licenses afloat. It's gone. It's over.

 

[bismarck_1892]

But if the quality does not improve, and the films begin to make less money (which is a real possibility) then Trek will have nothing and no one to fall back on, except its fans.

Which, from the business POV of the people who own it, is the same as "nothing," period.

Some long-time fans are still struggling with the "denial" phase of grief. The simple bottom line here is: oldTrek finally died, commercially. It was incapable of returning enough money to keep anything other than a few ancillary licenses afloat. It's gone. It's over.

Here is where I would disagree. OldTrek is a big term. There is a lot of Trek out there. TOS, TNG, etc... We are all aware of that. But a full reboot is not necessary when you can recreate Trek in a new series. In the same way, that TNG recreated TOS.

A reboot could also have been good if it was not done in such an "in your face manner." (I won't go into this its all been done and said).

The writers always imply that they are constrained by the canon. Why? Expand on it, don't destroy it. Also, there is a huge galaxy out there, go explore it. Reinvent Trek not reboot it or remake it.

The "studio" thinks in very simplistic forms. And the thoughts emerge mostly from people who don't know and don't understand the franchise.

"Old Trek" stopped being commercially viable not because it was somehow inherently deficient. But because it was run into the ground by lack of imagination and creativity.

By rebooting the franchise you simply start a new story from the old one everyone has already seen. Its actually the same lazy mans approach. Nothing changed except the set design (at least from the later days of the franchise).

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that to say that OldTrek ran out of steam is to over simplify. To accept anything no matter the quality and concept as long as it has "Star Trek" in the name is desperation. If this so called nuTrek does not succeed over the coming period then in fact there may be nothing left; and Star Trek would be over for good.

 

[Shatnertage]

I would argue you didn't need to change much beyond the set design for Trek to be successful again.

I watched the trailer for the new Hawaii Five-0, and it looks like it's basically a guy called McGarrett and a guy called Dan-O running around Hawaii and booking people with some supporting characters--what a few millions casual viewers, many of whom weren't born when the original was in production, would tell you was the essence of Hawaii Five-0.

It's pretty obvious that this is exactly the same approach that's working for Trek--Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest on a ship called Enterprise, out there going boldly. It definitely worked in the movie--would it work if the network decided to roll the dice on a series? I don't know.

For every "hardcore fan" (I question whether they're really fans or just people who use Trek as an excuse for their misanthropy) who will watch the movie/show only so he can criticize it on the Internet, there will be a few hundred who will tune in because they think this is what Trek is all about. The adventures of the USS Titan, or a DS9 relaunch? Probably not the stuff that's going to catch the popular imagination.

And Star Trek: The Experience didn't close because of lack of interest--it was because Cedar Fair and the Hilton couldn't agree on the money for it. The Hilton is far worse off without it, and has posted operational losses in the past few quarters.

 

[Kelso]

Which, from the business POV of the people who own it, is the same as "nothing," period.

Some long-time fans are still struggling with the "denial" phase of grief. The simple bottom line here is: oldTrek finally died, commercially. It was incapable of returning enough money to keep anything other than a few ancillary licenses afloat. It's gone. It's over.

Exactly so.

The writers always imply that they are constrained by the canon. Why? Expand on it, don't destroy it. Also, there is a huge galaxy out there, go explore it. Reinvent Trek not reboot it or remake it.

The "studio" thinks in very simplistic forms. And the thoughts emerge mostly from people who don't know and don't understand the franchise.

"Old Trek" stopped being commercially viable not because it was somehow inherently deficient. But because it was run into the ground by lack of imagination and creativity.

By rebooting the franchise you simply start a new story from the old one everyone has already seen. Its actually the same lazy mans approach. Nothing changed except the set design (at least from the later days of the franchise).

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that to say that OldTrek ran out of steam is to over simplify. To accept anything no matter the quality and concept as long as it has "Star Trek" in the name is desperation. If this so called nuTrek does not succeed over the coming period then in fact there may be nothing left; and Star Trek would be over for good.

You think the studio thinks in simplistic terms? Your argument is predicated on the notions that any deviation from the Star Trek canon will drive away the fans, and that without the fans Star Trek cannot be successful in the long term. Neither of those assertions have any basis in fact. The vast majority of long-term, die-hard fans love the new film and it enjoyed an almost unbelievable level of critical and financial success (for a Star Trek film). At this point, there is no reason to believe that the sequels will not be as successful, both with the fans and the general public.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Besides I disagree with any idea that making a film for the fans would somehow exclude making one for the casual viewer.

Of course there's no contradiction, and they proved it in 2009. Trek XI was a film for the fans and the casual viewers. I'm a fan (the only Trekkie I know in RL - one out of 75 people sounds about right) and I managed to interest non-fans in going to see it with me for a change (in fact, it wasn't even my idea!)

Maybe it wasn't a film for 100% of fans, but that's an impossibility. If it's a movie for ME as a fan, and enough non-fans that it's a viable ongoing financial proposition, that's all I can ask for, or care to ask for!

The simple bottom line here is: oldTrek finally died, commercially. It was incapable of returning enough money to keep anything other than a few ancillary licenses afloat. It's gone. It's over.

I don't see "old Trek" as any particular era of Trek. It's a continuum.

TOS was groundbreaking but not popular enough to survive in the demanding TV ratings environment of the time, the TOS movies survived on nostalgia, TNG was good for its time but too sanitized to age well, DS9 was groundbreaking but really just for a niche market (yet on the edge of a new era when all genre TV is for niche markets, including any show that might return to TV), VOY was just rehashed TNG, followed by more rehashed TNG with ENT which ended with some interesting but fanboyish improvements. Meanwhile the movies ground to a halt because the TNG style and characters had aged badly (not just talking about wrinkles) and ran out of steam. Trek XI has upended the rules by creating a brand new playground which has the feel of TOS, the excitement of a competently-made big-screen blockbuster, and unending new possibilities.

There's no single point at which you can say "that's where Trek went wrong" or even "that's when Trek had the one and only right idea." I like DS9 the best, followed by the current approach of Trek XI, but I know why DS9 wouldn't make a good big-budget blockbuster and would be very tricky to revive on TV. OTOH, I'm never going to be satisfied by Trek only in movies, because to really take advantage of the sophistication and complexity that is possible, you need the long format of TV.

Star Trek is an ever-mutating giant space ameoba, and as long as it hangs onto its core identity (Starfleet people spreading liberal democracy in dangerous but ultimately optimistic cosmos), it'll always work to one degree or another. We're just fortunate to be in an upswing phase right now. All we need is more volume (back to TV, frak it!)

I watched the trailer for the new Hawaii Five-0, and it looks like it's basically a guy called McGarrett and a guy called Dan-O running around Hawaii and booking people with some supporting characters--what a few millions casual viewers, many of whom weren't born when the original was in production, would tell you was the essence of Hawaii Five-0.

It's pretty obvious that this is exactly the same approach that's working for Trek--Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest on a ship called Enterprise, out there going boldly. It definitely worked in the movie--would it work if the network decided to roll the dice on a series? I don't know.

We've yet to see whether the Hawaii Five-0 remake will be a success but it could be a success with a much more simplistic approach that would be healthy or possible for Trek. People like cop shows. They like pretty Hawaiian locations and seeing pretty people in swimsuits. It's not rocket science. Trek's appeal is quite a bit more complicated than that (it's a lot more than just a few characters "going boldly"), and harder to pull off successfully.

For every "hardcore fan" (I question whether they're really fans or just people who use Trek as an excuse for their misanthropy)

Oooooh I think we know the answer to that one!

 

[Kelso]

Of course there's no contradiction, and they proved it in 2009. Trek XI was a film for the fans and the casual viewers. I'm a fan (the only Trekkie I know in RL - one out of 75 people sounds about right) and I managed to interest non-fans in going to see it with me for a change (in fact, it wasn't even my idea!)

Maybe it wasn't a film for 100% of fans, but that's an impossibility. If it's a movie for ME as a fan, and enough non-fans that it's a viable ongoing financial proposition, that's all I can ask for, or care to ask for!

Damn straight.

Talking about Star Trek with other flesh-and-blood human beings- and over-hearing ordinary people talking about it in places like Burger King or the mall- was a surreal experience, one that I hope to repeat in 2012.

 

[JoeZhang]

Besides I disagree with any idea that making a film for the fans would somehow exclude making one for the casual viewer.

Of course there's no contradiction, and they proved it in 2009. Trek XI was a film for the fans and the casual viewers. I'm a fan (the only Trekkie I know in RL - one out of 75 people sounds about right) and I managed to interest non-fans in going to see it with me for a change (in fact, it wasn't even my idea!)

My partner was amazed, she said "wow that didn't suck".

 

[ArcherFanForever]

Hate fest? The movie was a critical and commercial success. And people involved with the original series, from Nimoy on down, have embraced the film. I don't see a "great rift" at all.

It seems to be that the hate-fest is in a small minority, rather than majority who loved the film.