Word.
If JJ had created Trek....
- Thread starter Transwarp Drive
- Start date
Word.
Just for fun, I suppose one can reasonably wonder which version of Trek will be most familiar to the audience of 2050. Hard to say. Already, I occasionally run into fans who think of the TNG-era stuff as the real thing and dismiss TOS as a faintly embarrassing historical relic. (Sacrilege, I know, but what can you do? Kids these days.) It's possible that future audiences will think of the reboot--or maybe even some future version as yet unfilmed--when they think of Trek.
Times change. The 1935 MGM version of THE WIZARD OF OZ has largely supplanted the earlier movie versions--and even the original novel--in the popular imagination. And I'm sure there are kids these days who regard Daniel Craig, not Sean Connery, as the "real" James Bond . . . .
Times change. The 1935 MGM version of THE WIZARD OF OZ has largely supplanted the earlier movie versions--and even the original novel--in the popular imagination. And I'm sure there are kids these days who regard Daniel Craig, not Sean Connery, as the "real" James Bond . . . .
Hey Transwarp Drive, it's kind of a really odd question, and my first reaction was that it seems like a bit of a leading question; with an expectation that answers falling within an expected range will lead to a conclusion that denounces the new movie, JJ Abrams, and other aspects of the production. I'm not saying that it's true, it's just what my initial gut reaction was.
If we tried to hypothesis along these lines, I think we would need to figure out more detailed guidelines. Are we talking about JJ Abrams if we hypothetically shifted the man's timeline back several decades, so that he grew up concurrent with Roddenberry's lifetime? We would have a very different JJ Abrams, and assuming he was interested in creating a show (or movie) that resembled Star Trek, it wouldn't resemble the movie he crafted that we have in our reality here and now. That's just one of many possible variables.
If it resembles Trek closely enough, maybe it would still find it's audience in the stuttering way that TOS gradually did, after it's time, through re-runs, as the Space Race came into it's stride. Why not? The culture and environment locked in on a show that became timely, after it's original run. If there was nothing else on TV like it, just like the when TOS took off, then sure.
We would never have seen the 2009 movie in that slot, either in the 1960's movie theaters or as some kind of adaptation to TV. The movie is fundamentally built on re-making something that previously existed, and it's made with a deliberate consciousness of it's previous incarnations existence.
I think the question is problematic because it can be interpreted as leading, or highly confusing, with a lot of variables up in the air. I don't know how it can possibly be answered, especially with so many variables that can be arbitrarily locked down to lean an argument for or against the different incarnations of ST.
If we tried to hypothesis along these lines, I think we would need to figure out more detailed guidelines. Are we talking about JJ Abrams if we hypothetically shifted the man's timeline back several decades, so that he grew up concurrent with Roddenberry's lifetime? We would have a very different JJ Abrams, and assuming he was interested in creating a show (or movie) that resembled Star Trek, it wouldn't resemble the movie he crafted that we have in our reality here and now. That's just one of many possible variables.
If it resembles Trek closely enough, maybe it would still find it's audience in the stuttering way that TOS gradually did, after it's time, through re-runs, as the Space Race came into it's stride. Why not? The culture and environment locked in on a show that became timely, after it's original run. If there was nothing else on TV like it, just like the when TOS took off, then sure.
We would never have seen the 2009 movie in that slot, either in the 1960's movie theaters or as some kind of adaptation to TV. The movie is fundamentally built on re-making something that previously existed, and it's made with a deliberate consciousness of it's previous incarnations existence.
I think the question is problematic because it can be interpreted as leading, or highly confusing, with a lot of variables up in the air. I don't know how it can possibly be answered, especially with so many variables that can be arbitrarily locked down to lean an argument for or against the different incarnations of ST.
That was my suspicion, too. That the OP was just fishing for arguments that that the new version was somehow lacking . . . .
I think it's worth noting that you may as well be comparing apples and oranges. You’re comparing the effect a sci-fi TV show had on our culture in the late 1960’s to the possible effect a summer blockbuster movie could have on our culture post 2009. There’s no comparison.
Lest we forget that is that originally, Star Trek wasn’t that successful. The original Star Trek series was nearly cancelled for low ratings after the second season. It was only the massive and unprecedented write-in campaign that saved for another season. Gene ended his active involvement of the show around that time anyway. The third and final season is punctuated by some of the worst episodes in all of Trek. Star Trek was then unceremoniously cancelled.
Then through syndication, Star Trek returned to television in the form of repeats. And that’s when it was really noticed by the audience is deserved.
There aren’t just three channels anymore. There’s too much competition now and the culture bears little resemblance to what it was. TV shows and movies just simply don’t get imprinted on our culture anymore. There’s thousands of channels and hundreds of thousands TV shows. The media is saturated. There’s no comparable apparatus today to how things in TV worked in the late 60’s. People can largely watch whatever they want whenever they want.
Historically speaking, there are a number of examples of older TV last through the decades becoming successful franchises that spawn TV shows, books, etc… But, correct me if I’m wrong but I can only think of one movie that has done the same.
And, yes. The OP is definately fishing for arguments.
Lest we forget that is that originally, Star Trek wasn’t that successful. The original Star Trek series was nearly cancelled for low ratings after the second season. It was only the massive and unprecedented write-in campaign that saved for another season. Gene ended his active involvement of the show around that time anyway. The third and final season is punctuated by some of the worst episodes in all of Trek. Star Trek was then unceremoniously cancelled.
Then through syndication, Star Trek returned to television in the form of repeats. And that’s when it was really noticed by the audience is deserved.
There aren’t just three channels anymore. There’s too much competition now and the culture bears little resemblance to what it was. TV shows and movies just simply don’t get imprinted on our culture anymore. There’s thousands of channels and hundreds of thousands TV shows. The media is saturated. There’s no comparable apparatus today to how things in TV worked in the late 60’s. People can largely watch whatever they want whenever they want.
Historically speaking, there are a number of examples of older TV last through the decades becoming successful franchises that spawn TV shows, books, etc… But, correct me if I’m wrong but I can only think of one movie that has done the same.
And, yes. The OP is definately fishing for arguments.
Which film are you thinking of, Star Wars? Stargate? MASH?
Star Wars.
IMO we should check again in 20 years for Stargate. And I love MASH in all its forms but, it hasn't really hit the franchise level that I presume OP was talking about. In fact, I don't know that I've ever heard MASH described as a franchise.
IMO we should check again in 20 years for Stargate. And I love MASH in all its forms but, it hasn't really hit the franchise level that I presume OP was talking about. In fact, I don't know that I've ever heard MASH described as a franchise.
Prior to STAR WARS, Planet of the Apes fit the bill. The original film inspired four sequels, a short-lived tv series, a Saturday morning cartoon, paperback books, comics, magazines, merchandise, etc. The APES franchise petered out eventually, but the success of the most recent reboot suggests that it still has some life in it . . . .
Last edited:
Eh, the only reason I mentioned MASH, is because the TV show M*A*S*H has more seasons and more episodes than Stargate SG-1.
There were also at least fifteen MASH novels . . . .
Yeah, it could easily meet whatever criteria for being a 'franchise'. I oddly wasn't aware of any books, I was just counting the movie, TV series and its various spinoffs.
I wonder if there could have been a M*A*S*H action-figure line. Colonel Potter with Kung-fu grip.
And apparently there were a lot of ghost-written sequels after MASH became a movie/TV sensation . . ..
I did not know there were so many. Another educational day at the BBS....
It's also worth noting that the more successful of the two spin-offs of M*A*S*H, Trapper John, M.D., ran for more seasons and had more episodes than Stargate Atlantis. Although Stargate Universe has more episodes than AfterMASH, both ran for two seasons.
The Stargate franchise continued for close to 20 years after the movie. Even if the god-awful Universe killed it permanently, that still qualifies as "successful".
I admit I had to look it up, but I remembered seeing the paperback novels on spin racks back in the 70s.
Transwarp Drive
Lieutenant
No, absolutely not.
Moreover, TOS is relevant today or else Nu Trek wouldn't have come back would it?
I'm not sure anyone is saying TOS is irrelevant, although I've met younger fans who preferred the later spin-offs. So it's likely that future generations will gravitate to their own era of Trek, while hopefully still enjoying the old classic versions as well.
(Hell, I was watching an old 1940 pirate movie with Errol Flynn just the other night . . . so it's not like every bit of pop culture comes with an expiration date!)
Transwarp Drive
Lieutenant
What I'm also hypothesizing about is have the current cast and production people captured that spirit that carried TOS?
I'm just not sure they have ergo if TOS had never existed, would nu Trek just be another throw away sci fi movie?
I'm just not sure they have ergo if TOS had never existed, would nu Trek just be another throw away sci fi movie?
