My Name Is Legion has repeatedly expressed the belief that audiences refuse to accept anybody other than Kirk and Spock and brings up the other show's declining viewing figures. Even though TOS was the quickest live-action Trek show to be cancelled and TNG was a genuine pop culture phenomena. It's an argument that is utterly sound, provided you don't think about it and instead focus on JJ Abrams' lush features.
I hope for more traditional space battles
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
My Name Is Legion has repeatedly expressed the belief that audiences refuse to accept anybody other than Kirk and Spock and brings up the other show's declining viewing figures. Even though TOS was the quickest live-action Trek show to be cancelled and TNG was a genuine pop culture phenomena. It's an argument that is utterly sound, provided you don't think about it and instead focus on JJ Abrams' lush features.
The syndication success of TNG is untested in a 300+ cable channel enviornment.
Other than The Walking Dead, I cannot think of a recent example of a TV show that has knocked the socks off the ratings and paid for itself when sci-fi is so expensive to produce relative to inexpensive and highly popular programming like Dancing with the Stars.
[And BTW, ironically AMC is still cutting the budget for The Walking Dead despite its huge success - go figure]
You seem to be confusing his personal opinion of the best way for Trek to go forward with hard numbers.
I tend to agree with him that a reboot with the characters that are pop-culture icons was the best way to move forward and ticket sales seem to agree. The hard numbers say that Trek viewership was in a downward trend from the end of TNG on as were ticket sales for the movies after First Contact. Based on those facts, which way would you go?
And I hate to out Legion but he co-wrote a couple of TNG episodes. For what it's worth...
Insurrection was never going to be an easy sell to a mass audience of popcorn munchers regardless of who was captain. It's not really an action film, more of a traditional Star Trek morality play. It was never going to succeed at the box office over "FIRE EVERYTHING!" style frothiness as that's what audiences prefer. Less of that horrible thinking involved, just lots of 'splosions. Om nom.
I think if Star Trek 2009 rebooted the TNG crew (And thank God it didn't as the idea of a shaved Chris Pine playing young "Buckle up!" Picard is giving me the horrors!) it would've done as well, if not better because young people are way more familiar with that crew. I'm the only one my age I know that has even seen TOS.
Abrams' moronic spin in interviews that Star Trek "is all about" Kirk and Spock, or "only works" with Kirk and Spock is not only ignorant but disrespectful to those that kept the franchise going for so long.
I think if Star Trek 2009 rebooted the TNG crew (And thank God it didn't as the idea of a shaved Chris Pine playing young "Buckle up!" Picard is giving me the horrors!) it would've done as well, if not better because young people are way more familiar with that crew. I'm the only one my age I know that has even seen TOS.
Abrams' moronic spin in interviews that Star Trek "is all about" Kirk and Spock, or "only works" with Kirk and Spock is not only ignorant but disrespectful to those that kept the franchise going for so long.
You just pointed out everything that was wrong with Modern Trek at the end. They were making TV/movies for a few die-hards instead of trying to grow the brand and keep it competitive with the changing market.
When I went to see Star Trek 2009 on May 7th, 2009 at 7pm, the college age kids outnumbered us older folk 2-to-1.
Honestly, I'd really prefer a space battle with aspects of both.
Well, that's where we'll always differ. I don't think Star Trek should be aimed at the widest possible audience of the general public. Most people won't like or understand Star Trek without it being vastly changed in to being dumber and less imaginative.
No, I'm fine with it being aimed at a cult audience but being of higher quality, than aiming to please everybody and transforming itself so it doesn't really resemble the thing I liked to begin with.
As I said before, DS9 is my favourite Trek. All the hardcore Abrams fans in this thread seem to hate it, but that makes perfect sense to me as DS9 was a show that did not make an effort to aim itself at a wide audience of non-sci-fi fans. It is the complete antithesis to Abrams' approach to sci-fi (Which he doesn't even view as sci-fi, but action/adventure that just happens to involve spaceships and aliens!).
The final episode of Star Trek Enterprise These are the Voyages illustrates what your saying above in spades. And they even got making the TV show for the die-hards wrong on that episode.
I just don't understand how you can claim to know so much about TV/film and yet make a claim like the one above? CBS/Paramount doesn't make Trek out of the goodness of its heart, they're in it to make money.
Uh, that wasn't the point at all.
The point was one about clarity and understanding of the visuals, not about storytelling, dialog, effects, etc.
Well, I hate that episode but the same season's In a Mirror, Darkly 2-parter was really good and is the kinda thing I'm talking about. Most people wouldn't like it or give a shit but I don't care about what they think as I thought it was good.
Same issue though, they were pandering to the same die-hards.
Indeed, he's confused failure to hold on to the audience the studio was seeking to satisfy with "being aimed at a cult audience." Two different things, but the misunderstanding better facilitates an unjustified self-flattery.
So, do I understand correctly that the proponents of DS9/First Contact type space combat can't follow the action in modern movies, including Abrams's Star Trek, and they're blaming that on the movies themselves? I certainly have no problem and I've seen the same movies, so that's clearly not where the problem lies.
BTW, I love DS9 as much as you do and it's my favorite in all of Trek and to be honest the whole Dominion Arc [especially the final two seasons] had a lot of "shoot em' up" episodes.
For example one of the most memorable DS9 episodes with the 'traditional space battles,' was Sacrifice of the Angels. No morality plays in that.
Why would it be an issue quality-wise that a science-fiction show was aimed at science-fiction fans, rather than the general public?
Unfortunately, the people who throw the money around to make these movies, apparently don't agree with that kind of thinking.
They do so to make more money, not Art.
You seem incredibly confused...
In a Mirror, Darkly was a good episode that I, as a die-hard fan, loved. But when you do episodes like that, you're aiming them directly at people who already watch the show. When every episode and movie is aimed at people who already love the show, you're not growing the brand.
Star Trek fans are going to watch Star Trek, but at the end of the day that's an incredibly small group. It's not enough to keep the franchise afloat on either TV or in the theater. So you have to broaden the concept. Do you think bringing Worf to DS9 or creating Seven of Nine were creative decisions? They were decisions made to try and broaden the popularity of shows that were in decline ratings wise. Much like the Dominion War and the Xindi arc.
I know. I just don't see why I have to cheer them on and congratulate them for stuff I don't like, just because it sold well.
Nobody said you did. I have several issues with Star Trek 2009, but I also understood that it is a piece of a bigger puzzle.
Exactly so. No one was happy with how DS9 or Voyager were doing, regardless of content.
Similar threads
