Shall we put £5 on it and check back in in 20 years time ?
After Abrams
- Thread starter Mirror Sulu
- Start date
Everyone's assuming that the Abramsverse will be around for a long time, when there's no guarantee of that in this day and age. Both the prime and Abramsverse continuties could be gone by the end of this decade if someone else steps in after Abrams with his or her finger on the ultimate reboot button, IMO.
True, but I think they would struggle to re-reboot. There would be a resulting drop in credibility/box office.
They've got a whole NEW universe to play with - they can literally do anything the want so why not use it ? TNG DS9 and Voyager need not happen at all - there's no need for any of that.*
*Although Data's buried head will probably be found eventually. Spock Prime might even know about it - he's melded with Picard...
I don't think so on both points. Reboots are coming faster and faster these days (often at the mandate of studio execs and producers with their own vision of how things should be), and if Kirk and the gang were recast with yet another new version of the original Enterprise a few years after Star Trek XIII, people would go to see them if it's exciting enough.
They could do that with a total reboot too, and do even more things that Abrams didn't. I think with Star Trek XI, the door has been opened for Trek to be continually reinvented or reimagined every so often (perhaps at 10 to 12 year intervals).
Shall we put £5 on it and check back in in 20 years time ?
Let me check my retirement fund . . . .
And you just love to revel in that, don't you?
That sounds like a good definition of long-suffering Trek fans who have embraced JJ Trek just because they want Trek in any shape or form it's dished out to them.
It's nice that its around, but if they quit making Trek tomorrow it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Much like it didn't bother me when they pulled the plug in 2005.
Revel in what exactly? That folks who made Trek for ten years too long are no longer part of the franchises long-term future?
Abrams Trek is disposable. One day Star Trek will return to television. Whether it will have a stronger emphasis on sci-fi storytelling or continue in the current light-weight, frothy direction has yet to be seen. The tone and format of current Trek bothers me more than the timeline change. I'd take a more intelligent show in this timeline than a dumb show set in the proper timeline.
All Trek is disposable. It's entertainment.
Well, I think the TV show had a lot more substance to it and didn't have to throw lens flare and loud noises at me to put me in a docile enough state to accept it.
The scary thing right now about Trek is how defeated everybody is. Half the fandom hate Abrams' take on Star Trek but nobody seems to see it getting any better.
Well, I actually do. A future TV series is inevitable and I reckon enough time has passed for it to do well enough in the ratings if they approach it right.
The scary thing right now about Trek is how defeated everybody is. Half the fandom hate Abrams' take on Star Trek but nobody seems to see it getting any better.
Well, I actually do. A future TV series is inevitable and I reckon enough time has passed for it to do well enough in the ratings if they approach it right.
Of course a TV show is going to have more depth to it. They have more time to flesh out the story they want to tell. I'm surprised that you go on about getting an 'A' on a film dissertation and yet to continue to overlook this very basic fact.
If you don't like the Abrams film, that's fine. But to say that Trek fans are some how defeated because Abrams Trek is popular is pure non-sense. You try to project your dislike onto the fanbase which actually seems to have embraced the Abrams take on the original series to one degree or another.
Yeah, thats what happened.
Okay, maybe to you, but not me. I'll let others speak for themselves rather than make some sort of blanket statement. Who's defeated? A few doom and gloomers on the internet? Half? No, not half. Probably not even a quarter. Even one percent might be way too high.
Finally something that makes sense.
Movies and TV are such different businesses with different audiences that there's no reason the qualities or assumptions of the movies need to be brought over to TV. In fact, that would be unwise, since a TV show doesn't have the budget to re-create the visual splendor and action of a summer tentpole movie. And the audience will demand a different approach - more complex, more serialized - in keeping with what they expect from cable or streaming dramas.
Star Trek won't be back on broadcast since the financials wouldn't work out, unless there's some kind of co-production deal between CBS and Netflix or Amazon, in which case the format will be a compromise between broadcast and streaming expectations, possibly with the structure and tone of DS9. On cable or streaming alone, it would be darker than DS9 and completely serialized rather than the half & half approach of DS9.
I wouldn't assume the audience for TV/streaming have seen the movies or understood that there are two different realities now, or that they even care. The issue can be avoided or maybe addressed only indirectly.
Nice idea. You really should have mentioned it before.
The popularity of Abrams' movies is the only reason we have a prayer of seeing Star Trek back on TV/streaming to begin with. He makes visual/action movies because that's how tentpole movies are nowadays. He's just doing what works. On TV/streaming, whoever takes over would do what works for that medium. Even if it's still Abrams or maybe Bob Orci in charge, the results would be very different.
If you're tired of seeing the same people see the same things over and over, what are you doing at TrekBBS?
If you're tired of seeing the same people see the same things over and over, what are you doing at TrekBBS?
Yeah, that's what you told me last time.
Similar threads
