Did Abrams really save the franchise?

[BillJ]

He wanted to be the only game in town at least while he was in charge. That speaks volumes to me. But I don't want this subject to drift too far off course.

I could swear I remember reading somewhere that Roddenberry wanted TOS pulled from syndication around the release of The Motion Picture. I also remember Shatner blaming the failure of The Final Frontier on TNG saying you don't get excited about Thanksgiving when you have turkey sandwiches everyday.

Those rose-tinted nostalgia glasses at work...

 

[Warped9]

Nostalgia is not enough. Sometimes you need to reinvent characters and series for a new generation...

TOS - 1966-1969
TAS - 1973-1974
TNG - 1987-1994
DS9 - 1993-1999
VOY- 1995-2001
ENT - 2001-2005

Films: 1979-2002

Meanwhile CBD remastered TOS and now currently TNG with enhanced resolution and with likely plans for the rest of the series.

ST09 came out only four years after the last series. Yep, we're really deep into nostalgia for something ancient.

 

[BillJ]

Nostalgia is not enough. Sometimes you need to reinvent characters and series for a new generation...

TOS - 1966-1969
TAS - 1973-1974
TNG - 1987-1994
DS9 - 1993-1999
VOY- 1995-2001
ENT - 2001-2005

Films: 1979-2002

ST09 came out only four years after the last series. Yep, we're really deep into nostalgia for something ancient.

It was eighteen years between the last TOS film (The Undiscovered Country) and Star Trek 2009.

 

[J.T.B.]

Do we have to define franchise?

In retail a franchise is essentially more than one or two locations operating under the same name whether it's a food or restaurant chain or some other retail/service business. Here the franchise only grows or stays steady as long as customers support it.

In entertainment a franchise could be defined as more than one or two films or shows (or books) along with the tie-in merchandise. And spun off from that is the fan base that supports it. This franchise also continues only as long as the fans support it. So a question might be: are the fans an integral part of the franchise?

I guess you'd need to define "save," too. Per the definition above, "the franchise" is still a commercial property. Fan support is integral to that property only as far as they consume enough to sustain profitability for the property owner. If the property's profits or growth trends do not meet the owner's expectations and justify further investment, it will be withdrawn from the market to cut losses. This, I think, would qualify to most people as a property in need of "saving."

Was Trek in that situation? I don't know about the specific finances, but I feel pretty safe in saying that without a new mass-audience presence, the franchise would have slowly wound down to the point it would be relevant only to a small nostalgia market.

I didn't like the '09 move personally, but there is no point in denying its success and benefit for the Trek brand. Flip the question around: If the movie had been a huge flop, would Abrams have been called the man who killed Trek? I think so.

 

[Warped9]

He wanted to be the only game in town at least while he was in charge. That speaks volumes to me. But I don't want this subject to drift too far off course.

I could swear I remember reading somewhere that Roddenberry wanted TOS pulled from syndication around the release of The Motion Picture. I also remember Shatner blaming the failure of The Final Frontier on TNG saying you don't get excited about Thanksgiving when you have turkey sandwiches everyday.

Those rose-tinted nostalgia glasses at work...

Sources?

Years ago I went to see Trek movies either by myself or with a couple of buddies who were/are fellow science fiction fans. Guys. Could not drag a date there.

In recent years, I went to see "Green Lantern", "The Avengers", and "Prometheus" with a colleague of my wife's who loves graphic novels and sometimes carries a sonic screwdriver with him.

My wife is not interested in Trek, or science fiction in general, and I would not even ask her to go, HOWEVER, I am going to see STID on Saturday with three of her lovely female colleagues who are excited about the movie. As one of them told me when I was invited to join them, "The last movie wasn't corny, and you weren't expected to be a Star Trek nerd in order to enjoy it. It was good." (or something to that effect).

Here, we might (and do) argue about what we prefer in Trek movies, novels, and series, but it can not be denied that Abrams has made Trek more appealing to a broader audience. With each new incarnation of Trek, there are fans who say that the franchise has been ruined with that new incarnation. I am not one of them. I welcome Abrams' interpretation of this alternate universe and happy to see people in the theaters other than only the ones carrying their communicator replicas.

Genre materiel has become very mainstream.

 

[Greg Cox]

He wanted to be the only game in town at least while he was in charge. That speaks volumes to me. But I don't want this subject to drift too far off course.

I could swear I remember reading somewhere that Roddenberry wanted TOS pulled from syndication around the release of The Motion Picture. I also remember Shatner blaming the failure of The Final Frontier on TNG saying you don't get excited about Thanksgiving when you have turkey sandwiches everyday.

Those rose-tinted nostalgia glasses at work...

This is actually a fairly common concern. Back when I was editing tie-ins, I ran into similar issues with Zorro, The Avengers, The Shadow, and Lost in Space.

Merchandising multiple iterations of the same property can be tricky sometimes . . . although I would argue that Star Trek is a special case in that the old versions were still selling books and comics before the new movies arrived on the scene. (As opposed to dragging the old versions out of mothballs to cash in on a reboot.)

 

[BillJ]

Sources?

Books and magazines over the years.

I'll see if I can dig some out later if time permits.

EDIT: Seems like I'm not the only one who remembers Shatner...

36. Simon - January 3, 2013

I’d also like to know, as has been pointed out by #24, how Shatner is suddenly an expert on a show he never watched or had anything to do with. Not to mention resenting the show and blaming it for the failure of THE FINAL FRONTIER…Trekkers had “fresh turkey sandwiches” every week and weren’t so hungry for the film “Thanksgiving” anymore.

http://trekmovie.com/2013/01/02/wil...s-some-star-trek-advise-more-tng-doc-details/

 

[Warped9]

Sources?

Books and magazines over the years.

I'll see if I can dig some out later if time permits.

I'm not challenging you on it. I just don't recall ever hearing of GR stating he wanted TOS pulled from syndication or WS blaming TFF stumbling on TNG.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Yes.

In fact, I was thinking about displaying a giant Abrams in Birkenstocks and tattered robes statue on my roof.

 

[RXTT]

I watched TOS as a young kid, and it constantly forced me to think about issues in ways I never thought of before.

To each his own, I suppose. And I watched Trek when I was pretty young, too. It had some smart episodes, to be sure, but it didn't make me think about "issues". Life makes me think about issues. I give zero credibility to fiction when trying to comment of humanity.

Star Wars does not do that.

What are you talking about ? How about Obi-Wan's "point of view" speech ?

fiction is written by humans to talk about things that would otherwise not be allowed. You may share in/enjoy .001% of what the world has to offer if you only use your own experience. That way breeds ignorance, prejudice, and tyranny

as far as Obi-Wan, like I said, it is more about metaphysics, and a really slapdash metaphysics (which Lucas destroyed with his subsequent introduction of mitocondria or whatever is supposed to give you the "force". he ruined his own metaphysics and tried to make it be anatomy-based.)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

fiction is written by humans to talk about things that would otherwise not be allowed.

No. That's not why fiction is written.

Abrams did not save Star Trek...the fans did...

Forty years ago you could make that argument.

Now? Absolutely wrong.

 

[Greg Cox]

Nostalgia is not enough. Sometimes you need to reinvent characters and series for a new generation...

TOS - 1966-1969
TAS - 1973-1974
TNG - 1987-1994
DS9 - 1993-1999
VOY- 1995-2001
ENT - 2001-2005

Films: 1979-2002

Meanwhile CBD remastered TOS and now currently TNG with enhanced resolution and with likely plans for the rest of the series.

ST09 came out only four years after the last series. Yep, we're really deep into nostalgia for something ancient.

Depends on your age. I've spoken at enough libraries and elementary schools to know that, only a few years ago, today's kids were more familiar with Batman than Star Trek. And I'm not sure how many young people were watching Enterprise.

Catering to us old-school fans is fine, but we definitely needed to do some outreach to the next generation . . . which seems to be working.

 

[CaptPapa]

What an interesting conversation – I like it.
First, I understand the references to the ‘dark early days’ of the ‘70s. I doubt they were meant to be condescending. Yes if you study history (history of Star Trek in this case), then you can learn what happened, but if you lived through it, you understand what happened.
Now, with the new movies Star Trek is ‘popular cool’. True enough – but in today’s world, that’s momentary. That’s just a natural progression I guess – not meant to offend.
Remember, Harve Bennett, and then Nicholas Meyer “saved” Star Trek previously. Of course, Bjo Trimble also saved Star Trek too. You could make a case that Gene L. Coon saved Star Trek . . . I guess this could go on indefinitely.
I don’t think JJ Abrams saved Star Trek, not as I would define the term, but I would say that JJ Abrams revived Star Trek. Star Trek was not dead – it is just livelier now. The core fans will sustain it though, at whatever level that may be. From what I hear and read, more fans have been brought into the core by way of JJ Abrams - and that’s a good thing.

 

[RXTT]

I do not think is saved anything. I think it refreshed it. Some other person would eventually have made a new Trek movie, and it could just as easily been as successful.

I think what the new movies did is give new fans the feeling that they are IN on the ground floor of something fresh. The Trek films always benefited by the mass of stored data in our collective brains regarding the Trek world. This made it hard for non-fans to appreciate.

Now, did JJ make new fans of Trek? or did he just make fans of this new action/adventure movie franchise? we shall see.

I personally HATE re-boots, because it is the easy way to go. It does not take any true caring for the subject matter of let's say, Green Lantern, to re-boot the story. the same goes for Trek. JJ did not like Trek. he admits it. he grew to love it though, as he has stated.

If the new movies give new fans a way to poke theirb heads into our Trekker world of fandom then that is a great thing.
If the movies create a whole new group of fans with antagonistic attitudes toward any old TREK, then he may have actually done more harm than good to the Trek Universe. we will see in a few years.

I think it will be good.

 

[Warped9]

I understand the references to the ‘dark early days’ of the ‘70s. I doubt they were meant to be condescending. Yes if you study history (history of Star Trek in this case), then you can learn what happened, but if you lived through it, you understand what happened.

It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending. I lived through those early days. I missed TOS in its original run, but started to watch it in 1970.

By dark days I meant to convey a sense of how many of us felt. Unlike today without the Internet many fans could feel isolated with little idea other fans could be just down the block or around the corner. Many of us could feel other fans were scattered wide across the country (or continent) with little idea how many there really were. Our only tie to Star Trek were books and merchandise and conventions if you were able to go (or even knew they existed). David Gerrold's book The World of Star Trek really opened my eyes to the fandom that was out there. Those publications and finally attending a convention in 1976 finally brought home the realization of how real and widespread the fandom was.

For years we wished Star Trek could be granted the respect and recognition many us felt it deserved. Like them or not TMP and then TWOK were the signs that Star Trek need no longer be merely our little secret passion.

For me thats how it felt.

 

[ConRefit79]

No. He simply produced 2 movies that have so far been successful. But if it's anything like Batman or Spiderman, It will reboot again after 3 or 4 films. Do we really want to keep starting over and over?

 

[Greg Cox]

I understand the references to the ‘dark early days’ of the ‘70s. I doubt they were meant to be condescending. Yes if you study history (history of Star Trek in this case), then you can learn what happened, but if you lived through it, you understand what happened.

It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending. I lived through those early days. I missed TOS in its original run, but started to watch it in 1970.

By dark days I meant to convey a sense of how many of us felt. Unlike today without the Internet many fans could feel isolated with little idea other fans could be just down the block or around the corner. Many of us could feel other fans were scattered wide across the country (or continent) with little idea how many there really were. Our only tie to Star Trek were books and merchandise and conventions if you were able to go (or even knew they existed). David Gerrold's book The World of Star Trek really opened my eyes to the fandom that was out there. Those publications and finally attending a convention in 1976 finally brought home the realization of how real and widespread the fandom was.

For years we wished Star Trek could be granted the respect and recognition many us felt it deserved. Like them or not TMP and then TWOK were the signs that Star Trek need no longer be our little secret passion.

For me thats how it felt.

Exactly. I didn't discover organized fandom until the late seventies. Before then, I had, like, one friend who was also into Star Trek and Doc Savage and Marvel Comics and such. And, yes, I devoured David Gerrold's books as well!

As I like to joke, Logan's Run costumes were still fashionable when I discovered fandom!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's long since reached the point where hard core fandom holds Star Trek back from the kinds of changes necessary to appeal to current tastes - and therefore drags down its chances of survival, much less success.

It wouldn't hurt to reboot Kirk and Spock every so often. It might well be the best way to go with a new TV series, given that the current cast and the kind of production involved in the movies would not be practical for TV.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Some other person would eventually have made a new Trek movie, and it could just as easily been as successful.

This like saying the guy who pulls someone drowning out of a pool didn't save that person because someone else could have easily done it.

And, yes, Star Trek was drowning.

I think what the new movies did is give new fans the feeling that they are IN on the ground floor of something fresh. The Trek films always benefited by the mass of stored data in our collective brains regarding the Trek world. This made it hard for non-fans to appreciate.

Canon has always been Star Treks Achilles. It never benefited anyone besides those who worship it.

Now, did JJ make new fans of Trek? or did he just make fans of this new action/adventure movie franchise? we shall see.

All Trek series have been extremely popular (some of the most watched) on the various streaming sites as of late.

I personally HATE re-boots, because it is the easy way to go. It does not take any true caring for the subject matter of let's say, Green Lantern, to re-boot the story. the same goes for Trek. JJ did not like Trek. he admits it. he grew to love it though, as he has stated.

Nonsense. The history of human storytelling boils down to reboots.

 

[RXTT]

and it boils down to a lot of boring crap tooo