Did Abrams really save the franchise?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
It's part of the job, yep.
And, honestly, you can bring yourself up to speed on almost any series in a couple of weeks.
Everybody does research everyday. Does it help? Yes. It's not, however, what makes them good writers "worth their salt" nor is it a requisite for writing a good story.
There have been countless stories written were the entire contents came strait from the creators' brains.
In other words, your sweeping generalization was total bologna.
If portraying Spock as a gluttonous sloth works for the betterment of the story you're trying to write, portray him as a gluttonous sloth.
First of all, all TV shows have bibles. Secondly, all TV shows contradict their bibles all the time.
Research is optional but ultimately immaterial.
Abrams did not save the franchise.
He created a new franchise, which is good for different reasons.
He created a new franchise, which is good for different reasons.
Wow - could not disagree more with your assessment of why a creative person creates. From my experience (married to an artist, not a writer), a creative person creates because they have something inside them that needs expression. Maybe it's different for a creative person who is a writer, than for a creative person who is an artist.
This thread is moving pretty quickly so this might have already been adressed, but I'll bet most (all?) of the professional writers on this site would disagree too. Of course it's great to earn a living, but is that the initial concern? Is that what first motivates a creative person to create? I'm thinking . . . NO!
Do you know how thick that Bible would be if you included all the minutiae from seven hundred hours of material? It would put the regular Bible to shame.
I know. I meant, the basic stuff. Important events in the timeline, what's physically or technologically forbidden on the show, that kind of stuff.
Of course, if it were me, that would all be done before the first pilot were produced, but that's me and my insane obsession with detail and structure.
That said, a reasonable amount of faithfulness simply helps suspension of disbelief and appreciation for a work of higher quality. But I can live without it.
I'm inclined to agree. Financial gain is often not the prime motivation for creative endeavour. Surely it could be a factor, but often not a prime one.
Abrams should not have to adhere strictly to Star Trek canon just like Christopher Nolan should not have to adhere strictly to Burton-Batman canon.
In principle I agree. My issue with Abrams' approach (and not really the subject of this thread) isn't that the franchise was rebooted but with the direction taken and the overall execution.
Now back to the subject at hand...
I tend to agree but then again I also think that motivations are overrated. Sometimes people can create something sublime while having the lowest motivations.
One of my favourite writers became famous when he was nearly broke and wrote a novel which was printed in a newspaper. I prefer his late work, written when he was long out of dire financial straits, but this early novel has always been his most popular one.
Last edited:
You goofed on the QUOTE. I didn't say this. CaptPapa did. I just agreed with him.
No probs.
I lean slightly towards no, that isn't to say he didn't have an impact on it.
But it was the fanbase in part that saved the franchise. Remember during the 70's it was the fans who kept the show alive and proved to the studio there was a demand for new trek. So an animated show was made, then plans for a new live action show which turned into a movie and so on.
Something similar happend with DW in the UK, the fans kept it alive and eventually it was regenerated by the BBC.
So perhaps JJ's biggest impact was to make true cool again.
But it was the fanbase in part that saved the franchise. Remember during the 70's it was the fans who kept the show alive and proved to the studio there was a demand for new trek. So an animated show was made, then plans for a new live action show which turned into a movie and so on.
Something similar happend with DW in the UK, the fans kept it alive and eventually it was regenerated by the BBC.
So perhaps JJ's biggest impact was to make true cool again.
How so ?
I would say he kept it in the mainstream. If Nu Trek wasn't a success, it would have been strike 3, and the studios might have given up on the franchise.
Abrams is on the record as saying he was never a fan of Trek. That would be all the more reason to study a bible, if just to avoid some crazy changes to a character.
Nu Trek is obviously a blockbuster movie--big explosions, nonstop actions etc. the somewhat silly gimmicks like the Spock and Uhura relationship, (my opinion) but it works--it's making money.
I still have a hard time with the Kirk going from cadet to captain in a few short minutes, and the Spok/Uhura thing, but the movie did put Trek back in the spotlight.
The thing is, if it keeps following the blockbuster formula, then the danger is that withing a few years there will be a reboot yet again--like Spiderman, Superman, Batman, ect.
Abrams is on the record as saying he was never a fan of Trek. That would be all the more reason to study a bible, if just to avoid some crazy changes to a character.
Nu Trek is obviously a blockbuster movie--big explosions, nonstop actions etc. the somewhat silly gimmicks like the Spock and Uhura relationship, (my opinion) but it works--it's making money.
I still have a hard time with the Kirk going from cadet to captain in a few short minutes, and the Spok/Uhura thing, but the movie did put Trek back in the spotlight.
The thing is, if it keeps following the blockbuster formula, then the danger is that withing a few years there will be a reboot yet again--like Spiderman, Superman, Batman, ect.
Movie goers and "Star Trek fans" are overlapping sets but far from congruent. "The fans" haven't made the Abrams movies the successes that they are, and to some extent have impeded success. They sure as hell didn't "save the franchise" after TV Trek imploded, sorry.
Apparently some obscure meaning of the word "danger" that I was previously unfamiliar with.
- Status
Similar threads
