Did Abrams really save the franchise?

[Third Nacelle]

No, I understand the FACTS of why Star Trek does continue to get made.

I do not understand the philosophy of why people believe it SHOULD continue to get made. By that logic they should reboot The Golden Girls, or MASH or ER, or Seinfeld.

Maybe this will sound like blasphemy, but Star Trek ran out of new stories to tell about halfway through Voyager. It needed a much longer break. If there's going to be new Star Trek, it should be NEW Star Trek. I don't hate the Abrams movies, but I don't see what they add to the franchise. They're pastiche bordering on parody.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No, I understand the FACTS of why Star Trek does continue to get made.

I do not understand the philosophy of why people believe it SHOULD continue to get made. By that logic they should reboot The Golden Girls, or MASH or ER, or Seinfeld.

Maybe this will sound like blasphemy, but Star Trek ran out of new stories to tell about halfway through Voyager. It needed a much longer break. If there's going to be new Star Trek, it should be NEW Star Trek. I don't hate the Abrams movies, but I don't see what they add to the franchise. They're pastiche bordering on parody.

I see no reason why they shouldn't reboot any of those. Okay, maybe not Seinfeld, but only because of it's connection to Jerry Seinfeld.

Star Trek ran out of new ideas halfway through TOS season one.

Nah it should be new stories about Kirk and Spock.

 

[Amaris]

If at heart and in overall sensibility TOS had been just another run-of-the-mill sci-fi show it wouldn't have connected with succeeding generations of fans.

And we wouldn't be here debating it more than forty years later.

Sure Star Trek connects with people, and it seems the new movies are doing the same. What's your point?

 

[Lord Garth]

JJ Abrams is giving us three films. No more, no less. He was in the right place at the right time.

Paramount would've eventually wanted to reboot Star Trek, Abrams or not. CBS will eventually want a new Star Trek series. If not them, then Paramount when it gets its own TV wing (back) up and they'd work something out with CBS in that scenario.

Even in 2005, I never thought ENT would be the last series but I didn't expect one any time soon. When CBS and whoever else might be the right people are good and ready, they'll have a new series.

On the film end, ST XIV may continue in the Abrams style or whoever produces/directs after him will want to do Star Trek their way.* It would be revamped again at the very least but more likely just rebooted again.

* I know there's a strong chance JJ Abrams won't direct ST XIII but he'll still be producing and they'll probably want to keep the next film consistent with the first two so I don't see any serious changes happening until after that.

 

[Amaris]

JJ Abrams is giving us three films. No more, no less. He was in the right place at the right time.

Paramount would've eventually wanted to reboot Star Trek, Abrams or not. CBS will eventually want a new Star Trek series. If not them, then Paramount when it gets its own TV wing (back) up and they'd work something out with CBS in that scenario.

Even in 2005, I never thought ENT would be the last series but I didn't expect one any time soon. When CBS and whoever else might be the right people are good and ready, they'll have a new series.

On the film end, ST XIV may continue in the Abrams style or whoever produces/directs after him will want to do Star Trek their way.* It would be revamped again at the very least but more likely just rebooted again.

* I know there's a strong chance JJ Abrams won't direct ST XIII but he'll still be producing and they'll probably want to keep the next film consistent with the first two so I don't see any serious changes happening until after that.

Yes, he was in the right place at the right time, but it still takes the right skill set to make a profitable, and popular, movie in a franchise besotted with 40+ years of canon and fandom. Star Trek XI, in someone else's hands, could have failed miserably. Instead, it broke previous box office records.

I think J.J. deserves a little credit for that.

 

[Lord Garth]

JJ Abrams is giving us three films. No more, no less. He was in the right place at the right time.

Paramount would've eventually wanted to reboot Star Trek, Abrams or not. CBS will eventually want a new Star Trek series. If not them, then Paramount when it gets its own TV wing (back) up and they'd work something out with CBS in that scenario.

Even in 2005, I never thought ENT would be the last series but I didn't expect one any time soon. When CBS and whoever else might be the right people are good and ready, they'll have a new series.

On the film end, ST XIV may continue in the Abrams style or whoever produces/directs after him will want to do Star Trek their way.* It would be revamped again at the very least but more likely just rebooted again.

* I know there's a strong chance JJ Abrams won't direct ST XIII but he'll still be producing and they'll probably want to keep the next film consistent with the first two so I don't see any serious changes happening until after that.

Yes, he was in the right place at the right time, but it still takes the right skill set to make a profitable, and popular, movie in a franchise besotted with 40+ years of canon and fandom. Star Trek XI, in someone else's hands, could have failed miserably. Instead, it broke previous box office records.

I think J.J. deserves a little credit for that.

^ Well, yeah, if they bombed then that someone else would've given us one film.

 

[Nightdiamond]

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.

Apparently some obscure meaning of the word "danger" that I was previously unfamiliar with.

Not so much a danger to fans but to the studios, at least the way they see things.

This latest trek movie opened to huge box office and already the studio heads are considering it a disappointment.

And it's only the second installment. I've seen this pattern before.

A movie makes what normally would be considered a ton of money, but for the studios, it's not enough. And they keep spending ridiculous amounts of millions of dollars wanting an even higher turn with each movie.

And it usually ends with changing actors, directors and finally a new reboot. End result is the fans never really connect with the characters because of the rapid changes of pace.

That's the way of blockbuster movies and Nu Trek are blockbuster movies

 

[Amaris]

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.

Apparently some obscure meaning of the word "danger" that I was previously unfamiliar with.

Not so much a danger to fans but to the studios, at least the way they see things.

This latest trek movie opened to huge box office and already the studio heads are considering it a disappointment.

And it's only the second installment. I've seen this pattern before.

A movie makes what normally would be considered a ton of money, but for the studios, it's not enough. And they keep spending ridiculous amounts of millions of dollars wanting an even higher turn with each movie.

And it usually ends with changing actors, directors and finally a new reboot. End result is the fans never really connect with the characters because of the rapid changes of pace.

That's the way of blockbuster movies and Nu Trek are blockbuster movies

Where did the studio heads say the movie was a disappointment? If they did, by chance, say this, are they aware the movie is still new in theaters?

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, but the loud complaining and bitching about arcane continuity trivia that some do perpetuates the popular notion that Star Trek is somehow an enthusiasm for...someone most folks don't want to be. Or sit next to. The Onion knew their stuff.

To be fair I'm not sure anyone's listening to our bitching.

Did Abrams save Star Trek from what? Was it in some kind of danger? Was al Qaeda involved?

Saved from not being in movies again.

Star Trek was never in any danger of being a "minor footnote." It's the most iconic series in science fiction.

Entirely irrelevant. The point here is that Trek would remain off the air and out of theatres indefinitely, and that's still a possibility in the future.

If at heart and in overall sensibility TOS had been just another run-of-the-mill sci-fi show it wouldn't have connected with succeeding generations of fans.

You're forgeting other factors that may have the same impact: the series was insanely fun.

 

[R. Star]

Did Abrams save Star Trek from what? Was it in some kind of danger? Was al Qaeda involved?

Maybe he "saved" Star Trek like Jesus saves people. He'll walk on water next too.

 

[Amaris]

Did Abrams save Star Trek from what? Was it in some kind of danger? Was al Qaeda involved?

Maybe he "saved" Star Trek like Jesus saves people. He'll walk on water next too.

He already has the Jewish visionary thing going for him.

 

[Warped9]

I don't grant Abrams any credit for following the pack and doing what most others are doing with summer popcorn fare: pander to cliches and broad caricature and distraction of hyper-action and flashy f/x. That's practically an established play book for summer fare. And he's hailed as genius for doing what everyone else is doing. Please.

The block buster mentality is self-defeating in the long run I think. Evermore is spent in the expectation for ever bigger returns and it inevitably gets to the point where even respectable returns are viewed as disappointing. Shmucks.

 

[Belz...]

I don't grant Abrams any credit for following the pack and doing what most others are doing with summer popcorn fare: pander to cliches and broad caricature and distraction of hyper-action and flashy f/x.

Unlike TOS, right ?

Oh, wait.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't grant Abrams any credit for following the pack and doing what most others are doing with summer popcorn fare: pander to cliches and broad caricature and distraction of hyper-action and flashy f/x. That's practically an established play book for summer fare. And he's hailed as genius for doing what everyone else is doing. Please.

The block buster mentality is self-defeating in the long run I think. Evermore is spent in the expectation for ever bigger returns and it inevitably gets to the point where even respectable returns are viewed as disappointing. Shmucks.

Hailed as a genius? That's as hyperbolic as as saying he ruined Star Trek. He's not breaking new ground, but is making good use of modern film making techniques. Which is pretty much what Star Trek has always done. Most folks will say he made an enjoyable and profitable film. For that I will give him credit.

 

[RXTT]

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.

Batman was created in the comics, so anyone should follow the guidelines set up by the comics, not by Tim Burton who HATES COMIC BOOKS anyways.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

Batman was created in the comics, so anyone should follow the guidelines set up by the comics, not by Tim Burton who HATES COMIC BOOKS anyways.

Which comics? Batman has changed a lot over the decades. Which is par for the course when a concept lasts that long.

Hates? Or are they not something he's into?

 

[RXTT]

"Anybody who knows me knows I would never read a comic book. And I certainly would never read anything written by Kevin Smith." - Tim Burton talking about a claim made (probably in half-jest) by Kevin Smith that Burton's Planet of the Apes ending/story was taken from K Smith's previous Planet of the Apes comic books.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"Anybody who knows me knows I would never read a comic book. And I certainly would never read anything written by Kevin Smith." - Tim Burton talking about a claim made (probably in half-jest) by Kevin Smith that Burton's Planet of the Apes ending/story was taken from K Smith's previous Planet of the Apes comic books.

So, not hates then. I'm not a fan of Smith's comic book output either.

 

[RXTT]

The basics of batman have not changed, because they are the core of who the character is.

he was born wealthy. His parents were killed by a lowly criminal. He is super smart. He trained himself in all the ways he could to fight crime. he wears a bat outfit to scare criminals.

Trek is the same in a sense.

The Earth solved it's petty divisions, Humans created faster-than-light travel, They met other species who also traveled the stars. They created a Federation of Planets. They explore the galaxy.

That is SIMPLE and genius. It allows for the creation of countless stories, and little worlds-within-the-big-world of Trek.

In keeping faith to this JJ did a good job. Now, whether the new crop of actors will resonate with fans the way the OG cast did, or the TNG cast did, or the DS9 cast did (NINER 4 LIFE!), that is another question. I hope they do, but getting the same actors to constantly play the same roles was difficult for the OG cast, and near impossible for the current crop of Hollywood actors.

In conventions of the future, will Shatner be Kirk I and the new guy (sorry but I do not remember the dude's name) be Kirk II?

Will Quinto be Spock Beta and Nimoy be Spock Alpha?

I wonder....

 

[RXTT]

"Anybody who knows me knows I would never read a comic book. And I certainly would never read anything written by Kevin Smith." - Tim Burton talking about a claim made (probably in half-jest) by Kevin Smith that Burton's Planet of the Apes ending/story was taken from K Smith's previous Planet of the Apes comic books.

So, not hates then. I'm not a fan of Smith's comic book output either.

that's not the point. the point is that Burton said he would NEVER READ A COMIC BOOK. That sounds like active dislike, or at the least serious disdain.