Did Abrams really save the franchise?

[CorporalCaptain]

All those TWOK references wouldn't be well received in a TNG film.

Just imagine in Star Trek: Nemesis, Data dies behind a glass plane in the ship's engine room, with Geordi holding Picard back on the other side because the radiation would flood the whole compartment, and Data saying "I have been, and always shall be, your friend." ? And then, Picard yells SHIIIINZOOOOON!

That could have improved Nemesis.

 

[beamMe]

And if anyone would actually watch the special features available on the Blu-ray edition they would understand exactly how much Abrams respected the material he was working with. But that would be too much effort and would contradict the nerdrage regarding Abrams.

I've seen those specials on the disc. I certainly didn't get any impression of genuine respect, particularly when he flat out says he felt Trek should be more like Star Wars.

Then I certainly didn't see much of any respect manifest onscreen either.

And for him to say Star Trek was too philosophical, well too bad. That's part of its identity.


Star Trek would have been forgotten without the Abrams' films? Hardly, particularly since the last incarnations weren't in the far past and with reruns galore still available. Also given that Hollywood likes to resurrect things many if not most hardly remember or even knew existed.

And up until the end of Enterprise Star Trek was so respected by the production people that it turned into Lenin: hollow, with nothing much left of the original.

 

[Warped9]

And if anyone would actually watch the special features available on the Blu-ray edition they would understand exactly how much Abrams respected the material he was working with. But that would be too much effort and would contradict the nerdrage regarding Abrams.

I've seen those specials on the disc. I certainly didn't get any impression of genuine respect, particularly when he flat out says he felt Trek should be more like Star Wars.

Then I certainly didn't see much of any respect manifest onscreen either.

And for him to say Star Trek was too philosophical, well too bad. That's part of its identity.


Star Trek would have been forgotten without the Abrams' films? Hardly, particularly since the last incarnations weren't in the far past and with reruns galore still available. Also given that Hollywood likes to resurrect things many if not most hardly remember or even knew existed.

And up until the end of Enterprise Star Trek was so respected by the production people that it turned into Lenin: hollow, with nothing much left of the original.

Being respected is largely irrelevant. There is tons of crap out there making money which is fine for the bean counters and the fans of said materiel. I (and others like minded) care nothing for the Abrams' films and don't think they're worthy of any respect, but that's also irrelevant.

TOS got little respect for the longest time. Getting a measure of recognition is something else.

 

[Harvey]

Abrams (with the input of a lot of other people) produced and directed a pair of Star Trek movies which have proven it to be a commercially viable motion picture franchise (again). Harve Bennett, Nicholas Meyer, and Leonard Nimoy did the same thing in the early 1980s. If what the latter group did is considered "saving the franchise," then certainly Abrams and his collaborators should receive the same credit.

But, much of this thread obviously has no interest in the question posed by the title.

 

[Amaris]

I just deleted two paragraphs of writing that was pointless ranting.

You be you. Enjoy what you like. Forget about letting go. If this movie is your thing, enjoy it.

I am the one who needs to move on. I was writing to myself, I think. And I REALLY wanted this movie to be good (as opposed to kewl; I will definitely give it kewl props). People even told me to have faith in JJ, on this BBS. Fool me once shame on you . . . .

It's a shame you didn't like it, and I don't mean that in any insulting way. J.J.'s directing style is apparently not your cup of tea. That's cool. There are Trek movies people love which just do not appeal to me, and that's okay, too.

It's a "to each their own" kind of thing. I have friends who love Star Trek: Voyager, can quote episodes line for line, but for me it leaves me cold, and I really have no interest in the show. Does that make it bad, and my friends wrong for liking it? Nope. It's all about taste.

 

[beamMe]

Being respected is largely irrelevant.

Then why bring it up?

 

[Warped9]

Being respected is largely irrelevant.

Then why bring it up?

I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else who brought it up.

 

[Belz...]

Second, there was no "playing field" when Star Trek became popular. You guys are the ones who can't grasp the difference.

The difference is that there were fewer channels and shows to choose from back then.

I didn't notice any philosophy in STID that wasn't lifted directly from Pegasus or Insurrection.

No story is really original, if you want to play that game.

Everything coming out about the film was rubbing me the wrong way.

I think it's fair to examine your motives, however. I found that my own preconceptions influence what I feel about a movie or whatever greatly. Maybe you were dead-set against the idea of that movie ?

All those TWOK references wouldn't be well received in a TNG film.

Wrong cast of characters.

 

[Warped9]

Abrams (with the input of a lot of other people) produced and directed a pair of Star Trek movies which have proven it to be a commercially viable motion picture franchise (again). Harve Bennett, Nicholas Meyer, and Leonard Nimoy did the same thing in the early 1980s. If what the latter group did is considered "saving the franchise," then certainly Abrams and his collaborators should receive the same credit.

But, much of this thread obviously has no interest in the question posed by the title.

Did they "save" the franchise? Likely no more than Abrams did.

 

[JarodRussell]

Abrams (with the input of a lot of other people) produced and directed a pair of Star Trek movies which have proven it to be a commercially viable motion picture franchise (again). Harve Bennett, Nicholas Meyer, and Leonard Nimoy did the same thing in the early 1980s. If what the latter group did is considered "saving the franchise," then certainly Abrams and his collaborators should receive the same credit.

But, much of this thread obviously has no interest in the question posed by the title.

Did they "save" the franchise? Likely no more than Abrams did.

They continued it.

 

[Warped9]

Everything coming out about the film was rubbing me the wrong way.

I think it's fair to examine your motives, however. I found that my own preconceptions influence what I feel about a movie or whatever greatly. Maybe you were dead-set against the idea of that movie ?

Of course we all have a measure of preferences and even bias regarding practically anything. It's likely impossible to be totally objective about anything.

But I am a Star Trek fan. I understood and accepted a reboot was likely and possible. I can see how a reboot done in a particular way could appeal to me. But in this case (in my opinion) Abrams did everything wrong as did his writers.

Abrams (with the input of a lot of other people) produced and directed a pair of Star Trek movies which have proven it to be a commercially viable motion picture franchise (again). Harve Bennett, Nicholas Meyer, and Leonard Nimoy did the same thing in the early 1980s. If what the latter group did is considered "saving the franchise," then certainly Abrams and his collaborators should receive the same credit.

But, much of this thread obviously has no interest in the question posed by the title.

Did they "save" the franchise? Likely no more than Abrams did.

They continued it.

There you go.

 

[Amaris]

Everything coming out about the film was rubbing me the wrong way.

I think it's fair to examine your motives, however. I found that my own preconceptions influence what I feel about a movie or whatever greatly. Maybe you were dead-set against the idea of that movie ?

Of course we all have a measure of preferences and even bias regarding practically anything. It's likely impossible to be totally objective about anything.

But I am a Star Trek fan. I understood and accepted a reboot was likely and possible. I can see how a reboot done in a particular way could appeal to me. But in this case (in my opinion) Abrams did everything wrong as did his writers.

Did they "save" the franchise? Likely no more than Abrams did.

They continued it.

There you go.

So you credit Abrams with keeping the Star Trek franchise alive.

 

[beamMe]

Being respected is largely irrelevant.

Then why bring it up?

I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else who brought it up.

So you did.

Didn't seem as irrelevant to you in that post.

Oh, Yes, to your original question.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Did they "save" the franchise? Likely no more than Abrams did.

What was the buzz about a new Star Trek Film before Abrams became involved? My recollection is that both film and TV iterations of Star Trek were dead in the water.

 

[Warped9]

So you credit Abrams with keeping the Star Trek franchise alive.

It wasn't dead to begin with.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So you credit Abrams with keeping the Star Trek franchise alive.

It wasn't dead to begin with.

It was in a coma and on life support.

 

[Belz...]

Did they "save" the franchise? Likely no more than Abrams did.

They continued it.

Which, compared to it not continuing, sounds like saving to me.

I understood and accepted a reboot was likely and possible. I can see how a reboot done in a particular way could appeal to me. But in this case (in my opinion) Abrams did everything wrong as did his writers.

Fair enough.

It wasn't dead to begin with.

We've been through this before: dead means no more movies and series. Who cares about fans like me who watch their DVDs ?

 

[Warped9]

Who cares about fans like me who watch their DVDs ?

Whoever is making money off the sale of those DVD's and other merchandise. If money continues to come in then there's evidently at least a pulse.

We've been through this before: dead means no more movies and series.

In your opinion.

 

[Belz...]

In your opinion.

I don't think so. I seriously doubt that the OP is asking us whether, without Abrams, toys would still be sold and fan fiction written.

 

[iguana_tonante]

WNMHGB saved the franchise in the sense that without it Star Trek would have been a missed opportunity because "The Cage" itself couldn't close the sale.

TAS didn't save the franchise because it didn't seem to have much of an impact other than further whetting fans' appetites for live-action Star Trek.

TMP and TWOK mightn't have saved the franchise, but they certainly gave it a kick in the pants.

TNG didn't save the franchise but certainly did expand it. Ditto with DS9. I'd argue that VOY and ENT started to hurt the franchise at least in the general public perception if not in the eyes of those shows' fans. Except for maybe FC I'd argue the TNG films weren't helping the franchise.

So nothing ever "saved" the franchise, even if they resurrected it from obscurity and made it commercially viable (TWOK, TNG, Abrams), except the second episode, when there was no franchise to speak of. Perfectly logical.