Did Abrams really save the franchise?

[Warped9]

New and pre-existing tie-in merchandise was still making money and a lot of interest still existed (as evidenced by said sales). The lull after ENT was basically a mini version of the '70s except there was a helluva lot more going on in the mid 2000s given the Internet and the amount of new merchandise available.

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.

Star Trek wasn't in obscurity in the 1970s nor in the mid 2000s.

 

[Belz...]

As I said, I don't think this is what people mean by "saving the franchise", Warped9.

 

[iguana_tonante]

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.

Star Trek wasn't in obscurity in the 1970s nor in the mid 2000s.

Of course it was. You just were in obscurity with it.

 

[Warped9]

As I said, I don't think this is what people mean by "saving the franchise", Warped9.

Oh, I understand what they mean. I just disagree with their meaning.

There hasn't been new Beatles music since 1970, but someone is maintaining and overseeing the copyright over their music. And money (I've no idea how much) continues to be made from that music. Yet while The Beatles likely are no longer as recognized among younger generations I think its safe to say they are hardly obscure as in totally forgotten but for a handful of devotees.

Over the decades I think its safe to say Star Trek has enjoyed a longer period of broad awareness than The Beatles' music.

Was the Star Wars franchise truly dead and obscure in the intervening years between the two trilogies? New product continued to tap into a continued interest in the property.

What I'm talking about is a matter of definition. Neither in the '70s or the more recently was Star Trek ever so obscure as to be forgotten and off-the-radar of broader awareness.

 

[Count Zero]

Over the decades I think its safe to say Star Trek has enjoyed a longer period of broad awareness than The Beatles' music.

Huh? The Beatles predate Star Trek by a couple of years.

 

[Warped9]

Over the decades I think its safe to say Star Trek has enjoyed a longer period of broad awareness than The Beatles' music.

Huh? The Beatles predate Star Trek by a couple of years.

Yep, a couple of years. But how broadly recognized are they among those below a certain age group, say '40s and up?

 

[Harvey]

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

It wasn't dead to begin with.

Is I Love Lucy still a viable franchise, too? After all, it also manages to sell quite a bit of merchandise and is still being syndicated.

 

[BillJ]

Was the Star Wars franchise truly dead and obscure in the intervening years between the two trilogies? New product continued to tap into a continued interest in the property.

I think there's a Hell of a difference between a franchise that is laying low after producing three movies that each made several hundred-million dollars and a franchise that limped off the stage with a TV series that no one watched and a movie that lost money.

 

[Harvey]

Over the decades I think its safe to say Star Trek has enjoyed a longer period of broad awareness than The Beatles' music.

Huh? The Beatles predate Star Trek by a couple of years.

Yep, a couple of years. But how broadly recognized are they among those below a certain age group, say '40s and up?

Very broadly. There are few musical icons more widely recognized in the United States (and, I would guess, abroad).

 

[Amaris]

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.

Don't you understand? Anyone can come out of a coma anytime they want!

 

[BillJ]

The Beatles and Star Trek are not in the same cultural ballpark. They aren't even in the same national park.

 

[Warped9]

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

It wasn't dead to begin with.

Is I Love Lucy still a viable franchise, too? After all, it also manages to sell quite a bit of merchandise and is still being syndicated.

Then I'd say it's still viable even if not on the level of Star Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, I suspect we could go back and forth forever on what constitutes "life" and "death" when it comes to some particular piece of pop culture. Is Mandrake the Magician still a going concern? Does Doc Savage need saving? Is something still mainstream or just a nostalgic footnote? And how much does that matter to the true believers?

Clearly, we need Dr. McCoy to wave his medical scanner and declare whether "It's dead, JIm" or not!

 

[Belz...]

Was the Star Wars franchise truly dead and obscure in the intervening years between the two trilogies? New product continued to tap into a continued interest in the property.

The Star Wars movie franchise was dead. As for the Beatles, music is a bit different but I see your point.

But then that means pretty much nothing is dead. Latin isn't a dead language because some people still learn it, etc. It makes the term "dead" for non-living things useless.

 

[Greg Cox]

It wasn't dead to begin with.

Is I Love Lucy still a viable franchise, too? After all, it also manages to sell quite a bit of merchandise and is still being syndicated.

Then I'd say it's still viable even if not on the level of Star Trek.

I actually saw an "I Love Lucy" magazine on sale at the grocery store today. And I know that "Lucy" xmas ornaments are still coming out.

 

[Amaris]

It wasn't dead to begin with.

Is I Love Lucy still a viable franchise, too? After all, it also manages to sell quite a bit of merchandise and is still being syndicated.

Then I'd say it's still viable even if not on the level of Star Trek.

J.J.'s Star Trek (2009) received critical praise, and took in more money than any previous Star Trek movie. Hell, in terms of financial success, and adjusted for inflation, it's domestic box office take alone was 4 times that of Star Trek: Nemesis' entire worldwide box office take.

What I've gathered so far from you is that:

1) Respect doesn't matter.
2) Financial success doesn't matter.
3) Critical acclaim doesn't matter.

Without those standards, applied, you could say that "no, J.J. didn't save the franchise." Of course, that being the case, without those same standards, the entire Star Trek franchise, including the various series', can be easily replicated and is nothing special. So why would you complain about what happens to it in the first place?

 

[Greg Cox]

The Beatles and Star Trek are not in the same cultural ballpark. They aren't even in the same national park.

I don't know. I'm pretty sure Chekov was the fifth Beatle.

 

[BillJ]

The Beatles and Star Trek are not in the same cultural ballpark. They aren't even in the same national park.

I don't know. I'm pretty sure Chekov was the fifth Beatle.

You sure he wasn't the first? The Beatles ver a Wussian inwention after all...

 

[CorporalClegg]

The Beatles and Star Trek are not in the same cultural ballpark. They aren't even in the same national park.

I don't know. I'm pretty sure Chekov was the fifth Beatle.

"Back in the U.S.S.R." finally makes sense!

Mind blown.

 

[Count Zero]

Huh? The Beatles predate Star Trek by a couple of years.

Yep, a couple of years. But how broadly recognized are they among those below a certain age group, say '40s and up?

Very broadly. There are few musical icons more widely recognized in the United States (and, I would guess, abroad).

Yeah, they're certainly better known than Star Trek.