There is no such thing as "true" Trek.
Of course there is.
In about 160 years, it'll be invented by a little old lady from Leningrad.
There is no such thing as "true" Trek.
There is no such thing as "true" Trek.
Of course there is.
In about 160 years, it'll be invented by a little old lady from Leningrad.
RoddenberrovaThere is no such thing as "true" Trek.
Of course there is.
In about 160 years, it'll be invented by a little old lady from Leningrad.
Gena Roddenberrovich?
From the first airing of The Man Trap in September of 1966, through the last movie appearance of Kirk and two others of the main TOS cast in Generations in November of 1994, it was 28 years.
On the other hand, between Encounter At Farpoint (September of 1987) and the end of the TNG era with Nemesis (December of 2002), it was 15 years.
It started it all. No one is disputing that. But TNG picked that ball up and ran with it. Without TNG's success, Trek on T.V would have died in the 80s and the movies would have ended after TUC.TOS might not be the only "true" Star Trek, but it is undeniably the heart and core of the Star Trek world.
When Spock appeared on TNG it was a event, when Riker appeared on VOY it was a blip.
When DS9's crew time travel into one of a previous series episodes, instead of the Tribbles episode, they could have been inserted into a TNG adventure, but they weren't.
-Relics
The 2009 reboot is TOS. Made millions.
There is no "true" Star Trek IMO, just Star Trek. Yes I like certain series/films more than others but it's all part of the same overall storyline and universe, and has a lot of the same ideas explored.
This "true Star Trek" thing seems to be the nerd version of "I listened to that band before they were popular, so their new stuff sucks"
-Relics
The 2009 reboot is TOS. Made millions.
If making millions makes it "true" Star Trek, then TOS isn't "true" Star Trek. TOS had pretty bad ratings and was cancelled because of them. It really only became popular through re-runs and the movies.
There is no "true" Star Trek IMO, just Star Trek. Yes I like certain series/films more than others but it's all part of the same overall storyline and universe, and has a lot of the same ideas explored.
This "true Star Trek" thing seems to be the nerd version of "I listened to that band before they were popular, so their new stuff sucks"
There is no "true" Star Trek IMO, just Star Trek. Yes I like certain series/films more than others but it's all part of the same overall storyline and universe, and has a lot of the same ideas explored.
This "true Star Trek" thing seems to be the nerd version of "I listened to that band before they were popular, so their new stuff sucks"
-Relics
The 2009 reboot is TOS. Made millions.
If making millions makes it "true" Star Trek, then TOS isn't "true" Star Trek. TOS had pretty bad ratings and was cancelled because of them. It really only became popular through re-runs and the movies.
TOS made millions.
I'm not saying the other Treks didn't but you cannot deny TOS was profitable.
Somewhere on these boards it says CBS makes 10 million a year currently just from TOS merchandising.
Because by this point few were watching VOY.
You don't think that might have something to do with the recent rebooted movies? What was TOS pulling in back before JJ Abrams came along and rose Star Trek from the ashes?
There is no "true" Star Trek IMO, just Star Trek. Yes I like certain series/films more than others but it's all part of the same overall storyline and universe, and has a lot of the same ideas explored.
This "true Star Trek" thing seems to be the nerd version of "I listened to that band before they were popular, so their new stuff sucks"
Bingo!![]()
I hear that all the time as an argument used by the filmmakers against including something in a film. "The audience... so stupid, they would be confused!"There is no "true" Star Trek IMO, just Star Trek. Yes I like certain series/films more than others but it's all part of the same overall storyline and universe, and has a lot of the same ideas explored.
This "true Star Trek" thing seems to be the nerd version of "I listened to that band before they were popular, so their new stuff sucks"
Bingo!![]()
There may be a bit of that going on with the reaction to NuTrek as well. "But . . . but some of the people seeing the movies don't even know what a Gorn is!"
TOS was on the air for three years. TNG was on for seven years. TNG was more successful during it's run. That is fact.
TOS was on the air for three years. TNG was on for seven years. TNG was more successful during it's run. That is fact.
But it's not really comparable. TNG was first-run syndication, where the competition was considerably less than it would be in a network prime-time slot. TNG, like TOS, never cracked the top 30 in ratings, and it is highly doubtful it would have lasted as long as it did on one of the big four broadcast networks.
But it's not really comparable. TNG was first-run syndication, where the competition was considerably less than it would be in a network prime-time slot. TNG, like TOS, never cracked the top 30 in ratings, and it is highly doubtful it would have lasted as long as it did on one of the big four broadcast networks.
That's not entirely accurate, though. During TNG's real heydey, around the time of the 5th and 6th seasons, it was pulling in ratings that went head-to-head with its network competition. In particular, I remember Paramount being very proud of the fact that TNG was beating the ratings for Monday Night Football.TOS was on the air for three years. TNG was on for seven years. TNG was more successful during it's run. That is fact.
But it's not really comparable. TNG was first-run syndication, where the competition was considerably less than it would be in a network prime-time slot. TNG, like TOS, never cracked the top 30 in ratings, and it is highly doubtful it would have lasted as long as it did on one of the big four broadcast networks.
From the first airing of The Man Trap in September of 1966, through the last movie appearance of Kirk and two others of the main TOS cast in Generations in November of 1994, it was 28 years.
The movies and the television series are two separate things. You're also counting a whole lot of years of inactivity.For instance the series ended in 1969 and the first movie didn't hit the screen until ten years later.You don't get to count all those empty years.
TOS was on the air for three years. TNG was on for seven years. TNG was more successful during it's run. That is fact. If you want to throw movies into the mix, then yes the original cast was more successful since they lasted 6 movies and most of them were better than TNG did in 4. That one I'll give you. But television series? Not even close. TOS was kicked off the air due to bad ratings while TNG was still strong when the series ended.
Thanks, that one and this one are my favorites.
![]()
I gotta be a true fan to have done that one!!!!![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.