A TOS resurgence?

[Noname Given]

Of course the only reason Abrams is relevant to this conversation is because his movies were successful (even Into Darkness). If the first one had failed it really would have been the nail in the coffin for TOS and probably all of Trek with it.

We'd have seen it again, but it would've gotten the "Starsky & Hutch" treatment. With Will Ferrell and Jack Black as Kirk and Spock.

Or maybe it would have been given to someone who actually has a little talent.

^^^
Given the ACTUAL history of Gene Roddenberry's involvement with TOS in particular; I don't think you really want to open that can of worms as there's AMPLE evidence during Star trek's development just how much 'talent' GR had in this regard.

(Gene's vision seemed to be - 'Let me profit off what I can, and bang as many young actresses as I can while Executive Producer - and I'll claim all the ideas contributed by other like Gene L. Coon and claim I was the one who came up with them.")

 

[thumbtack]

an aging, argumentative and pissy hardcore fanbase

Who's pissy?

perpetually cranky

Well, okay.

 

[Vger23]

Oh, yippee. So we keep hearing.

So in other words, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here has the right to say what other people are thinking, since we can't read minds. All we have to go on is sales figure evidence as a basis to judge popularity. QED.

Popularity doesn't equal intrinsic value; if it did, "Avatar" would be a more valuable piece of art/media than Van Gogh's "The Starry Night," which I am sure has not earned over $2Bn gross for the New York Museum of Modern Art.

This is a total cop-out, unfortunately.

The argument (TIRED argument, by the way) about the JJTrek movies simply comes down to personal preference in this case. If you're going to be dismissive of the only "objective" measures for success in the entertainment industry (critical acclaim, box office, and general audience reaction), then there really no argument.

You're basically just being the little kid who puts his hands over his ears and sings so he doesn't need to listen anymore.

Look, it's okay for someone to not like the movies. Trek fans generally hate just about everything. It's nothing new. But, to deny the truth just because it doesn't align with your preferences is delusional.

I don't care what anyone says. Star Trek was a beached whale with an irrelevant and impotent fanbase in the years between Nemesis and 2009. It was a joke that had staled and over-stayed its welcome. Just because a few novels were being written means nothing. There's a lot of $hit novels out there, and I wouldn't call that a base for a thriving franchise.

It's like I said earlier...you can't be "thriving" or even "surviving" without evolution and growth. The JJTrek films certainly represent evolution and the fanbase definitely was infused with new blood and new imaginations.

Regardless of our personal feelings, and regardless of how chagrined we may be that this isn't "our Star Trek" it is absolute denial to say this didn't save the franchise. Trek may not have been dead, but it was slowly bleeding to death.

Not so much now.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Star Trek was a beached whale with an irrelevant and impotent fanbase in the years between Nemesis and 2009.

Ouch...

It's like I said earlier...you can't be "thriving" or even "surviving" without evolution and growth. The JJTrek films certainly represent evolution and the fanbase definitely was infused with new blood and new imaginations.

Khan's blood?

Just to add my 0.02 $ here, but the latest product of a franchise mustn't necessary constitute "evolution" and "growth" in a postive sense.

This probably applied for NEM or the Star Wars prequels. I don't think either two added to the popularity of the franchises in a positive manner. In the case of Star Wars it's mostly the imaginative storytelling of the Clone Wars CGI animated series, that undoes some of the prequel damage, IMHO.

Bob

 

[2takesfrakes]

I don't care what anyone says. Star Trek was a beached whale with an irrelevant and impotent fanbase in the years between Nemesis and 2009.

"... impotent"?!

>>SNORT!!!<<

I am fully functional, sir! Nothing wrong with my equipment!

Otherwise, I'm prepared to accept that Rick Berman had driven STAR TREK into the ground, to keep he and his cronies on the Gravy Train. It's great to see what J.J. Abrams has done with, and for, the franchise ...

 

[Vandervecken]

We'd have seen it again, but it would've gotten the "Starsky & Hutch" treatment. With Will Ferrell and Jack Black as Kirk and Spock.

Or maybe it would have been given to someone who actually has a little talent.

^^^
Given the ACTUAL history of Gene Roddenberry's involvement with TOS in particular; I don't think you really want to open that can of worms as there's AMPLE evidence during Star trek's development just how much 'talent' GR had in this regard.

(Gene's vision seemed to be - 'Let me profit off what I can, and bang as many young actresses as I can while Executive Producer - and I'll claim all the ideas contributed by other like Gene L. Coon and claim I was the one who came up with them.")

No can of worms. The worst Enterprise eps are better than Abrams Trek.

 

[BillJ]

No can of worms. The worst Enterprise eps are better than Abrams Trek.

Which is non-sense, of course. Showing that you have a real bias where Star Trek is concerned.

 

[Vandervecken]

So in other words, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here has the right to say what other people are thinking, since we can't read minds. All we have to go on is sales figure evidence as a basis to judge popularity. QED.

Popularity doesn't equal intrinsic value; if it did, "Avatar" would be a more valuable piece of art/media than Van Gogh's "The Starry Night," which I am sure has not earned over $2Bn gross for the New York Museum of Modern Art.

This is a total cop-out, unfortunately.

The argument (TIRED argument, by the way) about the JJTrek movies simply comes down to personal preference in this case. If you're going to be dismissive of the only "objective" measures for success in the entertainment industry (critical acclaim, box office, and general audience reaction), then there really no argument.

You're basically just being the little kid who puts his hands over his ears and sings so he doesn't need to listen anymore.

Look, it's okay for someone to not like the movies. Trek fans generally hate just about everything. It's nothing new. But, to deny the truth just because it doesn't align with your preferences is delusional.

I don't care what anyone says. Star Trek was a beached whale with an irrelevant and impotent fanbase in the years between Nemesis and 2009. It was a joke that had staled and over-stayed its welcome. Just because a few novels were being written means nothing. There's a lot of $hit novels out there, and I wouldn't call that a base for a thriving franchise.

It's like I said earlier...you can't be "thriving" or even "surviving" without evolution and growth. The JJTrek films certainly represent evolution and the fanbase definitely was infused with new blood and new imaginations.

Regardless of our personal feelings, and regardless of how chagrined we may be that this isn't "our Star Trek" it is absolute denial to say this didn't save the franchise. Trek may not have been dead, but it was slowly bleeding to death.

Not so much now.

This is a total mischaracterization of the truth, unfortunately.

MANY people share this opinion of fauxTrek; I am hardly alone. More than that, it is perfectly reasonable to render artistic judgments and criticism of media; your "argument" boils down to "it's all subjective personal opinion, you're opining in a vacuum." No, some things are BAD, and some things are GOOD. Van Gogh's The Starry Night is GOOD; a cheap Wal-Mart-sold painting of a matador and bull is BAD. Funny how for years everyone agreed TFF was bad. But that was just "personal feelings," eh?

What we have now isn't Trek any longer. Abrams trek is to real Trek what the Body Snatchers would be to humans.

"I don't care what anyone says," (fairly telling position) the "beached whale" of Star Trek wasn't revived and returned to sea, it was made a pod cetacean. Destroying Trek isn't my idea of saving it. There were a lot of years between TOS and TNG; the franchise could have waited again. For someone with talent and respect for the core material. Abrams Trek is NOT Trek, it's a sad, empty, soulless shell with a Trek logo stuck on. You're in denial if you don't see that.

What is absolute denial is to paint Abrams Trek as somehow the "savior" of Trek; for one thing, you can't possibly know that Abrams "saved" Trek, as that is itself a hypothetical, an attempt to predict, not just a future, but an alternate future, one where Abrams never wrecked the franchise and it remained as it was in 2009, waiting for someone with talent to get his or her hands on it, and thus is far more your personal opinion than any value judgment of fauxTrek, a real thing in the real world that people are entitled to render real judgments on with far more justification than those positing alternate timelines have; and for another, gutting the material and pretending it's Trek isn't saving it.

Talk about tired arguments--"Abrams the savior of Star Trek, because somehow the franchise would not have survived but for him." So old--and so far removed from reality--it creaks.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Regardless of our personal feelings, and regardless of how chagrined we may be that this isn't "our Star Trek" it is absolute denial to say this didn't save the franchise. Trek may not have been dead, but it was slowly bleeding to death.

ST is not now, nor has it ever been viewed as one, cohesive franchise. Some are unwilling to admit that the "dead" part of anything with the title "Star Trek" was tied to the TNG-ENT end, which performed a slow suicide of sorts. Each new production shoved the blade in another inch, but the fatal action never touched TOS. Mentioned earlier, the then-new series tried so hard to distance themselves from TOS, that the eventual audience rejection was centered on TNG-ENT.

Culturally, TOS is always here in one way or another (even as the TNG-ENT productions circled the drain), but where is the same treatment/reaction for TNG-ENT? Finally, the question has to be asked again: when the JJ film went into production, why not use the NG-ENT as the template? Because it was the problem--the part of ST that the public wanted no part of.

The same could not be said of TOS, with a legacy free of endless hours of unappealing, inferior concepts. It is not hard to conclude why JJTrek ran screaming to TOS.

 

[Vger23]

Star Trek was a beached whale with an irrelevant and impotent fanbase in the years between Nemesis and 2009.

Ouch...

It's like I said earlier...you can't be "thriving" or even "surviving" without evolution and growth. The JJTrek films certainly represent evolution and the fanbase definitely was infused with new blood and new imaginations.

Khan's blood?

Just to add my 0.02 $ here, but the latest product of a franchise mustn't necessary constitute "evolution" and "growth" in a postive sense.

This probably applied for NEM or the Star Wars prequels. I don't think either two added to the popularity of the franchises in a positive manner. In the case of Star Wars it's mostly the imaginative storytelling of the Clone Wars CGI animated series, that undoes some of the prequel damage, IMHO.

Bob

But that's solely your opinion based on your tastes and values. Who are you to judge whether something has advanced in a positive manner or not?

If you were to ask the younger generation, they got a tremendous amount of joy from the newer Star Wars movies. Additionally, it introduced them to the originals, that we all know and love. And, dare I say, that claiming what appeals to the younger generations (or even other individuals) is "not as good" as what appeals to you is a narrow, non-diverse viewpoint.

We need to drop the selfishness here, folks. These stories and franchises aren't "ours." They should be made to provide enjoyment and inspiration to everyone. Our own narrow, selfish needs overwhelm that thinking sometimes...but we need to step back and let go. Our values and viewpoints can't be the only factors considered here.

 

[Commishsleer]

Nothing makes my kids (4 and 5) flee the room faster than TOS. Except maybe TAS. That's faster. *sigh*

We need a new animated series, perhaps something set at Starfleet Academy, and perhaps made as an anime or as a CGI 'toon.

As much as I love TOS, I've always wondered if it would've had the same impact on me with all the things kids have to do today?

Considering what kids have on TV to watch that's for them, not likely, unless it's an animated series based on TOS, as I said above.

An Animated series could be that Star Trek Justice league idea they were proposing for ST09.

Where they pick selected team members from each series and put them together in a team. I'd have a young team though to appeal to the younger audience. That wouldn't exclude Picard though. They'd just select him from an earlier point in time. Where he's less of a fuddy duddy.

 

[Vandervecken]

Star Trek was a beached whale with an irrelevant and impotent fanbase in the years between Nemesis and 2009.

Ouch...

It's like I said earlier...you can't be "thriving" or even "surviving" without evolution and growth. The JJTrek films certainly represent evolution and the fanbase definitely was infused with new blood and new imaginations.

Khan's blood?

Just to add my 0.02 $ here, but the latest product of a franchise mustn't necessary constitute "evolution" and "growth" in a postive sense.

This probably applied for NEM or the Star Wars prequels. I don't think either two added to the popularity of the franchises in a positive manner. In the case of Star Wars it's mostly the imaginative storytelling of the Clone Wars CGI animated series, that undoes some of the prequel damage, IMHO.

Bob

But that's solely your opinion based on your tastes and values. Who are you to judge whether something has advanced in a positive manner or not?

We are the ones who buy the tickets and watch the series, and that's what makes us the ones to judge. You might as well dismiss any criticism as entirely subjective and unworthy of consideration. This viewpoint, invoked by those who simply want to ignore inherent worth in evaluating nuTrek, results in nothing being good, and nothing being bad---a position hardly reflective of consensus reality, even when people can't reach consensus. One thing that most people do have consensus on is that there is good, and there is bad--and we are as fit to judge good and bad as many movie critics. More fit, because it's unlikely that any given movie critic is as steeped in the background material as we are.

Therefore this constant refrain of "that's your opinion," without any real answer to the opinion (because, as I think those who say/write that know, the opinion can't be cogently countered, and thus can only be dismissed in this airy fashion without real thought) is conveniently but unwarrantedly and nonsubstantively dismissive. As I wrote above, I think it's far more reasonable to dismiss as meaningless, divorced-from-reality speculation any opinions on alternate futures, ie, "Trek would be dead without Abrams." How can anyone know that? But we can know our own minds about Trek entries that exist in the present.

 

[T-Rex]

I'm not sure why it matters if he "brought the franchise back from the dead" and "made it popular" again. Does it need to be popular and well-regarded for you guys to enjoy it?

And really, TOS has been dead since the end of the 1960s, since it bears little similarity with the TNG/VOY/DS9/ENT series, which all feel much more similar to each other than to TOS. So even if Abrams did revive it, there's not going to be any new episodes or anything.

Do any appreciable number of people under 30 watch TOS anymore? Serious question.

I'm 18 and I love TOS, couldn't get into the other series as much. I don't think many people my age like TOS or any series of Star Trek, but the ones that do seem to like TNG the most. So to answer your question, probably not.

 

[Tallguy]

You know, I just thought of something else that TOS has that TNG and the other Treks do not: The Wrath of Khan. People like First Contact, sure. But it doesn't hold a candle in terms of cultural awareness to TWOK.

There are just more things "Star Trek" that point back to TOS than other aspects of Trek.

I guess it's like Doctor Who or Star Wars. If there's a big anniversary it will always be for 1963 and 1977. Never 2005 or 1999.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes perhaps Abram's Trek might not be the same in tone from TOS, but any long running franchise has to change and grow with the times. I seem to recall hearing/reading thant TNG will never work it's just a copy of TOS, DSN won't work because it's set on a space station. WHilst to a certain extent those two managed to establish an dientity of there own. And whilst some will disagree with this, VOY became knonw in parts as TNG-lite, and ENT like VOY failed to live upto to it's premise only coming into it's own during the last two seasons. Note I don't dislike VOY or ENT, and if I'm channel hopping I'll watch them. It's just that they are lower down on my favourite lists.

As for the newer Trek films sure they have flaws but so do a lot of films, I think I preferred the first film (2009) than Into Darkness but each to theri own.

 

[albion432]

The question of Star Trek's popularity during its initial NBC run is no longer open to debate. Marc Cushman's excellent three part book series, These Are The Voyages, (each book covers one season) has released the Nielsen rating for the entire TOS series to the public for the first time ever. The author had to pay a leasing fee in order to obtain the publishing rights to these ratings. What they reveal is that Star Trek consistently placed 1st or 2nd in it's time slot for at least the first two seasons (book three of These Are The Voyages has not yet been released). Also, Star Trek placed very well overall when ranked with all network shows airing at the time. In fact, when Star Trek premiered almost 47% of all televisions in America tuned in to see what all the hype was about. That was the highest rated episode of all, but once the rating leveled off, the show still did very well. Star Trek's poor ratings has been proven to be a myth.

Star Trek captured the attention and admiration of the public from the beginning, and the interest in the series, though it has waned at times, had NEVER gone away. The overwhelming success of JJ Abram's homage to the original series is just the latest example of this continued interest.

I dare say Star Trek is here to stay, and may someday be the only surviving relic of an ancient media platform known as tv.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Or maybe it would have been given to someone who actually has a little talent.

Like who?

 

[Shat Happens]

they gave Star Wars to JJ Abams , too. Is seems fans' opinions are irrelevant. But, I wonder who the so-called "general audiences" are. I dnt knw anyone.

 

[Warped9]

Or maybe it would have been given to someone who actually has a little talent.

Like who?

Seth MacFarlane? Couldn't do worse.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Or maybe it would have been given to someone who actually has a little talent.

Like who?

Seth MacFarlane? Couldn't do worse.

My concern with him is that we'd get a lot of TNG/Berman-era continuity porn in any ST series produced by him. Plus, it opens up the possibility, however remote, of Brannon Braga slithering back into the ST fold in some capacity. I'll pass.