Kelvin Trek is good, right? I mean, it was successful
Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV
- Thread starter Lawrence B
- Start date
- Status
No joke, the primary reason most people endlessly complain on sites like this is because it is their #1 fantasy that someone responsible for the production will read their comments and take actions with the franchise based on that.
This is certainly the clearest indication yet that CBS consider Discovery a success, regardless of our opinions on its quality or value, or our projections of viewership. While Netflix normally do not provide viewer numbers even to content providers, they obviously have their own All Access numbers and can infer from Netflix's response to the presumed negotiation for season 2 rights. This announcement strongly suggests they are drawing positive conclusions.
New shows announced. New films announced. Clearly Discovery is a failure and CBS should sell...
Kelvin Trek is good, right? I mean, it was successful
Queue up dissenters making vast intellectual arguments over the definition of "successful" now!
Oh no!!! YE OF LITTLE FAITH...
Let the rationalizing and arguments containing massive leaps of illogic against your obvious conclusion begin in 5...4....3....2....
Well, obviously financial success is not the same Star Trek success...or "good" Star Trek.*
*definition pending.
I'm almost surprised no one's tried to say "FAKE NEWS" to any of this yet.
We need Ben Stein as the teacher from Ferris Bueller's Day Off to explain to us the financial status of Star Trek as a franchise.
"Anyone? Anyone?"
"Anyone? Anyone?"
Obviously, it's the TNG model.
Most of the Trek I like is the most successful and popular Trek.
You just have a bias against posters that dislike STD. You're constantly ranting about it and coming up with bizarre theories.
The Abrams movies and TMP?
I’ve seen shows where execs ended up making the decisions based on that. The results ended up...haphazard, to put it mildly. And pretty unenjoyable for me.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sad story of why I never saw the ending to Glee!
If you're watching Mr. CBS Exectuive #236, I'd really like to see a Twi'lek series set on Nar Shaddaa.
Bad Trek brings Trek to an end until someone else comes along to make Better Trek. For the sake of argument, if DSC and the rest of CBSAA Trek crashes and burns, someone else will take another stab at it with their own idea for how to do Star Trek.
If it truly is horrible, all you have to do is wait it out. If it doesn't crash and burn and is becoming expansive, then the odds are increased that with the right creative team, they might make something you do like. If not, what's the problem?
I went 18 years without a Star Trek series I was really into. From 1999 to 2017. That's as long as the gap between TOS and TNG.
As far as TNG: "All Good Things" was the end. The TNG movies were just a mostly bad post-script.
Then why write him a big-ass contract? It's rewarding failure.
It smacks of Rian Johnson being given a whole new trilogy despite The Last Jedi.
Not really.
There's a sentiment in Hollywood at present that when you own a franchise that the thing to do is just flog it to death. Historically, that led to franchise fatique with Trek, but enough time has gone by that I think the suits don't want to let it rest and seek out new blood to revitalize the thing, instead of just rewarding Kurtzman with a big-ass contract based on dubious achievement.
I think with all these concepts there are ways to screw up the actual execution, just as there was with Discovery, and putting Kurtzman at the helm of the sausage factory probably makes that more likely than not.
The only Trek project that I think has any real promise is Tarantino Trek, and only if he directs the thing rather than just submitting a story outline.
All production above a certain level is a sausage factory. There's a film called The TV Set that shows just how bad it can get. If anyone truly wants to watch something that's not a sausage factory, independent films are the best source.
Me too.
I liked the sound of the 'artificially flavored processed cheese food product '.
Perhaps. But I haven't expressed any active wish to see something fail, nor defended anyone who has, so I'm not sure what that has to do with me. I'm merely saying it's okay if Star Trek doesn't persist as a franchise forever and ever, constantly generating new material and pursuing new audiences. That's not remotely the same as saying "I want it to die now!"
My attitude toward Trek material that doesn't interest me (like, say, VOY) is much like your (and my!) attitude toward Stargate: I couldn't care less whether they exist. At least, not unless they're occupying the available niche in the market and thus driving down the possibility of other, better Trek material (like, say, the Abrams films did). I do, indeed, think bad new Trek is worse than no new Trek.
FWIW, the best idea I've seen for new Trek in the past 20 years was the 2004 JMS reboot proposal. I would have been all over that. Talk about an experiment worth trying. But it got rejected, ultimately in favor of the Abrams films.If someone could define for me what "good Star Trek," preferably without citing TWOK, that would aid me a lot in knowing how strangers on the Internet want me to spend my money
I don't agree with everything you've posted, but this is succinct, accurate, and pretty hard to argue with. Creative talent matters. Kurtzman doesn't have it, nor apparently even know how to recognize it.
- Status
Similar threads
