Did Abrams really save the franchise?

There is a fatal flaw in that argument: Star Trek fans -- I mean those who actually keep it alive by buying stuff or writing fanfic, etc. -- are not enough to keep it going.

Paramount didn't make a new Trek movie because the fans buy merchandise: they did so because the franchise is a venerable one that they know will make money because it's so well-known.

But without series or movies, it's not really "alive", is it ?

 

I think he changed the "franchise," not saved it. he warped it into Big, Dumb Entertainment, the exact opposite of TREK.

The movies are fun, but they are a cash cow for a studio. They do not progress the Trek universe, only cheat it by creating a new "alternate" storyline which really does not matter to the canon.

 

What I want from Star Trek is to be forced to THINK. I can get entertainment from the Hangover franchise, or Star Wars

 

When's the last time Star Trek forced you to THINK ?

Really ? Not much of that in TOS or the previous movies. And the other series were mostly entertainment. Did you mean that you want smart or well-made science-fiction ? Then sure.

But force you to think ? I don't remember Star Trek doing that for me.

 

There are perhaps two perspectives here.

- the franchise is alive only as long as there are big new things introduced.

- the franchise is alive as long as interest is maintained/continued.

 

Obviously Star Trek Into Darkness did something right as it has some conservative bloggers in an uproar over its message.

 

I think what is meant is that he/she prefers Trek that offers something to think about and maybe doesn't have to spell everything out.

 

Well, I think both are correct (remove "big" and replace with "official" in your first one). But in the second sense, Metropolis is still alive, even though the last and only movie was made way back in 1927. Oh, there's "interest", sure.

I don't deny that the people who loved Star Trek before continued to love it. But the point is that the series and movies (the meat of the franchise) were no longer making good money. In that respect, Abrams and his collaborators "brought back" Star Trek.

Now, I don't think Paramount would've let the franchise lay there for too long before trying again, but if the 2009 movie had bombed, that might've been the deathknell for Trek.

 

Well in that respect Into Darkness did something right, I think, since there's a lot of non-spoken plot points that we keep debating -- because they were either cut from the movie or left out due to the filmmakers deeming it wasn't necessary to do exposition on them.

 

lots of episodes did. But then, lots of episodes didn't. People forget that there was always an aspect of action in the franchise and every episode wasn't deep.

 

No, I think they're referring to something more than that. I think they mean something with a message or asks questions.

 

Bah. I hate it when Star Trek does that. If I want social commentaries I'll watch the Daily Show. I watch fiction to be entertained. YMMV.

 

Do we always have to keep going down the same rhetorical path? We're going to start deconstructing classic Trek yet again to bring it down to JJ Trek's level?

Trek may not be THE most cerebral entertainment, but it's hard to argue that JJ Trek has any cerebral qualities whatsoever.

 

Saved...that's a really big word, but he undoubtedly brought Star Trek back to the forefront to where a younger audience is beginning to take notice again. And I, as part of the older audience, have been really happy with what he's done - with both stories.

 

Considering how easy it is for conservatives to feel outrage, that's not saying much.

 

Entertainment and social commentary are not mutually exclusive. You can have both and enjoy it. It can be done in drama/adventure as easily as comedy.

 

How is acknowledging what Trek has always been "bringing it down"? Honestly, if people didn't keep trying to compare Abrams movies to the rest of the franchise (with the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on), the comparisons would likely stop.

 

In fairness when you label something with a familiar name then comparisons are inevitable.

Every time there's a new version of 007 or Superman (or whatever) it's always compared with previous versions.

 

Of course. But before you make those comparisons, take off the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. I don't know how many times I've watched someone scream about how something Abrams did "wasn't Star Trek", yet had been done multiple times before in other Trek series including TOS.

 

In the sense that now Trek has a future in the movies, whereas before Abrams it was dead, the answer is yes.