Did Abrams really save the franchise?

[Warped9]

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.

When it comes to entertainment today the "rose tinted glasses" argument doesn't have the weight it once had for the simple reason is that today you can see the earlier versions right away in the here-and-now right alongside the new and not have to rely solely on memory.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

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.

That's because people keep making these sweeping statements that invariably compare the new movies to some pure, platonic ideal of STAR TREK that never really existed.

"Star Trek was about real science!"

"Star Trek was non-violent!"

"Star Trek never catered to general audiences!"

"Star Trek never stooped to sex and titillation!"

Such grandiose overstatements invariably cry out for a reality check . . . .

 

[Warped9]

One of the strengths of Star Trek was that it could be many things and work on multiple levels simultaneously and not rely on being solely one thing. The best stories often worked on multiple levels.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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

And really, that's the only answer. That was the sole reason Paramount went after and hired Abrams. Paramount couldn't care less about any other aspect of the franchise (TV, merchandising, etc.,) because they're not involved in that.

 

[BillJ]

One of the strengths of Star Trek was that it could be many things and work on multiple levels simultaneously and not rely on being solely one thing. The best stories often worked on multiple levels.

And I happen to think that Star Trek Into Darkness works on those same levels. It is the most Trek-like thing I've watched since Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

 

[BillJ]

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.

When it comes to entertainment today the "rose tinted glasses" argument doesn't have the weight it once had for the simple reason is that today you can see the earlier versions right away in the here-and-now right alongside the new and not have to rely solely on memory.

Take a peek at the various Into Darkness threads and see just how rose-tinted those nostalgia glasses are...

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=213937

 

[RXTT]

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.

I watched TOS as a young kid, and it constantly forced me to think about issues in ways I never thought of before.

TNG, when I was a teenager, always made me think through moral and ethical dilemmas that otherwise I would not have had exposure to.

DS9 ran me through the wringer, asking me to think deeply about heavy heavy issues, never before tackled in TREK universe. It made me question things that no other TV sci-fi dared touch.

That is why I read sci-fi, and watch sci-fi shows and movies. I want to have my brain forced to tackle issues that otherwise I may never consider, whether those are technical/scientific issues, or morality issues, or inter-personal/inter-species issues.

Star Wars does not do that. I liken Star Wars more to a myth to be reflected upon, large symbols with which the viewer can add their own interpretation.

 

[sj4iy]

Yes, Yes and Yes again.. I used to love Star Trek before Voyager and Enterprise. Both of them completely killed off my enthusiasm for Trek, on top the horrible TNG movies that were made. I really had not been interested in Trek since the late 90s, and my husband, who used to LOVE Trek (he had models, books, even has gone to a couple of conventions) also stopped caring in the early 2000's. We both lamented that it had taken a terrible turn and had just become too bloated and restricted to do something new and exciting. Then came ST09, and it was like a breath of fresh air. I'm not saying it was a great movie- but it was fun, clever and absolutely shocking. After it was over, all I could think was "OMG, they DIDN'T fix the timeline...this is really completely different now".

World-building is more fun that world-adding, imo. I can't wait to see what happens now.

 

[Belz...]

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?

You're assuming that Abram's Trek is bad as a premise to your argument, here. I don't hold that opinion, so your argument is unsound.

The point is that Trek has always had intellectual qualities, but it wasn't necessarily "smart" or "forcing you to THINK".

Entertainment and social commentary are not mutually exclusive.

I didn't say they were. I said I didn't like social commentary in my fiction.

And I happen to think that Star Trek Into Darkness works on those same levels.

Yes, absolutely. It's just not done in the same way.

 

[CDR6]

Abrams did not save Star Trek...the fans did... Anybody who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.

 

[Belz...]

I watched TOS as a young kid, and it constantly forced me to think about issues in ways I never thought of before.

To each his own, I suppose. And I watched Trek when I was pretty young, too. It had some smart episodes, to be sure, but it didn't make me think about "issues". Life makes me think about issues. I give zero credibility to fiction when trying to comment of humanity.

Star Wars does not do that.

What are you talking about ? How about Obi-Wan's "point of view" speech ?

 

[Belz...]

Abrams did not save Star Trek...the fans did... Anybody who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.

Oh, this reminds me so much of the crap that Star Wars fans said when Episode 1 came out. "Lucas didn't make Star Wars. The fans did."

Bullshit.

The fans WATCH Star Wars or Star Trek, and then the studio determines if the product is popular and worth continuing. Then they may take feedback from viewers, etc. But it's the guys MAKING the show who MAKE the show.

Same thing here. What saved Trek is that Paramount made a new movie, and people in general liked it. Not just the fans.

 

[Warped9]

In the meantime CBS continues to pull money from tie-in merchandise from the pre-existing series. Hell, they even turned down Abrams' pitch to roll it all under one umbrella so he could make his version the most prominent one.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/artic...rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766

 

[BillJ]

In the meantime CBS continues to pull money from tie-in merchandise from the pre-existing series. Hell, they even turned down Abrams' pitch to roll it all under one umbrella so he could make his version the most prominent one.

Not quite.

Bad Robot wanted CBS to quit licensing TOS material during the movie run. The rub was that CBS didn't want to give up twenty million a year. It would have happened if Bad Robot had been willing to write a check for twenty million a year to CBS.

The other spin-off merchandising would've been unaffected.

 

[Warped9]

He wanted to be the only game in town at least while he was in charge. That speaks volumes to me. But I don't want this subject to drift too far off course.

 

[Greg Cox]

I guess it all depends on whether you're talking about general audiences or the hardcore fanbase.

I mean, technically, Dark Shadows fandom is still around and there's the occasional comic book or novel, but I'm not sure anyone would argue that Dark Shadows is really a going concern these days.

Nostalgia is not enough. Sometimes you need to reinvent characters and series for a new generation . . . like they did with Battlestar Galactica.

 

[Misfit Toy]

In the meantime CBS continues to pull money from tie-in merchandise from the pre-existing series.

Of course they are. The tie-ins benefit from the overall increase of attention to the Star Trek Brand.

 

[Greg Cox]

In the meantime CBS continues to pull money from tie-in merchandise from the pre-existing series.

Of course they are. The tie-ins benefit from the overall increase of attention to the Star Trek Brand.

From your lips to the Great Bird's ears . . .

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Years ago I went to see Trek movies either by myself or with a couple of buddies who were/are fellow science fiction fans. Guys. Could not drag a date there.

In recent years, I went to see "Green Lantern", "The Avengers", and "Prometheus" with a colleague of my wife's who loves graphic novels and sometimes carries a sonic screwdriver with him.

My wife is not interested in Trek, or science fiction in general, and I would not even ask her to go, HOWEVER, I am going to see STID on Saturday with three of her lovely female colleagues who are excited about the movie. As one of them told me when I was invited to join them, "The last movie wasn't corny, and you weren't expected to be a Star Trek nerd in order to enjoy it. It was good." (or something to that effect).

Here, we might (and do) argue about what we prefer in Trek movies, novels, and series, but it can not be denied that Abrams has made Trek more appealing to a broader audience. With each new incarnation of Trek, there are fans who say that the franchise has been ruined with that new incarnation. I am not one of them. I welcome Abrams' interpretation of this alternate universe and happy to see people in the theaters other than only the ones carrying their communicator replicas.

 

[Greg Cox]

My local librarian, who is hardly a fangirl, was raving about the new movie the other day . . . . and thought it was "much better than The Great Gatsby."

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that she never saw Nemesis.