Did Abrams really save the franchise?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Nonsense. The history human storytelling boils down to reboots.

There was a time, after all, when every oral retelling of a popular story was a kind of reboot. The Odyssey was old when Homer wrote it down, and even when we introduce written literature stories continue to be changed when they're rewritten - and they are rewritten. Shakespeare borrowed the story of Romeo and Juliet from earlier writers.

 

[Warped9]

It's long since reached the point where hard core fandom holds Star Trek back from the kinds of changes necessary to appeal to current tastes - and therefore drags down its chances of survival, much less success.

It wouldn't hurt to reboot Kirk and Spock every so often. It might well be the best way to go with a new TV series, given that the current cast and the kind of production involved in the movies would not be practical for TV.

A reboot was inevitable.

Back before TMP there was talk of recasting the familiar characters with big names. Back then it would have been a very questionable thing to do and perhaps even a huge mistake as the original cast was still young enough to reprise their roles. For that generation Shatner was James T. Kirk. Paul Newman or whoever wouldn't have cut it.

Now that can't happen anymore. The original cast is no longer fit and in their prime to reprise their roles, picking up where they left off, and some of them are no longer with us.

So a reboot with a new cast was inevitable. The question comes down to what kind of reboot. There seems to be a widespread belief that the current reboot had to be done the way it was done. I could (and have) certainly argue that.

But that really isn't the question of this thread.

 

[CaptPapa]

I understand the references to the ‘dark early days’ of the ‘70s. I doubt they were meant to be condescending. Yes if you study history (history of Star Trek in this case), then you can learn what happened, but if you lived through it, you understand what happened.

It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending. I lived through those early days. I missed TOS in its original run, but started to watch it in 1970.

By dark days I meant to convey a sense of how many of us felt. Unlike today without the Internet many fans could feel isolated with little idea other fans could be just down the block or around the corner. Many of us could feel other fans were scattered wide across the country (or continent) with little idea how many there really were. Our only tie to Star Trek were books and merchandise and conventions if you were able to go (or even knew they existed). David Gerrold's book The World of Star Trek really opened my eyes to the fandom that was out there. Those publications and finally attending a convention in 1976 finally brought home the realization of how real and widespread the fandom was.

For years we wished Star Trek could be granted the respect and recognition many us felt it deserved. Like them or not TMP and then TWOK were the signs that Star Trek need no longer be merely our little secret passion.

For me thats how it felt.

I meant to agree with that overall tone. I was trying to make a counterpoint to the other poster (sorry forgot the name) that seemed to take exception to it. I interpreted his comments to mean that if you study a past time period, you know all you need to about it. In my opinion, if you lived through it, you understand it better than someone who did not.
Now on to a better thought - the internet's influence on fandom; I'm amazed by some of the things I find there such as the movie Of Gods and Men. That had much more emotional impact for me then the 2009 movie. I won't get a chance to see the new one until next week.
To me, all the books, comics, and fan films are a part of the entire picture. Seems some folks only indulge in the movies and series episodes. Their loss in my opinion.

 

[Warped9]

I understand the references to the ‘dark early days’ of the ‘70s. I doubt they were meant to be condescending. Yes if you study history (history of Star Trek in this case), then you can learn what happened, but if you lived through it, you understand what happened.

It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending. I lived through those early days. I missed TOS in its original run, but started to watch it in 1970.

By dark days I meant to convey a sense of how many of us felt. Unlike today without the Internet many fans could feel isolated with little idea other fans could be just down the block or around the corner. Many of us could feel other fans were scattered wide across the country (or continent) with little idea how many there really were. Our only tie to Star Trek were books and merchandise and conventions if you were able to go (or even knew they existed). David Gerrold's book The World of Star Trek really opened my eyes to the fandom that was out there. Those publications and finally attending a convention in 1976 finally brought home the realization of how real and widespread the fandom was.

For years we wished Star Trek could be granted the respect and recognition many us felt it deserved. Like them or not TMP and then TWOK were the signs that Star Trek need no longer be merely our little secret passion.

For me thats how it felt.

I meant to agree with that overall tone. I was trying to make a counterpoint to the other poster (sorry forgot the name) that seemed to take exception to it. I interpreted his comments to mean that if you study a past time period, you know all you need to about it. In my opinion, if you lived through it, you understand it better than someone who did not.
Now on to a better thought - the internet's influence on fandom; I'm amazed by some of the things I find there such as the movie Of Gods and Men. That had much more emotional impact for me then the 2009 movie. I won't get a chance to see the new one until next week.
To me, all the books, comics, and fan films are a part of the entire picture. Seems some folks only indulge in the movies and series episodes. Their loss in my opinion.

To my mind no question the Internet is a boon to fandom (of all kinds). I'm interested in Trek's scientific and technical aspects, something that really got going with the publication of Franz Josephs' Booklet Of General Plans and Star Fleet Technical Manual back in the mid '70s. It was fun then, but it's small compared to seeing whats out there today and most of it generated by devoted fans.

 

[CoveTom]

Sources?

Books and magazines over the years.

I'll see if I can dig some out later if time permits.

EDIT: Seems like I'm not the only one who remembers Shatner...

36. Simon - January 3, 2013

I’d also like to know, as has been pointed out by #24, how Shatner is suddenly an expert on a show he never watched or had anything to do with. Not to mention resenting the show and blaming it for the failure of THE FINAL FRONTIER…Trekkers had “fresh turkey sandwiches” every week and weren’t so hungry for the film “Thanksgiving” anymore.

http://trekmovie.com/2013/01/02/wil...s-some-star-trek-advise-more-tng-doc-details/

The quote in question about "fresh turkey sandwiches" vs. "Thanksgiving dinner" actually comes from Harve Bennett, but is printed in Shatner's Star Trek Movie Memories book. I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't quote it verbatim, but essentially Bennett says that regardless of what TFF was or was not, it was hurt by the fact that TNG was now on the air on a weekly basis, and since fans didn't have to wait 2 years between new Trek stories, a Trek movie wasn't the special event it had been with the first four films.

 

[sonak]

I think Star Trek would have been revived in some form at some point, it's too big of a franchise not to be, but Abrams brought it back much stronger and much sooner than it otherwise would have been, and for that I'm glad.

If the 2009 film had bombed, I don't know when we'd have seen new Trek on TV.

 

[CaptPapa]

To my mind no question the Internet is a boon to fandom (of all kinds). I'm interested in Trek's scientific and technical aspects, something that really got going with the publication of Franz Josephs' Booklet Of General Plans and Star Fleet Technical Manual back in the mid '70s. It was fun then, but it's small compared to seeing whats out there today and most of it generated by devoted fans.[/QUOTE]

edit: Sorry - didn't make this quote clear. The above was from Warped9


That's the fantastic part of Star Trek - something for everyone. Technical and scientific books, novels, comics - both official and otherwise, series episodes and movies.
I love it!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I interpreted his comments to mean that if you study a past time period, you know all you need to about it. In my opinion, if you lived through it, you understand it better than someone who did not.

I "lived through it" from the beginning. NBC, 1966.

If the 2009 film had bombed, I don't know when we'd have seen new Trek on TV.

Of course, we still don't.

 

[Belz...]

fiction is written by humans to talk about things that would otherwise not be allowed.

No, fiction is written to entertain.

You may share in/enjoy .001% of what the world has to offer if you only use your own experience. That way breeds ignorance, prejudice, and tyranny

I have no idea what that has to do with the conversation.

as far as Obi-Wan, like I said, it is more about metaphysics, and a really slapdash metaphysics (which Lucas destroyed with his subsequent introduction of mitocondria or whatever is supposed to give you the "force". he ruined his own metaphysics and tried to make it be anatomy-based.)

My reference to Obi-Wan was a joke. See the smiley, there ?

 

[RXTT]

I did see it. I just got beef with Lucas.

 

[RXTT]

Vonnegut, Kafka, Orwell, Murakami, Bukowski, Dostoyevsky....these people did not write fiction just to "entertain." Entertainment is not a dirty word. It is the first step to making your audience think.

Even highly entertaining writers of genre fiction like Robert E. Howard, HP Lovecraft, or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had bigger goals for their work than just entertainment.


entertainment is anything that keeps you happily busy for any length of time. That can be reading an encyclopedia, or watching a Blues Clues episode with kids, or listening to the first Polvo record.

To drop entertainment wholesale would drop ALL of Trek

 

[BillJ]

No. He simply produced 2 movies that have so far been successful. But if it's anything like Batman or Spiderman, It will reboot again after 3 or 4 films. Do we really want to keep starting over and over?

I think so.

After seven hundred hours of material, this is all gravy. Let's see what various creative minds can do with Trek without the restraints of canon. It doesn't mean it'll all be good, but it'll be interesting.

 

[BillJ]

The quote in question about "fresh turkey sandwiches" vs. "Thanksgiving dinner" actually comes from Harve Bennett, but is printed in Shatner's Star Trek Movie Memories book. I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't quote it verbatim, but essentially Bennett says that regardless of what TFF was or was not, it was hurt by the fact that TNG was now on the air on a weekly basis, and since fans didn't have to wait 2 years between new Trek stories, a Trek movie wasn't the special event it had been with the first four films.

Thanks for the correction.

But my point still stands about Abrams not being the only one concerned with competition.

 

[RXTT]

I personally think the "restraints" of canon, like all artistic limits and restraints, actually forces the creator to invent more than a fresh re-start does.

 

[ConRefit79]

No. He simply produced 2 movies that have so far been successful. But if it's anything like Batman or Spiderman, It will reboot again after 3 or 4 films. Do we really want to keep starting over and over?

I think so.

After seven hundred hours of material, this is all gravy. Let's see what various creative minds can do with Trek without the restraints of canon. It doesn't mean it'll all be good, but it'll be interesting.

So you like being shallowly invested in the characters, before they completely reboot the franchise? It takes me more than a few films to do that. I would rather no Trek than reboot after reboot after reboot. Talk about milking a franchise dry.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I would rather no Trek than reboot after reboot after reboot.

You can accomplish that right now.

BillJ's right - let's see lots of versions of Trek from here on out.

 

[BillJ]

So you like being shallowly invested in the characters, before they completely reboot the franchise?

No.

But I like to see different interpretations. I've spent seven hundred hours in one continuity, I don't ever want to be locked into one continuity for that long again in my lifetime.

 

[BillJ]

I personally think the "restraints" of canon, like all artistic limits and restraints, actually forces the creator to invent more than a fresh re-start does.

Why should a writer be forced to verse themselves in seven-hundred hours of material in order to write something?

While I may have watched the episodes dozens of times and can remember lots of it, it's not fair to expect that of a freelance writer. Forcing someone to follow Trek continuity chapter and verse is like tossing an anchor to a drowning man.

 

[ConRefit79]

So you like being shallowly invested in the characters, before they completely reboot the franchise?

No.

But I like to see different interpretations. I've spent seven hundred hours in one continuity, I don't ever want to be locked into one continuity for that long again in my lifetime.

Fine. But If Star Trek follows the same course as the super hero franchises, you'll only get 6 to 8 hours before they start over again. So we will never go anywhere. Cause they will all have an origin story, Khan story and who knows what else they consider good to re-do.

 

[Greg Cox]

No. He simply produced 2 movies that have so far been successful. But if it's anything like Batman or Spiderman, It will reboot again after 3 or 4 films. Do we really want to keep starting over and over?

I think so.

After seven hundred hours of material, this is all gravy. Let's see what various creative minds can do with Trek without the restraints of canon. It doesn't mean it'll all be good, but it'll be interesting.

So you like being shallowly invested in the characters, before they completely reboot the franchise? It takes me more than a few films to do that. I would rather no Trek than reboot after reboot after reboot. Talk about milking a franchise dry.

If a movie works, you can invest in the characters very quickly. I was invested in Rick and Ilsa by the end of Casablanca, and I didn't need three movies to do so!