Well, I'm not sure how much we've impeded success this time. I see lots of people around these parts who have went to Into Darkness multiple times. I know I've seen it three times and have bought six tickets total.
Did Abrams really save the franchise?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
Well, I'm not sure how much we've impeded success this time. I see lots of people around these parts who have went to Into Darkness multiple times. I know I've seen it three times and have bought six tickets total.
The Franchise had gone either very stale or dead. It did need to be brought back to life.
My opinion is that for those that dislike JJ Abrams if someone they liked had saved Star Trek they would be on here singing their praises.
Yeah, but the loud complaining and bitching about arcane continuity trivia that some do perpetuates the popular notion that Star Trek is somehow an enthusiasm for...someone most folks don't want to be. Or sit next to. The Onion knew their stuff.
And this week we can add "offended by good looking people in skimpy clothing" to the list of weird stereotypes
Quite possibly. Can't really argue that...if I'd liked the direction the reboot went and its overall execution.
I've certainly made no secret of my dissatisfaction with how the product onscreen has evolved over the years. But even in disapproval I can't ignore it kept people talking, discussing, debating and even arguing. It kept us interested whether we agreed or not.
And through all of it I kept picking up stuff tied in to my preferred series be they video, books, magazines, soundtracks, models, whatever as well as creating and sharing my own stuff. I kept promoting and defending what I liked. And in that, in each our own way, we kept the interest and the franchise alive.
Last edited:
And this week we can add "offended by good looking people in skimpy clothing" to the list of weird stereotypes
There is no arguing this point.
I "lived through it" from the beginning. NBC, 1966.
Of course, we still don't.
quite right, I meant to write "on screen."
A
Amaris
Guest
Yes, I believe that, in the sense of reviving a stale and mostly dormant property, J.J. Abrams' efforts saved the franchise.
Also, regarding TOS deep intellectual introspection, I offer this:
Also, regarding TOS deep intellectual introspection, I offer this:
Did Abrams save Star Trek from what? Was it in some kind of danger? Was al Qaeda involved?
This is disingenuous. No one said Star Trek and particularly TOS lacked or eschewed action/adventure.Yes, I believe that, in the sense of reviving a stale and mostly dormant property, J.J. Abrams' efforts saved the franchise.
Also, regarding TOS deep intellectual introspection, I offer this:
A
Amaris
Guest
This is disingenuous. No one said Star Trek and particularly TOS lacked or eschewed action/adventure.Yes, I believe that, in the sense of reviving a stale and mostly dormant property, J.J. Abrams' efforts saved the franchise.
Also, regarding TOS deep intellectual introspection, I offer this:
Didn't say it lacked it, I'm just keeping it from being placed on this pedestal of philosophical wonderment that it neither deserves, and upon which it doesn't belong. As it gets older, the Original Series is quickly becoming Nichelle Nichols' Martin Luther King story.
And I don't think anyone here (at least in this thread) made that claim.This is disingenuous. No one said Star Trek and particularly TOS lacked or eschewed action/adventure.Yes, I believe that, in the sense of reviving a stale and mostly dormant property, J.J. Abrams' efforts saved the franchise.
Also, regarding TOS deep intellectual introspection, I offer this:
Didn't say it lacked it, I'm just keeping it from being placed on this pedestal of philosophical wonderment that it neither deserves, and upon which it doesn't belong. As it gets older, the Original Series is quickly becoming Nichelle Nichols' Martin Luther King story.
Becoming a minor footnote in the pop cultural history of the late 20th Century.
No, I don't think it was in danger of becoming that.
Star Trek was never in any danger of being a "minor footnote." It's the most iconic series in science fiction.
You say "science fiction" to a random person on the street and Star Trek is most likely what pops into their head.
I don't understand the philosophy of continuing to making new Trek just for the sake of making new Trek.
Yes, this sums it up pretty well.
A
Amaris
Guest
There is, however, a sense of reverence when it comes to TOS, that it's this inviolable property that spoke of higher moral certitude, and made you really think. The idea that its philosophies ran deep. The Original Series was a western in space, that mostly substituted magic with the appearance of science, and had lots of slam bang action sequences along with its occasional forays into morality.
If at heart and in overall sensibility TOS had been just another run-of-the-mill sci-fi show it wouldn't have connected with succeeding generations of fans.
And we wouldn't be here debating it more than forty years later.
When your "output" is regulated to moderately selling books and fanfilms, then yes it does.
Is it? Yeah, I'd like to think so. But that's just me.Third Nacelle said:
If they don't say "Star Wars", "aliens and space ships" or "I don't watch that stuff".
You realize its a commercial property, right? And the owners would like to make money off it.
So we're on the same page after all.
Then you do understand the philosophy of why they continue make new Star Trek for sake of making new Star Trek.
- Status
Similar threads
