Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

[CorporalCaptain]

Hence why Nemesis bombed and Enterprise was cancelled there weren't enough fans to keep Trek going.

Actually, the lesson of Nemesis and Enterprise is that alienating the fans is bad. They're potentially a goldmine -- the fandom-powered franchise goes well beyond TOS merch -- but only the very hardest-core of them will turn out for just anything with the Trek brand slapped on it.

(We probably shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, especially when it's unqualified, the word "fan" can mean different things to different people, and in different contexts.)

If the only criterion for being a fan is to tune into a show regularly, then it's tautological to say that alienating its fans is bad for show. I think it's a good point that when your steady audience is small and dwindling, as ENT's was, your regular viewers aren't enough to keep things going. Attracting new blood to your viewership is key.

Recapturing the TNG audience was something that ENT repeatedly tried to do but failed at. Ergo, especially in hindsight, it shouldn't have attempted to do that at all, at least not in the way it did. What it should have tried was something completely different, in an effort to attract new fans that were never regular viewers of TNG and/or to appeal to TNG's fans without boring the fuck out of them with things they'd basically already seen.

 

[BigJake]

Recapturing the TNG audience was something that ENT repeatedly tried to do but failed at. Ergo, especially in hindsight, it shouldn't have attempted to do that at all, at least not in the way it did.

Yeah, I'd say that there was a mistaken assumption going on that the TNG audience just wanted warmed-over TNG tropes served up with each subsequent outing -- rather than just good storytelling -- an assumption that actually led much of that audience to tune out. (It's always "safer" to play to nostalgia because nostalgia has numbers to back it up -- potentially meaningless numbers, but still, numbers -- and any new idea doesn't.)

 

[Greg Cox]

Hence why Nemesis bombed and Enterprise was cancelled there weren't enough fans to keep Trek going.

Actually, the lesson of Nemesis and Enterprise is that alienating the fans is bad. They're potentially a goldmine -- the fandom-powered franchise goes well beyond TOS merch -- but only the very hardest-core of them will turn out for just anything with the Trek brand slapped on it.

(We probably shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, especially when it's unqualified, the word "fan" can mean different things to different people, and in different contexts.)

The thing is, people try to set up this binary either/or dichotomy between "the fans" and "the non-fans," whereas, in real life, it's a spectrum with extremes at either end and the vast majority of viewing audience spread out along the middle.

At one end, you have the folks who don't "get" STAR TREK and never will. Chances are, they can't tell the difference between "Dr. Spock" and Darth Vader.

At the other end, you have us hardcore, convention-going, bbs-posting, merchandise-collecting super-fans who have seen every single movie and TV episode and can cite chapter and verse on the Organian Peace Treaty. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we are not the "core audience." We are the extremes at one end of the spectrum.

The vast majority of Trek fans consists of people who, to varying degrees, have enjoyed some amount of Star Trek over the years and have a certain affection for their favorite Trek series and characters. They've seen the more popular movies, will pick up a Hallmark ornament or paperback novel if the mood strikes them, and certainly know who Kirk and Picard are, but maybe not Gul Dukat or Robert April . . .

It's the casual fans, along the middle of the spectrum, that mean the difference between a flop and a hit. And they're the audience you mostly need to target.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The thing is, people try to set up this binary either/or dichotomy between "the fans" and "the non-fans," whereas, in real life, it's a spectrum with extremes at either end and the vast majority of viewing audience spread out along the middle.

At one end, you have the folks who don't "get" STAR TREK and never will. Chances are, they can't tell the difference between "Dr. Spock" and Darth Vader.

At the other end, you have us hardcore, convention-going, bbs-posting, merchandise-collecting super-fans who have seen every single movie and TV episode and can cite chapter and verse on the Organian Peace Treaty. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we are not the "core audience." We are the extremes at one end of the spectrum.

The vast majority of Trek fans consists of people who, to varying degrees, have enjoyed some amount of Star Trek over the years and have a certain affection for their favorite Trek series and characters. They've seen the more popular movies, will pick up a Hallmark ornament or paperback novel if the mood strikes them, and certainly know who Kirk and Picard are, but maybe not Gul Dukat or Robert April . . .

It's the casual fans, along the middle of the spectrum, that mean the difference between a flop and a hit. And they're the audience you mostly need to target.

All well put, but truth be told, as opposed to people generally, mainly it's only some of us hardcore fans whom I've seen pushing the binary either/or dichotomy between "the fans" and "the non-fans," a dichotomy that intrinsically feeds an us versus them mentality.

I think it was easy for hardcore fans in the 1970's to convince ourselves that we were the keepers of Star Trek's flames, but it was really nearsighted not to see that Star Trek's return and subsequent incarnations could never be solely for our consumption.

To put it into personal perspective, I'd say that my first taste of the divergence between what I wanted in Star Trek versus what had popular appeal came with the release of The Voyage Home.

 

[bbjeg]

(We probably shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, especially when it's unqualified, the word "fan" can mean different things to different people, and in different contexts.) ...

I tried to hit that in the opening post. That issue was touched on in the previous (part 1) thread where people were claiming they were more "fan" then the other guy. I tried to blanket the term. This poll is for the most hardcore of fans to the new fans who only saw a movie or two.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Oh please. The explosion and someone catching on fire is a common action movie trope.

Often accompanied by a Wilhelm scream.

It's the casual fans, along the middle of the spectrum, that mean the difference between a flop and a hit. And they're the audience you mostly need to target.

Mostly I think that's true, but it's the hardcore fans who'll go back to the theater three, four, five times.

 

[flakfrist123]

[/QUOTE]

Until they all die off or move on.

Hence why Nemesis bombed and Enterprise was cancelled there weren't enough fans to keep Trek going.[/QUOTE]

Shhhh. . . . Truth has no place on this board.

Anyway, reading through this thread I get the impression the thread's title should be, "Do fans want the technobabble back? part 2: Poll edition".

I say Nay.

 

[BigJake]

Shhhh. . . . Truth has no place on this board.

So... what are you doing here?

 

[bbjeg]

And it wasn't like Enterprise initially targeted fans from the prior series flakfirst123. The whole point was to leave everything prior fans knew about Star Trek behind (from introducing never heard of species to the ditch of the orchestral opening theme style). It wasn't until season two when they tried to get those fans back that they started adding tie-in elements to the other series. They just failed at it.

 

[LOLPeanutButter]

Star Trek TNG - VOY as the ultra-pure "Do The Right Thing Absurdly Politically Correct New Age Management By Teams" is dead. It is no longer relate-able to an entire generation of fans. We have an entire generation now that has been brought up facing a growingly un-trustable government, is used to conspiracy theories an plots-within-plots... and is in general used to a darker level of storytelling. The happy-touchy-feely "LETS ALL DO THE RIGHT THING AFTER GETTING A TEAM CONSENSUS" just doesn't cut it with the audience anymore. That is why TNG failed in at the big-screen, plain and simple. The larger audience can't relate to it.

What seems to sell... darker stories involving flawed heroes working against a damaged/broken establishment and not quite succeeding all the way. That is what the majority of the fans want, and that is what New Trek brings to the table.

In order to keep Trek alive, it has to grow and adapt. Just like the shift we saw between TOS and TNG, we need to accept a shift in style. We can't keep living in the past, we are not going to get TNG back nor should we try to recreate something that just won't sell.

Going forward, we need New Trek to bring in new fans. It's time to pass the torch on to the next-next-generation.

 

[Ryan8bit]

What seems to sell... darker stories involving flawed heroes working against a damaged/broken establishment and not quite succeeding all the way. That is what the majority of the fans want, and that is what New Trek brings to the table.

You pretty much just described DS9. I don't think sticking to the old continuity precludes stories of that type.

 

[bbjeg]

... In order to keep Trek alive, it has to grow and adapt. Just like the shift we saw between TOS and TNG, we need to accept a shift in style. We can't keep living in the past, we are not going to get TNG back nor should we try to recreate something that just won't sell.

Going forward, we need New Trek to bring in new fans. It's time to pass the torch on to the next-next-generation.

Not that I'm knocking NuTrek but I wouldn't call rebooting moving forward. It's more like reenvisioning. A 25th century series would be moving forward.

 

[BillJ]

A 25th century series would be moving forward.

It really wouldn't. It would be pinning comm badges on another set of actors and have them mumble on monotonously about more Star Trek minutiae.

 

[bbjeg]

^With the right writers, it could have been done.

 

[BigJake]

That is why TNG failed in at the big-screen, plain and simple. The larger audience can't relate to it.

I don't think this is true at all. TNG failed on the big screen because the studio refused to play to its strengths: the characters were suited for cerebral high-concept storylines and they tried to make slam-bang action movies with them. (Note that the most successful of the TNG movies made actual use of the characters' backstories... and even that one did it clumsily.)

What seems to sell... darker stories involving flawed heroes working against a damaged/broken establishment and not quite succeeding all the way.

You're basically describing DS9.

But yes, it's completely true that the milieu that birthed the original Star Trek just no longer exists. Trek can no longer be about the happy and morally uncomplicated adventures of the American Navy in space, and I wouldn't want it to be. The core aspect that originally distinguished Trek, however, is not obsolete: Trek can and should aspire to telling believable human stories. I don't care which century it's set in -- in point of fact I'd be game for a real all-in reboot which actually resets the whole setting and starts from scratch -- as long as it delivers that.

 

[Hober Mallow]

That is why TNG failed in at the big-screen, plain and simple. The larger audience can't relate to it.

I don't think this is true at all.

Nor do I. TNG failed because the writers and producers weren't up to the challenge. The TNG cast was more than ready for big screen adventures; unfortunately, their writers weren't.

 

[I am not Spock]

The Prime Universe is not coming back. You have as much chance of Pierce Brosnan coming back as James Bond.

I enjoyed Prime Trek while it lasted. But it's gone. And perhaps that's a good thing. It needed some fresh blood. Anything new that is made will not resemble Berman Trek at all.

 

[bbjeg]

^Prime Trek isn't Berman Trek. It includes it.

 

[anh165]

^Prime Trek isn't Berman Trek. It includes it.

It is mainly Berman produced Trek.

Are you saying most of the remaining "true" 450 fans across the world who want the "prime" universe back want to see 1960's paper mache boulders and cat suits? No, they want to see unrealistic characters like Odo, Tom Paris, Kira, Janeway and Dukat on the Enterprise NCC-1701-N and featuring Klingon Emperor Worf because that's the style of Trek that got them into it.

The alt universe gives the studio artistic license to break away from the dated and bland production values of Berman trek - other sci fi and adventure movies have left prime trek in its wake 10 years ago.

 

[bbjeg]

^Regardless of how much of Prime Trek is Berman Trek, it's still not just Berman Trek. The biggest difference between a 25th century Prime Trek and a 25th century NuTrek would be the status of Vulcan, which has nothing to do with Berman at all, as well as Kirk's history (like how he met Khan), or NCC-1701's exploits.