The question is, if the specific "upgrades" in question are the best answer though. There is such a thing as bad change, or changes that mutate the franchise in question.
Has the Trek franchise exhausted itself
- Thread starter Voth commando1
- Start date
The question is, if the specific "upgrades" in question are the best answer though. There is such a thing as bad change, or changes that mutate the franchise in question.
If Discovery fails then it's the novels and nutrek comics which means the franchise dies a slow death.
I don't think so. I think it may mean the death of doing things a certain way, and a full-on reboot. But the property won't be gone for long.
I don't think Star Trek is going to die anytime soon. What it will become as it continues, that is the question that remains (and the one I'm the most worried about).
I wouldn't say that. I was actually pretty happy with how the original iteration of the franchise turned out.
This is an excellent point about TFA. Despite the internet rage at the line, Abrams' made several references to the prequels and didn't diminish them in any way. But, let the internet meme continue
A question that occurs to me is what is there to worry about it becoming? Maybe I'm in the minority, but if DSC isn't successful, all I see happening is the franchise sleeping a bit before CBS tries something again. Much in the same way between ENT and ST 09.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I'm not worried over Trek's future. There are several avenues the franchise could go, and explore different facets. If it doesn't, then there are still 5 series, and 13 films to enjoy.
This is an excellent point about TFA. Despite the internet rage at the line, Abrams' made several references to the prequels and didn't diminish them in any way. But, let the internet meme continue
I think it was partially fueled by the press releases emphasizing that the movie was returning to the roots of the franchise and was going to be more like the original movies. Somewhere along the line I think it mutated into the idea that the prequels were going to be forgotten or something. When it came out, I recall a relative asking me if I'd seen the movie; he was curious if I could verify a rumor that TFA had retconned the prequels into discontinuity).
(I actually thought the the whole "it's going to be just like the original movies" marketing got so hyped to the point that I think people stopped thinking, to some extent. When it was announced that the movies were going to use mostly practical effects, it somehow became automatic that the movie would be good because CGI would be kept to a minimum. I never got that thinking, since, at the end of the day, practicals aren't inherently better than CGI. They're different tools, with their strengths and weaknesses. Good special effects are good special effects, regardless of the tools. TFA's effects weren't good because they were mostly practical. They were good because JJ Abrams and his team did a good job with both and knew when to use one or the other.)
I think the movies are going to have a bigger impact on Star Trek's future right now; I'm pretty sure that the DSC show is going to have a much smaller audience, thanks to them releasing only on their pay-for streaming service instead of broadcast TV.
We'll see. I've found the current movie series to be a very mixed bag and not the kind of Trek I'm a fan of. I'm sure people will continue to watch it for years to come (whether DVDs/reruns of the older material or whatever Paramount/CBS come up with in the future), but I suspect that the franchise isn't quite the pop culture mainstay it once was. Marvel and Star Wars are dominating the geek genre right now, I think and I'm not sure that Paramount and CBS are up to handling them or equalling their output of material.
But I think he's saying that most people are probably fans because of Star Trek's social commentary. Eliminating the social commentary may serve to alienate more fans than it appeases.
Trek's fans love it more for the Klingons and Borg and He can live with it and so on than they do what Trek might say about racism, poverty, prejudice, social relationships and so on.
Also it needs to be for Trek fans, DS9 went over backwards trying to appease general audiences and so did TNG and ENT to some extent but in the end Trek and Trekkies will always be a small margin of society and Trek shouldn't seek to appeal to the broad but the narrow.
That's news to me. It was probably the least accessible Trek series to non-Trekkies. Back in the day it was described as "the cult within the cult".
DS9 plotlines and drama often could have fit a soap opera.
How can you possibly speak for Trek fans with that unsupported, blanket generalization? You certainly don't speak for this one.
Good science fiction can do both. It doesn't have to have commentary to be a good story, but a good commentary may fall flat without it. So, I would tend to look for a balance between the two, while erring on the side of entertainment.
Not this Trek fan (a term I use loosely). I find the Klingons boring and the Borg way overdone.
Give me some Romulans, or Tholians, or Hortas, or the slow burn of the Cardassians yearning for power.
Ha-ha, no, DS9 didn't. I recall it being regarded with less love than TNG or VOY, which got a lot of the hype from the magazines and TV guides and such that I read at the time. Others may be able to speak to it better, but DS9's popularity certainly wasn't around when I watched it, and certainly not among my limited circle of friends. They preferred VOY or TNG films to watching DS9.
Same here.
Yeah, good way to look at it. And in the TV show format, they could do a mix of both. (In fact, episodes that are both "message" stories and ones that are just pure sci-fi or puzzle of the week are regular contenders on "best episodes" lists.
I'm a big Borg fan, but I'm not a huge Klingon fan (I like 'em, but not with the passion that so many people seem to do.)
(It is interesting though, that the only Star Trek species to really cement themselves in pop culture are the Vulcans, Klingons, and Borg, esp. the latter two. And of those three, the Borg are the only ones who were not created for TOS, meaning they're one of the only things from "modern" Star Trek to transcend the fanbase.)
The Cardassians did well on DS9. Tholians and Horta were more interesting in their limited doses, I think. I think the Romulans worked better when they were given stories that afforded them more dimension than they did as stock TNG antagonists, and they were cast as the latter than the former too often. I actually really liked the Ferengi myself, but I've gathered I'm in the minority.
Sounds about right. My understanding was that DS9 was kind of the ignored show, which also gave the producers a little more leeway to tell the stories they want to. On the other hand, while I like the other shows more, I do like DS9 a lot; I think it was very well made, certainly could make a solid case for being the best show in the franchise, kept its level of quality shows at a consistent high far better than the others ones did, and was also the most forward thinking; In today's age of heavily serialized TV, DS9 was doing just that years in advance and arguably from a better position that other ones, like Babylon 5, did, with a mythology already made to build on.
Yeah, every fan is unique.
Similar threads
