Has the Trek franchise exhausted itself

[Paradise City]

'What stirs the human soul?' is the salient question.

Get that answer, include it in Trek (or any other dramatic work you might be creating).

That could be an issue that pops up in human literature 500 years ago or it could be a theme thrown up by the information society today. Rummage through the whole spectrum of human experience.

Trek need not be "exhausted" no more than the discipline of drama itself need be exhausted. Oversaturation is a problem but if Trek paces itself well, and it evolves it can have an incredible lifespan. There's no insurmountable reason why that can't happen.

 

[fireproof78]

It's a good description of the current state of the Star Wars franchise, that's for sure. So for anyone to hoist this up as a cardinal sin that destroys any and all sci-fi franchises isn't accurate.

Partially, but Star Wars is also presenting new characters, new stories and different environments that haven't been explored yet. It isn't banking entirely on self-references, so much as it is exploring the deeper lore. In many cases, there is something for everyone, young and old, fans and uninitiated.

Star Trek, meanwhile, keeps going back to TWOK as the gold standard with diminishing returns. When it does something new the franchise is accused of not being "true Star Trek" or not "Gene's vision." Both are terms of dismissal that doesn't promote any discussion of the new material.

 

[WebLurker]

Has Star Trek exhausted itself? I'm not sure. I really liked the last movie and would be open to another one now. On the other hand, I can't see the Discovery show, so I'm finding it hard to get excited for that. The new books haven't been exactly been my favorites. While I still very much enjoy re-watching the older shows and movies, as a fan, I'm admittedly feeling like the franchise is running out of steam. (Ironically, as a Star Wars right now, I'm getting really energized.)

 

[RandyS]

^You're "a Star Wars" right now? How'd you pull that off?

 

[WebLurker]

^You're "a Star Wars" right now? How'd you pull that off?

A.) I've always loved Star Wars (second favorite sci-fi to Star Trek and only barely in second).

B.) I've not enjoyed much of Star Trek's recent output, while I'm loving the heck out of what Star Wars is giving us. It feels fresher that Trek's materials. I'm not a big fan of the recent movie series overall and the books are either TOS stand alones or advancing the post TNG/DS9/VOY timeframe, which is not of that much interest to me.

Basically, from where I'm standing, it's far more fun to be a Star Wars fan than a Trek one.

 

[RandyS]

A.) I've always loved Star Wars (second favorite sci-fi to Star Trek and only barely in second).

B.) I've not enjoyed much of Star Trek's recent output, while I'm loving the heck out of what Star Wars is giving us. It feels fresher that Trek's materials. I'm not a big fan of the recent movie series overall and the books are either TOS stand alones or advancing the post TNG/DS9/VOY timeframe, which is not of that much interest to me.

Basically, from where I'm standing, it's far more fun to be a Star Wars fan than a Trek one.

Oh. I agree with everything you said, except for the part about Star Wars being number two. For me it's number three. Also I thought Rouge One was a better movie than The Force Awakens. What did you think?

I also agree with you bout the Star Trek novels. I still enjoy the TOS ones but the 24th century series are completely unrecognizable and I gave up on them last year.

 

[fireproof78]

A.) I've always loved Star Wars (second favorite sci-fi to Star Trek and only barely in second).

B.) I've not enjoyed much of Star Trek's recent output, while I'm loving the heck out of what Star Wars is giving us. It feels fresher that Trek's materials. I'm not a big fan of the recent movie series overall and the books are either TOS stand alones or advancing the post TNG/DS9/VOY timeframe, which is not of that much interest to me.

Basically, from where I'm standing, it's far more fun to be a Star Wars fan than a Trek one.

As odd as it sounds, from where I have stood and among my friends, that has always been the case. My friends and I would go to conventions as Starfleet officers from time to time, but did not always get well received. To be fair, they were not the best costumes. My friend had movie level ambition and thrift store level budget. But, he decided to put more in to Star Wars and build his costume that way, and had more fun with it, more pictures, did local events, etc.

I guess my point is, from my experience, Star Trek is not always considered "fun."

 

[KelisThePoet]

It's [self-referential escapism] a good description of the current state of the Star Wars franchise, that's for sure. So for anyone to hoist this up as a cardinal sin that destroys any and all sci-fi franchises isn't accurate.

Star Wars may be escapism, currently and in the past, though whether it's the kind of "escapism" that Trek would become by deliberately ignoring social issues is debatable. Trek and Wars are different kinds of fictional universes, and while the relevance of the former has traditionally been its (sometimes superficial) social commentary, the relevance of the latter has traditionally been its (sometimes superficial) philosophical/religious dimension.

Star Wars is certainly not aiming for self-referentiality in its current state. Quite the contrary, it's completely and officially jettisoned its vast expanded universe of fiction as "legends" in order to free up the current writers to create new material that appeals to mass audiences with little familiarity or interest outside the original three movies. Even the prequel movies are all but ignored by The Force Awakens--I don't know if this is also true of Rogue One. I skipped it, as The Force Awakens was not my cup of tea.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Wars may be escapism, currently and in the past, though whether it's the kind of "escapism" that Trek would become by deliberately ignoring social issues is debatable. Trek and Wars are different kinds of fictional universes, and while the relevance of the former has traditionally been its (sometimes superficial) social commentary, the relevance of the latter has traditionally been its (sometimes superficial) philosophical/religious dimension.

Star Wars is certainly not aiming for self-referentiality in its current state. Quite the contrary, it's completely and officially jettisoned its vast expanded universe of fiction as "legends" in order to free up the current writers to create new material that appeals to mass audiences with little familiarity or interest outside the original three movies. Even the prequel movies are all but ignored by The Force Awakens--I don't know if this is also true of Rogue One. I skipped it, as The Force Awakens was not my cup of tea.

Not to tell you what to watch, but Rogue One and The Force Awakens are set up with a different tone and aesthetic, so you might enjoy it more than you think. Different directors, production teams, as well as a more war film feel than what The Force Awakens was going for.

Also, the prequels have some nods in The Force Awkens even if they are not directly referred to in the film itself.

 

[WebLurker]

Oh. I agree with everything you said, except for the part about Star Wars being number two. For me it's number three.

What you second place. (Me, its Star Trek, Star Wars, and Spider-Man).

Also I thought Rouge One was a better movie than The Force Awakens. What did you think?

A little hard to say, since I only got to see Rogue One a few days ago and am still on a bit of a high from it. I think I like Force Awakens slightly better. They did have my favorite batch of characters to date. But I do think Rogue One ranks up there with the best of the Star Wars movies. I did like it better than Empire Strikes Back (blasphemy, I know).

I also agree with you bout the Star Trek novels. I still enjoy the TOS ones but the 24th century series are completely unrecognizable and I gave up on them last year.

I'd still check out a few from the library, but I'd like to see more flashback novels set during the TV shows. I am trying to follow John Jackson Miller's new Klingon trilogy. The first one was pretty good.

Star Wars is certainly not aiming for self-referentiality in its current state. Quite the contrary, it's completely and officially jettisoned its vast expanded universe of fiction as "legends" in order to free up the current writers to create new material that appeals to mass audiences with little familiarity or interest outside the original three movies. Even the prequel movies are all but ignored by The Force Awakens--I don't know if this is also true of Rogue One. I skipped it, as The Force Awakens was not my cup of tea.

Rogue One and Force Awakens are different style movies. I think if you like the original movies, you'll have a good time. There are some very loving moments for the old school fans. Rogue One ties into the prequels as well as the originals and Star Wars: Rebels.

As @fireproof78 mentioned, Force Awakens does use prequel stuff (balance in the Force, Jedi temples, references to the clone troopers and the Sith), so they're ignored. In fact, so far all the movies fit together seamlessly (barring the one or two hiccups).

 

[RandyS]

What you second place. (Me, its Star Trek, Star Wars, and Spider-Man).

My second place is Babylon 5. My top three list goes:
1. Star Trek (all of it)
2. Babylon 5
3. Star Wars (all of it)

 

[WebLurker]

My second place is Babylon 5. My top three list goes:
1. Star Trek (all of it)
2. Babylon 5
3. Star Wars (all of it)

Saw some of Babylon 5, never really liked it that much (it was okay). Have family who really like it, though.

 

[KelisThePoet]

Not to tell you what to watch, but Rogue One and The Force Awakens are set up with a different tone and aesthetic, so you might enjoy it more than you think. Different directors, production teams, as well as a more war film feel than what The Force Awakens was going for.

Rogue One and Force Awakens are different style movies. I think if you like the original movies, you'll have a good time. There are some very loving moments for the old school fans. Rogue One ties into the prequels as well as the originals and Star Wars: Rebels.

My sister said very similar things to me after seeing the movie. I suspect my personal gripes with the direction of Disney's Star Wars on the whole run too deep for me to appreciate Rogue One, but I will say that the visuals for the movie I've seen look lovely, and perhaps I should pay attention to the building consensus.

Also, the prequels have some nods in The Force Awkens even if they are not directly referred to in the film itself.

As @fireproof78 mentioned, Force Awakens does use prequel stuff (balance in the Force, Jedi temples, references to the clone troopers and the Sith), so they're ignored. In fact, so far all the movies fit together seamlessly (barring the one or two hiccups).

The only (arguable) reference to the prequels I noticed was the lady on the island planet mentioning the Sith, but I saw the movie only once. I can believe there are probably other nods, but I do think the movie tried to play down its connection to the prequels and play up its (ostensible) connection to the original Star Wars trilogy. More to the point of this thread, I wouldn't class any of the nods to previous movies as the kind of self-referentiality that I was arguing can damage a franchise and alienate casual viewers. I was referring not to cameos, nods and references; but to plots and subplots that delve extensively into the complications of the history of minor, supporting characters in a way that is primarily tailored to and marketed for initiated fans of the franchise.

 

[Voth commando1]

Star Wars may be escapism, currently and in the past, though whether it's the kind of "escapism" that Trek would become by deliberately ignoring social issues is debatable. Trek and Wars are different kinds of fictional universes, and while the relevance of the former has traditionally been its (sometimes superficial) social commentary, the relevance of the latter has traditionally been its (sometimes superficial) philosophical/religious dimension.

Star Wars is certainly not aiming for self-referentiality in its current state. Quite the contrary, it's completely and officially jettisoned its vast expanded universe of fiction as "legends" in order to free up the current writers to create new material that appeals to mass audiences with little familiarity or interest outside the original three movies. Even the prequel movies are all but ignored by The Force Awakens--I don't know if this is also true of Rogue One. I skipped it, as The Force Awakens was not my cup of tea.

Speaking of philosophical and religious concerns Legends did deal with this in one amazing book called Traitor part of an equally amazing series called the New Jedi Order. I am a Star Wars and fan and more really a legends fan. I am still devastated and heartbroken about the damn decanonization. Also I am not a fan of the ST and the only thing I liked about Rogue One was Vader slaughtering the rebel soldiers.

 

[fireproof78]

My sister said very similar things to me after seeing the movie. I suspect my personal gripes with the direction of Disney's Star Wars on the whole run too deep for me to appreciate Rogue One, but I will say that the visuals for the movie I've seen look lovely, and perhaps I should pay attention to the building consensus.The only (arguable) reference to the prequels I noticed was the lady on the island planet mentioning the Sith, but I saw the movie only once. I can believe there are probably other nods, but I do think the movie tried to play down its connection to the prequels and play up its (ostensible) connection to the original Star Wars trilogy. More to the point of this thread, I wouldn't class any of the nods to previous movies as the kind of self-referentiality that I was arguing can damage a franchise and alienate casual viewers. I was referring not to cameos, nods and references; but to plots and subplots that delve extensively into the complications of the history of minor, supporting characters in a way that is primarily tailored to and marketed for initiated fans of the franchise.

Given the fact that it was a direct, albeit later, sequel to the original trilogy, the connections being more obvious really shouldn't be that surprising, nor do I think it is for self-referential purposes. I think it tells a similar story, but utilizes the consequences of the last film to build upon and craft a familiar story with unfamiliar characters and a larger threat.

Regardless, self-referential, as you noted, is not always a bad thing. It's all in execution.

 

[WebLurker]

Given the fact that it was a direct, albeit later, sequel to the original trilogy, the connections being more obvious really shouldn't be that surprising, nor do I think it is for self-referential purposes. I think it tells a similar story, but utilizes the consequences of the last film to build upon and craft a familiar story with unfamiliar characters and a larger threat.

Regardless, self-referential, as you noted, is not always a bad thing. It's all in execution.

Case in point, IMHO, I think the Rogue One movie did it well. TFA didn't need endless references to the prequels to tell its story.

 

[Voth commando1]

Abrams said something to the effect of "we're making everything right" as in we're gonna get rid of the prequels/marginalize them. Which is both petty and wrong.

 

[fireproof78]

Abrams said something to the effect of "we're making everything right" as in we're gonna get rid of the prequels/marginalize them. Which is both petty and wrong.

Source?

 

[WebLurker]

Abrams said something to the effect of "we're making everything right" as in we're gonna get rid of the prequels/marginalize them. Which is both petty and wrong.

Are you referring to the "This will begin to make things right" line in the movie, which many fans took as a hidden apology for the prequels and an assurance that they wouldn't be repeated. The funny thing is that the very next line is about how the Jedi are needed to bring balance to the Force, validating the prequels, since balance and the Force is a prequel's only concept that was part of the foundation for their overall story.

However, at the end of the day, there's nothing to contradict them. Everything still works. It's not that much different from how the TNG show didn't need to drop a reference to TOS every single episode.

 

[Vger23]

This. The road to obsolesce is to continue to trade in past glories and offering nothing of relevance for the next generation.

"We both get the same two kinds of customers...the living and the dying."

Same with any franchise...especially a sci-fi franchise. You either continuously upgrade, re-tool, adapt, etc...or you die a painful death. New blood is not only desired, it's necessary.

People who want things to "stay the same" are selfish and short sighted. You can't put Star Trek in a little bottle and keep it all to yourself and expect it to flourish.