To each their own. Goodbye!
Idea for New Series
- Thread starter Bonko
- Start date
To each their own. Goodbye!
I'm not really sure why you seem to find it so offensive that people only spend the time to read long posts that are legible, but, Yea, if formatting a post into a readable style by using paragraphs is too intellectual a yard stick for you to reach for, then you're probably right that you're unlikely to be happy here
Well, that's one cadet of the total of three that posted to this thread, so we're still ahead on our cadet quota.
Last edited:
Most people certainly were. The majority of viewers who watched TNG abandoned the Franchise between 1993 and 2005.
Does JJ get Star Wars fever and forget us?
Last edited:
No.
He doesn't know you, anyway. He just makes movies.
He doesn't know you, anyway. He just makes movies.
I'm really hoping this happens. Have the crew give their lives to save the timeline.
It will not happen. Going back to something that people were not interested in makes no sense.
Haha, what? The general popcorn munchers won't give a damn either way. It's not like it was Nero's timeline interference which made them flock to see JJ Trek.
No, what made them flock to see the movie, besides the fact that it was fun, entertaining and emotionally engaging, was the promise of a "back to basics" Trek without the heavy baggage of byzantine continuity. Saying "the new approach worked but now we're going back to the old approach that didn't work" makes no sense at all. In fact, it's insane.
Just because something is set in the Prime universe doesn't mean it requires continuity to understand. Especially if the ship is seeking out new life, new civilisations and going where nobody has before.
I'd just like a science-fiction series set in the Star Trek universe instead of an action film set in another universe. My personal preference.
I'd just like a science-fiction series set in the Star Trek universe instead of an action film set in another universe. My personal preference.
If you're not using the Prime universe continuity then your story may as well take place in the current continuity, since it doesn't make much of a difference and prevents you from fighting an uphill battle.
I understand and I respect that. I'm just saying that it will never, ever happen.
Yeah, it could work I'd just prefer to know what I'm watching takes place in the proper Star Trek universe. A TV series set in the NuTrek timeline could work just as well if they just took the older, more science-fiction driven approach instead of the more hack-ish Orci and Kurtzman take on it. Which I know some people on here prefer and that's fine but I'm a science-fiction fan and want Trek to be ideas driven.
Well, I'm being an optimist. There are millions and millions of fans of old and young ages (I'm only in my early 20s!) that cherish the old continuity. It's possible that one day, some of these people will be put in charge of the franchise instead of people like JJ Abrams. A man who, I guarantee, would never have considered destroying Star Wars' continuity because he's a huge fan of that franchise.
Ultimately, it's meaningless. Trek has always been a mix of different things, and that's what made it successful. If you want genuine idea-driven science fiction, read books, preferably not Star Trek books.
Very few people actually care about the old continuity all that much. Most Star Trek fans just enjoy Star Trek. I don't see "millions and millions of people" campaigning to get back to the Neelixverse. And no, in ten years, no person in their right mind would ever think about proposing something as absurd as "hey, remember the version of Star Trek that was slightly different than the one we have now and which ultimately failed so miserably that it had to be rebooted? Let's get back to that".
I do. Though I'm starting the DS9 Relaunch series at the moment.
That has nothing to do with continuity though. If somebody made a lens-flared, action-packed Pine Kirk blockbuster set in the Prime universe and made Insurrection II in the JJverse, which one would do better? The general public don't give a shit about continuity. Half of them probably didn't even notice it wasn't a proper prequel.
You're being deliberately obtuse. People liked the idea of a fresh approach without years and years of baggage. It's not a matter of which continuity they'd rather like, it's like wanting to buy a new bag instead of one which has been worn out by years of use, is covered with stickers and full of stuff you don't even remember putting there in the first place.
I don't know that the "fresh approach" was the draw for the movie. That assumes that the audience was made up of people familiar enough with Star Trek that they'd know whether the approach was fresh or stale.
Abrams made a movie that was well crafted to take advantage of the expectations of the general global audience for summer tentpole action franchises. It focused on the franchise's most well-known names/images (Kirk, Spock, Enterprise) and was marketed as slam-bang exciting action that could be appreciated by people who'd never seen one minute of Star Trek before, just like Iron Man and The Avengers appealed to people who'd never read those comics (and had to, in order to be profitable movies).
None of this has much bearing on a TV series, which has entirely different constraints and exists in a different industry - smaller budget, the need to produce at least 13 episodes per year, not two hours every three years, and the need to appeal to the audience of whatever channel it ends up on.
The only connection between movies and TV is that the movies represent a huge PR boost for any TV series, and that's the overriding reason why a TV series might take place in the same continuity, or at the very least, give us no indication that it's not doing that. The odds against any TV series, particularly live action, are so severe that I don't think they can afford to snub anything that will help boost ratings and also boost the confidence of Les Moonves, who is no fan of Star Trek and seems content to keep making cookie cutter cop shows, sitcoms and reality TV.
Abrams made a movie that was well crafted to take advantage of the expectations of the general global audience for summer tentpole action franchises. It focused on the franchise's most well-known names/images (Kirk, Spock, Enterprise) and was marketed as slam-bang exciting action that could be appreciated by people who'd never seen one minute of Star Trek before, just like Iron Man and The Avengers appealed to people who'd never read those comics (and had to, in order to be profitable movies).
None of this has much bearing on a TV series, which has entirely different constraints and exists in a different industry - smaller budget, the need to produce at least 13 episodes per year, not two hours every three years, and the need to appeal to the audience of whatever channel it ends up on.
The only connection between movies and TV is that the movies represent a huge PR boost for any TV series, and that's the overriding reason why a TV series might take place in the same continuity, or at the very least, give us no indication that it's not doing that. The odds against any TV series, particularly live action, are so severe that I don't think they can afford to snub anything that will help boost ratings and also boost the confidence of Les Moonves, who is no fan of Star Trek and seems content to keep making cookie cutter cop shows, sitcoms and reality TV.
Completely true. Movies are unfortunately like that. TV shows, however get boring if every episode is centered on that kind of thing. The TNG TV show was completely different from the TNG movies. The movies were all based off weapon fire and explosions, wheras the TV show had some weapons and explosions, but was also entertaning and had lots rewatchable content.
Similar threads
