If Fans Were Acquiescent

If fans were not so vocal and so divisive and eager to judge and complain about STAR TREK, generally, what would STAR TREK look like? If we just let CBS/Paramount create without any concern for Nerd Rage, what course would this franchise take?

 

Honestly, my guess is that it would be vastly better. A lot of later Star Trek products have been convoluted/diluted by trying to please too many masters (TNG movies, VOY, ENT, DSC). The fan base is so splintered, and the disgruntled minority is so loud, that they should realize that trying to please "The Fans" is fools errand. It can't really be done, at least not in the purest sense. Everyone wants something a little different...so the minute you make one segment happy, you piss another off.

Just make a great product without worrying about the jackwad "Fans".

 

It would look exactly the same IMO. I don't think positive / negative comments have any impact.

 

Of course they do. One need not look any further than the Disco2 trailer to see that.

 

agreed. there may have been a few times that fans had an impact, but over time I think directors and producers have learned to avoid them for the most part.
Where it gets tricky is now that the show is half a century old, many of the writers (and actors) are themselves fans who grew up with the show and have their own take on things, even their own spot in the various fan schisms.

 

At the end of the day, bitching means dick. It's an industry, & it's run on what the dollars say. They'd be doing exactly what they're doing. They likely hope for fan outrage, as a means of publicity

 

IIRC many ppl here rated the JJ films highly. Many love DSC. But ppl are not really as motivated to write about things they were content with. So we notice the complainers, incl. me, ha ha!

Now, how much do the ptb plot to head off ppls ' carping?
Unknown. JJ's preserving the old timeline was supposed to please us. As was a Khan plot. They'd a been better off to jus t reboot and make it simpler an d strange, new worldsy.

 

It's not just STAR TREK. Any high-profile, geek-friendly project, and particularly those based on some beloved old property, is going to incite heated debate, nit-picking, second-guessing, and hand-wringing . . . sometimes before a single frame of film has been shot. By now the Powers That Be probably realize that this just comes with the territory these days--and don't take it too seriously.

It's just white noise at this point.

"The 'fans" are in an uproar over the casting! And the title, and the director, and that leaked sketch of the Pez Dispenser . . . ."

"So what else is new?"

 

I think they're happy as long as people are talking about the product.

 

Yep. Ultimately this sort of 'nerd rage' is a byproduct of people caring about the franchise.

 

I think that the creative and executive teams are comfortable with a reasonable amount of 'outrage' as pointed out by @fireproof78, because it generates or indicates interest.
But they aren't going to be all that responsive to criticism, because they understand that most criticism is amplified by various media and internet "news" outlets that are trying to make a few bucks off of clicks.

 

99% the same.

 

There hasn't been any true Star Trek since 1969! For those of us that love the original television series and nowt else!
JB

 

It would've ended in 1968 with the finale of Season Two if not for the fans.

 

Too much irony in this thread. Anyway, the previous cycle of Star Trek ran 10 movies and 18 years on TV. Not bad. It rose, it peaked, and it declined. It ran its course. It's just that on the TV end, it ran its course in a number of years that wasn't divisible by seven so the last series was cancelled "early". If ENT premiered earlier, it would've run seven seasons too.

The new cycle: they wanted a reboot for the films and wanted to (or had to) keep the TV series separate from the reboot.

These things would've happened regardless of whatever's posted here or elsewhere online.

This is how the shows evolved:
TNG --> Star Trek updated for the '80s and '90s.
DS9 --> Overlapped with TNG, so it had to be different to distinguish it.
VOY --> TNG was over, so it could go back to being a "normal" Star Trek show.
ENT --> The creators thought the 24th Century was played out and wanted to go closer to our time.
DSC --> They wanted to make a Star Trek series fit for Peak TV serialization and binge-watching.

The directions the creators have chosen look like a natural outgrowth of the situation and circumstances at the time each of the series were created.

 

This!! Yes. Exactly.

Fans and our “nerd rage” (great term, btw @2takesfrakes ) are a huge part of Star Trek. We are vital in the progression of the franchise.

They rely on what we want to see because they want us to watch the show. If we hate something, especially a good majority of us, it’s likely we won’t see it again. I’ll just say this, no one is gonna do a remake of Spock’s Brain anytime soon.

Whether we like a character or not makes a difference in how many episodes or series they get, i.e. Worf, Miles, Seven of Nine and of course our beloved...

 

It would look a lot like Voyager, Enterprise, and the TNG flicks, probably. Bland, formulaic, with no characters to speak of. They took the fanbase for granted, and let the quality slide. They thought fans would watch anything, so they could get away with half assing it.

I'm not a huge fan of the JJ flicks, and even less so of STD, but I wouldn't want to see a return to the Voyager style (or lack of it) either.

 

Then they probably would simultaneously not be passionately enthusiastic about it either, just apathetic, and the show would have gotten one brief revival if that.

If there somehow was in the fanbase enthusiasm without also criticism, every revival (there would be fewer) would just be a remake or prequel to the first series and general audiences would be as derisive of the fanbase and about as uninterested in (if not more derisive of) the franchise generally.