If Star Trek Beyond fails

[Campe]

It's really a simple matter:
Those who completely understand that there are folks who do not like the JJ-era films will not try to force them to say: "Hey, accept the JJ films as canon-Trek, or get off the boat!"

However, it is the one's (the deluded ones, not the rational ones) who seem to think that the JJ-era films are somehow not Star Trek that seem to want to force everyone to say: "Oh, jee, the unwashed masses are so wrong for enjoying JJ's take on Star Trek as anything official, and non-true-fans and unwashed masses should bow down before the all-too-knowledgeable anti-JJ'ers as being the harbingers and caretakers of all things Trek".

Yeah....try and sell me another one.

There definitely is a certain amount of religious fanaticism about Trek. I do have to ask myself when I read stuff about "the one true Trek" if they aren't just playing a game with the sane people. Or if there really are people that love Trek that much that it's become that deep of an obsession.

What gets me is that at the end of the day: Star Trek is an entertainment franchise. Star Trek is a business. If you want more of "Gene's true vision of the future," you don't want these movies to fail. Because if they fail, Star Trek will go away. Probably not forever. But for a very long time. And if you don't like Trek now, what makes you think in 15-20 years, it's going to be any better?

Vanity Fair has a great article about Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation in which it discusses the changing face of the cinema and how movies are being made for a broader international audience. That it needs to be broadened to be picked up for foreign audiences. The article speaks well of the idea, saying that Rogue Nation handles it well. I saw the film Sunday and I can't say that I really had any conscious feeling that I was watching a film designed moreso for an international audience (short of scenes shot throughout the globe, which is already a tenet of the M:I movies.) The article also references when it doesn't work. Transformers: Age of Extinction, for example. Or even more egregiously, Iron Man 3's infamous derided China version.

The point being, this new international form of filmmaking is great for bringing in a bigger box office take, and some films, like Rogue Nation may do well by them. Others, may have issues. This could mean Trek in 20 years may be completely unrecognizable. They did make the films more broad so they could appeal not only to the non-Trek audience, but also the international audience. If you look at the history of the Prime movies, they did terribly overseas. So, will this deciding to go more broadly continue until the series is completely unrecognizable? It is possible. What will the naysayers say then?

 

[JWPlatt]

^Wish the JJ boosters would understand that. They're the ones who keep telling people to sit down and shut up.

But you asked me to start letting things go more, so that's the last I'll say about it.

No one's ever told people that dislike the Abrams films to sit down and shut up.

The Abrams films are generally well like by audiences-at-large, that is what it is. Trying to argue anything else is silly.

Saying it is "silly" is a mild example of sit-down-and-shut-up, and an attempt to exclude the person making the point from a conversation - from their point of view. It makes, by extension, a personal comment that the poster himself is silly. Now, you can deny that people can or should take it that way, when its not meant to, or you can respect that point of view, just like we need to respect others' points of view about the merits of a film, and refrain from using words that trivialize the thoughts of others. But instead explain your point of view without those words that can be inflamatory.

 

[BillJ]

^Wish the JJ boosters would understand that. They're the ones who keep telling people to sit down and shut up.

But you asked me to start letting things go more, so that's the last I'll say about it.

No one's ever told people that dislike the Abrams films to sit down and shut up.

The Abrams films are generally well like by audiences-at-large, that is what it is. Trying to argue anything else is silly.

Saying it is "silly" is a mild example of sit-down-and-shut-up. It makes, by extension, a personal comment that the poster himself is silly. Now, you can deny that people can or should take it that way, even if not meant, or you can respect that point of view, just like we need to respect others' points of view about the merits of a film, and refrain from using words that trivialize the thoughts of others. But instead explain your point of view without those words.

You can argue the merits of a film. Any given film is going to mean different things to different people. What you can't argue is the numbers.

 

[JWPlatt]

I agree there, but doesn't at all address the point, except that your reply is a much better example of how to write one.

By the way, you know what they say about statistics... Perhaps it is possible to argue the numbers. We don't trust that poll about 100% dislike for STID, do we?

 

[BillJ]

Perhaps it is possible to argue the numbers. We don't trust that poll about 100% dislike for STID, do we?

Well, if we're going to disregard much larger sample sizes from places like Netflix (3.3 million), Amazon (12,000+), Rotten Tomatoes (303,000) and here (800+), then sure.

The poll where everyone hates Into Darkness seems to be the outlier (and the smallest) from everything I've seen.

 

[Trekkin]

Did anyone ever verify those poll numbers anyway?

It's not that I don't believe that 100 people could dislike STID. It's just the article it was originally 'reported' in was really just using it to make fun of us (as in ' ha ha, look how the nerds are so weird and out of touch with every one else.') The media kind of has a history of seeing a small-ish section of the Trekkie fanbase, and then turning around and trying to claim they're the 'majority' of Trekkies.

 

[Campe]

I have no problem that 100, 1,000 or 10,000 diehard Star Trek fans didn't like Into Darkness. I believe there may be a million people who didn't like it and saw it in the theater. Outside of the numerous sources that state that most audience members liked Into Darkness, all you need to do is look at the ticket sales to prove that. I just found a really cool feature on Box Office Mojo where you can find the estimated ticket sales. Didn't know it existed. This shows that Into Darkness sold 27.3 million tickets. Granted, Trek 09 sold a bit more with 34.5 million. But in comparison to Nemesis, which only sold 7.3 million, that's a big difference.

The truth is: the reboots got butts into the seats. A hell of a lot more than almost any Trek film. Here's a chart of them all with ticket sales. No Prime universe film sold 25 million tickets since Voyage Home. You just cannot deny those numbers.

I'm not saying Beyond will do as well as Trek 09, Into Darkness or even Wrath of Khan. What I'm saying is: People came for these movies. And they told their friends. And some came to see it again. That's the mark of a successful film. At the end, they sure didn't come for Prime.

Plus, if you go from the article that quotes that 100 person survey, the writer pretty clearly states his bias against the JJ films. Just sayin'.

Edited to fix: I initially stated no film had sold 25 million tickets since Wrath of Khan. Where is my brain? Of course, Voyage Home sold more than 25 million tickets!

 

[thumbtack]

There definitely is a certain amount of religious fanaticism about Trek. I do have to ask myself when I read stuff about "the one true Trek" if they aren't just playing a game with the sane people. Or if there really are people that love Trek that much that it's become that deep of an obsession.

What gets me is that at the end of the day: Star Trek is an entertainment franchise. Star Trek is a business. If you want more of "Gene's true vision of the future," you don't want these movies to fail. Because if they fail, Star Trek will go away. Probably not forever. But for a very long time. And if you don't like Trek now, what makes you think in 15-20 years, it's going to be any better?

Vanity Fair has a great article about Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation in which it discusses the changing face of the cinema and how movies are being made for a broader international audience. That it needs to be broadened to be picked up for foreign audiences. The article speaks well of the idea, saying that Rogue Nation handles it well. I saw the film Sunday and I can't say that I really had any conscious feeling that I was watching a film designed moreso for an international audience (short of scenes shot throughout the globe, which is already a tenet of the M:I movies.) The article also references when it doesn't work. Transformers: Age of Extinction, for example. Or even more egregiously, Iron Man 3's infamous derided China version.

The point being, this new international form of filmmaking is great for bringing in a bigger box office take, and some films, like Rogue Nation may do well by them. Others, may have issues. This could mean Trek in 20 years may be completely unrecognizable. They did make the films more broad so they could appeal not only to the non-Trek audience, but also the international audience. If you look at the history of the Prime movies, they did terribly overseas. So, will this deciding to go more broadly continue until the series is completely unrecognizable? It is possible. What will the naysayers say then?

They do seem to have finally accepted that they don't have the numbers to make a return to oldTrek financially viable. But they've now adopted the rather astonishing tact that Star Trek should not be about making your money back. It should be about pleasing the fans. No guesses needed as to who they mean by "the fans".

It's just the article it was originally 'reported' in was really just using it to make fun of us (as in ' ha ha, look how the nerds are so weird and out of touch with every one else.') The media kind of has a history of seeing a small-ish section of the Trekkie fanbase, and then turning around and trying to claim they're the 'majority' of Trekkies.

I'm told I'm overly sensitive about this, but isn't anyone else really annoyed that this tiny subset of the fanbase has determined how the public see us?


.

 

[Nebusj]

The Abrams films are generally well like by audiences-at-large, that is what it is. Trying to argue anything else is silly.

Saying it is "silly" is a mild example of sit-down-and-shut-up, and an attempt to exclude the person making the point from a conversation - from their point of view. It makes, by extension, a personal comment that the poster himself is silly.

But to refuse the point that ``the Abrams films are generally well-liked by audiences-at-large'' is silly. The evidence that the films are generally well-liked is compelling. A poster can contend that the movies should not be, or that the films will wear badly and audiences will come to be embarrassed that they ever liked them, but at this time, they are generally well-liked by audiences-at-large.

People can reasonably and usefully disagree about opinions and interpretations, but they don't get their own facts.

 

[Campe]

They do seem to have finally accepted that they don't have the numbers to make a return to oldTrek financially viable. But they've now adopted the rather astonishing tact that Star Trek should not be about making your money back. It should be about pleasing the fans. No guesses needed as to who they mean by "the fans".

Star Trek, Inc. Just sayin'.

It's just the article it was originally 'reported' in was really just using it to make fun of us (as in ' ha ha, look how the nerds are so weird and out of touch with every one else.') The media kind of has a history of seeing a small-ish section of the Trekkie fanbase, and then turning around and trying to claim they're the 'majority' of Trekkies.

I'm told I'm overly sensitive about this, but isn't anyone else really annoyed that this tiny subset of the fanbase has determined how the public see us? .

I'd like to say I'm not with you on this one. That I don't care enough and let it slide off my back. But it gets me going.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Sounds to me like the "reporter" at the New York Post was a TOS fanboy with an axe to grind because the movies did so well, and was looking for anything to vindicate his cause.

Hell, I'm a TOS fanboy and I took pains to explain why I thought the new movies recaptured the fun and excitement of the original series. None of which made it into his article.

Weird style of reporting. Trying to find "facts" that fit your headline.

That's what passes for journalism in America these days.

It's really a simple matter:
Those who completely understand that there are folks who do not like the JJ-era films will not try to force them to say: "Hey, accept the JJ films as canon-Trek, or get off the boat!"

However, it is the one's (the deluded ones, not the rational ones) who seem to think that the JJ-era films are somehow not Star Trek that seem to want to force everyone to say: "Oh, jee, the unwashed masses are so wrong for enjoying JJ's take on Star Trek as anything official, and non-true-fans and unwashed masses should bow down before the all-too-knowledgeable anti-JJ'ers as being the harbingers and caretakers of all things Trek".

Yeah....try and sell me another one.

That's the best summary of the situation I've seen yet. Thank you.

 

[Franklin]

Hell, I'm a TOS fanboy and I took pains to explain why I thought the new movies recaptured the fun and excitement of the original series. None of which made it into his article.

Weird style of reporting. Trying to find "facts" that fit your headline.

That's what passes for journalism in America these days.

Kinda always has, really. Oh, well -- . We seem to get by.

On topic, there's always the chance Pegg and Jung came up with a clunker story. I'd think that's the only real way the movie could fail (be a financial loser). I'd say the chances of that are slight.

 

[fireproof78]

Thank you for your response. I'm going to do my best to respond to all of it, but I'm sure I will miss something

Here's my general questions (not directed towards any one person or fan group) that have plagued me since I started discussing Abrams Trek.

First, what did Abrams Trek do that was so different from any other Trek that happened before, especially TOS? Bonus points if the phrase" true Trek" doesn't appear.

Well, it did do a number of things differently.

It had a heavily modern sense of humor (which I think was a good thing, but definitely different to prior trek).

Is inserting more modern humor something really new? I mean, every era of Trek has had some attempt at humor, some more successful, some less successful. But, every season seem to have its own attempt adapting humor in some way.

It had a bizarre love of Lens Flares.

Yeah, I have no idea what to think about that.

It treated basically the entire crew as ridiculously special prodigies, rather than as competent professionals with (at most) well earned reputations.

I will have to disagree, to a certain degree here. I think that Chekov, and to some part, Uhura are portrayed as more prodigies, but I don't quite see it with the rest of the crew. Even Sulu is presented as a bit inexperienced when it came to flying the ship, and Kirk certainly demonstrated some raw talent but not any more that he is presented in TOS.

I think Spock was always treated as the smartest person in the room, and highly decorated Starfleet officer. Same thing with Kirk.

It leaned a little bit too much toward action for action's sake (I know, Kirk being chased by a snow monster probably isn't any worse than Picard racing a dune buggy, but then Nemesis isn't exactly well loved, either) rather than action that actually has a point in the story.

I can kind of agree with this point, to a certain degree, but I also kind of see that as Star Trek reflecting modern storytelling as well, given FC, Enterprise's and DS9's trends.

It recast the entire original crew (again, I think the new cast is great, but it is clearly a major departure from the previous standard of spinoffs instead of reboots).

I was honestly surprised by the casting, but somehow they grew on me.

It set itself in an alternate universe that doesn't reset, thereby producing an odd conflict between wanting the new universe to be different (because what's the point of a new universe that isn't different?) and not wanting it to be different (because what's the point of rebooting old characters if they're different people anyway?).

This is where I will also disagree. It is different only in that we don't stay in the alternate universe in every other alternate universe story, such as the Mirror Universe, Parallels, Tapestry, so on and so forth. In this instance, the audience gets to stay in the alternate reality and see things get played out by the consequences of our heroes crossing the streams.

I feel like I'm forgetting something, but that's all the comes to mind right this second.

You're not the only one.

Secondly, there has never been consensus among Trek fans as to what is the "best," or even what "GR's vision is." Heck, the film that GR most opposed, TWOK, is the one film that seems to be the one consensus that can be reached? So, what standard is being applied to exclude 09 and STID but not TWOK?

Maybe you're reading different threads than I am, but I've not seen many people complaining about GR's vision being lost. Those I have seen, I don't take seriously, since GR's vision accounts for only a tiny portion of the ST that I love.

As for what standard is applied - it's the same one that's always applied in all fandoms. Personal preference. That's pretty much the entire reason why there is never a consensus, as you already pointed out.

I agree, and this forum is certainly not the same as others that i have been a part of. But, that doesn't mean I have not heard some variation of "GR would never..." "If GR were still alive Spock would not..." "GR did not intend..." etc.

And I agree that his vision (especially the original pitch) accounts for a little part of Trek that I really enjoy. But it irks me in the summoning of GR's vision, when it varied so much and sometimes was not always positive.

Finally, why is there the opinion that it would better for there to be no Trek than Abrams Trek? Isn't the net result the same for people who don't like Abrams Trek?

I think the point for many people is that if there wasn't Abrams trek, there could potentially be some other kind of trek they might like better. It's wishful thinking, to a certain extent, at least, but then, this is a fan board, after all.

I can see that, but at the same time, the franchise is not worse than before Abrams did his films. CBS still markets merchandising, and books are still published, as was before. So, besides a film, did things really change?

My overall impression of Abrams Trek is simply that it did TOS but faster, louder and with a few more jokes (though TOS could be quite funny at times). I know its not to everyone's taste, but I can't help but feeling like the essence of the story and characters are like things I've seen in Trek before.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Thank you for your response. I'm going to do my best to respond to all of it, but I'm sure I will miss something

It had a heavily modern sense of humor (which I think was a good thing, but definitely different to prior trek).

Is inserting more modern humor something really new? I mean, every era of Trek has had some attempt at humor, some more successful, some less successful. But, every season seem to have its own attempt adapting humor in some way.

You can look at it that way, but you can also still look at it as this particular sense of humor is still clearly pretty different from what came before. Certainly different enough to put some people off (or bring some people in who may have been put off by the old style).

I will have to disagree, to a certain degree here. I think that Chekov, and to some part, Uhura are portrayed as more prodigies, but I don't quite see it with the rest of the crew. Even Sulu is presented as a bit inexperienced when it came to flying the ship, and Kirk certainly demonstrated some raw talent but not any more that he is presented in TOS.

I think Spock was always treated as the smartest person in the room, and highly decorated Starfleet officer. Same thing with Kirk.

They weren't all idealized to the same degree, but the fact that they almost instantly go from untested cadets to the permanent command crew of the newest, most advanced ship in the fleet is clearly a ways off from the crew of professional officers who were brought together organically over a matter of years on TOS. On TOS, they were all just regular officers who happened to serve together. In the new movies, they're basically destined for each other.

And, in regards to Kirk, while I agree he did very little to actually show very special talents, the movie still wouldn't stop beating you over the head with the claim that he was special.

I can kind of agree with this point, to a certain degree, but I also kind of see that as Star Trek reflecting modern storytelling as well, given FC, Enterprise's and DS9's trends.

To an certain extent, probably so. But that doesn't mean that they had to do so, or that it isn't a clear difference that people are obviously going to notice.

This is where I will also disagree. It is different only in that we don't stay in the alternate universe in every other alternate universe story, such as the Mirror Universe, Parallels, Tapestry, so on and so forth. In this instance, the audience gets to stay in the alternate reality and see things get played out by the consequences of our heroes crossing the streams.

Correct.

My point, though, isn't in terms of having alternate universes it's in terms of using them as a 'soft' reboot.

The impression was given from the very beginning that this was supposed to win over the diehard fans of the old trek by saying, 'Hey, it's really the same universe, just some time traveling Romulan changed the past'. But that's completely incompatible with the entire point of a reboot - which is to build everything back from the ground up and have total creative freedom from 'established continuity'.

So it's not really the same universe. It's a reboot where anything and everything can be different. But they still want to sell the idea that it's 'connected' to the original, which obviously can't actually be the case. It comes across as slightly schizophrenic, and I'm sure at least a few people would consider it dishonest to some extent.

And you can't really even just forget it, either, because the alternate universe concept has been baked into its dna, but you also can't fully enjoy the AU concept for itself because the stories aren't based on what the logical progression of this alternate universe would be, they're based on what boxes the studio wants a Star Trek reboot to tick, ergo Kirk's entire history is altered, Spock and Uhura fall in love, the whole planet of vulcan is destroyed, yet every main character still has to inhabit exactly the same rank and position they originally had. It's an unusual form of narrative contortionism.

It's not the absolute worst thing in the world, but it is a bit bizarre and off-putting.

Finally, why is there the opinion that it would better for there to be no Trek than Abrams Trek? Isn't the net result the same for people who don't like Abrams Trek?

I think the point for many people is that if there wasn't Abrams trek, there could potentially be some other kind of trek they might like better. It's wishful thinking, to a certain extent, at least, but then, this is a fan board, after all.

I can see that, but at the same time, the franchise is not worse than before Abrams did his films. CBS still markets merchandising, and books are still published, as was before. So, besides a film, did things really change?

My overall impression of Abrams Trek is simply that it did TOS but faster, louder and with a few more jokes (though TOS could be quite funny at times). I know its not to everyone's taste, but I can't help but feeling like the essence of the story and characters are like things I've seen in Trek before.

Did things really change? For some people they did, for others they didn't. Certainly, for anyone who absolutely hates the new films, I can understand there must be a certain frustration in finally having the fandom active again and you personally can't participate in any of the new stuff because it's so awful you can't bear to watch it. If that's the boat someone is in, I can almost understand they might've preferred the new trek not to come at all.

But on the other hand, many of the changes are, as you mentioned, at least partly indicative of much larger changes in filmmaking in general. Take any random complaint about Nu Trek and you can almost certainly find a corresponding complaint about the general state of hollywood movies. So unless someone really thinks that if we wait another 15 years those trends will swing back the other way, then it's ultimately pointless to hope for a new trek that isn't significantly different from the old one.

Just the fact that NuTrek is film focused is already a huge change for a more old school fan. People defend the movies by pointing out similarities to the previous movies, which are almost universally action oriented. But that ignores the fact that the old movies were supplemental to pre-existing series. Those incarnations of the franchise at least got the chance to branch out into different types of story, whereas this one seems likely to remain trapped in hollywood blockbuster story expectations.

 

[Phantom]

The idea that the Prime universe itself is "unviable" is ludicrous. What was "unviable" was the Berman regime's view of how to portray that universe.

We didn't need to start a new universe and turn Kirk into a smirking Hipster frat-boy caricature to bring in an audience. We needed to bring in a fresher producer and team that had a way of presenting the rich tapestry of Prime to a new audience in an appealing way without sacrificing those admirable qualities that built a 40 year, $1 billion + franchise.

 

[Franklin]

There was no "rich tapestry" when I became a "Star Trek" fan. There were 79 episodes being played over and over again on my local CBS station every afternoon after school. There was an animated series. That was it. The bare bones.

It's the same bare bones approach taken in the new movies. Keep the "admirable qualities" that existed long before there was a tapestry, and make it as accessible to a 14 year-old today as it was to me in 1974.

Only those of us long-time fans now in our 30s, 40s, and 50s (and older), are going to appreciate any "rich tapestry" because we followed it as it was made. Further, movies aren't really made for us any more. "Star Trek" (TOS) started out and grew as popular as it did with a young demographic. That fan demographic grew old with the franchise, but at some point, you get diminishing returns from a fan base that's growing older and shrinking.

That rich tapestry to some (and I have no problem calling it that as a life-long fan) is rightly or wrongly seen as an incomprehensible and daunting mess of excess baggage to others. A "barrier to entry" to being a fan. The feeling that one really can't fully enjoy or understand what one's seeing if they don't know how it all ties in to things from certain episodes of various Trek shows from twenty years ago or so. Probably before the would-be fan was born.

IN MY OPINION, the admirable qualities of "Star Trek" that drew me to the series when there was no tapestry to appreciate were kept and the baggage was paired down significantly so a new audience could have a feeling that they were there "at the beginning" and discovering those qualities for themselves. Qualities that have been around fifty years and are seeking new relevance. That's pretty good. IN MY OPINION.

 

[fireproof78]

The idea that the Prime universe itself is "unviable" is ludicrous. What was "unviable" was the Berman regime's view of how to portray that universe.

We didn't need to start a new universe and turn Kirk into a smirking Hipster frat-boy caricature to bring in an audience. We needed to bring in a fresher producer and team that had a way of presenting the rich tapestry of Prime to a new audience in an appealing way without sacrificing those admirable qualities that built a 40 year, $1 billion + franchise.

One could argue that Abrams did bring a fresh perspective, including more contemporary filmmaking techniques and story telling, as grendelsbayne pointed out.

In my opinion, the next step in the Prime Universe was to move the franchise forward (again) in time and adapt the technology in a way to make it look different. It was starting to feel a bit gimmicky to just move it ahead and ahead again, especially in view of the competition that existed at the time of Enterprise.

As I've discussed in "Future of Star Trek" the essence of TOS was optimism about where humanity could achieve, in light of the contemporary political ails. I think that the potential optimism can be lost if the time era gets further removed.

I'm not saying that Prime Trek can't be brought back but I struggle to understand why it is necessary.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Can someone be a Hipster and a frat boy? They would seem to be two disparate types.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The idea that the Prime universe itself is "unviable" is ludicrous. What was "unviable" was the Berman regime's view of how to portray that universe.

We didn't need to start a new universe and turn Kirk into a smirking Hipster frat-boy caricature to bring in an audience. We needed to bring in a fresher producer and team that had a way of presenting the rich tapestry of Prime to a new audience in an appealing way without sacrificing those admirable qualities that built a 40 year, $1 billion + franchise.

Which is exactly what Abrams did to the TOS franchise: he found a way to present the rich tapestry of the TOS universe to a new audience in an appealing way. He didn't sacrifice the admirable quantities of TOS, in fact quite the opposite, he brought them into the limelight and emphasized them in ways that the spinoffs have never managed to do.

Remember, Abrams was rebooting the ORIGINAL Star Trek, not "Star Trek plus spinoffs plus requels plus films." He captured the spirit of the original beautifully, with all the thumping adventurism and flashy theatrics that made TOS popular in the first place before people started thinking deeper about it and painting it with a veneer of sophistication it never actually had.

Also, I just realized you have no idea what a "hipster" is.

Can someone be a Hipster and a frat boy? They would seem to be two disparate types.

^ was a frat boy before it was cool.

There was no "rich tapestry" when I became a "Star Trek" fan. There were 79 episodes being played over and over again on my local CBS station every afternoon after school. There was an animated series. That was it. The bare bones.

It's the same bare bones approach taken in the new movies. Keep the "admirable qualities" that existed long before there was a tapestry, and make it as accessible to a 14 year-old today as it was to me in 1974.

Only those of us long-time fans now in our 30s, 40s, and 50s (and older), are going to appreciate any "rich tapestry" because we followed it as it was made. Further, movies aren't really made for us any more. "Star Trek" (TOS) started out and grew as popular as it did with a young demographic. That fan demographic grew old with the franchise, but at some point, you get diminishing returns from a fan base that's growing older and shrinking.

That rich tapestry to some (and I have no problem calling it that as a life-long fan) is rightly or wrongly seen as an incomprehensible and daunting mess of excess baggage to others. A "barrier to entry" to being a fan. The feeling that one really can't fully enjoy or understand what one's seeing if they don't know how it all ties in to things from certain episodes of various Trek shows from twenty years ago or so. Probably before the would-be fan was born.

IN MY OPINION, the admirable qualities of "Star Trek" that drew me to the series when there was no tapestry to appreciate were kept and the baggage was paired down significantly so a new audience could have a feeling that they were there "at the beginning" and discovering those qualities for themselves. Qualities that have been around fifty years and are seeking new relevance. That's pretty good. IN MY OPINION.

Agree to all of this. I was a toddler when TNG came out and the "rich tapestry" of Star Trek didn't become all that sophisticated until I was a teenager. I can still remember a time when "Star Trek" meant "The Enterprise and a bunch of really smart guys roaming the galaxy getting in all kinds of trouble." It was fun, it was exciting, and I never missed an episode if I could help it.

I stopped watching Voyager altogether, and i waited for DS9 to come out on DVD because they kept changing the fucking timeslot and I couldn't follow the story arcs. I didn't watch the second seasons of Enterprise until two years ago.

I can't pin down the exact moment when Star Trek stopped being fun and more because "required reading" for scifi nerditude. But it did, and that was a drag. Then the Abrams movies came out and my overall reaction boils down to "Yay! They brought back the good shit!"

 

[wulfio]

Whether it fails or not I think eventually it'll go back to TV, and it won't be the Abramsverse that makes its way on to tv.

I think if we ever get anything, CBS will reboot/re-imagine it. I imagine Romulus won't explode at any point either. So it'll be a hybrid between prime and whatever direction they decide to go in. There's just no where to go in prime continuity that would be accessible to a mainstream audience imo. And I think you'd definitely have to retcon the idea of time travel already being developed in the 26th century if you did remain in prime universe.