A temporary rest, yes.
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
Didn't know Star Trek was supposed to be boring that many times.
That would be most of humanity.
I cannot believe that you all made it 43 pages without anyone acknowledging that the 2nd best performance as James Kirk was by Sandra Smith. (I am being glib but I personally happen to believe this. I would have loved to have seen a 3-episode arc with her "stuck" in the role).
Less glibly, not to re-open any old wounds (ignore if you wish) but I find the analogy between Kirk/Spock and Hamlet/Lear et al a bit inapt. The better comparison is to Rick Blaine or George Bailey, and I think the discomfort I immediately feel upon considering the idea of remaking Casablanca or It's a Wonderful Life (or making a sequel/prequel) is much closer to the feelings I get when the TOS characters are (again) revisited. In both instances, there persists a stubborn "but why?" that doesn't apply to transitory, audience-limited theater performances. (With all due respect to Ethan Peck, I feel this particularly strongly with Spock. In Nimoy's Spock, we have one of the greatest, most sui generis television performances captured ~forever~ on video. Why do we need to go there again? Call him Xon or Speck, or something).
But to each their own of course. Just one person's viewing preferences.
And I can't believe this thread made to to 43 pages. Seriously, when I read that in your post, I actually double checked which page number we were on.
Never heard the word 'inapt' before.
Every day is a school day.
WTF is this shitkicker of an excuse for a discussion anyway?
Every day is a school day.
WTF is this shitkicker of an excuse for a discussion anyway?
Going out on a low note, there.
It's nice that you're so tolerant of people who don't think exactly like you.
Just the usual complaints. Star Trek is perfect when I define what it is, donchaknow!
*tongue in cheek to be clear.
it will never be put to rest because just like in doctor who the star trek multiverse will just keep going but in audios and fan fictions where the storys from all the of the star trek eras still kept going
Star Trek will keep going for as long as it's profitable for the studios to keep making more. Whether it's good or bad, who knows. End of day, probably the fans who don't like it need to rest.
Successful franchises can die. The people who enjoyed them deplete in number and buying power, and the inevitable attempt at a revival sputters. Sometimes they eventually get a new life but in a different way, especially once they are out of copyright, which will be a long time from now for Star Trek.
Star Trek isn't at that point yet. Has its current streaming version gotten new viewers? I think so. But anecdotally I work in an office area with 4 out of 6 employees all saying they are fans of Star Trek . I'll exclude myself, obviously. One of them has seen Discovery but threw in the towel before it ended and hasn't seen any of the other streaming shows. He didn't even know Short Treks was a thing. No one else had seen anything past maybe Voyager. On the other hand Paramount has a not insignificant 70+ million subscribers and if only 1 out 3 of them did watch, say Strange New Worlds, it would have a viewership on level with TNG in its heyday
So I don't think that this would be a good time to put Star Trek to rest. I'm not sure it would justify a revival if they did. Now would be the time to keep desperately trying to grow its viewership.
If they did put it on ice and revived it a long time later, it might not have enough of resonance with a younger generation to cash in on nostalgia or anything else to get people to watch it when they didn't relate to it the first time around, and then it would have to survive on its own merits which is often disastrous. (witness Doc Savage: Man of Bronze, John Carter, The Lone Ranger, The Shadow, etc)
Star Trek isn't at that point yet. Has its current streaming version gotten new viewers? I think so. But anecdotally I work in an office area with 4 out of 6 employees all saying they are fans of Star Trek . I'll exclude myself, obviously. One of them has seen Discovery but threw in the towel before it ended and hasn't seen any of the other streaming shows. He didn't even know Short Treks was a thing. No one else had seen anything past maybe Voyager. On the other hand Paramount has a not insignificant 70+ million subscribers and if only 1 out 3 of them did watch, say Strange New Worlds, it would have a viewership on level with TNG in its heyday
So I don't think that this would be a good time to put Star Trek to rest. I'm not sure it would justify a revival if they did. Now would be the time to keep desperately trying to grow its viewership.
If they did put it on ice and revived it a long time later, it might not have enough of resonance with a younger generation to cash in on nostalgia or anything else to get people to watch it when they didn't relate to it the first time around, and then it would have to survive on its own merits which is often disastrous. (witness Doc Savage: Man of Bronze, John Carter, The Lone Ranger, The Shadow, etc)
NFL and March Madness probably help them on numbers.
No Kelvin?
Oddly no
As long as Trek continues looking backward, then yes, it should be put to rest. I long for the next Next Generation.
Which could have been Discovery had they started with Season 3
We're literally getting that in January.
Similar threads
