This has been the case going all the way back to TOS' run on NBC.
Only the fans love Star Trek.
Is Star Trek "done"
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
This has been the case going all the way back to TOS' run on NBC.
Only the fans love Star Trek.
I dunno, I enjoyed Nowhere Man.
Abrams did the best that could be expected within the confines of the summer popcorn movie genre that he's working in. He's going for well-known names instead of inventing new characters or resurrecting obscure ones (which may as well be new, since they have no public awareness). He's focusing on slam-bang action and skimming the surface of character development. Anything more than that would require a lot more time - like, in a TV series.
His main achievement is to turn Star Trek from a joke back into something respectable, that can be expected to make boatloads of money (that being the only meaningful definition of "respectable" in Hollywood). Without that, the odds of a TV series would be greatly diminished. Even if I hated his movies, I would still appreciate that.
I honestly don't know what people expect. Do you want him to make movies that appeal only to fans and flop at the box office? Or should I say, "movie" singular because that's what we would have gotten.
His main achievement is to turn Star Trek from a joke back into something respectable, that can be expected to make boatloads of money (that being the only meaningful definition of "respectable" in Hollywood). Without that, the odds of a TV series would be greatly diminished. Even if I hated his movies, I would still appreciate that.
I honestly don't know what people expect. Do you want him to make movies that appeal only to fans and flop at the box office? Or should I say, "movie" singular because that's what we would have gotten.
He can't even appeal to sci-fi afficionados, Temis. What are you talking about? Fringe is a joke and bane to sci-fi. I saw a video of the Voyager writer's room. It looked cutthroat to me, all that with Bermen standing on your throat. The tension wasn't conducive to creativity at all. For eighteen years. They squeezed every last ounce of blood out of that thing. Now it has been labotomized for it's own benifit. I'm just waiting for a big Indian to come along and smother it. It should be treated like a women and respected by someone who cares what's best for it, not themself. It's been commercialized and prostitutized/basterdized.
Amen!!!
I know you don't want to hear it, xortex, but star trek 2009 was a huge financial success.
As in it appealed to a LOT of people.
That it did not appeal to you, so entrenched in an anachronistic version of star trek, is irrelevant to the health of the franchise. Or to the quality of said franchise.
what I get from this is "it's popular again, so it sucks."
Look, Trek has done dumb action long before Star Trek XI.
I can see why people might think so, but to be honest, when I watched JJ Trek all I could think was that he was trying to turn the franchise into a cheap SW knockoff.
Although to be fair, B&B 'went there' first with the Xindi arc and especially the [-]death star[/-] Xindi superweapon.
Was that because of what you saw on the screen or because Abrams is an admitted Star Wars fan?
What I saw on the screen. The warp 'jump' to Vulcan in particular just screamed hyperspace, didn't it?
And again, I don't think JJ was the first to be guilty of this.
That's call a "special effect". Which has very little to do with the tone of the film. I think every Star Trek film since TMP has "borrowed" from Star Wars in the SFX area.
Yep - TMP stole (and messed up) a version of the SW hyperspace effect, and they've been using variations of it ever since.
More like it sucks so it's popular.
You ever get tired of being wrong? ^
if something is unpopular it's great.
No wait...
If something is popular it's badly written fan fiction.
Uh huh...
If something is annoying and no one is around to watch it, is it good?
No wait...
If something is popular it's badly written fan fiction.
Uh huh...
If something is annoying and no one is around to watch it, is it good?
next TV series
Infern0 see these threads from Future of Trek.
Would it really matter if the next Trek series were on linear TV?
Poll: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?
Poll: provider for new Trek series as original series download
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=165481
Yes it is just a matter of time for a new Trek TV series. Probably after 2015. Once TNG remastered is released to Blu-ray and ENT is released to Blu-ray that will probably be it for remastering and by then a new TV series.
Infern0 see these threads from Future of Trek.
Would it really matter if the next Trek series were on linear TV?
Poll: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?
Poll: provider for new Trek series as original series download
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=165481
I think the Roddenberry Star Trek is finished. It has been "extended" enough times already. I absolutely do not think there is any chance in hell of another TV series based on it (network or cable, for that matter), for the current generation. If anything, it would be based on the JJ Abram's version or something completely new.
It's true, the "Kirk & Spock" duo is an extremely strong one. But for there to be yet another incarnation, there would have to be a decent stretch of time, say another 5-10 years before seeing another movie variation. But as for a TV series? Absolutely not. Far more money is made in the short run by doing a movie. A TV series can garner even more money, but it takes a much longer period of time (syndication royalties, video sales, etc).
The whole model of how profitable a TV series is versus movies has changed quite a lot since the 1960's. These days, movies are a less risky investment. I'm not sure how things will unfold in the future, but I think it's only going to get worse for the series. For example, look at what happened to the Stargate franchise just recently.
It's true, the "Kirk & Spock" duo is an extremely strong one. But for there to be yet another incarnation, there would have to be a decent stretch of time, say another 5-10 years before seeing another movie variation. But as for a TV series? Absolutely not. Far more money is made in the short run by doing a movie. A TV series can garner even more money, but it takes a much longer period of time (syndication royalties, video sales, etc).
The whole model of how profitable a TV series is versus movies has changed quite a lot since the 1960's. These days, movies are a less risky investment. I'm not sure how things will unfold in the future, but I think it's only going to get worse for the series. For example, look at what happened to the Stargate franchise just recently.
JJ Abrams doesn't really have a "version" that is distinct from Roddenberry's. The biggest elements of Abrams movies are: rebooting familiar characters in ways that are palatable to movie audiences (smartass Kirk, kickass Uhura) but as respectful to canon as possible, plus a heavy emphasis on visual impact and action - qualities that any blockbuster movie is required to have.
Abrams' Star Trek is successful for the same reasons as the new Avengers movie is. It takes a set of characters who are familiar and beloved of a small percentage of the audience and shapes them into characters who will come across as sympathetic and interesting to a much larger audience despite time constraints and the need to devote a large percentage of screen time to things getting blown up real good.
All Abrams has really done is to take Star Trek and pound it into a shape suitable to become a big-budget blockbuster movie franchise. That won't translate back to TV because movies and TV are too different in how they make their money, the audiences they must appeal to, and what is possible because of the budget and format.
There will be a TV series again someday (if not technically TV, then via a streaming service like Netflix), but it's going to have to be reinvented again. My hunch is that the next reinvention is going to be an even bigger departure than Abrams' movies.
Because the TV "ecosystem" that Star Trek used to live in, is now gone, many of the assumptions will change. The characters will probably be new rather than existing characters being recast. Since it will have to be on cable or a streaming service, it be darker and more serialized than before. It may not be focused on seven characters, or based on a spaceship.
Until we know where its being shown and who is making it, it's hard to say exactly what the constraints on it will be. Maybe it will be on The Cartoon Network and be pitched predominantly to children. The only thing I know for sure, is that some fans will be pissed.
Abrams' Star Trek is successful for the same reasons as the new Avengers movie is. It takes a set of characters who are familiar and beloved of a small percentage of the audience and shapes them into characters who will come across as sympathetic and interesting to a much larger audience despite time constraints and the need to devote a large percentage of screen time to things getting blown up real good.
All Abrams has really done is to take Star Trek and pound it into a shape suitable to become a big-budget blockbuster movie franchise. That won't translate back to TV because movies and TV are too different in how they make their money, the audiences they must appeal to, and what is possible because of the budget and format.
There will be a TV series again someday (if not technically TV, then via a streaming service like Netflix), but it's going to have to be reinvented again. My hunch is that the next reinvention is going to be an even bigger departure than Abrams' movies.
Because the TV "ecosystem" that Star Trek used to live in, is now gone, many of the assumptions will change. The characters will probably be new rather than existing characters being recast. Since it will have to be on cable or a streaming service, it be darker and more serialized than before. It may not be focused on seven characters, or based on a spaceship.
Until we know where its being shown and who is making it, it's hard to say exactly what the constraints on it will be. Maybe it will be on The Cartoon Network and be pitched predominantly to children. The only thing I know for sure, is that some fans will be pissed.
Two words: John Carter.
Sucky TV franchises that have run out of steam (to the extent they ever had steam) get cancelled. What does that have to do with a Star Trek series with, say, Bryan Fuller as a showrunner?
Similar threads
