I hate that Star Trek is a "franchise" now. Drives me crazy. Like it's a McDonald's or something.
Just a television show...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Well, Star Trek has often been referred to as the McDonald's of science fiction, but I think that was more a reference to the entry-level nature of it than as a homogenized product for the masses.
Hey, that explains the movie rather nicely, doesn't it?
Hey, that explains the movie rather nicely, doesn't it?
Yep. Toys first and quickly served with no nutritional value whatsoever.Well, Star Trek has often been referred to as the McDonald's of science fiction, but I think that was more a reference to the entry-level nature of it than as a homogenized product for the masses.
Hey, that explains the movie rather nicely, doesn't it?
Somewhere along the line it became SF by committee.
I am sometimes finding myself 'happy' that Firefly/Serenity ended as it did without becoming staggeringly popular & a similar corporate-controlled behemoth.
In all fairness, nice toys.Yep. Toys first and quickly served with no nutritional value whatsoever.
In terms of pop culture, I would accept that totally. In terms of importance TO our culture, Subway would be a higher level choice. Which is to say, not so much.
It is just a TV show (THE FRANCHISE)--you don't HAVE to derive anything out of it-- but in terms of significant, long lasting appeal, meaningful to its fans, inspiring real-life events on a large scacle, scientific-technological inspiration, I really don't think any show can claim the same devotion that ST (THE FRANCHISE) does. TOS happens to have started it all and has been around the longest. You may see the Flintstones made into a movie, and maybe its inspires pop culture in-jokes, and is recognizable, but are there conventions? Did it inspire anyone? Do people argue over canon? Are there Flintstone flip phones?
RAMA
RAMA
Look at Twilight Zone & Outer Limits- both equal in excellence (IMO), both NOT expensive productions, both have seen 'reboots' that lacked the magic of the originals, and the only REAL difference between them & Trek TOS is that Trek had continuing characters that were embraced so much so, that even the lack of magic of the original source was not enough to make it go away.
Twilight Zone: The Movie had no sequels; Abram's Trek most certainly will.
^Are there Twilight Zone conventions?
I suspect one of the reasons TZ, though brilliant, didn't quite get to the same level as the Trek franchise, is because it was an anthology, and not a series of continuing characters that you could follow.
I suspect one of the reasons TZ, though brilliant, didn't quite get to the same level as the Trek franchise, is because it was an anthology, and not a series of continuing characters that you could follow.
Somewhere along the line it became SF by committee.
I am sometimes finding myself 'happy' that Firefly/Serenity ended as it did without becoming staggeringly popular & a similar corporate-controlled behemoth.
Yeah, one of the reasons Trek seems to be perceived as 'geeky' is probably because there's just so dang much of it. It's near impossible for a newbie to get his/her head around it all. If you watched a random Trek episode, of any of the series, for the first time today, what would you think? There have been so many iterations of the show, all quite different, that if you saw one, it might not necessarily be an indication of what the rest of the 700 episodes were like. I suspect many casual passers by think that to get into Trek, you have to devote your life to it, like some kind of doctoral research thesis.
I'm pleased this didn't happen to Firefly/Serenity, too. Sure, it was short-lived, but that also meant it didn't overstay its welcome.
It's been said here that Trek was far from brilliant science fiction, and that the writing was a far cry from art, or Shakespeare, or whatever. This is said to, in some way I guess, lower the show's status from fanboy worship idol to mere filmed fiction. The point, though, is that Star Trek tried neither to be art nor brilliant sci-fi. It aimed to be damned good television, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. For a great deal of the 79 episodes, it achieved its goals. It also fell short pretty often, but for the most part it was well done sci-fi adventure entertainment. And if they tossed in a few high minded ideas and tried to show a more positive side of humanity, all the better. No other SF show of the time did that. Most of the previous shows had bad things being done to and by bad people. The Outer Limits was full of episodes where The Bear was the thing which showed humanity the error of its ways.
Forgetting everything else that the show spawned and influenced, Trek was a series which tried to do something different within the confines of its familiar format. When you think about it, Trek's format is not much different from any show about a ship full of people solving problems, fighting menaces, and being tossed around by weapons. But Trek tried to be more than the standard and while they failed almost as often as they succeeded, the attempt alone makes it worthy of praise and more than the average TV show.
Go back and look at the Twilight Zone series. It is justifiably famous and is also a pop culture icon. But there are scads of really crappy episodes, shows that were leaden, obvious, repetitive, and heavy handed even at the time. But, it had enough truly dazzling and above average episodes to make it famous. And THEIR science was worse than Trek's.
So, yes, these were really great, well written stories - for television. "Just" a TV show? In the context of life in general, yes, it's just a buncha guys in funny outfits on TV. But within the context of television, it's higher. Not art, not perfect. but damned good TV. Trek should always be judged by those parameters (do I have to say IMO or is it obvious?). It's like saying to a baseball fanatic, with all the National Pastime bullshit attached, that "it's just a stupid game." Well, no kidding, Star Trek has done more to positively influence people than players like Darryl Strawberry. Yet "them's fighting words" to baseball fans.
It's just a game that pre-empted just a TV show when I was growing up. You can understand my loathing of the sport now.
Forgetting everything else that the show spawned and influenced, Trek was a series which tried to do something different within the confines of its familiar format. When you think about it, Trek's format is not much different from any show about a ship full of people solving problems, fighting menaces, and being tossed around by weapons. But Trek tried to be more than the standard and while they failed almost as often as they succeeded, the attempt alone makes it worthy of praise and more than the average TV show.
Go back and look at the Twilight Zone series. It is justifiably famous and is also a pop culture icon. But there are scads of really crappy episodes, shows that were leaden, obvious, repetitive, and heavy handed even at the time. But, it had enough truly dazzling and above average episodes to make it famous. And THEIR science was worse than Trek's.
So, yes, these were really great, well written stories - for television. "Just" a TV show? In the context of life in general, yes, it's just a buncha guys in funny outfits on TV. But within the context of television, it's higher. Not art, not perfect. but damned good TV. Trek should always be judged by those parameters (do I have to say IMO or is it obvious?). It's like saying to a baseball fanatic, with all the National Pastime bullshit attached, that "it's just a stupid game." Well, no kidding, Star Trek has done more to positively influence people than players like Darryl Strawberry. Yet "them's fighting words" to baseball fans.
It's just a game that pre-empted just a TV show when I was growing up. You can understand my loathing of the sport now.
*Spins random bottle of eps*
Yesterday's Enterprise- ummm, what is the significance of the older ship, and who is that Tasha person who seems so important?
Trials and Tribble-ations- I'm lost
.Scorpion, part 1- uhh... I...I'm lost.
Tomorrow Is Yesterday- hey, this show seems cool! I might have to see more of it!
I think, as designed, TOS was MADE to be instantly accessible, no continuing development made that easy.
That's what JJ's movie was going for, while still placating the fans in minor ways.
That seems logical.
Leave 'em wanting more, they say.
EPIC SUCCEED!!!
It explains the last two TV Trek spinoffs nicely.Well, Star Trek has often been referred to as the McDonald's of science fiction, but I think that was more a reference to the entry-level nature of it than as a homogenized product for the masses.
Hey, that explains the movie rather nicely, doesn't it?
Star Trek had a number of things going for it. For one thing it was something of an anthology but with recurring characters in an established setting. This episodic format made it more accessible to new viewers coming in at any point in the series. It was more story driven rather than character driven.
Another thing was its overall sensibility. It was generally straightforward in its approach while also being able to do humour and horror and drama and straight up adventure with allegory and even satire thrown in. It was done mostly straight yet it rarely came across as earnest. In contrast the spinoff series often come across as very earnest and none of them did humour as well as TOS. Nimoy himself once remarked that he thought Star Trek had something of an elan that set it apart from other sci-fi. Candidly, even a classic film like Forbidden Planet can come across as a bit earnest.
All this served to make the series accessible. In contrast I can see some potential viewers hesitant about trying out contemporary Trek because of the sheer weight of materiel and the notion that you have to see most of it to understand what's going on. It isn't true, but the impression is there.
Another thing was its overall sensibility. It was generally straightforward in its approach while also being able to do humour and horror and drama and straight up adventure with allegory and even satire thrown in. It was done mostly straight yet it rarely came across as earnest. In contrast the spinoff series often come across as very earnest and none of them did humour as well as TOS. Nimoy himself once remarked that he thought Star Trek had something of an elan that set it apart from other sci-fi. Candidly, even a classic film like Forbidden Planet can come across as a bit earnest.
All this served to make the series accessible. In contrast I can see some potential viewers hesitant about trying out contemporary Trek because of the sheer weight of materiel and the notion that you have to see most of it to understand what's going on. It isn't true, but the impression is there.
Most of the reasons you've cited for disliking the new movie, that it isn't as perfectly in-line with a boatload of expectations and "canonical" details, seem to suggest that it is true.
That it dispensed with such expectations, that vary wildly from person to person and are thus impossible to ever meet, is probably the reason why it did as well as it did.
That it dispensed with such expectations, that vary wildly from person to person and are thus impossible to ever meet, is probably the reason why it did as well as it did.
Possibly. It's hard to imagine Paramount greenlighting a movie based on the kind of script and characters that purists seem to prefer, much less giving it any kind of budget.
