I'm extremely excited. Giddy, almost. Have I mentioned that this is the first Trek movie I'll be seeing in the theater?
Should Star Trek just give up?
- Thread starter blockaderunner
- Start date
http://www.tvratingz.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tcvid=1006
The viewers of BSG rated it 4.9/5.0. Not too bad.
And I'll bet it made the top 10 during its three year run.
Lost has been losing audience because people are sick of waiting for answers. Until we have some answers (IF we ever get answers) it will be impossible to say whether Lost is "intelligent" at all - at this point, nobody knows what the stupid thing is about! Lost is hanging onto whatever audience it has left in no small part due to sexy characters and melodramatic antics.
I love the heck out of Heroes, but there are plenty of stupid mainstream-appeal elements: sexy underage cheerleader and internet stripper as the main female characters for starters, how crass can you get? Not that I'm complaining due to the impressive number of hot guys in the cast.Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, but I know damn well why a lot of the audience tunes in. The Heroes writers use cliched plot twists far too much, and plot & character logic is sometimes stretched to the breaking point for the convenience of the story. And even with all this pandering to the audience, Heroes has been shedding viewers.
I'll be in for the duration with all three shows, but together they form a pretty strong argument for a certain amount of pandering to a mainstream audience being necessary for success, especially for success on ABC or NBC vs silly little Skiffy. Trek is going for the ABC/NBC level of success. ENT was cancelled with a higher level of viewership than BSG got at its peak so BSG-level success is not relevant here.
We must be watching different versions of heros, because it wasn't about cheerleaders and strippers. In many cases the mysteries were built around Isaac's paintings, not ZOMG cute cheerleader. It was mostly about character interaction -- is this new character good, or evil, can they stop fighting long enough to save the planet, that kind of stuff.
I think a *smart* TV show has a better chance than a stupid one. I don't care what the genre is -- if you make a good show, people will eventually find it. Make something stupid, and it will be over.
Yes, on DVD a year after its cancellation. You can't just rely on the show being "smart"; it needs to have broad enough appeal that Joe Sixpack will want to watch.
Really, this movie will be a disaster. I'm pretty sure I'll cringe when I see even a commercial of it on tv. No one can play Kirk except a young Shatner and no one can play Spock except a young Nimoy. I don't know what they are thinking for this new Trek movie. They must be desperate!
Besides which, I really don't think J Random Couchpotato is nearly as retarded as we make him out to be. There are plenty of "geeky" shows that weren't pandering to the mainstream -- things that you'd have to pay serious attention to to even understand.
24
X-Files
NuBSG
Lost
Heros
CSI (all what 12 of them)
Law & Order
Dr. Who
Twilight Zone
I don't expect fragging Shakespeare on CBS, but I really get tired of everybody assuming that a TV show that requires some investment to get is automagically going to fail. I think that's part of the reason that such projects are rare gems -- everybody thinks it's likely to fail, so why waste time trying. Just throw in catsuits and explosions, and make sure it requires no effort to understand.
Did you even look at that site before you posted the link? Temis is talking about the Nielsen ratings. What you posted is the average score based on a bunch of people voting their opinion of the show. It's about as scientific as the voting on American Idol.What is this in-ter-net of which you speak? And is it available on computers?
Where did I advocate catsuits and explosions? That, along with the piss-poor storytelling, was what drove me away from Voyager and Enterprise. But obviously there was something about TNG that connected with the general public, since at its peak it was pulling in seven times more viewers than Enterprise did at its demise.
The reason I'm advocating something that would appeal to a broad audience is that TV shows are cancelled after two episodes if they don't bring in the desired ratings. Movies go to DVD so quickly -- even the successful ones -- that two months in the theater is considered a long run. Trek needs to be able to draw the audience in immediately, whether it's on TV or in the movie theater. Even some of the smart shows you've cited above like Heroes, 24, and X-Files had to grab people right off the bat while they were spinning storylines that would require mental and emotional investment for the audience to appreciate.
Yea, using for decades established characters is indeed VERY ambitious and imaginative. :thumbsup:
The last time something ambitious and imaginative happend with Trek was the launch of TNG with new characters in a new time. What happens here is a launch with old characters in an old time. Ambitious and imaginative indeed.
Man I hate this argument its so simplistic.
Second simply being in another time does not make something either original or creative - quite a bit of TNG was boring. Originality and creativity are all about how something is executed not what time period its in or if the characters have preexisted before or not.
Sharr
Ambitious and foolish I say. Why go back and remake a series that was revolutionary and great (and I know it's not a true remake but it's essentially another TOS movie with different actors so you know what I mean)? Frankly, I feel this movie is an insult to TOS, Shatner and Nimoy. I see many of the problems with Enterprise could plague this movie. TOS has an established Trek chronology and this movie could really mess that up. Furthermore, even the average Trek fan could come up with a more original and creative idea then this.
A few of my friends are casual fans of Star Trek and not one person I know in real life supports this movie.
Getting back to basics. And anything that tries to be ambitious has got be more interesting then what we've recently gotten.
It should be a huge clue that Nimoy likes the script doesn't seem at all worried it will run over anything established.
Lets who am going to trust the guy who played Spock or some random "Friends" casually interested in Trek? I'll take Nimoy's enthusiasm thanks.
Yeah try agian. That sounds really weak as an assertion.
Sharr
So just because it may be better then Enterprise makes it an an automatic success? Understand that it can be better then Enterprise yet still terrible overall compared to quality Trek. If you insist on keeping low standards, there is nothing anyone can do about that. I've enjoyed every Star Trek series in one way or another except for Enterprise. I hated the basic plot/idea of Enterprise before the first episode was shown and I say the same for this movie.
Just because Nimoy supports the script doesn't make it ok either.
Intelligent shows do not generally succeed on TV anymore. There was a time when they did, but I think that time is long past.
Just some examples-
Sportsnight-ABC
Studio 60-NBC (OK-I'm going to take heat on this but it was well written)
Firefly-FOX
I know that there are more-but I'm too tired to think of the shows that I watched that are now gone. Reality TV has really taken over-AI, Big Brother, Survivor, the Bachelor, The apprentice, None of which I watch or care about. And comedies have completely left me. I know there are some good ones. But none that make me laugh.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I really think that we have no equivalents to Cheers, MASH, Cosby, Family Ties, even Friends.
I remember watching "The Runing Man" and thinking, wow-this is a cool story, but people wouldn't really watch this on TV. Now I know they would. If Running Man was pitched at FOX today, and they could get clearance from the Federal Government to do it- it would be the next big reality hit.
Intellegence does not win viewership. I watched all of "Heroes", and I enjoyed it, but it's a rehash of every comic I every read as a kid. Is it a new take-yes, but it's stilll derivative, and pretty cliche.
Anyway-I obviously shouldn't post at 1 AM, but I wanted to respond.
My $0.02
Just some examples-
Sportsnight-ABC
Studio 60-NBC (OK-I'm going to take heat on this but it was well written)
Firefly-FOX
I know that there are more-but I'm too tired to think of the shows that I watched that are now gone. Reality TV has really taken over-AI, Big Brother, Survivor, the Bachelor, The apprentice, None of which I watch or care about. And comedies have completely left me. I know there are some good ones. But none that make me laugh.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I really think that we have no equivalents to Cheers, MASH, Cosby, Family Ties, even Friends.
I remember watching "The Runing Man" and thinking, wow-this is a cool story, but people wouldn't really watch this on TV. Now I know they would. If Running Man was pitched at FOX today, and they could get clearance from the Federal Government to do it- it would be the next big reality hit.
Intellegence does not win viewership. I watched all of "Heroes", and I enjoyed it, but it's a rehash of every comic I every read as a kid. Is it a new take-yes, but it's stilll derivative, and pretty cliche.
Anyway-I obviously shouldn't post at 1 AM, but I wanted to respond.
My $0.02
Whatever form Star Trek takes, it will be a "retro-future" ideal of what Tomorrow should be from a 1960's standpoint. Like James Bond, you can "modernize" it up to a point, but Bond is still a relic from the Cold War (esp. when compared to Bourne).
Star Trek reflected the last gasp of "utopian" science fiction, where the future was supposed to be better than the present and something to look forward to. That could be a hard sell to modern tastes which prefer "real" and "gritty" visions that are always dystopian (Blade Runner, Children of Men, Matrix, etc.)
or look even further back (Star Wars).
The movie could be very entertaining, but thoughtful scifi has had some rough seas lately ("Sunshine" just came and went) and will the so called mainstream audience buy a retro future with everyone wearing multi-colored PJ's on the outside and women in mini skirts and bouffants?
BTX
BTX
Star Trek reflected the last gasp of "utopian" science fiction, where the future was supposed to be better than the present and something to look forward to. That could be a hard sell to modern tastes which prefer "real" and "gritty" visions that are always dystopian (Blade Runner, Children of Men, Matrix, etc.)
or look even further back (Star Wars).
The movie could be very entertaining, but thoughtful scifi has had some rough seas lately ("Sunshine" just came and went) and will the so called mainstream audience buy a retro future with everyone wearing multi-colored PJ's on the outside and women in mini skirts and bouffants?
BTX
BTX
The future is the future, regardless if its retro or not. We still listen to Beethoven even though his style is not in. GR subconsciously integrated everything through him to make it all perfect by pushing his spirit in to it and having it glorify itself. He called that a symbio-organism when things and people converged to bring about a transcendance. I just J.J. doesn't try to destroy that optimistic vision by thinking he can do better than that.
Who has low standards? You maybe not me. I actually have pretty large expectations of this film. This is also the first Trek film being treated like a real movie and not... a part of the "Franchise".
Actually it does or at least lends crediability to the notion that it might be you know good. It says a-lot because we know he just doesn't do anything that might be labeled "Star Trek". Recall he was retired but this brought him back. We know this in regard to Generations. Plus outside of Abrams (and the writers) he has you know read the script. His endorsement DOES TELL US TONE regarding the quilty of this film. At the moment that leans in the good if not great direction.
Using some faceless friends to back up an argument just doesn't fly. More over if they're "casual" at the moment there isn't much reason for them to be interested - the ad campaign hasn't begun yet to hook them.
If Abrams marketing for "cloverfield" is any clue we can expect some creative ways of spreading word of Trek XI which will likely catch the interest of "casual fans" as well as those who have never paid attention to Star Trek.
Sharr
hellsgate
Commodore
I agree. "Star Trek" should never give-up. In e-zines, e-books, (pro & fan produced) movies, (pro-fic) novels/novellas, & geocities/angelfire RPG's & amateur (family to NC17 rated) fan-fics.
We've inspired a world beyond Cold Wars & potential Nuclear Wars of the 70's & 80's. We've helped a world process the idea of pity, reconciliation, negotiation, forgiveness, ongoing conversation, & co-existance beyond Nazi Germany. Rival Nation-States that would've killed us all had Star Trek's fantasies not been permitted on the air as long as its' been playing, stopped long enough to dream of being Sulu, Kirk, Chekov, & Uhura when that would've & should've been considered unheard of.
We've inspired foot slots into being microwave ovens. We've inspired communicators into becoming cellphones.
WE CANNOT AND MUST NOT STOP NOW.
We've got people in countries like Israel & Iraq who want to join a peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, & diplomatically-manageable world as imagined by Gene Roddenberry, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Majel Barrett, & Paramount-Viacom down through the years. (Among many, many others.)
(As phrased by Levar Burton, "....When the future comes, you'll all be there.")
There ARE children and adults of third world, up-and-coming developing nations who desperately want to put an end to honor-killings, genital mutilations of vulnerable women and children, & other examples of brutal extremism such as the tragic ones displayed on 9/11.
Ladies & Gentlemen Of Planet Earth...these people live all around the world and need us to keep the light of undiluted hope for a better, attainable tomorrow alive through "Star Trek".
And I firmly hope & believe that these dreamers,...these architects of the 21st Century, all want to become the next visionaries. Peacemakers. The next Jean-Luc Picard, Kathrine Janeway, Authors Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens. Or even...dare we dream... GENE RODDENBERRY himself.
WE CANNOT AND MUST NOT STOP NOW.
Thank You For Your Time.
Jason K. Hauck,
Moderator, "Star Trek: Hell's-Gate"
http://www.geocities.com/trekfan1975/
We've inspired a world beyond Cold Wars & potential Nuclear Wars of the 70's & 80's. We've helped a world process the idea of pity, reconciliation, negotiation, forgiveness, ongoing conversation, & co-existance beyond Nazi Germany. Rival Nation-States that would've killed us all had Star Trek's fantasies not been permitted on the air as long as its' been playing, stopped long enough to dream of being Sulu, Kirk, Chekov, & Uhura when that would've & should've been considered unheard of.
We've inspired foot slots into being microwave ovens. We've inspired communicators into becoming cellphones.
WE CANNOT AND MUST NOT STOP NOW.
We've got people in countries like Israel & Iraq who want to join a peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, & diplomatically-manageable world as imagined by Gene Roddenberry, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Majel Barrett, & Paramount-Viacom down through the years. (Among many, many others.)
(As phrased by Levar Burton, "....When the future comes, you'll all be there.")
There ARE children and adults of third world, up-and-coming developing nations who desperately want to put an end to honor-killings, genital mutilations of vulnerable women and children, & other examples of brutal extremism such as the tragic ones displayed on 9/11.
Ladies & Gentlemen Of Planet Earth...these people live all around the world and need us to keep the light of undiluted hope for a better, attainable tomorrow alive through "Star Trek".
And I firmly hope & believe that these dreamers,...these architects of the 21st Century, all want to become the next visionaries. Peacemakers. The next Jean-Luc Picard, Kathrine Janeway, Authors Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens. Or even...dare we dream... GENE RODDENBERRY himself.
WE CANNOT AND MUST NOT STOP NOW.
Thank You For Your Time.
Jason K. Hauck,
Moderator, "Star Trek: Hell's-Gate"
http://www.geocities.com/trekfan1975/
Similar threads
