MisterPL said:
Holytomato said:
ENT was a TV series. It divides, to this day the fanbase. So, the fanbase will be divied weither its Film or TV.
Not unless the powers that be continue to needlessly reinvent the wheel. ENT could have very easily been a reimagining of the franchise not unlike Battlestar Galactica.
But surely you realize that the supposed "positive" argument you just made is, in fact, exactly what many people absolutely DO NOT want to see.
The fact that you, personally, think that it's a good idea is merely YOUR OPINION. Which, of course, doesn't mean that you're right and everyone who feels otherwise is wrong. Does it?
Its biggest hurdles were 1) narrow-minded existing fans and 2) the network.
Good lord... you can't REALLY mean that, can you?
I'll address your second point first.
"The Network?" Which network are you referring to, praytell? Seriously... what network was the one which carried "Enterprise?" I'm really curious to hear your answer.
Now, as for "narrow-minded fans." Isn't it great to characterize anyone who disagrees with you in a fashion that makes them seem like idiots? Sure does make YOUR argument sound better. Well, I'm sure it does to YOU, anyway.
How, exactly, do you define "narrow minded?" If by "narrow-minded" you mean "not willing to let everything that I like about the show be flushed down the toilet because someone else thinks that they can make something all-new which will be better"... then hell yes, I'm narrow-minded. And so is pretty much everyone else who's a fan of the show. Or who's a fan of any OTHER show. Or who's a fan of any book, or movie, or play, or comic book, or sports team, or ANYTHING for that matter.
We like what we like because it has certain characteristics that we like. It may have a few that we DON'T like, but overall, we like what's already there.
Otherwise, we wouldn't like it in the first place, would we?
(If you have some other definition, please present it.)
However, that's hardly what was done with "Enterprise." I'm unable to think of ANYTHING re: that series that was done to please "narrow-minded fans."
The fans wanted a ship that was midway between modern "NASA" style designs and the classic 1701. Instead we got something that would have been appropriate for use on TNG.
The fans wanted to see the growth of the Federation. Until late in the series, we never got a HINT of that.
The fans wanted to see a time before TOS, where they didn't use transporters or phasers or any of that. Well, we SORT of got that... they gave us all the TNG-era things, but renamed them so that we were supposed to be fooled.
"Enterprise" had its high points. It was NOT a horrible show overall. It was just... "more of the same." It felt, instead of fresh and new, or instead of being a "return to the classic feel," as though it were another TNG-era show.
It felt STALE. And that's why it didn't do well. This has nothing to do with Bakula, or with Trinnear, or with Blalock, or any of the actors. And ultimately, it doesn't have THAT much to do with the ship design (though that was a disappointment to most of us).
It had everything to do with the fact that the stories were written according to the "TNG-and-later-era FORMULA."
That wasn't done to satisfy the demands of some mythical "narrow-minded fans." It was done because it was the rut that the Berman-era Trek production team had fallen into.
FORMULA is what killed "Enterprise." Not the fans. And not "the network" either.
As I stated, Trek simply does not do well on network television.
That's quite a statement, considering that Star Trek hasn't been on "network television" in the conventional sense since 1969.
(I don't count the now-defunct "Paramount Network" since it wasn't available in all markets. I never got to see "Enterprise" first run because NO PLACE I lived in that timeframe carried the show. I never saw a single episode of the series 'til it was on DVD. And no, I didn't live in backwater "sticks" locations. The "Paramount Network" was an ASTERISK in the annals of "network television.")
That does not mean it can't do well OFF network television. TNG and DS9 both did very well in syndication, certainly better than TOS, TAS, or ENT.
You're qualifying a SATURDAY MORNING CARTOON in the same place as a prime-time television series, and in the same place as a sydicated series?
The only series that ran in the same basic environment were TNG, DS9, and VOY. All three were always syndicated. So the only comparison that can legitimately be made would be to compare those three.
If you make just THAT comparison, well... compare the numbers of TNG at its height to the numbers of VOY at any time. There is a MASSIVE fall-off in viewership.
Which sort of puts the lie to your argument, doesn't it?
Holytomato said:Star Trek will not have another TV series if this film tanks. so I translate the above statements as: "I want Star Trek D E A D!"
I think your translator needs to be recalibrated.
Well, you may not think that's what people who want the film to fail MEAN, but that's the inevitable consequence if that happens.
I can state this with absolute accuracy. Paramount Pictures' board of directors is treating this movie as a TEST. They want to find out if the recent failure of Trek was due to mismanagement of the brand, or due to consumer loss of interest in the brand. So, they dumped the entire prior management team, put a brand-new (proven, but totally new to this franchise) team into place, and are letting that team "go back to basics" to the source material that was at the core of the franchise during the time that the franchise was most popular.
If this fails, the PPC board will conclude that "the audience is tired of Star Trek" and they'll simply retire the brand, except for occasional novels and so forth... cheap, licenced products for a dwindling niche market.
If it succeeds, the PPC board will conclude that the recent failures of Trek were due to mismanagement of the brand, and will conclude that the brand itself remains valid and a potential moneymaker. More Trek products will be green-lit, albeit on a very tentative basis, with each one being given a preliminary "trial period" to demonstrate that the management for that new project "gets" what the audience actually WANTS.
Star Trek's cache' with the PPC board is pretty much depleted, in other words. Thankfully, JJ Abrams, who the PPC board desperately wanted to sign on, DOES have that cache'... and he asked THEM to let him do Trek (as part of the agreement for him to go to work for them on multiple projects).
This movie is happening because it's JJ Abrams, NOT because it's Star Trek. GET THAT, and you might begin to understand what's happening now.
He's on record as having a story he's "always wanted to tell" about the early days of Kirk and Spock. And he's on record as seeing this as the opportunity to tell that story. Some of us THINK we know what that story really is... a few of us really DO (but have to be very careful not to spill those beans to overtly!).
If this movie tanks... JJ Abrams' cache' with PPC will be damaged, and Trek will be dead, for all practical purposes. NO NEW SERIES, NO NEW MOVIE... for many years.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, if the alternative is to have someone come along who thinks that they can make a "newer, cooler, radder, version" by making Spock a nyphomaniac chick in a catsuit, McCoy a transvestite, Kirk a vegisexual, and the Enterprise into a Transformer (complete with foldy-shouldered nacelles!).
Trek is what we love, because of what it is. Replacing what it is with something different is more appropriately described as "counterfitting" than "reimagining."
If someone wants to tell stories in a new situation, with new characters... they should go ahead and do so. They should just be honest enough not to try to snow-job the audience by calling these new characters "Kirk, Spock, and McCoy" and their all-new ship the "Enterprise NCC-1701."
Those names are already known, and associated in the minds of the audience, with things that already exist.
I'm all for new stories with new characters and new ships. I just want them to also have new names and new identities, that's all.
This movie, so far, does NOT seem to be anything like that. Despite the gleeful "the sky is falling" pronouncements from certain folks around here, there is NO indication that this film will be anything other than 100% "of a piece" with what we've seen before. Not a hint of information that's actually come from any reliable source demonstrates, hints, or insinuates anything to the contrary.
