Star Trek: To Boldly Go

[BigJake]

No, I'm saying that it's the general public that associates the Enterprise with Star Trek, which makes its necessary for "the money people" to continue using the name.

Ah. Okay, well, I think that's wrong. Although it would have seemed a more solid fact in 1987. (I do think it's something fans think the general public thinks but that it's a case of projection; either J.Q. Public is receptive to the Trek brand or he isn't, it's mostly fans in my experience who would accept or reject a show based on the name of the ship.)

Although in fairness, the belief in the Enterprise's necessity to any Trek pitch is still very widespread.

 

[C.E. Evans]

No, I'm saying that it's the general public that associates the Enterprise with Star Trek, which makes its necessary for "the money people" to continue using the name.

Ah. Okay, well, I think that's wrong. Although it would have been a solid fact in 1987.

It's a solid fact in 2013.

Although in fairness, the belief in the Enterprise's necessity to any Trek pitch is still very widespread.

Singer's pitch seems to fall into the idea (covered in the rest of my post) of using the Enterprise to kick off a new era after a period of time has passed.

The same was true of the aborted Star Trek: Final Frontier animated web series proposal. Although it featured a 25th-Century in which Starfleet had moved away from the traditional saucer-based designs of centuries earlier and towards more utilitarian (i.e., more rugged, less pretty) designs, with the Enterprise being a key example of this new philosophy.
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/4/41/FF_Enterprise.jpg

 

[BigJake]

It's a solid fact in 2013.

I wouldn't say so. The name has a mixture of good and bad baggage at this point thanks to the intervening adventures and misadventures of the brand, I'd say it's at best a toss-up.

It's hard to quantify though because nobody that I can find conducts surveys of the general public about this kind of thing. You may well be right; all I can say is that I've never met a non-fan who really cared about what particular ship was featured in a Trek show, that just seems to me to be a fandom thing.

Singer's pitch seems to fall into the idea (covered in the rest of my post) of using the Enterprise to kick off a new era after a period of time has passed.

That's why I cited it.

To come back to the trademarking thing, BTW:

It will, though, stop some other entertainment studio, network, or company from creating a sci-fi series with their own starship/spaceship called the Enterprise (and more importantly, from making any merchandising money off it).

I wonder how they would be able to refute someone who simply said their Enterprise was based on historical vehicles of the same name, as Trek's originally was. It sounds like what they're essentially trying to control is the right to derive fictional properties by historical analogy; about all they should be able to claim rights to should be the Enterprise as it actually appears in their shows (the ship design, fictional registry, political affiliation and fictional history).

 

[NightJim]

See, to me, fandom is easily more accepting of other ships, because of Voyager and Deep Space 9, and to a lesser extent the Excelsior, Titan, Excalibur and numerous others that the expanded media have followed.

However, go outside of fandom and there's two shows that people talk about. TOS and TNG. I think you could get away from Enterprise but only if you had a Kirk as THE main character. You need one of the two, ideally I'd say both which is one thing I really like about David.Blue's idea. Especially as Kirk's a she and not the captain.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's a solid fact in 2013.

I wouldn't say so. The name has a mixture of good and bad baggage at this point thanks to the intervening adventures and misadventures of the brand, I'd say it's at best a toss-up.

I wouldn't say that all. Outside of a few fans who may be tired of the name, the Enterprise name is still extremely strong with the general public, perhaps as strong as it ever has been.

It's hard to quantify though because nobody that I can find conducts surveys of the general public about this kind of thing. You may well be right; all I can say is that I've never met a non-fan who really cared about what particular ship was featured in a Trek show, that just seems to me to be a fandom thing.

Nah, it's well beyond fandom. You've got people who really aren't Star Trek fans, but even they know the Enterprise is that "Star Track" ship. It's a world-wide thing. I think the only people who don't associate the Enterprise with Star Trek are those who really haven't heard of Star Trek or heard anyone talk about it at all.

To come back to the trademarking thing, BTW:

It will, though, stop some other entertainment studio, network, or company from creating a sci-fi series with their own starship/spaceship called the Enterprise (and more importantly, from making any merchandising money off it).

I wonder how they would be able to refute someone who simply said their Enterprise was based on historical vehicles of the same name, as Trek's originally was.

It sounds like what they're essentially trying to control is the right to derive fictional properties by historical analogy; about all they should be able to claim rights to should be the Enterprise as it actually appears in their shows (the ship design, fictional registry, political affiliation and fictional history).

The whole point of trademarking something is to prevent someone else from making money off something you're using (regardless of its origin) without permission or a fee. It really has little to do with controlling the right to derive fictional properties and more about dollars. But I think it only extends to the use of "U.S.S. Enterprise" and "Starship Enterprise" for licensing purposes (the same I think as been done for the Voyager).

 

[BigJake]

Oh, I'd completely agree that Enterprise is the best-known ship, but isn't it sort of begging the question to say that it's therefore necessary for Jane Q. Publica? Those aren't the same thing. Similarly, Juan Que Publico most certainly knows the names Picard and especially Kirk, but that's a vastly different proposition from actually needing them to be in a show in order to watch it.

It would be like me telling you in the mid-Eighties that Trek shows have always had a Vulcan and therefore we must have either Spock or a relative of Spock on any Trek show, because the "general public" expects the whole "live long and prosper" thing and everybody knows that hand salute Nimoy does. The latter statements would be true, but that the general public [Julius Quo Publicus?] knows a thing doesn't mean they necessarily care all that much. (Same with needing the name "Kirk" on everything. TNG in televised form was pretty much the decisive disproof of that.)

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm fanatically against using the name or anything. I'd watch the shizznit out of a 31st-century show about the galactic zombie apocalypse starring the Enterprise-Z and Bruce Campbell in the role of Commodore Jamison Thelonius Kirk the Twelfth. I am not even kidding you. It's just that once one is far enough into the alphabet it's worth wondering if it starts to seem too much like one is perhaps overrelying on a trope.

 

[R. Star]

See, to me, fandom is easily more accepting of other ships, because of Voyager and Deep Space 9, and to a lesser extent the Excelsior, Titan, Excalibur and numerous others that the expanded media have followed.

However, go outside of fandom and there's two shows that people talk about. TOS and TNG. I think you could get away from Enterprise but only if you had a Kirk as THE main character. You need one of the two, ideally I'd say both which is one thing I really like about David.Blue's idea. Especially as Kirk's a she and not the captain.

The problem is the vast majority of the general people(this being the people who don't regularly follow Trek) have no idea what Excelsior, Titan and Excalibur are and only a few of the older ones may vaguely recall DS9 or Voyager as one of those other Star Trek shows.

To get the non-fans even remotely interested in watching you have to give them something they can relate with.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Oh, I'd completely agree that Enterprise is the best-known ship, but isn't it sort of begging the question to say that it's therefore necessary for Jane Q. Publica? Those aren't the same thing. Similarly, Juan Que Publico most certainly knows the names Picard and especially Kirk, but that's a vastly different proposition from actually needing them to be in a show in order to watch it.

It's all about familiarity and what aspects can most people relate to. This is true not just for Star Trek, but for anything. In the case of Trek, the Enterprise is a familiar household name that more people than not instantly associate with Star Trek, regardless of what else changes.

It's easier to move away from the Enterprise once a new era has been established for awhile as it was the case with DS9 and VOY both being spinoffs of TNG.

 

[BigJake]

It's all about familiarity and what aspects can most people relate to. This is true not just for Star Trek, but for anything.

Not to beat the horse into glue, but I suppose I'd say familiarity is the concept of spacemen on adventures. I don't see why it would have anything to do with the name of the ship, any more than TNG needed to keep the same characters to get new viewers. The concept and the brand is already familiar.

(I'm picturing a writer... let's call him "Homer"... pitching a story idea for Greek Heroes: Odyssey about a group of mariners having crazy adventures at sea, with monsters and witches and deadly enemies and whatnot. Do we tell him the ship should be named the Argo-Epsilon and one of its crew should be a relative of Jason, because that's "familiar" to audiences? )

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's all about familiarity and what aspects can most people relate to. This is true not just for Star Trek, but for anything.

Not to beat the horse into glue, but I suppose I'd say familiarity is the concept of spacemen on adventures. I don't see why it would have anything to do with the name of the ship, any more than TNG needed to keep the same characters to get new viewers. The concept and the brand is already familiar.

But that also included a ship named Enterprise. That was part of the concept and brand too, and it still is.

Star Trek XI could have easily used another hero ship other than the Enterprise (and really played up the alternate universe aspect), but they chose to go with the ship name audiences identified the most with Trek.

 

[BigJake]

But that also included a ship named Enterprise. That was part of the concept and brand too, and it still is.

I would suppose that the fact they got away with changing the characters indicates pretty strongly that they could just as easily have changed the name of the ship.

The Enterprise name was still on it because the show was essentially a later morph of the Star Trek: Phase II concept, but if they'd gone ahead and named her the good ship Discovery or Endeavour or something at that time I don't think the general viewing public would have cared. I think it's the heroics and the concept the general audience cares about, not the name of the ship. That's why name recognition didn't rescue Enterprise; it didn't have compelling protagonists or stories, that it had the "familiar" name made no difference.

I don't suppose we'll wind up agreeing and it may not really be that important in the bigger scheme of David's idea. Still, interesting question to chew over.

 

[David.Blue]

Bottom line--there seems to be advantages to using the name Enterprise and no real disadvantages. But there might be disadvantages (from a marketing standpoint) to not using it.

So use it. I'd have zero problem with some Vulcans aboard the Enterprise-G, btw. Even in the Abrams timeline, surely almost two centuries is enough to build up their numbers. It would be logical (heh) for them to actively seek to increase their numbers. Perhaps a volunteer program to increase the frequency of ponn far, or simply encouraging larger families. One might well suppose the Vulcans would create clones to be raised by unmarried individuals. Maybe develop fertility drugs to increase the number of children.

 

[NightJim]

See, to me, fandom is easily more accepting of other ships, because of Voyager and Deep Space 9, and to a lesser extent the Excelsior, Titan, Excalibur and numerous others that the expanded media have followed.

However, go outside of fandom and there's two shows that people talk about. TOS and TNG. I think you could get away from Enterprise but only if you had a Kirk as THE main character. You need one of the two, ideally I'd say both which is one thing I really like about David.Blue's idea. Especially as Kirk's a she and not the captain.

The problem is the vast majority of the general people(this being the people who don't regularly follow Trek) have no idea what Excelsior, Titan and Excalibur are and only a few of the older ones may vaguely recall DS9 or Voyager as one of those other Star Trek shows.

To get the non-fans even remotely interested in watching you have to give them something they can relate with.

I can't quite tell if you're agreeing with me or misunderstood my point. But, EXACTLY! this is precisely what I'm trying to say

 

[JarodRussell]

I say the regular audience couldn't care less what name the ship or the main character has. The entertainment value of the package is important, not the details.

It's sad that the writers of nuTrek think differently. But logic they argue that they NEEDED to use Kirk, Spock and McCoy would make it impossible for any original stuff to be successful.

NOBODY in the audience knew the characters, ship classes and species of Avatar, for example, and those have extremely detailed backstories that the production team made up in the design process. And yet a large chunk went to see the film.


Seriously, for someone who doesn't know something, there is no difference if it is completely new or a sequel to something. There will ALWAYS be references to past stuff the audience didn't see. And it doesn't matter if that past stuff happened in a TV show, or just in the mind of the writer.

 

[C.E. Evans]

But that also included a ship named Enterprise. That was part of the concept and brand too, and it still is.

I would suppose that the fact they got away with changing the characters indicates pretty strongly that they could just as easily have changed the name of the ship.

The Enterprise name was still on it because the show was essentially a later morph of the Star Trek: Phase II concept, but if they'd gone ahead and named her the good ship Discovery or Endeavour or something at that time I don't think the general viewing public would have cared.

I think that's very debatable. Star Trek really took off as a globally-recognized property almost as soon as TOS ended its original NBC run and entered second-run syndication. By 1977, when Star Trek: Phase II was in early development, the Enterprise name had become a household one connected with Trek.

I think it's the heroics and the concept the general audience cares about, not the name of the ship.

You also have to have things audiences can relate to or have a fondness for, so that has to be included as an important part of the package too.

That's why name recognition didn't rescue Enterprise; it didn't have compelling protagonists or stories, that it had the "familiar" name made no difference.

Nothing could have really saved ENT (there were problems that went beyond the show), but having a ship named Enterprise didn't hurt it and likely did make it recognizable when it came time to sell the show in second-run syndication.

 

[David.Blue]

Why does it matter? Maybe using the Enterprise name will help. Can't see any way it could hurt. So use it!

 

[C.E. Evans]

Why does it matter?

I think ultimately it's an issue of marketing and what has the most immediate.

 

[BigJake]

Why does it matter?

Because. Someone might be wrong. On the Internet. :P

Honestly, it's not that important, it's just an interesting question to kick around. And I know it's distracting from the main subject of the post, which I do have more to say about... so, sorry about that.

I can quit anytime. Just... I just need one more hit:

By 1977, when Star Trek: Phase II was in early development, the Enterprise name had become a household one connected with Trek.

So had Kirk, Bones, Spock and Scotty. TNG ultimately took off just fine without any of them -- occasional sprinkling of TOS cameos and guest appearances notwithstanding -- and was likely the better for it. I would basically put the name of the ship in the same category; it's essentially just another character, another familiar name from the old show, no more necessary than any other.

Okay. Leaving it there, I promise. I'm interested in the League concept and the overall arc of this idea and my next post (later on) will be about that.

 

[C.E. Evans]

By 1977, when Star Trek: Phase II was in early development, the Enterprise name had become a household one connected with Trek.

So had Kirk, Bones, Spock and Scotty. TNG ultimately took off just fine without any of them -- occasional sprinkling TOS cameos and guest appearances notwithstanding -- and was likely the better for it. I would basically put the name of the ship in the same category; it's another "familiar" name from the old show, no more necessary than any other.

Oh, I disagree with that. If anything, it was crucial for TNG to have a ship called Enterprise to kick off that new era as it was its strongest link audiences had to TOS.

 

[BigJake]

I would think the crew would be the strongest link anyone would have to TOS? If you can lose them, why exactly would the ship name be so crucial?

(I can quit anytime! Sorry about editing in the midst of your response there. Really stopping now.)