Star Trek's Troubling 50th Anniversary

[Lakenheath 72]

I am familiar with the franchises mentioned in the article. For me, it's not about if there is a showrunner. It is about keeping to your core. Doctor Who and Bond kept to their core and delivered. Star Trek is being remade for an international market, and there is a risk that the franchise will lose its core.

 

[BillJ]

Bad Robot is credited as co-production company along with LucasFilm. This was announced when Abrams joined as director/writer/producer, along with Bryan Burk as producer.

But it is for one film.

And let's be honest here, from a business perspective each of us would dump Star Trek for Star Wars in a heartbeat.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

You were claiming that Bad Robot had nothing to do with Star Wars, I was clarifying that they are part of production. Whatever role they have in future installments remains to be seen.

 

[urbandefault]

I didn't read the article, but I don't think the anniversary is "troubling."

I'm not troubled about it. If there's a TV special, cool. If the next movie has some cameos or whatever, great. I'm in. But if the anniversary comes and goes without some kind of fanfare or fanwankery, that's ok, too. Just another day.

But I bet you'll get something on GMA or Today or the CBS whatever the morning show is called this week.

Whatever.

 

[BillJ]

You were claiming that Bad Robot had nothing to do with Star Wars, I was clarifying that they are part of production. Whatever role they have in future installments remains to be seen.

But they don't have control of the franchise like they did with Star Trek. Being co-producers on a Disney film is nothing. Disney controls the franchise.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Actually it's LucasFilm. They're owned by Disney but operate as their own like Pixar and Marvel to a certain extent. For this film they brought in Bad Robot, we don't know how long that will last.

 

[BillJ]

Actually it's LucasFilm. They're owned by Disney but operate as their own like Pixar and Marvel to a certain extent. For this film they brought in Bad Robot, we don't know how long that will last.

Disney paid four billion dollars for Star Wars. They have an absolute huge say in what is going on.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Disney bought LucasFilm. Kathleen Kennedy runs LucasFilm much like Kevin Feige runs Marvel Studios.

I know a lot of headlines make it misleading when they say "Disney bought Star Wars", but that's probably catchier than "Disney bought LucasFilm".

 

[Mudd]

It might not have ended well, but one should not ignore that Star Trek had over ten very good years under Berman, both creatively and financially.

The franchise was very hit and miss creatively during the entire time Berman ran it.

With about five hundred hours of programming produced during that time, I'd be shocked if it were otherwise.

People are mentioning Davies. God knows I like Doctor Who but there seem like as many folks who go on about nuWho being "hit or miss" as about Star Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes. I personnally do not like where the Bond franchise is currently, but I do acknowledge that it's very much alive. Same goes for Trek under Abrams, I didn't quite like it, but it's there, it brought in new audiences, and there were at least plans for more. Now, there's a movie of which we know next to nothing about, with no plans beyond that.

What exactly do we need to know right now?

Exactly. The next movie is two summers away. Why on Earth would we expect to know about any plans beyond that? Heck, the new movie hasn't even started filming yet . . .

Why so impatient for news?

This is where I channel my inner curmudgeon and recall the days before the internet when we didn't expect to know everything about every new movie or TV series years in advance . . .

 

[EnriqueH]

What the writer said:

Star Trek needs a Feige or Barbara Broccoli.

Trek used to have one. His name was Richard.

I'm told it didn't end well.

What the writer said:

Star Trek needs a Feige or Barbara Broccoli.

Trek used to have one. His name was Richard.

I'm told it didn't end well.

No doubt.

I don't think Star Trek needs a central person controlling it. We had that with Rick Berman and the results were less than spectacular.

What the writer said:

Star Trek needs a Feige or Barbara Broccoli.

Trek used to have one. His name was Richard.

I'm told it didn't end well.

It might not have ended well, but one should not ignore that Star Trek had over ten very good years under Berman, both creatively and financially.

It might not have ended well, but one should not ignore that Star Trek had over ten very good years under Berman, both creatively and financially.

The franchise was very hit and miss creatively during the entire time Berman ran it.

That's not the argument. The author insists a central figure head is necessary. My point was that sort of control hierarchy isn't a guaranteed thing either.

And his examples weren't all that great. Feige is hardly the all go to guy. The MCU is massive and there are lots of people running the various divisions. And it's been suggested that the buck doesn't necessarily stop with him. And the MCU's growth hasn't exactly been without incident.

Broccoli and Wilson is a pretty unique situation in and of itself. They both apprenticed under their father for years. Hell, there are pictures of Babs sitting in the producer's chair on the set of early Moore films when she was still in junior high.

And the Bond franchise hasn't been without fault since they took over either.

Trek had over ten very good years under Berman, both creatively and financially.

He's also responsible at least in part for getting Patrick Stewart on board. I don't get the dislike for Berman.

I'm not a fan of the way Berman handled certain things, but he clearly ran them well throughout TNG and DS9, but clearly there was a drop off in quality when Voyager rolled around. I'm also not a fan of the way Berman handled the TNG films, but again, from the early 90s to late 90s, the quality of the shows were there.

Now I haven't seen DS9 all the way through yet, nor have I seen VOY or ENT all the way through either. But TNG and DS9 were, by most accounts, excellent shows. The problem was Berman probably suffered burn out or something. But Trek did thrive under his leadership for a good while.

Barbara Broccoli has handled Bond very well. Casting Daniel Craig was a brilliant move that has earned most fans' trust.

Harve Bennett handled the TOS films brilliantly overall.

I think there's more of a case to be made to have that leadership than not...

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think the TOS films pretty much define hit or miss. Brilliant is not a word I would associate with how they were made.

 

[Mudd]

No, not brilliant.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

VOY and ENT were initially something Berman didn't want to do, but Paramount demanded them for UPN which likely contributed to the tired formilaiac writing and staleness of the brand by the 2000s.

 

[Mudd]

And yet, the ratings for those shows were perfectly in line with and predictable from the ratings for DS9.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Except DS9 was syndicated, whereas VOY and ENT were on networks.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Harvey was a putz. He should never signed off (capitulated) on giving two completely inexperienced actors directorial control. He also seemed to have a knack for liquidating others' artistic ideas.

Overall Berman did an fairly good job. And I generally defend him more than most. But the way his era came to a triumphantly lackluster halt is due mostly to his exclusive control. He seemed content mediocrity in terms of most of the technical aspects. And he wanted it his way. His way may have worked for awhile, but it eventually became monotonous.

And like Harvey, he allowed the actors to dictate terms.

 

[Mudd]

Except DS9 was syndicated, whereas VOY and ENT were on networks.

Please - they were on what was charmingly called a "weblet" in those days, with about 86% national coverage. No excuses - Star Trek started on a ratings decline with the cancellation of TNG and the three remaining series all shared in it.

 

[Ovation]

Yes. I personnally do not like where the Bond franchise is currently, but I do acknowledge that it's very much alive. Same goes for Trek under Abrams, I didn't quite like it, but it's there, it brought in new audiences, and there were at least plans for more. Now, there's a movie of which we know next to nothing about, with no plans beyond that.

What exactly do we need to know right now?

Exactly. The next movie is two summers away. Why on Earth would we expect to know about any plans beyond that? Heck, the new movie hasn't even started filming yet . . .

Why so impatient for news?

This is where I channel my inner curmudgeon and recall the days before the internet when we didn't expect to know everything about every new movie or TV series years in advance . . .

We reach, brother. We reach.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Except DS9 was syndicated, whereas VOY and ENT were on networks.

Please - they were on what was charmingly called a "weblet" in those days, with about 86% national coverage. No excuses - Star Trek started on a ratings decline with the cancellation of TNG and the three remaining series all shared in it.

And yet two were successful enough to remain for seven seasons whereas ENT just kept dipping throughout it's whole run. The only time I remember DS9 and VOY being in real trouble was during their third season and the addition of Worf and Seven help boost ratings. They never reached TNG levels, but they're still considered successful shows.