Doyle was the sole author and owned the Holmes IP to his death. That's fundamentally different from Roddenberry didn't own Star Trek, ever.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
Doyle was the sole author and owned the Holmes IP to his death. That's fundamentally different from Roddenberry didn't own Star Trek, ever.
All I know is Strange New Worlds is spun-off from Discovery and there's a new Star Trek movie coming out in 2023, and I don't have a dog in either fight. I'm squarely "in the middle" about both.
But I will use the opportunity to grab some popcorn and soda, then put my feet up.
But I will use the opportunity to grab some popcorn and soda, then put my feet up.
Why?
You've got to be kidding me. OF ALL the character iterations over the years, "Kirk, Spock and McCoy" have just as much if not more of a 'transferable cache' than any other Star Trek characters, and if this weren't the case, ST2009 would have bombed big with critics and the box office; but it didn't - and if you mention the name of any of these 3 characters, there's nearly universal instant recognition of what IP they're attached to, even among non-genre fans.
Things are only original once. It's like how you can destroy the value of an antique by restoring it wrong. It's not a perfect metaphor to a continuing continuity, but the mentality is similar. It took half a century of work to build the Trek universe to what it is today. You'll be dead and gone before a rebooted Trek has that sort of pedigree (if it lasts that long). But I suppose you don't care they were cutting down 1000 year old trees in Canada either. We were extraordinarily lucky that CBS continued the original continuity after the Abrams-verse experiment. That rarely happens and when it does it doesn't always work (Superman Returns).
There's a ton of space within existing Trek continuity to tell new stories without stepping on anything. I mean, Discovery really skirted the line (not the first, see Enterprise Season 3) but that's only because they chose to tell "big stories" which involved quadrant or galactic-scale stakes. There's no reason you have to do this - even in a serialized drama. An entire season could be about the fate of a planet being in the balance - or even just focus on drama related to the survival of the ship and/or main characters. Fundamentally the best stakes in fiction are personal, and "epicness" is totally unneeded.
This is also the biggest reason to not throw continuity out, IMHO. While I consider Kurtzman Trek a mixed bag with some great elements, I think the worst aspect of it so far has been the continued reliance on threats to Earth/Humanity/the galaxy. I feel like a clean reboot in current hands would just result more Trekkian disaster porn (ala blowing up Vulcan in ST09), more grimdark wars, and even more ludicrous stakes.
This is also the biggest reason to not throw continuity out, IMHO. While I consider Kurtzman Trek a mixed bag with some great elements, I think the worst aspect of it so far has been the continued reliance on threats to Earth/Humanity/the galaxy. I feel like a clean reboot in current hands would just result more Trekkian disaster porn (ala blowing up Vulcan in ST09), more grimdark wars, and even more ludicrous stakes.
Eh, I dunno. I admit I have never been as much of a TOS fan (I'm much more a Niner than anything), but I'd much, much rather watch a new Trek show with a new crew than watch TOS updated with a modern cast/modern production values. And I'd certainly not really want to just check in on random aspects of their lives when they weren't on the Enterprise.
Admittedly, I may be a bit weird. As I've said in the past, I just don't understand the appeal of fanfiction - though I do love reading "expanded universe" documents which give non-narrative explanations of science, planets, cultures, ect. within universe. To me characters are not "real" people who continue to exist after the story is done. They have served their purpose in the story arc showcasing the themes the writers chose to highlight, and then I put them away and don't really think about them much any longer.
This is unnecessarily fatalistic. Good grief. No one is destroying anything but rebooting Star Trek. Both analogies don't track at all.
Just remember one thing - if the original Star Trek had not been such a cultural phenomena starting with its syndicated run in the 1970ies (a syndicated run which continues to this day 51+ years later -- and if Paramount did think it would continue into the 21st century; they NEVER would have spent the money to do the 'TOS Remastered' version that is the TOS syndication package now); you wouldn't have gotten TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT (nor any of the current and still coming new series on Paramount+)
^^^
The popularity of TOS among the general public (including people who don't really like science fiction in general, but would still tune in and watch a Star Trek (TOS) episode is what made the show DS9 possible.
If not for TOS, you'd be talking about Babylon 5.
Just remember one thing - if the original Star Trek had not been such a cultural phenomena starting with its syndicated run in the 1970ies (a syndicated run which continues to this day 51+ years later -- and if Paramount did think it would continue into the 21st century; they NEVER would have spent the money to do the 'TOS Remastered' version that is the TOS syndication package now); you wouldn't have gotten TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT (nor any of the current and still coming new series on Paramount+)
^^^
The popularity of TOS among the general public (including people who don't really like science fiction in general, but would still tune in and watch a Star Trek (TOS) episode is what made the show DS9 possible.
If not for TOS, you'd be talking about Babylon 5.
I don't think TOS is bad by any means. I am just old enough that I remember in my childhood when TOS was the only Star Trek (TNG came out when I was 8 - I remember the premier). It's just that with the low levels of quality control across the series in total (including Season 3, which is mostly mediocre to terrible) along with the very dated way in which it is shot, acted, and staged I can't fully enjoy it. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy many episodes greatly...just that it's not my favorite.
Last edited:
I never stated I thought you believed TOS was 'bad' per se - we were discussing how pervasive TOS has been in the general popular culture since it premiered in 1966 - and to this day, it still eclipses all other later versions of Star Trek in terms of general public recognition.
TOS is a good show, but it's been lionized to a ridiculous degree in Internet Debates, among other places. Including by me in the past.
I think TOS might have been eclipsed now as the OG fans are beginning to vanish. I mean, Kirk is iconic, but lots of things are iconic which don't have deep fanbases (such as characters associated with advertising like Ronald McDonald).
FWIW, I follow a couple of Star Trek meme groups on Facebook, and probably 80% of the memes are Berman Trek era.
Considering all the fans of the TOS films as well as the JJ Abrams 2009 reboot, etc -- I don't think the TOS era, its characters, (or it's fans) are as 'eclipsed' as you'd like to believe. Right now, the second oldest fanbase is TNG's.
And Trek stopped being that, decades ago.
What we currently call Star Trek is a franchise and IP belonging to a huge corporation, and now exists for them to exploit.
What the hell, Ford launched an electric SUV this year called the Mustang Mach-E and people I know got their undies in a bunch about it. There is a certain mentality that is a part of all fandoms.
Technically TOS was no longer original by 1973. TAS was basically TOS in animated form and thus with a creative freedom the effects artists and set and makeup designers on the live-action NBC series could only have dreamt of.
Considering all the fans of the TOS films as well as the JJ Abrams 2009 reboot, etc -- I don't think the TOS era, its characters, (or it's fans) are as 'eclipsed' as you'd like to believe. Right now, the second oldest fanbase is TNG's.
I just turned 42, I don't claim to be young dude.
Regardless, while I think it is the case that TOS is almost certainly watched with more regularity today than anything else which was on TV in the 1960s, most Trekkies more than a few years younger than me have told me they just can't deal with the dated style of TOS. Their loss, but over time there will be (proportionately speaking) more of them, and less of us.
Oh, parts of TOS are dated as Hell. But then so is a lot of early TNG and Sweet Fancy Space Buddha I'll take some of the fashions Theiss devised in 1967 over some of the idiotic looks we were subjected to 20 or 21 years later.
Early TNG was incredibly low-budget at times and had really pisspoor costume and set design compared to TOS (which, while not realistic, was generally at least imaginative and used lots of bold color).
But what I was thinking more about regarding TOS's "datedness" was the slow pace of many episodes, use of soft-focus shots for beautiful women, theatrical style of acting (as opposed to the more modern "realistic" style), and all-too-frequent intrusions of casual sexism.
There are scattered episodes that - in my own opinion - still feel fresh and "modern" - The Doomday Machine stands out to me as something that doesn't feel dated in the slightest, for example. But these tend to be the exception, rather than the rule.
Similar threads
- Poll
