Personally I've always adored Mark Hamill's version of the Joker. Until HL came along it was easily my favourite interpretation of the character.
The END of Trek?
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
Personally I've always adored Mark Hamill's version of the Joker. Until HL came along it was easily my favourite interpretation of the character.
Good point. I forgot about that one--and I even saw Mask of the Phantasm in the theater.
Interesting. You seem to doubt that new fans will stay "loyal" - but the very moment ST deviated from your idea of what made good "Star Trek" (the dropping of Kes, the killing-off of Janeway), you stopped being a "loyal" fan of the newer material coming out. Picking and choosing what ST novels you'd read and reread, what episodes you'd watch and what you would blackban.
New fans of ST will be a mixture, just as we see in veteran fans. Some will be appreciative, others will be hyper critical. Some will be Star Trek fans for life, going back through the Paramount/CBS back catalogue to find out what they'd missed - and others will drop Star Trek when something else that commands their interest and loyalty.
I became a ST fan in December 1979. Many old fans of TOS questioned my loyalty because I was a "no-nothing newbie". I'm still here, decades later, and some of them walked away in disgust after seeing ST IV.
Fans are not some monolithic group. They are assembled, ad hoc, by a TV show or movie's marketing team. I wouldn't even call them fans so much as interested parties, and only interested for as long as, well, they remain interested.
How many TV shows or movies do you watch that you are a "fan" of, meaning you follow it, care about the behind the scenes details, and will pick up a comic book, novel, action figure, etc, based on it? For me, that's a rare phenomenon, compared with the far larger number of TV shows and movies I watch and like okay but forget about till I see the next iteration, which I might check out.
TV shows and movies make their money, not from fans, but from the great mass of people who like it okay, no big deal. So of course, that's who the TV shows and movies are crafted to cater to. No great surprise there.
How many TV shows or movies do you watch that you are a "fan" of, meaning you follow it, care about the behind the scenes details, and will pick up a comic book, novel, action figure, etc, based on it? For me, that's a rare phenomenon, compared with the far larger number of TV shows and movies I watch and like okay but forget about till I see the next iteration, which I might check out.
TV shows and movies make their money, not from fans, but from the great mass of people who like it okay, no big deal. So of course, that's who the TV shows and movies are crafted to cater to. No great surprise there.
Look, look! I'm still around despite all dissapointments! Doesn't that make me a loyal fan after all?
Even if they hadn't destroyed Kes and assasinated Janeway, I would have been very critical to re-makes and some of the newer material coming out. As it is now, it adds injury to injury.
I did have some hope for the Voyager relaunch books when they started to be published. I actually bought the first ones. Even if I wasn't that happy with them, I could at least live with the scenario. But now they have taken a turn to the worst.
When it comes to what we see on screen, I was very critical to Enterprise". I still think that it was a step in the wrong direction, making a retro series. I have the same opinion about the new Trek movies. Instead of coming up with something new, they dig up TOS and screws up established Trek history in the worst possible way. They had created a wonderful universe in the 24th century, why abandon that? I don't get it.
Fans can be very loyal and the Trek fams have proven to be more loyal than many others. But there's a limit for everything. I remember a hard rock band who abandoned their previous style in order to get some new fans. The result was that they lost most of their old, loyal fans and the new fans they gained didn't stay in the long run either. The band finally went back to their old style but it was too late. They had lost their credibility.
Because the original series has entered our public consciousness in ways that the spin-offs never did. The general public recognize Kirk and Spock and to a lesser extent McCoy and Scotty. The general public's main recognition of DS9 and Voy is "the one with the black captain" or "the one with the female captain" and you're doing good to even get that level of recognition of those shows from the general public. Spock alone is more recognizable to more of the general public than the entirety of all the casts of all the spin-off's combined.
The original Enterprise is likewise iconic, as well as several catchphrases like "Beam Me Up Scotty", "Live Long And Prosper", "I'm Givin' Her All She's Got", etc. Any appreciation for the spin-off's is pretty much confined to Trek fandom.....sucks for the fans of those shows, but that's how it is, and that's why they've got the most recognizable and bankable crew back as the main crew.
Also needing to be jettisoned is the idea that it's just a given and matter of time before we get nuTrek versions of TNG, DS9 and Voy. The future is as wide open as it was in 1966 to do whatever they want, including completely ignoring those spin-offs. You'll be doing good, extremely good, to ever get a nuTNG....but you will NEVER have to worry about DS9 or Voy getting remade or recast.
Except that Trek, which was still doing "Universe Prime" was losing viewers with DS9 and it got worse with each new show. The episodes were largely derivative, uninspired and the sense of having "been there and done that" was growing with each episode. Nemesis was the turning point because at that point, not even the fans were giving a shit about Trek.
So a correct rock band analogy, in regards to how Trek history ACTUALLY played out is like this: The rock band had a copule of great albums, and then tried a different sound on their third album. Fans didn't like it, so they kept every single album after that sounding the same, never growing musically or artistically and never taking any chances. The crowd got bored and the next thing you know, they're playing clubs and county fairs because they tried too hard to please the diehard fans who never wanted anything to change. Who only wanted more albums that sounded like the albums they loved so much. So they, like Trek, got old, stale, tired and irrelevant because they didn't know how to reinvent themselves for a new decade and a new audience.
I recall TNG \ DS9 era fans just taking it for granted that there would always be another Trek show rolling off the assembly line to replace whatever one left the air. When DS9 left the air, Ent replaced it and fans already started discussing "Series 6" that would replace Voyager.
It was a bunch of talk about they hoped it would be set on the Enterprise-F,G,H,J,I,X,Q, or some other starship, having the same basic adventures. The same show with a different "desktop theme" so to speak. The general public wasn't interested and most fans lost interest as well.
"Star Trek" as a property had been watered down by spin-off after spin-off, tired retread after tired retread. The general public doesn't care about captain after captain after captain, science officer after science officer after science officer, transporter room after transporter room after transporter room, ship after ship after ship and so on. In the end, Trek was left with only the die hards who wanted the same ol' same ol'. And look what that got them: a diminished fandom and a dead franchise.
Until they decided to be bold again.
nuTrek isn't perfect by any means, sure there were some plot holes and the "cadet to captain" thing was weird. But one thing that it was? Fresh, exciting and fun. Genuinely so, and much more so than anything Trek in well over a decade. I loved that they blew up Vulcan...because that was the shot over the bow to everyone that nothing is safe, and anything goes. That Trek is getting back to being exciting, thrilling and unpredictable...that's what keeps people on the edge of their seats and gets them excited to see more. Trek '09 was one of the biggest hits of that year, and it garnered new fans. I know a guy at work who's not a big sci-fi fan who was asking to borrow my DVD so much that I finally gave it too him. HE'S the type they're trying to reach out to, and the success of Trek '09 shows they succeeded.
They've cleared the muck away for the future and have given us a single, fresh, updated vision of the iconic original. I still have my classic Star Trek DVD's to enjoy when I want to visit the originals.
I would argue that you're doing TNG's level of recognition a slight disservice. Also, ENT didn't premiere until two years after DS9 ended, making [it] the "Voyager replacement". 
I agree with the overall gist of what you're saying, though, insofar as public opinion is concerned.
I agree with the overall gist of what you're saying, though, insofar as public opinion is concerned.
I would argue that you're doing TNG's level of recognition a slight disservice. Also, ENT didn't premiere until two years after DS9 ended, making [it] the "Voyager replacement".
I agree with the overall gist of what you're saying, though, insofar as public opinion is concerned.
TNG has a higher level of recognition than the shows that followed, but I don't think it's in the public consciousness in the way the original was. Certainly not as iconic. But yeah, certainly more known than the latter shows.
As for Ent being DS9's replacement....I couldn't recall off hand when Ent and Voy ended. For awhile we had overlap between various series, for some reason I thought there was overlap with Voy and Ent.
Metallica?
They'll remake anything they think they can make money off of. Voyager could even be turned into a one-off movie, like Lost in Space.
^^
I hope not!
If the future of Trek is constant re-makes of TOS and maybe the other series instead of coming up with new characters and new ideas, then they can scrap the whole thing.
The Castellan wrote:
No, I didn't refer to Metallica. The comment was about another band.
I hope not!
If the future of Trek is constant re-makes of TOS and maybe the other series instead of coming up with new characters and new ideas, then they can scrap the whole thing.
The Castellan wrote:
No, I didn't refer to Metallica. The comment was about another band.
Exactly....that's my point. Voyager = 0.00 and a bad investment. They had seven years and John Q. Public has little idea that it was ever on. They aren't going to bank on it. Yes, yes, we can say it's "possible" that they'll do it, but that's meaningless. It's possible that one day they'll make a 10 part, super serious mini-series out of "Plan 9 From Outer Space", but like a remake of "Star Trek does Lost In Space", it's not probable.
So I say again, anyone worried that the role of Janeway will be recast...don't be.
Except Voyager wasn't the faliure you paint it as. It wasn't as popular as Next Gen, but it went a full 7 seasons, and is still making CBS money now via DVD sales and endless reruns worldwide. It's at least as well known as Lost in Space was to the average moviegoer when they remade that.
Do I think it's likely to be remade any time soon? No. But I think it's got a better chance long run than you think.
Do I think it's likely to be remade any time soon? No. But I think it's got a better chance long run than you think.
I liked Voyager, even if their treatment of the Borg became more than a little ridiculous by the end of the series. However, I think The Lensman is spot on in his assessment of Voyager's chances of being remade into a movie, even a TV or direct-to-DVD movie.
If the future of Star Trek involves J.J. Abrams and company churning out more noisy and flashy action movies, then I'd certainly prefer that they just walk away from Star Trek altogether. With five television series, and ten movies, it had a good run, but if it needs to be so drastically changed as to only superficially resemble Star Trek in order to be sufficiently profitable, it should be canned, and the powers that be should devote their profiteering energies to other franchises. I've got every episode of every TV series and all the movies, and I'm content to rewatch them every now and then. And you know, if they did stop, the fans can still have their conventions and fan fiction, and Paramount can still merchandise the hell out of everything; it's just that the movies and TV shows would stop.
I realize that the idea of asking an entity whose sole reason for existence is profit to cease trying to profit from Star Trek is silly, particularly when there's still gold to be mined in those hills, particularly in this day and age of endless reboots, remakes, and tie-ins. I just wish some things were still considered sacred, even to the point of being beyond such things as profit.
If the future of Star Trek involves J.J. Abrams and company churning out more noisy and flashy action movies, then I'd certainly prefer that they just walk away from Star Trek altogether. With five television series, and ten movies, it had a good run, but if it needs to be so drastically changed as to only superficially resemble Star Trek in order to be sufficiently profitable, it should be canned, and the powers that be should devote their profiteering energies to other franchises. I've got every episode of every TV series and all the movies, and I'm content to rewatch them every now and then. And you know, if they did stop, the fans can still have their conventions and fan fiction, and Paramount can still merchandise the hell out of everything; it's just that the movies and TV shows would stop.
I realize that the idea of asking an entity whose sole reason for existence is profit to cease trying to profit from Star Trek is silly, particularly when there's still gold to be mined in those hills, particularly in this day and age of endless reboots, remakes, and tie-ins. I just wish some things were still considered sacred, even to the point of being beyond such things as profit.
Last edited:
Gotta disagree there. I don't think you're doing any character or series a favor by treating it as "sacred." That just strikes me as a recipe for stagnation and obsolescence. STAR TREK deserves better than to be wrapped in plastic and left to gather dust on a shelf.
From a creative standpoint, you don't want to be so reverent that you're afraid to play around with the raw material and have fun with it. Even blow things up and start over again if you have to . . . .
They're just stories, not relics.
Anyone who doesnt want to watch Star Trek in the future should have no problem. Just don't watch it. Just because someone is making Star Trek does not mean you are legally obligated to watch it.
Even if the next series is so awful I can't stand it, at the very least it means the franchise is viable. the alternative is for it to die and be ignored by anone with the power to make more of it. maybe the next series after that one will be better.
And as long as Tar Trek is owned by a corporation, it's main function in life will be to make a profit. it's never been any different.
Even if the next series is so awful I can't stand it, at the very least it means the franchise is viable. the alternative is for it to die and be ignored by anone with the power to make more of it. maybe the next series after that one will be better.
And as long as Tar Trek is owned by a corporation, it's main function in life will be to make a profit. it's never been any different.
Perhaps my choice to use the word "sacred," was a mistake, as I don't put it up on a pedestal as something to be worshipped. I agree that Star Trek should not be allowed to stagnate, and that every now and then it, like anything else, needs to be injected with fresh thinking and new ideas if it is to maintain relevance. What I don't agree with is the idea that it should be considered acceptable to so reinvent the franchise that it bears only superficial resemblance to what it has always been, and should continue to be. I'd prefer it if Star Trek continue to give us stories with moral and philosophical implications, stories that play with some aspect of the human condition, even if the way it does that changes drastically all the time.
I don't consider reworking Star Trek in the manner that J.J. Abrams has to be progress. I consider it to be an abandonment of Star Trek. Furthermore, I don't think that Star Trek needs to be so dumbed down in order to maintain relevance in our modern world. I believe that serious stories that convey some kind of social commentary in a thoughtful, cerebral manner (with bursts of action now and then to accentuate it all) are still viable.
If I'm wrong and Star Trek does need to be so radically altered that it does not look like Star Trek, then it's already dead, and what's being produced these days (since J.J. Abrams took over) isn't Star Trek. But I won't continue with that line of thought, as I'd just be repeating what I've already posted in other threads on this forum. If it's the only way to keep the franchise viable, then in my view any discussion of the end of Trek is extraneous as Trek has already ended.
Maybe Paramount should devote their financial energies to coming up with something original instead of trying to wring every last cent out of its existing properties.
I have to agree with the let it die group. If Trek, from now on, takes the Transformers or Final Fantasy route of constantly remaking and rebooting TOS every few years, and just pumping out Micheal Bay type action popcorn flicks, then no thanks. Continuing to keep a series going, despite how awful it gets, makes no sense. I mean if you go to a restaurant and they keep bringing you overcooked and poorly done meals, why keep going there? My wireless internet service is horrible, am I keeping it, nope......I'll be having something much better and different by the end of this fortnight.
As much as I don't like Star Wars, I at least can give it that it never went the reboot treatment....and if it ever did, the already not too stable relationship between Lucas and the fans will get really ugly.
Might I ask this, I'm going to start working on my own Trek comic, within the month, if all goes well, and could I send you a few stories, when made, to get your opinion, before I put 'em out? I want to picked a few folks, from here, and another forum, to sorta test 'em out with an advancing screening?
As much as I don't like Star Wars, I at least can give it that it never went the reboot treatment....and if it ever did, the already not too stable relationship between Lucas and the fans will get really ugly.
Might I ask this, I'm going to start working on my own Trek comic, within the month, if all goes well, and could I send you a few stories, when made, to get your opinion, before I put 'em out? I want to picked a few folks, from here, and another forum, to sorta test 'em out with an advancing screening?
"Let it die" is a ridiculous standpoint when there are millions who are enjoying the new version of Star Trek as much as (and in some cases more than) the old. You'd really rob them of their enjoyment? If you're not enjoying it, stop watching - just like I did with the remade Battlestar Galactica.
Yeah, not wanting to reignite another endless debate on the pros and cons of the new movie, but it's probably worth pointing out that different people have different ideas about what's essential to a good STAR TREK story, so what seems like "Star Trek in name only" to some may still feel like Trek to others.
Speaking as an old-school TOS fan, I actually thought the new movie felt more like classic Trek than some of the later spin-offs . . . .
Speaking as an old-school TOS fan, I actually thought the new movie felt more like classic Trek than some of the later spin-offs . . . .
Similar threads
