The Sobering Effect of the Star Trek XI Trailer

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I'm not sure what there is to update about a classic. As a matter of fact one probably shouldn't try to change a classic at all.

The 'core concept' of Star Trek is what makes it a classic. As long as they get that right, we'll be fine.

The problem is that the definition of the core concept is going to be a little different for each fan.

This is one of the first steps towards Star Trek's possible immortality. If the old can successfully transcend into the new, then a chain begins, leading back to the original on one end, and on into an infinite future on the other.

I'm a huge Superman fan, and that's a concept that is reinvented time and time again, often successfully. As each new variation arrives, we are free to accept or reject them as either: a) true to the core concept of Superman, b) quality entertainment in their own right, or c) both.

If Star Trek XI succeeds on any level, there is the very real possibility that this is just the first of many interpretations of Star Trek. Some we will love. Some, not so much.

But if this one fails, there is that much less of a chance that it will be reinterpreted again in the future. Which is what some fans want.

I would prefer Star Trek XI to succeed, even if it turns out I that don't like it. I loved the original version. Maybe I'll love the new version. Maybe I'll have to wait for the next version after that. If Star Trek XI crashes and burns, there might not be a version after that.

But if the franchise remains healthy, the original series will always remain a relevant and available link in the historical chain. If not, the original series will eventually fade into obscurity. It might still have the ability to hold an audience, but no one will ever see it, because it will become something one has to go too far out of her way to find.

A successful Star Trek XI is a win for almost everyone.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I'm not sure what there is to update about a classic. As a matter of fact one probably shouldn't try to change a classic at all.

Forbidden Planet - updated Shakespeare's The Tempest

West Side Story - updated Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet

Superman - update of Hercules

Rent - update of Pucini's La Boheme

O Brother, Where Art Thou - update of Homer's The Odyssey

Classic are continually updated, and the updtes sometimes become classics themselves.

If TOS is classic and people are still watching it, being intrigued and getting hooked

How many people annually - 12? Even if it's 1200 or 12,000 - that's not a lot in the entertainment industry.

-- why are we changing it to appeal to the next generation? As if TOS Trek does not? As if TOS Trek didn't appeal to us when we were 14?

Um, because it's been changed for the next generation since 1986 when, you know, The Next Generation came out?

IMO TOS Trek worked and it DID appeal to the main stream (it was the later spin-offs that has less main stream appeal).

TOS struggled in the ratings from its first season onward and was cancelled in its third season because it had such a poor viewership. TNG premiered to 27 million viewers, was the #1 syndicated television show and went off the air after 7 seasons, not because of low viewership but because it was decided it would be more profitable to take it to the big screen. The only spin offs with less mainstream appeal were Voyager, which had continually plunging ratings and Enterprise which was down to something like 2 million viewers when it was cancelled for low viewership. TNG has always been the most popular Star Trek series, with by far the widest main stream appeal.

 

[SGCSG1]

"I also realize that this is a real opportunity to reinvent Star Trek for a new generation, and I am excited about that. It's their time now, and I hope they embrace it wholeheartedly."


I'm not sure what there is to update about a classic. As a matter of fact one probably shouldn't try to change a classic at all.

If TOS is classic and people are still watching it, being intrigued and getting hooked -- why are we changing it to appeal to the next generation?

Because 'Nemesis' lost a boatload of money at the box office and the last six movies just BARELY scraped by. 'Enterprise' was cancelled. Star Trek is dead right now. Ok? How hard is that to understand? If it's not profitable, they will NOT MAKE ANY MORE.

This is not rocket science.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This is one of the first steps towards Star Trek's possible immortality. If the old can successfully transcend into the new, then a chain begins, leading back to the original on one end, and on into an infinite future on the other.

And this is true, big time.

You know, what Christians in the third and fourth centuries thought that Christianity should be and had been has a great deal more to do with present day Christianity than what believers of the year, oh, A.D. 83 thought. It's not often true that the first generation to experience anything really defines or even shapes how it will be seen in a longer context.

 

[maryh]

"I also realize that this is a real opportunity to reinvent Star Trek for a new generation, and I am excited about that. It's their time now, and I hope they embrace it wholeheartedly."


I'm not sure what there is to update about a classic. As a matter of fact one probably shouldn't try to change a classic at all.

If TOS is classic and people are still watching it, being intrigued and getting hooked -- why are we changing it to appeal to the next generation? As if TOS Trek does not? As if TOS Trek didn't appeal to us when we were 14?

Because no one is making TOS any more. They haven't made an episode in almost forty years.

Abrams is making a movie based on that series, because the studio wants to revive their Trek franchise. Kids today are not buying the same toys, reading the same books, or spending their free time and money in the same way they did when I was a kid. There is zero evidence that they will pay much attention as a group to TOS - they don't now. A few do - everyone on the board will probably tell you that their kids do - but most simply do not and will not.

I just going to say that kids aren't watching TOS because it is confined to the 4:30 AM slot on TVLand. My kids also don't watch it because they think it is only for nerds (courtesy of later Trek NOT TOS). And some classic toys remain popular always -- Silly Putty, Slinky, Monoploy etc. I'll admit TOS needs visual updating but not character, premise, or mission updating.

I was hoping this movie would be like a new good TOS episode. That they would start making them again in the form of this movie.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Now, the odd and exciting thing for me about watching the trailer is that it reminds me of watching the original show, particularly early on. I didn't know much about "Star Trek" - no one except the people making it did because most of it had yet to be broadcast.

I think you've nailed the one thing that does excite me about the trailer: the possibility that I will buy into this new crew and be desperate to follow them into the unknown.

If that occurs, I will very likely want them to be in a new timeline because I won't want to know what is coming next.

Does that make sense?

I want everything to be exactly the same in that it recreates the magic of the original, but one of those elements (a massive one) is the thrill of the unknown. To boldly go where no man has gone before. To preserve that element, it is almost necessary for them to hint or outright state that anything can happen in this new universe (pre-existing expectations, be damned). Hold on to your seats and come with us. Warp speed into the future, Mr. Sulu!

But if they fail to hold our interest, we won't care what happens to them next, their slight resemblance to our old friends notwithstanding.

The way I look at it is this:

The trailer asked me out on a date. The girl looks hot, but a little high-strung. I can't help but hold her up to the standards of my first love (rose-colored as that memory may be). I agree to go out on the date. May 9th, 2009. We'll go Dutch. I'll chip in ten dollars. She'll chip in one hundred and fifty million dollars. I'll watch her with a close eye, comparing her -- perhaps unfairly -- to my first love, but I'll also allow myself the chance to fall in love all over again. She'll probably fall short. (How could she not?) But what if she doesn't?

What if she doesn't?

Damnit, Dennis. Now I'm all fired up to see it again.

 

[shapeshifter]

^ YES! YES, YES, YES, YES!

 

[Mordock]

Now, the odd and exciting thing for me about watching the trailer is that it reminds me of watching the original show, particularly early on. I didn't know much about "Star Trek" - no one except the people making it did because most of it had yet to be broadcast.

After the first few weeks I had high expectations when I sat down on Thursday night but they were very general, open expectations - I expected to get swept up in something exciting and largely unfamiliar and to get at least a little sense of "gosh wow that's amazing" out of it. Then at the end they'd show a little ad - which usually turned out to be misleading in various respects - for "Next Voyage" and I would just wonder all week what that was going to be about.

There was always the promise of something huge in scope, and I never noticed that they weren't spending all the money and resources in the world on the show - that so much of what astonished me was actually just going on in my own imagination was something I wouldn't notice for some time.

I feel much the same way. When I was introduced to TOS as a young boy in the early- to mid-'80s, the limits of the production were invisible to me. If they said they were on an alien planet, I was eager to believe they were on an alien planet and not the redressed planet set.

Coupled with this, I also started watching TAS, which had a bogglingly vast "SFX budget". I never wondered why live-action Trek didn't have lizard creatures and Mayan snake gods or turn the crew into infants or amphibians; it was all Star Trek and all of a piece. The aspect of the trailer I liked best was that it seemed to have some of the enormous and "proper" scale that I recall from my boyhood.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Now, the odd and exciting thing for me about watching the trailer is that it reminds me of watching the original show, particularly early on. I didn't know much about "Star Trek" - no one except the people making it did because most of it had yet to be broadcast.

I think you've nailed the one thing that does excite me about the trailer: the possibility that I will buy into this new crew and be desperate to follow them into the unknown.

If that occurs, I will very likely want them to be in a new timeline because I won't want to know what is coming next.

Does that make sense?

Does that make sense? Sam, you may as well ask me if I'd want to shag Lexa Doig.

 

[Ptrope]

Sam, you've pretty much summed up my feelings. All I want is a good movie; if that's what they've made, then I'll enjoy it, and either will or won't slot it into the mythos, as appropriate. If they simply threw in 'stuff' to try to appeal to demographics, without giving thought to the integrity of the story (or of the audience, for that matter), then I'll be back here arguing against the dumbing down of our culture in pursuit of profit .

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Now, the odd and exciting thing for me about watching the trailer is that it reminds me of watching the original show, particularly early on. I didn't know much about "Star Trek" - no one except the people making it did because most of it had yet to be broadcast.

I think you've nailed the one thing that does excite me about the trailer: the possibility that I will buy into this new crew and be desperate to follow them into the unknown.

If that occurs, I will very likely want them to be in a new timeline because I won't want to know what is coming next.

Does that make sense?

Does that make sense? Sam, you may as well ask me if I'd want to shag Lexa Doig.

We reach, brother. We reach!

Now, this movie better come out today before I change my mind.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Now, this movie better come out today before I change my mind.

Failing that, it wouldn't hurt for TrekBBS to go down for five months. Otherwise I fear I shall run out of groundhogs.

 

[mredom]

TOS struggled in the ratings from its first season onward and was cancelled in its third season because it had such a poor viewership. TNG premiered to 27 million viewers, was the #1 syndicated television show and went off the air after 7 seasons, not because of low viewership but because it was decided it would be more profitable to take it to the big screen. The only spin offs with less mainstream appeal were Voyager, which had continually plunging ratings and Enterprise which was down to something like 2 million viewers when it was cancelled for low viewership. TNG has always been the most popular Star Trek series, with by far the widest main stream appeal.

TOS APPEARED to struggle in the ratings because of the way that ratings were understood at the time. It was later determined that actual viewership was much higher than the ratings had shown. In addition, TOS was one of the highest rated shows in syndication throughout the seventies. I know one station that ran TOS twice a day, and I watched it. The success in syndication is what led to TMP and eventually TNG.

I watched "Encounter at Farpoint" and got so angry about continuity errors that I didn't watch for most of two seasons. mI eventually started watching, and enjoyed all of TNG, but I have discovered that the only shows I watch regularly are TOS. The effects are marginal, some of the stories aren't very plausible, and yet I find it to be the most compelling of the series, and the characters.

I have been following EVERY snippet of news on this movie, since the teaser poster came out in 06. I can't wait to discover my favorite characters all over again. Maybe it will bomb, but I will watch it, and buy it, guaranteed.

MRE

 

[Kemaiku]

Sobering? I seem to remember the involvement of rather a large amount of alcohol after seeing it...

 

[maryh]

Forbidden Planet - updated Shakespeare's The Tempest

West Side Story - updated Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet

Superman - update of Hercules

Rent - update of Pucini's La Boheme

O Brother, Where Art Thou - update of Homer's The Odyssey

Classic are continually updated, and the updtes sometimes become classics themselves.

Yes but then why call it Star Trek with the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy etc? Trek has already been updated with tons of spin-offs, novels, movies etc. This one was supposed to go back to the roots, but the roots seem to have changed IMO.

How many people annually - 12? Even if it's 1200 or 12,000 - that's not a lot in the entertainment industry.

No doubt DVD collections have changed what is broadcast for a 40 yo program. That does not mean people would not watch TOS Trek as a new movie. Sure, give it better effects, bigger budget sets etc. But why go back to Kirk and Spock unless they give us the characters of Kirk and Spock? If they are going to alter these characters, just give us new characters.

Um, because it's been changed for the next generation since 1986 when, you know, The Next Generation came out?

You may notice that this movie is supposed to be about TOS not TNG. IMO TOS Trek is the only Trek series that will be classic. If so why alter IT. Make a new Trek series, do a TNG or ENT movie, but keep a TOS movie like TOS.

TOS struggled in the ratings from its first season onward and was cancelled in its third season because it had such a poor viewership. TNG premiered to 27 million viewers, was the #1 syndicated television show and went off the air after 7 seasons, not because of low viewership but because it was decided it would be more profitable to take it to the big screen. The only spin offs with less mainstream appeal were Voyager, which had continually plunging ratings and Enterprise which was down to something like 2 million viewers when it was cancelled for low viewership. TNG has always been the most popular Star Trek series, with by far the widest main stream appeal.

This has been discussed ad nasuem. TNG died on the big screen that is why they are going TOS. But I feel they aren't giving us TOS either. Oh I'll see the movie but I'm not sure why they are giving us Romeo and Juliette by just taking West Side Story and just renaming the main characters.

 

[vedek loki]

So, I've seen the trailer. Read the breakdowns. Read the fan reactions. And had time to reassess my thoughts on Star Trek XI.

I am visiting a friend in another part of the country, and I showed him the Star Trek XI trailer last night. His tastes are similar to mine. After viewing the trailer, he responded: "Feels like 'Lost in Space.'"

Wow. Those exact words formed in my head when I first saw the trailer: "This could be another Lost in Space."

Personally, I thought it was a little too soon to start up the machine again. And I never was thrilled at the prospect of a reboot as opposed to new stories and characters.

I'm not one of those nit-pickers who freaks about the little things, like nacelle shapes or the relative ages of characters. But if you're going to restart Trek from the beginning, I want to know that the ideas/philosophies behind the storytelling will still be there in some way. Otherwise, what's the point of doing it? What I saw in the trailer was visually impressive, and I understand that this movie isn't so much for me as it is for teens who have never been exposed to Trek. I just hope that whatever those teens see gives them something to think about, and doesn't lose itself in its own CGI and plucky, angsty one-liners. And from what I saw in the trailer, I feel like it's going to be a coin flip. I hope my feeling turns out to be wrong.

 

[maryh]

TOS APPEARED to struggle in the ratings because of the way that ratings were understood at the time. It was later determined that actual viewership was much higher than the ratings had shown. In addition, TOS was one of the highest rated shows in syndication throughout the seventies. I know one station that ran TOS twice a day, and I watched it. The success in syndication is what led to TMP and eventually TNG.

I watched "Encounter at Farpoint" and got so angry about continuity errors that I didn't watch for most of two seasons. mI eventually started watching, and enjoyed all of TNG, but I have discovered that the only shows I watch regularly are TOS. The effects are marginal, some of the stories aren't very plausible, and yet I find it to be the most compelling of the series, and the characters.

I have been following EVERY snippet of news on this movie, since the teaser poster came out in 06. I can't wait to discover my favorite characters all over again. Maybe it will bomb, but I will watch it, and buy it, guaranteed.

MRE

My fear is that they didn't really get the characters down right and they won't have that famous chemistry, the witty humor, the inspiring characters again and as we wait, hoping to rediscover our favorite characters again -- but they won't be in this movie. They deliberately have altered them hoping to capitalize on their iconic names, but made them different so, they won't be the characters we want at all.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[largo]

for whatever its worth, i have most of the trailers for previous star trek movies on my hard drive. almost none of them made me suspect that the ensuing movie would be related to 'my star trek'. any more than a squirt gun blast of tomato paste and molten cheese to the eyes would be related to 'my pizza'.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

TOS APPEARED to struggle in the ratings because of the way that ratings were understood at the time. It was later determined that actual viewership was much higher than the ratings had shown.

What I've heard is that TOS had high ratings for people with color tvs, which were unfortunately a small group of people. And I've never seen that documented. This is the first time I've heard the claim that TOS actually had high ratings in general and, being a skeptic about all things, I'll believe it when I see some proof. Got any?

In addition, TOS was one of the highest rated shows in syndication throughout the seventies. I know one station that ran TOS twice a day, and I watched it. The success in syndication is what led to TMP and eventually TNG.

It was indeed highly rated in syndication. And syndication had nowhere near as high ratings as first run material. In other words, TOS twice a day wasn't doing Happy Days numbers by a long shot. The thing was TOS was on so often for so long that a swath of people, from 1966 to 1986 got involved with it, and they were anywhere from my mom's age (original viewer) to my sister's age (early 70s syndication viewer) to my age (late 70s/ early 80s syndication viewer). From every bit of documentation I've seen TOS never drew the kind of numbers TNG did during its first run, but it had the advantage of being around for a long time.

I watched "Encounter at Farpoint" and got so angry about continuity errors that I didn't watch for most of two seasons.

That turned out to be a good call since the first two seasons were almost uniformly a snorefest.

 

[trekkerguy]

Well I guess I am glad that all Trek was made part of my childhood(TOS, the TOS Movies, and TNG) and then I grew up to the tune of the rest adding on. I can now enjoy all Trek uninhibited by the "One that came before" because I had it all at once. I understand that it feels different. For me though it's all Trek, it all feels like Trek and is what it is. The greatest space adventure of all time. So in that... I nearly soiled myself with glee at seeing the new trailer. Just another chapter of the Trek no matter where or how it falls in line.