I know not everyone looks at things this way. But a lot of people do. And these people tend to be among the smarter people in society. Which, it's known, correlates to the "best off" among society reasonably well... which in turn relates to "the ones that the studios want to make into fans of their product so they'll keep watching, keep buying, etc, etc."
People like you are the reason Trek is completely disrespected as a work of art. You're so obsessed with minutiae and minor details like whether or not the design of the ship APPEARS to fit into the aesthetic established in previous entries in the canon that you'll start ranting and raving and try to imply that people who disagree with you -- people who value creativity over technicality -- are somehow less intelligent than you are. You're so threatened by change -- and relatively unimportant change at that -- that you'll insult other people over it. Which is particularly ironic, because one of the primary themes of
Star Trek is the inevitability and positive nature of change.
Guess what? PLENTY of intelligent people believe in being creative and re-interpreting things for the sake of trying to inject new life and energy into them, or trying to see them through new lenses. Why do you think Brecht took the
Threepenny Opera and completely re-adapted it for a 20th Century audience? Why else do you think Larson took
La Boheme and re-adapted it into a rock opera in the mid-90s? Why else do you think Moore took the Charlton Comics characters and completely re-adapted them to create
Watchmen? Why else do you think Nolan took the Batman mythos and completely re-interpreted it for a post-9/11, post-Iraq, post-Katrina America in
The Dark Knight? Why else do you think Lennon took compositions like "Moonlight Sonata" by Beethoven and re-adapted it into the song "Because?" Why else do you think Taymor took the entire Beatles library and adapted them into an epic film musical about the entire 1960s?
As Shatner once said -- and, by the way, William Shatner, Captain Kirk himself,
has no problem with the new Enterprise -- "Get a life."
Wow... that's one heck of a ranting flame-fest there, pal...
Make up your mind. Is Trek "entertainment" or is it "art?" Last time I heard you chime in on this, you were adamantly opposed to it being treated as art (you were mocking the discussions of folks talking about how changing the Enterprise is like putting up another painting and telling folks its the Mona Lisa).
Star Trek was successful through the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the 1960s, because a lot of very smart, very successful people in influential positions were Star Trek fans. Sorry if you find that threatening, but it's an acknowledged fact. And the more intelligent, more highly educated among society do tend to be the higher earners... and the higher earners do tend to be those with more disposable income.
How much income do you think that Paramount has seen brought in from this "niche market" over the past forty years? Not from stupid brainless twits but from guys who run Mars exploration programs at JPL, or who design control systems for the space shuttle, or who design communications satellites?
How much do you think came from those who failed out of their math courses in High School?
So... who do you think has been at the center of PPC's lucrative "cash cow" for the past few decades, again?
Here's something you might want to consider... taking offense at this simple fact illustrates that you, my friend, are the one who would do well to "get a life." I get the basics of finance here, which you seem not to.
If you question my point, just look up any discussion of classic Star Trek's ratings, in light of how ratings were calculated before, and then after, that timeframe.
"Demographics" might be a good word to read up on as well.
Hell, even Captain "William Shatner" Kirk likes the new design so STFU you drooling mass!
