Why do they keep going back to the Kirk era?

[TheAdmiralty]

Considering that all of Star Trek's best stuff was in the 24th century shows, why do producers keep insisting on going back to Star Trek's original time frame or earlier?

That's an opinion and one with which me and most people don't agree.

It's so frustrating when I just want to see a continuation of what happened after DS9 and VOY. What happened after the DW? We'll never know because we've only gotten a show set in the delta quadrant, a show in the 22nd century, a show in the 23rd century and a movie series in an alternate dimension 23rd century, literally Trek's worst era. Why doesn't anybody give Michael Dorn his Captain Worf show for example? I would be much more eager to watch that than Discovery.

I would find post Ds9/Nemesis stuff mildly interesting, but the trouble is 99% of the public doesn't care. Even I have no desire to see Captain Worf. The only good thing about that would be that they'd go to red alert within the first 20 seconds of every episode.

If I could have done the new show, I would have wanted to go way into the future simply so you could ignore most of the past continuity and really do new stuff with it. But it should have been obvious to anyone that the show was going to be 23rd century. I'm just glad that its set prior to the JJverse.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Kirk's era is the most nostalgically remembered era of Trek for casual fans. I'd personally much prefer a show set after DS9/Voyager.

And I personally think TNG and DS9 are better than TOS, but not by much.

One benefit of being in the 23rd century though is the tech is a little more under control. They can't just use the holodeck as a crutch and they don't have to handwave all the technology that exists that ought to solve their problem in two seconds.

 

[Mattadd]

Who are all these people that associate Star Trek with Kirk? Seniors? Because they would be the only ones alive when TOS aired, and they're not usually the demographic tv execs go after. Everyone I know in my age group thinks of Picard or Janeway when they think Star Trek. So I don't buy the argument that Kirk and the original cast bring the most brand recognition or are the most popular with the wider public.

 

[Prax]

Here's a question:

Who is more widely known?

Captain Picard or Professor Xavier?
I would argue Picard.

 

[Lonely Horse]

Really? What show was it that Sarah Silverman guested in a two-part episode set in modern day San Francisco, then? Along with Ed Begley jr. as the main antagonist, a guy that was exploiting technology brought back to this time by someone from even further in the future than our heroes, who were seen buzzing San Francisco with their starship?

I said I liked the premise of the show. I never mentioned anything about it fulfilling it's potential. What could've been great turned into just a variation of The Next Generation (not that TNG is bad but when they're so far away from Federation space, the crew shouldn't be having fun in the holodeck all the time).

 

[FormerLurker]

That doesn't answer my question. You said they never traveled through time. I pointed out that they did. Which of us was mistaken?

 

[Lonely Horse]

That doesn't answer my question. You said they never traveled through time. I pointed out that they did. Which of us was mistaken?

Ah. Suppose my post was unclear. I meant to say the show wasn't set before the events of DS9.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Miniskirts.


It's all about the miniskirts.

 

[unimatrix7]

Star Trek now only exists to recapture the imagined glory of TOS.

The only time Trek, in its natural home on TV, was not under constant threat of cancellation was when it was set in the 24th century. TOS itself died very quickly. Enterprise scarcely did better.

But sure. Let's have more.

 

[fireproof78]

Marketing, visual recognition, and closer to present day which allows the more optimistic tone to resonate more with a wide audience.

 

[The Wormhole]

Who are all these people that associate Star Trek with Kirk? Seniors? Because they would be the only ones alive when TOS aired, and they're not usually the demographic tv execs go after. Everyone I know in my age group thinks of Picard or Janeway when they think Star Trek. So I don't buy the argument that Kirk and the original cast bring the most brand recognition or are the most popular with the wider public.

I remember when Trek XI premiered. The first page of the entertainment section of my newspaper had a full page review of the movie and the whole thing was devoted to how great it was to have the TOS characters back. Likewise, the ones involved in the fan productions are certainly not senior citizens, and they all gravitate towards TOS.

The bottom line is the TOS era is obviously the most profitable of Trek eras, otherwise it wouldn't be the one that keeps getting revisited. While there is much to question when it comes to the wisdom of Paramount/CBS one thing they can be relied upon like any corporation is to go where the money is, and for Star Trek that's Kirk and his crew more than it is Picard, Sisko, Janeway or especially Archer.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

Who are all these people that associate Star Trek with Kirk? Seniors? Because they would be the only ones alive when TOS aired, and they're not usually the demographic tv execs go after. Everyone I know in my age group thinks of Picard or Janeway when they think Star Trek. So I don't buy the argument that Kirk and the original cast bring the most brand recognition or are the most popular with the wider public.

The original crew made commercially successful movies through the early 90's. There were also some recent movies with younger actors playing Kirk, Spock and co, but you may have missed them because they didn't show in very many theaters and weren't very publicized.

Star Trek now only exists to recapture the imagined glory of TOS.

The only time Trek, in its natural home on TV, was not under constant threat of cancellation was when it was set in the 24th century. TOS itself died very quickly. Enterprise scarcely did better.

But sure. Let's have more.

Even with the ratings being bad for the time, TOS reached a much larger audience in the 60's than any of the spin-off shows (with the possible exception of TNG at its peak) and thus had a much larger pop culture footprint even back then, due to there only being 3 networks at the time. Then of course it surged in ratings in syndication in the 70's, made 6 mostly commercially successful movies, and the new movies today. Ds9 and VOY inherited initial high ratings from TNG but their ratings declined rapidly throughout their entire runs. TNG generally got a Nielsen rating of between 12-14 during the second half of its run, Ds9 and Voyager both left the air with Nielsen ratings under 5. They weren't even close to as popular as TNG, which itself isn't as popular as TOS.

People are really out of touch if they genuinely think that characters from Ds9 or Voyager would be as known to the general American public as Kirk and Spock. Pretty much everyone knows Kirk and Spock, even if they've never seen a single Star Trek episode or movie. I've never seen people in public discuss Ds9 or VOY since the shows went off air. If you did a survey asking people to name the Star Trek shows, a huge chunk of people would name TOS, TNG, and then blank. Big budget movies and TV shows have to appeal to a much larger audience than Sci-fi paperback novels.

 

[unimatrix7]

^ thanks, but what is and isn't known to the American public - besotted as they are with Kardashians and corpulent orange dictators - is of little interest to those of us fortunate enough not to live there.

In Australia for instance, Voyager was very popular and remains popula amongst folks with otherwise no interest in Trek or even Sci Fi.

You'll also note that I didn't mention ratings. The simple fact is that TOS performed badly for the time, and was cancelled. So did Enterprise. TNG, DS9 and Voyager were never under threat of cancellation. Therefore I dint accept any argument that Trek is a pot of gold as long as it forever orbits TOS.

 

[Tesophius]

Let's see, since Voyager ended, there have been three new iterations of Star Trek (once discovery premieres) and none of them will have taken place any later than the 23rd century.

Considering that all of Star Trek's best stuff was in the 24th century shows, why do producers keep insisting on going back to Star Trek's original time frame or earlier? It's so frustrating when I just want to see a continuation of what happened after DS9 and VOY. What happened after the DW? We'll never know because we've only gotten a show set in the delta quadrant, a show in the 22nd century, a show in the 23rd century and a movie series in an alternate dimension 23rd century, literally Trek's worst era. Why doesn't anybody give Michael Dorn his Captain Worf show for example? I would be much more eager to watch that than Discovery.

Because writers are too lazy to come up with new sci fi stuff. By going into the past they know exactly what the building blocks for this universe are and can just re-use cliche conflicts in a Star Trek setting. People will pay and it's easy to make.

 

[Prax]

Yes, TOS has the most brand recognition. It was and is very popular(and the greatest..maybe), but is that a good thing to rely on for new material? I think the name Star Trek alone has enough clout to delve into material unrelated to TOS and still be a success.

But network execs take their lists of pitches given them by various producers and give them to market analysts who then create projections. They can then choose to pick the model for a show or film that has the most profitability with the least risk, with the most brand familiarity. It's their money after all.

We know there were many different pitches by many producers and writers for a new Trek show over the last 10 years. Fuller's pitch was selected.

There was a time when studios were looking for novel new ideas to gamble on and profit on. It may be a good generalization to say that today, studios are looking for profitable old ideas to bring success again. That's why I say that one day they will look to other Trek shows to "reimagine." Popularity of the spin offs will only grow. The love increases with age for this kind of thing. Having a new show will add nostalgia and greener grass to the old. Then those market analysts will say "People really love that Patrick Stewart one. I think this might be a good investment."

Paramount TV/CBS is using this show as a "flagship" for their new streaming service, much like they used Voyager as a "flagship" to launch UPN.

 

[Vger23]

Who are all these people that associate Star Trek with Kirk? Seniors? Because they would be the only ones alive when TOS aired, and they're not usually the demographic tv execs go after. Everyone I know in my age group thinks of Picard or Janeway when they think Star Trek. So I don't buy the argument that Kirk and the original cast bring the most brand recognition or are the most popular with the wider public.

You may not buy it, but it's the obvious truth. If it weren't, you'd be getting more Next Gen / 24th Century stuff.

But we're not.

Because the other stuff is more popular.

Studios don't make high-budget movies and TV series unless they have done their homework and know what's going to appeal.

You're confusing your own preferences with reality.

 

[Vger23]

Yes, TOS has the most brand recognition. It was and is very popular(and the greatest..maybe), but is that a good thing to rely on for new material? I think the name Star Trek alone has enough clout to delve into material unrelated to TOS and still be a success.

But network execs take their lists of pitches given them by various producers and give them to market analysts who then create projections. They can then choose to pick the model for a show or film that has the most profitability with the least risk, with the most brand familiarity. It's their money after all.

We know there were many different pitches by many producers and writers for a new Trek show over the last 10 years. Fuller's pitch was selected.

There was a time when studios were looking for novel new ideas to gamble on and profit on. It may be a good generalization to say that today, studios are looking for profitable old ideas to bring success again. That's why I say that one day they will look to other Trek shows to "reimagine."

Paramount TV/CBS is using this show as a "flagship" for their new streaming service, much like they used Voyager as a "flagship" to launch UPN.

One day, they might look at other Trek shows to reimagine, but not any time soon.

 

[The Wormhole]

TNG, DS9 and Voyager were never under threat of cancellation.

TNG was a success, yes, but both DS9 and Voyager struggled with the ratings. Everyone always points to Enterprise as the moment the franchise crashed and burned, but throughout DS9 and Voyager the ratings were on a steady and consistent decline from 1995 onwards. Enterprise just happened to be the one unlucky enough to be on the air when they reached rock bottom.

Also, while TNG might have had it made in the shade on TV, its movies really weren't that spectacular. Only First Contact did any good, and even then it wasn't one of the big money makers, either by typical standards or those of the Trek franchise. as for the others, well, Nemesis did more or less finish off any chances for the Prime Universe or the 24th century ever seeing a theatre screen again.

 

[Jax]

The TOS had only 3 seasons tell us stories with (Yes 6 movies as well) but the 24th Century had 3 shows and 21 seasons. There is a lot of room to tell us more about the 23rd century and with the movies rebooting Trek back in that era, it probably made more sense for Discovery to go near that era.

My own personal tastes would of preferred a show set at the very end of the 22nd century crossing over into the 23rd century only a few decades after the birth of the Federation in 2261. I also wouldn't mind them exploring the 60 year+ gap between what we saw in Generations & TNG.

 

[Push The Button]

Who are all these people that associate Star Trek with Kirk? Seniors? Because they would be the only ones alive when TOS aired, and they're not usually the demographic tv execs go after. Everyone I know in my age group thinks of Picard or Janeway when they think Star Trek. So I don't buy the argument that Kirk and the original cast bring the most brand recognition or are the most popular with the wider public.

I became a Trek fan during the first TOS syndication runs in the early 1970s. Not sure if that makes me a "senior", though I will be eligible for the Denny's senior discount in about four years.

I'm a TOS fan, but I'm also a TNG and ENT fan as well. There are even a few Voyager and DS9 episodes that I'm fond of, and most of the movies.

Also, if you were old enough to see the first airing of Encounter at Farpoint, then you're no spring chicken either (I was 21 myself at the time.)