Jump to content

New Star Trek Series in 2017


Guest El Chalupacabra

Recommended Posts

History does not agree with you. TOS fans span generations--not only those who watched it first run on NBC, but one generation after another who experienced it as a syndicated series (where it truly became a cultural phenomenon), and were among the masses Paramount was counting on to support Star Trek's move to the movies. The TOS movies were not going to succeed on 1960s fans alone.

 

Fine, include the folks who found it in the 70s. They're getting towards retirement age as well.

 

People under the age of 40 have lived in a world where TOS has never run widely on syndication while TNG was ubiquitous through the 90s and into the 00s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Didn't Worf shred any chance he ever had at a promotion to captain when he saved Jadzia instead of completing his mission in that one episode?   I would like to see some sort of cap on DS9. It was a

Just a couple things to add to this--   1. TOS is a pop culture icon in a way the later series were not. I'm a TNG guy, and despite them popular enough to get 7 seasons and 4 movies, they never hit th

Too tired to post the casting links and latest news, but they are easily googled.   Anyway, bottom line is we have yet more delays, we have some decent actors that have been cast including the walking

Posted Images

What difference does past availability make? It's all available on Netflix now. A person of any age can be introduced to TOS as easily as TNG. I wonder which of the Trek shows gets more streaming views.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What difference does past availability make?

 

It makes a rather large difference if TNG is running on TV for 3 hours every day in most markets and TOS isn't available at all back when there weren't as many channels. That was the state of Star Trek during its most mainstream phase.

 

Personally, I never saw most of the classic episodes of TOS until the Sci-Fi Channel started running the uncut 1.5 hour specials. By then, I was already an adult and TNG and DS9 were my formative Star Trek experiences. Before that, TOS was the movies and a handful of episodes that I saw during the 25th Anniversary. They just weren't available for me to watch because they were never on television.

 

That's going to be similar to the experience of most of us growing up in the 80s, 90s, and 00s until Netflix came around and leveled the playing field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

History does not agree with you. TOS fans span generations--not only those who watched it first run on NBC, but one generation after another who experienced it as a syndicated series (where it truly became a cultural phenomenon), and were among the masses Paramount was counting on to support Star Trek's move to the movies. The TOS movies were not going to succeed on 1960s fans alone.

 

Fine, include the folks who found it in the 70s. They're getting towards retirement age as well.

 

People under the age of 40 have lived in a world where TOS has never run widely on syndication while TNG was ubiquitous through the 90s and into the 00s.

 

 

TOS as a cultural phenomenon did not end with the 1st syndication generation in the 70s. New generations discovered it as TOS become a major hit for Paramount when released on home video starting in the early 80s, new prints were syndicated, all supporting the then-new wave of TOS-cast films in theatres. You seem to want to cut off TOS' influence on the franchise (and fanbase) when those who produced it do not, hence TNG bringing back TOS actors (Kelley, Doohan, Nimoy for the series and Shatner in the movie). Then, there's DS9--a series which (according to your theory) has an audience under 40, like TNG, yet one of its highest rated episodes was a TOS 30th anniversary tribute in "Trials and Trbble-ations".

 

Without question, ENT's TOS-centric "In a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter is often celebrated as that series' best episodes (echoed in Star Trek Magazine's 2006 poll), and again, this is a series with a much younger fanbase.

 

TOS has never failed to run in syndication around the world, nor has it missed any home media format since the 80s. Despite the questionable value of JJ-Trek, it says much that the reboot did not start with TNG-VOY. Similarly, Discovery is set only a few years before "The Cage"--meaning its influence would be anything suggested by TOS--not TNG-VOY.

 

This supports yesterday's post--if you walked down a street in Anytown, U.S.A. with an iPad filled with images from TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, you will find most will recognize TOS characters and plots more than the spin-offs. I would like to see the high recognition level of the spin-offs to the general public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TOS as a cultural phenomenon did not end with the 1st syndication generation in the 70s. New generations discovered it as TOS become a major hit for Paramount when released on home video starting in the early 80s, new prints were syndicated, all supporting the then-new wave of TOS-cast films in theatres.

 

VHS releases of television series in the 80s are pretty much the definition of a direct market. If you bought those, you were almost certainly already a fan.

 

 

 

You seem to want to cut off TOS' influence on the franchise (and fanbase) when those who produced it do not, hence TNG bringing back TOS actors (Kelley, Doohan, Nimoy for the series and Shatner in the movie).

 

I do not. TOS was obviously still high on the fanbase's mind back when TNG first came out. But that was 30 years ago. Nostalgia ages out eventually and the 30 and 40-somethings from the 1980s that were once the backbone of the fandom are now in their 60s and 70s and collecting social security. They are not likely to support a sci-fi franchise like they once did.

 

Now, the constant going back to TOS doesn't make any sense. Heck, it made more sense in 1987 to set the new series back around TOS than it does now.

 

 

 

This supports yesterday's post--if you walked down a street in Anytown, U.S.A. with an iPad filled with images from TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, you will find most will recognize TOS characters and plots more than the spin-offs. I would like to see the high recognition level of the spin-offs to the general public.

 

Perhaps now, but in the 00s before Abrams' Trek changed things up, the pop culture references were most certainly more towards the TNG side of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

TOS as a cultural phenomenon did not end with the 1st syndication generation in the 70s. New generations discovered it as TOS become a major hit for Paramount when released on home video starting in the early 80s, new prints were syndicated, all supporting the then-new wave of TOS-cast films in theatres.

 

VHS releases of television series in the 80s are pretty much the definition of a direct market. If you bought those, you were almost certainly already a fan.

 

 

 

You seem to want to cut off TOS' influence on the franchise (and fanbase) when those who produced it do not, hence TNG bringing back TOS actors (Kelley, Doohan, Nimoy for the series and Shatner in the movie).

 

I do not. TOS was obviously still high on the fanbase's mind back when TNG first came out. But that was 30 years ago. Nostalgia ages out eventually and the 30 and 40-somethings from the 1980s that were once the backbone of the fandom are now in their 60s and 70s and collecting social security. They are not likely to support a sci-fi franchise like they once did.

 

Now, the constant going back to TOS doesn't make any sense. Heck, it made more sense in 1987 to set the new series back around TOS than it does now.

 

 

 

This supports yesterday's post--if you walked down a street in Anytown, U.S.A. with an iPad filled with images from TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, you will find most will recognize TOS characters and plots more than the spin-offs. I would like to see the high recognition level of the spin-offs to the general public.

 

Perhaps now, but in the 00s before Abrams' Trek changed things up, the pop culture references were most certainly more towards the TNG side of things.

 

1. Star Trek (TOS) on home video would not have been the overwhelming success it was based on a single fanbase alone. The larger properties rely on the mass audience to be successful, a fact that applied to the TOS-movies.

 

2. Your: "TOS was obviously still high on the fanbase's mind back when TNG first came out. But that was 30 years ago. Nostalgia ages out eventually and the 30 and 40-somethings from the 1980s that were once the backbone of the fandom are now in their 60s and 70s and collecting social security"

 

A false conclusion that TOS' fanbase are only within a certain age range. Where is the evidence to support that statement? In reality, in 1987 (the year TNG made its debut), ST fans were counted among every age group, and its merchandising reflected that, hence the late 80s - 90s, when companies like Playmates made a mint off of TOS figures and playsets not meant for "adult collectors" but marketed to children, because in the 80s & 90s, TOS counted children among its fanbase, not just some mythical aging group.

 

Next: "They are not likely to support a sci-fi franchise like they once did."

 

Again, where is the evidence supporting this statement? In truth, Paramount/CBS continued to market TOS thanks to its mass audience appeal across generations. No studio is going to burn money decade after decade after decade on a property with a fading or insignificant level of audience appeal / ability to earn huge profits. The very age group you believe should be catered to for nostalgia of TNG (and by association, the rest of Berman-Trek) were also among the readers who--to bring this up again--voted (in a 2006 issue of Star Trek Magazine) ENT's TOS-centric "In a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter as the series' best episodes. By the time of ENT's final season, its fanbase--the younger one you often refer to--are the same who voted in that poll, picking a storyline eyebrow deep in all things TOS.

 

In 2013 (not ancient history), Time magazine had Kirk and Spock ranked among the 100 Most Influential People Who Never Lived. Not Picard and Riker. Not Sisko or Janeway, but Kirk and Spock. Says much.

 

 

While TOS is constantly sold repackaged or referred to in JJTrek & Discovery, ​Berman-Trek is not. TNG is now 31 years old. DS9 is 25. Voyager is 23, and ENT is 17. TNG, DS9 & VOY are now generations old, yet Paramount/CBS--well aware of the strengths of their property--has not based any new production on Berman-Trek. The reason is clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1. Star Trek (TOS) on home video would not have been the overwhelming success it was based on a single fanbase alone.

 

Series on VHS in the 80s isn't the same as DVD season sets in the 00s. Yes, they were mostly based on the fanbase alone.

 

 

 

A false conclusion that TOS' fanbase are only within a certain age range. Where is the evidence to support that statement?

 

Read the rest of my post.

 

 

 

Again, where is the evidence supporting this statement?

 

Where's the evidence to support that geriatrics aren't fueling ticket sales for big budget blockbusters? Take a look around a theater sometime.

 

 

 

While TOS is constantly sold repackaged or referred to in JJTrek & Discovery, ​Berman-Trek is not.

 

Yeah, my whole point was that this strategy was a mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you suppose there'd be an uproar about re-casting Picard et al. like there was for recasting Kirk and company? Because I don't. I don't think a TNG-era Trek reboot would generate a fraction of the interest that the current TOS era focus has generated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about an extension, not a reboot. If you must reboot, then starting at the beginning makes more sense.

 

Besides, in case you haven't noticed, the Star Trek franchise isn't doing all that well at the moment. Beyond may or may not have broken even and I don't know of a single person in real life who has seen Discovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Trek is doing as well as any 50+ year old franchise with 700+ episodes and 13 feature films can do. What exactly do you expect of the franchise? TOS itself didn't do "all that well" on its original run, barely getting a third season. "Not doing all that well" may as well be considered a feature of the Trek franchise at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Star Trek is doing as well as any 50+ year old franchise with 700+ episodes and 13 feature films can do.

 

Off the top of my head James Bond, Doctor Who, Mission: Impossible, and Planet of the Apes are all 50-year-old franchises with a lot of product in their past that are doing better financially and artistically than Star Trek right now.

 

And this is after they basically hollowed out the franchise to use the shell as a means for generating ticket sales.

 

 

 

What exactly do you expect of the franchise?

 

It'd be nice if it actually felt like Star Trek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple things to add to this--

 

1. TOS is a pop culture icon in a way the later series were not. I'm a TNG guy, and despite them popular enough to get 7 seasons and 4 movies, they never hit the same status as TOS. The catch phrases, the parodies, the pop art, the retro cool aspect-- that was purely TOS. That's why the reboot chose to go back to them-- to most recognizable and original version.

 

2. My kid has started to take in some Trek and TOS is hard for him-- he thinks it is "cringy" which is what kids Say now to refer to anything hokey or cheeseball. Anyone younger than my generation (I'm 43), unless they are a fan of it, aren't going to appreciate the camp of TOS. I had a similar issue trying to show my kid the 80s Transformer and GI Joe cartoons. He's been raised on things of a much better quality, he doesn't have the nostalgia. As he gets older the gemsnof the TOS may appeal to him if he becomes a fan, but beyond that it's never going to work for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • The Bond franchise has 24 films over the last 56 years, with another coming out soon, but with two significant breaks in releases (6 years between License to Kill and Goldeneye, and 4 years between Die Another Day and Casino Royale), with 6 different actors playing the role, and has a box office of over $7 billion so far. Whenever the producers want to raise interest in Bond again, they just need to recast the role.
  • Doctor Who has 840 episodes spread out over 55 years, with a sixteen year hiatus broken by only one failed pilot/movie, not to mention two non-canonical feature films, and four spin-off TV series. Same as Bond, when the ratings flag, they can just regenerate the character.
  • M:I has 171 TV episodes released over 7 seasons and as a film franchise has 6 films released over the last 22 years, with a box office of over $2.8 billion so far.
  • Planet of the Apes has 5 films, a 14-episode TV show, and a further 4 films (one of them a failed reboot) with a box office of $2.1 billion.
  • Star Trek has 740 episodes so far, spread out over 7 different TV series and 52 years, and 13 films spread out over 37 years (with a 7 year break caused by a poor performance of Star Trek: Nemesis at the box office), with a film revenue of $2.2 billion.

When Trek needed a revival, the producers went back to the most popular and recognizable era of the franchise. It worked, too. Nemesis was so bad that it killed any interest for further TNG era films or television series. Trek may not be doing as well as you would like, and maybe nu-Trek won't get a fourth film, but it's still up there with the M:I and PotA film franchises financially, and people keep making those. More importantly to the show business people, Trek, and the TOS era specifically, is much bigger than either of those franchises in terms of popular culture while still being lucrative. Doctor Who is the only one that has comparable staying power and pop culture relevance, but DW isn't a film and TV franchise.

 

As for not "feeling like Trek", well, nothing has felt like Trek to me since "The Cage", so there. I'm purer than you. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trek may not be doing as well as you would like, and maybe nu-Trek won't get a fourth film, but it's still up there with the M:I and PotA film franchises financially, and people keep making those.

 

The latest films from each of the franchises (save Doctor Who).

 

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation: $683 million. Budget: $150 million.

War for the Planet of the Apes: $491 million. Budget: $150 million.

Spectre: $881 million. Budget: $245 million (sheesh).

 

Star Trek Beyond: $343 million. Budget: $185 million.

 

Star Trek isn't up there with any of them. Like I said, it's a toss-up whether Beyond made or lost money. But being anywhere near the break-even point is a bad thing for a franchise suffering diminishing returns. The other three are clearly thriving franchises.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's why I admit there may not be a fourth nu-Trek film. But the franchise is still on TV, so it's not dead, because someone somewhere decided it's still profitable enough to keep going.

 

I expect they'll try another film at some point, too. I just don't think it'll be set in the 24th century or later. Star Trek: Nemesis made sure of that.

 

I was comparing the franchises' totals, and you're just comparing the latest installments. Apples and oranges. The next installment of any film franchise could tank. :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Do you suppose there'd be an uproar about re-casting Picard et al. like there was for recasting Kirk and company? Because I don't. I don't think a TNG-era Trek reboot would generate a fraction of the interest that the current TOS era focus has generated.

Sure, TOS has some 20 years more over TNG, and as a result has penetrated pop culture much further, but TNG is still fairly known in pop culture. Not as much as TOS, sure, but it is in pop culture. However, the further away we get from 2002, the less recognizable TNG becomes for younger people. I think the most recognizable figure would be Patrick Stewart out of that cast, and I think you can thank xmen in part for that. He may be Professor X to a lot of people under a certain age, but the fact he was also Picard is known by most of those people, too.

 

If you asked me that 10 years ago, I would have said you could NEVER recast Kirk, Spock, etc...hell, Han Solo for that matter. Now, not only have all of those characters been recast, Kirk (Generations, and STID for 5 minutes), Spock (Spock Prime in STB), and Han Solo (TFA) have also been killed off on screen. Something I nEVER thought would happen. So, yeah, I think it is entirely possible the TNG cast can be recast. I would not rule out the possibility, anyway. I think enough people know of TNG that a recast/reboot could happen, and I think there is enough pop culture recognition of TNG that there would be interest for it.

 

Whether they SHOULD BE is totally another matter, though. I for one, hope it won't happen, but given I've been down that road before, that probably makes it all the more likely to happen (EG, I never asked for Star Trek 2009, or Solo a Star Wars Story...and Especially Discovery)! Seems like the more I DON'T want something to happen, the more likely it is TO happen!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Yeah, that's why I admit there may not be a fourth nu-Trek film. But the franchise is still on TV, so it's not dead, because someone somewhere decided it's still profitable enough to keep going.

 

I expect they'll try another film at some point, too. I just don't think it'll be set in the 24th century or later. Star Trek: Nemesis made sure of that.

 

I was comparing the franchises' totals, and you're just comparing the latest installments. Apples and oranges. The next installment of any film franchise could tank. :shrug:

If TNG was rebooted and recast, I could see it in the form of either a story arc on Discovery, OR another TV/Web series.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I expect they'll try another film at some point, too. I just don't think it'll be set in the 24th century or later. Star Trek: Nemesis made sure of that.

 

Could have said a 23rd century reboot wasn't going to happen because Enterprise made sure of that.

 

24th century was more viable if they'd gone ahead and made an actual Star Trek series or movie in 2009. It would have made more sense for them to build on the much better established timeline with recency on its side and tried to revamp the flavor of the series beyond the TNG formula that we were promised Enterprise would move beyond but never got.

 

The thing is that the reboots aren't really Star Trek in any meaningful way. They're generic sci-fi blockbusters with Star Trek skins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enterprise was set in the 22nd century, and what do you know, they're not likely to make a movie set in that era either.

 

Star Trek is lots of things, but when it tried to be more sci-fi like in The Motion Picture, it just didn't perform well. When it became an action flick in a sci-fi setting with Wrath of Khan, it did better. So do you suppose the producers should ignore the formulas that work and focus on the difficult-to-please Trek fans with an artistic science fiction-y vision instead? Actually, that's something I want to know - what would be a good formula for a Star Trek film, or even a tv series, that would please you (Poe and Chalup)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Enterprise was set in the 22nd century, and what do you know, they're not likely to make a movie set in that era either.

 

Star Trek is lots of things, but when it tried to be more sci-fi like in The Motion Picture, it just didn't perform well. When it became an action flick in a sci-fi setting with Wrath of Khan, it did better. So do you suppose the producers should ignore the formulas that work and focus on the difficult-to-please Trek fans with an artistic science fiction-y vision instead? Actually, that's something I want to know - what would be a good formula for a Star Trek film, or even a tv series, that would please you (Poe and Chalup)?

For me personally, I think Star Trek works best as a series and not a movie. I am OK with action, but I would like more sci fi included, so that it is not just a straight action show.

 

Now I may be in the minority, but I was totally fine with the balance shows like TNG VOY DS9 and ENT found between action and sci fi. I like technobabble, at least to a point. I like seeing elements of real-world theories in the story like TNG used to do. I like moral dilemma and social commentary tales. But most of all, I like character development and story arcs, where each character has a progression or journey, where they change over the course of the story arc. However, I do NOT like negativity and overly grittiness in Star Trek the way Discovery presents. Star Trek should be hopeful and positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enterprise was set in the 22nd century

Fair enough. Point was a prequel was tried and failed.

 

 

 

Star Trek is lots of things, but when it tried to be more sci-fi like in The Motion Picture, it just didn't perform well. When it became an action flick in a sci-fi setting with Wrath of Khan, it did better.

 

Actually, The Motion Picture outgrossed The Wrath of Khan.

 

Beyond that, Khan was totally faithful to the concept of Trek. It was what ramping up a series to the big screen should be.

 

 

 

So do you suppose the producers should ignore the formulas that work and focus on the difficult-to-please Trek fans with an artistic science fiction-y vision instead?

 

Ignoring the formulas that "work" and focusing on the idea of Star Trek is what made it became a phenom in the first place!

 

And, I'll again point out, the formula isn't working very well for the movies.

 

 

 

Actually, that's something I want to know - what would be a good formula for a Star Trek film, or even a tv series, that would please you (Poe and Chalup)?

 

I'm pretty sure it's in this thread, but I'd be happy to just go back to a classic episodic series. There could be a few recurring elements and character progressions, but I think the folks who just want to sit down and watch one good episode of a series at a time are being underserved these days and the concept that was bleeding out a dozen years ago would be more fresh today.

 

Add in that I'm sure many science fiction writers would love to contribute stories to a classic Trek model, and I think it would be a fan, critical, and popular success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that gets me is that the Star Trek is so wide and diverse in its universe that they really could do anything— and yet because its base form was always people on a ship, they won’t break from it (DS9 didn’t break from it really, don’t try and say it did). Why not a Federation Spy show? Why not the Klingon show everyone has wanted for 30 years? Why not anAcademy show? There’s so many things they could do outside of a ship show.

 

They should do an anthology show and every season change it up completely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

The thing that gets me is that the Star Trek is so wide and diverse in its universe that they really could do anything— and yet because its base form was always people on a ship, they won’t break from it (DS9 didn’t break from it really, don’t try and say it did). Why not a Federation Spy show? Why not the Klingon show everyone has wanted for 30 years? Why not anAcademy show? There’s so many things they could do outside of a ship show.

 

They should do an anthology show and every season change it up completely.

I agree that Star Trek should not limit itself to just a ship setting.

 

The thing is there ARE examples where at least some of that was tried already. DS9 DID attempt to be the "space station show," at first. It really wasn't until the Defiant (was it season 3?) was introduced that they had something more than runabouts. Hell Sisko wasn't even a captain until season 3, either.

 

Federation spy elements appear starting with DS9 (Section 31), which was interesting, but wasn't used to great effect in Enterprise, or Star Trek Into Darkness. Then there was the Julian Bashir holodeck James Bond-like episodes. Espionage can be done interestingly, but it would definitely have to be a story arc show, and not episodic. Maybe a federation spy infiltrating Romulus would be pretty interesting.

 

Klingon based show? Well we got a LOT of the Klingons in TNG and DS9 especially, but I am not sure if there is enough interest for a show based on a Klingon crew or something like that. From what little I have seen or heard about Discovery, the Klingon scenes are a chore to get through. However, if it were a show where it was like the Riker klingon exchange program episode, but as a series, it might be interesting. You have to have a few humans in there, IMHO, because if you have too many Klingons, I think it might be hard for most people to stay with it.

 

Now what I really wanted was an anthology show, so I totally agree with you there. Each season could be its own story. One idea i had, and also actually had hoped discovery would be, is a series based on a ship. When I heard Discovery was going to be a prequel show, I had really hoped it would go something like this:

 

Season 1: Discovery would be a brand new ship. Show set around 15-20 years after the last episode of Enterprise, where Discovery was the latest ship replacing the NX. This season would have been the season we got to know the crew...maybe junior officers as the focus. Mix episodic exploration with a threat to the federation that begins as a mysterious alien species that are unseen by the feds and audience causing mischief on the outer skirts of fed space. We could see the final stages of the Federation solidifying, finishing the arc Enterprise started in season 4. We get occasional cameos (very sparingly!) with some Star Trek Enterprise alum (IE Admiral or President Archer, or Ambassador T'Pol?). The junior officers could have a story arc similar to Band of Brothers, where some stay on the ship, others go to different assignments but throughout the show, we have episodes centered around those characters at their new assignments

 

Season 2: A few years later, we see the junior officers in more senior positions, maybe one or 2 promoted to captain and first officer. We see the alien threat grow, and by the end of season 2, the aliens are revealed to be Romulans.

 

Season 3 & 4: full on war between the federation and Romulans. The audience gets to see the Romulans, but not the crew. The war concludes by the end of season 4. I would like to have seen both the feds and rommies hurt bad. Both sides have to rebuild. Maybe the Federation has strained internal relations between the founding members?

 

Season 5 : Never did figure out where the show should go after the end of the Earth-Romulan War, maybe more a show that deals with the aftermath of the war (IE allegory to the Marshall Plan, a cold war emerges between the Feds and KLingons, etc.

 

Season 6: set 10 years after season 5. Discovery (or whatever the hero ship is) is no longer state of the art, and beginning to show its age. Maybe even nearly obsolete but due to shortages, is still a ship of the line, but limitations become more apparent (I LOVED that aspect about BSG making it clear the Galactica was slated to be a museum ship, but was pressed into service out of necessity). Maybe a new threat emerges, and the Federation, even 10 years after the war, is still struggling with rebuilding, and shortage of resources. Klingons become bolder and skirmishes start.

 

Season 7: set another 10-15 years later. Some remaining crew members are winding down their careers, and the show concludes with the decommissioning of the hero ship. Maybe even introducing very young versions of characters we see in TOS at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Star Trek (TOS) on home video would not have been the overwhelming success it was based on a single fanbase alone.

 

Series on VHS in the 80s isn't the same as DVD season sets in the 00s. Yes, they were mostly based on the fanbase alone.

 

 

 

A false conclusion that TOS' fanbase are only within a certain age range. Where is the evidence to support that statement?

 

Read the rest of my post.

 

 

 

Again, where is the evidence supporting this statement?

 

Where's the evidence to support that geriatrics aren't fueling ticket sales for big budget blockbusters? Take a look around a theater sometime.

 

 

 

While TOS is constantly sold repackaged or referred to in JJTrek & Discovery, ​Berman-Trek is not.

 

Yeah, my whole point was that this strategy was a mistake.

 

1. No fanbase alone makes a home video release the major success TOS was. Franchise success of TOS' magnitude is never limited to a core fanbase--it always requires the average audiences' interest. Paramount did not attempt Phase II, then The Motion Picture thinking of "Trekkers" alone; they were well aware that TOS was a cultural phenomenon reaching far more than the "Trekkers", die-hards or whatever name one can hang on that group.

 

2. The rest of your post on age ranges is--again--based on a false conclusion. A franchise cannot become a multigenerational hit with fans that age-out and only relies on some mythincal young-only audience.

 

3.. "Yeah, my whole point was that this strategy was a mistake." The three JJTrek films earned over a billion worldwide. That was only going to happen with the appeal of the franchise's most popular characters, all from TOS.

 

Again, there's a reason TOS has always left its Berman spinoffs in the cultural dust, why Time Magazine selected Kirk and Spock among their "most influential who never lived" list, why JJTrek and Discovery were set in or around the TOS era, and no producer is willing to do the same with Berman Trek. Next to no one cares about a steadily fading group of 1980s/90s shows that have failed to set a lasting legacy in the stone that is global popular culture.

 

Even the most celebrated, media-covered fan films are set in the TOS era. The same cannot and never will be said of Berman Trek. Its greatest effort--TNG--had a 20th, then 30th anniversary with no mainstream media coverage or series analyisis. TOS certainly had that at 20, 40 and 50.

 

That's why producers still fly straight to all things TOS. They follow the profitable will of the audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...