Is Star Trek Dying?
- Thread starter Wakeem
- Start date
Cephus
Master Member
Same here. I was born a couple of months after TOS started. As far as I'm concerned, Star Trek ended in 1973. I don't need anything since and generally, am not a huge fan. In fact, the only reason I saw as much of TNG as I have is because a girlfriend's father was a fanatic and it was on nearly 24/7 at their house. It's just too neon for me. Never cared about Picard at all. We had a watch party when Voyager premiered and by the time the first episode was half-way done, absolutely nobody was watching it. I try each show and get bored with it and go back to TOS. It's all I care about.
That's really the problem, and it is a problem that happens throughout most ongoing franchises these days. The writers aren't writing Trek. They are writing whatever they want to write and then draping a thin veneer of Trek over it. They neither like nor understand Trek, just like Disney neither likes nor understands Star Wars. They figure the name will sell the drek and they're wrong.
I managed to make it through the first season of STD. I tried. I couldn't take it. It was that bad. I watched the first season of SNW. Also couldn't do it. These are not Star Trek. They are not written by, or acted in, by people who love the franchise. If they don't love it then I won't love it. Hard pass.
It's been trapped by people who don't want to make Star Trek, but do their own thing and pretend it's Star Trek. It isn't Star Trek though. There is no life to it. I retired from the convention circuit a long time ago, but I agree. The people who care are getting old (or are plain old) and the people that they're making the new shows for, they don't bother to show up at all. In fact, they don't bother to watch at all, which is why the ratings are consistently low. They are no longer making shows that anyone wants to watch. That's fine. I don't watch them.
finalfrontier
Well-Known Member
Lightning
Master Member
That is simply untrue. SNW is clearly a product of people who are fans, both in front and behind the camera. If you don't share their taste that's fine but besmirching their motives like that is uncalled for.
asalaw
Sr Member
I have to disagree--I like the Remastered Edition. I have the BluRay disks and streaming versions, as well as the original DVD-resolution versions. In HD, the original effects are unwatchably bad. The grain, the matte lines, the holes in the mattes of the ship, all just look awful. When I want to see TOS warts and all, I can watch that in standard def on my iPad, and it looks fine. But on a big screen, I like the Remastered Edition much better. Plus it's fun to play "Spot the Tiny Okudas" in various episodes.
Bloop
Sr Member
I agree, and they didn't try to go too far with it, though I guess some may disagree. I also like the director's cut of ST:TMP, which also had updated effects, but they tried to match them to the existing movie. I think it was in the supplemental materials of the DVD that I watched a featurette on the effects. They explained why and how they made the change.sI have to disagree--I like the Remastered Edition. I have the BluRay disks and streaming versions, as well as the original DVD-resolution versions. In HD, the original effects are unwatchably bad. The grain, the matte lines, the holes in the mattes of the ship, all just look awful. When I want to see TOS warts and all, I can watch that in standard def on my iPad, and it looks fine. But on a big screen, I like the Remastered Edition much better. Plus it's fun to play "Spot the Tiny Okudas" in various episodes.
Like replacing the matte painting of Vulcan because their sun is shining brightly on the avtors, yet the matte painting showed a dark sky, and completing the statue of the figure - the practical scene shows two large feet, but the matte painting chops it off at the legs.
I think they also used an older mac desktop computer to replace the shuttle craft flying and landing at Starfleet (I think), in part to match the older look of the movie. And they used cg to beyter match the terrain surrounding V'ger in the long shot at end.
Last edited:
asalaw
Sr Member
I didn't care for the TMP director's cut. The VFX were fine, but I disliked the new edit and the new sound mix. I've ranted about it at length elsewhere on this board (which thread escapes my memory at the moment) so I won't belabor it here, but I do prefer my 4K edition of the theatrical cut. They removed the pipe stand from the shot of the E leaving dry dock, and that's all that really bugged me about the film anyway.
Cephus
Master Member
I don't buy it for a second. Anyone can say they're a fan. It's when they PROVE it, by making shows that actually pay homage to and are in line with the originals, that matters.
We can all clearlyy see where this is headed. Everyone knows the new stuff doesn't even somewhat resemble the original. To argue that you like the new stuff does not answer that question or add to that debate or discussion, you are just saying you like the new stuff where the majority of all people currently breathing do not. The ratings clearly show that. Saying you like it does not increase the ratings nor change the scale. When someone says the new stuff is written by people who are not fans of the original, that too is readily apparent not only in its complete dissimilarity to the original but because JJ ACTUALLY SAID THIS OUT LOUD. We have all seen the recording. To say that all the people who like the new stuff are Trek fans is just word games because we already defined Trek fans as those that like original Trek, it is the actual theme of the entire conversation. To attempt to say that is wrong because those that like the new stuff .... like the new stuff, is again, just word games. We are sick of word games, propaganda and misuse of IP for personal attacks on the previous fanbase. But here we are at the final push where I state openly, the use of jargon like "uncalled for" and similar engagement controlling language is destructive and seen as a personal attack on those having an opinion different than your own. I don't think anyone in the thread, anyone, was somehow confused that the term Fan meant of the original and or those shortly after the original. Telling others how they can or can't talk while discussing the topic at hand is violence, pure and simple.
I am drowning in the overwhelming expressions of apreciation and understanding of “what Star Trek is” by the makers of SNW.
They totally grok it…
Lightning
Master Member
Goldsman was going to Trek conventions in the 70s.
What ratings? Its not on TV, its locked behind a subscription service. What we do have is multiple appearances on Neisens top 10 weekly streaming list and 300 million minutes viewed in the week of release.
For the record I don't like Discovery, but I do very much like SNW and Lower Decks. Prodigy is good and Picard had issues.
Yep, here we are once again, where we have to listen to someone gatekeeping on what the definition of a fan is.
Got news for you guys: a fan is a fan because they say they are. Period. Just because they don't adhere to three old seasons of what was originally very low-ratings TV doesn't mean you get to imperiously rule on who is and isn't.
Judge the bad writing. Judge the agendas. Judge the poor acting and storytelling, and design choices. Judge the music, the effects, anything factually you like.
But stay the **** out of people's hearts and minds. No one is obligated to prove **** to you.
Got news for you guys: a fan is a fan because they say they are. Period. Just because they don't adhere to three old seasons of what was originally very low-ratings TV doesn't mean you get to imperiously rule on who is and isn't.
Judge the bad writing. Judge the agendas. Judge the poor acting and storytelling, and design choices. Judge the music, the effects, anything factually you like.
But stay the **** out of people's hearts and minds. No one is obligated to prove **** to you.
I must disagree…
I don’t mean to brag, and I only rarely reveal this…
But I am the recipient of a Star Trek The Official Fan Club Membership Kit, complete with a “Mr. Worf PEZ Dispenser” and “Wash of Khan” soap bar. Oh, the stories I could tell about the doors that have opened for me and the tables I have sat at when I flash my official membership card…
Until someone produces these important credentials, they are no fan.
Last edited:
Here's my way of looking at it:
I love the TOS (and especially TOS movies) like no one else I know IRL.
But I say, let there be dancing Klingons, and let there be Vulcan logic in the genes. No one's making you watch it, but I am not a lesser fan than you are. And neither is Akiva Goldsman.
Rant over. Sorry guys.
Last edited:
I've seen the cabinet of curiosities, heck, I follow the thread. The cabinet is proof enough that your level of eclectic is legendary but and I say this with all respect, not indicative of the quality of current trek just a testament to your ability to enjoy variety. Let me muddy the view even more with this fine example: I love Drake and Josh, Zack and Cody and the entire cast of iCarly BUT that doesn't mean that I don't see that iCarly is the most bigoted show Disney has produced in decades. It is funny, quirky, hits on all cylinders for the cast performances and delivers one liners that have become part of my family lore: "Why are you asking me, Dora? You are the explorer. You have the map!!!" ..... BUT.... it is still terribly racist, sexist, age biased and just plainly bigoted. If you caught on to "that has nothing to do with the convo", then you have grasped my point. The convo thread wasn't about is it possible to create something unrelated and yet entertaining, it was "Is Trek Dead?" and the answer was already provided by the undeniable separation of old and new and JJ actually saying it out loud so that it really couldn't be denied, "I wasn't really a fan when I was a kid...." so he wrote something else instead which then became the montra of all that followed. I mean this isn't new info. The definition was fan of the old not fan of anything titled Trek because that means I can KK and JJ my way into destroying decades of canon by just pushing out enough new stuff under the same franchise title and now there is no going back, no recovery and we can continue to confuse fan of what. And as always the "you don't have to watch it" is exactly what we already covered. We are not watching it and it is bankrupting because the audience is gone. It isn't about the fact that people didn't have the brain capacity to realize they were not being forced to watch it so I am having a hard time understanding why that line continues to be used. Nope, not forced, and NOT watching, thus the conversation about its death. But that rabbit hole was not my intent at all nor was my rant above. My rant was directed at the obvious moves to bring in communication shaming which always ends up being a backdoor reason to call on mods to get people ejected and topics shutdown because they can't handle someone having a different opinion. If we need to go back to why the term FAN of new trek does not mean the same thing as FAN of old trek while there are some that fall on being a fan of both, we have again ignored everything that was already said many times. If it makes it easier to comprehend we can start using quotes, "fan of old trek, including TOS, (insert your favorites here)" because when someone says fan of trek and we wander off talking about what the word fan means and I am an SW fan so don't tell me I'm not a fan is to purposely ignore the point that what was really being said is the new looks nothing like the old, seems to be never coming back around and because of that is not likely to survive the next budget stock holder's meeting.but.....I like it too...
SSR
Well-Known Member
Is Star Trek Dying ?
For myself, and only speaking for myself, the answer is clearly Yes.
Having watched it since the early 70s it seems I have changed and the world has changed.
I have really wanted to see a true continuation of the original series - similar sets / costumes - it doesn't have to be original characters it is a big universe afterall. Some things about TOS are now somewhat awkward - times do change - having a womanizing starship Captain would just remind me of the Austin Power/James Bond comparison. I also think (again - just me) that the world is a much darker place that the hopeful 60s that the original series developed in.
I've watched bits and pieces of the various incarnations over the years and liked some episodes but never had a following for any of the shows. After Enterprise I gave up even watching the odd episode. When the new Star Trek movies came out I realized I'm just not the target market anymore and stopped following altogether. I have friends who watch the new stuff and like it; that's great - but not for me.
As for your comments about Forbidden Planet and Hawaii Five-O I'm glad you have discovered both. You can tell that Roddenbery was taking notes from the 50s classic. As for the original Five-O it was always well written. Some of the production is not upto today's standards, but I think that was more the state of the film industry in Hawaii at the time - they were trail blazers.
Five-O has some interesting Trek connections, not least of which is that Jack Lord was one of the people considered for Capt. Kirk.
Both John DF Black and Stephen Kandel wrote episodes of Five-O. Marc Daniels directed two episodes. Many of the Guest Stars from TOS made appearances on the show and William Shatner appeared in an episode himself. Enjoy.
For me it runs the other way. When a show gets remade it makes me think about watching the original.
Remakes are often crappy. But the fact that they tried remaking the original is a vote in favor of it. The original might not be high-quality by modern standards, but there was something memorable about it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
