View Single Post
  #617  
Old 08-25-2010, 11:52 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
INS and NEM were financial failures, VOY and ENT probably weren't that successful either so when an eleventh movie was discussed I don't think that anyone considered a 24th century timeframe as serious option.
As far as I know TOS and TNG are still by far the two most popular series and, I am not sure about this, in the US TOS might be more popular (whereas for example over here in Germany I am pretty sure that TNG is more popular because the German translation of TOS is so horrible). That's why I think that a TOS movie was the obvious way to go and gladly it worked quite well.
Now THAT is interesting, and enlightening if true.

I think maybe TOS 'speaks' to a kind of gung-ho "let's go in there and fix" mentality that we like to see as being part of our heritage. The so-called 'American Way' and all that wonderful stuff. I don't claim to share that view myself, although I love it for the swashbuckling and the energy. But it's also been categorized as a western, and whatever all that implies.

In my college years, it seemed that TOS was considered campy, dated and uncool. I don't know if it was just the production values, or if it was students consciously wanting to appear politically knowledgeable by finding issue with its gender and social themes. Star Trek in general became 'uncool' again after TNG went off the air, although FC temporarily reversed that trend.

I think it's a generational thing, that now the pendulum has swung back to TOS. I doubt most non-fans were really that 'aware' of the continuous spin-offs being made, other than that ST was just as nerdy as they'd heard, that it was still being produced in 'some' form or other (like Law and Order or CSI) and that it simply refused to die already. I don't think they knew that it had in fact finally died for several years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I confess I'm a little confused here - but I might be reading you too literally.

If one is considering a setting for a series - what really makes setting a series in the future any more or less creative than setting it alongside or before any of the other series either.

That didn't seem to work for ENT until it was post-cancellation, it didn't help when DS9 and VOY were concurrent and yet it's also not going to help putting it ahead and leapfrogging?

What you're talking about introducing would have nothing to do with the setting strictly, it seems. You seek someone who would come in and actually run the show in a totally different manner to what has gone before. Which is fine, but I don't see where one setting over another would itself guarantee anything.
My bad.

It's not the setting that's the problem, it's the approach. Create a starship, sketch out seven people, make two of them aliens, one of them a half-breed (sorry!), one of them an observer of the human condition, and then give them all names.

To me we've been there. Most viewers outside of 'hardcore' fandom would't know whether it was the same producers or not, they'd just see that ST was doing it again. The pilot would rate higher than most of ENT, but not as high as the ENT pilot. Which of course didn't rate as high as the VOY pilot before that. Which of course...

Maybe a better-directed series might've taken hold, but my feeling is all the feasible options had been squandered and exhausted. Even TNG was now too far back on the rear horizon. Not a bad time for it to dawn on studio execs that, for all the 'nerdiness' in ST, A high-budget commercial film with cultural legends Kirk and Spock had never actually been explored.
__________________

Reply With Quote