Our fandom is dying and it's not JJ's fault or Paramount's fault or CBS' fault. It's our fault...as a whole. We don't welcome in new fans. We don't direct fans of the new movies to check out the series...we berate them for not being True Fans.
Hogwash. If I like something, whether it's a movie, TV show, music, or novel, it's because I like and enjoy the material.
I can't care less for being "welcomed" by some nebulous "community" of other fans, no less the few people on the forum of an IP-related video game.
Our fandom is dying and it's not JJ's fault or Paramount's fault or CBS' fault. It's our fault...as a whole. We don't welcome in new fans. We don't direct fans of the new movies to check out the series...we berate them for not being True Fans.
Hogwash. If I like something, whether it's a movie, TV show, music, or novel, it's because I like and enjoy the material.
I can't care less for being "welcomed" by some nebulous "community" of other fans, no less the few people on the forum of an IP-related video game.
1. That's your point of view, and you're welcome to it.
2. Consider how Star Trek fans are typically portrayed in popular media; a militant, fanatical, cult-like group who are obsessed with TOS. You don't think this is possibly reflected in sections of the actual community? You sure this doesn't have some influence of people's opinion of the franchise itself (such as people who watch The Simpsons, for example)? (Until the new films, anyway...)
90%+ of the people that saw the jj-verse movies do not play STO, and will never have any reason to come to the forums here. So if 100% of us loved the reboot and we all sat around singing Kumbaya, that would influence those new fans how?
90%+ of the people that saw the jj-verse movies do not play STO, and will never have any reason to come to the forums here. So if 100% of us loved the reboot and we all sat around singing Kumbaya, that would influence those new fans how?
I fail to see what that has to do with my post. I was speaking of the Star Trek community as a whole (and it's portrayal in popular media), not just the STO community. Please read my post again. The issue has never been how the STO community recieves new fans, it's how the Star Trek fanbase as a whole is percieved.
Also, your statement is inherently false, as most of us here have seen the JJ Trek films and do play STO (or are you suggesting we are all criticising JJ Trek without actually having watched it?).
90%+ of the people that saw the jj-verse movies do not play STO, and will never have any reason to come to the forums here. So if 100% of us loved the reboot and we all sat around singing Kumbaya, that would influence those new fans how?
I wasn't just talking about these boards
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Consider how Star Trek fans are typically portrayed in popular media; a militant, fanatical, cult-like group who are obsessed with TOS.
Err, fanatical yes, cult-like maybe, but "militant"? And I've not seen any emphasis of TOS exclusive fans in any media coverage; if anything it's more the TNG and later crowd.
The media coverage of Trekkies, whether lined up for a movie or in the conventions, typically focuses on those in the elaborate costumes to play up the nerd factor. No different than the Star Wars fans with their new movie coming out.
Please read my post again. The issue has never been how the STO community recieves new fans, it's how the Star Trek fanbase as a whole is percieved.
Are you saying the JJ movies suddenly made Trek a "hip" thing and took away all the stigma of decades of nerdiness? If so then I'm not sure that's true.
Also, your statement is inherently false, as most of us here have seen the JJ Trek films and do play STO (or are you suggesting we are all criticising JJ Trek without actually having watched it?).
No, I'm saying of the millions that watched those movies, the numbers playing STO are but a small fraction. My real point was the STO forum, which doesn't even represent a majority of that small player base, is irrelevant to and hence has no impact on 90%+ of any new Star Trek fan.
OK, can you elaborate on where is this "Star Trek community" that is generally unwelcoming and "berates new fans"?
Other boards, Facebook groups...conventions...these have been my experience. I see it to an extent here. However my point was directed to Trekkers as a whole...and it's not just fans of the reboot movies but all the various series
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Consider how Star Trek fans are typically portrayed in popular media; a militant, fanatical, cult-like group who are obsessed with TOS.
Err, fanatical yes, cult-like maybe, but "militant"? And I've not seen any emphasis of TOS exclusive fans in any media coverage; if anything it's more the TNG and later crowd.
The media coverage of Trekkies, whether lined up for a movie or in the conventions, typically focuses on those in the elaborate costumes to play up the nerd factor. No different than the Star Wars fans with their new movie coming out.
I should make it clearer: when I say 'popular media', I don't mean news broadcasters; I mean popular TV shows like The Simpsons (which I know had at least one episode where a Sci-Fi convention went full riot, although that was due to Star Wars fans, not Trekkies) and Futurama (which had an entire plot for an episode based around ST and SW being made illegal because of a war between Star Trek and Star Wars Fans). Other TV shows have made similar jabs. Even though we know they're stereotypes played up for the sake of comedy, if you haven't been pre-exposed to the fanbase these do have an impact on your perception of it. I know that because I had to take it at school (I turned 18 this year).
Also, no, I'm not saying JJ Trek made Trek 'Hip' again, but we have seen a massive increase of interest in the franchise since the new films; as I said, my friend got into Star Trek thanks to the new films, and my elder Sister (who used to regular ridicule me for being a Trekkie) watched ID because Star Trek was popular and being a 'Geek' was the new Chav, or Goth (i.e. 'what the cool kids are doing now'.), by her own admission.
On your final point, I say that because the way your original post didn't distinguish between fans who had only seen JJ Trek first and those like many of us, who were already fans. And while these boards don't indicate the majority of Trek fans by any means, it was never restricted to these boards - we were talking about the Trek fanbase in its entirety (like I said, I've encountered fans who are extremely intolerant of anything after TOS on Facebook and other Social Media). Also, while I agree most people who watched the JJ films don't play STO, most of those people aren't 'fans'. I went to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon in cinemas, but I'm not a fan of that film (or the Transformers film series as a whole). I'd consider myself a James Bond fan, but so would most adult male Britons who watch action films - it's sort of a national phenomenon. I wouldn't call myself a fan of Spider-Man 3 or Star Wars: Episode III, even though I watched both of those in cinemas. The majority of movie-goers don't become attached to that particular film. Of those who did become fans of JJ Trek, I agree a majority of them don't play STO, but then not everyone who plays STO has ever watched a Star Trek episode (I know at least one person who played STO despite not actually liking Star Trek).
Disney is taking a chance on him starting their new Star Wars franchise. They don't seem to be concerned...
Why would they be concerned? Star Wars isn't Disney's only revinue stream... Even if the next movie is complete trash, they'll likely recoup the cost of buying out Lucas from the first release ticket sales and merch...
especially since he turned the job down a few times and had to be convinced by Spielberg to take the job.
Which answers, indirectly, my point about Lucas and Spielberg, their clique of buddies, and their 'behind the scenes' chats, which would have been way before news of the new movie was released to the general public...
The reason why I ask you to name something he produced is because that shows you just how much power he has. Which is next to nothing. Nepotism is in Hollywood but not as much as you think it is. However you have no real proof that his father got him all his gigs.
No it doesn't. Not at all. It just means the guy is not a household name. I couldn't tell you who produced Dire Straits, or David Bowie, but I'd consider it a safe bet that those people have clout in the music industry. Again, forty plus years in the industry. The guy would know people... I may not have Proof that that's how JJ got his gigs, but it's hardly wild speculation...
The point in your example is you loathe and hate polka and watercolor style of tattoos. At no time did JJ ever say he hated Star Trek. He said he was more of a Star Wars fan. He read the script and it appealed to him as a non-trekkie.
You're missing the point I was trying to make... The point was not about how much I may hate those tattoo styles, or that JJ never said he 'hated' Star Trek. The point was, that I would not be envious of a tattoo artist who executed tattoos in styles I was not interested in, but JJ was quoted as saying that he would have been jealous of someone directing Star Trek, so he just had to do it. As I said before, JJ lies, so I take much of that with a pinch of salt, but even if he was being honest, the statement itself, is illogical. If he had no interest in the franchise, why would he be jealous of someone directing a film? A friend of mine specialises in cartoon/anime inspired tattoos. When he posts stuff up, I might give a polite congratulation, but mostly, I just think that it's not something I would even want to do. All I'm saying, is that, analysed beyond soundbyte/quotability depth, the comment actually makes no sense for a professional in any industry...
The Disney buyout of Lucasfilm was very secretive that when it was announced it caught a lot of people off guard. I work in Hollywood and I can tell you no one saw that coming.
Well, I'll certainly bow to your experience, but I find it hard to believe (that no one knew it was coming)
Your experience is actually proof that you have to keep putting out new products. You don't think the reason the network you were watching aired a Mad Max marathon was because a new movie was coming out? It's the same reason why a new Mad Max box set came out around the same time as the movie did.
To be honest, no, I don't... There was no information released about Fury Road for quite some time after I first watched the movies, and the marathon wasn't on one of the large networks (I actually can't remember which network it was on, something like movie classics...) It wasn't even advertised as a feature, it just happened to be scheduled. It had been scheduled a few times before, and has been scheduled a few times since, it's just that on that occasion, utterly coincidentally, I chose to watch, and liked what I saw... Equally, I never saw a new Mad Max box set advertised or released when Fury Road was released. That's not to say that there wasn't, just that I never saw advertising for it. So again, new products, had absolutely no impact on my exposure to the franchise, and play no part in my appreciation for it, because I don't look on Fury Road as something I want to watch.
As I said do you think there would be so many Star Trek fans now if there was only TOS?
'So many' is a bit of a misleading criteria, because a new release will always attract a certain amount of new audience, so I'm not going to answer in the negative and lose the point. Instead, I will make this counter-question which I feel is more accurate: Do you think that if there was only TOS, those fans would have 'lost interest' by now?
In the time between Nemesis and Enterprise, and then before STO, I never stopped liking Star Trek. I may have not enjoyed Voyager as much as I enjoyed Deep Space Nine, and I might have thought that Enterprise was (barring a frew good episodes) basicly TRIBBLE, and a viewable spectable of Brannon Braga's continued descent into hackery (which began about the time he wrote M:I-2, and the Chimera virus was an obvious redress of the Borg nanoprobes) but I still considered myself a fan of Star Trek. Had there been another Star Trek exhibition or convention in my area in those timeframes, I would still have wanted to attend. Babylon 5 hasn't released anything new in well over a decade, but I'm still a fan of the series, and interract with some of the cast via social media. And even in that example, I would still have a soft spot for Claudia Christian, even if we'd never spoken online, simply because I always thought she was a smart, beautiful woman. I consider myself a fan of Gerry Anderson's UFO (not to the extent of my engagement with Trek, but more than 'casual viewing') but there hasn't been anything new from that in who knows how long, and the episodes are still engaging and entertaining to watch, hence why I so utterly reject the notion that new releases are necessary to retain a fan-base. Good material is what creates a fandom and franchise...
'So many' is a bit of a misleading criteria, because a new release will always attract a certain amount of new audience, so I'm not going to answer in the negative and lose the point. Instead, I will make this counter-question which I feel is more accurate: Do you think that if there was only TOS, those fans would have 'lost interest' by now?
In the time between Nemesis and Enterprise, and then before STO, I never stopped liking Star Trek. I may have not enjoyed Voyager as much as I enjoyed Deep Space Nine, and I might have thought that Enterprise was (barring a frew good episodes) basicly TRIBBLE, and a viewable spectable of Brannon Braga's continued descent into hackery (which began about the time he wrote M:I-2, and the Chimera virus was an obvious redress of the Borg nanoprobes) but I still considered myself a fan of Star Trek. Had there been another Star Trek exhibition or convention in my area in those timeframes, I would still have wanted to attend. Babylon 5 hasn't released anything new in well over a decade, but I'm still a fan of the series, and interract with some of the cast via social media. And even in that example, I would still have a soft spot for Claudia Christian, even if we'd never spoken online, simply because I always thought she was a smart, beautiful woman. I consider myself a fan of Gerry Anderson's UFO (not to the extent of my engagement with Trek, but more than 'casual viewing') but there hasn't been anything new from that in who knows how long, and the episodes are still engaging and entertaining to watch, hence why I so utterly reject the notion that new releases are necessary to retain a fan-base. Good material is what creates a fandom and franchise...
If there was only TOS I don't think fans would lose interest....maybe some will. However TNG brought in new fans. That's why there was a DS9 and a Voyager and a Enterprise...because there was new fans and a new desire to see new variations on Star Trek. Also just because you didn't lose interest in Star Trek doesn't mean other people won't.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Can I just ask everyone slamming this based on Kurtzman's roll to actually look at his record? ST:09 and ID were co-written with Orci and overseen by Abrams. Kurtzman's solo shows have been successes (Hawaii 5-0 is a show that, while I don't make a point of watching, impressed me when I did watch it) and in any case he's not writing this series. He's the Executive Producer, which means he's overseeing it, not necessarily taking a major hand in it. He'll lay out a direction for, sure, but there are no indications so far that he will interfere with those who do write it like Berman and Braga did with Voyager and Enterprise.
I'll have to wait for it anyway because I live in the UK (and there's no guarantee it'll be on an easily accessible platform over here either), but I'm going to at least give it the chance.
I'm perfectly willing to give the new series a look when it comes out, but when it comes down to it, I simply don't think the Trek franchise needs another series. I do acknowledge there are areas of the fandom that want another series, however... I agree and acknowledge that Kurtzman's solo shows have been succeses, but in my opinion, he is tainted by 09 and Into Darkness, so he is not someone who I personally would have considered as EP. I can see why his name would be considered, because of his attachment to the recent movies, but he is not the person I would have chosen. In fact, I don't really know who I would have chosen, other than it not being JJ, Orci, Kurtzman or the other guy who's name escapes me right now...
'So many' is a bit of a misleading criteria, because a new release will always attract a certain amount of new audience, so I'm not going to answer in the negative and lose the point. Instead, I will make this counter-question which I feel is more accurate: Do you think that if there was only TOS, those fans would have 'lost interest' by now?
No, but those fans are now in their 50s at the least (no offence to the more veteran fans here) and that means that the fan base would have been unable to survive the next few decades without new intake and, quite frankly, TOS is not a good TV show by today's standards. I can appreciate it because: a) I'm a Trekkie, but I was exposed to Star Trek through TNG, and even then only the collector's DVDs released in the early 2000s; and b) I hate a lot of the new tropes of modern telly (namely the focus on dark and gritty or light and goofy). The fan-base's numbers do, to an extent, represent how well a franchise is surviving. If there was only TOS, I doubt Star Trek would be as popular as it was in the '80s and '90s and I doubt we would have gotten the remastered box sets or even any DVD release.
If TOS had been all there was, the fanbase would be dying out - literally. I was a baby when the show premiered; one of my earliest memories is of watching the Enterprise glide across the image of a planet that looked like my dad's bowling ball. My 52nd birthday was about a month and a half ago. The movies caused a brief spark of interest, but other than TWoK, they seem to have been watched only by the old-school Trekkies. TNG was what brought the franchise back, and that was despite all the old guys proclaiming that it "wasn't really Star Trek", and that "true fans" hated it.
(Which by the way reminds me - yes, the "militant and unwelcoming fan" image is a part of popular culture, as evinced by an article I've seen pushed this past week on both Yahoo! and Facebook purporting to explain why "real Star Trek fans" all hate the new movies. I guess that means I'm not a "real fan", because I thought the '09 movie was very much in the spirit of TOS, and my problems with STID have to do with plot holes and the misuse of existing science in the opening sequence, not because I thought it "betrayed" anything.)
If TOS had been all there was, the fanbase would be dying out - literally. I was a baby when the show premiered; one of my earliest memories is of watching the Enterprise glide across the image of a planet that looked like my dad's bowling ball. My 52nd birthday was about a month and a half ago. The movies caused a brief spark of interest, but other than TWoK, they seem to have been watched only by the old-school Trekkies. TNG was what brought the franchise back, and that was despite all the old guys proclaiming that it "wasn't really Star Trek", and that "true fans" hated it.
(Which by the way reminds me - yes, the "militant and unwelcoming fan" image is a part of popular culture, as evinced by an article I've seen pushed this past week on both Yahoo! and Facebook purporting to explain why "real Star Trek fans" all hate the new movies. I guess that means I'm not a "real fan", because I thought the '09 movie was very much in the spirit of TOS, and my problems with STID have to do with plot holes and the misuse of existing science in the opening sequence, not because I thought it "betrayed" anything.)
I thought I was the only one to remember that the 'true fans' hated TNG.
I too am an older fan. As much as I love TOS if that was all there was I probably would have moved on to other things...being that irritating guy on message boards "They should do another Star Trek".
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Look, I bow to few in my love of all things Trek (except the last two TNG films, they both sucked as Trek, as movies, and as SF). And I am willing to state unequivocally that until Star Wars came out and sent every other studio scrambling to ride its coattails, Star Trek was as dead as any redshirt. It wasn't until someone at Paramount said, "Hey, don't we already have a space property we can exploit?", that TMP even became a possibility (and it was cobbled together out of scripts written when Paramount had plans to launch a new TV network in the mid-'70s, and were going to use Star Trek Phase II as one of their anchors). More movies were made subsequently - and after the second one, viewership began to decline. Then a new series was launched, and roundly castigated by old-school Trekkies as a terrible pastiche of everything they'd loved about the old show. Four years later, another new series premiered, and was mocked by TNG fans because of its violence, dark tone, and acceptance of spiritual concepts as fit subjects for Star Trek. And so forth.[/i]
This franchise requires new series to create new fans. Without new fans, this will fall into TV history alongside Dr. Kildare and Gunsmoke. Movies aren't going to cut it, either - you think $6 is too much to pay to watch four episodes at home, at times convenient for you? Then why do you imagine the franchise can thrive when each new story costs better than $10 and can only be viewed in particular buildings (that is to say, movie theaters) on a fixed schedule?
I appreciate that my experience may be different, but I simply never experienced that experience at all... When TNG was released, I, and a few of my friends, were keen to see it. I accepted it as Trek and loved it as thus from the first. When Babylon 5 came out, I loved that right away too. When Deep Space Nine came out, while I was scheptical how well Star Trek would work on a space station rather than a starship (And yes, it took me a while to see the similarity to B5, but I worked it out in the end...) but again, the pilot episode won me over, and that became (and has stayed) my favorite Trek series. When Voyager was released, I was again, keen to see the new show, and although as a series, it never surpassed my love for DS-9, some of the characters, such as Tuvok and Paris, are among my favorites. I even had a softspot for Seven, before the plot turned her into a Borg Swissarmy knife (And, as much a rejecting Jeri Ryan's silver catsuit might make me sound like a TRIBBLE, I would have much prefered that she had remained a fully assimilated drone) When Nemesis was released, I was keen to see it, but was ultimately disappointed by it (although it did have some highlights) When Enterprise was released, I was skeptical, rather than keen to actually see it, and my interest in it never really went beyond 'grudging tolerance', and nothing about it has captured my heart in the same way DS-9 did. Then again, I appreciate my views do not always align with others... Many folks hate the notion of the Borg Queen and what she represents... I'd bought the book The Making of First Contact before I saw the film, and I was immediately intrigued by her (I've had a thing for bald women since I watched The Motion Picture as a boy, and not ashamed to say that I rather liked her...uh...form) Then I saw the movie in the cinema, and when she made her first appearance... Wow... I was captivated... When she blew across Data's wrist... Resistance is futile... But I appreciate that not everyone else shares those opinions. And while I do appreciate that, I don't see why I should compromise my truth, simply because it may not align with another's...
Look, I bow to few in my love of all things Trek (except the last two TNG films, they both sucked as Trek, as movies, and as SF). And I am willing to state unequivocally that until Star Wars came out and sent every other studio scrambling to ride its coattails, Star Trek was as dead as any redshirt. It wasn't until someone at Paramount said, "Hey, don't we already have a space property we can exploit?", that TMP even became a possibility (and it was cobbled together out of scripts written when Paramount had plans to launch a new TV network in the mid-'70s, and were going to use Star Trek Phase II as one of their anchors). More movies were made subsequently - and after the second one, viewership began to decline. Then a new series was launched, and roundly castigated by old-school Trekkies as a terrible pastiche of everything they'd loved about the old show. Four years later, another new series premiered, and was mocked by TNG fans because of its violence, dark tone, and acceptance of spiritual concepts as fit subjects for Star Trek. And so forth.[/i]
This franchise requires new series to create new fans. Without new fans, this will fall into TV history alongside Dr. Kildare and Gunsmoke. Movies aren't going to cut it, either - you think $6 is too much to pay to watch four episodes at home, at times convenient for you? Then why do you imagine the franchise can thrive when each new story costs better than $10 and can only be viewed in particular buildings (that is to say, movie theaters) on a fixed schedule?
I appreciate that my experience may be different, but I simply never experienced that experience at all... When TNG was released, I, and a few of my friends, were keen to see it. I accepted it as Trek and loved it as thus from the first. When Babylon 5 came out, I loved that right away too. When Deep Space Nine came out, while I was scheptical how well Star Trek would work on a space station rather than a starship (And yes, it took me a while to see the similarity to B5, but I worked it out in the end...) but again, the pilot episode won me over, and that became (and has stayed) my favorite Trek series. When Voyager was released, I was again, keen to see the new show, and although as a series, it never surpassed my love for DS-9, some of the characters, such as Tuvok and Paris, are among my favorites. I even had a softspot for Seven, before the plot turned her into a Borg Swissarmy knife (And, as much a rejecting Jeri Ryan's silver catsuit might make me sound like a TRIBBLE, I would have much prefered that she had remained a fully assimilated drone) When Nemesis was released, I was keen to see it, but was ultimately disappointed by it (although it did have some highlights) When Enterprise was released, I was skeptical, rather than keen to actually see it, and my interest in it never really went beyond 'grudging tolerance', and nothing about it has captured my heart in the same way DS-9 did. Then again, I appreciate my views do not always align with others... Many folks hate the notion of the Borg Queen and what she represents... I'd bought the book The Making of First Contact before I saw the film, and I was immediately intrigued by her (I've had a thing for bald women since I watched The Motion Picture as a boy, and not ashamed to say that I rather liked her...uh...form) Then I saw the movie in the cinema, and when she made her first appearance... Wow... I was captivated... When she blew across Data's wrist... Resistance is futile... But I appreciate that not everyone else shares those opinions. And while I do appreciate that, I don't see why I should compromise my truth, simply because it may not align with another's...
No one is asking you to compromise your truth. Just realize that your experience may not be the experience of everyone else.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I thought I was the only one to remember that the 'true fans' hated TNG.
I hated TNG when it first came out. Picard was a wimp! "Sir, we are under attack!" "OK, let's have a conference and discuss what I should do next." The fact the first couple of seasons were TRIBBLE didn't help. But they eventually got their groove on.
If there was only TOS I don't think fans would lose interest....maybe some will. However TNG brought in new fans. That's why there was a DS9 and a Voyager and a Enterprise...because there was new fans and a new desire to see new variations on Star Trek. Also just because you didn't lose interest in Star Trek doesn't mean other people won't.
So based on that, the fanbase would, and does, continue(s) (until they actually start literally dying) and additionally, that rather undercuts your last sentence... Sure, some people will lose interest, and some won't, but I'd bet that the 'retention rate' is better than the losses. As an aside, whenever I've skimmed the DVD sections in thrift stores, I've never seen any of the Mad Max films available, and only ever Star Trek Nemesis and 09, which I think says something about the quality of the work, and their retention of interest... To touch back on UFO, I'd never watched it till I met my father in law. His son is also a fan of the show, and he now plays it to his own son. No new material, but still new fans attracted and retained by the existing works...
No one is asking you to compromise your truth. Just realize that your experience may not be the experience of everyone else.
Yes you are, you've continually denied my points (shared by many and easily found via google) that JJ is a hack who owes his career to nepotism and his father's influence. You challenged me to name films he had produced, as if that was in any way relevent to the point that he has been a producer since the early Seventies, and would have a considerable network of contacts within the movie industry. It was nothing more than an attempt to undermine my point by questioning my knowledge of the man himself... I realise that my experience is not necessarily the experience of everyone else, but discussions of the subject show that others share my opinion...
'So many' is a bit of a misleading criteria, because a new release will always attract a certain amount of new audience, so I'm not going to answer in the negative and lose the point. Instead, I will make this counter-question which I feel is more accurate: Do you think that if there was only TOS, those fans would have 'lost interest' by now?
No, but those fans are now in their 50s at the least (no offence to the more veteran fans here) and that means that the fan base would have been unable to survive the next few decades without new intake and, quite frankly, TOS is not a good TV show by today's standards. I can appreciate it because: a) I'm a Trekkie, but I was exposed to Star Trek through TNG, and even then only the collector's DVDs released in the early 2000s; and b) I hate a lot of the new tropes of modern telly (namely the focus on dark and gritty or light and goofy). The fan-base's numbers do, to an extent, represent how well a franchise is surviving. If there was only TOS, I doubt Star Trek would be as popular as it was in the '80s and '90s and I doubt we would have gotten the remastered box sets or even any DVD release.
Not to ignore your comment, but I think I've addressed this matter pretty comprehensively in my immediately-preceding post, so it would be a tad redundant to repeat it in answer to your post...
If there was only TOS I don't think fans would lose interest....maybe some will. However TNG brought in new fans. That's why there was a DS9 and a Voyager and a Enterprise...because there was new fans and a new desire to see new variations on Star Trek. Also just because you didn't lose interest in Star Trek doesn't mean other people won't.
So based on that, the fanbase would, and does, continue(s) (until they actually start literally dying) and additionally, that rather undercuts your last sentence... Sure, some people will lose interest, and some won't, but I'd bet that the 'retention rate' is better than the losses. As an aside, whenever I've skimmed the DVD sections in thrift stores, I've never seen any of the Mad Max films available, and only ever Star Trek Nemesis and 09, which I think says something about the quality of the work, and their retention of interest... To touch back on UFO, I'd never watched it till I met my father in law. His son is also a fan of the show, and he now plays it to his own son. No new material, but still new fans attracted and retained by the existing works...
No one is asking you to compromise your truth. Just realize that your experience may not be the experience of everyone else.
Yes you are, you've continually denied my points (shared by many and easily found via google) that JJ is a hack who owes his career to nepotism and his father's influence. You challenged me to name films he had produced, as if that was in any way relevent to the point that he has been a producer since the early Seventies, and would have a considerable network of contacts within the movie industry. It was nothing more than an attempt to undermine my point by questioning my knowledge of the man himself... I realise that my experience is not necessarily the experience of everyone else, but discussions of the subject show that others share my opinion...
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. In Hollywood a producer's power comes from things he's produced. Zanuck and Brown, the two guys who produced Jaws and found Steven Spielberg, have/had loads of power. Charles Roven, the guy who produced the Dark Knight trilogy has loads of power, Kevin Feige, does all the Marvel movies, had the power to move Marvel studios to Disney....so when I ask you to name something his father produced and you can't I am showing that his father has no real power. He doesn't have any big credits..big credits translate into power. How does a guy with no power convince a studio head to make his son a director? If his father was the head of a studio I'd agree with you...but he's not. Does he have enough power to force Tom Cruise to make his son the director of Mission Impossible 3?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
If there was only TOS I don't think fans would lose interest....maybe some will. However TNG brought in new fans. That's why there was a DS9 and a Voyager and a Enterprise...because there was new fans and a new desire to see new variations on Star Trek. Also just because you didn't lose interest in Star Trek doesn't mean other people won't.
So based on that, the fanbase would, and does, continue(s) (until they actually start literally dying) and additionally, that rather undercuts your last sentence... Sure, some people will lose interest, and some won't, but I'd bet that the 'retention rate' is better than the losses. As an aside, whenever I've skimmed the DVD sections in thrift stores, I've never seen any of the Mad Max films available, and only ever Star Trek Nemesis and 09, which I think says something about the quality of the work, and their retention of interest... To touch back on UFO, I'd never watched it till I met my father in law. His son is also a fan of the show, and he now plays it to his own son. No new material, but still new fans attracted and retained by the existing works...
No one is asking you to compromise your truth. Just realize that your experience may not be the experience of everyone else.
Yes you are, you've continually denied my points (shared by many and easily found via google) that JJ is a hack who owes his career to nepotism and his father's influence. You challenged me to name films he had produced, as if that was in any way relevent to the point that he has been a producer since the early Seventies, and would have a considerable network of contacts within the movie industry. It was nothing more than an attempt to undermine my point by questioning my knowledge of the man himself... I realise that my experience is not necessarily the experience of everyone else, but discussions of the subject show that others share my opinion...
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. In Hollywood a producer's power comes from things he's produced. Zanuck and Brown, the two guys who produced Jaws and found Steven Spielberg, have/had loads of power. Charles Roven, the guy who produced the Dark Knight trilogy has loads of power, Kevin Feige, does all the Marvel movies, had the power to move Marvel studios to Disney....so when I ask you to name something his father produced and you can't I am showing that his father has no real power. He doesn't have any big credits..big credits translate into power. How does a guy with no power convince a studio head to make his son a director? If his father was the head of a studio I'd agree with you...but he's not. Does he have enough power to force Tom Cruise to make his son the director of Mission Impossible 3?
Yeah really, I think JJ has more influence in Hollywood than his dad ever did.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. In Hollywood a producer's power comes from things he's produced. Zanuck and Brown, the two guys who produced Jaws and found Steven Spielberg, have/had loads of power. Charles Roven, the guy who produced the Dark Knight trilogy has loads of power, Kevin Feige, does all the Marvel movies, had the power to move Marvel studios to Disney....so when I ask you to name something his father produced and you can't I am showing that his father has no real power. He doesn't have any big credits..big credits translate into power. How does a guy with no power convince a studio head to make his son a director? If his father was the head of a studio I'd agree with you...but he's not. Does he have enough power to force Tom Cruise to make his son the director of Mission Impossible 3?
So what you're saying, is that someone with over forty years in the industry, would have no connections, no inside line, and no clout whatsoever?
Tom Cruise is irrelevant. By that point, JJ had enough projects under his belt that he would be hired for gigs -- I'm not saying he's unemployable on paper (although by looking at the outcome of his projects, especially his recently produced and cancelled shows a true picture emerges...) But I find it unlikely that JJ got where he is, solely on the strength of his work on Taking Care of Business, Regarding Henry, and Forever Young, and I find it much more likely, that having grown up in and around the movie industry (because of who his father is) would have opened several doors for him...
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. In Hollywood a producer's power comes from things he's produced. Zanuck and Brown, the two guys who produced Jaws and found Steven Spielberg, have/had loads of power. Charles Roven, the guy who produced the Dark Knight trilogy has loads of power, Kevin Feige, does all the Marvel movies, had the power to move Marvel studios to Disney....so when I ask you to name something his father produced and you can't I am showing that his father has no real power. He doesn't have any big credits..big credits translate into power. How does a guy with no power convince a studio head to make his son a director? If his father was the head of a studio I'd agree with you...but he's not. Does he have enough power to force Tom Cruise to make his son the director of Mission Impossible 3?
So what you're saying, is that someone with over forty years in the industry, would have no connections, no inside line, and no clout whatsoever?
On the small screen maybe, but on the big screen? very little, probably just enough to ask nicely for someone to give his son a job. Most certainly not enough to get them to keep giving jobs to someone who actually stank at them. And JJ has been getting jobs in Hollywood for 25 years. Clearly his dad isn't the only one who thinks he does a good job.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. In Hollywood a producer's power comes from things he's produced. Zanuck and Brown, the two guys who produced Jaws and found Steven Spielberg, have/had loads of power. Charles Roven, the guy who produced the Dark Knight trilogy has loads of power, Kevin Feige, does all the Marvel movies, had the power to move Marvel studios to Disney....so when I ask you to name something his father produced and you can't I am showing that his father has no real power. He doesn't have any big credits..big credits translate into power. How does a guy with no power convince a studio head to make his son a director? If his father was the head of a studio I'd agree with you...but he's not. Does he have enough power to force Tom Cruise to make his son the director of Mission Impossible 3?
So what you're saying, is that someone with over forty years in the industry, would have no connections, no inside line, and no clout whatsoever?
On the small screen maybe, but on the big screen? very little, probably just enough to ask nicely for someone to give his son a job. Most certainly not enough to get them to keep giving jobs to someone who actually stank at them. And JJ has been getting jobs in Hollywood for 25 years. Clearly his dad isn't the only one who thinks he does a good job.
Makes me wonder if JJ might play any part in Mel Gibson's public anti-semitism and accusations of bias and nepotism...
[Edit to point out]
And how much of JJ's big screen work, was as a result of his small screen work like Felicity, Alias and Lost? Who opened those doors for him? You've already acknowledged/conceded that Gerald W. Abrams 'may' have clout on the small screen... It's all part of the same game...
90%+ of the people that saw the jj-verse movies do not play STO, and will never have any reason to come to the forums here. So if 100% of us loved the reboot and we all sat around singing Kumbaya, that would influence those new fans how?
And what do fans of the reboot have to say against the broader demographic of people? They're moot against the broader potential audience of a new Star Trek TV series, so why bother catering to those fans specifically (or any fan for that matter? They're just fanatics.)
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Nepotism may or may not have given Abrams a break in the beginning. However, his father isn't nearly influential enough to explain his entire career. I mean, Steve Miller's father was a fairly important figure in early rock music - but he sure wasn't the reason the Steve Miller Band sold so many albums...
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. In Hollywood a producer's power comes from things he's produced. Zanuck and Brown, the two guys who produced Jaws and found Steven Spielberg, have/had loads of power. Charles Roven, the guy who produced the Dark Knight trilogy has loads of power, Kevin Feige, does all the Marvel movies, had the power to move Marvel studios to Disney....so when I ask you to name something his father produced and you can't I am showing that his father has no real power. He doesn't have any big credits..big credits translate into power. How does a guy with no power convince a studio head to make his son a director? If his father was the head of a studio I'd agree with you...but he's not. Does he have enough power to force Tom Cruise to make his son the director of Mission Impossible 3?
So what you're saying, is that someone with over forty years in the industry, would have no connections, no inside line, and no clout whatsoever?
Tom Cruise is irrelevant. By that point, JJ had enough projects under his belt that he would be hired for gigs -- I'm not saying he's unemployable on paper (although by looking at the outcome of his projects, especially his recently produced and cancelled shows a true picture emerges...) But I find it unlikely that JJ got where he is, solely on the strength of his work on Taking Care of Business, Regarding Henry, and Forever Young, and I find it much more likely, that having grown up in and around the movie industry (because of who his father is) would have opened several doors for him...
The turnover rate is so high in Hollywood that anyone that his father had as a connection would not be in a position to help his son out. Anyone that has been in the business that long with no real credits has no clout...he's someone you give an office to on the far side of the backlot away from everyone else.
Look I get it...you don't like the guy for 'ruining' Star Trek so now you'll cling to any negative idea about him....his father is the only reason why he's getting work...he probably made Mel Gibson go crazy....he probably was the basis of Wesley Crusher. You are clinging to rumor, hear-say and guesswork without the slightest bit of proof. It's irrational.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Comments
I can't care less for being "welcomed" by some nebulous "community" of other fans, no less the few people on the forum of an IP-related video game.
1. That's your point of view, and you're welcome to it.
2. Consider how Star Trek fans are typically portrayed in popular media; a militant, fanatical, cult-like group who are obsessed with TOS. You don't think this is possibly reflected in sections of the actual community? You sure this doesn't have some influence of people's opinion of the franchise itself (such as people who watch The Simpsons, for example)? (Until the new films, anyway...)
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I fail to see what that has to do with my post. I was speaking of the Star Trek community as a whole (and it's portrayal in popular media), not just the STO community. Please read my post again. The issue has never been how the STO community recieves new fans, it's how the Star Trek fanbase as a whole is percieved.
Also, your statement is inherently false, as most of us here have seen the JJ Trek films and do play STO (or are you suggesting we are all criticising JJ Trek without actually having watched it?).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I wasn't just talking about these boards
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The media coverage of Trekkies, whether lined up for a movie or in the conventions, typically focuses on those in the elaborate costumes to play up the nerd factor. No different than the Star Wars fans with their new movie coming out.
No, I'm saying of the millions that watched those movies, the numbers playing STO are but a small fraction. My real point was the STO forum, which doesn't even represent a majority of that small player base, is irrelevant to and hence has no impact on 90%+ of any new Star Trek fan.
Other boards, Facebook groups...conventions...these have been my experience. I see it to an extent here. However my point was directed to Trekkers as a whole...and it's not just fans of the reboot movies but all the various series
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I should make it clearer: when I say 'popular media', I don't mean news broadcasters; I mean popular TV shows like The Simpsons (which I know had at least one episode where a Sci-Fi convention went full riot, although that was due to Star Wars fans, not Trekkies) and Futurama (which had an entire plot for an episode based around ST and SW being made illegal because of a war between Star Trek and Star Wars Fans). Other TV shows have made similar jabs. Even though we know they're stereotypes played up for the sake of comedy, if you haven't been pre-exposed to the fanbase these do have an impact on your perception of it. I know that because I had to take it at school (I turned 18 this year).
Also, no, I'm not saying JJ Trek made Trek 'Hip' again, but we have seen a massive increase of interest in the franchise since the new films; as I said, my friend got into Star Trek thanks to the new films, and my elder Sister (who used to regular ridicule me for being a Trekkie) watched ID because Star Trek was popular and being a 'Geek' was the new Chav, or Goth (i.e. 'what the cool kids are doing now'.), by her own admission.
On your final point, I say that because the way your original post didn't distinguish between fans who had only seen JJ Trek first and those like many of us, who were already fans. And while these boards don't indicate the majority of Trek fans by any means, it was never restricted to these boards - we were talking about the Trek fanbase in its entirety (like I said, I've encountered fans who are extremely intolerant of anything after TOS on Facebook and other Social Media). Also, while I agree most people who watched the JJ films don't play STO, most of those people aren't 'fans'. I went to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon in cinemas, but I'm not a fan of that film (or the Transformers film series as a whole). I'd consider myself a James Bond fan, but so would most adult male Britons who watch action films - it's sort of a national phenomenon. I wouldn't call myself a fan of Spider-Man 3 or Star Wars: Episode III, even though I watched both of those in cinemas. The majority of movie-goers don't become attached to that particular film. Of those who did become fans of JJ Trek, I agree a majority of them don't play STO, but then not everyone who plays STO has ever watched a Star Trek episode (I know at least one person who played STO despite not actually liking Star Trek).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Which answers, indirectly, my point about Lucas and Spielberg, their clique of buddies, and their 'behind the scenes' chats, which would have been way before news of the new movie was released to the general public...
No it doesn't. Not at all. It just means the guy is not a household name. I couldn't tell you who produced Dire Straits, or David Bowie, but I'd consider it a safe bet that those people have clout in the music industry. Again, forty plus years in the industry. The guy would know people... I may not have Proof that that's how JJ got his gigs, but it's hardly wild speculation...
You're missing the point I was trying to make... The point was not about how much I may hate those tattoo styles, or that JJ never said he 'hated' Star Trek. The point was, that I would not be envious of a tattoo artist who executed tattoos in styles I was not interested in, but JJ was quoted as saying that he would have been jealous of someone directing Star Trek, so he just had to do it. As I said before, JJ lies, so I take much of that with a pinch of salt, but even if he was being honest, the statement itself, is illogical. If he had no interest in the franchise, why would he be jealous of someone directing a film? A friend of mine specialises in cartoon/anime inspired tattoos. When he posts stuff up, I might give a polite congratulation, but mostly, I just think that it's not something I would even want to do. All I'm saying, is that, analysed beyond soundbyte/quotability depth, the comment actually makes no sense for a professional in any industry...
Well, I'll certainly bow to your experience, but I find it hard to believe (that no one knew it was coming)
To be honest, no, I don't... There was no information released about Fury Road for quite some time after I first watched the movies, and the marathon wasn't on one of the large networks (I actually can't remember which network it was on, something like movie classics...) It wasn't even advertised as a feature, it just happened to be scheduled. It had been scheduled a few times before, and has been scheduled a few times since, it's just that on that occasion, utterly coincidentally, I chose to watch, and liked what I saw... Equally, I never saw a new Mad Max box set advertised or released when Fury Road was released. That's not to say that there wasn't, just that I never saw advertising for it. So again, new products, had absolutely no impact on my exposure to the franchise, and play no part in my appreciation for it, because I don't look on Fury Road as something I want to watch.
'So many' is a bit of a misleading criteria, because a new release will always attract a certain amount of new audience, so I'm not going to answer in the negative and lose the point. Instead, I will make this counter-question which I feel is more accurate: Do you think that if there was only TOS, those fans would have 'lost interest' by now?
In the time between Nemesis and Enterprise, and then before STO, I never stopped liking Star Trek. I may have not enjoyed Voyager as much as I enjoyed Deep Space Nine, and I might have thought that Enterprise was (barring a frew good episodes) basicly TRIBBLE, and a viewable spectable of Brannon Braga's continued descent into hackery (which began about the time he wrote M:I-2, and the Chimera virus was an obvious redress of the Borg nanoprobes) but I still considered myself a fan of Star Trek. Had there been another Star Trek exhibition or convention in my area in those timeframes, I would still have wanted to attend. Babylon 5 hasn't released anything new in well over a decade, but I'm still a fan of the series, and interract with some of the cast via social media. And even in that example, I would still have a soft spot for Claudia Christian, even if we'd never spoken online, simply because I always thought she was a smart, beautiful woman. I consider myself a fan of Gerry Anderson's UFO (not to the extent of my engagement with Trek, but more than 'casual viewing') but there hasn't been anything new from that in who knows how long, and the episodes are still engaging and entertaining to watch, hence why I so utterly reject the notion that new releases are necessary to retain a fan-base. Good material is what creates a fandom and franchise...
If there was only TOS I don't think fans would lose interest....maybe some will. However TNG brought in new fans. That's why there was a DS9 and a Voyager and a Enterprise...because there was new fans and a new desire to see new variations on Star Trek. Also just because you didn't lose interest in Star Trek doesn't mean other people won't.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
No, but those fans are now in their 50s at the least (no offence to the more veteran fans here) and that means that the fan base would have been unable to survive the next few decades without new intake and, quite frankly, TOS is not a good TV show by today's standards. I can appreciate it because: a) I'm a Trekkie, but I was exposed to Star Trek through TNG, and even then only the collector's DVDs released in the early 2000s; and b) I hate a lot of the new tropes of modern telly (namely the focus on dark and gritty or light and goofy). The fan-base's numbers do, to an extent, represent how well a franchise is surviving. If there was only TOS, I doubt Star Trek would be as popular as it was in the '80s and '90s and I doubt we would have gotten the remastered box sets or even any DVD release.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
(Which by the way reminds me - yes, the "militant and unwelcoming fan" image is a part of popular culture, as evinced by an article I've seen pushed this past week on both Yahoo! and Facebook purporting to explain why "real Star Trek fans" all hate the new movies. I guess that means I'm not a "real fan", because I thought the '09 movie was very much in the spirit of TOS, and my problems with STID have to do with plot holes and the misuse of existing science in the opening sequence, not because I thought it "betrayed" anything.)
I thought I was the only one to remember that the 'true fans' hated TNG.
I too am an older fan. As much as I love TOS if that was all there was I probably would have moved on to other things...being that irritating guy on message boards "They should do another Star Trek".
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
No one is asking you to compromise your truth. Just realize that your experience may not be the experience of everyone else.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Yes you are, you've continually denied my points (shared by many and easily found via google) that JJ is a hack who owes his career to nepotism and his father's influence. You challenged me to name films he had produced, as if that was in any way relevent to the point that he has been a producer since the early Seventies, and would have a considerable network of contacts within the movie industry. It was nothing more than an attempt to undermine my point by questioning my knowledge of the man himself... I realise that my experience is not necessarily the experience of everyone else, but discussions of the subject show that others share my opinion...
Not to ignore your comment, but I think I've addressed this matter pretty comprehensively in my immediately-preceding post, so it would be a tad redundant to repeat it in answer to your post...
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. In Hollywood a producer's power comes from things he's produced. Zanuck and Brown, the two guys who produced Jaws and found Steven Spielberg, have/had loads of power. Charles Roven, the guy who produced the Dark Knight trilogy has loads of power, Kevin Feige, does all the Marvel movies, had the power to move Marvel studios to Disney....so when I ask you to name something his father produced and you can't I am showing that his father has no real power. He doesn't have any big credits..big credits translate into power. How does a guy with no power convince a studio head to make his son a director? If his father was the head of a studio I'd agree with you...but he's not. Does he have enough power to force Tom Cruise to make his son the director of Mission Impossible 3?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
My character Tsin'xing
Tom Cruise is irrelevant. By that point, JJ had enough projects under his belt that he would be hired for gigs -- I'm not saying he's unemployable on paper (although by looking at the outcome of his projects, especially his recently produced and cancelled shows a true picture emerges...) But I find it unlikely that JJ got where he is, solely on the strength of his work on Taking Care of Business, Regarding Henry, and Forever Young, and I find it much more likely, that having grown up in and around the movie industry (because of who his father is) would have opened several doors for him...
My character Tsin'xing
[Edit to point out]
And how much of JJ's big screen work, was as a result of his small screen work like Felicity, Alias and Lost? Who opened those doors for him? You've already acknowledged/conceded that Gerald W. Abrams 'may' have clout on the small screen... It's all part of the same game...
And what do fans of the reboot have to say against the broader demographic of people? They're moot against the broader potential audience of a new Star Trek TV series, so why bother catering to those fans specifically (or any fan for that matter? They're just fanatics.)
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
The turnover rate is so high in Hollywood that anyone that his father had as a connection would not be in a position to help his son out. Anyone that has been in the business that long with no real credits has no clout...he's someone you give an office to on the far side of the backlot away from everyone else.
Look I get it...you don't like the guy for 'ruining' Star Trek so now you'll cling to any negative idea about him....his father is the only reason why he's getting work...he probably made Mel Gibson go crazy....he probably was the basis of Wesley Crusher. You are clinging to rumor, hear-say and guesswork without the slightest bit of proof. It's irrational.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.