Is Star Trek Dying?

[Astyanax]

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.

Yeah, fair points and thank you for the kind words.

In that case, I would respectfully posit that the question is not so much "Is Star Trek Dying?" but rather "Is Star Trek TOS Dying?" And the answer, to me, is that it has died off with its cast, really.

Star Trek as an IP is not dead. It's just changed and changing. Just like this hobby.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Everyone needs to silence themselves and shut-down their primate monkey brains…I have sought out the oracle of truth—and a higher power to settle this argument—our AI overlords.

Here is the response:

The Star Trek franchise is not dying, but it is going through a period of evolution and adaptation. While there may be concerns from certain corners of the fanbase, the franchise remains relevant and continues to grow in new ways. Here are a few factors to consider:

1. Ongoing TV Content: With recent and ongoing TV series like Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Star Trek has seen a resurgence on streaming platforms like Paramount+. These shows attract both new viewers and long-time fans, and each series brings something different to the table in terms of tone and narrative.

2. Cinematic Plans: While there have been delays and uncertainties surrounding Star Trek films (especially after the rebooted movies by J.J. Abrams), there are still discussions about future films. While the next movie’s release might be unclear, the franchise remains a viable property for studios.

3. Merchandise & Cultural Influence: Star Trek continues to have a significant cultural impact, with a dedicated fanbase, conventions, books, games, and merchandise. It’s still a major cultural icon with a devoted following, which helps maintain its place in the entertainment landscape.

4. Fan Engagement: Star Trek has one of the most dedicated fanbases in the world. The community continues to engage with the franchise through conventions, fan fiction, online forums, and fan-driven content. This strong support ensures that Star Trek will likely continue to thrive in some form.

While there may be varying opinions on the quality of some of the recent series or movies, Star Trek is a legacy franchise with a strong foundation, and its impact on science fiction and popular culture remains profound. It’s not dying, but it’s certainly changing to keep up with new audiences and technologies.

 

[asalaw]

Everyone needs to silence themselves and shut-down their primate monkey brains…I have sought out the oracle of truth and a higher power to settle this argument: our AI overlords.

Here is the response:

The Star Trek franchise is not dying, but it is going through a period of evolution and adaptation. While there may be concerns from certain corners of the fanbase, the franchise remains relevant and continues to grow in new ways. Here are a few factors to consider:

1. Ongoing TV Content: With recent and ongoing TV series like Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Star Trek has seen a resurgence on streaming platforms like Paramount+. These shows attract both new viewers and long-time fans, and each series brings something different to the table in terms of tone and narrative.

2. Cinematic Plans: While there have been delays and uncertainties surrounding Star Trek films (especially after the rebooted movies by J.J. Abrams), there are still discussions about future films. While the next movie’s release might be unclear, the franchise remains a viable property for studios.

3. Merchandise & Cultural Influence: Star Trek continues to have a significant cultural impact, with a dedicated fanbase, conventions, books, games, and merchandise. It’s still a major cultural icon with a devoted following, which helps maintain its place in the entertainment landscape.

4. Fan Engagement: Star Trek has one of the most dedicated fanbases in the world. The community continues to engage with the franchise through conventions, fan fiction, online forums, and fan-driven content. This strong support ensures that Star Trek will likely continue to thrive in some form.

While there may be varying opinions on the quality of some of the recent series or movies, Star Trek is a legacy franchise with a strong foundation, and its impact on science fiction and popular culture remains profound. It’s not dying, but it’s certainly changing to keep up with new audiences and technologies.

It's worth noting at this point that AIs are known to hallucinate...

 

[Cephus]

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.

Except Akiva Goldsman doesn't get to decide what constitutes Star Trek, any more than Disney gets to decide what Star Wars is. That job belongs to Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas respectively. If they do things that are out of line with the original vision, then it's not that property anymore. You're right, they can do whatever they want and nobody has to watch it, which explains why the ratings are so bad for new IP projects.

Because what they are doing isn't that property.

 

[Cephus]

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.

Agreed. I don't think there's been a year that my wife and I don't sit down and watch the original Star Wars trilogy. We don't watch anything else, but those three movies get consumed regularly, remakes or no. I will watch TOS all the time. If I'm looking for something to watch and come across an episode, I'll watch it. I've got the whole thing on Bluray and while we don't just watch it all the way through, we did go through the Animated Series about a year ago because we've got that on Bluray too.

Then again, I'm not in it for the spectacle, I'm in it for the characters and the stories, something that the modern versions cannot offer.

 

[joberg]

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 wouldn't characterize it as "violence" "Drive-by-Censorship-by-Mob-Assassination" more like it
As "The Style Guy" (no, I'm not the specialist in fashion) We could compare the Original, classic ST with classic clothing; no matter the era, everybody will appreciate the classic clothe designs that have existed for a long time and will stay the same throughout the eras.
To respect current clothing fashion is a recipe for "short-lived and expensive to be at the very top of it). Same with the "New ST", or others that want to cater to the "new Gen". It's not that deep, it's heavy on CGI and...AFAIK it's empty calories compared to the Original ST...my two cents

 

[asalaw]

Agreed. I don't think there's been a year that my wife and I don't sit down and watch the original Star Wars trilogy. We don't watch anything else, but those three movies get consumed regularly, remakes or no. I will watch TOS all the time. If I'm looking for something to watch and come across an episode, I'll watch it. I've got the whole thing on Bluray and while we don't just watch it all the way through, we did go through the Animated Series about a year ago because we've got that on Bluray too.

Then again, I'm not in it for the spectacle, I'm in it for the characters and the stories, something that the modern versions cannot offer.

Me too. TOS wasn't perfect, but for every Turnabout Intruder or Alternative Factor there was a City on the Edge of Forever or a Balance of Terror or a Devil in the Dark. TNG wasn't perfect either, but for every Outrageous Okana or Naked Now there was a Measure of a Man or Inner Light.

Star Trek was always about compelling stories about great characters. It occasionally had social critique folded into it thematically, but it usually avoided being preachy, judgmental, or pedantic.

And it had heroes. Real, honest-to-God heroes.

Heroes who defied the odds, conquering evil and, sometimes, themselves.

Not whiny Mary Sues who cried in every episode.

Give me the old school every time. The new stuff is morally and creatively bankrupt.

 

[greenmachines]

Everyone needs to silence themselves and shut-down their primate monkey brains…I have sought out the oracle of truth and a higher power to settle this argument: our AI overlords.

Here is the response:

The Star Trek franchise is not dying, but it is going through a period of evolution and adaptation. While there may be concerns from certain corners of the fanbase, the franchise remains relevant and continues to grow in new ways. Here are a few factors to consider:

1. Ongoing TV Content: With recent and ongoing TV series like Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Star Trek has seen a resurgence on streaming platforms like Paramount+. These shows attract both new viewers and long-time fans, and each series brings something different to the table in terms of tone and narrative.

2. Cinematic Plans: While there have been delays and uncertainties surrounding Star Trek films (especially after the rebooted movies by J.J. Abrams), there are still discussions about future films. While the next movie’s release might be unclear, the franchise remains a viable property for studios.

3. Merchandise & Cultural Influence: Star Trek continues to have a significant cultural impact, with a dedicated fanbase, conventions, books, games, and merchandise. It’s still a major cultural icon with a devoted following, which helps maintain its place in the entertainment landscape.

4. Fan Engagement: Star Trek has one of the most dedicated fanbases in the world. The community continues to engage with the franchise through conventions, fan fiction, online forums, and fan-driven content. This strong support ensures that Star Trek will likely continue to thrive in some form.

While there may be varying opinions on the quality of some of the recent series or movies, Star Trek is a legacy franchise with a strong foundation, and its impact on science fiction and popular culture remains profound. It’s not dying, but it’s certainly changing to keep up with new audiences and technologies.

and thank you for posting that, my sad face reaction was to the output not the fact that you posted it

This reply from the AI seems to be written by one side only. It clearly pushes the idea that only 'some' fans are unhappy and paints a picture of a rebounding audience that doesn't exist or possibly ratings increases that don't exist. I have heard all of the above statements from our conversations and it is a point of view but ignores the massive loss of viewers and revenue. It also uses the old fans, current conventions catering to old fans, and the continued support and creativity of the old fans as proof that the new stuff is "surviving" which is pure spin on details and facts that actually point out what the original complaint was, the old stuff has and continues to hold more fans than the new creates while the new does not collect many fans of the old. I have seen some decent AI output but this one is very much a line by line one sided view, maybe it can AI some higher ratings/revenue too. If I hear the resounding praise of something new from all corners of the world per se the views of Andor, Rogue One, The Skeleton Crew, first season Mando, then I will say, spot on yo, more of that. But until I do, I just don't see the relevance of these 4 points above.

An actual breakdown of the 4 are:

1 and 2 are incorrect outright per viewer ratings and revenue

3 and 4 are actually stating that, according to the Conventions and other existing Fanbase events/influences and sales of Old Trek merchandise, the Old Trek is NOT dying but the new IS. I would love to hear some conversation on these 4 as separate items. I really think this is clearly stating that the old is pretty much holding the entire fanbase together. And I will totally accept that 3 and 4 could include examples of newer things but I've been to the conventions, it is majority Old Trek represented. (I of course view nextgen as old, many do not).

 

[greenmachines]

As I continue my binge watching of Eureka, I came across this today, the couple talking about how getting to know one another better could spoil the relationship before they get to the good stuff in the romance department. The lady says, "You'll like the original trek and I only like Nextgen" and the guys says "I happen to like both actually". A little ironic timing for today after nearly saying and reading the exact same in this convo, minus the romance with ya'll....not happening, but if anyone is interested in this funny chat about trek vs trek it is Season 4, Episode 17 at 38:40 and is currently included with amazon Prime.

 

[asalaw]

Once again, the Scottish Sot nails it. This video pronouncing Star Trek dead "to thunderous apathy" is from 2 months ago. What Star Trek has lost, he explains correctly, is its cultural relevance. And he makes a very good case that it was squandered.

In fact, this very thread proves him right. What are we debating? Not who the best captain was, or what makes a person want to be an engineer or astronaut or doctor after watching Star Trek.

We're debating how decayed the carcass is.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Here’s the thing…it’s not truly dead as long as we keep talking about it.

Nobody talks about truly dead characters or franchises: Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Felix the Cat, John Carter of Mars, Betty Boop…all dead.

Star Trek is far from dead…it’s just that the modern production version has entered a disappointing phase right now.

But what still sells? Classic merchandise…classic movies and series…why is the Wand Company spending money to bring forward a Tricorder from a “dead” franchise? Or Tomy bringing forward high-end die cast ships? Why are classic Trek figures from Exo-6 selling out?

And younger generations are not posting reaction videos of themselves watching Discovery…it’s classic Trek:

If the franchise was truly “dead” this thread wouldn’t exist…

 

[negativ3]

Telling non-canon or universe stories all dressed up as Star Trek never was/is going to work. Fell asleep about 20 minutes into 31 and woke up with them all in the same nightclub, whatever it was, was it all in one room? Hot garbage with many wasted resources.

 

[asalaw]

Here’s the thing…it’s not truly dead as long as we keep talking about it.

Nobody talks about truly dead characters or franchises: Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Felix the Cat, John Carter of Mars, Betty Boop…all dead.

Star Trek is far from dead…it’s just that the modern production version has entered a disappointing phase right now.

But what still sells? Classic merchandise…classic movies and series…why is the Wand Company spending money on to bring forward a Tricorder from a “dead” franchise? Or Tomy bringing forward high-end die cast ships? Why are classic Trek figures from Exo-6 selling out?

And younger generations are not posting reaction videos of themselves watching Discovery…it’s classic Trek:

If the franchise was truly “dead” this thread wouldn’t exist…

Like I said, we're just arguing over the carcass. But to your point, I notice most of the stuff you cite that's selling is from the older franchises, Exhibit A of which is the very exciting Wand TOS tricorder. That $799 tricorder currently selling on, I think, startrek.com is from the 90s spinoffs (don't ask me which one--I couldn't tell a Mark X from a Luke 19).

And everybody talks about the dead. It only brings them back in the figurative, memorial sense. But they're still dead.

Maybe, to paraphrase McCoy, it's not really dead as long as we remember it, and maybe... maaaaaaybe Skydance will see the light and create a new series or film made by people willing to honor what came before instead of "updating" it for "modern audiences," whatever those are. But given Hollywood's track record this century, I'm not holding my breath.

The original series and the 90s spinoffs endure in memory for a very good reason: they told timeless stories about the human condition, and inspired legions of people--we've all heard the stories. Today's Trek is just content, meant to be consumed and forgotten. And it will be.

 

[robn1]

Here’s the thing…it’s not truly dead as long as we keep talking about it.

Nobody talks about truly dead characters or franchises: Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Felix the Cat, John Carter of Mars, Betty Boop…all dead.

Star Trek is far from dead…it’s just that the modern production version has entered a disappointing phase right now.

But what still sells? Classic merchandise…classic movies and series…why is the Wand Company spending money to bring forward a Tricorder from a “dead” franchise? Or Tomy bringing forward high-end die cast ships? Why are classic Trek figures from Exo-6 selling out?

And younger generations are not posting reaction videos of themselves watching Discovery…it’s classic Trek:

If the franchise was truly “dead” this thread wouldn’t exist…

Good ones, but you missed my favorite.

 

[Joek3rr]

New Trek is dead.... Old Trek will live on until the world's ending. I just finished The Motion Picture, and I will be eagerly rewatching The Wrath of Khan. Those stories continue to inspire and resonate with viewers, for a reason.

 

[batguy]

Yes, the modern reboots of these shows will "die" before the originals will, even if the originals are on the way out.

'Trek' TOS, the first round of movies, and TNG . . . this stuff will outlive the JJAbrams reboot by a country mile.

The Lucas-era Star Wars movies will outlive the ST.

Etc.

 

[asalaw]

I just found and devoured the most amazing article, from the Claremont Review of Books from 2015. As it turns out, we're all wrong. All of us.

Yes, Star Trek is dead. But it started dying, not in 2009, but in...

1987.

This article will challenge every idea you have about the meaning of Star Trek as far back as TNG.