Snake wrote:
> "Jaxtraw"
knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47aa6466$0$13932$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...>> Actually, no. Artists have throughout history worked for sale or
>> commission.
>> Sometimes they have been unable to sell their work for a significant
>> price,
>> and sometimes they've become posthumously collectable. But the basis
>> of art
>> has always been profit. In the 20th century we've seen the
>> development of socialist state funded fine art, the majority of
>> which is notably entirely lacking in appeal to a general audience,
>> possible because it's shite, but even then they're working for
>> somebody's money, be it sale to dealers or state largesse.
>>
>> Anyway, the standard model is sale and commission. Even amateurs
>> hope to sell their work, or at least give it away in the hope of
>> building a reputation which will make their hobby subsequently
>> valuable.
>>
>> Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling because of a
>> love of lying on his back on scaffolding.
>>
>> Back with Trek, the reason it was made originally was to make money.
>> There's
>> no reason future incarnations shouldn't be made for that same reason.
>
> Hmmm. But Anybody has a good point regarding Trek. His point can be
> seen in the historical precedent of Coca-Cola "Classic" versus "New
> Coke". Sure, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. has the right to change anything
> and everything they feel necessary, but to the consumers of the
> product - who are accustomed to the product - will it be accepted?
> Coca-Cola had a HUGE backlash, one of the biggest in marketing
> history, when it used its powers to change Coca-Cola to New Coke.
> The "fans" - the consumers - simply wouldn't have it.
>
> Can the same be said of Star Trek? Is Star Trek, in its entirety, a
> "product" and to change it tremendously no longer classifies it as
> "Star Trek" as we know it?
>
> I guess that is up to each individual to decide.
>
> But we should admit that the historical backlash in marketing
> precedent is there. I believe the discussion Anybody wishes to open
> is the same as the Coca-Cola incident - should a "new" Star Trek
> indeed be labeled as "New", or is it acceptable to change many of the
> fundamentals of the product yet still call it the same?
Well I disagree, in that ISTM Anybody's point is a kind of moral absolutism.
He's used the term "moral". The issue with Coke wasn't a moral one. They
tried changing the product, the customers didn't like it, so Coca Cola had
to change it back. There wasn't anything immoral about them changing the
formula of their dirty brown sugar water. It just wasn't what people wanted.
Maybe New Trek will be something people don't want similarly. It's not
really an issue of whether there is some kind of eternal platonic definition
of what Coke is, or what Trek is. It's just down to whether people like it
or not. I like Old Trek immensely. I don't know whether I'll like New Trek
(and I'm a bit doubtful about what I hear about the new formula, but
ultimately I won't know until I taste it). But it's not a moral issue of
Trek purity for me, and I don't see how that can be argued.
The other significant issue is that unlike Coke, we can't have any more Old
Trek. They can keep churning out the same formula sugary water for a
millennium if they want, but half the cast, the writers and producers of Old
Trek are dead, and the remaining cast are too old to make more Classic
Flavour Trek. So really we can have some kind of New Coke, or no Coke at
all. TNG was a New Coke. I liked it less than the Old Coke, myself, though I
still quite liked it. Twenty years on, they're changing the formula again. I
guess we just have to wait and see what it tastes like...
Ian
