"Jaxtraw"
knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:4712ef1e$0$21095$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...> RuPEDski wrote:
>> "Jaxtraw"
knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
>> news:4712c242$0$8425$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...>>> Anybody wrote:
>>>> In article <4712854c$0$8429$db0fefd9@
news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"
>>>>
knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anybody wrote:
>>>>>> In article
4ax.com>, Brian
>>>>>> Thorn suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:51:10 -0600, Warchild
bob.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Pegg as Scotty? WTF?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Inspired choice
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The guy looks nothing like Doohan and is best known for broad
>>>>>>> comedies. What illegal substances was Abrams on when he made this
>>>>>>> inspired choice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He doesn't have to look like Doohan because this is a stupid
>>>>>> "reboot" movie. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> They can either reboot it, or Trek is over. Forever. Take your
>>>>> choice.
>>>>
>>>> If those are the only choices, then the second one is MUCH MUCH MUCH
>>>> more preferrable to some garbage that is "Star Trek" in name only.
>>>> :-(
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> In scenario 1, the world's Trekonomy contains Old Trek plus New
>>> Trek. We have an expansion of Gross Trek Product.
>>>
>>> In scenario 2, the Trekonomy contains only Old Trek. GTP does not
>>> expand, indeed it contracts as people forget Old Trek.
>>>
>>> So, in scenario 1 you live in a more buoyant Trekonomy. If you don't
>>> like the new Trek product, you've lost nothing. You can live as in
>>> scenario 2, ignoring the new Trek. But in scenario 2, you've
>>> certainly gained nothing, and neither has anyone else; the people
>>> who may have enjoyed the new Trek haven't had the chance to find
>>> out. Scenario 2 has nothing to recommend it over scenario 1; ergo
>>> scenario 1 is the rational choice.
>>
>> No. This is oversimplified. New Trek can most certainly take away
>> from both the attention and reputation of Old Trek. Especially in a
>> mainstream effort like this. If it is low standard but successful, it
>> will be all the masses and particularly young people think of when
>> they hear "star trek". If it is a disaster, again, that is what they
>> will think of.
>>
>
> That's not so. There's nothing to take away from OldTrek. Fans of it will
> continue to like it regardless of what the NewTrek is like. If the NewTrek
> is good, we'll still love the OldTrek. If the NewTrek is crap, we'll say
> how
> it's not as good as the OldTrek. Win-Win.
As I said, I was not talking about fans of Oldtrek but the mainstream and
new fans/young people.
> OldTrek doesn't accumulate new fans any more, except the occasional
> greybeard forcing their kids to watch it, and then play Pac-Man because
> hey,
> video games in my day were much better than all this 3D crap on your
> exboxes
> or whatever you call them. The young people who aren't already fans of
> Trek
> don't think anything when they hear Star Trek. Old series don't pick up
> many
> new fans- a few, yes, being retro or ironic or trying to be different.
I think it certainly can live on and get new fans in reruns etc. Especially
when promoted.
However, you're right, it most likely won't reach anywhere near the heights
of popularity it had. That's life. How making something different and
sticking "Star Trek" on it equates to keeping Star Trek going is very odd to
me. We can take Justin Timberlake and change his name to "Elvis", have him
cover some Elvis tunes in a teeny bop, pop, hip hop style and then say "wow,
Elvis lives on!!!" but that seems pretty ludicrous to me.
>But
> not many. Youngsters like new things not old things. Sure, there'll be one
> kid in the school proudly being different by being an Elvis fan, but he's
> irrelevant.
LOL. Speak of the Elvis! So yeah, take a hot new 20yr old, give him a
semi-elvis look in updated style, have him sing some Elvis songs in current
pop style and call him Elvis. Should/Will old Elvis fans be impressed? Heck,
go back and edit him into old Elvis pictures and films. Rewrite Elvis
history. HE IS Elvis now. Does this actually take away from the unique
entity/legacy of the real Elvis? Is it that important to us to keep it going
in some form even if it means changing it?
> So to get new fans, i.e. new customers, they need NewTrek. If it doesn't
> work, that's a pity, but it won't poison The Kids against OldTrek, because
> The Kids don't care. They're watching new things, not old things.
True, maybe that is what they need for new customers. It's sad that is what
it comes down to. NEW CUSTOMERS. No, it might not poison too many kids, it
might indeed poison the minds of many adults...."yep, just what I had
already thought(incorrectly), Star Trek is stupid!!!". And indeed, it can
leave the old fans with a bad taste. Who DOESN"T want to go back and erase
BSG 1980 from history!?! LOL
> Everything that runs long-term needs to reinvent, from comics to TV shows
> (except soap operas, because they're watched by people whose brains are
> dead, and even in that case The Bald And The Fruitful will every now and
> again kill half the characters in a plane crash).
No, not really. The great classics sometimes live on. TOS is still on TV
after all these years. So are a few of the greatest TV classics. People own
them. But indeed, if they do die, so be it. Other than the almighty
dollar(NEW CUSTOMERS, as you say), there is no reason to force something to
run long-term.
> getting new fans, and the old fans lose interest because it's same old
> same
> old. Sometimes the reinventions work, sometimes not (Superman with a
> mullet,
> anyone?) but they have to be done. It's always difficult. It's like rock
> bands. If they keep making the same music, they sound stale and stop
> attracting fans, and even their old fans say the new album's just like the
> last 20 they made and gradually desert them. If they change, they may get
> new fans, or they may not and the old fans desert them because the new
> album
> doesn't sound like the last 20 they made.
Um...yeah....what they DON"T generally do, is take a new group, with a new
vision, and say "we're the Beetles!!", "I'm John Lennon!!" Again, you seem
to have a deep belief that the overriding priority is getting new fans and
keeping something going, even if it is only in name. Even if Star Trek
completely died, old fans will cherish it and certainly it will inspire
future work, just as great music does.
