Couldn't Paramount simply ape scripts, casting, format etc from beloved 60's-90's Trek and print money? What is going on there? As failed show titles stack up, watching the path of the Star Trek franchise reminds me of watching Nintendo purposefully avoid making a proper Paper Mario game for 20 years after the release of Paper Mario: Voyager for the gamecube. This is a /tv/ thread but I think the comparison is valuable for examining Paramount's behavior.In Nintendo's case, they had straightforwardly announced that another Mario franchise spinoff (Mario & Luigi for handheld consoles) was selected to fill the niche, so there is this very straightforward and honest explaination from Nintendo heading off my fanboy rage about the derailment of my favored franchise. Where does this leave Paramount in comparison with their experimentation regarding Trek? Was there ever a formal announcement?>"The Orville will be taking the niche of traditional Trek, leaving us to experiment with the mainline series"Or was there only sneering at the fans, i.e. "changing it is only bad because youre bad"? Have they ever explained why they can't/won't just make classic Trek content for the fans who consistently complained about the new stuff? Clearly there are millions fewer people watching Academy compared to TNG numbers. Clearly there's like, a hardcore contingent, perhaps even a general majority in all social media, complaining about how Trek is different now. This would indicate the presence of a lot of people who would spend money or time to view some good ol Trek. The producers are responsible for making stuff people will view... It all seems to line up quite clearly? Why dont they do it?
People still study Citizen Kane and remark, "oooh there's a modern transition!" and "wow that scene really defined how directors would light and stage their own scenes for decades" and etc etc but it seems to be difficult for Paramount to like, look at Star Trek and do the things those people did?
>>219370238there are already 13 star trek series, 2 of which I think are currently running, and 13 star trek movies (including 3 reboots)enough already
>>219370238You mean Same Repeated Worlds? Already cancelled.
>>219370327You are mixing together Star Trek and the new stuff. There hasn't been normal Trek since I was a teenager. I'm not saying the action movies and the femini one and the cartoon and the old people one are all totally bad or irreedemable (although many might say that), but they break the chain of custody from TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT so badly that the list now includes TAS & ENT, not unlike how disney Star Wars releases have retroactively improved the standings of the Prequels which were almost unanimously shat on originally. Out of respect between fans of the new stuff and fans of classic Star Trek, there should be some division in your count. There are 2 cancelled series airing out their last episodes, and then nothing, after like 5 other transient, experimental new-style shows. Why not make 1 classic Trek? It could be viewed as another experiment, at this point, to simply release a version aping classic casting, scripting, direction, etc etc. As far as I know they currently have nothing. That's like owning rental properties, painting them weird new colors, and then not renting them to any tenants. Just eating shit instead. I do not get it.
>>219370528No that's like the inverse of what I am describing. Where I describe new Trek stories performed with the same production styles and values that established the franchise in past decades, Strange New Worlds re-addresses (and augments) prexisting lore with new and differing stylization and production values.
>>219370632My mistake.
Because you are under attack, retard.
>why doesnt this person who is bulldozing my house just stop bulldozing my house and then repair all the damageSome people are literally hopeless
>>219370550okay even disregarding all the ones you don’t like, how much star trek could a person possibly need in their life? they have done so much of it and you can’t understand why they won’t just keep making classic star trek forever. because it’s a blatant cash grab, it’s undignified to just keep pumping out soulless bullshit til the end of time. they make remakes of literally everything now, have you seen how fucking ass they usually are?
>>219371300>>219371229omg Trek bros we're literally like the Palestinians!
Why not make some of these?
hollywood is only interested in pushing agendas. they don't really care about "earning" money from their products. they acquire enough funding from other means.
>>219371510>they acquire enough funding from other means
>>219370238>This would indicate the presence of a lot of people who would spend money or time to view some good ol Trek.Not necessarily. Looking at the rumored viewership figures of Academy it's clear there are considerably more people supporting it on social media than actually watching. The social media culture war surrounding these products is more popular than the actual thing. So I wouldn't be surprised if a "classic" Trek performed similar to Andor meaning not good at all. In fact the same people praising that would likely be shitting all over the actually popular stuff.
>>219371463>I play a main character special guest and I am alien and I have a special pheromone power that makes all the women have sex with me and then the whole episode is them having sex with me and then they are all pregnant the end,x 29,996
>>219370238Bring back the Enterprise D. We need a hotel spaceship again. Lose the gritty shit, save that for the Borg. I want comfy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>219370238Because they would have to hire people with a genuine understanding of the original series and what people liked and disliked about it and that a level of effort and love for the source material that they neither have nor are willing to pay for.Meanwhile they can pay any fucker some pennies to make a shitty sci-fi series full of whatever bullshit he can come up with while high, then just have him add the uniform, a not-Spok, a not-Enterprise and call it Trek and have fans watch it, even if just to bitch about it. As a bonus they even get to do some money laundering by claiming it cost them millions to hire a bunch of queer blacks and to set up a green screen.
>>219371852>implying that’s not a marked improvement from what they’re writing now
>>219372088That requires*
they want to make a trek that appeals to a young generation, thats fine, but the way they go about it is horrid. kurtzman just turned trek into boss bitch interracial zoomer speak garbage.i mean can you imagine if it were the 90s and picard was all "cowabunga, dont have a cow dude", its out of character for a guy in the 99898989 century they dont want to make old trek, they want something refreshing for a new age, thats a tough nut to crack though
>>219372223>they want to make a trek that appeals to a young generationand they're absolutely right, they just picked the wrong demographic i.e. women and gays
>>219372088>would have to hire people with a genuine understanding of the original seriesNot in the slightest. Orville showed that you can have average sci-fi writers without an agenda write a trek like show that people will watch. Any average sci-fi writer could take the previous 40 years of Trek and expand it. Previous writers already laid the foundation so it was easy as shit. Nobody expected Nebula award winning authors, but even a poor sci-fi writer is a sci-fi writer. Nu-Trek had zero sci-fi writers on staff.
>>219370238You know why. Stop acting retarded.
>>219370238not really? if you tried to make 80s-90s trek you would get just retellings of TNG, VOY, DS9, ENT. it wouldnt work. helll the only reason DS9 survived is because it had the ability to tell more stories based around the other federation planets and areas. VOY often felll into just doing TNG episodes but worse due to their simillar formula and fear of taking risks. They need a fresh team and a reboot but who the fuck are you going to find to write it? you woulld have to escape neo-liberall fascist hollywood and focus on the real world and current writers cant do that
>simply ape scriptsthey can "ape" scripts, but no, they cannot write scripts like that anymore, thats the problem.
>>219372392remember when people would get so mad over anything being posted with an ifunny watermark and then we started doing it on purpose.
>>219370238I think certain series like Star Trek need never end, they should run continuously. You can have different ships, you can have different captains, you can have differen ages, different names of series even. But why have an abrupt stop to the schedule and disband everything? Just set up a continuous pipeline, young people taking over from old over time. If the audience is getting sick of something simply change things up a bit over the years. This is the correct format for a top, successful tv show.
>>219371419This might make sense from your weird personal perspective where you have the power of jusgement as to "how much" stuff a person deserves or gets or whatever in your brain, but this does not make sense from a game theory perspective which assumes rational actors, like executives of a publicaly traded company, trying to exploit all possible vectors of strategy, such as the ownership of a franchise which has an extremely dedicated and widespread fan base, in their favor, say, by releasing television shows featuring the franchise.
>>219372392Indeed, these IPs are simply vehicles for woke propaganda, Star Trek more than most as it literally was woke propaganda back in the day.
>>219371419Nobody's asking for remakes, you absolute buffooon, in fact one of the chief problems with Not-Trek is that it's obsessed by the past, constantly trying to take TOS era stuff and "update it for the modern audience" or doing shitty memberberry cartoon spinoffs.What people are asking for is what Star Trek had always provided previously: a new show with a new crew telling new stories which shares *themes and narrative tone* with the existing (real)Trek that came before but isn't a vapid retread or some faggoty post-postmodern identitarian deconstruction. They're obviously asking for that exactly because they don't believe the core formula is played out and soulless, dumbass.
>>219371852The difference between a scriptwriter's cringe self-insert getting it on with green alien hotties, and a beloved reoccuring female-fan-favorite character who gets his own spinnoff hunting sexy vampires, is the quality of the script. Any professionals still left in the industry could convert fanslop into Renaissance Trek if they wanted.
>>219372088We are not talking about Farscape or Lexx here. There is no shortage of untapped or unknown talent in the broad pool of "people who love star trek"
>>219371453yeshappy easter anon
>>219371453We've declared war on Paramount by launching a cowardly ambush on them and are now begging them to stop ruining our franchises?
