Sectorgame

Are you trying to say that Trek is bigger than Stargate? Because, that would be a stupid debate - everyone knows that Star Trek has a huge fanbase. However as a series that no one expected to go beyond 5 seasons, Stargate has and will continue to do well where other shows have failed.

I think the question is how 'big' Star Trek is justnow. As in, cutting-edge of cultural zeitgeist (whatever the f### that means), or sad 1960s irrelevance.

aldo wrote:I think the question is how 'big' Star Trek is justnow. As in, cutting-edge of cultural zeitgeist (whatever the f### that means), or sad 1960s irrelevance.

I'd say smack-dab in the middle, which I feel is just about where it should be all things considered (thought I'd obviously like it to trend more toward the former, whatever the f### that means). It's obtained a firm status as a pop culture icon, though the newer series had decidedly more limited audiences than those that came before. The overwhelming (and perhaps unexpected) success of the new movie introduced a whole new generation of fans to the Trek world, and I'd wager that at least some percentage of them will be curious enough to seek out some of the older material. On a more cultural level, the franchise has inspired a whole population of NASA-types to pursue careers in science and engineering, and I think that underlying concept of boldly-going and pursuing a more ideal future for humanity can continue to do so into the future so long as people keep being exposed to it.

Star Trek was never all that relevant in the sixties. It got syndicated in the seventies and got a cult following, but it only became big after they jumped on the Post-Star Wars sci-fi boom and released the first movie in 1979 that it really started to take off. That did well enough at the box officeto trigger the rest of the films, which were obviously huge, and major re-runs of TOS. Really, Star Trek fandom as we know it was more a phenomenon of the 70s and 80s than the sixties.

Black Wolf wrote:Star Trek was never all that relevant in the sixties. It got syndicated in the seventies and got a cult following, but it only became big after they jumped on the Post-Star Wars sci-fi boom and released the first movie in 1979 that it really started to take off. That did well enough at the box officeto trigger the rest of the films, which were obviously huge, and major re-runs of TOS. Really, Star Trek fandom as we know it was more a phenomenon of the 70s and 80s than the sixties.

It's ideas were deeply rooted in the 60's, that we could build a world without prejudice, injustice, or poverty. Where everyone worked for the betterment of the human race and could achieve whatever he or she wanted provided he or she had the skills and the heart for it.

kosh wrote:

Black Wolf wrote:Star Trek was never all that relevant in the sixties. It got syndicated in the seventies and got a cult following, but it only became big after they jumped on the Post-Star Wars sci-fi boom and released the first movie in 1979 that it really started to take off. That did well enough at the box officeto trigger the rest of the films, which were obviously huge, and major re-runs of TOS. Really, Star Trek fandom as we know it was more a phenomenon of the 70s and 80s than the sixties.

It's ideas were deeply rooted in the 60's, that we could build a world without prejudice, injustice, or poverty. Where everyone worked for the betterment of the human race and could achieve whatever he or she wanted provided he or she had the skills and the heart for it.

And there were no commies. Except the space-commies.

Is that why the red shirts always get bumped off ?

*ding!*

Why are they making a new movie - of the original series?

(http://scifiwire.com/2009/08/confirmed- ... ger-to.php)

Probably because yet another movie containing 90 minutes of self-loathing and angst probably wouldn't stand out, whereas something more up-beat and hopeful puts them only in competition with Pixar

Well, there's always the possibility that it will avoid the errors in one version only to run smack bang into the errors in the original series

I'll always work on the theory of 'if I enjoyed the movie, it was a good movie', kind of like Star Trek, I thoroughly enjoyed it, even if it did take a 40-year old franchise and re-write the start of it, it was done in a pretty enjoyable manner, and that's what counts

Sorry, meant to add:

When you get right down to it, BSG is, itself, sort of a re-imagining of the Odyssey by Homer, with Odesseus being played by Adama (The 'Great Strategist' - who won battles with brains more than brawn, sound familiar?), The Cylons are the efforts of Poseidon to stop him, and they don't even try to hide the fact that 'Athena' is helping him...

There's a lot of analogies that can be drawn between the two at the very least.

Well, the storyline itself doesn't compare entirely, because for Adama, his Penelope is already there, there's no love interest to be rushing home to etc, which removes a large factor of the motivation that kept Odesseus going, but there are certain aspects of the show that are certainly reminiscent