Slashdot Mirror


Activision Sues Star Trek Over Franchise Decay

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a press release announcing that Activision is suing Viacom for breach of contract over the Star Trek game license. The article summarizes Activion's complaints: "..through its actions and inactions, Viacom has let the once proud Star Trek franchise stagnate and decay", and furthermore that "..a continuing pipeline of movie and television production, and related marketing, is absolutely crucial to the success of video games based on a property such as Star Trek." Activision has terminated the contract agreement, and looks to recover damages and advances from Viacom - according to a Dow Jones story, "..the initial license agreement included $20 million in advance royalties and warrants, with additional payments to be based on game sales."

93 comments

  1. It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by OwnerOfWhinyCat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Viacom should just pay up, or better still promise to invest the 20 mil. in the next ST movie.

    Let's see a show of hands for everyone who thought Nemesis was the best Star Trek yet?
    [crowd remains motionless]

    The likely problem I see is that damned corporate pride. There are all kinds of fun things to do in the StarTrek universe still. The Viacom execs. must have convinced themselves that "StarTrek is dead and we have the ratings from Nemesis to prove it."

    I certainly hope someone at that company has the balls to say Nemesis sucked because we made it suck, and shop for a decent script for a new movie.

    1. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      Let's hope they're not using Nemesis as the yard stick for the popularity. However, I read somewhere that this was to be the last of the ST:TNG movies. Do any of us really want to see Neelix on the big screen? He's a fscking walking Catfish for chrissake.

      If the Voyager series makes it to the big screen, its going to take a LOT of hardcore action & space fight scenese to get me to go to it anywhere other than the dollar cinema.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    2. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by ip_vjl · · Score: 2, Funny


      I certainly hope someone at that company has the balls to say Nemesis sucked because we made it suck, and shop for a decent script for a new movie.

      Viacom exec 1: Nemesis sucked because we made it suck.
      Viacom exec 2: Nemesis sucked? But everybody thought the script was so good when we used it for Wrath of Khan.
      Viacom exec 1: You're right. Maybe we went too far back.
      Rick Berman ... too far back. Hey, that gives me an idea. Maybe in the next movie we could send the crew back in time to save some whales or something. No, been done. Monkeys! Yes. That'd be new and fresh.

    3. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by databoing · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not likely to happen, Voyager got home in their finale. Neelix was left behind, so he wouldn't show up in the next one. You'll recall from Nemesis that Janeway is an Admiral now (the nerve of her to be ordering Picard around, hmmph!), so she wouldn't be doing much.

      I can just see the movie now: In the 24th century, a new paper-pusher has come to StarFleet Command...

      Hey, it can't be any worse than Nemesis...

    4. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I thought it was odd that Janeway was an admiral.

      Neelix left behind? YAAAAA! Admittedly, I stopped watching Voyager.

      I've seen a couple of the news series' episodes, despite my loathing of Scott Bakula. The hot Vulcan chic is the only reason to tune in, and even then the coldness of her character (yes, I know Vulcans as supposed to be that way) makes one lose interest.

      Nemesis blew. The Scimitar was a cool ship, but not cool enough to rescue the movie.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    5. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by Saige · · Score: 1

      Let's see a show of hands for everyone who thought Nemesis was the best Star Trek yet?

      Best Star Trek overall? Nope. Wrath of Khan seems to be unbeatable.

      Best Next Gen movie? I'd raise my hand there - based on the fact that it seems to have the fewest plot holes out of the four. Neither Generations nor First Contact should have made it anywhere near production if anyone had a clue what they were doing - I am unable to enjoy either one of them because the plot holes are utterly ridiculous.

      Meaning I can only compare Nemesis to Insurrection. Anyone want to pick a favorite between those two? Surely Nemesis is the only one to choose there.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    6. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's more than a legitimate gripe, it may very well be that Activsion is in the right. Obviously, I haven't seen the contract Activision/Viacom signed, but with this kind of deal, both sides usually have to give and take. Activision had to deal with the cost to buy the rights to Star Trek games, and has to deal with Viacom more or less micromanaging projects so that it sticks with the Trek "rules." The converse of this is that if the contract was written up as a partnership arrangement, then something would have to be done to assure Activision that it was worth the effort of the licence, most likely a clause stating that Viacom would make an effort to churn out ideas for Trek that would provide a foundation for Activsion to make games based off of it.

      Now, if this is the case(and it's a big if), then Viacom might very well be in violation of their contract. While I think Enterprise is a good series, as game material it sucks, the beginning of human exploration lacks ships, characters, colonies, and other things that lay the foundation for a game. I imagine however that Viacom will take the easy exit, pay Activision off, and possibly void the contract.

    7. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by MaverickUW · · Score: 2, Funny

      No no no, you got it wrong. You skipped a movie. The Enterprise is supposed to go back to that Nebula thing, find out that somehow when the Scimitar got destroyed with it's life-ending-weapon, that it created a new planet, and Data's body has been resurrected, and needs to transfer his mind out of B4 in order to remember who he is.

      Duh! :)

    8. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by jafuser · · Score: 4, Funny

      Monkeys! Yes. That'd be new and fresh.

      (Lightbulb on!)

      I'd pay full price and buy a LARGE popcorn and LARGE soda just to see an officially licensed movie which combined Star Trek and Planet of the Apes.

      Wow.

      They'd resurrect MST3k just for this one movie alone...

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    9. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by J_DarkElf · · Score: 1

      hot Vulcan chic?

      Just because you put someone in a catsuit that looks more like bodypaint does not make them hot.

      She's just there so Brannon Braga has a 'hot model' on standby for when his relationship with Jeri Ryan breaks up.

      Besides, she is the worst excuse for a Vulcan yet... and that is counting the racists Vulcans from DS9 who sucked at baseball.

      Want to see a hot Vulcan? Saavik. (Both of them).

      And a good looking woman on Bermanprise? Look no further than 'Hoshi Sato'.

      And don't even get me started on Admiral Painway...

    10. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by zero_offset · · Score: 1
      Let's see a show of hands for everyone who thought Nemesis was the best Star Trek yet?
      [crowd remains motionless]

      Funny, everybody I know *loved* Nemesis. It was truer to the original Star Trek, which was a simple fly-around-and-blow-things-up type of show. The newer Star Treks have turned into namby-pamby self-important soap operas. If the special effects hadn't gotten so amazing in recent years, the god-awful scripts would have killed the show a long time ago.

      Here's a clue: shows like Star Trek are supposed to be escapist. If you believe otherwise, you're probably one of those pasty-skinned, overweight freaks whose sole claim to fame will be a shot of you reciting 10 seconds of mangled Klingon gibberish in the "Trekkies II: Hot Kirk-on-Spock Action" DVD.

      Nemesis brought it back to basics -- fire up the latest bad-assed ship and go kill some aliens.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    11. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by a_peckover · · Score: 1

      Ask Patrick Stewart. Or John Logan. Either will do.

      The script as written did not suck. It's just a shame that Stuart Baird decided that in order to turn a 3 hour script in to a 2 hour movie he had to chop out all of the parts that made the movie a Star Trek movie, instead of Generic Sci-Fi Action Film #470423.

      The biggest gripe I had with the film was not that it was a bad film, it wasn't IMHO, but that Baird's amateurish editing left us with events going on in the background that just occurred with no explanation. Why was Wesley there ? Or Worf ?

      Ditching the pointless Mind-Rape plotline (which they already did to much greater effect on the TV show), and leaving in the the scenes with Commander Madden, Wesley, Worf and Beverly's decision to go back to Earth would have made this movie far more satisfying for hardcore Star Trek fans like myself. As it stands, the movie's complete disregard for all continuity (Romulan Ale is not illegal anymore!!) just left a bad taste in my mouth.

    12. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      Rick Berman ...

      Yeah, Berman and Bragga together are the touch of death. How many shows have you seen where nothing actually happens that weren't wrtten by Bragga? Who the hell are these guys sucking off to keep their jobs?

      The best thing Viacom could do to revive the franchise is get rid of Berman and Bragga! There have to be plenty of good idea people around the Star Trek universe who can bring in and produce more fresh ideas. You have the Star Trek book lines, plenty of fan fiction, Game writers, alternate universes (Galaxy Quest, ...). Bring in some fresh talent and submit Berman and Bragga to the Pit of Dispare.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  2. Ok....? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Viacom decided not to pursue any more ST TV shows or movies. Could this be because the latest series isn't as good? Could it be that the movies/TV programs have become less popular?

    And Activision wants Viacom to continue to invest in a less-than-profitable franchise so Activision can continue to ride their coattails & sell a few games?

    Lame.

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    1. Re:Ok....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Lame?

      Viacom agreed to it in a contract with Activision. You think it's lame for Activision to complain that Viacom broke a contract? I keep my promises. I think it's lame when people don't. You think it's lame to hold people to them. Or maybe you didn't bother to read the article.

    2. Re:Ok....? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      I RTA. I think its lame that Activision is trying to force Viacom to keep the ST series alive only so they can cash-in and get software sales.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    3. Re:Ok....? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, Activision just wants Viacom to fire that idiot Berman, and hire some decent writers!

      Viacom probably doesn't care much about the Trek franchise any more, because it's part of that big white elephant known as UPN. Paramount started UPN because it had a theory that studios should own networks. (Same theory that made Disney buy ABC and Time-Warner start The WB.) I've always suspected that they cancelled TNG, despite high ratings, just to get out of syndication contracts that prevented them from moving the show to a network.

      Now Paramount is part of Viacom, which owns CBS. They'd unload UPN if they could, and they're not going to give it much attention in the meantime. But if they could be forced to spare some attention for this tiny part of their empire known as Star Trek, they could make some changes that would bring the fans back.

    4. Re:Ok....? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      But if they could be forced to spare some attention for this tiny part of their empire known as Star Trek, they could make some changes that would bring the fans back.

      You're right. But the suits at Viacom are so far removed from the fans (hmm, sounds like the RIAA eh?) that they'll never realize this and ST will go away.

      In the long run, they're only hurting their pockets and the pockets of the cast & crew (as well as robbing us of what was once a great series..)

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    5. Re:Ok....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that what the contract entailed? Software sales? Isn't that what Activision does? Wouldn't they be doing a disservice to the employees and shareholders if they didn't enforce their contracts?

      Think things through here.

  3. Alright viacom! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny

    Viacom. Doing what angry Trekkies have wanted to do for years.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Alright viacom! by Otter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm just surprised they're complaining about the lack of new Star Trek movies. You'd think each new movie further degrades the value of the franchise.

  4. Quality of Games by Gr33nNight · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, right Activision. And I'm sure making craptastic games had nothing to do with poor sales.

    Riiiiight.

    1. Re:Quality of Games by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Actually, Elite Force was one of the few tolerable Trek games ever to come out.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:Quality of Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on, Bridge Commander was a real good title too.

    3. Re:Quality of Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent gets a mod of 3 cause its a "funny" dis but not actually correct. Next two posts get 1 and 0 because they are right.

      GG /.

    4. Re:Quality of Games by Gr33nNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Elite Force 1 and 2 were both good, but thats a rare occurance with Trek games. 95% were ass, the rest were good. If it was the otherway around, you wouldnt see them suing anyone.

    5. Re:Quality of Games by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Please.
      Elite Force a lot of people seemed to like...
      Armada 1 and 2 were both a lot of fun.
      Bridge Commander was great...

      What games are YOU talking about?

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
  5. Sue Rick Bermen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Its all his fault Star Trek sucks.

    1. Re:Sue Rick Bermen! by J_DarkElf · · Score: 1

      It's Berman.

      And don't forget Brannon Braga, he's equally bad.

      They're the Beavis and Butthead that managed to turn Trek into one of the worst series on TV -- even Andromeda (with 'Hercules' Sorbo) is better.

      And before anyone starts with 'Berman was hand-picked by Roddenberry as his successor', that is an urban myth started by Berman himself.

  6. Star Wars anyone by Mr.Dippy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if we can get a lawsuit going on George Lucas then things will get interesting.

    Mesa thinks de star wars franchise jumped the shark a long long time ago.

    --


    -Dipster
  7. OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I certainly hope someone at that company has the balls to say Nemesis sucked because we made it suck, and shop for a decent script for a new movie.

    A few weeks ago us.imdb.com had a brief blurb stating that Patrick Stewart had formally decided that Nemesis would be his last Trek. He said he was bitterly disappointed with the poor reception of the film and he thought it was actually quite good. Apparently he's pissed off enough that he's vowed never to do another Trek. He said that he was sorry that it would have to end on a low note but that he had lost all interest. Sorry I don't have a link.

    GMD

  8. StarTrek died the day it turned it into SF by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The original StarTrek was cowboys in space.
    It died the day they turned it into Science Fiction.

    "What must have happened is a shift in the space time continuim" yawn

    It must be a non story because there's nothing on here about it

    All a big shame because I was really looking forward to being Nelix' apprentice and learning to fry insects in the MMORPG. Maybe I can be a space gardener instead!

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:StarTrek died the day it turned it into SF by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      I would argue that the latest series is indeed "cowboys in space" much more than it is Sci-Fi. However, the ratings are dropping off.

      Personally, I like Enterprise. I also think Next Generation was a good series, mostly due to Patrick Stewart.

      Voyager did suck horribly though, which I think still attributes greatly to the lack of interest in Trek these days.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    2. Re:StarTrek died the day it turned it into SF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Star Trek was Cowboys in space.

      But that's what makes good science fiction. What the current writers fail to grasp is that the science fiction portion of the story should be used to bring into sharp relief some dilemna that cannot be easily expressed in our modern world.

      Hard science fiction deals with the science to make a good story. Most science fiction though uses science fiction like Dues ex Machina to make a good story.

      This is what Star Trek did well. Now, the Star Trek stories just suck.

    3. Re:StarTrek died the day it turned it into SF by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I find it funny that no one even mentions the ubercrappy Deep Space 9 thing. Like a soap opera in SPACE!!

      Seriously though, I was a trek person only through STtNG and the original (reruns), mostly because they actually clicked, damn good casts, good plots, characters you liked, and a small dose of comedy.

      DS9, Voyager and Enterprise lacked all of these elements. I hated EVERYONE in DS9, the captian rocked, but his spawn and the worfling took up too much of the show. That and the silly little war stuff, which literally bored me to tears.

      Voyager was... drek. Pardon my un-PCness, but I have no desire to watch a show captained by a dyke, flying around in the middle of nowhere, with a cast of complete idiots, whose characters made me WISH that they would die. I got no attachment at all with the characters.

      And Enterprise... the shame. On first watching, my trekkness hurt, since it goes against all of the previous treks, somehow they revised history being that the ORIGINAL ENTERPRISE WAS PILOTED BY KURK! There was no ship named enterprise before the Enterprise A. Such crap. Also I really dislike sScott Bakula, I keep expecting that guy with the cool gizmo to show up and tell him the history behind everything. The only thing Mr. Bakula is good at is looking permanently perplexed by everything. Crap. Needless to say, I have no connection with the cast of that one either, meaning no reason to watch it.

      Basing something in a decent "universe" isn't enough to grant success, look at the David Lych Dune movie for comparison. Kick ass universe, suck ass movie.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    4. Re:StarTrek died the day it turned it into SF by c00lant · · Score: 0

      I am not even much an ST fan but I can tell you that Enterprise is pre-federation. Kirk captained the first FEDERATION Star Ship Enterprise. It's not an origional name either, since it comes from the name of an american military ship (the boat kind).

    5. Re:StarTrek died the day it turned it into SF by Maserati · · Score: 1

      -1: Drunk

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    6. Re:StarTrek died the day it turned it into SF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dumbass. It was a 24 gun(?) French Ship, l'Enterprise, before its' capture by the British in 1705.

      The Brits have had 10 Enterprises (Enterprizes) so far.

      For more information on just how dumb you are, please visit HMS Enterprise.

  9. Re: Preposterous by DrWho520 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could Starter or some other athletic wear manufacturer sue Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neil, Allan Iverson or Jason Kidd because their respective teams did not win the NBA championship? A loosing team does not sell merchandise as well as a champion...it has noting to do with whether the jacket falls apart or not.

    --
    The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
  10. Re:OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by Ophidian+P.+Jones · · Score: 2, Informative

    A few weeks ago us.imdb.com had a brief blurb stating that Patrick Stewart had formally decided that Nemesis would be his last Trek. (...) Sorry I don't have a link.

    Link

  11. More proof, by DuckDuckBOOM! · · Score: 4, Insightful
    as if more were needed, that corporations now consider legal strategies at least as important as those of their product lines. Any day now, I'm expecting archaeologists to unearth documentation of a lawsuit brought by Giuliano deMidici against Leonardo DaVinci on grounds that his later works weren't quite up to Mona Lisa standards, thus depriving his patron of revenue through reduced attendance at his showings.

    Sheesh.

    --
    Life is like surrealism: if you have to have it explained to you, you can't afford it.
    1. Re:More proof, by babbage · · Score: 1
      Not that I disagree with your general point, but...

      ...you didn't just compare Star Trek to the Mona Fucking Lisa, did you?

  12. Activision should sue Interplay by NetDanzr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    After all, Interplay has had the Star Trek license since 1993, when it published Star Trek: 25th Aviversary. Over the next almost 10 years, Interplay managed to create a very narrow niche - sales of Star Trek games were never really good; in fact, very few ST games made it into the Top 10. So if anybody is responsible for relatively low sales of the games, it's Interplay.

    That's not to say that low sales are wrong, but Activision should realize that it acquires a highly profiled franchise, which will not appeal to the same number of people as games like The Sims or the Command & Conquer series.

    1. Re:Activision should sue Interplay by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's not entirely correct. Paramount had this craptastic idea of shopping out the different show licenses to different publishers. Interplay had Classic Trek for years, Activision had ST:TNG, yet another had ST:DS9, etc. Paramount saw this as a cash cow opportunity to have other houses bid on each series. (This attitude seems to still exist.)

      After the terms of the agreements ended, Activision made a concerted effort to consolidate the franchises and bought the rights to the entire world of Star Trek. This way, the Star Trek games could share interfaces, feel and be more cohesive and the games could feature characters from any series. (Before you couldn't mention or use any character from a series you didn't have rights to. For example, Spock couldn't show up in a ST:TNG game.)

      I know about this because I was at Ensemble Studios at the time. Activision was really wanting us to do a Star Trek game next after Age of Empires II. They came and did a dog and pony show, gave everyone lots of *nice* Star Trek swag, but in the end we turned them down because we could make more money doing our own game with our own IP rights.

    2. Re:Activision should sue Interplay by NetDanzr · · Score: 1

      Many thanks for this info. For the past two years, I've been trying to compile a database of the various relationships within the software entertainment industry (a project that started with tracking the copyright ownership of a couple of classic games), and I didn't know this. Will update my database and not make the same mistake again :)

    3. Re:Activision should sue Interplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again the parent gets modded insightful, then the original poster admits some facts are wrong.

      What's going on around here?

      Does any post that hates on the plaintiff in any lawsuit get modded up automatically, even if the facts are wrong?

    4. Re:Activision should sue Interplay by irving47 · · Score: 1

      ARGH. Interplay... Must... Die.
      I'm one of the many ticked off Mac users from the Star Trek: 25th Anniv. game where they kept promising and promising the Mac users would be able to do battle with the PC users. Same game, different versions. They'd release a patch for one, and then not the other. When they released a patch for the other, it STILL had them out of sync. They had a message board on the MacPlay site. It was a bloodbath. They had to shut it down because we were raking them over the coals. Don't even get me started on the expansion packs they sold for PC only.
      On the plus side, Descent 1 and 2 were great.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
  13. What they should do by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is to stop trek for about 5 years, fire Berman, and his other buddy, and come back with fresh new ideas. Enterprise doesn't seem bad though, just I wanted it to continue in the future, future not 150 years, though the termporal cold war is an intresting idea so we can have some connection to the future. Though if they did that Activison would still be suing them.

    1. Re:What they should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Brannon Braga needs a shovel to the head. Desperately.

    2. Re:What they should do by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Steven Ira Behr just got off a job, so he might be available to take over for Berman and Braga. He and Robert H. Wolfe and perhaps Ron Moore should be brought in to finish off Enterprise and start development (sloooowly) for another series. Probably in the early 25th century, a few years after everyone from TNG, VOY, and DS9 are retired or whatever.
      It would take a few years, but in the meantime, nobody has to worry about an odd-numbered movie farking everything up!
      And doggone it, if they ever do a new series, how about NOT lying to the fans about the premise? Berman kept denying the premise of Enterprise, while fans like us were freaking out, saying no no no, don't do that.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
  14. They Are Alone... by vjmurphy · · Score: 4, Funny

    After the craptastic Star Trek: Nemesis and the lame Enterprise, Activision is actually the only entity that wants Viacom to make more Star Trek.

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
  15. Activision sues Star Trek? by lightspawn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Man, I hope Star Trek gets a good lawyer, or the Enterprise might end up getting repo'ed.

    Guys, can you change the title to something that makes sense?

  16. Amazing! by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Activision are suing Viacom for breach of contract

    I are flabberghasted!

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
    1. Re:Amazing! by crmartin · · Score: 1

      No, you am just American. The Brits consider a collective noun (like the name of a company) to be plural, so "Activision are" would be correct.

    2. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfectly logical.

      Activision = company
      company = more than one person
      more than one person = plural
      plural form of verb = are (not is)

      Let me guess, you are American right?

    3. Re:Amazing! by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      Ok, so I didn't realize that this was how they spoke in another country. I love the assumption that because I didn't know the specifics of another dialog, that automatically makes one some ignorant American.

      It's also perfectly logical to look at a company as being a single being, so try not to sound so snotty, ok?

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    4. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not being snotty. I am an American as well, and I would have written it as "Activision is" were I writing it. I did not assume you were American because you did not know the specifics of the way it is done elsewhere, but because *we* are in the minority of English speakers I believe. I do believe that it is only in American English that collective nouns are views as singular.

    5. Re:Amazing! by cicatrix1 · · Score: 1

      Perfectly logical.

      Activision = one company
      one company = single entity
      single entity = singular
      singular form of verb = is (not are)

      Let me guess, you are stuck up nerd right?

      --

      I know more than you drink.
    6. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize it. I still think it's idiotic.

      Would you say "Activision are a great company."
      "Activision is a great company."
      Activision are great companies."?

      How about "One company that comes to mind are Activision". One are?? I think not.

      You say "That group is" because it's one group.
      Talking about the same group you can say "Those people are" because there are many people.
      Many people are.
      One group is.

      Unfortunately it's cases like these that give ethnocentricity a good name.

    7. Re:Amazing! by HardCase · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, you am just American. The Brits consider a collective noun (like the name of a company) to be plural, so "Activision are" would be correct.


      So since /. has adopted this idiosyncracy of the British, how come they don't include an extra U in certain select words, e.g., colour? For that matter, why isn't a truck a lorrie, a subway a tube and a television a telly? Shouldn't they be substituting C for S in a select number of words, e.g., defence?


      Obviously I'm too senstive to this whole affair of what constitutes "proper" grammar, but my English teachers always told me that "a" group of things was singular because there is only one group. Thus, "a" company may have a gazillion employees, but it is still "a" company.


      Sure, the Internet is an international collective (oh crap, should that be "the Internet ARE...?) of individuals and companies, but since /. is an American organization (err...ARE an American...?) and its (their?) viewers are predominantly American (or at least American English-speakers), then shouldn't its (their?) grammar rules reflect American rules of grammar?


      I guess it could be worse...at least we don't speak French (a joke, dammit, a joke!)


      Oh, and for what it's worth, "am" does not agree with "you"...not even in Britain.


      -h-

    8. Re:Amazing! by simoniker · · Score: 1

      Ohboy.

      The Slashdot editor (myself) who wrote the post is English. Hence you will occasionally see Anglicizations (Anglicisations?) in my posts. This was actually one I wasn't aware of, and I'm going to try to viciously staunch it, as I have those poor 'U' characters - sentenced to death to save frenzied typing from Slashdot pedants the world over. Slashdot is, indeed, meant to be an American English zone, and I'll be doing all I can to strive for this important goal.

      It's 'lorry', btw.

    9. Re:Amazing! by crmartin · · Score: 1

      "am" does not agree with "you"....

      Did it hurt when they removed your sense of humor?

    10. Re:Amazing! by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Obviously I'm too senstive to this whole affair of what constitutes "proper" grammar, but my English teachers always told me that "a" group of things was singular because there is only one group. Thus, "a" company may have a gazillion employees, but it is still "a" company.

      Ah, but you say "Activison sucks, they are evil" not "it is evil".

      Your english teacher is wrong, as evidenced by how people talk about sports teams.

      "The Celtics *are* going to win this year" not "The Celtics is going to win this year".

    11. Re:Amazing! by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      Wow! Is that a Slashdot editor reading and replying to comments?

      Sorry if this is actually very common, I don't usually spend any time in the games section.

    12. Re:Amazing! by HardCase · · Score: 1
      Did it hurt when they removed your sense of humor?


      Not as much as when they took out your sense of sarcasm!

  17. for a good Trek movie, get the script... by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    from just about anywhere but the USofA.

    This past weekend my wife and I went to "Bend It Like Beckham," a wonderfully fun movie. At the same second-run theatre we saw that Matrix2 was there already, and XMen2 had been playing for a few weeks.

    I'm convinced that it's a general problem with American business. First off, IMHO they believe that "business" is more important than other factors like talent and originality, and that a good manager can manage anything into profitability. Second, I don't really believe that they're even good businessmen, because a good businessman is willing to take a risk and make it work, or accept the consequences of failure. It's perceived as less "risky" to follow a franchise than to try something original, hence the collection of sequels and comic book adaptations.

    Gee, these sound like the same problems hounding the music industry - promoting "safe" rehashes of the same old stuff.

    But of course it's not really "safe", because movies are bombing and music sales are down. Oh wait, we can blame that on Internet piracy!

    The real issue is that it depends on what you mean by the word, "safe," and not in a Clintonesque way. There's "safe" in the media boardrooms and meeting rooms, and there's "safe" in the marketplace. These days, there's little correlation.

    Actually, "safe" in todays marketplace should mean taking risks, and that means that sometimes you'll bomb. But is that any worse than today's sequelmania? Consider that today's sequelmania is producing dismal results, is a bomb or two really that bad when originality will probably also bring some HITS?

    Plus, as others have said, big budgets and special effects do not necessarily correlate with a good movie. "Bend It Like Beckham" looked pretty cheap to make, as did "The Full Monty" of a few years back. Good writing and good acting are much more important.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:for a good Trek movie, get the script... by Tediak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a problem with this argument. It seems in the Grand Ol' USofA movie ticket sales have barely anything to do with the quality of the actual film. Overall sales may be down, but the blockbusters are still crap, and definately not risky. Besides, sequels sell, look at The Matrix Reloaded and The Phantom Menace.

    2. Re:for a good Trek movie, get the script... by raiderx · · Score: 1

      Are you saying American writers do not write quality material? There are good writers here and they are writing good stuff. It's the American studios that refuse to buy most quality scripts because they base their projections on the lowest common denominator, i.e. mall focus groups. Script nationality has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    3. Re:for a good Trek movie, get the script... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youre tripping. You just said hollywood plays it "safe" and then talk about how they should make titles like bend it like beckham and the full monty... well dur, dont you think bringing those movies to america is playing it "safe"? i understand your point, but the examples you give are no different from hollywood pulp. you do realize that there are bigwig movie execs sitting around saying 'hey lets play it safe and bring the full monty to america, its so cheap it HAS to make money'. dumbass, hahaha!

    4. Re:for a good Trek movie, get the script... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      You took the words...

      When I say "Go outside the US," I guess I'm being unfair to the writers. I suspect if US execs went outside the US looking for scripts, they'd manage to find the same kind of stuff they find inside the US.

      You've made my point, better.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:for a good Trek movie, get the script... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I also differentiated "boardroom safe" from "market safe". As cheap as it was, the Full Money was riskier than a moderately high-budget special-effects "traditional" Summer movie, at least from the boardroom perspective.

      Neither of my examples was a 'great' movie, but both were good movies. Maybe they weren't that spectacular, but neither did they have giant budgets. Neither were "Hulks". (Which I want to see, as soon as it gets to cheap-seats.)

      On a different vein, it's not so much any particular aspect of the American movie I'm against, it's the sameness, the 'safe-in-formula' approach studios seem to take. A dozen Full Monty's or Beckham's and I'd be sick of them, too.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    6. Re:for a good Trek movie, get the script... by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      It's perceived as less "risky" to follow a franchise than to try something original
      It is the fashion of the days - McDonalds corporate logo is more important than quality and health. This is the meaning of success these days, so naturally they will be risk averse and dump cheap crap into Star Trek. The DMCA will ensure advertising revenues will be the measure of success in the future.
      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  18. New Star Trek Icon suggestion by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny

    Suggestion for a new "Star Trek Decay" icon: ....a still snapshot of "The Simpsons" episode where a very round Scotty was waving his arms and complaining that he was too fat to reach the controls.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  19. Re:OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

    I didn't see Nemesis, but regardless of film quality, if Patrick Stewart (btw, isn't it Stewart?) thought the film was good and won't do any more because the movie didn't do that well, I just think that sounds a little childish. That's sort of like "You won't do [whatever] so I won't be your friend anymore!"

    One would think he'd take extra care to make sure that the next movie (if there is a next movie) was damn good, as to not duplicate Nemesis's's's poor performance.

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
  20. Re: Preposterous by cicatrix1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Activision isn't suing Viacom because everything since TNG has sucked, they are suing because they made a decision to stop producing any more series or movies. Your (4 Insightful, why??) analogy is way off. The proper analogy would be if the athletic wear manufacturers sued Shaq or others because they decided to quit their sport in the middle of a long term advertising deal, which would be a fair and lucrative suit.

    Also, please explain the concept of a loosing team. I am familiar with teams that lose games, and are hence labled 'losing teams'. Maybe the two terms are related?

    --

    I know more than you drink.
  21. Wow... just as I enjoy it. by M3wThr33 · · Score: 1

    I'm a Star WARS fan, so anything knocking Trekkies makes me feel a bit better, but after playing through Elite Force I'm singing a different tune. Elite Force KICKED ASS and is one my favorite FPS. I have a feeling it was meant to tie in with a movie or something, because it felt very heavy on emotion, but that could just be me.

  22. Re:OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by Poofat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't say that I blame him. Star Trek:TNG was never about action, and thats all people want to see anymore. Nemesis tried to be successful by making a good movie, instead of action and cool effects.

    The same can be said for Insurrection. I really liked that movie (though alot of people didn't), it and nemesis were more like episodes than movies.

  23. Whaddaloadacrap! by parliboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Part of Activision's statement in the article says that the suit is being filed because Viacom has let two series end since they signed the contract.

    In other words, they are suing because DS9 and Voyager ran for "only" seven years apiece.

    I call Shenanigans right there.

    --
    "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    1. Re:Whaddaloadacrap! by irving47 · · Score: 1

      I (and a lot of other people) would submit that DS9 could have gone a season or two longer. Some of the actors wanted off, certainly, but I think they probably could have gotten away with one or two more departures without the series suffering too much. (Terry Farrell was/is a damn fool.)
      We never really heard anyone talk seriously about an eighth season just because their contracts ran out. Too bad. The 3rd season was when it really started to pick up. So maybe they owe us for seasons 1 and 2? :)

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re:Whaddaloadacrap! by parliboy · · Score: 1

      Lots of shows could go longer. But should it have?

      Consider the steaming pile of manure that was season 7 of TNG. The only really stand-out of that season was "All Good Things". Would the legacy of that show have been better served by cutting it off at 6? Possibly so.

      Similarly, would DS9 have gone downhill had it stuck around? I say yes.

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
  24. Re:OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by Snaller · · Score: 1

    If he really said that I've lost some respect for Patrick Stewart. It was lousy.

    (I don't doubt you - i read the bit on IMDB and other places as well)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  25. TMR and TPM by dpilot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Both of which seem to have been 'over-anticipated' in retrospect. I guess they both made money, but neither really made fans happy.

    I guess a Fan and his money are soon parted.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  26. However... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Viacom believes they can halt the decay by reversing the polarity of the positron flow.

    Chris Mattern

  27. Activision's big enough and ugly enough... by garyok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...to take over the Star Trek franchise entirely if they want. What's stopping them? Buy the rights from Viacom and then they could make the shows any damn way they felt like. Decent shows (not sci-fi that's softer than baby shit) would be the best advertising their games could get, if that's what they wanted.

    And then they could stop sueing and we could stop tuning into more disappointing episodes (hoping against hope that this will be the turnaround episode were something fun happens).

    --
    One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
  28. Re:OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by Maserati · · Score: 1

    Thing about Nemesis is... they did a really good job on a mediocre remake of Wrath of Khan. And that's just all there is too it. I look back on Nemesis and just weep at all the effort they wasted on a screenplay they already bloody shot !

    It looked good, the acting and direction were good, the script was good, the editing was good...

    oh yeah, pulling a major villain out of your ass just plain sucks.

    --
    Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  29. Trek is Dying by Repton · · Score: 1

    It is official; Activision confirms: Star Trek is dying...

    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
  30. Dammit, I'm a doctor, not a video game publisher! by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
    While this seems like a silly lawsuit, it says something about the nature of certain games and their relationship to movies.

    From the publisher's point of view, you can see the attraction of a well-known franchise. Here's Star Trek, with legions of fans. The publisher, being a bean counter first and foremost, isn't really disposed to thinking, "I wonder what makes ST work," or "I wonder if we can translate what makes ST work on TV and in film to games," or "When are people going to get tired of this ST stuff, anyway?" No, the point is to pay the licensing fee and milk the sucker for all it's worth.

    And so this banal relationship begins. The games are ciphers; they depend on the movies and TV to create and sustain the characters that they will borrow for skin deep, formulaic exploitation.

    But - heh - what happens if the TV and cinematic franchise has been doing the same thing, cannibalizing its own better past for years until the cash cow is picked clean? Then the bean counters have a problem, don't they. Maybe they should have run their tricorder over the deal a few more times before signing.

  31. Too bad Khan is dead by Ath · · Score: 1
    The Wrath of Khan was the only decent Star Trek movie. They should bring his ass back like they did Spock.

    Or better yet, make a Cocoon 3 where all the Star Trek cast members are revitalized by alien pods in a pool.

  32. Re: Preposterous by garyok · · Score: 1

    Ooh! Ooh! I know this one: loosing teams are naughty groups of sex-offenders that work crowds in packs, distracting girls with rude puppet shows, while their mates sneak up behind them and unfasten their bras.

    Am I right?

    --
    One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
  33. Re:OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

    A few weeks ago us.imdb.com had a brief blurb stating that Patrick Stewart had formally decided that Nemesis would be his last Trek.

    Strange, in this article he is advocating another one.

    --

    -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
  34. I still like Star Trek . . . by Aurelfell · · Score: 1

    . . . dispite recent history. I'd like to see this finally convince Viacom that they need to do something about the eroding franchise. Of course, it's equally likely that they'd just use this as another excuse to abandon it all together. Given that they lost money on the last movie, the TV show's ratings are less than stellar, and now a licencee is suing them, they may vary well want to get rid of it all together. If so, I just hope they sell it to someone who'd do justice to what little dignity it has left.