Slashdot Mirror
TrekUnited Reports Mission Successful at Trek Rallies
Lord Prox writes "TrekUnited.com has the scoop on the LA/Paramount, Tel Aviv, and New York rallies. Surprises include a group of donors pledging a resounding $3mil and the appearances of cast and crew members. Reuters and Wired have details on the rallies and I took a few snapshots as well."
c'mon people...
we need a 20 year break from teh Trek.
Okay before things get out of hand let me make a few points on behalf of myself and fellow Star Trek fans.
1 - To BSG fans, while it may be a good show, it's still not Star Trek. It's not set in the familiar setting and universe that Star trek fans like and know.
2 - Why is having only one good sci-fi show on good enough
3 - To all of you who watched the first couple of seasons, it's a gotten a lot better and is hardly the same show. I stopped watching midway though the second, but came back in the fourth and it's much better. If it continues the way it has gone in this past season it should easily pass Voyager in quality and could potentially reach TNG standards
I also watch BSG and the two Stargate shows, but I also like Enterprise, and would like as many options as i can get.
Just let Roddenberry's ghost rest in peace and stop milking the cash cow.
And I'm posting anonymously so all the fanboys who don't know good sci-fi from schlock don't start sending me hatemail.
Don't get me wrong, Enterprise is an okay show but there are many others out there that are so much better that don't even get to see the light of day. In an era where Battlestar Galactica and Babylon 5 are superior in almost every conceivable way is there really any room left for Star Trek?
But I tell you, this outpouring of support is amazing. Say what you will about the quality of the show, or the usage of the money - and I know the flood of comments about what a pitiful waste of capital this is will be starting soon. Hell, I'd like to have $3 mil to blow on [name of pet project] - who doesn't?
But here on Slashdot we love to piss and moan about the state of the entertainment industry and how people ought to vote with their money. I, for one, see this is a perfect example of some devoted fans doing just that. Too bad we didn't get this for Firefly - but we've got a film coming, so...
Bravo, fans!
I'm just asking for clarification, because it seems like the different sites linked are displaying very different numbers for the amount of capital these protestors have amassed. Wired seemed to think that someone was claiming they'd give $3mil, but had not actually handed it over yet. Reuters said they had $48,000 or so. I'm just wondering whether the $3 million is in the hands of the fans right now or if there's just someone out there claiming to have a few million to spend on Enterprise. I mean, it certainly helps the cause get attention. I'm just wondering whether this money has actually been ponied up or not. Anyone have more details? Is there something I'm not seeing?
Lets face it, "Star Trek" has had it's day. Let it die a dignified death people....
God, the stupidity never ends around here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big trek fan. I've probably seen every episode of TNG. I at the very least found all of the movies to be entertaining, even if they weren't that great. I actually liked Voyager a lot. But, Enterprise just doesn't feel like trek to me. I admit I haven't watched much of it. But, in my opinion the acting, the atmosphere, it's just not what any of the other trek series were (which is a bad thing). I don't have a link, but I remember reading an article where Gene Roddenberry's son commented that Enterprise didn't live up to the ideals that his father had for trek. Please Enterprise fans, use the money for something better. Do something to make the world a better place. Gene would have wanted it.
The thing is, these days, most young people see 'Star Trek' as a sort of nerdy, antisocial thing that only geeks and non-popular social outcasts would watch.
"These days"? I must have missed something - at what point in time was watching Star Trek up there with "Freinds" or "Seinfeld"?
People still make fantastic, high-quality jazz, abstract art, and classical music. The last good thing to come out of Star Trek was First Contact, and even that was sketchy what with the ruining of the borg concept.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
I don't know... there's a market for quality shows. It's just not very big anymore.
Thing is, networks doesn't fund shows because of the desire of making a quality product (most of the time, at least). They want them to make money. That's why you see so many teen-soap-operas and reality shows: they have a limited life, but they milk every cent out of them in the meantime. When the cash cow is dead, they just raise a new one. Quality shows do have it's place and audience, it's just not big enough anymore.
It's a pitty. To be honest, i never cared much about Star Trek, but i hated to see Firefly go - similar deal. I just got hooked on BSG, and like it a lot aswell; The shield is another show (outside sci-fi) that i love unconditionally. I hate to never know if they're gonna be cancelled out of the blue someday. Hell, it happened to Family Guy.
Enterprise has the same problem that Firefly had. For some reason, they want to run directly against Stargate. That simply will not work. If Stargate was new, or sucked, then maybe they would have a chance, but neigther of these are the case. Just becasue you cans say "Sci-Friday" doesn't mean that every Sci-Fi show must run on Friday. I loved Firefly. It was a great show, that broke new ground. It tried something new, and it worked. Unfortuanatly, I didn't get to see it until it came out on DVD. I certainly wasn't going to miss a show that I KNOW I like, and have been watching for several years, in the hopes that maybe this new show might also be good. If it would have run on Tuesday or Saturday, I would have been a faithful view.
[Captain Tanneal]Well, YOU'RE WRONG! Star Trek is just a TV show based on fantasy escapism embraced by misanthropes who self-medicate with daily feasts of snack foods and justify their existence with baseless arrogance! Let's get it on![/Captain Tanneal]
(To avoid flamebait mods, Captain Tanneal is a character from the TV show MXC who opens every episode with a tirade against issues like health care or reforming criminals. Also, Star Trek sucks
What this tells me is that people are unwilling to vote with their money except for, in general, tripe. People will not provide material or spiritual support to change the status quo of the entertainment industry, but will provide both in great quantity to preserve the fact that status quo contains somewhere the name "Star Trek"-- though absolutely no preference whatsoever is expressed as to what is done with that name. We're doomed.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
1. DS9 > TOS > TNG > VOY > ENTs3 > ENTs1 > ENTs2
2. ENTs4 > DS9
3. ENTs4 =~ BSGs1
I just watched the last episode today, and I'm loving it. All 15 episodes are great.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I would be all for saving Enterprise if it wasn't for the fact that every episode is a propaganda machine for the Iraq war. Ever since 911 most of the episodes have something that sounds like it came off the news channel, "We must stop terrorism", "A stable empire is good for us", "our enemies don't want your people to have peace, the only way to stop them is too stand up to them"..etc..etc
There is no creativity to this, it is simply hearing whats on the news and putting it in a Star Trek Universe. If they go back to exploring then it might be worth saving.
yea, you're right. TOS had humor (Mudd, Tribbles, Gary Seven), surprises(Son worshippers not Sun worshippers, running gags (I a dr, not a ...; He's dead, Jim.), social commentary(black/white guy), better music to support the action. TNG was awful in the first season, but got much better, DS9 and Voyager had most of the attributes of TOS, but Enterprise, even though it *has* gotten better, still lacks hugh parts of the formula. They are out saving the universe when they should be making mistakes, going oh-wow!, discovering strange new worlds etc.
Nonsense. Good Show does not equal Ratings. The networks, UPN included, do not care about quality. They care about money, which means they care about ad revenue, which means they care about large numbers of people watching their network. Many Hollywood careers have been built on the reliability of Americans to devour cheap, mass-produced, pandering junk. Hell, promising shows are scheduled for timeslots after popular, established shows because executives know that viewers will be too lazy to change the channel! And that strategy works! Enterprise didn't fail because it was a bad show. It failed because it sure as hell doesn't belong on UPN. Just take a look at the front page of the UPN website! If that Star Trek Enterprise picture on the sidebar hadn't been there, would you have ever turned on UPN to catch the latest sci-fi series? Trek either belongs on Sci-Fi channel, or it belongs in syndication. Anything else, and nobody will continue to watch it, no matter how much money the fans pump into it.
I'm the last person to criticize why someone would want to tell someone what to watch, or how they spend their time or money relative to it. In general, I question the value these days of viewer campaigns (the Internet has increased their frequency, which, in turn, has diluted their value).
In the case of "Enterprise," I have to wonder. People are talking about funding an additional season on a network, in a serious fashion. And I do believe it is only a matter of time before a series is, at least in a significant part, funded by fans. I hope it is a quality gem that is given a truly raw deal by a major network.
However, I don't think "Enterprise" is it. It was given numerous renewals on the strength of shaky ratings. It's storytelling and acting are relatively weak. It has had some strong moments, but overall, I always found it lacking.
It's main redeeming quality has been that it is "Star Trek." Even that has almost been a detriment. When it tries to close a continuity loop with the other series, it does so with too much of a wink, and too much hype. It never felt much like "Star Trek," from the types of stories to the sets and costumes.
But it is this "Star Trek" connection that probably has given this campaign series traction. There is likely a noteworthy percentage of people who are rallying, raising funds, etc, for this simply so that Star Trek stays on the air, not "Enterprise." To them I say, "is this the Trek you really want to put your money into?"
Suppose it works. There might be one more season. But, unless you can truly identify and resolve the reasons for the poor ratings, you'll either have delayed the cancellation, or have to pass the hat one more time.
The only upside is that you'll prove the viability of a fan-supported show. And, one day, there will be a not-even-one-season wonder that benefits from fans funding the balance of a season/a second season. With luck, this provides the show a better audience, both by the simple fact it is still on, as well as because it gets a lot of publicity by being fan funded. A third season may become self-sustaining, perhaps even providing some dividend to the fan investors.
So to the people who want to fund "Enterprise" only to keep "Star Trek" on the air, I ask that you save your money, and get behind a new Trek show (already rumored to be in development (think 2006 or 2007)), or one of the new SciFi shows that demonstrates quality worthy of your devotion.
This is pretty insane on the part of the trekkers. I mean, they are DONATING money to produce a COMMERCIAL PROGRAM! The program gets produced, shown on tv crammed full of commercials and the studio gets to bank all that profit from the distribution.
Pay for production, get zero points in the profit. What a great investment!
Sorry, you are a troll. The original poster was pointing out why the show grated on the sensibilities of viewers raised on TNG and DS9. That is a legitimate basis for criticism. The previous series built up a certain feel and set of conventions that Enterprise failed to either adhere to or change in interesting/fun ways. The moderators were correct, it was quite insightful.
You! Have you ever kissed a girl? I didn't think so...
At least have some balls... Posting AC and making fun of Trekkies is pathetic.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
don't watch it dumbass, and let those of us who want to, to continue to watch.
What about those of us who want to watch it, but only if it doesn't suck? We're getting screwed!
You can't take the sky from me...
You may have failed to read my post carefully. I may or may not agree with the original poster. I may or may not like strawberries. I may or may not like T'Pol. You have no idea. And I expressed no opinion in my post.
I simply wanted to answer the question "why did [the original post] get modded insighttful." I was explaining why the criticisms contained in there were legitimate. The trollish nature of the question is obvious when you look at its structure and see that it (1) attacks the judgment of the moderators in an attempt to get itself modded up, and (2) offers a "holy-war" style criticism of the original post by denigrating its points as baseless and worthless, and (3) cleverly inviting posters like you to join it and add to its credibility.
It was not a good-faith effort at engaging in a debate -- hence, it's a troll.
The only one attempting to nullify everyone else's opinion would be you, if you misread my post.
I'm not busting on anybody, but it always sort of bothers me when people talk about how "this season was good" and "that season was bad".
Consider the original Star Trek. How many episodes does Kirk destroy the computer running an entire civilization? Talk about an overused plot device! For every "Amok Time", "City on the Edge of Forever", and "Trouble with Tribbles" there were at least two examples of "Return of the Archons", "The Enterprise Incident", or "Spock's Brain"--three episodes which I thought were particularly lame.
For people who complain about time travel, by the way, let's look at the original Star Trek. We have "City on the Edge of Forever", "Tomorrow is Yesterday", and "Assignment: Earth". There's also "All Our Yesterdays", where they go back in time but into another planet's history. There's also a bunch of "pseudo-time travel" episodes where they don't end up back in time but end up on another planet whose past looks like old Earth: "A Piece of the Action" (Mobster-run 1930s Chicago), "Spectre of the Gun" (Wild West), "Bread and Circuses" (Roman Empire), and "Patterns of Force" (Nazi Germany).
Gratuitously sexy costumes? Well, it was the 60's, so there were some limits. I could make the argument that all the women in the short skirts came pretty close. Some of the crew-women also wore some low-cut tops. And tons of bare midriffs! Let's see..."Gamesters of Triskelion"? "Mirror Mirror"? "The Apple"? "A Private Little War"? "By Any Other Name"? (One TV's first apres-sex scenes) "The Way to Eden?" And, for the ladies, let's not forget all the times that Kirk lost his shirt...
As for Star Trek: The Next Generation, well, I got pretty sick of all the times the holodeck killed people and took over the ship.
In short, there are always bad episodes. There are always great episodes. Expecting a full season of network TV to be wonderful is pretty tough on any show. I've watched Enterprise since the beginning and while there were a few times where I went "This episode sucks", for the most part, I thought the episodes were entertaining.
Why not donate the money to a worthy cause like Oxfam or Amnesty. Helping the less fortunate to "Live Long and Prosper"
Rather than pouring the money down the drain of yet another sub-standard season featuring ill-conceived plots and down on their luck actors.