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."
What happens to the money?
Theres a good chance they won't raise enough money, and a chance that even if they do the studio won't be interested or they won't find anyone to air it.
If such a thing comes to pass, what happens then?
The mistake here is that these dedicated fans are essentially casting their cash into the coffers of a company who has it out for their TV show. This shouldn't be viewed as a project that requires their donations to make it happen. This should be an investment, something with a potential return on their capital.
I agree with everyone who said that the first couple of seasons sucked, although it had its moments; season three was sometimes pretty cool, definately an improvement. The lack of other good shows on TV (I hate reality TV) kept me watching.
Now that Coto's in charge, season four kicks ass! Too bad so many people already wrote the show off. I just saw an episide that explains beautifully why Klingons looked different in the original series, and even fits in with Worf's comment in the DS9 "tribbles" episode ("We don't talk about it"). That's the kind of thing they should have done from the get-go, rather than screwing around with that "tempral cold-war" crap.
Here's hoping the show can continue!
We apologize for the inconvenience.
I am a 'Trek fan, but I have to agree with the parent's sentiment (except for the comment on "giving away software for free"). There are much better uses for $32M US.
As long as we keep trying to maintain the old franchises, there is no incentive for new material.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
Star Trek has *always* been a mirror of US politics... even TOS had it (klingons/federation = russians/americans). TNG (ooh look we made peace with the rus..err..klingons). The films (the last one was about a terrorist leader with a big WMD).
Enterprise got a bit blatant with the unprovoked attack on earth that wiped out half of the US and the subsequent hunt for the cuplrits, but it's just following a pattern that's always been there.
People are not rational. Some people actually *pay* for the privilege of wearing a shirt with "GAP" written on it or with the Nike logo.
They will pay to advertise a brand that already sells them products with insane profit margins, that already hammers them with incessant and mindless ads any occasion it gets, and they pay to do it both to themselves and to others...
Once you've seen that, the Chewbacca defense makes perfect sense.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Note how everybody here who is defending it is solely defending Season 4? That's because Season 4 is *good*. More than that, it addresses all the problems you had with it.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I feel sorry for the actors who signed aborad Enterprise. I'm sure they were expecting a nice 7-year ride and some chances to do some challenging acting once in a while. Instead, they got Breman and Braga'd into a 4 year soap-opera.
If you take a look at the history of the Star Trek franchise, the show's quality started out remarkably good (considering it was a campy 1960's wagon train in space). They got a good diverse set of writers to write about topics of the day and tried to both produce fluffy entertainment AND slip a few social messages through the censors.
When TNG was created, Gene Roddenberry had the chance to tell the kinds of stories he wanted to tell back in the 60's, but without the overwhelming concerns of money and the delicate ears of the country. The success of the original show in syndication(!) and the movies gave him all the clout he needed, and so he made a show that revived ST and fired it up for years to come.
Expanding the franchise, he came up with the ideas for DS9 and Andromeda. DS9 would be a story about the invasion and corruption of the Federation, possibly culminating in its fall. The show that is now Andromeda was originally to have been the story of what happened after the fall of the Federation.
All well and good. Unfortunatly, he had Beavis and Butthead -- errr... Breman and Braga as assistants from TNG days. As his health started to decline, he was forced to hand over more and more of the day-to-day operations of the show to them. When the network balked at the idea of the Federation collapsing, they rethought the whole dominion wars aspect of DS9 and came up with Voyager as a way to explore a galaxy without the Federation.
By that time, B&B had taken the helm and thrown the idea of social commentary out the window. They believed in old-schoold demographics. Ratings slipping? Ok, Hire 7 of 9 and put her in a illogically tight jumpsuit.
Just as DS9 was supposed to be about a seedy and corrupt corner of the Federation, and Voyager was supposed to be a dark Federation-less corner of the universe, Enterprise now took on the challenge of being the 'Really-Dark-This-Time' Trek. Pre-Federation, we wouldn't have to worry about Prime Directives, or about fleets of starships showing up to save them. Transporters were supposed to be flaky and unreliable. Phasers were supposed to be little more than laser guns. Communication would be limited to launched probes.
Instead, we got a captain who (through no fault of the actor!) has a split personality -- swinging back and forth between concerned pacifist and vengeful hitman. We got a hot vulcan chick who could have developed into a really interesting character -- if she were allowed to do more than change uniforms every season. And we get to encounter most of the familiar alien races which act much the way they acted towards us in the future... even though it should have been first contact.
I'll say what I said with Voyager. If Paramont wants to save the franchise, they must fire Breman and Braga and hire people who care about the show, not just the ratings. I can't remember which one (does it matter?) but one of them actually bragged about having never seen the original series.
2. They get some decent writers. Far too much of Trek in the past few years has been about moralising rather than just telling a good story. I definitely vote for Michael J Straczynski doing some of the writing for the shows.
3. They stop dicking about with the movies. Stop doing Trek movies "for the masses", keep them within the Roddenberry guidelines and for the fans. For example, I do not want to see our favourite bald captain spending 15 years or so following the Prime Directive only to tear around the surface of a planet like a lunatic in a sand buggy (as in "Nemesis")! Definitely not in Picard's character...
4. Go forward rather than back. Why wasn't Enterprise just set after Voyager rather than before TOS? Prequels always introduce plot discrepancies which are going to be picked up by a fan-base as involved as Trek fans are. This seemed the ultimate stupidity with "Enterprise", IMHO.
5. Look at entertaining the fans first, then worry about the money-making. If the fans like it, they'll by the merchandise and go to the conventions.
I'm a middle-aged geek who's followed the shows since childhood - TNG was great, DS9 was good, Voyager had about half-a-season's worth of good episodes, Enterprise was rubbish. Now I've about given up on Trek completely and won't be coming back until I feel I am being entertained rather than just ripped off by Paramount for as much money as possible.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.