Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TrekUnited Reports Mission Successful at Trek Rallies

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the vulcans-on-parade dept.

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."

8 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. If they fail... by BoneFlower · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  2. Mistake by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Your parents called.... by aelbric · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. Re:Stop the propaganda machine by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:SUCKERS! by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  6. Re:A Few Notes: by JabberWokky · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You haven't seen season 4. They turned over creative control to someone who got the hell rid of the temporal war and has brought back in Orion Slave Girls, real emotionless Vulcans (reintroduced Kohlinar) and has made the Klingons look like TOS Klingons (i.e., no ridges).

    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
  7. Star Trek is worth saving when... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are stopped from having any involvement in Star Trek. Sure, Gene Roddenberry had his faults but at least he kept the shows as cohesive as possible and kept stupid paradoxes (like "Enterprise") from appearing.


    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.
    1. Re:Star Trek is worth saving when... by vidarh · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      This complaint always cracks me up. Roddenberry's purpose with Star Trek was to find a setting for social commentary that would let him present his moral agenda without incurring the ire of the studio censors... When fans don't see that in the older series, that's likely more because much of the original moralising was over issues that are now reasonably dated.

      For instance, it's hard to see the episode where Kirk and Uhura kiss as having any purpose as social commentary unless you're aware of just how controversial interracial relationships used to be, and that is perhaps one of the most blantant ones.

      I can hardly think of ANY episode of any Star Trek series that hasn't been dripping of moralising about at least one issue.

      Even the structure of the Star Trek universe is so blatant in it's use of entire species as plot devices to set the scene for morality plays where the individuals involved doesn't need to be well known to the viewer because he or she can either distinguish the role of the people involved from their species, or the very point of the story is why or how a particular individual deviates from the species standard behaviour, and what consequences it has.

      Star Trek is about moralising. Deal with it. It's been part of what made it a success, but it's also part of what sometimes makes it extremely obnoxious whenever it gets too in your face and you either completely agree or completely disagree. It's at it's best whenever it hits you with issues you haven't really considered or haven't made your mind up about, where it is what creates a great story because it keeps you thinking.

      Getting that balance right might quite possibly require someone other than Berman, though, even if I've never quite understood the raw hatred he is sometimes met with from some people.