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."
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.
Then don't watch it dumbass, and let those of us who want to, to continue to watch.
nuff said
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?
a few snapshots
Please, I'm eating. Oh good, the server is dead...
God, the stupidity never ends around here.
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?
More power to the server - we are being slashdotted !!
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
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.
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
Or, they could give the money to an improvished school so that they could enough money for a desent computer lab.
Or, they could have given the money to an impoverished school so that they could have enough money for a decent spelling and grammar class.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
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
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.
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.
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!
I'll see your chain of US Sci-fi and raise you British Sci-fi:
Doctor Who > Blake's 7 > Red Dwarf > all the takes-itself-too-seriously-American crap
(Am actually a fan of the TITSAC so don't burn me too badly. Also haven't seen the new Doctor Who yet, which may suck relative to Tom Baker, so will have to wait and see.)
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.