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."

24 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. A Few Notes: by bsharitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:A Few Notes: by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

      Let me get this straight - After 4 years (or however long it's been running) you're saying it's not even better than Voyager yet, and not up to the standards of TNG?

      You're only reinforcing the reason i'm not watching it...I'll just stick to my slow acquisition of the DS9 box sets instead.

    2. Re:A Few Notes: by bsharitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say Season 4 was better than any Voyager season, and up to the quality of a TNG season. If you look at the series as a whole, right now it stands about with Voyager due to the first two seasons, but if it were allowed to continue for 3 more years with the remaining seasons the same quality or better than season 4, I'd say it could reach TNG overall quality, and could easily pass Voyager overall with only on more good season.

    3. 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
  2. Re:God no. by bsharitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then don't watch it dumbass, and let those of us who want to, to continue to watch.

  3. It's so good... by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... to see nerds of different ethnicities fighting for a common goal. *wipes tear*

  4. bring back shatner! by shrewd · · Score: 4, Funny

    nuff said

  5. In a word, fascinating by H_Fisher · · Score: 5, Insightful
    IANA Enterprise fan - the show lost me about a year ago because of Bermaga and their silly milking of the franchise and diluting of what "Classic" Trek stood for.

    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!

  6. okay, do they have the $3mil or not? by wintermute1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. Nooooo by NerdConspiracy · · Score: 4, Funny

    a few snapshots

    Please, I'm eating. Oh good, the server is dead...

  8. 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?

  9. Scotty !! by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

    More power to the server - we are being slashdotted !!

  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. Re:If Star Trek was any good, people would watch i by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Why by kuzb · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  14. My take by hummassa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  15. Re:If Star Trek was any good, people would watch i by JimatForemat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Give It Up! by iCharles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. 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.

  18. SUCKERS! by poptones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. 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.
  19. 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.