Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Media Television

TrekUnited Campaign Ends 284

Posted by CmdrTaco from the darwin-executed-enterprise dept.
ForteMaster writes "TrekUnited, the controversial campaign to save Enterprise from cancellation, has ended its campaign today. Interestingly enough, the article mentions that "a multiple of the money raised by TrekUnited so far" was being offered, with "further details to be released shortly". A case of counting the chickens before they've hatched, maybe? Here is some commentary from TrekToday on the subject."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TrekUnited Campaign Ends More

TrekUnited Campaign Ends

Comments Filter:

  • Sad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by elid ( 672471 ) <eli.ipod@g m a il.com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:08AM (#12281098)
    Unfortunately, the article doesn't explain why Paramount turned down the Canada offer. That would seem to make the most sense, as the Trek fan fund itself wouldn't have been able to actually fund a season, while an actual production company would.

    • Re:Sad (Score:4, Informative)

      by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 ( 812236 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:14AM (#12281168) Journal
      It's all here: Trek Report: "Bound" [ign.com]

      Paramount is owned by Viacom, whose owner is a bitter rival of Rupert Murdoch, who owns SkyOne, one of the participants in the deal.

    • Re:Sad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by toolz ( 2119 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:16AM (#12281191) Homepage Journal
      I guess that's an easy one.

      If Paramount were to accept the Canada offer, it would have, for the first time, let someone other than Paramount produce a ST product. What if it turned out to be a success? Can you imagine the finger pointing at the current ST overlords?

      ST is a valuable Paramount property. No way anyone is going to get his grubby fingers on that! :)
      • If it's so valuable, then why the heck did they cancel Enterprise in the middle of its run?

        Isn't making some money better than making no money? It's not like Paramount wouldn't see a cut of any profits that come about...

        -Z

        • Re:Sad (Score:2)

          by toolz ( 2119 )
          One word - syndicated reruns.

          OK, that's two words :)

          Point is, even now, Paramount will make more money on Enterprise reruns in syndication that it has in the first run.

          Why pay for production when you can make more money off reruns and syndication of what has been produced so far?

          In case you havent noticed - the ST franchise is self-sustaining. ;)
      • ST is a valuable Paramount property. No way anyone is going to get his grubby fingers on that! :)


        Well, it WAS before they let Berman loose on it. Congratulations Rick, you've killed Star Trek. Gene would be so proud of you.

    • Could have been many reasons , but i think they are probably right to do so .
      give star trek a rest for a few years and bring it out again and make a killing in the market (too much of a good thing .. you know).
      Im a long time Sci-fi fan and as much as i tried to love enterprise is was turning me a bit sour towards star trek , fair enough i respect the fact that alot of people did really love the show , i just thought it was worth the chop.
      So in about 5 years we can get a new , truely inovative star trek show

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:22AM (#12281267)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Councilor Hart ( 673770 )
        Outsourcing such a key series would constrain the keepers of Star Trek canon.
        hahahaha, lol, OMG, snif.
        Oh, man. That was the best laugh in days.

        Well, actually not. With the way it has been going lately.
        Continuity is a huge problem. And fans are very sensitive of canon.
        One or two writers who get paid, regardless if they uphold canon. Or a bunch of bloodthirsty, dressed up klingon/Borg/Ferengi, trekkies debating over the slightest intonation of a character.
        Now, who would hold up canon more...

      • Shatner School of Punctuation? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:46AM (#12281540)
        I think, this poster, went, to the Shatner, school, of, punctuation. ;-)

      • Re:Sad (Score:5, Funny)

        by FriedTurkey ( 761642 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @10:01AM (#12281757)

        Kirk: Bones. What is wrong with this post?

        McCoy: He has taken an analogy way to far.

        Kirk: Can you fix it?

        McCoy: Dammit Jim. I am a doctor not a moderator.

  • Donations (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:10AM (#12281121)
    Where do I send money to if I want to make sure Paramount continues to not make Star Trek shows?

    Just askin', is all.
    • In other words, you really do want to save Star Trek from ill-concieved and poorly executed spinoffs?
    • Where do I send money to if I want to make sure Paramount continues to not make Star Trek shows?

      Yeah, I'd like to know this as well.

      I used to like ST, but I don't have any faith for them to execute anything trek related without completely fucking it up with time plots.
      • Oh phew...

        So, I wasn't the only one who threw popcorn at the TV the first time the enterprise encounted a "temporal distortion" and howled at the screen:

        "NO!!! NOT ANOTHER FUCKING TIME TRAVEL PLOT LINE!!!"

    • Re:Donations (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A serious question is "What happened to the money I donated".

      Do they just keep it now?

    • I answered something similar to the SPAM that TrekUnited sent me.

  • Berman and Braga (Score:4, Insightful)

    by George Tirebuyer ( 825426 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:11AM (#12281128) Journal
    These two should have been cancelled. A while back.

  • It's a shame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nightsweat ( 604367 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:12AM (#12281136)
    I was starting to enjoy the series. The last year and a half they got their act together and the show was as good as any of the others.

    I'm sure some people here will now question my sanity, but for every Borg in TNG, there was an episode featuring Troy and her mother doing something stupid.

    Enterprise was pretty good, heading towards borderline great. It's too bad they killed it. It's going to be tough to bring the franchise back credibly.

    • I'm sure some people here will now question my sanity, but for every Borg in TNG, there was an episode featuring Troy and her mother doing something stupid.

      Agreed. The only Trek series that I really liked was DS9. They allowed SOME character development in that series and did things that they wouldn't do in any of the others. Voyager was a waste and there are episodes of it I've never seen. The 4th season of Enterprise has been unseen by me as I just could hold myself to watch it. The space Nazi's w

    • Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dionysus ( 12737 )
      Well, with Manny Coto (who was responsible for this season) leaving for 24 [trektoday.com], it was probably a good idea to end it now. Unless you wanted a repeat of the two first seasons of Enterprise. And that's what you would have gotten, with Berman and Bragga in charge. Can you say, Temporal Cold War?

    • I'm sure some people here will now question my sanity, but for every Borg in TNG, there was an episode featuring Troy and her mother doing something stupid.

      I TiVo the Next Gen and DS9 episodes on Spike, they show two of each every day. I can't watch the next gen episodes any more. The writing is so god-awful. In fact, it really improved after Roddenberry was gone, in my opinion. I enjoy DS9 much better, the writing is far more polished, to say nothing of the acting. Too bad it turned into Dungeons an

    • Possibly in the same episode. Each episode typically had multiple intersecting plot lines. We remember them as if there were a separate episode on Troy and her mother, but that's not the case.

  • Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by decipher_saint ( 72686 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:13AM (#12281145)
    Any movement that justifies the current state of Trek should fail.

    Ok, flamethrower off...

    Star Trek is like a burnt out rocker, it's been on the road for years, it's out of creative juice, it's just going through the motions. I say, let Trek rest up a few years, you know, like get some new material and come back stronger than ever!

    • Look at Doctor Who (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Marillion ( 33728 ) <(ericbardes) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:22AM (#12281269)
      If the success of the Doctor Who revival is any indication, sometimes a long running series needs to take a few years off.

      Bring it back when you can assemble a fresh creative team that hasn't burned out from years of doing the same thing over and over.

    • Re:Good! (Score:3, Funny)

      by TheStupidOne ( 872664 )

      Star Trek is like a burnt out rocker, it's been on the road for years, it's out of creative juice, it's just going through the motions. I say, let Trek rest up a few years, you know, like get some new material and come back stronger than ever!

      Metallica did that and we were "rewarded" with St. Anger. Bleh... =P

  • Although I did not get to see any of the series, it is rather sad to hear that it is being canceled. I have heard a great deal of praise for the series, and something about taking showers with Vulcans.

    What does surprise me is that Paramount has refused to accept the demand from the fans, including 3.1 MILLION dollars raised to fund it. It makes you wonder what they are up to, and why they are allowed to monopolize the Star Trek world in such a way.

    Makes you wonder what Roddenberry would say at this poin

    • Re:So sad (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mant ( 578427 )

      How many episodes would 3.1 million make? A quick Google tells me its about 1.6 million per episode, so about two. So it isn't going to be much of an impact when looking at making a new series.

      They can monopolize Trek because they own the rights, that simple. This is true for just about every creative endeavour these days. Indeed, it's rather the point of copyright to grant a limited time monopoly (although you can argue the limited time part has been effectively removed, and the rights holders are often

    • What does surprise me is that Paramount has refused to accept the demand from the fans, including 3.1 MILLION dollars raised to fund it. It makes you wonder what they are up to, and why they are allowed to monopolize the Star Trek world in such a way.

      It seems pretty obvious to me. Paramount leadership has woken up to the fact that Berman has been destroying the series for over a decade. Prior to now, such destruction was at least profitable. Now that margins are thin, Paramount intends to give Trek a rest
  • It's been a long road
    Getting from there to here
    It's been a long time
    But my time is finally near.

    And I will see my dream come to life at last
    Enterprise has finally been cancelled!

  • It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WD_40 ( 156877 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:15AM (#12281176) Homepage
    It's time for Star Trek to die. IMO, the last really good series was TNG, although DS9 got pretty good at the end. The whole thing is way too runout and it all lacks originality.

    Another thing that pisses me off is the pussified political correctness. In the old days they didn't "target the weapons array", they freakin' took care of business.

    It's time for Star Trek to die for awhile and hopefully come back in a decade or two a reborn entity that is worth watching.
    • Because there's so much other great TV waiting to take its spot.

      And if you hate it, its fans shouldn't be able to watch it.
    • In the old days they didn't "target the weapons array", they freakin' took care of business.

      And the funniest thing to me, these pussies are so Politically Correct that they still give the order to "target the (small) weapons array", when it is demonstrably impossible for them to even hit a ship with more than about half their shots.

      They're just lucky everybody else's engineering is as crappy as theirs and if you so much as tap the one and only "weapons array" on the hull, not only will it be out of commi

  • www.m-w.com (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AnonymousKev ( 754127 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:15AM (#12281179)
    "TrekUnited, the controversial campaign to save Enterprise from cancellation, ...

    Was it really controversial? Unconventional, maybe, but not controversial.

    • Controversial, no. Unconventional, maybe. Dorky, absolutely. Troll me if you like but people devote too much of their lives to a TV show. They would rather go out their way for a fantasy than to put effort in real life causes. I know the world isn't perfect as the UFP but that is why we need people to get off the TV and get involved.
    • It was controversial because a lot of people thought it was bad to waste money on a crappy show. Better to fund something worthwhile. Personally, I'm of the opinion that they can spend their money on whatever they like. Even if it's stupid.
    • Their PR was so bad that it became somewhat controversial among certain circles of Trek fans. There's a very long thread at TrekBBS about it (check the "Trek Today News Items" forum) that chronicles a lot of what went wrong. TrekUnited made a lot of cryptic and secretive statements during the campaign, along the lines of, "We're in meetings with Paramount, but we can't say who or about what", and last week it was revealed that Paramount had told them, "Thanks but no thanks" back in the middle of March yet

  • Save Enterprise? No. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dbolger ( 161340 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:16AM (#12281194) Homepage
    Well, I watched the first episode of the new season of Enterprise, "Storm Front" last night. I'm sorry, guys, but I can't keep this up any more. Let me set out my stall, before I begin. I have devoted large amounts of time, energy, and interest to Star Trek over the years. In school, it was probably one of the things that people used to define me - hell, it was my number one interest, so there was undoubtedly a good reason for that. I have, as long as I can remember, been a Trekkie. As soon as I saw "Encounter at Farpoint", I was hooked. I went on to watch every single episode of The Next Generation, and with very few exceptions, I loved it all. I went out of my way to find and watch every episode of the original series, being honestly excited when the pilot, "The Cage" was aired on BBC, and I couldn't believe how deep and powerful the stories were. I owned, in one format or another, all the films up to "The Undiscovered Country", and stuck with Deep Space Nine through what I considered a bad start, to the very end where it became the best Star Trek I'd seen. I bought action figures. I bought t-shirts. I bought numerous books. I bought the "Star Trek Factfiles" until Eason's stopped stocking them. Even when it came to Voyager, where I saw more bad episodes than good, I stuck with it. I watched. I hoped. I've seen all the new films, even though I've seen their quality slide since "Generations". I am not a "fairweather fan".

    When I first heard about "Enterprise", I was really looking forward to it. A show set before the original series? Fantastic! We would see wars with the Klingons and Romulans! We would see how Earth and Vulcan came together, and the birth of the Federation! Surely it would be amazing! I looked at the crew they were giving us, and was impressed. There was so much potential. I thought that this would be the series that brought Star Trek back from the ridiculous "time travel saves the day" plots of Voyager, and returned it to its roots. But I was wrong. From the outset, my hopes were trampled on. From the very first episode, "Broken Bow", I saw time travel, the "temporal cold war", the complete ignoring of even the most basic points of the Star Trek timeline - poor and insulting plots which must be seen cliché by even the most blinkered science fiction fan. And yet still, I kept watching. Deep Space Nine, I reasoned, was weak to begin with too - it took a few seasons to get into its strike, but turned out to be amazing. So after two seasons, I found myself still sitting in front of my television, hoping against hope and reason that Enterprise would be redeemed, but I was, once again, disappointed. No redemption came. Season three came to a close with the plot still tied up with the Xindi and the temporal cold war - threads which began in the very first episode, and if the producers had any sense, would have been cut there and then. There has been no real development, no dealing with serious social issues, nothing at all of what made Star Trek great. The season ended, and I was left feeling cold and unemotive.

    From America, then, I heard that a fourth season had been promised, and soon afterwards, I read that Enterprise had been cancelled and would not receive a fifth. Quite frankly, I was relieved. Not only was this series not good Star Trek, it was bad to such a level that it was tainting the other series' which bore the name. Of course, then there came the protests. Obsessive fans - not of Enterprise, I believe, but of Star Trek, protesting against the cancellation, and fundraising to have Paramount produce another season. Why did they do this? I do not believe these people love Enterprise. Hell, if they did, then they wouldn't be obsessive Star Trek fans, because to love Enterprise is to love the complete antithesis of what Trek should be. I believe these people were protesting because they were afraid - afraid of not having a Star Trek on television with which to centre their lives, afraid of being forced to think for themselves, and made to find a new focus that wasn't based aroun
    • "Right now, I believe that is the only thing that can rescue what is left of the show's core, and that is, despite all the hurt, something I still want to do. "Save Enterprise"? No. To hell with Enterprise. Save Star Trek."

      dbolger, if I had mod points right now, you'd have them!

    • I don't watch Star Trek for the "serious social issues."

      I watch it for the spaceships. And Seven of Nine.

      There was one Enterprise episode, however, that did leave a marked impression on me, and that was the one with the clone of Trip. It was written and acted perfectly and deserved a better review than it got.

    • Re:Save Enterprise? No. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by barawn ( 25691 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:34AM (#12281404) Homepage
      Well, I watched the first episode of the new season of Enterprise, "Storm Front" last night.

      The guy in charge of the fourth season of Enterprise (Manny Coto) was asked "Why Nazis?" regarding Storm Front. His response (bitterly)? "You'd have to ask Berman and Braga." Storm Front is the last vestige of the crap that Berman and Braga have been spewing for the first three years.

      Watch the second episode of Storm Front, and you'll see what I mean. Suddenly, all the annoying characters and stupid plotlines that Berman and Braga put forward just vanish in one episode. That was the whole point. Coto had to have the Nazis in there. So he did as little with them as he could - two episodes, and they're gone, and all the crap gone with them.

      The fourth season of Enterprise is much better than the previous seasons. Unfortunately, Paramount (and Berman) had no intention of letting Enterprise run for more seasons anyway, because it was under someone else's control. There's simply no way that Enterprise, on UPN, could've drawn enough viewers to make Paramount realize Berman was an idiot - which, of course, was the point. Berman hands over reigns, says "okay, if you can do a better job, go ahead." ... and then promptly sets the show up to fail miserably.
      • The guy in charge of the fourth season of Enterprise (Manny Coto)

        Speaking of Manny Coto, how come there was no protest when Odyssey 5 got cancelled? I thought that show was very promising and enjoyable science fiction.

    • Your post may be a troll but anyway...

      I'm sorry to break this to you, but when it comes down to it they are just TV shows. That includes TOS/TNG/DS9/Voyager/Enterprise. It's just telly. If you don't like it turn it off and watch/do something else. Your life is too important to waste obsessing about something you don't like. You seem to just have an obsession with Trek, just like people get watching really bad reality TV like Big Brother. There is more to life...

    • Holy crap. Awesome post. You're already maxxed on mod points, so I will reply instead of mod you up.

      I've been a Trek fan for years. Much like you, I stood by and was loyal to every series, up until season two of Enterprise. Interest was slipping, though honestly it had begun to slip somewhere during Voyager's run. I liked the Hirogen, but they ruined the Borg. In the beginning it looked to me like there was a lot of potential for good storyline about the birth of the Federation, with episodes such as
    • Watch the later episodes in season 4. That episode wasn't good.
    • Ditto for me, as a fellow Irish trekkie, in terms of sticking with Star Trek... except I gave up at Voyager Season 2 and DS9 season 6 (Ezri Dax?) Oh, and gave up on the Factfiles after about 5 folders or so (wonder can I sell them on ebay or somesuch).

      Recently housemates have had Voyager on in the afternoon at the weekend. I don't know why. Absolutely pants. Really stupid stuff (ohhh, lets bust up the ship, that'll be great for viewership).

      Lets face it, Trekdom always had a lame side (think that soap oper

  • Sigh. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I love how the only thing that with all the wrongs in the world that require funding, the only thing that can mobilize some people is a television show.

    Poverty? Government and corporate corruption? Yawn. Just don't takes away my tee-vee, or else we'll take to the streets!

    Sigh.
    • Bah, you're not gonna solve poverty with a couple of million dollars. All movies cost several million dollars. Do you never watch dvd's either, or listen to music in protest of the wasted money?
    • Yeah, solve corruption now by throwing more money on the problem!

  • Health care? Domestic violence? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvilCabbage ( 589836 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:18AM (#12281221) Homepage
    Look, it's a shame the show was canned, but does it bother anybody else how many people were prepared to dig very deeply to keep a television show running, when there are some issues out there they could actually put their money to and do some good?
    • there are some issues out there they could actually put their money to and do some good?

      So, I assume then that you've never, ever, in your life paid for any sort of entertainment?
    • Considering that the two things you list are things that just simply won't get fixed with one throwing money at the problem (In the case of Health Care, we happen to have some of the best in the world in this country- however, because of the ways Health Insurance runs things and the needs of the medical community to have things like Malpractice Insurance, it's not possible for everyone to have it, even if you threw money at it... In the case of Domestic Violence, it's a different story but the results are

  • ...and it didn't matter... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maxzilla ( 786061 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:18AM (#12281222) Homepage
    something tells me that paramount really didn't take the money because all the actors probably had new contracts with other shows. when Enterpize announced this would be the last season I'm sure the actors already had new projects to work on. i'm sure another Star Trek series will kick off eventually, and then people will forget about Enterprize. either that or that $3 mil that they collected could be put towards starting a new series from scratch. either way I dont really care.

  • Now my hopes are dashed (Score:3, Funny)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:21AM (#12281256) Homepage Journal
    I guess I have to move. It's been nice living here in the basement, but Mom isn't getting any younger and complains about fixing breakfast now. Oh, but wait -- there are still reruns! I've still got the original series on VHS and TNG on DVD! Still, it'll be harder to lure chicks down here without a new episode coming on.

  • Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:23AM (#12281273) Homepage Journal

    The quality of a TV show is often irrelevent to its cancellation. As best I can tell (based on experience with many beloved shows) it depends on:

    * Buffy, MASH, etc.: Great shows, cancelled because producers and/or actors felt the show had 'run its course'.
    * Wonderfalls, Firefly, Space:Above and Beyond (and HUGE numbers of others): F$*&^$'ing FOX had a political axe to grind and decided that progressive shows (with a Democratic leaning) should be killed and the rights to restart them never released;
    * (Almost Buffy): production costs due to special effects were so high that it almost didn't balance the quite significant Advertising revenue;
    * Ellen: Advertiser pullout due to a controversial actor;
    * 1970's Space:1999: Bad writing, including implausible, inconsistent plotlines, characters that just 'show up', stilted language, etc., will kill a show through bad ratings - people recognize quality, to some degree.
    * Sonny and Cher: Some shows deserve to be killed (grin); Seriously, this was a good show for its time but the TV 'Variety Show' went away with cable because the variety was available on different channels instead of all in the same show.

    Just my 5 cents.
    - Kevin

    • Re:Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:40AM (#12281474)
      IMHO, Buffy should have been cancelled two seasons before it was: quality was seriously down.
      • And MASH was unwatchable for its last five years.

        Topic for debate: There's only one sitcom I can think of that ran for more than five years without suffering a truly bad season -- Cheers. It's not my favorite show, or even in my top ten, or even something I watched regularly, but the most forgettable seasons were still pretty funny.

    • Re:Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:41AM (#12281491) Journal
      I know, I know, it's pointless to argue with a conspiracy theorist but -- why exactly would Fox put on HUGE numbers of leftist shows* and immediately cancel them for ideological reasons? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to not put them on in the first place? Isn't it, perhaps, more plausible that they canceled the shows because no one was watching them but you?

      * Never mind whether anything you mentioned is "Democratic leaning", anyway...

    • Re:Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent (Score:4, Informative)

      by Reignking ( 832642 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:41AM (#12281493) Journal
      Way to make things up! Ellen was canceled, like many shows, because the ratings sucked [cnn.com].

      Joan Garry, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said the cancellation was a disappointment but not a surprise. "We're all disappointed ABC made a decision based on ratings. We really wish that they had seriously considered the impact of Ellen's work and looked at it from a broader perspective," she said.
    • Futurama is another great example of a show that was canceled well before its time ,season 4 was one of the best seasons.but it just cost too much aparently ... god i hate fox ...

    • Re:Show Quality Is Often Irrelevent (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TigerTale ( 414169 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @10:27AM (#12282013)
      Firefly...progressive shows (with a Democratic leaning)



      If, by "Democratic leaning" you mean the sort of Democrat who wore a grey uniform and fought the Union in the War of Northern Aggression, then sure, Firefly leans Democratic. Otherwise, I don't see how you categorize a pro-gun, anti-government, Western-in-space as either progressive or "Democratic leaning." Libertarian, sure--but just throwing a professional hooker into the mix doesn't make a program "Democratic."

    • MASH had run its course. The show lasted longer than the war it was based on. I think its best when shows go out while they're still on top, instead of dragging down into a mire of crap for a few seasons. My memories of MASH are very fond because of this.

  • Idea For Next Show (Score:5, Funny)

    by DanielMarkham ( 765899 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:25AM (#12281287) Homepage
    "Vulcan Bay Watch" You heard it here first.

  • Just when you think it couldn't get worse (Score:3, Funny)

    by noewun ( 591275 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:26AM (#12281296) Journal
    The site also stated that many Trek crewmembers are now working on executive producer Brannon Braga's new CBS series Threshold, which stars Brent Spiner (Data).

    The night that show premieres may be the night I throw away my TV.

  • Why don't the fans... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cnelzie ( 451984 )
    ...create their own positive thinking fictional future universe based upon the ideals of Gene's vision, but removing all of the trappings of Star Trek.

    They could create a new series that can captivate audiences, tell stories in a new world that starts sometime 100 to 200 years from now. Sure, they couldn't use much of the Star Trek hardware; no Transporters, no Warp Drive, but is all of that really necesary to tell a SciFi story along the lines of Gene's vision?
  • Now they have more time to camp in line in front of Grauman's theatre for Revenge of the Sith!

  • Don't worry (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tobybuk ( 633332 )
    In a few years time they'll be looking for what new programs they can make and yes, instead of creating something really new and interesting, they'll figure that the golden goose as a new egg to hatch.

    The milking of this baby will go on and on.
  • Use it for bribes and other things being neccessary that the next series does not suck like ENT and hopefully can tie up to the quality of TNG.

  • Let others run with Trek (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:32AM (#12281379)
    Take a look at the various fan films being made on the web, like:

    www.newvoyages.com
    hiddenfrontier.com
    www.star shipexeter.com

    These prove that Trek can still work. All it needs is people with PASSION behind it, making it GOOD. True, the fan films aren't perfect, but they are far more enjoyable than what Paramount puts out.

    If Paramount insists on hiring the "it's just a gig" crowd, like they have been, they will continue to turn out mediocre shows. The "it's just a gig" crowd can't be bothered to make plots work, develop characters, or keep continuity.

    Personally, I have wondered why fans don't just get together and make their own ORIGINAL series which has nothing to do with Trek. Flying around the universe in spaceships is nothing patented or copyrighted by Paramount. It's a genre, and it's not owned by anyone. Think of the wonderful freedom which comes with making your own universe.
    • Take a look at the various fan films being made on the web

      Wow, you mean I can actually get access to fan based trek stories without having to put up with the annoying self righteous people in the fan clubs? This is the best news i've heard all day.

      I like star trek. I even would look at a technical manual and blueprints. But I've met some pretty awful people in the fan clubs who adopted Federation ideals as their own, and rank their friends in a pseudo military hierarchy based on how long they known e

    • Fan films don't prove anything can work as a commercial TV series, even if they are actually any good.

      Fans don't make their own original stuff, because they aren't all likely to care about something one of them made up in the same way. Plus someone is going to have to come up with the new vision, and other people are somehow going to have to find out about it.

      Using a pre-existing setting means everyone already knows about it and likes it and wants to be involved, and hopefully won't argue to much about

    • Look, the problem isn't Berman. It's Paramount. Star Trek is a property, a "franchise". You can love Star Trek all you want, but as long as it's Paramount's property, it will never love you back.

      Things were different in the Roddenberry era. He was responsible for a lot of what was ridiculous and stupid in ST, to be sure. But also what was captivating and fun about it. The two weren't unrelated. He wan't afraid to try something people might (probably would) think was stupid, like a character with point

  • "It's dead, Jim."

  • look at Battlestar Gallactica & The Honeymooners

    Starbuck a woman? Ralph Crandon played by Cedric the Entertainer?

    They will just redo the original series with Capt Kirk played by Grace Jones, Spock by Jessica Alba, Bones by Jet Lee, Sulu by Ron Howard... etc...

    it will be a masterpiece!

  • OSF (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 )
    How about an open source fiction project?

    The first phase is to construct the universe in which the stories will take place.

    Then you start hashing out plots for a first season run.

    Then you start in on the actual scripts. Seems like you could eventually converge on logically plotted and entertaining scripts.

    You could also wind up with an unholy mess, but if you had the right people in charge you might get something. You'll need someone who knows how to pitch ideas once it's ready.

  • It's too bad. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:58AM (#12281714) Homepage
    The last season of Enterprise has been fairly strong. I think a lot of people built up some irrational hatred over the first couple seasons.

    I also think people have clouded memories of the quality of past shows. TNG was horrible for most of its run - just horrible. It redeemed itself now and again, but mostly it sucked (especially early seasons). Voyager was poor. DS9 was ridiculously bad. Remember the final episode? One of the worst things I've ever watched.

    Are some themes played out? Of course, but so what? Sure the "let's clone Tucker" Enterprise episode was a rehash - but they did as good a job at it as Star Trek ever did.

    As to "not addressing social themes" - I'd say they've tried. What do you think the "mind meld disease" was? Who do you think the Xindi represent? What is implied by the Tellarite/Andorion feud?

    Is the social stuff ham-handed? Yes, of course. And it always was, from the original series on - it's just you were younger then.

    Enterprise has all the stuff you once liked about Star Trek. Maybe you don't like that stuff anymore - but it's still a good show.

  • Irrelevant? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by smchris ( 464899 )
    At risk of being considered a flamer, I would like to propose that the Startrek vision is now irrelevant.

    1. United Federation of Planets? Give me a break. Not when we are going to send someone to the UN who wants to dismantle it.

    2. Science? Not when you got Jesus

    3. Technology? Not when you got China

    4. Prime directive? Why are we in Iraq? (Well, at least _one_ of the reasons thrown out)

    5. Human rights? Where to start.....

    Most "damning" probably is the loss of American Positivism: the idea

    • At risk of being considered a flamer, I would like to propose that the Startrek vision is now irrelevant.

      If what you say is true (not a big Trek fan, for one, nor am I interested in getting into the politics of your statements), wouldn't that make the vision more important? "We're not that way so it makes the vision irrelevant" is silly. That's the purpose of a vision. If it simply reflected reality, it would be just that.

      As to whether or not the shows/movies suck, well, that's a different argument

  • Apparently the TV producers arranged a deal with the TrekUnited people:
    They would get them girlfriends.

Slashdot Top Deals

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.

Close