Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference.......
Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50291] Mo, 30 Mai 2005 21:05
Mutts  
Breaks my heart that we do not value Star Trek enough
to keep it on the air in this country. That this nation broadcast
corporations and viewing masses seem to value producing and watching
people eat worms for 50k or throw away soap opera crap and reality tv
more then something as inspirational as Trek. No one will be watching
those shows in re-runs 10 years from now like Trek. The dream will
simply not die. It is a great loss as far as I am concerned for
reasons like this one fellows story below, and why I will keep being
involved in bringing Trek back.

Trek does indeed matter, it does make the world a little better This
story proves it. It is not an isolated story. There are many like him.


http://www.trekunited.com/news.php?id=74

How Star Trek affected my life or career
From a Star Trek Fan

How Star Trek affected my life or career,
I think Star Trek affected me as early of an age as 7 yrs old when the
original series was still on the air in 1968. I remember seeing how
there was such a diverse makeup of the crew on the show and how well
they interacted with each other no matter what their background, race
or color was. I was inspired by the "Sulu" character, helmsman of the
ship, as I was of Filipino descent and a son of a US Navyman I could
relate with the different aspects of his character. Star Trek in
that respect motivated me to someday be part of a crew and/or piloting
a ship. With the US going into space during the late 60's and
looking towards the stars it was an exciting time to be growing up.
The events of the time motivated me to be interested and involved with
space/aviation and I knew that I wanted to be a part of that. I
eventually went to college, was commisioned in the USAF and became a
pilot where I flew B-52's and C-130's for most of my 21 year career in
the military. I currently fly for a major airline and have a family.
As for Star Trek being a part of my life I can say it definitely
played a part of who I am today. I feel disappointed that
"Enterprise" is going off the air. My current occupation calls for
me to be on the road alot so when I am home my family and I appreciate
good quality programming like "Enterprise" and have enjoyed watching
it with my family every week. I commend and support TrekUnited's
efforts to keep "Enterprise" on the air, be it on another network
hopefully. May the adventure continue!

Sincerely, Andre G





http://www.trekunited.com

see the trailer
http://www.trekunited.com/pr.php
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50297 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 00:42
Kevin  
While I agree with you, I must also point out that with "Enterprise" they
pretty much busted the bottom out of the bucket at the well. The Star Trek
franchise has run its course, for now. You won't be seeing a television
series for years, if then, and a movie is only a remote possibility. We
have to acknowledge that unless a Star Trek television series can get air
time on one of the major broadcast networks like NBC, CBS, FOX or ABC, it
ain't gonna happen. The UPN audience is just not big enough to bring in the
income required to produce a show with the high production values and
quality actors, writers and staff that the Star Trek franchise demands. It
was a mistake for Paramount to not try to farm the series out to one of the
big 4 networks way back when Voyager first aired. It was a huge monetary
blunder for Paramount to form UPN in the first place.

"Mutts" <none [at] none.com> wrote in message
news:8aom91dj27binetttbbmulurg7brgaj3s5 [at] 4ax.com...
> Breaks my heart that we do not value Star Trek enough
> to keep it on the air in this country. That this nation broadcast
> corporations and viewing masses seem to value producing and watching
> people eat worms for 50k or throw away soap opera crap and reality tv
> more then something as inspirational as Trek. No one will be watching
> those shows in re-runs 10 years from now like Trek. The dream will
> simply not die. It is a great loss as far as I am concerned for
> reasons like this one fellows story below, and why I will keep being
> involved in bringing Trek back.
>
> Trek does indeed matter, it does make the world a little better This
> story proves it. It is not an isolated story. There are many like him.
>
>
> http://www.trekunited.com/news.php?id=74
>
> How Star Trek affected my life or career
> From a Star Trek Fan
>
> How Star Trek affected my life or career,
> I think Star Trek affected me as early of an age as 7 yrs old when the
> original series was still on the air in 1968. I remember seeing how
> there was such a diverse makeup of the crew on the show and how well
> they interacted with each other no matter what their background, race
> or color was. I was inspired by the "Sulu" character, helmsman of the
> ship, as I was of Filipino descent and a son of a US Navyman I could
> relate with the different aspects of his character. Star Trek in
> that respect motivated me to someday be part of a crew and/or piloting
> a ship. With the US going into space during the late 60's and
> looking towards the stars it was an exciting time to be growing up.
> The events of the time motivated me to be interested and involved with
> space/aviation and I knew that I wanted to be a part of that. I
> eventually went to college, was commisioned in the USAF and became a
> pilot where I flew B-52's and C-130's for most of my 21 year career in
> the military. I currently fly for a major airline and have a family.
> As for Star Trek being a part of my life I can say it definitely
> played a part of who I am today. I feel disappointed that
> "Enterprise" is going off the air. My current occupation calls for
> me to be on the road alot so when I am home my family and I appreciate
> good quality programming like "Enterprise" and have enjoyed watching
> it with my family every week. I commend and support TrekUnited's
> efforts to keep "Enterprise" on the air, be it on another network
> hopefully. May the adventure continue!
>
> Sincerely, Andre G
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.trekunited.com
>
> see the trailer
> http://www.trekunited.com/pr.php
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50298 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 00:56
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50307 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 04:53
sdlitvin  
Mutts wrote:

> Breaks my heart that we do not value Star Trek enough
> to keep it on the air in this country.

Please don't confuse Star Trek with "Enterprise."


> That this nation broadcast
> corporations and viewing masses seem to value producing and watching
> people eat worms for 50k or throw away soap opera crap and reality tv
> more then something as inspirational as Trek. No one will be watching
> those shows in re-runs 10 years from now like Trek. The dream will
> simply not die.

I'm sure that Hollywood is aware of the enormous *worldwide* cult
following of Star Trek. As long as that's the case, Hollywood will keep
Trek in mind for future movies and TV series. "Enterprise" was becoming
a counterexample with its low ratings--it's good that it's gone.

We've been thru dry spells before. TOS went off the air in 1969. We
didn't get any new Trek till the movie ST:TMP, 10 years later.

Be patient and keep the faith.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50907 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 14:46
dishtv  
Mutts wrote:
> Breaks my heart that we do not value Star Trek enough
> to keep it on the air in this country.

I'm not sure this is actually the case. There seems to be no shortage
of support for Trek, only shortsighted bungled mismanagement of the
franchise if you ask me.


> That this nation broadcast
> corporations and viewing masses seem to value producing and watching
> people eat worms for 50k or throw away soap opera crap and reality tv
> more then something as inspirational as Trek. No one will be watching
> those shows in re-runs 10 years from now like Trek.

I have a hypothesis about this phenomena. In the late 80's and 90's,
we've seen a similar phenomena in a music industry gone amok when it
defected to the 'seattle sounds' of nirvana and pearl jam, grunge, and
'industrial' at the expense of classic rock/pop audiences. We're just
seeing again in the visual media as well, now.

Now, I can understand the entertainment industry seeking to continually
develop younger viewing/listening markets, but I *can't* understand
doing this at the expense of alienating the older, more traditional
audience. It just doesn't make sense, especially considering just *who*
has *money* to lay out. The corporate weenies seem *fixated* on
*disposable income* as the almighty determining marketing factor. This
is not to be entirely unexpected however, as this country has been sold
out for a long time now by corporations looking for the quick nickel
rather than the long dime. I just never understood practically
*throwing* away a tried and proven, well established market.

-Rick
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50910 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 15:10
dishtv  
Kevin wrote:
> It was a huge monetary
> blunder for Paramount to form UPN in the first place.


I'm not so sure. At the time, there was a huge wave of media industry
consolidation going on at the time, and at the time it did make good
sense. It just ended up being a good idea implemented very badly.

Remember, FOX Network was struggling for several years too until it
established itself as a bona fide network, but it did so through quality
programming (unlike today), and a serious investment in a bona fide news
division. Married with Children, The Simpsons, Cops, and the various
incarnations of the Trek franchise *made* that network (OK, scooping the
NFL coverage rights for a while there also helped).

The bottom line is that it all starts with *quality* programming, and
this is where UPN is missing the boat. All the networks are feeling the
heat from cable TV, and even the internet itself, but it matters not
*one* bit about the distribution medium or format -- quality programming
is where it starts.

UPN could still salvage their network, but at this point, they need to
substantially increase their viewership, and *fast*. About the only way
I see them being able to do that is possibly by negotiating a merger
with/or aquisition of the WB, so as to have a sudden increase in
presence of additional viewing markets, and then trashing 2/3rds of the
existing programming of the two, and replacing it with alternative
programming that goes in a totally different direction from what the
other 4 are doing, and *not* trying to compete with them head to head
with the same junk programming. Yes, its 'radical', but at this point,
it's the only viable long term strategy that provides a chance of
withstanding the competitive onslaught of the cable networks and the
internet itself.


-Rick
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50926 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 19:51
Dsybok  
Umm yeah, but no matter how noble it is, if it SUCKS you just dont keep it
on the air.

I watched every episode of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager , all the films, including
that pile of rubbish also known as Nemesis, and a fair bit of Enterprise
until I just finally couldn't take Enterprise anymore. I wanted to
personally beat the crap out of Scott Bakula and Beavis and Butthead.

Its Trek breaktime, maybe they can switch producers and revive the franchise
down the road.

D
"Mutts" <none [at] none.com> wrote in message
news:8aom91dj27binetttbbmulurg7brgaj3s5 [at] 4ax.com...
> Breaks my heart that we do not value Star Trek enough
> to keep it on the air in this country. That this nation broadcast
> corporations and viewing masses seem to value producing and watching
> people eat worms for 50k or throw away soap opera crap and reality tv
> more then something as inspirational as Trek. No one will be watching
> those shows in re-runs 10 years from now like Trek. The dream will
> simply not die. It is a great loss as far as I am concerned for
> reasons like this one fellows story below, and why I will keep being
> involved in bringing Trek back.
>
> Trek does indeed matter, it does make the world a little better This
> story proves it. It is not an isolated story. There are many like him.
>
>
> http://www.trekunited.com/news.php?id=74
>
> How Star Trek affected my life or career
> From a Star Trek Fan
>
> How Star Trek affected my life or career,
> I think Star Trek affected me as early of an age as 7 yrs old when the
> original series was still on the air in 1968. I remember seeing how
> there was such a diverse makeup of the crew on the show and how well
> they interacted with each other no matter what their background, race
> or color was. I was inspired by the "Sulu" character, helmsman of the
> ship, as I was of Filipino descent and a son of a US Navyman I could
> relate with the different aspects of his character. Star Trek in
> that respect motivated me to someday be part of a crew and/or piloting
> a ship. With the US going into space during the late 60's and
> looking towards the stars it was an exciting time to be growing up.
> The events of the time motivated me to be interested and involved with
> space/aviation and I knew that I wanted to be a part of that. I
> eventually went to college, was commisioned in the USAF and became a
> pilot where I flew B-52's and C-130's for most of my 21 year career in
> the military. I currently fly for a major airline and have a family.
> As for Star Trek being a part of my life I can say it definitely
> played a part of who I am today. I feel disappointed that
> "Enterprise" is going off the air. My current occupation calls for
> me to be on the road alot so when I am home my family and I appreciate
> good quality programming like "Enterprise" and have enjoyed watching
> it with my family every week. I commend and support TrekUnited's
> efforts to keep "Enterprise" on the air, be it on another network
> hopefully. May the adventure continue!
>
> Sincerely, Andre G
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.trekunited.com
>
> see the trailer
> http://www.trekunited.com/pr.php
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50927 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 20:01
ToolPackinMama  
Dsybok wrote:
> Umm yeah, but no matter how noble it is, if it SUCKS you just dont keep it
> on the air.

Original Trek fans went for years without any Trek on the air or in the
theaters.

If you are really devoted, you can continue to be a fan, no matter what.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50928 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 20:02
ToolPackinMama  
Dsybok wrote:


> Its Trek breaktime, maybe they can switch producers and revive the franchise
> down the road.

Yeah. Everybody just take a break. Big whoop. You kids who never had
a break don't know what you are missin'. :)
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50946 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 23:30
Dsybok  
> If you are really devoted, you can continue to be a fan, no matter what.

A devoted fan would not debase themselves by propping up substandard fare.
The devoted fan would rather have no Trek than bad Trek, at least , thats my
opinion.

I wish Nemesis had never been made. Insurrection also for that matter,
although it was tolerably bad as basically a long and overly expensive
episode instead of a film. Could go on for days about what might have been,
but thats all been done before hasn't it. The Q movie? Well Delancie will
probably be too old by the time they got around to it, and how do you
explain Q with bags under his eyes and gray hair.

D

D
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50952 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 23:45
ToolPackinMama  
Dsybok wrote:

>>If you are really devoted, you can continue to be a fan, no matter what.
>
>
> A devoted fan would not debase themselves by propping up substandard fare.
> The devoted fan would rather have no Trek than bad Trek, at least , thats my
> opinion.

I happen to agree with that.

> I wish Nemesis had never been made.

Hmm. Actually, I kind of enjoyed Nemesis.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50955 ] Di, 31 Mai 2005 23:54
rgorman  
On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:30:09 GMT, "Dsybok" <dsybok [at] nospamhotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> If you are really devoted, you can continue to be a fan, no matter what.
>
>A devoted fan would not debase themselves by propping up substandard fare.
>The devoted fan would rather have no Trek than bad Trek, at least , thats my
>opinion.

How is the devoted fan different from the casual fan, then?
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50957 ] Mi, 01 Juni 2005 00:06
ToolPackinMama  
David Johnston wrote:

> On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:30:09 GMT, "Dsybok" <dsybok [at] nospamhotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>If you are really devoted, you can continue to be a fan, no matter what.
>>
>>A devoted fan would not debase themselves by propping up substandard fare.
>>The devoted fan would rather have no Trek than bad Trek, at least , thats my
>>opinion.
>
>
> How is the devoted fan different from the casual fan, then?
>

A devoted fan hangs in there. I consider myself to be a devoted
Trekkie, despite the ENTERPRISE failure, for example.

I'm devoted to the concept of the Trek universe. I STILL would like to
see a united earth, and the end of poverty and hunger. I still think
things like that are a good idea.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #50959 ] Mi, 01 Juni 2005 00:17
ToolPackinMama  
ToolPackinMama wrote:

> A devoted fan hangs in there. I consider myself to be a devoted
> Trekkie, despite the ENTERPRISE failure, for example.
>
> I'm devoted to the concept of the Trek universe. I STILL would like to
> see a united earth, and the end of poverty and hunger. I still think
> things like that are a good idea.

FWIW:

http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/trekkie.htm
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #51001 ] Mi, 01 Juni 2005 05:29
Dsybok  
> > How is the devoted fan different from the casual fan, then?

Now THAT is a good question. I consider myself a pretty devoted Trek fan,
yet I have never been to a convention. I have my share of stuff though,
signed scripts, a prop used on an episode of Voyager, a signed copy of
Justman and Solow's Inside Star Trek, and all TNG and DS9 on DVD, not the
cheap chinese knock offs either, the real $100 a pop McCoy. I even have the
1993 Williams Star Trek TNG arcade pinball machine in my gameroom. At one
point I had 100s of the TOS and TNG paperbacks too.

I went to opening night of Generations and Undiscovered Country, and opening
weekend of First Contact and Insurrection. I went into Nemesis with high
hopes and left wanting to do physical harm to B&B, and honestly I cant
imagine anyone liking anything in Nemesis. I havent watched it since the
theatre, the memory is too painful.

I thought the concept behind Enterprise could have been interesting, but
they blew it big time on a lot of the canon and great wars and stuff that
was supposed to have happened before TOS.

I would be behind another TNG movie, but I would much rather see it
inclusive of the DS9 and TNG world somehow, and only if it were GOOD. I dont
want to see them just throw stuff up there for the sake of the fact they own
the brand and want to keep something on the radar. Perhaps a 10 year hiatus
is the best thing for the franchise and as a dedicated fan, its going to
hurt to wait until for more Trek, but I can handle it if its worth the wait.

D
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #51005 ] Mi, 01 Juni 2005 05:38
ToolPackinMama  
Dsybok wrote:

> I went into Nemesis with high
> hopes and left wanting to do physical harm to B&B, and honestly I cant
> imagine anyone liking anything in Nemesis. I havent watched it since the
> theatre, the memory is too painful.

Wow. That's how I felt about Generations, and the shitty death/funeral
of the legendary Captain Kirk. After that movie, I went into a deep
depression. Nothing could lift me up out of it until Shatner published
The Return. For some weird reason, reading that healed me.

I'm a fanatical KIRK FAN. That might explain it.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #51006 ] Mi, 01 Juni 2005 05:39
ToolPackinMama  
Dsybok wrote:


> I thought the concept behind Enterprise could have been interesting, but
> they blew it big time on a lot of the canon and great wars and stuff that
> was supposed to have happened before TOS.

DITTO.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #51043 ] Mi, 01 Juni 2005 16:25
Bozo the Evil Klown  
Rick M. wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
> > It was a huge monetary
> > blunder for Paramount to form UPN in the first place.
>
>
> I'm not so sure. At the time, there was a huge wave of media industry
> consolidation going on at the time, and at the time it did make good
> sense. It just ended up being a good idea implemented very badly.
>


Anything can be made to sound like a good idea on paper ("Hey, lets
make a movie out of a classic Robert Heinlein novel!"). A TV network
only makes money if it attracts enough viewers to charge enough for
their adverts. The *best* programming on UPN was, to be kind, dismal.
The vast majority of their programming sucked so badly it was hard to
imagine that paid professionals had anything to do with it.

If the "brains" behind UPN had thought to develop some good programming
*first*, and then put together a network to showcase it...

> Remember, FOX Network was struggling for several years too until it
> established itself as a bona fide network, but it did so through quality
> programming (unlike today), and a serious investment in a bona fide news
> division. Married with Children, The Simpsons, Cops, and the various
> incarnations of the Trek franchise *made* that network (OK, scooping the
> NFL coverage rights for a while there also helped).
>


The FOX network never produced any Trek series.

> The bottom line is that it all starts with *quality* programming, and
> this is where UPN is missing the boat. All the networks are feeling the
> heat from cable TV, and even the internet itself, but it matters not
> *one* bit about the distribution medium or format -- quality programming
> is where it starts.
>


Well, technically it's popular programming that makes a network;
"popular" and "quality" aren't very synonymous.

> UPN could still salvage their network, but at this point, they need to
> substantially increase their viewership, and *fast*. About the only way
> I see them being able to do that is possibly by negotiating a merger
> with/or aquisition of the WB, so as to have a sudden increase in
> presence of additional viewing markets, and then trashing 2/3rds of the
> existing programming of the two, and replacing it with alternative
> programming that goes in a totally different direction from what the
> other 4 are doing, and *not* trying to compete with them head to head


There's a great joke somewhere in there, that UPN's programming is
hurting them worse than their limited reach.

IMO the best option would be to dissolve UPN. Let their affiliates go
back to being independent stations, which would help bring back the
market for first-run syndication.

> with the same junk programming. Yes, its 'radical', but at this point,
> it's the only viable long term strategy that provides a chance of
> withstanding the competitive onslaught of the cable networks and the
> internet itself.
>


So I'm not the only one with doubts about the strategy the big networks
are using to combat the loss of viewership to cable: Claiming that the
ratings showing more people watching cable and less are watching
broadcast TV are wrong.

*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.

Once we lose magnetic containment, Mr. Antimatter is no longer our
friend.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #51122 ] Do, 02 Juni 2005 05:15
dishtv  
Bozo the Evil Klown wrote:
>
> Rick M. wrote:
>
>>Kevin wrote:
>>
>>>It was a huge monetary
>>>blunder for Paramount to form UPN in the first place.
>>
>>
>>I'm not so sure. At the time, there was a huge wave of media industry
>>consolidation going on at the time, and at the time it did make good
>>sense. It just ended up being a good idea implemented very badly.
>>
>
>
>
> Anything can be made to sound like a good idea on paper ("Hey, lets
> make a movie out of a classic Robert Heinlein novel!"). A TV network
> only makes money if it attracts enough viewers to charge enough for
> their adverts. The *best* programming on UPN was, to be kind, dismal.
> The vast majority of their programming sucked so badly it was hard to
> imagine that paid professionals had anything to do with it.
>
> If the "brains" behind UPN had thought to develop some good programming
> *first*, and then put together a network to showcase it...

True...



>
>
>>Remember, FOX Network was struggling for several years too until it
>>established itself as a bona fide network, but it did so through quality
>>programming (unlike today), and a serious investment in a bona fide news
>>division. Married with Children, The Simpsons, Cops, and the various
>>incarnations of the Trek franchise *made* that network (OK, scooping the
>>NFL coverage rights for a while there also helped).
>>
> The FOX network never produced any Trek series.

I didn't say they did. But first run TNG and DS9 episodes were aired by
them.


>>The bottom line is that it all starts with *quality* programming, and
>>this is where UPN is missing the boat. All the networks are feeling the
>>heat from cable TV, and even the internet itself, but it matters not
>>*one* bit about the distribution medium or format -- quality programming
>>is where it starts.
>>
>
>
>
> Well, technically it's popular programming that makes a network;
> "popular" and "quality" aren't very synonymous.

They don't *have* to be mutually exclusive. But I would agree it has
come to that point.


>>UPN could still salvage their network, but at this point, they need to
>>substantially increase their viewership, and *fast*. About the only way
>>I see them being able to do that is possibly by negotiating a merger
>>with/or aquisition of the WB, so as to have a sudden increase in
>>presence of additional viewing markets, and then trashing 2/3rds of the
>>existing programming of the two, and replacing it with alternative
>>programming that goes in a totally different direction from what the
>>other 4 are doing, and *not* trying to compete with them head to head
>
>
>
> There's a great joke somewhere in there, that UPN's programming is
> hurting them worse than their limited reach.
>
> IMO the best option would be to dissolve UPN. Let their affiliates go
> back to being independent stations, which would help bring back the
> market for first-run syndication.


>
>
>>with the same junk programming. Yes, its 'radical', but at this point,
>>it's the only viable long term strategy that provides a chance of
>>withstanding the competitive onslaught of the cable networks and the
>>internet itself.
>>
>
>
>
> So I'm not the only one with doubts about the strategy the big networks
> are using to combat the loss of viewership to cable: Claiming that the
> ratings showing more people watching cable and less are watching
> broadcast TV are wrong.

Absolutely. The networks are still in denial about the impact cable tv
and the internet has had on them. About the *only* person not in denial
is Rupert Murdoch, if you ask me...


-Rick






>
> *****
> The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.
>
> Once we lose magnetic containment, Mr. Antimatter is no longer our
> friend.
>
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #51123 ] Do, 02 Juni 2005 05:19
dishtv  
ToolPackinMama wrote:

>
> Hmm. Actually, I kind of enjoyed Nemesis.

Great visuals/CGI... Dumb story.

I think it sucked dead rotting badgers, frankly. You know, I've only
watch it twice - and both times I fell asleep about 2/3rds through it.
Frankly, it was a real yawner.


-Rick
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #51125 ] Do, 02 Juni 2005 05:49
Elvis Gump FASTMAIL P  
in article 1117635928.998927.310030 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, Bozo the
Evil Klown at Evilklowwn [at] aol.com wrote on 6/1/05 9:25 AM:

> Rick M. wrote:
>> Kevin wrote:
>>> It was a huge monetary
>>> blunder for Paramount to form UPN in the first place.

>> I'm not so sure. At the time, there was a huge wave of media industry
>> consolidation going on at the time, and at the time it did make good
>> sense. It just ended up being a good idea implemented very badly.

> Anything can be made to sound like a good idea on paper ("Hey, lets
> make a movie out of a classic Robert Heinlein novel!"). A TV network
> only makes money if it attracts enough viewers to charge enough for
> their adverts. The *best* programming on UPN was, to be kind, dismal.
> The vast majority of their programming sucked so badly it was hard to
> imagine that paid professionals had anything to do with it.

Define 'professionals'. A lot of people sleepwalk through Hollywood, some
making substantial money at it. There's plenty of warm bodies that will take
a meeting if you'll take a meeting or people that know someone that knows
someone that will get you union card if you'll keep it on the qt...

> If the "brains" behind UPN had thought to develop some good programming
> *first*, and then put together a network to showcase it...

Probably Paramount execs were in turns tired of seeing the networks get all
the ad revenues and eating production cost overruns at times and decided
they'd raid the game. And they got just what their dumbass business plan
deserved.

<snip>

>> The bottom line is that it all starts with *quality* programming, and
>> this is where UPN is missing the boat. All the networks are feeling the
>> heat from cable TV, and even the internet itself, but it matters not
>> *one* bit about the distribution medium or format -- quality programming
>> is where it starts.

> Well, technically it's popular programming that makes a network;
> "popular" and "quality" aren't very synonymous.

Gee, that's not very Friendsly...

>> UPN could still salvage their network, but at this point, they need to
>> substantially increase their viewership, and *fast*. About the only way
>> I see them being able to do that is possibly by negotiating a merger
>> with/or aquisition of the WB, so as to have a sudden increase in
>> presence of additional viewing markets, and then trashing 2/3rds of the
>> existing programming of the two, and replacing it with alternative
>> programming that goes in a totally different direction from what the
>> other 4 are doing, and *not* trying to compete with them head to head

> There's a great joke somewhere in there, that UPN's programming is
> hurting them worse than their limited reach.
>
> IMO the best option would be to dissolve UPN. Let their affiliates go
> back to being independent stations, which would help bring back the
> market for first-run syndication.

Yeah, that'll work. Just as soon as someone comes up with a foolproof, and
more importantly Congressional Investigation and Congressional Indictment
proof plan for how Paramount can untangle itself from UPN at a substantial
loss that equals maximum tax savings. And probably sell out the employee
pension plan while they're at it. Hey, you never know until you try
lobbying!

>> with the same junk programming. Yes, its 'radical', but at this point,
>> it's the only viable long term strategy that provides a chance of
>> withstanding the competitive onslaught of the cable networks and the
>> internet itself.

> So I'm not the only one with doubts about the strategy the big networks
> are using to combat the loss of viewership to cable: Claiming that the
> ratings showing more people watching cable and less are watching
> broadcast TV are wrong.

I think most of us are watching 'broadcast' over shitty 'community antenna'
cable hookups than with a set of rabbit ears, but it's all samey-same to me.

Me, I'm cutting back to a diet of nothing but "The Daily Show" for the
foreseeable future. It may be fake, but at least it has a Moment of Zen...
--
"For three days after death, hair and fingernails continue to grow.
but phone calls taper off."
-~ Johnny Carson
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #51128 ] Do, 02 Juni 2005 06:24
Bozo the Evil Klown  
Rick M. wrote:
> Bozo the Evil Klown wrote:
> >
> > Rick M. wrote:
> >

<Snip>
> >
> >>Remember, FOX Network was struggling for several years too until it
> >>established itself as a bona fide network, but it did so through quality
> >>programming (unlike today), and a serious investment in a bona fide news
> >>division. Married with Children, The Simpsons, Cops, and the various
> >>incarnations of the Trek franchise *made* that network (OK, scooping the
> >>NFL coverage rights for a while there also helped).
> >>
> > The FOX network never produced any Trek series.
>
> I didn't say they did. But first run TNG and DS9 episodes were aired by
> them.
>


Not by the FOX *network*, their affiliates in many markets carried them
(though I saw TNG carried on an NBC affiliate here in North FL).
Before FOX pressured their affiliates to carry news at 10:00, they used
that hour for first-run syndication. The syndication deals were all
with the affiliates; FOX network itself had nothing to do with it save
for the affiliate stations it owned outright (and back then there were
sharp limits on how many affiliates a network could own).

*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.

Once we lose magnetic containment, Mr. Antimatter is no longer our
friend.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #52691 ] Do, 02 Juni 2005 23:33
ron saarna  
"Dsybok" <dsybok [at] nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BH4ne.300$W77.65 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > If you are really devoted, you can continue to be a fan, no matter what.
>
> A devoted fan would not debase themselves by propping up substandard fare.
> The devoted fan would rather have no Trek than bad Trek, at least , thats
my
> opinion.
>
> I wish Nemesis had never been made. Insurrection also for that matter,
> although it was tolerably bad as basically a long and overly expensive
> episode instead of a film. Could go on for days about what might have
been,
> but thats all been done before hasn't it. The Q movie? Well Delancie will
> probably be too old by the time they got around to it, and how do you
> explain Q with bags under his eyes and gray hair.

He is married now...
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #52729 ] Fr, 03 Juni 2005 01:12
Snake  
"ron saarna" <dukiespamblock [at] sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:8WKne.34540$_r1.1000091 [at] news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Dsybok" <dsybok [at] nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BH4ne.300$W77.65 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> The Q movie? Well Delancie will
>> probably be too old by the time they got around to it, and how do you
>> explain Q with bags under his eyes and gray hair.
>
> He is married now...

Hmmm, might just be a lucky woman. DeLancie seems to be able to have a lot
of fun with life.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #52851 ] Fr, 03 Juni 2005 10:11
Bozo the Evil Klown  
Mutts wrote:
> Breaks my heart that we do not value Star Trek enough
> to keep it on the air in this country. That this nation broadcast
> corporations and viewing masses seem to value producing and watching
> people eat worms for 50k or throw away soap opera crap and reality tv
> more then something as inspirational as Trek. No one will be watching
> those shows in re-runs 10 years from now like Trek. The dream will


The sad fact is that "Enterprise" *didn't* move us, it *didn't* inspire
us, and aside from us core trekkies it just isn't as important as most
of the vapid crap on TV.

Like Spock, Trek has been dead before. Some day it will return, and if
it's produced by people who respect the franchise, the fans and the
dream then we'll see real Trek return.

As good as Season Four was, the wretched finale just proves how much
Trek needs to take a break. The only way that Trek will inspire the
next generation is if Paramount waits until Berman and Braga are
otherwise occupied before they try to produce another Trek.

*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.

Once we lose magnetic containment, Mr. Antimatter is no longer our
friend.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #53633 ] Fr, 03 Juni 2005 17:24
Snake  
"Bozo the Evil Klown" <Evilklowwn [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117786280.728145.270510 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The sad fact is that "Enterprise" *didn't* move us, it *didn't* inspire
> us, and aside from us core trekkies it just isn't as important as most
> of the vapid crap on TV.
>
> Like Spock, Trek has been dead before. Some day it will return, and if
> it's produced by people who respect the franchise, the fans and the
> dream then we'll see real Trek return.
>
> As good as Season Four was, the wretched finale just proves how much
> Trek needs to take a break. The only way that Trek will inspire the
> next generation is if Paramount waits until Berman and Braga are
> otherwise occupied before they try to produce another Trek.

This might make a test of proof that producers should not - ever - be
allowed to write for the shows they produce. Especially after denying all
other writers access via grotesque personal bias /and/ identifying yourself
as only being personally interested in time travel story lines.

Maybe Berman & Braga /can/ stay on Trek - but with strict limitations of NOT
futzing with the story lines!
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #53650 ] Fr, 03 Juni 2005 20:56
Bozo the Evil Klown  
Snake wrote:
> "Bozo the Evil Klown" <Evilklowwn [at] aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1117786280.728145.270510 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > The sad fact is that "Enterprise" *didn't* move us, it *didn't* inspire
> > us, and aside from us core trekkies it just isn't as important as most
> > of the vapid crap on TV.
> >
> > Like Spock, Trek has been dead before. Some day it will return, and if
> > it's produced by people who respect the franchise, the fans and the
> > dream then we'll see real Trek return.
> >
> > As good as Season Four was, the wretched finale just proves how much
> > Trek needs to take a break. The only way that Trek will inspire the
> > next generation is if Paramount waits until Berman and Braga are
> > otherwise occupied before they try to produce another Trek.
>
> This might make a test of proof that producers should not - ever - be
> allowed to write for the shows they produce. Especially after denying all
> other writers access via grotesque personal bias /and/ identifying yourself
> as only being personally interested in time travel story lines.
>


Depends on the producer; some are indeed very good writers (JMS and
Joss Whedon to name two), though even a good writer can burn out after
too long on a show (e.g. Brannon Braga and Chris Carter).

Roddenberry himself had some good ideas when he created TOS, but the
"Written by Gene Roddenberry" credit turned out to be a dire warning.
It still croggles the mind to think he submitted "Omega Glory" as one
of the potential 2nd pilots for TOS.

> Maybe Berman & Braga /can/ stay on Trek - but with strict limitations of NOT
> futzing with the story lines!


No, they've clearly burned out on Trek. The next Trek needs some new
ideas, a new approach... even someone who realizes that a hot babe is
*still* a hot babe if you put her in a Starfleet uniform instead of a
catsuit.

*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.

Once we lose magnetic containment, Mr. Antimatter is no longer our
friend.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #53654 ] Fr, 03 Juni 2005 22:21
Snake  
"Bozo the Evil Klown" <Evilklowwn [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117824992.419110.48740 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Depends on the producer; some are indeed very good writers (JMS and
> Joss Whedon to name two), though even a good writer can burn out after
> too long on a show (e.g. Brannon Braga and Chris Carter).
>
> Roddenberry himself had some good ideas when he created TOS, but the
> "Written by Gene Roddenberry" credit turned out to be a dire warning.
> It still croggles the mind to think he submitted "Omega Glory" as one
> of the potential 2nd pilots for TOS.

:) But both JMS and Gene started out as writers and /then/ became
producers. Both had their story theories worked out beforehand, before
being put in charge of production.

Berman is a producer who thinks he can write, and by artificial means
(restrictions) made sure he wrote - in fact, made sure he and Braga were the
*only* writers.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #53691 ] Sa, 04 Juni 2005 04:18
Benjamin Pavsner  
What would have been a better idea was for Paramount to A. Send Enterprise
to the Sci Fi Channel, where the demand of getting a huge audience isn't as
hight or B. Syndicate (It worked for TNG and DS9). Of course, better scripts
and strong characters would have helped, too.
"Kevin" <webman6 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8FMme.85$LZ2.11020 [at] news.uswest.net...
> While I agree with you, I must also point out that with "Enterprise" they
> pretty much busted the bottom out of the bucket at the well. The Star
Trek
> franchise has run its course, for now. You won't be seeing a television
> series for years, if then, and a movie is only a remote possibility. We
> have to acknowledge that unless a Star Trek television series can get air
> time on one of the major broadcast networks like NBC, CBS, FOX or ABC, it
> ain't gonna happen. The UPN audience is just not big enough to bring in
the
> income required to produce a show with the high production values and
> quality actors, writers and staff that the Star Trek franchise demands.
It
> was a mistake for Paramount to not try to farm the series out to one of
the
> big 4 networks way back when Voyager first aired. It was a huge monetary
> blunder for Paramount to form UPN in the first place.
>
> "Mutts" <none [at] none.com> wrote in message
> news:8aom91dj27binetttbbmulurg7brgaj3s5 [at] 4ax.com...
> > Breaks my heart that we do not value Star Trek enough
> > to keep it on the air in this country. That this nation broadcast
> > corporations and viewing masses seem to value producing and watching
> > people eat worms for 50k or throw away soap opera crap and reality tv
> > more then something as inspirational as Trek. No one will be watching
> > those shows in re-runs 10 years from now like Trek. The dream will
> > simply not die. It is a great loss as far as I am concerned for
> > reasons like this one fellows story below, and why I will keep being
> > involved in bringing Trek back.
> >
> > Trek does indeed matter, it does make the world a little better This
> > story proves it. It is not an isolated story. There are many like him.
> >
> >
> > http://www.trekunited.com/news.php?id=74
> >
> > How Star Trek affected my life or career
> > From a Star Trek Fan
> >
> > How Star Trek affected my life or career,
> > I think Star Trek affected me as early of an age as 7 yrs old when the
> > original series was still on the air in 1968. I remember seeing how
> > there was such a diverse makeup of the crew on the show and how well
> > they interacted with each other no matter what their background, race
> > or color was. I was inspired by the "Sulu" character, helmsman of the
> > ship, as I was of Filipino descent and a son of a US Navyman I could
> > relate with the different aspects of his character. Star Trek in
> > that respect motivated me to someday be part of a crew and/or piloting
> > a ship. With the US going into space during the late 60's and
> > looking towards the stars it was an exciting time to be growing up.
> > The events of the time motivated me to be interested and involved with
> > space/aviation and I knew that I wanted to be a part of that. I
> > eventually went to college, was commisioned in the USAF and became a
> > pilot where I flew B-52's and C-130's for most of my 21 year career in
> > the military. I currently fly for a major airline and have a family.
> > As for Star Trek being a part of my life I can say it definitely
> > played a part of who I am today. I feel disappointed that
> > "Enterprise" is going off the air. My current occupation calls for
> > me to be on the road alot so when I am home my family and I appreciate
> > good quality programming like "Enterprise" and have enjoyed watching
> > it with my family every week. I commend and support TrekUnited's
> > efforts to keep "Enterprise" on the air, be it on another network
> > hopefully. May the adventure continue!
> >
> > Sincerely, Andre G
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.trekunited.com
> >
> > see the trailer
> > http://www.trekunited.com/pr.php
>
>
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #53794 ] So, 05 Juni 2005 19:57
al019  
ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: Dsybok wrote:

: >>If you are really devoted, you can continue to be a fan, no matter what.
: >
: >
: > A devoted fan would not debase themselves by propping up substandard fare.
: > The devoted fan would rather have no Trek than bad Trek, at least , thats my
: > opinion.

: I happen to agree with that.

: > I wish Nemesis had never been made.

: Hmm. Actually, I kind of enjoyed Nemesis.

It was certainly much better than Star Trek V: The Final Fontier

Brad
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #53801 ] So, 05 Juni 2005 20:37
ToolPackinMama  
Brad Filippone wrote:
> ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
> : Dsybok wrote:

> : > I wish Nemesis had never been made.
>
> : Hmm. Actually, I kind of enjoyed Nemesis.
>
> It was certainly much better than Star Trek V: The Final Fontier

I was horrified by ST5 at first, but my feelings about it have softened
over the years.

Biggest clunker for me: Oh, NOW you tell us Spock has a brother!? Jeez
louise!
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #53803 ] So, 05 Juni 2005 21:53
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #55668 ] Mo, 06 Juni 2005 15:22
al019  
ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: Brad Filippone wrote:
: > ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: > : Dsybok wrote:

: > : > I wish Nemesis had never been made.
: >
: > : Hmm. Actually, I kind of enjoyed Nemesis.
: >
: > It was certainly much better than Star Trek V: The Final Fontier

: I was horrified by ST5 at first, but my feelings about it have softened
: over the years.

: Biggest clunker for me: Oh, NOW you tell us Spock has a brother!? Jeez
: louise!

Even more annoying: I lost a brother once...but I got him back!

Seems like this was supposed to refer to Spock, so does this mean that for
some reason Kirk no longer considers George Samual Kirk to have been his
brother?

Brad
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #55670 ] Mo, 06 Juni 2005 15:29
ToolPackinMama  
Brad Filippone wrote:
> ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:

> : Biggest clunker for me: Oh, NOW you tell us Spock has a brother!? Jeez
> : louise!
>
> Even more annoying: I lost a brother once...but I got him back!
>
> Seems like this was supposed to refer to Spock, so does this mean that for
> some reason Kirk no longer considers George Samual Kirk to have been his
> brother?

You know? Maybe Jim and Sam weren't on good terms.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #55671 ] Mo, 06 Juni 2005 15:55
al019  
ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: Brad Filippone wrote:
: > ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:

: > : Biggest clunker for me: Oh, NOW you tell us Spock has a brother!? Jeez
: > : louise!
: >
: > Even more annoying: I lost a brother once...but I got him back!
: >
: > Seems like this was supposed to refer to Spock, so does this mean that for
: > some reason Kirk no longer considers George Samual Kirk to have been his
: > brother?

: You know? Maybe Jim and Sam weren't on good terms.

Could be. But he did seem genuinly affected by his death.

Brad
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #55680 ] Mo, 06 Juni 2005 17:16
ToolPackinMama  
Brad Filippone wrote:

> ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
> : Brad Filippone wrote:
> : > ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
>
> : > : Biggest clunker for me: Oh, NOW you tell us Spock has a brother!? Jeez
> : > : louise!
> : >
> : > Even more annoying: I lost a brother once...but I got him back!
> : >
> : > Seems like this was supposed to refer to Spock, so does this mean that for
> : > some reason Kirk no longer considers George Samual Kirk to have been his
> : > brother?
>
> : You know? Maybe Jim and Sam weren't on good terms.
>
> Could be. But he did seem genuinly affected by his death.

Did he? To my eyes he barely got misty for a second.
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #55689 ] Mo, 06 Juni 2005 18:51
GeneK  
"Brad Filippone" <al019 [at] chebucto.ns.ca> wrote...
> Even more annoying: I lost a brother once...but I got him back!
>
> Seems like this was supposed to refer to Spock, so does this mean that for
> some reason Kirk no longer considers George Samual Kirk to have been his
> brother?

Kirk lost someone he considered a brother once but got him back. He
lost another brother another time, but didn't get him back. Noncanonically,
he also lost his parents and who knows how many other relatives and people
he felt close enough to to consider family. The point being made was that
Kirk
considered the people he was with at that moment his family now, not to
deliver a numerically accurate count of relatives and close friends he'd had
and lost throughout his life.

GeneK
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #55695 ] Mo, 06 Juni 2005 19:57
GeneK  
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote...

> Did he? To my eyes he barely got misty for a second.

That's discipline. Your brother's dead, but his wife and son
are alive and need care and who knows wtf has happened
to a million Denevans. You grieve later, right now you have
*duty* to perform.

GeneK
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #55696 ] Mo, 06 Juni 2005 20:03
Fozzi  
"Rick M." <dishtv [at] ptd.net> wrote in message
news:EaSdnVbU344g5APfUSdV9g [at] ptd.net...
>> Rick M. wrote:
> Absolutely. The networks are still in denial about the impact cable tv
> and the internet has had on them. About the *only* person not in denial
> is Rupert Murdoch, if you ask me...
>
>


Of course not, he is to busy with the denial related to his wife and wether
a woman 1/3 of his age is in love with a man who is notoriously difficult to
get along with or is actually in love with his cheque book.

Cheers
Fozzi
Re: Why Trek Matters, Why it makes a difference....... [message #55697 ] Mo, 06 Juni 2005 20:34
Fozzi  
"Dsybok" <dsybok [at] nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BH4ne.300$W77.65 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> If you are really devoted, you can continue to be a fan, no matter what.
>
> A devoted fan would not debase themselves by propping up substandard fare.
> The devoted fan would rather have no Trek than bad Trek, at least , thats
> my
> opinion.
>
> I wish Nemesis had never been made. Insurrection also for that matter,
> although it was tolerably bad as basically a long and overly expensive
> episode instead of a film. Could go on for days about what might have
> been,
> but thats all been done before hasn't it. The Q movie? Well Delancie will
> probably be too old by the time they got around to it, and how do you
> explain Q with bags under his eyes and gray hair.
>
> D
>
> D
>

Actuaolly thats fairly simple, he is 'Q' afterall, he simply decided he
wants to look older.

Cheers
Fozzi
Vorheriges Thema:Leonard Nimoy's Photos Of Naked Fat Women (no joke)
Nächstes Thema:ST Omnipedia Compatibility.
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:32:08 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07844 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered