Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0
Sign in to follow this  
hellsreach

[Star Trek] I'm really trying hard...

Recommended Posts

It's a prequel to the original Star Trek TV series. The movie series takes place after the original series, and this movie takes place before it.

 

Which is something I am cool with, because roboots say "those movies in the series you watched? Never happened" and that pisses me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comic book lead-in to the new movie (issue #3 just came out) makes it pretty clear that this isn't a reboot in the commonly held sense of "starting over from scratch". Instead it's that hoary old Trek favorite, time travelers altering history to change their present.

 

The comic is set after the Next Generation era and up through #2 (I haven't picked up #3 yet) has had appearances by old Spock (as seen in TNG), Picard and Data (quickly glossing over the whole B-4 business from Nemesis). It's basically the backstory for Nero, the Romulan who's behind the events we'll see in the movie. Nero does something (I won't say what but it's pretty easy to find online) which changes Federation history and Kirk's history in particular, leading to many of the differences between the movie and the original series.

 

Yep, that is why now I am more likely to see the movie. If it had been a reboot, I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm trying. I really am. I'm trying my hardest to HATE the coming Star Trek movie, but I'm failing miserably. Every trailer just makes me want to see it even more.

 

I'm such a failure.

 

I've got to be the biggest Trekkie here, And while (at the moment based on current info) not group this version of Trek with the others I can see where jj abrams is going with this, (think pirates of the caribbean type action/adventure, instead of the more thoughtfullness of orignal trek)

 

I'm guessing this will be a massive hit, to fans and non fan (because it gives them something they didn't see in the previous versions,)

 

 

So why the trying to hate?

 

Watch it for its own merits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sick of it and all I've seen is the trailers. Abrams is turning Trek into Die Hard in Space... Kirk was never on the Enterprise until he took command of her (11 years after she was completed). The ship looks stupid and Abrams himself has said he wasn't a fan of Trek... doesn't bode well

 

True the ship does look disproportionate and unbalanced in its design, but I'm guessing you are basing that opinion on that large single photo (the one with the shuttle in the fore ground) if so wait till you see it in other angles, it may grow on you...

 

And the comment Abrams said he wasn't a trek fan is true (I saw him on youtube) but there was a weird studio release that kinda sorta tried to back track on this statment,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen every episode because my father was a tremendous Star Trek fan and I grew up watching TOS and TNG. I watched the various other series usually because there was nothing else better on.

 

OOOH COME ON!

 

THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING BETTER TO WATCH THAN "ENTERPRISE"

 

like...paint drying or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comic book lead-in to the new movie (issue #3 just came out) makes it pretty clear that this isn't a reboot in the commonly held sense of "starting over from scratch". Instead it's that hoary old Trek favorite, time travelers altering history to change their present.

 

The comic is set after the Next Generation era and up through #2 (I haven't picked up #3 yet) has had appearances by old Spock (as seen in TNG), Picard and Data (quickly glossing over the whole B-4 business from Nemesis). It's basically the backstory for Nero, the Romulan who's behind the events we'll see in the movie. Nero does something (I won't say what but it's pretty easy to find online) which changes Federation history and Kirk's history in particular, leading to many of the differences between the movie and the original series.

 

Thats what I expected to see,

 

(But it don't explain the sucky new phasers, no there will be people that will hate the "flippy" new ones)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond does not list it as shipping next week but their upcoming list is usually incomplete so there is a chance, though it seems awfully early with #3 having come out just last week.

It's now next week, and Diamond does list #4 as shipping to stores this week so it should be in stores tomorrow. No sign of the TPB on next week's shipping list, though it could just as easily pop up next week the same way #4 did this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's now next week, and Diamond does list #4 as shipping to stores this week so it should be in stores tomorrow. No sign of the TPB on next week's shipping list, though it could just as easily pop up next week the same way #4 did this week.

 

Thanks for the updates, Jim. Please let me know when you hear anything about the TPB (in this thread is fine - it's relevant to the topic).

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OOOH COME ON!

 

THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING BETTER TO WATCH THAN "ENTERPRISE"

 

like...paint drying or something

 

Let us test this theory:

;)

 

I watched all of the movies, TOS and ST:TNG, most of DS9 but Voyager ruined Trek for me (or at least my enjoyment of watching it). I have caught pieces of Enterprise as SciFi err SYFY has repeated it.

 

I am looking forward to this movie, might even see it in a theater, which I have not done since 2004. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OOOH COME ON!

 

THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING BETTER TO WATCH THAN "ENTERPRISE"

 

like...paint drying or something

 

You are right, Enterprise was not very good. I am surprised it lasted as long as it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let us test this theory:
;)

 

I watched all of the movies, TOS and ST:TNG, most of DS9 but Voyager ruined Trek for me (or at least my enjoyment of watching it). I have caught pieces of Enterprise as SciFi err SYFY has repeated it.

 

I am looking forward to this movie, might even see it in a theater, which I have not done since 2004. :D

 

Compared to Enterprise that video could win a Emmy

(I pretend that Enterprise never was, and hope it will go away, what they did there was a crime)

 

You are right, Enterprise was not very good. I am surprised it lasted as long as it did.

 

Its the only Trek not to finish its run

(but Voyager came very close, if it wasn't for the fan support at the time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gene Rodenberry planned on The Original Series going 5 years. :)

 

Thats true, but unlike Enterprise it was cut short by the studio, not for the like of fan support, (which it had in large numbers for the day, but the studio ignored them and cancelled the show)

 

But then Gene Rodenberry did also plan the show to be a western with the use of an airship,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ratings are ratings, and that's what networks ultimately go by. It's not whether a show has fan support or not. It's how many fans.

 

I've read up extensively on TOS when I first got into Trek after seeing the entire series one summer in junior high. TOS actually wasn't that popular during it's intitial run, but gain a lot more "fan support" when it went into syndication after its cancellation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ratings are ratings, and that's what networks ultimately go by. It's not whether a show has fan support or not. It's how many fans.

 

I've read up extensively on TOS when I first got into Trek after seeing the entire series one summer in junior high. TOS actually wasn't that popular during it's intitial run, but gain a lot more "fan support" when it went into syndication after its cancellation.

 

Thats not totally true, it had a solid fan base from the first season, but the network at the time kept changing the airing time for the show (alot like Firefly) and many fans could not keep up, (that and the fact it was later put in the tv death slot, when viewer numbers were known to be low) but the fans stuck to it, and is one of the reasons it got it a second season,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not totally true, it had a solid fan base from the first season, but the network at the time kept changing the airing time for the show (alot like Firefly) and many fans could not keep up, (that and the fact it was later put in the tv death slot, when viewer numbers were known to be low) but the fans stuck to it, and is one of the reasons it got it a second season,

... and a final THIRD season.

TOS also was one of the first shows to experience a fan write-in campaign for a third season.

Since no show would be picked up for syndication with less than 3 seasons, the third season was vital to get us to where we are now.

Without that fan support, there would never have been a film in the '70s or even a second series in the '80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ratings are ratings, and that's what networks ultimately go by. It's not whether a show has fan support or not. It's how many fans.

 

I've read up extensively on TOS when I first got into Trek after seeing the entire series one summer in junior high. TOS actually wasn't that popular during it's intitial run, but gain a lot more "fan support" when it went into syndication after its cancellation.

 

Thats not totally true, it had a solid fan base from the first season, but the network at the time kept changing the airing time for the show (alot like Firefly) and many fans could not keep up, (that and the fact it was later put in the tv death slot, when viewer numbers were known to be low) but the fans stuck to it, and is one of the reasons it got it a second season,

 

If the show had a greater fan base than it did at first, then the ratings would have been higher, and if the ratings had been higher than it wouldn't have had a bad time slot or been moved around so much. People often try to trace things back to "just because of this", but there is always a reason for everything, "reasons for the reasons" you might say. As fans of TV shows, it might seem so simple to just explain something as it is "this" because of "that" - and not consider why it is "that".

 

I mean, NBC put Trek in those bad time slots because it didn't have good enough ratings to compete with the high ratings shows in the good time slots, and then moving it around is an attempt to get it some new veiwers and higher ratings than the previous bad time slot. If attempts like that succeed a show often gets moved to the good time slots because of its new ability to compete. If the attempts fail, then it may be cancelled or be moved around more to crappy time slots (on its way to being cancelled).

 

Case in point is The Simpsons vs. Cosby. In the early 90's, The Simpsons gained an big following on Sundays, but the highest rated sitcom at the time was The Cosby Show. In a bold move, Fox moved the Simpsons to Thursday nights up aganst Cosby, and that ended Cosby quick. With Cosby gone, Fox and the other networks had a chance to compete on Thursday nights with other programs, and The Simpsons was then moved back to Sunday nights where it did well before and has done well ever since.

 

... and a final THIRD season.

TOS also was one of the first shows to experience a fan write-in campaign for a third season.

 

I'm not saying that fans supporting their shows through letter writing campaigns and petitions don't make any difference at all. After all, Star Trek fans successfully lobbied Paramount to bring Spock back to life after he died. But if the show had more fans in the first place, at any time slot, then it could have done better while it was on, then it may have gotten a better time slot and not moved, and then it may have gotten even more fans, and you have a snowball effect of success for the show.

 

Since no show would be picked up for syndication with less than 3 seasons, the third season was vital to get us to where we are now.

 

Very true. And nowadays syndication minimum is 4 seasons, which Enterprise limped to get through.

 

But you have to admit, even though the 3rd season of TOS made syndication possible, which in turn helped the franchise gain a huge following in the 70's, that TOS Season 3 itself was prety lame overall.

 

Without that fan support, there would never have been a film in the '70s or even a second series in the '80s

 

But that boring, rated G movie in the 70's was really only good for making Star Trek II possible, and that's really what made the franchise take off again. Star Trek II -IV is what made TNG possible, and so on.

 

And may I remind everone that in the late 70's they were originally planning on making another TV series with the original crew, but the huge success of Star Wars made Paramount decide they wanted to make movies instead. So we can all speculate what if since that show never got made, but it's possible that Star Wars is partially responsible for the success of the Star Trek franchise today. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, NBC put Trek in those bad time slots because it didn't have good enough ratings to compete with the high ratings shows in the good time slots, and then moving it around is an attempt to get it some new veiwers and higher ratings than the previous bad time slot. If attempts like that succeed a show often gets moved to the good time slots because of its new ability to compete. If the attempts fail, then it may be cancelled or be moved around more to crappy time slots (on its way to being cancelled).

 

I'm not saying that fans supporting their shows through letter writing campaigns and petitions don't make any difference at all. After all, Star Trek fans successfully lobbied Paramount to bring Spock back to life after he died. But if the show had more fans in the first place, at any time slot, then it could have done better while it was on, then it may have gotten a better time slot and not moved, and then it may have gotten even more fans, and you have a snowball effect of success for the show.

 

But you have to admit, even though the 3rd season of TOS made syndication possible, which in turn helped the franchise gain a huge following in the 70's, that TOS Season 3 itself was pretty lame overall.

Season 3 was awful overall.

There were a few shining exceptions, but most of season 3 was a total loss.

 

But that boring, rated G movie in the 70's was really only good for making Star Trek II possible, and that's really what made the franchise take off again. Star Trek II -IV is what made TNG possible, and so on.

 

And may I remind everone that in the late 70's they were originally planning on making another TV series with the original crew, but the huge success of Star Wars made Paramount decide they wanted to make movies instead. So we can all speculate what if since that show never got made, but it's possible that Star Wars is partially responsible for the success of the Star Trek franchise today. :cool:

Oh yeah, Star Trek 2 was the true hit.

The Motion Picture was a modest hit but it runs like an overly padded TV script -- which it was.

And yes, Star Wars really was a seminal film of the modern Sci-Fi era.

The sci-fi films just following right upon it are also part of that new era of Sci-Fi films as they were really too soon afterwards to truly be influenced by Star Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the show had a greater fan base than it did at first, then the ratings would have been higher, and if the ratings had been higher than it wouldn't have had a bad time slot or been moved around so much. People often try to trace things back to "just because of this", but there is always a reason for everything, "reasons for the reasons" you might say. As fans of TV shows, it might seem so simple to just explain something as it is "this" because of "that" - and not consider why it is "that".

 

I mean, NBC put Trek in those bad time slots because it didn't have good enough ratings to compete with the high ratings shows in the good time slots, and then moving it around is an attempt to get it some new veiwers and higher ratings than the previous bad time slot. If attempts like that succeed a show often gets moved to the good time slots because of its new ability to compete. If the attempts fail, then it may be cancelled or be moved around more to crappy time slots (on its way to being cancelled).

 

I don't have time to answer all these point at the mo, but this one is completely wrong, The reasons that "some" shows have poor ratings is because the poor time slots, and the constant shifting of the airing times,

(as happen with Firefly, in fact it was worse, would you like to explain to me the logic of showing the EP's out of order (I think they ended up showing the pilot of Firefly as the third Ep!!)

 

So, it can in fact have a very good fan base, but still suffer bad ratings and get cancelled, (again as in Firefly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be more specific:

 

(1) Star Trek's first season was on during its best timeslot, Thursdays at 8:30. Back then primetime on Thursday nights still an excellent timeslot as it is today. But it's ratings and ad revenue were poor. There was talk of cancelling Trek then, but they didn't.

 

(2) For Trek's second season, it was moved to make room for a new show they hoped would do better its time slot, and their gamble worked. The new show was an instant success, doing way better in that timeslot than Trek had. Trek was moved to Friday at 8:30, a slot with less veiwers for any show. Trek did even worse it's second season, and that was really no big surprise because it was a worse time slot.

 

(3) However, this time NBC knew that moving the show to Friday night was their own doing and decided not to hold that against the show. They renewed it but decided to move it again. But their Thursday night line-up was doing well and they didn't want to upset that, so they initially scheduled Trek season 3 for Monday night at 8:00 because it could only do better there. But the show that was there (a mid-season replacment for a show that had been cancelled during season 2) ended up doing so well and they decided before season 3 that they shouldn't upset that either. NBC was not contractually able to cancel it since it had already been renewed, so they ended up moving Trek to Friday nights at 10:00, which was of course its death sentence. They wanted it at the end of the primetime lineup so it wouldn't bring down the other higher rated shows on Friday nights.

 

It was actually set to be cancelled mid-third season but NBC couldn't come up with a mid-season replacement in time that year so it just continued until the end of the season by deafult. NBC really regreted renewing it the previous year.

 

This is all public knowledge and easily verifiable. Trek picked up a much larger fan base while the show was in syndication. Sure, I agree if a show gets a bad time slot right off the bat then it may never get high enough ratings to give it a chance. But Star Trek started with one of the best possible timeslots (then and today), the highly coveted primetime Thursday night.

 

Nielsen ratings are the #1 determining factor of how much money networks can make from ad revenue, because sponsors will pay bigger bucks to have commecials on higher rated shows. And the monetary success of a show has two main factors, gross amount of money it makes and the cost to produce it. Those two factors reduce to one concept by simple subtraction: the net income earned by the show = profit.

 

And the Niesen ratings system was designed to be a random cross-section of veiwers. With the # of Niesen families being a fairly high percentage of the total poluation of TV veiwers, the statistical soundness of their system is fairly high.

 

Is it possible for a show to have significantly more or less total viewers that the Nielsen Ratings would indicate? Of course it is possible, but the probability of that is small. But we really don't have any data about the number of viewers that aren't counted through the Nielsen ratings system, so that's speculation. I doubt a very accurate poll on non-Nielsen families at the time Trek was on the air could be possible to test that possibity. But since the ad sponsors didn't know about those possible uncounted vewiers, the show was not sponsored enough to make it enough net/profit.

 

Syndicated shows also have ratings and the ratings may possibly be better than when they show was on the air. That was defintely the case for Trek. Nowadays video sales for shows are also numbers and hard countable money, and the success of some DVDs may imply that the show may have been more popular than the ratings had indicated when the show was on TV.

 

We can use vague terms like "fan support", but in reality "fans" are just veiwers, and the "support" that counts the most are Niesen ratings. Sure, fans can have a letter-writing campaign and that may have a little clout, but ultimately, TV networks are a business and the goal of business is to make money. Letters and petitions aren't cash. Ratings are cash. If a network can clearly see that a show has the support of a lot of vocal fans, but the ratings don't match and the show still don't generate enough net income through ad revenue, then at the end of the day it's still all about the money. It would be very poor business to extend the life of a show for too long because of fans that are not supporting the show financially in great enough numbers. So to giant corporate entities like TV networks, the "fan support" that counts the most is Nielsen viewer ratings, because that's what counts the most to advertisement sponsors.

 

So, fans are viewers, numbers are numbers, ratings are ratings, sponsors are sponsors, and dollars are dollars. A moderate fan is counted just the same a die hard fanatic. How well united the fans are and their overall presense can attract new fans and bring in higher numbers of veiwers. But when they are all counted in the end, 1=1 for ratings.

 

So therefore, number of fans = money.

 

I agree that timeslot can defintely make a difference, but what it makes a difference to is the # of veiwers. Star Trek's Friday time slots didn't help it, for sure.

 

Star Trek: TOS and Enterprise both lacked the numbers (and thus the monetary income) to continue longer than they each respectively did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For Trek's second season, it was moved to make room for a new show they hoped would do better its time slot, and their gamble worked. The new show was an instant success, doing way better in that timeslot than Trek had. Trek was moved to Friday at 8:30, a slot with less veiwers for any show. Trek did even worse it's second season, and that was really no big surprise because it was a worse time slot.

 

(3) However, this time NBC knew that moving the show to Friday night was their own mistake and decided not to hold that against the show. They renewed it but decided to move it again. But their Thursday night line-up was doing well and they didn't want to upset that, so they initially scheduled Trek season 3 for Monday night at 8:00 because it could only do better there. But the show that was there (a mid-season replacment for a show that had been cancelled during season 2) ended up doing so well and they decided before season 3 that they shouldn't upset that either.

Interesting. It makes me wonder what shows those were. Though they got better ratings than Star Trek at the time, would any of us today remember them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. It makes me wonder what shows those were. Though they got better ratings than Star Trek at the time, would any of us today remember them?

 

The new Thursday show during Trek's second season (that bumped it to Fridays) was Ironside, a highly rated show about a police detective in a wheel chair that solved cases for 8 seasons. Giving Thursday night to Ironside generated huge amounts of ad revenue for NBC. Star Trek was given a whole season in that great time slot to perform well, and it hadn't. It had it's chance. NBC had made a very sound business decision and it paid off tremendously.

 

The mid-season replacement for Man from U.N.C.L.E. that ended up keeping the Monday spot Trek was going to have when it was renewed for a third season, was Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In. That variety show is still one of the highest rated mid-season replacements to this day, so you can see NBC's reasoning for not messing with success and moving it just to help Star Trek. That business decision also paid off as Laugh-In reaped huge profits for NBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's now next week, and Diamond does list #4 as shipping to stores this week so it should be in stores tomorrow. No sign of the TPB on next week's shipping list, though it could just as easily pop up next week the same way #4 did this week.

 

The Star Trek: Countdown TPB changed to show as "In Stock" over a week ago on Amazon, but I had to wait for another payday to order it. The price went down a couple dollars so I'm glad it worked out like that. I did order it last night.

 

I guess they may have waited until issue #4 was at least available before the TPB was. I'll may let you guys know what I think after I read it, but then again I've read it's not really meant to be a stand-alone story as much as a prologue, prelude, prequel, or backstory to the movie, so I may just wait to give my opinion until I see the movie. Hell, I may just even wait until the week of the movie to even read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Know... I am a big Trek fan, and I sick and tired of the "dorks" and "geeks" out there that pick and pull apart the Trek movies and Tv Shows... its a movie, its Star Trek, GO WATCH IT, sit back leave your Spock ears at home, and your Klingon dictionary on the shelf...

 

I cant wait for this Re-Invention so to speak of the movie, it looks freaking awesome.... I am sure I will get flamed or blasted here, but I personally LOVED Enterprise.. (I can hear the dorks falling off their chairs.) Why? Because it was entertaining, and to me, it seemed more.... reasonable... as in, I could actually picture us in the future ending up like that.... I could careless that this didnt happen until the TOS era, or this didnt happen until the TNG era... .who gives a crap... Just watch it and enjoy.

 

/end Rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Star Trek: Countdown TPB changed to show as "In Stock" over a week ago on Amazon, but I had to wait for another payday to order it. The price went down a couple dollars so I'm glad it worked out like that. I did order it last night.

I never saw it show up on Diamond's shipping lists but in another forum I did see someone mention last week that they'd picked up the TPB so it did come out. I haven't even managed to get issue #3 yet, I haven't been able to get to my comic book store for over a month now. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...