Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ghporter · Mar 29, 2008, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

For a Star Trek series. Compare it to a show like Seinfeld or Law & Order and it barely rates.

True. But that core audience is both very loyal and generally very much able to spend money (look at a science fiction convention for evidence of that). Does Law and Order sell a lot of soap? Not really. But ST:TNG did sell an awful lot of what was advertised during its shows, especially among the very core of the fanbase. TNG made money and plenty of it. So did DS9 and Voyager. Enterprise did too, just not as much and not as consistently, due in large part to the inconsistent management of direction from the producers. But check out sales of boxed sets of various series. I'll bet Star Trek series make more money on that than about any other series, episode for episode.

driven · Mar 29, 2008, 02:24 PM

It's hard to compare ANYTHING to Seinfeld, but for a few years of it's run TNG was the #1 syndicated show on TV. Not too shabby. (Even for non-trek shows)

Don Pickett · Mar 30, 2008, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'll bet Star Trek series make more money on that than about any other series, episode for episode.

Not even close. For comparison's sake, Lost has been one of the most awaited series DVD releases in the last couple years. When season two was released in late 2006, sales were phenomenal, with some reports putting first day sales at close to 500,000 copies. Now, if you check Amazon.com for Lost's second season, you'll see it's only ranked #161. ST:TNG's box set of all seven seasons on DVD is ranked #2,303. The second season of TNG, re-released in the summer of 2006, is even lower, at #3,438. So, episode for episode, Lost beats ST: TNG hands down. And if you look at some of the really high sellers, like The Chapelle Show or The Simpsons you will see how small the Star Trek market is.

I'm not saying this to diss Star Trek: I'm a fan. But in any conversation about Star Trek series, I think it's important to look at the real-world economic considerations of making a show which, most of the time, has a pretty small ROI for the studios which produce it. And any discussion of the Star Trek series should, IMO, talk about the bind the writers and producers are in. They can write for safe, relatively small, built-in audience or they can try and do something like Moore did with Battlestar Galactica and start with almost a clean slate. So far they keep choosing the first option, with predictable results.

Don Pickett · Mar 30, 2008, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by driven

It's hard to compare ANYTHING to Seinfeld, but for a few years of it's run TNG was the #1 syndicated show on TV. Not too shabby. (Even for non-trek shows)

But it didn't sustain the run, and none of the follow up shows have done nearly as well. As I said above, I'm not dissing the show. But I am trying to talk about some of the things I think stand in the way of its wider success.

driven · Mar 30, 2008, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

But it didn't sustain the run, and none of the follow up shows have done nearly as well. As I said above, I'm not dissing the show. But I am trying to talk about some of the things I think stand in the way of its wider success.

No argument there. It peaked in seasons 3-5. I had interpreted what you said to be that it never achieved any success at all. It did ... but as you said it climaxed early.

ghporter · Mar 30, 2008, 10:18 AM

Perhaps instead of "show for show" I should have said something more like "for a given complete series box set" (which was more like what I was thinking).

Star Trek is STILL selling box sets of the original series. For example, I have two versions of the first season -one on conventional DVD and the other of the "remastered" episodes on HD-DVD. It remains to be seen whether series that are popular today will still have that kind of power in 10 years, let alone 40 years.

Jawbone54 · Mar 30, 2008, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Star Trek is STILL selling box sets of the original series. For example, I have two versions of the first season -one on conventional DVD and the other of the "remastered" episodes on HD-DVD. It remains to be seen whether series that are popular today will still have that kind of power in 10 years, let alone 40 years.

Good question. I think series like Seinfeld and Friends might sell for another 10, 15, 20 years or so, but the others are probably harder to predict.

Think about this era's series. What's popular? CSI, Lost, Grey's Anatomy, Scrubs, The Sopranos...

What out of those kind of shows will have staying power? Or do they have to have a serious cult following (whose dedication borders on insanity) like Star Trek in order to sell well decades from now?

[EDIT] I think The Simpsons will have some serious staying power.

SpaceMonkey · Mar 30, 2008, 11:31 AM

I'm not saying that these comparisons are worthless, but It's hard for me to think of a modern analog to Star Trek TNG. I think it was a pretty drastic change in depiction of the Star Trek universe compared to the original series (far less existential, and more political) although of course not on the scale of today's Battlestar Galactica. Part of what contributed to the consolidation of its smaller "core" audience, IMO, was just how spotty in quality the first two seasons were. I think networks today would have canceled it after the second season.

Jawbone54 · Mar 30, 2008, 11:43 AM

I know what you mean...it's absolutely painful to watch episodes like Conspiracy.

ghporter · Mar 30, 2008, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm not saying that these comparisons are worthless, but It's hard for me to think of a modern analog to Star Trek TNG. I think it was a pretty drastic change in depiction of the Star Trek universe compared to the original series (far less existential, and more political) although of course not on the scale of today's Battlestar Galactica. Part of what contributed to the consolidation of its smaller "core" audience, IMO, was just how spotty in quality the first two seasons were. I think networks today would have canceled it after the second season.

Interesting point of view, especially considering that one of the most biting criticisms of TOS was how idealistic and utopian the Federation was-without any human foibles, no real faults, and absolute certainty that everything was perfect. "Conspiracy" was a credible attempt to address this; the Federation was not perfect by any means. Later, episodes like "Drumhead" showed how human the humans of the Federation could be, and "Pegasus" showed how some powerful officers could let pride and avarice stand in the way of the truth, duty and honor. And I think of the numerous episodes where Star Fleet Security was actually the bad guy a fitting "revenge of the Red Shirts."

Eug · Mar 30, 2008, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Interesting point of view, especially considering that one of the most biting criticisms of TOS was how idealistic and utopian the Federation was-without any human foibles, no real faults, and absolute certainty that everything was perfect.

Those criticisms are innaccurate. It really depended on the episode and its particular writer. In fact, one of my criticisms with TNG was that its universe was too perfect, and even more so than TOS.

Many of the TOS episodes revealed just how flawed the Federation's people were. For example:

The Galileo Seven
Amok Time <-- One of my fave episodes.
Journey To Babel <-- Another one of my fave episodes. It has the best Star Trek quote of all time.

Andorian Ambassador: My people are a violent race, but we've no quarrel with Captain Kirk.
Spock: Apparently Thelev did.
Andorian Ambassador: You suggest a plot. How could it profit us to harm the captain?
Spock: I do not know. There is no logic in Thelev's attack upon the captain. There is no logic in Gav's murder.
Andorian Ambassador: Perhaps you should forget logic and devote yourself to motivations
of passion or gain. Those are reasons for murder.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Enterprise's problem, in my opinion, was that it didn't make a commitment to either choice. It tried to straddle the two and ended up with a show which pleased neither group.

Enterprise's problem was simply that it had very sh!tty writing. Hey, I like Hoshi and T'Pol, but how stupid is it to have an entire scene of decontamination cream rubbing?

driven · Mar 31, 2008, 01:05 AM

Simply: Titillating.

Not logical. Just fun.

ghporter · Mar 31, 2008, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Enterprise's problem was simply that it had very sh!tty writing. Hey, I like Hoshi and T'Pol, but how stupid is it to have an entire scene of decontamination cream rubbing?

Originally Posted by driven

Simply: Titillating.

Not logical. Just fun.

Titillating was only part of the reason. How do you manage a lot of exposition in an "action/adventure" show? You have nearly naked people rubbing gel all over each other while doing that exposition. It works. In the pilot, for example, we got to see Trip and T'Pol thoroughly disagree with each other while rubbing gel all over each other-the juxtaposition of the argument and the sensuality (which was even more interesting because of how anhedonic T'Pol was at the time) made for very interesting viewing. I really liked seeing so much of Jolene, and a lot of folks liked seeing so much of Connor...but at least the pilot was well enough written that I stayed in touch with the story while I was enjoying the cake.

Eug · Mar 31, 2008, 09:11 AM

It was stupid. The whole time I was thinking, "the writers have nothing better so they just give us this".

Don Pickett · Mar 31, 2008, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Star Trek is STILL selling box sets of the original series. For example, I have two versions of the first season -one on conventional DVD and the other of the "remastered" episodes on HD-DVD. It remains to be seen whether series that are popular today will still have that kind of power in 10 years, let alone 40 years.

I think the original series will continue to sell relatively well for years, as people who aren't Star Trek fans like the original series. But the follow-on series don't sell very well.

What I'd like to see is for someone to do the Battlestar Galactica treatment with Star Trek: throw away all but the outline and start from scratch. I don't care about continuity.

Eug · Mar 31, 2008, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

What I'd like to see is for someone to do the Battlestar Galactica treatment with Star Trek: throw away all but the outline and start from scratch. I don't care about continuity.

It could be argued that is what they did with Enterprise. Well, they kept a lot of the stuff, but continuity has been thrown out the window in essense.

Don Pickett · Mar 31, 2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

It could be argued that is what they did with Enterprise. Well, they kept a lot of the stuff, but continuity has been thrown out the window in essense.

But they didn't really go all the far. All the writers did was find a period of Star Trek history which hadn't been written about before, come up with the same stock characters (the taciturn captain, the cranky engineer, the Vulcan science officer, etc.) and follow the same patterns: ship cruises around the galaxy from adventure to adventure, dispensing wisdom about tolerance and ideals along the way.

BG, on the other hand, kept only the bare outline, making up the rest wholesale.

Eug · Mar 31, 2008, 03:04 PM

Battlestar Galactica kept the same language: FRACK!
Battlestar Galactica kept the same characters: OK Boomer and Starbuck are now women, but Starbuck still smokes a cigar.
Battlestar Galactica kept the same villains: Now some of them are superhot models, but they still have the toasters.

Don Pickett · Mar 31, 2008, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Battlestar Galactica kept the same language: FRACK!
Battlestar Galactica kept the same characters: OK Boomer and Starbuck are now women, but Starbuck still smokes a cigar.
Battlestar Galactica kept the same villains: Now some of them are superhot models, but they still have the toasters.

It kept them in name only. The new characters are nothing like the original characters, and the new series is nothing like the original series. The writers don't care about continuity, and they're not constrained in the writing because Starbuck did or didn't do something in the original series. They tore down the original building and only kept the exterior.

ghporter · Mar 31, 2008, 06:30 PM

BSG kept the OUTLINE, just like Don is saying. But instead of making some gee-whiz popcorn space opera, they made Good Television® out of what was only a shell. I liked the original BSG-even went out of my way to see the pilot on the big screen (in Toronto, August 1978). But it was bubblegum and obviously an attempt to cash in on Star Wars. The new BSG is way more than that-the only thing they're cashing in on is the ability to do kick-@$$ effects digitally so the stories flow without that jarringly obvious optical printer evidence on every effects shot.

I would really be on board for this sort of treatment of the ST universe.

starman · Mar 31, 2008, 07:04 PM

I own the pilot.

On 35mm

ghporter · Mar 31, 2008, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by starman

I own the pilot.

On 35mm

Cheesy but fun, right? Not at all "serious science fiction" like the new BSG.

starman · Mar 31, 2008, 10:10 PM

Well, back then it wasn't so cheesy as it is now. It was a BIG deal. Everyone watched it. It was better than a lot of crap that was on TV at the time; people seem to forget that.

analogue SPRINKLES · 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Titillating was only part of the reason. How do you manage a lot of exposition in an "action/adventure" show?

Oh come on. I loved EVERY trek and I was really pumped for Enterprise but just after the first season I couldn't take it anymore.

I mean so much of it felt horribly forced and just itching to attract new viewers and teenage boys.

T'Pol is a catsuit.... Fine, she was hot.

Decontamination in your underwear and rubbing lotion all over other people. Stupid.

Using edgy language for star Trek such as "I aught to knock you on your ass". Ohhh, hardcore.

Showing toilets and bathrooms on the enterprise to make it "Real". Lame.

Removing the title "Star Trek" from the opening and using secretary rock theme music only to bring "Star Trek" back in season 3 and pick up the pace of the song.

Even though there is a clean slate and a whole universe to explore they still resort to finding ways to get around established continuity just to bring in Ferengi, Borg and Romulans in? Pathetic, hire new writers.

Turning the once cool and calm Vulcans into sneaky romulans by mistake and then making up excuses for it in season 4 to cover for all the mistakes.

Spending 2 seasons and the concept of the show setting up a time war story and then totally scrapping mid way to re-invent the show in season 3 with the whole season devoted to the Zindy. Then coming back in season 4 and quickly scrapping and ending the whole time war story with not even showing who the main bad guy was.

Spending season 4 trying to correct more mistakes from the first 2 seasons and then ending the show as a holideck re-creation with 2 characters from another show as the main focus. Brilliant.

Besides all that I did enjoy 90% of season 3 and 40% of Season 4. If the show started out half as good as season 4 they would have been set.

ajprice · Jul 18, 2008, 05:02 PM

Posters of Spock, Kirk, Uhuru and Nero (the bad guy)

And the 4 together make the star trek symbol, the colour of Spock, Uhuru and Kirk's photos are the colour of their uniform in the series.

Link

Zachary Quinto looks great as Spock

.

olePigeon · 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by ajprice

And the 4 together make...

Captain Planet!

Andrew Stephens · Jul 19, 2008, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

(which was even more interesting because of how anhedonic T'Pol was at the time)

how the hell did you come up with that word to post!!! Are you some kind of walking dictionary!

Randman · Jul 19, 2008, 10:22 PM

Quinto looks good as Spock but I'm still not sold. I love original Trek but am waiting on the sidelines for this one.

ghporter · Jul 20, 2008, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens

how the hell did you come up with that word to post!!! Are you some kind of walking dictionary!

Precision in communication has been my livelihood for most of my adult life. That requires a pretty large vocabulary. This particular word was also a pretty important feature of one of my relatively recent classes; dealing with a depressed patient requires knowing that they're depressed, and shunning enjoyment (anhedonia) is a hallmark of depression.

So I guess the answer is "yes." 'Cept I'm sittin' right now, not walkin'.

driven · Jul 20, 2008, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Randman

Quinto looks good as Spock but I'm still not sold. I love original Trek but am waiting on the sidelines for this one.

I'm sort of with you here. I've never liked the idea of ANY prequel. This might be an interesting diversion, but I'll wait for video.

To be fair I wasn't a big fan of the Star Wars prequels and I certainly didn't like the James Bond "reboot" either. <-- Good movie, but didn't feel like a Bond movie to me. I have a feeling that I'll have the same feeling about this one.

analogue SPRINKLES · 09:30 AM

Hey look it is the sister of the Axe Chocolate guy in the background:

Eriamjh · Mar 12, 2009, 11:02 AM

High Def Trailer 3

Nice trailer.

driven · Mar 12, 2009, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

High Def Trailer 3

Nice trailer.

I saw that one last night ... it's really well done. It actually made me interested in the movie.

Art Vandelay · Mar 12, 2009, 12:35 PM

It's also very popular.

Trailer #3 Sets Download Record
In a new press release, Paramount announced that the new trailer has broken all existing records at Apple.com. The trailer was downloaded over 1.8 million times during the first 24 hours on Apple.com and has had over five million total downloads since premiering on the site on March 6th. This makes it the most popular HD download in the history of the site.

Dakar V · Mar 12, 2009, 12:36 PM

Note that it says "HD Download"

driven · Mar 12, 2009, 12:40 PM

It took FOREVER to download. Yeah, my bandwidth sucked at the hotel, but 2 hours ... and then I couldn't save it locally. (sigh)

Art Vandelay · Mar 12, 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

Note that it says "HD Download"

And your point is?

Dakar V · Mar 12, 2009, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

And your point is?

I imagine there are less HD Downloads than SD Downloads. And since they didn't mention the regular ones, someone else still holds the record for most downloads for that, presumably, more popular format.

driven · Mar 12, 2009, 01:42 PM

The problem with the regular trailer is even the large is small. (and the display on my E6400 is only 1440x900)

Eriamjh · Mar 13, 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by driven

The problem with the regular trailer is even the large is small. (and the display on my E6400 is only 1440x900)

I don't like that they call the trailer a 1080p trailer when the vertical resolution is only 800! It loses resolution due to the aspect ratio! Sure, it's 1920 wide.

I guess that's as good as it gets until 2160p monitors come out and the computers that can play them.

Goldfinger · Mar 14, 2009, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

I don't like that they call the trailer a 1080p trailer when the vertical resolution is only 800! It loses resolution due to the aspect ratio! Sure, it's 1920 wide.

I guess that's as good as it gets until 2160p monitors come out and the computers that can play them.

What does it matter ? The other 280 pixels of vertical resolution would just be black... The movie isn't filmed in 16:9.

exca1ibur · Mar 14, 2009, 04:58 AM

Hopefully it will be as classic as this...

The Wrath Of...

driven · Mar 14, 2009, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

Hopefully it will be as classic as this...

The Wrath Of...

Never really understood why anyone thought Jim Carry was funny. :-(

"He tasks me! He tasks me! And I shall have him. I'll chase him round the moons of Nibia and round the Antares maelstrom and round perdition's flames before I give him up!"

olePigeon · Mar 14, 2009, 03:02 PM

I don't understand who decided that 720 pixels and 1080 pixels is HD. None of those aspect ratios match any aspect ratio actually used for movies. All it did was making watching TV annoying.

Eug · Apr 28, 2009, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

Hey look it is the sister of the Axe Chocolate guy in the background:

I mentioned it before, but the set design for the bridge reminds me of a toothbrush commercial. This chocolate revelation just solidifies that.

The good news is that judging by the trailers, the whole movie doesn't look like that. There seems like there will be real grit to it.

Anyways, I know it's not out yet here in North America, but given that it's been shown in several places already I would have expected more Rotten Tomatoes reviews than the 14 currently up there. Fortunately, so far all 14 are positive.

olePigeon · Apr 28, 2009, 04:55 PM

I'll know they at least kept true to the show if the guy 2nd from the right dies on an away mission. Maybe his parachute doesn't work.

Shaddim · Apr 28, 2009, 05:20 PM

I'll admit I had my reservations, but after talking with people who have seen it, I'm really looking forward to opening night.

A close friend of mine (and avid scf-fi buff) told me it's the best in the history of the franchise.

analogue SPRINKLES · 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

I mentioned it before, but the set design for the bridge reminds me of a toothbrush commercial. This chocolate revelation just solidifies that.

I know what you mean but I also see what look they are going for and I am totally down with it.

They are pretty much going from the angle of if they had the money and the technology to make this set in 60's when the first series started. It is easy to see if you look at the ridiculous designer lounge chairs the helmsmen sit in looks like they are from the 60's and to me it is perfect. The miniskirts, the minimal design, bold colours, it looks like space pimps 1969. I'll take that over the typical cold steel, dim lighting, blue trim lighting, carpeting.

The problem with the Enterprise TV show is they had to make it lower tech than the original series yet it had to have better computers for todays audience. The mistake they made though is instead of making it look like a 60's through-back the designers wanted it to make it look like our future in a realistic way. As if NASA had evolved 100 years from now. It didn't work, the sets were grey and bland, they had computers that looked like they were from the late 90's with a bad screensaver. Even in 2003 they had better computers and emerging technology. The only thing that looked in place to the original series was T'pol as her outfits from time to time were totally 60's as was her haircut.

The JJ enterprise has that 60's look to it as all the original cast would like right at home on it. All they did was jazz it up with computers that have that gesture/touch OS and transparent displays we all expect now especially 100+ years in the future.

For me the set design is the thing I look forward to most.