[trek forever]

I am interested in starting a group to encourage the powers that be to continue to produce new material in both timelines (My own thought would be that future movies would continue the alterniverse timeline and future TV shows would continue the primeverse timeline-but I'm certainly interested in other options). While I've certainly made no secret about my lack of interest in the alterniverse,I have no objection to it continuing so long as we also get new Primeverse material. This group would be open to anybody who wants to see the primeverse continue-it doesn't matter if they love or hate the alterniverse. I think that there is room for both universes to grow and expand side by side instead of one shoving the other out of the way. The objective of this group would be to do our part to help that to happen.
Obviously,there are many details to be worked out but would people be interested in such a group?


Best wishes,


Scott

[Len_A]

This has all the various shades of the lunacy that evolved in trying to keep the series Enterprise alive, or revive it, after it had been canceled. No group is going to get the studio to keep both time lines alive in any media form outside of novels, and in that case, the publishers have to be convinced that there's enough money in it to be worth the trouble and expense of publishing. Give it up. Star Trek is intellectual property, owned by Paramount. Period. Money talks, bullsh** walks. The money that this film is generating, coupled with the positive reviews by the media reviewers, means this is the direction Star Trek is taking, at least for the next two movies that they signed the cast to do. The old time line, as far as movies are concerned, is now dead forever. Nothing short of dollars that exceed the take on this Star Trek is ever going to convince the Paramount & Viacom to change that.

[Rakulp]

Len_A, on May 15 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

Give it up. Star Trek is intellectual property, owned by Paramount.

Greetings,

I think that says it all...sadly.

Rakulp
"Honor Above All"

[1701-Z]

While I see the point that Len-A is making, there's no reason we, the fans, can't keep both timelines going though fan fics, or fan productions like "Star Trek Phase 2" .

[ensign edwards]

I do agree that the odds of getting any sort of original timeline continuation are very low, but I'm not sure it's a goal that should be given up on entirely. (Also, for the record, if we're talking a TV continuation, CBS owns the rights, not Paramount.)

I do think 1701-Z has might be on to something with the idea of supporting fan fiction and productions.

[Terilynn]

ensign edwards, on May 15 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

I do agree that the odds of getting any sort of original timeline continuation are very low, but I'm not sure it's a goal that should be given up on entirely. (Also, for the record, if we're talking a TV continuation, CBS owns the rights, not Paramount.)

I do think 1701-Z has might be on to something with the idea of supporting fan fiction and productions.

Agreed here. Not just because I'm a fanficcer myself, but frankly a LOT of the works and fan productions that are out there are really quite good! There are new original crews and avenues explored in the "prime canon" that frankly are leagues better in action, drama and plot that most Trek films and the shows...

Just by being here TZ - we are allowing the Prime Canon to survive! I'm supporting it from here. But I have to admit, trying to pressure CBS into new works in the Prime Canon will not likely succeed. However - if the studio smells potential (and LONG LASTING) profits for it...then they'll pursue it. Until that time I'm going to support quality fan productions and feed my desire for prime canon stories by doing so.

[Len_A]

1701-Z, on May 15 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

While I see the point that Len-A is making, there's no reason we, the fans, can't keep both timelines going though fan fics, or fan productions like "Star Trek Phase 2" .

And, as that doesn't interfere with Paramount/Viacom's commercial Star Trek endeavors, that's about the only thing that will work.

ensign edwards, on May 15 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

I do agree that the odds of getting any sort of original timeline continuation are very low, but I'm not sure it's a goal that should be given up on entirely. (Also, for the record, if we're talking a TV continuation, CBS owns the rights, not Paramount.)

I do think 1701-Z has might be on to something with the idea of supporting fan fiction and productions.

CBS Corporation owns the Star Trek name rights, and Paramount owns the production rights, or some screwy kind of arrangement, after Viacom was split into two companies.

Terilynn, on May 15 2009, 11:38 AM, said:

Agreed here. Not just because I'm a fanficcer myself, but frankly a LOT of the works and fan productions that are out there are really quite good! There are new original crews and avenues explored in the "prime canon" that frankly are leagues better in action, drama and plot that most Trek films and the shows...

Just by being here TZ - we are allowing the Prime Canon to survive! I'm supporting it from here. But I have to admit, trying to pressure CBS into new works in the Prime Canon will not likely succeed. However - if the studio smells potential (and LONG LASTING) profits for it...then they'll pursue it. Until that time I'm going to support quality fan productions and feed my desire for prime canon stories by doing so.

And, Terilynn, that pretty much sums it up - they have to smell the money potential in it, or they won't even acknowledge it, let alone consider it. People have to remember, that beyond fandom, this is a business, decided on the bottom line and only the bottom line.

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

Trying to persuade the studio to produce more stuff from the prime universe is a fools' errand ~ sorry. Stick with the fan productions and your DVD collection. In the words of Bones "so long as we remember..."

[Terilynn]

Len_A, on May 15 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

And, Terilynn, that pretty much sums it up - they have to smell the money potential in it, or they won't even acknowledge it, let alone consider it. People have to remember, that beyond fandom, this is a business, decided on the bottom line and only the bottom line.

Yep. We're a completely different beast and no longer a part of the equation. There may be a few million of us WORLDWIDE but that's pittance when it comes the numbers of potential viewers that are out there that are NOT Trekkies.

However - just because they make a movie for the masses, doesn't mean I'm not gonna rip em a new one for writing a crappy script. ROFL

[ensign edwards]

Quote

CBS Corporation owns the Star Trek name rights, and Paramount owns the production rights, or some screwy kind of arrangement, after Viacom was split into two companies.

Paramount owns movie rights, CBS owns TV rights.

[Len_A]

Terilynn, on May 15 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

Yep. We're a completely different beast and no longer a part of the equation. There may be a few million of us WORLDWIDE but that's pittance when it comes the numbers of potential viewers that are out there that are NOT Trekkies.

However - just because they make a movie for the masses, doesn't mean I'm not gonna rip em a new one for writing a crappy script. ROFL

And the few million aren't spending the money on Star Trek the way they used to. The ratings for the TV series were steadily declining. You used to be able to go into a Border or a Barnes and Nobles, and Star Trek was an entire subsection with in the Science Fiction section, in most of the Border or Barnes and Nobles in the Detroit area where I live, that meant two and half to four bookcases, sectioned off by TOS, movie novelizations, Next Gen novels, large books on Star Trek ships or technology, etc. Last five or six times I stopped in any large book store, it was luck to be a couple of shelves. Star Trek The Experience, in Las Vegas. First time we went in 2004 it opened at 10 AM, and there was a line at 9:45 AM to buy tickets. After doing the Borg Invasion 4D ride, we had to wait in line for over 30 minutes to do the Klingon Encounter. The next year, in spring of '05, you could see the lines fall off a little. By the time we went in '07 and did the back stage tour, they didn't open until 11 AM, ticket prices went up, and there were hardly any people. In 2007, Vegas, especially the Strip, was booming big time. Not STTE.

Star Trek has been dieing. Get that point through your heads. You want to rip them over what you perceive to be a crappy script, that's your right, but in turn, you get ripped (politely) by me for attitudes that are a case in point with what's been wrong with Trek and the fan base for a long time. I don't agree, in the least, that the script was crappy, and in fact, I'm glad they sh*t-canned the old time line and created an alternate time line. It was long overdue. This was a fun Star Trek story, moved fast, and I hope rebooted the franchise successfully for a long future.

ensign edwards, on May 15 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

Paramount owns movie rights, CBS owns TV rights.

Thanks for the clarification - trying to go through the history of Viacom was giving me a headache!!

[Terilynn]

And there I will agree to disagree Len!

[Len_A]

Terilynn, on May 15 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

And there I will agree to disagree Len!

You betcha!!!

[trek forever]

You know-it was a fool's errand to try to get Star Trek revived in the first place. What TV show had ever been revived? Look what happened. I'm not saying it will be easy because it won't be but if everybody had laid down and surrendered when Trek was cancelled in 1969 because it made no financial sense to revive a cancelled TV series then we wouldn't have anything. Corporations like people to think they have all the power and we can do nothing. That isn't so. Ultimately-we have the power. Purchasing power-if we don't buy,Sabanes-Oxley and all of that don't matter because the company is still out of business. We were a minority in 1969 too but we grew because we kept at it. I participated in the Save Enterprise financial thing and I'd do it again. I still send Bring Back Enterprise letters. It's easy to lie down and surrender and say that this is what the corporation wants and we can't do anything about it because we're little and puny. The fact is corporations change course every day because of outside pressure. Do you think that any corporation really cares about environmental standards? No,they follow environmental standards because the outside world pressured them into it. Corporations regularly excuse doing anything they want to by saying that they have to do it for the sake of their stockholders. Environmentalists don't buy it, labor leaders don't buy it and neither should we.
What Abrams has done with Trek is similar to what Marvel Comics did by introducing their Ultimate Comics line. Basically,this is a line that reintroduced familiar Marvel characters such as Spider-Man in a different universe with different continuity. However, they also kept their regular universe going-which was revitalised by the interest in the Marvel Universe that Ultimate Marvel created. Marvel has reaped the financial benefits of this and I think Trek can too. In other words-why just have the profits from one universe when you can have the profits of two?
I'll admit that we do need to work out exactly who to contact about this-this whole thing about Paramount owning the movie rights and CBS/Paramount TV the TV rights is new to me (perhaps there's some person at the top of the pyramid or maybe there's several people we need to contact...) but that falls under the category of details that we need to work out once the group gets rolling. For right now,the important thing is that we have a choice. We can surrender or we can fight. It won't be easy but nothing worth fighting for ever is.
Star Trek taught me that.
Now then-anybody interested in getting started? We will have to take baby steps at first but I believe that with time,momentum will grow and more people will find this idea appealing...


Best wishes,

Scott

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

^^^I think you've let the romantic notion of being a latter-day BJO Trimble run away with you.

I repeat that you are on a fool's errand here. The closest anybody got to reviving Enterprise was that anonymous huge donation ~ how much was it now? ~ $6 million? Did the notion that somebody was prepared to put up that kind of money save Enterprise? No.

Trust me, you would have stood a better chance if Abrams' movie had tanked in ~say ~ a decade's time. However, Paramount have a bona-fide money-spinner on their hands (for as long as it lasts) so why on earth would they bother with the old uiverse that ultimately led to a failed movie and a cancelled TV show?

Don't misunderstand me here because I speak as one who mourns the loss of the old universe as much as you do, but speaking with a sense of reality here, Trimble wasn't up against another version of the franchise that was doing incredibly well.

Just to make this really clear: I could only buy my old Star Trek action figures from specialist retailers in the UK, but today I saw the new Star Trek action figures in a local branch of Tesco's, and those babies were flying off the shelves. In two size formats no less.

You'd be wasting your time, but, you know, I'd be thrilled if you could ever prove me wrong!

[Len_A]

JulesLuvsShinzon, on May 16 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

^^^I think you've let the romantic notion of being a latter-day BJO Trimble run away with you.

I repeat that you are on a fool's errand here. The closest anybody got to reviving Enterprise was that anonymous huge donation ~ how much was it now? ~ $6 million? Did the notion that somebody was prepared to put up that kind of money save Enterprise? No.

Trust me, you would have stood a better chance if Abrams' movie had tanked in ~say ~ a decade's time. However, Paramount have a bona-fide money-spinner on their hands (for as long as it lasts) so why on earth would they bother with the old universe that ultimately led to a failed movie and a canceled TV show?

Don't misunderstand me here because I speak as one who mourns the loss of the old universe as much as you do, but speaking with a sense of reality here, Trimble wasn't up against another version of the franchise that was doing incredibly well.

Just to make this really clear: I could only buy my old Star Trek action figures from specialist retailers in the UK, but today I saw the new Star Trek action figures in a local branch of Tesco's, and those babies were flying off the shelves. In two size formats no less.

You'd be wasting your time, but, you know, I'd be thrilled if you could ever prove me wrong!

Very well said Jules. Very well said, in deed.

[1701-Z]

ensign edwards, on May 15 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

I do agree that the odds of getting any sort of original timeline continuation are very low, but I'm not sure it's a goal that should be given up on entirely. (Also, for the record, if we're talking a TV continuation, CBS owns the rights, not Paramount.)

I do think 1701-Z has might be on to something with the idea of supporting fan fiction and productions.

And the books, as I think someone mentioned. With 40 plus years of Trek cannon, I doubt Paramount would order Pocket Books to end publication of all orginal timeline material.

[trek forever]

JulesLuvsShinzon, on May 16 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

^^^I think you've let the romantic notion of being a latter-day BJO Trimble run away with you.

I repeat that you are on a fool's errand here. The closest anybody got to reviving Enterprise was that anonymous huge donation ~ how much was it now? ~ $6 million? Did the notion that somebody was prepared to put up that kind of money save Enterprise? No.

Trust me, you would have stood a better chance if Abrams' movie had tanked in ~say ~ a decade's time. However, Paramount have a bona-fide money-spinner on their hands (for as long as it lasts) so why on earth would they bother with the old uiverse that ultimately led to a failed movie and a cancelled TV show?

Don't misunderstand me here because I speak as one who mourns the loss of the old universe as much as you do, but speaking with a sense of reality here, Trimble wasn't up against another version of the franchise that was doing incredibly well.

Just to make this really clear: I could only buy my old Star Trek action figures from specialist retailers in the UK, but today I saw the new Star Trek action figures in a local branch of Tesco's, and those babies were flying off the shelves. In two size formats no less.

You'd be wasting your time, but, you know, I'd be thrilled if you could ever prove me wrong!

What happens if the second movie bombs? Or the third? It seems unlikely right now,I know, but Hollywood history is full of cases like that. In fact,we may be seeing such a case right now with Angels and Demons apparently performing below expectations. Was anything bigger than The Da Vinci Code a couple of years ago? Conan The Barbarian was a big hit-Conan The Destroyer-well,it's 25 years later and we still haven't seen Conan 3. Highlander-successful movie, Highlander 2-well,if you've seen Highlander 2,I really don't have to finish that sentence. Was any movie a bigger hit than Ghostbusters? Ghostbusters 2-definitely not a hit. Etc.,etc
The trouble with pitching yourself to the vast mainstream auidence is that mainstream audiences are an incredibly fickle bunch. The new people the movie has brought in-not all of them are going to stay. Many of them are just waiting for the next fad to come along and are waiting to announce that Trek "has jumped the shark". Ask George Lucas who's had to deal with people announcing that he's lost it ever since Jedi. Ask the Wachowski brothers who had to deal with people attacking the Matrix sequels. Heck, Abrams has had to deal with people announcing Felicity jumped the shark when Keri Russell got a bad haircut-let alone the regular pronouncements of doom that people make about Lost...Etc.,etc..
Then,there's the question of what happens if Paramount botches the marketing of the next movie like they did Nemesis. It could happen-they might well decide to open it against the last Harry Potter movie. We all know that they're capable of it....
Isn't it better to do our best to make sure that there are as many different types of Trek as possible available so that if one version bombs,another can pick up the slack without damaging Trek. Trek's previous biggest success in attracting a mainstream audience was Trek 4-I think we can all agree on that. WHat came after that? Trek 5 which was...not as big a success. But we had TNG at that point to pick up the slack and Trek endured.
That's all I'm saying. I think people have somehow gotten the impression that I want to champion old continuity at the expense of new continuity or that I somehow want to make the new continuity go away. That isn't the case-the point of this group is to keep both timelines going. My own feeling at this point is that the new timeline is best suited for the movies and the prime one is best suited for TV (and yes,we would also support the books,1701-Z) but certainly,if other people have different ideas,the group could advocate something else (Now what exactly is the deal with CBS owning TV rights? DOes that mean if they did another TV series,they would only be allowed to use original continuity? Would they be allowed to use the new continuity? WOuld they be allowed to make up a third continuity, for that matter?) . It is indeed possible that Paramount could never give the order to suspend publication of all original timeline material but why take chances? There was a time when it seemed that they'd never order a reboot....
As for fan fiction and fan productions, they are indeed an important part of the picture (and we would certainly support them) but they can't be everything. Basically, Trek needs an occaisonal infusion of original material-in both its timelines-if it's going to remain an ongoing concern. I think our role as fans is no different than it's ever been-to let the powers that be know what we want to see. It's not fighting city hall,tilting at windmills or anything like that-it's our job and our role in the capitalist system. And the best part-it's fun:) It's a lot more fun to let people know what you want to see than it is to sit passively and grumble:). Gets your adrenaline flowing and all of that...
And,as for having a romantic vision of myself as a later-day Bjo Trimble-well,I'm not nearly as pretty:) I'm also not all that romantic-I'm too cynical not to believe that Paramount won't mess this up somehow. I also think believing oneself helpless against the machine is a very romantic view of oneself-it implies that one is just too good and pure to function in this horrible world. I'm far too cynical to believe that-I think I'm rotten enough to handle the job...
I think there's room in Trek for both continuities-the point of the group is to make sure that both continuities have room to grown and thrive. It's not meant as an attack on either continuity.


Best wishes,

Scott

[ChristopherPike]

I feel your pain on this one, trek forever. I don't think I care for an era made up of only nuTrek either. I've so far resisted the Muppet Babies comparison...

Look at this positively for a moment because there is an upside. An influx of new fans, who are discovering a wealth of past Star Trek, 28 seasons of it. Sales of TOS and ENT DVDs (given its prequel position) will have increased thanks to audiences leaving the cinema wanting more. Just look at eBay and it's those series, together with past films that are bidding high. It's up to CBS/Paramount Television to decide whether to just exploit recent productions in reruns or use the hiatus between Abramsverse films, to do something for an audience just hanging around waiting... Enterprise also seems to have been given a unique position, being in both prime and alternate universes.

[Terilynn]

ChristopherPike, on May 17 2009, 06:03 AM, said:

I've so far resisted the Muppet Babies comparison...

Spits coffee into screen....

ROFL....