| Author |
Message |
jor
Member
|
# Posted: 15 Dec 2002 10:10
Reply
Good Time.com article: http://www.time.com/time....00.html
Take a look at the film grosses in 2002 US dollars:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
1979 -- $370 million
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
1982 -- $194 million
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
1984 -- $159 million
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
1986 -- $225 million
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
1989 -- $104 million
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
1991 -- $127 million
Star Trek: Generations
1994 -- $147 million
Star Trek: First Contact
1996 -- $174 million
Star Trek: Insurrection
1998 -- $131 million
Each movie is doing worse.
And also, "Enterprise (...) has one-third fewer viewers in its second season than Voyager did during its sophomore outing."
Star Trek is dead people, Berman managed to kill it.
|
wedge
Member
|
# Posted: 15 Dec 2002 16:08
Reply
*takes his hat off* It actully seems as if the better the movie, the less it grosses  II,VI,First contact.......I personally think that the motion picture was the worst one, how it would gross that much i dont know I've yet to see nemesis though 
~wedge
|
maxwell
Member
|
# Posted: 15 Dec 2002 22:39
Reply
Hi,
I think a lot of this has to do with the fact we're so overly-saturated with Star Trek. I mean TOS was around in the 60s so there was what, a 10 year gap between the shows and the first movie? People were all excited to go and see it because it's the first time Trek was out on the big screen and because they had waited 10 years for it.
These days we've been overly "trekked." We had TNG (which was a big hit because it was the first series since TOS), then we had DS9, Voyager, and now Enterprise. After a while things just get old. No matter how many time rifts you slip through, how many nebulas explored, with time people just become saturated with it. "We've seen it all, show us something new."
They're trying this with Enterprise. Even though I like the show I think it's still the same stuff. *yawn* Kill it for 20 years and then try it again.
Andrew
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Dec 2002 01:37
Reply
I watched the last episode of the first season of Enterprise last night and it was rather good. I enjoyed it! BUT . . . . it wasn't Trek. It was something entirely different wearing Trek's clothes. The problem is that the series does have some plus points, but in my opinion they have tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. Any things the series has going for it are held back by the constraints they have placed upon themselves by attempting to fit it into Trek. Enterprise should have been a stand alone show, not a Trek show.
I agree with Andrew to a degree; twenty years is, I think, a bit long! I dunno . . .why don't they wait until I establish myself as a writer and get me to do it in five years? *eg*
|
rick_hunter1
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Dec 2002 17:48
Reply
ST The Voyage home was the most pathetic movie.
Why would you make a movie about travelling back in time 200 years to get WHALES? Ridiculous.
|
jj
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Dec 2002 21:12
Reply
Hey man, I liked the whales! 
Ah well, all the Trek series have sucked their first couple of seasons, so why wouldn't "Enterprise" follow suit? I don't think it's doing TOO bad so far...
Besides, the success of something shouldn't be based solely on it's monetary value anyway.
|
jor
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Dec 2002 23:29
Reply
JJ - all the Trek series? 
Not the first two!
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Dec 2002 02:43
Reply
I don't think the first series of TNG was much to wrote home about. There were some good episodes (the standout being, for me, the one written in binary I can never get right) but some abysmal ones, too.
Who can forget (I wish we could) the awful, preachy drugs one and Tasha Yar's speech about drugs to Wesley? The expressions on Troi's face whenever she sensed emotion? She looked as if she was really painfully constipated! Tasha Yar in general was just annoying, and she got killed by a giant . . um . . well.
The promise was there, though. We could see great things ahead and so it happened. Do we see this with Enterprise? Erm, no. As I said before, to make it fit into the world of Trek they've made too many sacrifices. We SHOULD have a crew that is not this instantly comfortable with each other, we should have a show with REAL edge and I'm afraid the show just doesn't have the spherical objects for that.
|
crazytexan
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Dec 2002 09:11
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--jor+Dec. 16 2002,23:29--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (jor @ Dec. 16 2002,23:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->JJ - all the Trek series? <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/win.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--><br><br>Not the first two!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br>*L* No, no, no...TOS is exempt form that. The first few episodes with Christopher Pike as Captain...well, that is another forum thread debate. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/win.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> I believe JJ meant since TNG that the Trek series took a couple of seasons of character develpment for the show to get a steady following of fans, semi-interesting story arcs, and some semblance of a Trek show.<br><br>*L* Although I can't read her mind, I think this is what she wanted to say. <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smi.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--><br><br>*shrugs* Who knows how long Enterprise will last...its a big gamble for Trek and it may pay off in another season or two, or be axed. Time will tell...unless Painway, or Archer go back in time and mess with the timeline again to save the ratings. At least when Kirk went back in time, he did it with style.<br><br>CT<br>a Warsie among the Trekkers
|
jor
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Dec 2002 09:26
Reply
Ahem. First two: TOS and TAS.
I _really_ didn't like TNG's first season... Wesley and Deanna were extremely annoying, and Riker was played as a Kirk-wannabe. Thankfully the series improved a LOT after that.
Totally agreed about time travel btw... post-TNG, the only good time travel episodes I've seen were 'Trials and Tribble-ations' and 'Sons of Mogh'. Strangely enough both DS9, the Trek show which has least to do with Star Trek of all of them!
All TOS time travel episodes (including ST:IV, and TAS' 'Yesteryear' were good, as were most TNG ones. ('Time's Arrow' and 'A Matter of Time' spring to mind.)
DS9 had two good ones I listed above.. and, well, let's just keep silent about Voyager and Bermanprise. And while 'First Contact' was a good movie, it completely destroyed the timeline, by insisting the 'Phoenix' was the first warp ship (So what happened to the 'USS Bonaventure'?), and Zephram Cochrane was a drunk yankee ('From Alpha Centauri'?). It also was the start of the Borg becoming farce characters who could later be destroyed by Painway (where earlier in TNG it took over 40 starships, and they STILL could not defeat a single cube).
|
rag451
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Dec 2002 12:05
Reply
I know that I've said it time and again, but I agree with Andrew; we're so saturated with Star Trek that it's grown tiresome to watch it. Out of nearly 180 episodes in each of the past three series, how many can you say are true classics?
I was reading William Shatner's book 'Get A Life', and it occurred to me that for years and years, all we had were seventy-nine hours of the original 'Star Trek' to tide us over.
The first conventions, held in New York City in the early seventies were successful only because they were the first conventions and they were unique and had few or no corporate sponsors.
Someone said that 'The Motion Picture' was the worst film, and I think that it, like 'The Final Frontier' has gotten a bad reputation. To me, the first film represents science fiction at its best. You have a mysterious cloud that is enveloping entire worlds that is heading straight to Earth in a quest to find its creator. Anyone ever notice that there was no real sexual content, space battle, or death scene? Gene Roddenberry, along with his "cohorts" in writing, managed to put together an original, solid story. It is only our thirst for bloodshed and boobs that drives what we consider a good movie.
'The Final Frontier' was considered bad because it also lacked a large-scale battle, sexual content, and because it came out in a summer packed with blockbuster hits that, in truth, overran it. William Shatner has stated time and again that his budget for that film was miniscule, and I think that, had he had the money he wanted; a better film would've emerged from the woodwork and the fan base would have been much more satisfied. Truth be told, I think that there is more individual character development in V than in any of the other films to date.
In fifteen years, the world has seen twenty-one years' worth of Star Trek through almost five hundred hours of episodes. 'Enterprise' is failing, in my opinion, because, first off, it's breaking and bending many of the rules that the more meticulous of fans can't stand to see broken. Secondly, it's not true science fiction anymore. We're being inundated by stories that seem to have already been acted, re-acted, and put to sleep. While I have seen some good character development in this new series, I have seen less and less of the good old-fashioned rule breaking. No moral, ethical, or political boundaries are being broken, and so far we have been shown easy-going, easy-living episodes that are more character-based than plot-based.
Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are, I'd think, good, decent people, but they're drained of any imaginative stories. All it seems they can do now is rehash the same old stuff that worked in series.
Once again, Andrew is right. I think that if Star Trek just goes away for twenty years as a television medium, then we might be able to salvage something in the future.
CL4 Robert Griffith
|
rick_hunter1
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Dec 2002 16:26
Reply
001100101 I think...... DOn't quote me on that though.........
|
havoc
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Dec 2002 13:47
Reply
Are you all forgetting that ain’t all about going to see it! Sitting in a cinema watching it? It’s gone beyond that. You can download the films, therefore you don’t pay to see and the dollar signs decrease! As well as buying pirated dvd’s and video’s, and then even downloading episodes! Either way you look at it. People will get fed up with waiting for Star Trek. But Star Trek is getting boring.
How much of space, is there left to explore?
Havoc!
|
tovey
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Dec 2002 15:30
Reply
i was tlkaing with a techer in colege today nad he thinks the same a sme, enterprise is ok, and it doens tmatter if it a big of startrek has never been pefect, look at the warp cretor in TOS and FC there differect people, younge rin TOS and Older In FC
but startrek willl never die not in a couple 100 of years, 
If it does i will make sure it comes back,
is beeen around for 40 odd years it wotn go, it sbeen the longest ever program with 5 serise 100's of seasons 1000's of eisodes and 5 great crews and 8 ships
it wont go its cant......
Tovey, Robert s
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Dec 2002 01:26
Reply
It won't go? People said the same about Doctor Who, are here we are, still battling to get it back on the air.
|
tovey
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Dec 2002 02:17
Reply
May be ur right babel, Dr Who was a great program im a fan my self, but no offence to you and other fans Startrek is kind of more popular not by much but it is....
I heard that BBC are bring Dr who back that will be great it asbeen a long time coming though
Tovey, Robert s
|
timmy_sielu
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Dec 2002 08:21
Reply
I believe Star Trek will survive but it is has by far seen better days. Enterprise I find is a complete failure it doesn't feel like trek as some of you have pointed out. The new idea of going from the beginning to seeing how everything eventuated (E.g.: Vulacns) has kind of destroyed the timeline already without them meaning too. If anything they need a new idea but they should of done it in the 24th - 25th century not go back. I mean Enterprise get boring at times. Even with the battle scenes and special effects I find it can get boring. Though it may improve over time I believe that they should either forget it or begin a new series in the 24th century and if they cannot think of a story line then as Maxwell pointed out take it off the air not for 20 years but for about 5 - 10 years.
|
tovey
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Dec 2002 15:14
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--timmy_sielu+Dec. 20 2002,08:21--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (timmy_sielu @ Dec. 20 2002,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->as Maxwell pointed out take it off the air not for 20 years but for about 5 - 10 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Yes i agree with the statment i qyoted:D
|
