Topic: Do you think Paramount would listen to a petition
jh
Ex-Member
posted
Signed by Trek fans that said they would rather have several years without Trek than a new series that was horribly opposite everything we expect from Trek? If so should we try it?
Personally they're starting to disgust me and if they think that they can just force feed us anything then maybe it's worth a try.
------------------ Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
How about: "Dear Paramount. None of us have had a good word for the pap you've been putting out for quite a few years, but we've been watching it anyway. Now we'd like you to stop, pretty please, although we'll still watch it if you ignore this letter, no matter how crap it is."
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think Star Trek does need a break. It won't die if it rests for a few years. Even if the kept the movies and syndicated reruns going, that would make people happy. The producers and writers need to forget their politics, take a few years rest and then they or someone else can come back with a fresh, new idea. Star Trek is a good show, but the stories are not that good anymore. There are good ones, but not as many as there used to be. It has been going good episode, two bad, good, three bad, etc. It used to be five good, one bad, four good, one bad, etc. Star Trek needs to recapture what it had in the early 1990's without copying ST:TNG.
------------------ All hands, abandon ship! All hand, abandon... BOOM!
posted
I feel that Star Trek needs a break. Just look at the span from TOS to TNG and people still liked it. A span would not hurt Star Trek one bit. They could put out the next movie in the next couple of years and then a year or two after that start a new series.
------------------ Death before Dishonor! However Dishonor has quite a disputed defintion.
posted
I don't necessarily think a break would be bad either. It's just that are so many good stories left in the Trek Universe to be touched on. They just need to find a way to get there.
posted
I still think that for Trek to work, someone has to be at the helm that shares Gene's dream, and the only person I can think of that fits the bill is Majel.
------------------ Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
posted
I must admit there are a couple DS9s and even fewer TOS episodes I've not seen (but if I have seen one, I've seen it at least twice), but I'm not going to pay umpteen more dollars per month just to get TAS (of which I saw a couple episodes which were rather turn-off-ish).
A break could work, but a breath of fresh air could also be more than sufficient.
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
posted
A break wouldn't hurt Star Trek. Just look at Star Wars or the Brady Bunch. Star Wars took a 15+ year break and it was a success (sort of), and a Brady Bunch movie is coming out on ABC soon.
------------------ All hands, abandon ship! All hand, abandon... BOOM!
posted
I don't think Trek is anywhere near exausting the episode possiblities- but they are just running a little low on fuel for now. Taking a breather not only allows the new creative team to come at trek with a fresh perspective, but it also opens up story ideas that creators just wouldn't have come up with or that wouldn't have worked before. TNG wasn't limited storywise by TOS at all (although this isn't the impression one gets from the first two seasons). It was a whole new era in real time as well as trek and that offered a whole new gamut of plot possibities to exploit. One trek constant from the very beginning no matter who is at the helm, is that it is a metaphor for the world around us....they haven't run out of stories of the future, it's the issues of the present that have been depleted.
------------------ "Stood in firelight, sweltering bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent." -Rorschach
[This message has been edited by Obi Juan (edited November 09, 1999).]
posted
I think that Star Trek is, to be wordy, full of infinite possibilities. Can those possibilities be realized? We'll see.
But to answer the original question, no, Paramount wouldn't care about a petition. No one would ever be able to get enough people. But a petition isn't necessary. One votes with a remote control.
------------------ "If you are going to be my girlfriend please don't dump me after I like you." -- Michael
posted
Paris: I think the Brady Bunch movie had been made already -- IIRC, it starred Gary Cole of American Gothic and some B5 spinoff which I couldn't be bothered watching. Totally off topic, I know.
------------------ Devil: Oh look at the time! I'm late for services. Stone: Services? Devil: A group of young teenagers that have been celebrating the Black Sabbath are planning on deep-sixing their gym teacher tonight. I'm gonna go and give them a little encouragement.
posted
This might annoy some of you but I personally blame the Voyager series for Trek's current predicament. VOY SUX! Sorry, but it just had to be said.
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
posted
Sol: Don't you think that voting with the remote is just going to be voting for the end of Trek, and not just it's 'hibernation'?
It just seems, and I know I'm being hopeful, that we need to find a way of convincing Paramount that we'll still be fans if they give it four or five years of rest, but that we might not be if they give us something just to call it Trek. I think that they think the visibility of Trek will be lost, and you know how fickle the average viewer is, but what they seem to forget is that the original Trek was gone for twenty years with only reruns (and only of 60+ episodes for cryin' out loud!) and a few movies to keep it going and yet when they brought it back it was stronger than ever.
So do you think that a petition might serve to remind them of the history of Trek and tell them we're not going anywhere? Let's face it, they don't have the best memory (any continuity person can attest to that).
------------------ Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
posted
Come on, Paramount doesn't give a sh*t about what we true fans want. All they're gonna do is make as much cash as possible and then dump Trek for good.
Well I say stop it right after VOY has ended and let it rest for a while. I don't want a fifth serie which will probably be worst than VOY (which would be hard but not impossible). I'd prefer they killed the license before making more cr*p. Let it keep the last bit of dignity it still has.
It's true that we'd need someone who shared Gene's vision to make a successful serie. Majel would be perfect for that. Of course, I'm not saying we should completely go for optimism (after all, DS9 was a very good Trek despite the fact it didn't really follow Gene's vision) but it would be a nice change of pace.
As for a good idea for the fifth serie, I think they should go for a serie further along in the future. There just isn't anything interesting to tell anymore with today's Trek and a serie about the birth of the Federation would surely include a completely changed history (trust Braga to do just that) and the return of TOS like costume, props and the like (well, they wouldn't have to but if the wanted some CONTINUITY, they'd have to).
Well, enough ranting. In short, put Trek to sleep for a while and let it regain some strength.
------------------ -If you ask me, I think continuity is highly overrated... *Brannon Braga*
-Give me Good Trek or give me Death! *Me*
-Where were you when the brains were handed out? *Sonic the Hedgehog*
Printer-friendly view of this topic
