Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Should Star Trek Die?

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the melodrama-hypercube dept.

Sci-Fi 703

securitas writes "The New York Times Television reporter William S. Kowinski writes about questions of the Star Trek franchise's viability due to overexposure, audience fatigue and creative exhaustion. Star Trek actor and director LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge) is in favor of a hiatus, and is quoted as saying, 'Star Trek's just not special enough, not anymore.... They need to shut the whole thing down, wait five years, create an interest, an excitement, a hunger for it again.' Also quoted are Leonard Nimoy (Spock) and executive producer Rick Berman. The article is particularly salient given the recent announcement of Star Trek Online, a massively multiplayer online game scheduled to launch in 2007. Remember that Activision sued Viacom over the Star Trek franchise last year, ending the license despite a 10-year licensing agreement that originally expired in 2008. So the question is: Should Star Trek die?"

cancel ×

703 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

should star trek die? yes (0, Troll)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188683)

even slashdot thinks so:
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Re:should star trek die? yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188698)

I am waiting for Netcraft to confirm it. Oddly enough, when I clicked on the link initially, the page said 'Nothing for you to see here. Move along'. Hmmmmm.

Re:should star trek die? yes (4, Insightful)

Ansonmont (170786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188708)

Can someone just mod this whole "story" a Troll?

Re:should star trek die? yes (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188741)

Ja, lägg ner rymddallas en gång för alla.

Re:should star trek die? yes (1)

Punko (784684) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188799)

I though Voyager WAS ST dying. Enterprise is just the death throttle. Let the horse corpse lie until the current producers/execs have passed on, and turn the creative and writing control onto people who care about good writing and good acting. Oh, and please, no Wesley and no Jar-Jar (or any kind of "humourous" facilimies

wrong topic (3, Funny)

Slashbot Hive-Mind (810267) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188832)

I think Timothy should have posted this story here [slashdot.org]

BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!! (4, Insightful)

MoxCamel (20484) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188687)

Levar and company are right, Nimoy is high. (not that that's a bad thing...) Although I'd give it even longer, say ten years. It's all a pipe dream though. ST is just too hot a property, and I seriously doubt they'll have the patience to wait two years, let alone five. Coming to a WB station near you: Star Trek Babies!

But a simple hiatus won't fix ST. ST needs better writing, fresher ideas, and to get away from this fixation of techno-babble saving the day. And while I'd be the first to jump into a goo chamber with T'Pol, the "FOX approach" is simply gratuitous and insulting.

ST needs to get back to it's cerebral roots. (yeah the current line in Enterprise is better, but after living through Voyager, it would be hard to get worse.) It needs a rest, but it also needs intelligent direction. coughfirebermancough.

Re:BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!! (1)

Dogers (446369) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188759)

Cerebral roots? Where/when/what are you talking about? TNG? TOS? I didnt really catch enough of voyager to create a view on it - the few i did see weren't too bad though and they seem to be repeating on the likes of Sky One :(

Personally, I'm quite enjoying Enterprise, although I will admit the whole Xindi thing is getting a bit long in the tooth now.. It certainly has promise, in the whole how-we-got-started thing.

Re:BERMANNNNNNNN!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188807)

Star Trek Babies?

No! Please don't! I really couldn't stand another show with Ensign Crusher... ;-)

I think it died (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188688)

a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

Re:I think it died (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188837)

I think it died a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

Which leads us to the second question: should we kill Star Wars (or its creator? ;) now, before the shooting of the 7th episode?

Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188691)

The answer is: God yes, please die, now.

Star Trek is dead, has been for awhile (5, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188694)

The question is, should we bury it, or spritz it with Fabreeze and see how long we can milk it "Weekend at Bernie's" style.

Re:Star Trek is dead, has been for awhile (4, Funny)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188770)

ok, I'd pay to see shatner playing a dead guy with scottie and bones taking him around the ship pretending he's alive.

Probably (1)

BigDork1001 (683341) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188699)

Yes, they probably should let it die. I'd much rather see it die than have another bad movie/series/game with the Star Trek name come out. At this point executives are just trying to squeeze every last cent out of Star Trek no matter what happens to the franchise.

Yes... (5, Funny)

AltImage (626465) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188703)

The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few...

Re:Yes... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188728)

...or the one.

*cough*Berman*cough*

Re:Yes... (5, Funny)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188732)

That's a typo. You meant to say:

The good of the money outweighs the needs of the few.

Re:Yes... (5, Funny)

madprof (4723) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188879)

No one has the courage to say "It's dead Jim"...

Overexposure?! (5, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188704)

Overexposure is what Madonna has.

Star Trek is "not special anymore" because it's been taken over by people who can't understand what made it special. Bring in some real writers who understand why Threshold and Meridian were terrible stories and why The Inner Light was a great one, and the viewers will follow.

YES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188707)

Yes. *Please*. Send T'Pol back to SG-1 and dump the rest...

yes (1, Insightful)

Slashbot Hive-Mind (810267) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188709)

Star Trek:
Western in space. Kinda campy but did have its moments. Very memorable characters. Fanbase: Big enough to get a few movies going after its cancelation. Noteworthy: The fans loved the show and movies enough to get an entire freakin' space shuttle renamed. Nae bad.

Star Trek: The Next Generation:
Pretty deep plots. Much deeper than much of what is shown on TV, which really doesn't say much. Very memorable characters. Very powerful episodes. (Remember the one where the crew find a probe and Picard spends a lifetime on a dieing planet?) Had many people who aren't fans of scifi watching. Noteworthy: Roddenbery died during this series.

Star Trek: Deep Space 9
Very deep storyline spanning many seasons. Characters not as memorable as those on TNG, but memorable none the less.

Star Trek: Voyager:
Unmemorable characters, superficial plots, enough gaps in the plot to make Spock have a stroke. The previously immortal and near unbeatable borg were made to look like a bunch of pussies in this. Time travel became more cliche than it previously was. It's crap, Jim.

Star Trek: Enterprise
New 'hip' series that shits on the pre-federation history laid out by the previous series and movies. Superficial. Unmemorable characters. Plots so shallow not even an infant could drown in them. Superficial. Tries to grab your attention with random semi-nudity. Predictable. Superficial. Theme song sucks. Superficial.

As somebody who used to be a HUGE Trek fan 10 years ago - good. The horse is laying in the middle of the field, four broken legs, broken ribs, and is oozing blood out of its ears. Just shoot it and get it over with. I hate seeing my childhood fave raped for ratings.

Re:yes (4, Informative)

Palshife (60519) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188772)

I've seen this post several places on the Internet before, same spelling errors and all. Where'd you get it?

GameDev forums (5, Informative)

T-Kir (597145) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188882)

Thanks to the google cache [66.102.11.104] ... about two thirds down the page posted by "Jesper T". Had to use the cache because the direct link to my original search came back with a resource denied (original google search text: "Western in space. Kinda campy but did have its moments. Very memorable characters. Fanbase: Big enough to get a few movies going after its cancelation. Noteworthy:").

Re:yes (1)

Ignignot (782335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188886)

I found it in a google cache... here [216.239.39.104] that seems to be the exact same.

It's crap, Jim ... (3, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188779)

... but not as we know it!

Sorry, had to.... Now mod me down.

Re:It's crap, Jim ... (2, Insightful)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188834)

That may actually be relevant. "Only goin' forward, cuz [they] can't find reverse" - or the brakes, for that matter.

Re:yes (3, Insightful)

Ignignot (782335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188829)

I have to disagree with Enterprise. You are missing the best parts of the show - the hard moral choices. Should the captain torture a captive to extract information from him (by putting him in an airlock)? Should they destroy an unarmed outpost because it can report their position? I admit they are few and far between, and the show is (in my ranking) little better than Voyager, but it uses very little technobabble, has had a few striking episodes (shuttlepod 1 was a fine work) space battles where there is visual damage to the Enterprise (in one scene you see crewmen get sucked out into space after a chunk is blown out of the hull).

The time travel is hokey, the metaplot is mediocre, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

yes (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188711)

oh God yes

ST XX: Return of the Franchise (3, Funny)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188712)

Star Trek can't die. It can enter a state of suspended animation, however, and that's what it should do. Hibernate, if you will, to be revived when we have the technology to cure it. Put the whole thing in a time capsule and dig it up in five years, conveniently "forgetting" to pack any oxygen for Berman. That should do the trick nicely.

Re:ST XX: Return of the Franchise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188808)

Lets just put it in a transporter feedback loop.

Re:ST XX: Return of the Franchise (1)

mbrother (739193) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188857)

You mean caught in a transporter loop, right?

Five years? (2, Insightful)

Kassiopeia (671060) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188713)

More like twenty. Things went to hell in a handbasket when TNG started to spawn all these spinoffs. In a better world, TNG would have ended with season 7, and after that a long wait, until in say 2005 we'll be salivating over the prospect of a new ST series carrying on from there, perhaps concentrating on Timefleet.

Re:Five years? (2, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188822)

More like twenty. Things went to hell in a handbasket when TNG started to spawn all these spinoffs. In a better world, TNG would have ended with season 7, and after that a long wait, until in say 2005 we'll be salivating over the prospect of a new ST series carrying on from there, perhaps concentrating on Timefleet. I wouldn't go for Timefleet, though. A time travel show is wholly different from a space travel show, and would turn into Doctor Who. I like the idea of Enterprise, but it just isn't quite Star Trek. Perhaps the Enterprise-C would be worth following someday?

Anyone else find it amusing? (4, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188714)

Did anyone else find the layout of the article amusing? This quote, '[Leonard Nimoy] likens the current situation to the period after the first "Star Trek" feature film, when "I felt that 'Star Trek' was like a beached whale," he said.' was right next to the picture of a 400+ pound 'John Harper, of Tulsa., Okla., in Starbase 21, his booth of memorabilia at the "Star Trek" convention in Los Angeles.'

Sorry this is so cruel, but it made me laugh.

Re:Anyone else find it amusing? (4, Funny)

underpar (792569) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188764)

"I won it as a door prize at the Star Trek Convention, although I find their choice of prize highly illogical, as the average Trekker has no use for a medium-sized belt."

Should Trek Die? Yes. (1)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188716)


But I still have to scream "KHAAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!" when thinking of it.

McCoy (0)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188717)

He's dead, Jim.

Re:McCoy (2, Funny)

Nos. (179609) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188766)

Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a writer!

Star Trek And Learning (1)

RadioAct1ve (789990) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188718)

We have learned so much for star trek. Its true, I know a lot of people that substituted star trek for an education, it works.

should star trek die? (0, Redundant)

teknurd (703095) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188719)

Yes

YES! (5, Funny)

rdilallo (682529) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188721)

If Star Trek would die, so would half of the conversations on Slashdot!

Hell No we wont go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188723)

Long live Star Trek!

Wow (1, Interesting)

Palshife (60519) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188726)

So, nothing is "dead" today, so we've started putting up stories that ask for things to die?

Seriously, when has anything really just DIED?! Technology gets reborn into newer applications, fads resurface, trends rise and fall. Quit it with the incessant death babble.

It's Sputtering (1)

trevinofunk (576660) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188727)

Honestly, it just hasn't been all that exciting and great recently. Star Trek 10 was supposed to be this huge movie with grandiose themes and all. It was kinda lame and it felt like the star-trek wagon's wheels were falling off. Not to mention Enterprise....blech.... There comes a time when you just let a thing go and have its legacy.

no, but (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188731)

we need to stop making all these spin-off's. TNG was great. It had the whole star trek spirit, but things like Voyager make me want to puke. Endless encounters with the borg, and no general mission besides "making it home." Can the borg win for once and just blow them up? :)

everyone together (0, Redundant)

kalpol (714519) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188734)

It's dead, Jim!

While I love Star Trek... (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188735)

...I'd be in favor of a hiatus. Spend five years planning the hell out of the next series.

Seems applicable (2, Funny)

Jonas the Bold (701271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188737)

Clicky Clicky [penny-arcade.com]

Personally I agree, it's already dead. Voyager sucks, and theres not a big following of Enterprise. The last movie sucked.

Re:Seems applicable (1)

antiMStroll (664213) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188883)

"Star Trek" is little more than a brand name slapped on anything in which most of the cast wear an upside-down 'V' on their shirts and the rest have bumpy noses. Whatever remained of the original series ended its mission decades ago.

offtopic - problems with sci-fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188739)

I can't get sci-fi to disappear from the main page. I set it in my preferences to not show, but sci-fi still does. Any suggestions on what to try? Or is slashdot trying to convince me to watch sci-fi tv (which I don't watch tv at all) Anime gets blocked, but for some reason, sci-fi never does.

Wouldn't bother me much... (5, Insightful)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188742)

It wouldn't bother me at all to see the current generation of Trek put on hold. I can't really stand any of it since TNG ended (I don't even enjoy the movies all that much). I had such high hopes for Voyager, and that was a let down (I've maybe seen 10 episodes). I had such high hopes for Enterprise, and I think I only watched the pilot.

I'd agree that there is too much exposure, lack of creativity (it's the same old plots over and over) and way too much trying to be uber-politically-correct and "visionary". It was better when they put the social commentary in without ramming it down your throat.

I love the idea of having a great spacefaring future, but the best new sci-fi / space shows out there were canned (Farscape and Firefly). I don't really care too much for Stargates; too sappy for my tastes.

While it may be sad to have no new Trek, I think it would be best if they just let a good thing go and not risk tarnishing the franchise any further.

About Time if it does (0, Flamebait)

vertaxis (250038) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188744)

Too many channels are playing too many episodes of all the Star Trek series. Let it die.

The writing sucked to begin with. Too many mindless drones keep watching it and the TV stations keep putting it on for the Trek Zombie Army.

Let it Die

Sure... (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188745)

But only if there is an opening on Boston Public for Jolene Blalock. :)

It's dead, Jim. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188746)

"It's dead, Jim"

Hibernation (1, Redundant)

JohnPerkins (243021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188748)

Of course it shouldn't die. It should go into hibernation.

Star Trek tech coming true... (2, Insightful)

Iscariot_ (166362) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188763)

Which is kinda making it a bit antequated. I mean, we all already have the original communicator (cell phones), we've got teleportation working (kinda, only a few particles at a time over short distances but still).

Point is, Star Trek is highly based on "science", which is how Gene wanted it. Unless they can find a way to move away from the science, and do more morality stuff, then yea they need to pause.

Maybe in a decade or two we can revisit Star Trek, only it'll be the Next Next generation. Ugh, and let's pretend the temperal stuff never happened.

this old horse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188765)

Is already dead, they just should stop with the beating thing.

P.S. too lazy to log on

So 20th century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188773)

When will we have 20th century faires featuring people dressed up as 13-year-old boys in coke bottle glasses, fantasizing about growing up to become an astronaut?

Yes, Today is a good day to die.... (1)

IckySplat (218140) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188774)


Sorry, couldn't help myself :)

Current Trek is a good reason to get rid of
all the brain dead marketroids ....

Big breasts & tight fitting costumes should
be the hook for the show not the main plot.

Yes, let it go into hibernation (1)

Toxe (681424) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188775)

Star Trek has grown a little old lately. They should take a break of ten years. Yes, ten years. After that they might be able to come back with new and fresh stories.

After DS9 there hasnt been much. Voyager is crap and only the first two seasons of Enterprise where good. After that it has become... well, dont know what it actually has become but it is no longer real Star Trek.

So let it die please. Ummm, no wait, I mean: let it rest.

It died years ago... (3, Insightful)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188777)

.. ever since Star Trek TNG when they took all the OS characters, split them in two (Kirk = Picard+Riker, Spock = Data+Troy, etc.) and turned up their smugness factor by 1000. And then forgot to employ any decent writers with original storylines...

Bones (1)

Aggrazel (13616) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188780)

Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a network executive.

yes, the creativity is gone (4, Insightful)

holy_smoke (694875) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188783)

It was a fun ride but it got old a long time ago. Same with the Star Wars family.

good things are only good until they get ruined by over-indulgence. They've explored all the angles into a mind-numbing state of mediocrity.

Star Trek = cool
too much Star Trek = boring, repetitive, predictable, stale.

Better to spend their energies creating the next cool thing instead of re-hashing and desecrating the last cool thing.

If you don't know... (4, Interesting)

ari_j (90255) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188784)

If you don't already know who Levar Burton and Leonard Nimoy are, you:

A) Shouldn't be on Slashdot
iii) Aren't qualified to talk about any Trek, because you missed the only two good series in the franchise

Enterprise is a great show. They just need to divorce the Star Trek name from it. Great sci-fi, but it doesn't belong anywhere in the Trek timeline.

Re:If you don't know... (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188875)

Agreed, but DS9 was pretty good. Not as good as TOS and TNG, but decent in most episodes, good in quite a few.

what ? (1)

Phibrizo (798302) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188785)

Star Trek is alive ??

They should (3, Insightful)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188788)

take a hiatus. And in the meantime, someone get Firefly back on the air. Firefly had some problems (Doctor and his sister developed too slowly), but I felt the writing and timing the actors had made it a great show.

Fox has the rights for 10 years, so no more episodes I guess. Oh well, I'll just wait for the movie.

My opinion may be unpopular... (2, Funny)

cronostitan (573676) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188790)

but I am still greedy for Star Trek.. and I am looking forward to the next ST:Enterprise Season.

You can get into a big discussion wether it should be historically correct based on the previous series' but IMHO it isn't so important that anyone should get desperate about it.

Personally i dont like the original TOS.. its so cheesy and artificial. I am an early adopter so I like to play around with new things all the time.

A new star trek episode every week is exactly the thing i need ;)

Play well..

Rick

Re:My opinion may be unpopular... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188887)

Rick

It's him! It's Berman! Buuuurn him! Burn the witch!

i hope so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188792)

its about time

Yes. (1)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188798)

Yes.

Errrr.

No? I watched one episode of that new one, you know, with quantum leap guy (IANASTL) and it was too dumb actors stuck in a ship, with no air, and then it was cold, then they plugged a hole in the hull with some stupid food.

I think it has been dying a long and painful death, and we can already smell the advanced decomposition of the script writters.

after RTFA (2, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188802)

Did I miss an episode or something?

Original cast, from left, Grace Lee Whitney, Majel Barrett, Walter Koenig, James Doohan, George Takei and Nichelle Nichols and the astronaut Neil Armstrong

WTF?

I though It _Was_ Dead Already (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188806)

So the question is: Should Star Trek die?

You mean, it's not dead yet, Bones?

Yep (4, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188809)

Yes, Star Trek should die. Right before one series ends an other begins. between TOS and TNG There was a good time frame difference and plenty of time to rethink new ideas new planets and alien creatures. Then DS9 came along DS9 wasn't to bad either it many ways it was a lot better the TNG. But after DS9 Voyager and Enterprise (although Enterprise is better the voyager) are still just kinda sucking the franchise dry. Give them some time for the nature of politics to change and for some of the issues of today be different. Also some time to revaluate our technology that we have in the future to really make a good guess what the future will be like. But the franchise is still struggling to match the ideas of the future of the 1960s and trying to loosely follow that time frame. I Think they need to make a new franchise that will make more sense.

Yes (1)

ericdano (113424) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188813)

Yes, and they should bring back Firefly instead!

NO QUESTION. YES. (1)

tr33limbz (722239) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188819)

YES. yes. long overdue for death. the whole thing is getting ridiculous. and CHEEZY. way, way too cheezy.

Maybe ... (1)

drmancini (712059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188820)

When I think of Star Trek I remember the endless hours of watching the old series and TNG ... but with the newer series (DS9, Voyager ...) Star Trek seems to have lost its "trekkieness" ... in my eyes it has become something completely different - something i didn't enjoy in that special way as the old series.
Since then Star Trek has been dead for me and the only thing that reminded me of its existence were the new cinematic releases. Then I kind of remembered being a trekkie but a few days later I sort of forgotten it all over again.
I don't know if I'm the only one that feels this way but I think Star Trek sould cease to exist in the way it has existed tha last couple of years ... and return when it's ready.

Priorities (5, Insightful)

rlp (11898) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188821)

What makes a good sci-fi series is:

1) The quality of the writing
2) The quality of the acting
3) The quality of the special effects

Many shows get this backwards (such as the current ST series and the horrendous ST Voyager). The old Dr. Who series with Tom Baker had ultra cheap special effects (the special effects budget must have been about five pounds) - but are still enjoyable when viewed today. The original ST's special effects were not special by today's standards, and Shatner's acting - well 'nough said. But, the quality of the writing created the whole franchise. B5 and Star Gate (though I'm a little worried about the later) were good because of the many excellent scripts. Forget overexposure - get some decent writers that understand science fiction and can write interesting, thought provoking scripts. That will revive the franchise. Anything else, and it's doomed.

Don't they have enough light bulbs in the future? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188824)

Seriously. When I think back to how much I liked TOS and TNG, I can't help but think about how much brighter and more colorful the episodes were. After Gene's death, the uniforms became almost all black and DS9, VOY, and ENT are all half-lit.

Maybe I was just a kid, but a major part of the enjoyment of ST for me was the promise of a better future, a place that you actually wanted to live in (i.e. not your mom's basement, which is what the series look like now).

I would have to agree (2, Interesting)

Moloch666 (574889) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188826)

It's time for Star Trek to die. It really should have stopped with the death of Rodenberry.

What they should focus on is Babylon 5. I think the B5 universe as a whole has much more depth than the Star Trek universe. I just got done digging up a lot of the made for TV B5 movies even with bad production value they were quite good.

When the creater of B5 croaks, so should the franchise. While he's alive, I want more!

give it a break (2, Insightful)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188827)

I haven't watched Star Trek in years. I haven't seen the last two movies, the last seasons of DS9 and Voyager, and not a single episode of Enterprise. I have been Star Trek out for quite some time and no longer make it a priority to watch the shows. I agree give it a hiatus for maybe a decade. Then see if the countless reruns and online game will generate a hunger in a new generation of trekkies as well as the old.

Already Dead (1)

Dugsmyname (451987) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188831)

After Voyager and Enterprise, the only way Star Trek could be brought back as a fresh and viable franchise is if Spock placed his hand on the left side of Rick Berman's face and said, "Remember...". Thereby, infusing his soul into Rick Berman. Creative thought seems to have left Rick Berman's head!

There is still money to be made as the franshise digs itself even deeper into the ground, but my vote would be for no new series or movies for at least 5-10 years.

Death Before Social Commentary (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188833)

Does anyone else wish Star Trek would stop trying to be profound with its social commentary episodes?

In this article Levar Burton mentions a future episode where they hope to parallel questions and concerns about the war in Iraq to some civil war on Vulcan. I know geeks love this kind of stuff, but most of the non-rabid Trek fans hate it.

Why? Because Trek moralizing is geek moralizing. It's that naive, "I live in an ivory tower mommy and daddy paid for" philosophizing that makes the series so unapproachable. You know the storyline is going to end with a darker hand shaking a lighter hand, and the entire universe commiserating about how stupid and violent we humans are. It's goofy and embarassing - you know, like that stupid poem Data recited about his cat.

Trek needs to get cool again, and it needs to get cool again fast. Why don't people realize that the reason people liked Kirk was because he was a man's man? He took his ladies and he beat up his enemies. He didn't recite Shakepeare at them.

It's dead already (1)

pkcs11 (529230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188841)

Long gone are the fat, surly geeks who sit around quoting Star Trek and going to conventions. Most up-and-coming techies aschew Star Trek and even Star Wars. The hip nerds of today don't even watch Babylon 5. The geeks of this day and age spend their time playing video games and enjoying a social life. Actually going out in the sunlight and enjoying outdoor activities. It's closed minded to group all techies in with the grossly over-weight, hygenically challenged nreds of yester-year.

B&B out... (1)

Isosceles Triangle (264859) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188845)

Personally, I would settle for the canning of Berman & Braga. These guys have taken Star Trek so far from the spirit of what was created by Gene Roddenberry, it is ridiculous. New people, new ideas.

I bet the next things on their list are shot for shot re-makes of TOS with new actors & CGIs...

bring us the 'New Frontier' series (1)

havaloc (50551) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188847)

If you haven't read the New Frontier series of books [isbn.nu] by Peter David [peterdavid.net] , you should. The characters and story lines would make a great series, and would bring back the old feeling of the series that made it great.

It shouldn't die, but... (1)

jbarr (2233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188851)

...it should be put on hiatus for a while. Simply producing one series after another for sake of "having something" is not the way to go. This "have-to-have-it-now" and "have-to-have-it-always" mentality is really doing nothing more than producing inferior works and tarnishing the genre.

Maybe after it "sits" for a while we will anticipate and appreciate it more--of course, they'll have to deliver...

It's already dead (1)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188853)

And needs to be taken off the (supposed) lifesupport that has Enterprise crawling along as a mere shadow of TOS. It needs to be killed dead, and left so until Brennan, Braga, and Co. at Paramount who chronically Do Not Get IT are also dead.

Then we can maybe consider a glorious resurrection.

Too Little Too Late... (1)

Chaotic Evil Cleric (622653) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188858)

I don't just want Trek's Death, I want revenge for the last 4 movies!

The best Writting (1)

NetNinja (469346) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188859)

Some of the Best Star Trek writting was done during DS9's last season.

Expansion of Klingon Politics, the Dominion, Cardassians, even the annoying Ferengi played a vital part.
Some of the best special effects ever seen on television.

I have yet to see ANY Romulan politics. How about expanding on the knowledge that Voyager obtained in the Delta Quadrant?

I think it's just the writters and directors are burned out. Time to bring in some fresh blood!

Yes (1)

cpqarray (719467) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188860)

and use all of that creative energy to bring back Space 1999. I can't wait to see if those people made it off Moon Base Alpha.

Fact: Star Trek is dead. (1)

H_Fisher (808597) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188862)

It is now official - Neilsen has confirmed: Star Trek is dying.

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Star Trek community when recently Neilsen confirmed that Star Trek accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all TV viewers. Coming on the heels of the latest Slashdot poll which plainly states that Star Trek has fewer fans than the Goatse troll, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Star Trek is collapsing in complete disarray.

You don't need to be a Q to predict Star Trek's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Star Trek faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Star Trek because Star Trek is dying.

Things are looking very bad for Star Trek. As many of us are already aware, Star Trek continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. "Enterprise" is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core viewers (preteen males with an income of $100 - $500).

Due to George Lucas' ego, abysmal sales of "Episode 1" and so on, some Star Wars fans turned to "Enterprise" who sell another cheesy repackaging of the same plots and characters. Now "Enterprise" is also dead, its cast soon to be turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that Star Trek has steadily declined in market share. Star Trek is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Star Trek is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. Star Trek continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Star Trek is dead.

Fact: Star Trek is dead.

Info. (1)

ideatrack (702667) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188866)

Leonard Nimoy (Spock)

Thanks for that insight. Does anyone, I mean anyone on Slashdot not know who Leonard Nimoy is? He sang the Bilbo Baggins song. The loon.

Here Here!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188870)

I could not agree more. I wish it had never existed at all!

NEVER GIVE UP NEVER SURRENDER!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188871)

Dont Leave Me Star Trek ::::SOBS

Punishing fans for producers' impotence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188874)

No, Star Trek doesn't need to die. It's a huge brand name with instant worldwide recognizability (read: marketability).

Perhaps Star Trek in its current incarnation needs to die - but there's absolutely no need for a hiatus, unless Burton (et al) really think that the problem is overexposure and not overworked/exhausted/apathetic/etc. "handlers". The ones calling for a hiatus - just a guess - are probably the producers' friends. Burton, e.g., has had many "Trek" directorial roles since TNG ended, so he's obviously got something invested in Berman & Braga. I wouldn't take his opinion at face value, really.

Give Trek to someone else, and it could be big again. In Roddenberry's day, professional science fiction writers were hired as script writers... in Berman's day, scripts were given to soap opera writers, and fans of the show (!). It can't all be blamed on overexposure when (to stay in the metaphor) the real problem is a thumb over the lens.

Emphatically... (1)

Mawbid (3993) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188885)

As someone who just watched Enterprise s01e22, "Vox Sola", I have to say: YES!

Social Issues (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10188888)

Maybe someone should cue Berman in on the fact that aliens can actually be used to examine the human condition and are not just an excuse to do cool makeup or skin-tight jump suits.

Honestly, even though the acting/stories/sfx of TOS were crappy, Gene knew that non-human races were the best way to explore human issues. I mean look at Spock, a character with no emotions that can blatently comment on the sometimes conflicting nature of human emotions. Or the two aliens with different coloring on each side of the face to demonstrate the sillyness of racism.

ST will be good again when the writers realize that aliens can be used more for introspection that exhibition.

YES (1)

Espectr0 (577637) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188889)

But only if Netcraft confirms it
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>