Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,734
# 111
04-25-2013, 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldarion79 View Post
You are very naive if you think that the TPTB put out Trek solely for the purpose of story-telling and expanding the franchise, no its always about money.
I seem to have mislaid my copy of Heinlein's Expanded Universe, but there was an essay in there in which he stated that every author must keep in mind the need to entertain. He might have a lesson to teach, he might have a story that he needs to tell, he might want to sell you something - but he must keep foremost in his thoughts that he needs to entertain the customers, or he'll find himself out doing menial scutwork in order to survive.

Every successful "artist" is about the money. If he weren't, he wouldn't be successful. Were you under the impression that Michelangelo painted those scenes on the Sistene Chapel's ceiling because the blank spaces offended his artistic senses? He did it because the Pope was paying him a load of cash.

Don't sneer at "money"; it's the reason Roddenberry created Star Trek in the first place. And it's the reason the franchise needed to be reinvigorated - self-satisfied contemplation of one's own artistic navel might satisfy some of the fans, but it would inevitably lead to the franchise dwindling away.
-------------------------------------------
I'm old enough not to care too much about what you think of me --
But I'm young enough to remember the future, the way things ought to be...

- Rush, "Cut To the Chase", Counterparts
Commander
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 389
# 112
04-25-2013, 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusdkane View Post
Yes, it has possibly created new awareness of the franchise, but I don't consider that reinvigoration, as there are no new ongoing series. Just a movie in 09 and another one 4 years later...
I'm pretty sure that's the definition of reinvigoration....when people who aren't fans are excited for the movie...that's reinvigoration. It doesn't need a series to qualify as a reinvigoration....Nolan did the same with Batman...does it not count because there was no tv show?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,265
# 113
04-25-2013, 08:50 PM
This sudden excitement about Star Trek will more than likely result in a new series. Probably the only reason it hasn't happened yet is that Abrams and Co. are still making their movies.
"It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-- Q
Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,300
# 114
04-25-2013, 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonsills View Post
I seem to have mislaid my copy of Heinlein's Expanded Universe, but there was an essay in there in which he stated that every author must keep in mind the need to entertain. He might have a lesson to teach, he might have a story that he needs to tell, he might want to sell you something - but he must keep foremost in his thoughts that he needs to entertain the customers, or he'll find himself out doing menial scutwork in order to survive.

Every successful "artist" is about the money. If he weren't, he wouldn't be successful. Were you under the impression that Michelangelo painted those scenes on the Sistene Chapel's ceiling because the blank spaces offended his artistic senses? He did it because the Pope was paying him a load of cash.

Don't sneer at "money"; it's the reason Roddenberry created Star Trek in the first place. And it's the reason the franchise needed to be reinvigorated - self-satisfied contemplation of one's own artistic navel might satisfy some of the fans, but it would inevitably lead to the franchise dwindling away.
I snicker in agreement with you, sir.


"I won't try to hide behind the Law if what I stand for is what's Right."

The Masterverse Timeline / Ten Forward Fanfics
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 109
# 115
04-25-2013, 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonsills View Post
I seem to have mislaid my copy of Heinlein's Expanded Universe, but there was an essay in there in which he stated that every author must keep in mind the need to entertain. He might have a lesson to teach, he might have a story that he needs to tell, he might want to sell you something - but he must keep foremost in his thoughts that he needs to entertain the customers, or he'll find himself out doing menial scutwork in order to survive.

Every successful "artist" is about the money. If he weren't, he wouldn't be successful. Were you under the impression that Michelangelo painted those scenes on the Sistene Chapel's ceiling because the blank spaces offended his artistic senses? He did it because the Pope was paying him a load of cash.

Don't sneer at "money"; it's the reason Roddenberry created Star Trek in the first place. And it's the reason the franchise needed to be reinvigorated - self-satisfied contemplation of one's own artistic navel might satisfy some of the fans, but it would inevitably lead to the franchise dwindling away.
Even Gene Roddenberry recognized the need to service the bottom line. If you read his initial pitches for Star Trek, at least half of everything he wrote was intended to cater to studio execs who would immediately dismiss the very concept of a space TV show as too expensive (after all, there's a reason the TV show "Lost in Space" spent almost its entire run marooned on one planet. . .) The whole reason for the transporter was to save money by not having to land a 24-storey tall spaceship on a planet every week. He cited Hodgkin's Law as an excuse to save money on makeup for aliens (since they'd all pretty much look human anyway) as well as sets and costumes, since similar sociological and technical developments means you could use the backlot sets and leftover costumes for the Wild West Planet, the Victorian England Planet, the Roman Empire planet, the Nazi Germany Planet, and so on. He was very, VERY away of budgetary concerns and what he had to do to just get the show on the air so he could sell the message he wanted to sell. . . again, Kirk ended up in all those bareknuckle fistfights with a ripped shirt for a reason. If anything, the original Star Trek failed at being accessible to its audience. . . it took a decade or so for it to find its audience and grow into the phenomena it is today.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,092
# 116
04-25-2013, 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by erikmodi View Post
Even Gene Roddenberry recognized the need to service the bottom line. If you read his initial pitches for Star Trek, at least half of everything he wrote was intended to cater to studio execs who would immediately dismiss the very concept of a space TV show as too expensive (after all, there's a reason the TV show "Lost in Space" spent almost its entire run marooned on one planet. . .) The whole reason for the transporter was to save money by not having to land a 24-storey tall spaceship on a planet every week. He cited Hodgkin's Law as an excuse to save money on makeup for aliens (since they'd all pretty much look human anyway) as well as sets and costumes, since similar sociological and technical developments means you could use the backlot sets and leftover costumes for the Wild West Planet, the Victorian England Planet, the Roman Empire planet, the Nazi Germany Planet, and so on. He was very, VERY away of budgetary concerns and what he had to do to just get the show on the air so he could sell the message he wanted to sell. . . again, Kirk ended up in all those bareknuckle fistfights with a ripped shirt for a reason. If anything, the original Star Trek failed at being accessible to its audience. . . it took a decade or so for it to find its audience and grow into the phenomena it is today.
Please do not fail to mention the lovely ladies in my signature. We all know why that was done. And Star Trek just wouldn't be Star Trek without them.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,768
# 117
04-25-2013, 11:34 PM
The ship is ugly and I hate it. It's blocky and awful and has an utterly un-creative hole in the saucer and everything about it except maybe those bussard collectors is terrible.
Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,300
# 118
04-25-2013, 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jexsamx View Post
The ship is ugly and I hate it. It's blocky and awful and has an utterly un-creative hole in the saucer and everything about it except maybe those bussard collectors is terrible.
I say again: Giant Rotary Phaser Cannons.


"I won't try to hide behind the Law if what I stand for is what's Right."

The Masterverse Timeline / Ten Forward Fanfics
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,768
# 119
04-25-2013, 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sander233 View Post
I say again: Giant Rotary Phaser Cannons.
And they look stupid on a starship.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 100
# 120
04-26-2013, 12:03 AM
That is a sweet looking ship, makes me wish we had something like it in-game.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:14 PM.