Trek's lowest moment

[Trekkin]

On the plus side, it could be seen as a precurser to crowdsource funding like Kickstarter, albeit unintentionally, for shows and movies by fan demand like Veronica Mars. So the fans might not have been successful in saving Trek, but in their own way helped pave the road for future ventures. Bad moment for Trek, good moment for new business models for entertainment.

(side note: I'm quite impressed that Veronica Mars was made for $5 million from fans, and made $2 mil in its opening weekend. Many gigantic studio movies wish they had that kind of percentage return for opening weekend)

Power to the People! That's what's up! And it's about time, too. It was in the fans hands, all along, there's just been this disconnect, the whole time. It always comes down to the fans' money, anyway, with ticket $ales and buying from advertisers. It's a good thing that various kinds of fans have found this avenue to take more direct control of that money-flow, to assign the kinds of shows they really want to see.

The potential abuses for that kind of thing are a continued concern for me, however. But people work hard for their money and they shouldn't have to come home and try to be entertained by half-assed, lesser of the evils bullshit. And yeah, if STAR TREK fans started this ball rolling of controlling how certain entertainment gets funded, it's another vindicaiton for our devotion to this franchise ...

I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but 'Save Enterprise' barely managed to rake in enough donations to make one episode. Veronica Mars fans paid for their baby in nearly its entirety, Enterprise didn't have enough fans to wrangle it.

That's assuming that they actually received some of the big amounts they claimed they did, because at the time outsiders were having trouble verifying the very existence of some of the 'names' thet were being mentioned. By all accounts from CBS, there wasn't exactly a fantastic letter-writing campaign. There were apparently some complaints about endless faxes from the same few people, but not letters from a wide number of passionate fans.

This is not me slating Enterprise, or fans that want it back. I'm just pointing out that there were some good reasons why CBS wouldn't just cave to that particular attempt. Namely - it proved that not many (comparatively speaking) fans did want to save it.

My personal lowest point for the franchise (from a behind the scenes standpoint) would be the sexual abuse of Grace Lee Whitney, and it's subsequent cover up. For in front of the camera, it's a mix between the 'moral' to Dear Doctor, and nearly everything in 'Up The Long Ladder.'

 

[JirinPanthosa]

For me it's a toss-up.

1) Nemesis. The entire movie pretty much.
2) The first two seasons of Enterprise. When the show started, TV Trek still has residual good will. People were really rooting for it. Then all they tried to be was a facsimile of a facsimile of TNG with uninspired rehash stories, unlikable characters and zero sense of adventure. Only the true Trek loyalists stayed with the show after that. Barely anyone was left to notice when the show actually got good.

 

[mos6507]

That is a "illogical" piece of the movie. Earth is a major world, high tech. When the starships (both of them) began to enter the atmostphere, regardless of the reason shouldn't orbital or ground based tractor beams (or sky-tugboats, or something else) have grabbed them and forceible held them in orbit until the details could be figured out?

We've seen in Star Trek that their technology does fail from time to time, their society would take that into account. A large ship fall out of the sky and there no attempt to avert deaster?

With a couple of centuries of space travel behind them, something similar has never happen before?

That didn't bother me as much as the old-style chemical "retro rockets" that started shooting out of the Enterprise to right itself. That was a very Inspector Gadget moment. But if they can thow the Enterprise underwater then anything is possible.

 

[K'Toska]

the serious lack of Dr. McCoy in nuTrek

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Everybody lies in entertainment, though. Part of it is that they don't remember most of this shit, half the time. Take George Lucas, for example, as being a known revisionist. He's switched gears, backstepped, exaggerated and outright lied about the entire history of the franchise, over the years. It's just to give the press something to feed the masses with. I do not hold it against Gene Roddenberry for contradicting himself, or whatever ... not one bit. At least William Shatner comes right out and tells it straight: "I don't remember a damn thing I did on STAR TREK! I'm not a fan, I don't watch the show. It was just a job." It may not make for great public relations in fan circles ... but it's certainly refreshing in its candor and honesty!

Here's the thing though, and I'm not going to be delicate about this: George Lucas is fucking crazy.

I could go into vivid detail about it, but it basically can be summed up by the fact that almost no one, including: actors, directors, co producers, the guys who started ILM, and many more seem to have anything genuinely nice to say about him. Even a class guy like Mark Hamill gets uncomfortable when talking about him and dances around questions that ask his opinion of Lucas.

About the only guy I never heard criticize Lucas is James Earl Jones and I think it's that's because he didn't have to see the asshole hardly ever. He just came into a recording studio, read his lines and went home.

Giving Roddenberry a pass on something because "George Lucas did it" is no reason at all.

Plus Roddenberry seemed to appreciate ST fans while Lucas openly scorned his and pissed on their heads time after time.

Why do you think Jar Jar Binks was in the last two prequels, however briefly, after he'd become arguably the most unpopular character in major motion picture history? It was Lucas' way of saying "Fuck you for not embracing him, he's going to appear anyway." You really can't show contempt for your audience any more than that.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

As far as just a flat completely tasteless scene goes: when they blew Remick's head clean off and the mother creature emerged. It was way over the top violent and disgusting and I still can't watch it to this day. I know some gore freaks get off on it but ST should know better. If you want gore go watch a Rob Zombie film.

Plus it made Picard and Riker just look like a couple of cold blooded murderers by just blowing away a fellow starfleet officer, who'd done nothing wrong besides be taken over by an alien species. No attempt to stun him and see if he could be saved, no calling Data and Worf to come down to try and overpower him and see if he could be helped. Nope lets just blow his fucking head off and hope his brains don't get on our uniforms.

It was made even worse by the fact that even though Remick was a dick for most of the earlier episode he was on, at the end he was shown that he was just doing his job and was actually a decent guy.

"Thanks for all those nice things you said about us a crew Remick, now eat maximum setting phaser beam and watch your head explode."

 

[Iamnotspock]

Spock making a sly joke to Rand about her attempted rape ordeal. Nothing else has come close in 50 years.

 

[martok2112]

Why do you think Jar Jar Binks was in the last two prequels, however briefly, after he'd become arguably the most unpopular character in major motion picture history? It was Lucas' way of saying "Fuck you for not embracing him, he's going to appear anyway." You really can't show contempt for your audience any more than that.

I mean no disrespect, but:
Actually, I think it's a nice, strong statement to the fans, letting them know that fans have absolutely no place in the creative process. And it would be a righteous statement.

See, it all falls back on that b.s. mentality that somehow fans seem to think that they own something that they had no creative input on in the first place. That undeserved sense of self-entitlement.

Yeah, if I thought someone could dictate how I wrote my stories, I'd probably hold that someone in contempt too.

 

[HIjol]

...lowest moment?"

I still maintain it was the first and every subsequent utterance of "Anti-Time".

 

[T'Girl]

I remember some Ex-Army guys getting massively PO'ed when Picard called the American Army Uniform Q called a "costume".

If any of us saw the way French Aristocrats dressed about 200 years ago, I'm pretty sure we'd think of them as bizarre costumes too.

But in order to be a comparable situation, instead of some guy off the street meeting a French aristocrat, wouldn't it would have to be a modern naval Captain encountering someone in a 18th century French military uniform?

Captain Picard, a Starfleet Officer, was looking at a 20th century US Marine Corp uniform.

 

[Trekkin]

Everybody lies in entertainment, though. Part of it is that they don't remember most of this shit, half the time. Take George Lucas, for example, as being a known revisionist. He's switched gears, backstepped, exaggerated and outright lied about the entire history of the franchise, over the years. It's just to give the press something to feed the masses with. I do not hold it against Gene Roddenberry for contradicting himself, or whatever ... not one bit. At least William Shatner comes right out and tells it straight: "I don't remember a damn thing I did on STAR TREK! I'm not a fan, I don't watch the show. It was just a job." It may not make for great public relations in fan circles ... but it's certainly refreshing in its candor and honesty!

Here's the thing though, and I'm not going to be delicate about this: George Lucas is fucking crazy.

I could go into vivid detail about it, but it basically can be summed up by the fact that almost no one, including: actors, directors, co producers, the guys who started ILM, and many more seem to have anything genuinely nice to say about him. Even a class guy like Mark Hamill gets uncomfortable when talking about him and dances around questions that ask his opinion of Lucas.

About the only guy I never heard criticize Lucas is James Earl Jones and I think it's that's because he didn't have to see the asshole hardly ever. He just came into a recording studio, read his lines and went home.

Giving Roddenberry a pass on something because "George Lucas did it" is no reason at all.

Plus Roddenberry seemed to appreciate ST fans while Lucas openly scorned his and pissed on their heads time after time.

Why do you think Jar Jar Binks was in the last two prequels, however briefly, after he'd become arguably the most unpopular character in major motion picture history? It was Lucas' way of saying "Fuck you for not embracing him, he's going to appear anyway." You really can't show contempt for your audience any more than that.

Ya know-no matter how annoyed I get by TPM every damn time I happen to see it, stuff like this always makes me feel sorry for the guy.

George Lucas is 'insane' because he has:
1) made movies you don't like.
2) edited his work in a way you don't like.

Oh, and he said that Star Wars fans have made him unhappy. Apparently 'crazy' is totally the wrong moniker to apply to some people who have literally sent him death threats - simply for making a dumb movie, mind.

Meanwhile, in the real world, he donated every penny of the Disney sale to charity.

George Lucas may have an ego the size of the sun, but the 'insane' diagnosis should probably be applied elsewhere.

EDIT: ...Aaaaaannd I just helped derail the thread into a typical Star Wars bitchfest. As deleting the post is a bit pointless, all I can offer up is 'sorry.'

 

[Vger23]

Two immediately come to mind:

1. Star Trek- Insurrection
This was the epitome of "watered down" Trek, and had the same shallow, lukewarm, safe tone that destroyed Voyager and Enterprise. To have it on full-display as a multi-million dollar box office event was truly the beginning of the end for Star Trek.

2. I know that this will draw some reaction, but finding out that Gene Roddenberry was a horribly flawed human being (drugs, infidelity, ethics, etc) really tainted my belief in the franchise as "his vision." I look to contributors like Coon, Justman, Fontana, Nimoy and Bennett now as actually being more critical to the direction of the franchise than Roddenberry.

 

[Dukhat]

2. I know that this will draw some reaction, but finding out that Gene Roddenberry was a horribly flawed human being (drugs, infidelity, ethics, etc) really tainted my belief in the franchise as "his vision." I look to contributors like Coon, Justman, Fontana, Nimoy and Bennett now as actually being more critical to the direction of the franchise than Roddenberry.

No offense, but that isn't really a low moment for Trek. Rather, that's just a low moment for you personally. Roddenberry's behavior never actually affected the show.

For me, Trek's lowest moment was when we saw T'Pol's buttcrack. That was the icing on the cake that UPN and B&B were pandering to the lowest common denominator of viewer.

 

[Lance]

Part of me would say 'right now, this moment' because there is no Star Trek television series in production

This is a good answer.

 

[T'Girl]

For me, Trek's lowest moment was when we saw T'Pol's buttcrack.

How was that much different that Deanna opening the door to her quarters wear a shear white top where you could see her areolas?

 

[Dukhat]

For me, Trek's lowest moment was when we saw T'Pol's buttcrack.

How was that much different that Deanna opening the door to her quarters wear a shear white top where you could see her areolas?

Probably because I have no idea what you're talking about, since if this scene actually happened I don't remember it, while I certainly remember seeing asscrack on T'Pol, since she was completely nude from the back. Kinda hard to miss that.

 

[Vger23]

2. I know that this will draw some reaction, but finding out that Gene Roddenberry was a horribly flawed human being (drugs, infidelity, ethics, etc) really tainted my belief in the franchise as "his vision." I look to contributors like Coon, Justman, Fontana, Nimoy and Bennett now as actually being more critical to the direction of the franchise than Roddenberry.

No offense, but that isn't really a low moment for Trek. Rather, that's just a low moment for you personally. Roddenberry's behavior never actually affected the show.

For me, Trek's lowest moment was when we saw T'Pol's buttcrack. That was the icing on the cake that UPN and B&B were pandering to the lowest common denominator of viewer.

I disagree ENTIRELY. His abandoning TOS in the 3rd season certainly had implications to the quality of the scripts and to the future departures of Justman and Fontana. His ethics were always in question by the higher-ups given his affinity for casting women he was sleeping with (Nichols, Barrett) which, among other things, did not help him politically where he needed some capital.

It also caused / allowed most of what sucked in the first two seasons of TNG. It alienated good people like Fontana and David Gerrold.

His behavior as Producer / Writer on Star Trek- The Motion Picture almost ended the franchise and alienated several key players, including Nimoy. It also resulted in his permanent exile from the movie franchise.

Don't get me wrong. I'm eternally greatful for the gift he has given us all, God rest his soul...but that's why the truth about the man he was is, indeed, a low-point.

T'Pol's buttcrack, indeed.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Everybody lies in entertainment, though. Part of it is that they don't remember most of this shit, half the time. Take George Lucas, for example, as being a known revisionist. He's switched gears, backstepped, exaggerated and outright lied about the entire history of the franchise, over the years. It's just to give the press something to feed the masses with. I do not hold it against Gene Roddenberry for contradicting himself, or whatever ... not one bit. At least William Shatner comes right out and tells it straight: "I don't remember a damn thing I did on STAR TREK! I'm not a fan, I don't watch the show. It was just a job." It may not make for great public relations in fan circles ... but it's certainly refreshing in its candor and honesty!

Here's the thing though, and I'm not going to be delicate about this: George Lucas is fucking crazy.

I could go into vivid detail about it, but it basically can be summed up by the fact that almost no one, including: actors, directors, co producers, the guys who started ILM, and many more seem to have anything genuinely nice to say about him. Even a class guy like Mark Hamill gets uncomfortable when talking about him and dances around questions that ask his opinion of Lucas.

About the only guy I never heard criticize Lucas is James Earl Jones and I think it's that's because he didn't have to see the asshole hardly ever. He just came into a recording studio, read his lines and went home.

Giving Roddenberry a pass on something because "George Lucas did it" is no reason at all.

Plus Roddenberry seemed to appreciate ST fans while Lucas openly scorned his and pissed on their heads time after time.

Why do you think Jar Jar Binks was in the last two prequels, however briefly, after he'd become arguably the most unpopular character in major motion picture history? It was Lucas' way of saying "Fuck you for not embracing him, he's going to appear anyway." You really can't show contempt for your audience any more than that.

Ya know-no matter how annoyed I get by TPM every damn time I happen to see it, stuff like this always makes me feel sorry for the guy.

George Lucas is 'insane' because he has:
1) made movies you don't like.
2) edited his work in a way you don't like.

Oh, and he said that Star Wars fans have made him unhappy. Apparently 'crazy' is totally the wrong moniker to apply to some people who have literally sent him death threats - simply for making a dumb movie, mind.

Meanwhile, in the real world, he donated every penny of the Disney sale to charity.

George Lucas may have an ego the size of the sun, but the 'insane' diagnosis should probably be applied elsewhere.

EDIT: ...Aaaaaannd I just helped derail the thread into a typical Star Wars bitchfest. As deleting the post is a bit pointless, all I can offer up is 'sorry.'

Fine crazy is the wrong word. How about arrogant asshole. That work better for you. And it goes far beyond him just making movies people didn't like. If you can't see that you really have no grasp of the issue.

And yes I firmly believe that making death threats to him is wrong in every sense. Crazy would probably apply to those people.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Why do you think Jar Jar Binks was in the last two prequels, however briefly, after he'd become arguably the most unpopular character in major motion picture history? It was Lucas' way of saying "Fuck you for not embracing him, he's going to appear anyway." You really can't show contempt for your audience any more than that.

I mean no disrespect, but:
Actually, I think it's a nice, strong statement to the fans, letting them know that fans have absolutely no place in the creative process. And it would be a righteous statement.

See, it all falls back on that b.s. mentality that somehow fans seem to think that they own something that they had no creative input on in the first place. That undeserved sense of self-entitlement.

Yeah, if I thought someone could dictate how I wrote my stories, I'd probably hold that someone in contempt too.

I mean no disrespect either but it was the FANS that embraced a film that almost no one believed in and gave him power and riches beyond imagination.

I'm not saying that entitles fans to tell him what and what he shouldn't do. I do think it's in poor taste though when you go out of your way to give the middle finger (which he did by including Binks in the last two make no mistake)to the people who loved your work and paid billions for it in someway just because they hated something you thought was brilliant.

No one who creates something popular owes their and every decision to fans. I think it's shitty when they go out of their way to show contempt towards them when they almost universally don't like some thing you do.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Two immediately come to mind:

1. Star Trek- Insurrection
This was the epitome of "watered down" Trek, and had the same shallow, lukewarm, safe tone that destroyed Voyager and Enterprise. To have it on full-display as a multi-million dollar box office event was truly the beginning of the end for Star Trek.

2. I know that this will draw some reaction, but finding out that Gene Roddenberry was a horribly flawed human being (drugs, infidelity, ethics, etc) really tainted my belief in the franchise as "his vision." I look to contributors like Coon, Justman, Fontana, Nimoy and Bennett now as actually being more critical to the direction of the franchise than Roddenberry.

I don't think it's a low point but I agree with this "It was his vision" BS.

It BECAME his "vision" after it came back from the dead and was something that was clearly popular and profitable.

Before that it was just another project he created to make money and gain power and influence in the industry. If it was so sacred to him why'd he cut bait and run when it became clear before season 3 started it wasn't going to have a season 4. It wasn't even dead yet and he was on to his next project he hoped would be his big one because clearly at the time it wasn't going to be ST.

This "VISION" thing is revisionist crap and I can't believe so many fans still but it. Especially when others, like the individuals you mentioned, seemed to believe in it more and worked harder to try and keep alive when the plug was about to be pulled than Gene did.