This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future.

[Lynx]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Since everything seems to be about money these days, maybe a new Trek series should be about a Ferengi ship in a Federation where the Ferengi have become the dominating species.

Greed is eternal, you know!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

"These days?"

Star Trek has always been about making money. It's a corporate product that exists for the purpose of enriching its owners.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

"These days?"

Star Trek has always been about making money. It's a corporate product that exists for the purpose of enriching its owners.

To be fair, it's never been only about making money. Not today, not before.

Art and commerce are not an either/or thing. Most of the time, there's a creative impulse mixed with the necessity to turn a profit so you can afford to make more art. Artists and film makers can want to get paid AND want to satisfy their creative urges by making the best shows they can. You can take pride in your work AND keep one eye on the bottom line. That's how it works.

But, yes, you're absolutely right that it's not like Star Trek used to be a non-profit venture. NBC did not produce the original series as a charitable Enterprise (pun intended). And things are no more about money "these days" than they were back in the past.

Anybody who thinks that movie and TV studios weren't interested in money back in the old days is looking at the past through rose-colored sensors . . .

 

[horatio83]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

The sixties have been the climax of social democracy whereas the last decades have been a reversal to anarcho-capitalism. This has a mild but nonetheless significant influences on people, upon how important non-pecuniary elements of work are to them. You can call it mentality or the Zeitgeist or whatever.
No disrespect but one even notices this difference between Europeans and Americans.

So while Lynx' claim might sound a bit too strong it is essentially correct. The last Trek movie is the first piece of Trek ever with product placement in it.

 

[BillJ]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

So while Lynx' claim might sound a bit too strong it is essentially correct. The last Trek movie is the first piece of Trek ever with product placement in it.

Nope.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Product_placement

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

So while Lynx' claim might sound a bit too strong it is essentially correct. The last Trek movie is the first piece of Trek ever with product placement in it.

As opposed to the IDIC medallion in "Is There in Truth No Beauty?"

That's another good example of the way in which Art and Commerce can mingle. The medallion scene was included (over the actors' protests) to hawk a piece of merchandise, yet the IDIC concept has transcended its commercial roots to become an enduring part of the mythos.

There's a tendency to romanticize the past and assume that everything was nobler and purer back then, but I suspect that's mostly just nostalgia. Yesterday, as today, show biz was always driven by both commerical and creative impulses, often at the same time!

 

[stj]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

There's a tendency to romanticize the past and assume that everything was nobler and purer back then, but I suspect that's mostly just nostalgia. Yesterday, as today, show biz was always driven by both commerical and creative impulses, often at the same time!

That's not quite what people are talking about I think. Everything is done from mixed motives, making a big deal out of that is pretty adolescent. The Ferengi would once have been sinister figures, instead of lovable ones, who even begin a benevolently motivated process of self-reform, as in DS9.

Or, consider the number of Star Trek episodes where the happy ending was peace. Then contrast the happy ending in the new Star Trek, where the happy ending is Kirk blowing up Nero even though his ship is being destroyed, with Spock's disapproval of the idea of offering terms.

Anyhow, the IDIC scene was not a product placement in the same sense at all. When aired the IDIC was not a commercial product, much less a corporate name/trademark/logo, while Nokia is well-known. In the movie's SF context, the Nokia product placement was a positive assertion that our kind of capitalism would continue indefinitely. The idea is reactionary and stupid. It is also directly antithetical to traditional Star Trek themes, which is I suppose why so many people liked it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

There's a tendency to romanticize the past and assume that everything was nobler and purer back then, but I suspect that's mostly just nostalgia. Yesterday, as today, show biz was always driven by both commerical and creative impulses, often at the same time!

That's not quite what people are talking about I think. Everything is done from mixed motives, making a big deal out of that is pretty adolescent. .

I don't know. That observation may seem obvious (and "adolescent") to you, but it's one that tends to get lost in the hyperbole and heat of internet debates, where motives (and creators) are either utterly corrupt or pure and unsullied by base commercial concerns. "It's all about the money now! It was NEVER like that before!"

In real life, it's never that simple. And I figure it never hurts to add a reality check now and then.

 

[Lynx]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

If only stj could remove that symbol of mass murder and terror in his/her avatar.

 

[horatio83]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

There's a tendency to romanticize the past and assume that everything was nobler and purer back then, but I suspect that's mostly just nostalgia. Yesterday, as today, show biz was always driven by both commerical and creative impulses, often at the same time!

That's not quite what people are talking about I think. Everything is done from mixed motives, making a big deal out of that is pretty adolescent. The Ferengi would once have been sinister figures, instead of lovable ones, who even begin a benevolently motivated process of self-reform, as in DS9.

Or, consider the number of Star Trek episodes where the happy ending was peace. Then contrast the happy ending in the new Star Trek, where the happy ending is Kirk blowing up Nero even though his ship is being destroyed, with Spock's disapproval of the idea of offering terms.

Anyhow, the IDIC scene was not a product placement in the same sense at all. When aired the IDIC was not a commercial product, much less a corporate name/trademark/logo, while Nokia is well-known. In the movie's SF context, the Nokia product placement was a positive assertion that our kind of capitalism would continue indefinitely. The idea is reactionary and stupid. It is also directly antithetical to traditional Star Trek themes, which is I suppose why so many people liked it.

Precisely, merchandise has nothing to do with product placement and the latter really doesn't belong into a Trek movie. Nokia, "Robocop", Earth being the same shitty place as it is today, the beginning rather fitted cyberpunk than Trek.
Trek should be true to itself and not reflect these reactionary times.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

The last Trek movie is the first piece of Trek ever with product placement in it.

while Nokia is well-known

Gillian: "... and a Michelob, please.
Kirk: "Make that two.

the Nokia product placement was a positive assertion that our kind of capitalism would continue indefinitely

That has already been well established over the course of the multiple series, with dialog that included words like ...

Buy, --------- as in boat.
Sold, ---------as in house.
Price, -------- as in pay a fair price to the miners for their dilithium.
Financier, ----as in Mr.Brock is one.
Purchased, - -as in Mr. Brock purchased a planet.
Pay, ----------as in McCoy can pay to go to genesis.
Invest, -------as in how much Starfleet has invested in Spock's training.
Earned, ------as in Scotty earned his pay
Fortunes, --- -as in Carter Winston acquired a dozen fortunes.
Fine, --------- as in what Quark paid to get Gaila released
Spent, --------as in the Federation has spent a lot of money on our training.
How Much, --- as in Uhura having to pay for the tribble.

When aired the IDIC was not a commercial product, much less a corporate name/trademark/logo

As described by Greg Cox, yes it was a commercial product, and so it would have been no different than when James Bond flashes whatever watch or cell phone the latest Bond movie is helping to market.

Nokia, "Robocop", Earth being the same shitty place as it is today

My today Earth is a pretty wonderful place, but then I appreciate cell phones and police officers.

 

[horatio83]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Your first person perspective is the problem. Of course we people in the West are well off but slave labour in the East builds our electrical gadgets and billions of people have no safe (safe meanting that you are not suffering serious shortages after a drought or after we allow or mastercriminals to create food derivatives) access to food and water.
This game isn't fair and it will neither go on as climate change and overpopulation are around the corner. Trek depicts a game which doesn't lead to such horrible outcomes and, guess what, Nokia ain't in it. If the Koch brothers or some of their minions wanna make a sci-fi movie they can go ahead but it would obviously be the very opposite of Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

It's not just me. By all accounts, Shatner and Nimoy both considered the IDIC bit a shameless sales pitch and objected to doing what amounted to a commercial in the middle of the episode . . . .

And yet, IDIC and Star Trek survived . . . and "Is There in Truth No Beauty" is still one of the better third-season eps.

So, yes, this is nothing new, and a touch of "product" placement" hardly proves that a new movie (or an old episode) is without merit or irredeemably tainted.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Didn't the network originally want the actors to be smoking on the show ... (which Nimoy would have loved)?

 

[stj]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

There's a tendency to romanticize the past and assume that everything was nobler and purer back then, but I suspect that's mostly just nostalgia. Yesterday, as today, show biz was always driven by both commerical and creative impulses, often at the same time!

That's not quite what people are talking about I think. Everything is done from mixed motives, making a big deal out of that is pretty adolescent. .

I don't know. That observation may seem obvious (and "adolescent") to you, but it's one that tends to get lost in the hyperbole and heat of internet debates, where motives (and creators) are either utterly corrupt or pure and unsullied by base commercial concerns. "It's all about the money now! It was NEVER like that before!"

In real life, it's never that simple. And I figure it never hurts to add a reality check now and then.

Sorry if it seemed I was trying to argue your point about mixed motives in general. I was just trying to say that some of us had a somewhat different, if related, point in mind.

 

[Harvey]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

So while Lynx' claim might sound a bit too strong it is essentially correct. The last Trek movie is the first piece of Trek ever with product placement in it.

It's not even the first movie in the series to feature product placement in the future. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier prominently features Boreal brand climbing shoes.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

That's not quite what people are talking about I think. Everything is done from mixed motives, making a big deal out of that is pretty adolescent. .

I don't know. That observation may seem obvious (and "adolescent") to you, but it's one that tends to get lost in the hyperbole and heat of internet debates, where motives (and creators) are either utterly corrupt or pure and unsullied by base commercial concerns. "It's all about the money now! It was NEVER like that before!"

In real life, it's never that simple. And I figure it never hurts to add a reality check now and then.

Sorry if it seemed I was trying to argue your point about mixed motives in general. I was just trying to say that some of us had a somewhat different, if related, point in mind.

And I was mostly seizing on an opportunity to counter a general tendency that I seemed to be bumping into a lot on the boards lately. This thread seemed as good a place as any to get on my soapbox about it.

Star Trek has never been entirely a wholly idealistic endeavor or merely a piece of product churned out to make a profit. And arguments that seem to insist that it can only be one or the other don't strike me as particularly useful or realistic.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

So while Lynx' claim might sound a bit too strong it is essentially correct. The last Trek movie is the first piece of Trek ever with product placement in it.

It's not even the first movie in the series to feature product placement in the future. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier prominently features Boreal brand climbing shoes.

TOS had the Vulcan IDIC pendant [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Is_There_in_Truth_No_Beauty%3F_(episode)#Background_Information].

 

[Harvey]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

That was a shameless advertisement for merchandising inserted by Roddenberry into the script at the last minute, but I wouldn't define it as product placement, which is the paid inclusion of a product on a program.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Ah. Good point.