Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publication?
- Thread starter Dayton3
- Start date
Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati
Its unprofitability.
davidh
Its unprofitability.
davidh
You act as though the Magazine was somehow immune to the same sorts of approvals and oversight that governs the Communicator. Rest assured that is decidely not so. It was a licensed product, which means that nothing went between its covers that Paramount didn't bless first.
As for why it ceased publication, they never actually stood up and said "We're stopping because _________," but I'm sticking with the answer that I use every time this question is asked: Money seems to be the most logical reason. 8 bucks an issue was a lot to ask for material that was more readily available elsewhere.
I know you like to compare the two publications, but they really were apples and oranges. It's presentation is flashier than when it first started, but at it's heart the Communicator is and always has been a fan club newsletter. People looking to smack it around because it's not a premier news source are barking up the wrong tree.
Decry the Communicator all you want, but it's been around long enough to watch all sorts of imitators come and go. They must be doing something right.
Just my $.02.
As for why it ceased publication, they never actually stood up and said "We're stopping because _________," but I'm sticking with the answer that I use every time this question is asked: Money seems to be the most logical reason. 8 bucks an issue was a lot to ask for material that was more readily available elsewhere.
I know you like to compare the two publications, but they really were apples and oranges. It's presentation is flashier than when it first started, but at it's heart the Communicator is and always has been a fan club newsletter. People looking to smack it around because it's not a premier news source are barking up the wrong tree.
Decry the Communicator all you want, but it's been around long enough to watch all sorts of imitators come and go. They must be doing something right.
Just my $.02.
Bravo, Dayton! Personally, I love the Communicator to bits. (On the other hand, I just realized I've yet to resubscribe. Darn that money!)
how'd ya guess? Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati
I've hated the Communicator from the first gushing "Trek is great, you are great, Paramount is just great" so called INTERVIEW that they conducted with Rick Berman.
Dan Madsen should be ashamed of the magazine rather than continuing to contribute to it.
And I'm convinced that they censor the letters and make an effort to screen out letters highly critical of Star Trek (though one of mine made it in there).
I've hated the Communicator from the first gushing "Trek is great, you are great, Paramount is just great" so called INTERVIEW that they conducted with Rick Berman.
Dan Madsen should be ashamed of the magazine rather than continuing to contribute to it.
And I'm convinced that they censor the letters and make an effort to screen out letters highly critical of Star Trek (though one of mine made it in there).
Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati
Personally, I don't read the Communicator to read highly critical rants about the state of the franchise.
That's what the TrekBBS is for.
Personally, I don't read the Communicator to read highly critical rants about the state of the franchise.
That's what the TrekBBS is for.
Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati
I did. I stopped about 40 issues ago.
I still thumb through it when I see it in the bookstore, but I don't buy it. They aren't getting my money.
Star Trek:Communicator is one of the things wrong with the Trek Franchise.
I would've gladly traded it for The Magazine.
Posted by Ineti:
Ashamed of a newsletter that's lasted 150 issues and how many years? I think not.
If you hate it so much, stop writing letters to it and stop reading it.
I did. I stopped about 40 issues ago.
I still thumb through it when I see it in the bookstore, but I don't buy it. They aren't getting my money.
Star Trek:Communicator is one of the things wrong with the Trek Franchise.
I would've gladly traded it for The Magazine.
Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati
The reason wasn't given in the magazine itself, but I can tell you what happened. All of the tech stuff, alien profiles, etc (almost everything except interviews and reviews) and all the artwork that wasn't photos was sub-licensed from a long-running English "part work" by GE Fabbri Ltd called "The Official Star Trek Fact Files", that ran for an amazing 304 weeks (1996-2002). It created records for a tie-in part work and fills 21 large (bonus) looseleaf folders. It never had a price rise, either (1.99 pounds each). Although the company kept it afloat all that time, it eventually petered out at the end of Season One of "Enterprise". The only movie not covered in its vsual episode guide was "Nemesis". (I heard a rumour that the Japanese version was going to continue, but I've never seen that confirmed.)
Without the plethora of artwork and research being generated for "ST Fact Files", the poor ol' US "Star Trek:The Magazine" simply couldn't stay different enough to "ST Communicator" to remain profitable.
As for "ST Communicator", it may seem sanitized, but you'll never read a false rumour in it. That's the double-edged sword benefit of being an official magazine. You can't tear Paramount to shreds, but Paramount authorizes the content to ensure accuracy. If it's ST rumour, innuendo and hatred you seek, go read a few websites.
The reason wasn't given in the magazine itself, but I can tell you what happened. All of the tech stuff, alien profiles, etc (almost everything except interviews and reviews) and all the artwork that wasn't photos was sub-licensed from a long-running English "part work" by GE Fabbri Ltd called "The Official Star Trek Fact Files", that ran for an amazing 304 weeks (1996-2002). It created records for a tie-in part work and fills 21 large (bonus) looseleaf folders. It never had a price rise, either (1.99 pounds each). Although the company kept it afloat all that time, it eventually petered out at the end of Season One of "Enterprise". The only movie not covered in its vsual episode guide was "Nemesis". (I heard a rumour that the Japanese version was going to continue, but I've never seen that confirmed.)
Without the plethora of artwork and research being generated for "ST Fact Files", the poor ol' US "Star Trek:The Magazine" simply couldn't stay different enough to "ST Communicator" to remain profitable.
As for "ST Communicator", it may seem sanitized, but you'll never read a false rumour in it. That's the double-edged sword benefit of being an official magazine. You can't tear Paramount to shreds, but Paramount authorizes the content to ensure accuracy. If it's ST rumour, innuendo and hatred you seek, go read a few websites.
Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati
Does having Rick Berman say (okay, heavily imply) that the NX-02 would not be named Columbia count as a false rumor? Bonus points that I received that issue and read that interview the very day that an episode of Enterprise revealed that the NX-02 would, in fact, be named Columbia.
Sorry, that's just one of my favorite Star Trek Communicator blunders, mostly because of the superhuman timing of it all.
Does having Rick Berman say (okay, heavily imply) that the NX-02 would not be named Columbia count as a false rumor? Bonus points that I received that issue and read that interview the very day that an episode of Enterprise revealed that the NX-02 would, in fact, be named Columbia.
Sorry, that's just one of my favorite Star Trek Communicator blunders, mostly because of the superhuman timing of it all.
Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati
You're blaming the Communicator for something Rick Berman said?
This isn't like the NY Post running a front page story saying Kerry picks Gephardt as his VP the day Edwards is announced.
Remember, the interval of time between the interview being conducted vs. when you read it in the finished magazine is several weeks, if not longer. Things can change during that time, and if Berman decides to change his mind or even makes a mistake, chances are he's not picking up the phone to call Larry Nemecek so that he can update the content of the magazine.
It's stuff like this, which happens a lot due to the lead time for material being considered for each issue, that the Communicator has never been known or promoted itself as a hotbed of breaking news.
You're blaming the Communicator for something Rick Berman said?
This isn't like the NY Post running a front page story saying Kerry picks Gephardt as his VP the day Edwards is announced.
Remember, the interval of time between the interview being conducted vs. when you read it in the finished magazine is several weeks, if not longer. Things can change during that time, and if Berman decides to change his mind or even makes a mistake, chances are he's not picking up the phone to call Larry Nemecek so that he can update the content of the magazine.
It's stuff like this, which happens a lot due to the lead time for material being considered for each issue, that the Communicator has never been known or promoted itself as a hotbed of breaking news.
Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati
^ My mother-in-law is Japanese, and last summer she and my wife took a trip to Japan to see relatives. They brought me back a small pile of Fact Files, and I *think* Nemesis coverage was included in one of the issues they got. I'd have to go and dig that stuff out of the closet to check, though.
^ My mother-in-law is Japanese, and last summer she and my wife took a trip to Japan to see relatives. They brought me back a small pile of Fact Files, and I *think* Nemesis coverage was included in one of the issues they got. I'd have to go and dig that stuff out of the closet to check, though.
Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati
I really intended to keep quiet on this thread for a number of reasons, and will remain quiet from this point forward, but pride is pushing my buttons on two points:
1) It's fine that some of you out there have your list of "favorite Communicator blunders." I also have my list of "favorite Star Trek Internet rumors that have set fans into psychotic rages until they see those rumors debunked in the Communicator." I'm guessing my list is longer
One undeniable advantage the Internet and most any other news agency enjoys over the Communicator is speed. In the above instance of the Columbia naming, understand that the realities of production deadlines and lead time dictate Communicator articles being written several MONTHS ahead of the issue hitting the stands (my deadlines for issue 153 are three weeks away and that issue will not hit the stands for four months). Certainly anyone would allow Rick Berman in this case to answer the question, "That's totally not true. It's never been discussed." -- a statement that could have been precisely true AT THE TIME -- only to have someone on staff say later, "Columbia? That's a GREAT idea!" and see it through to fruition without mentioning that decision to us (and how DARE they try to play something close to the vest and give us a surprise, particularly one that honors fallen space explorers). Our sources at Paramount are not out to deceive us; there's no need to insinuate that.
And let's get some perspective: the guy is a TV producer being interviewed by a fan club, not the National Security Advisor being deposed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Allow a little grace here.
2) Dayton3, your suggestion that Dan Madsen should be ashamed of the Communicator and what it has become under his leadership is uninformed, inappropriate, disrespectful and personally galling. If your intent was to stir the waters and fire people up, well, you win. If your intent was to demonstrate your ignorance of the publication and of Star Trek fandom in general, you win again.
Kevin
I really intended to keep quiet on this thread for a number of reasons, and will remain quiet from this point forward, but pride is pushing my buttons on two points:
1) It's fine that some of you out there have your list of "favorite Communicator blunders." I also have my list of "favorite Star Trek Internet rumors that have set fans into psychotic rages until they see those rumors debunked in the Communicator." I'm guessing my list is longer
One undeniable advantage the Internet and most any other news agency enjoys over the Communicator is speed. In the above instance of the Columbia naming, understand that the realities of production deadlines and lead time dictate Communicator articles being written several MONTHS ahead of the issue hitting the stands (my deadlines for issue 153 are three weeks away and that issue will not hit the stands for four months). Certainly anyone would allow Rick Berman in this case to answer the question, "That's totally not true. It's never been discussed." -- a statement that could have been precisely true AT THE TIME -- only to have someone on staff say later, "Columbia? That's a GREAT idea!" and see it through to fruition without mentioning that decision to us (and how DARE they try to play something close to the vest and give us a surprise, particularly one that honors fallen space explorers). Our sources at Paramount are not out to deceive us; there's no need to insinuate that.
And let's get some perspective: the guy is a TV producer being interviewed by a fan club, not the National Security Advisor being deposed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Allow a little grace here.
2) Dayton3, your suggestion that Dan Madsen should be ashamed of the Communicator and what it has become under his leadership is uninformed, inappropriate, disrespectful and personally galling. If your intent was to stir the waters and fire people up, well, you win. If your intent was to demonstrate your ignorance of the publication and of Star Trek fandom in general, you win again.
Kevin
