Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Enterprise Fans Buy Full-Page Ad In LA Times 440

jangobongo writes " reports that fans of Star Trek Enterprise have succeeded in placing a full-page ad in the LA Times. The ad will urge someone to pick up the show for a fifth season. According to the official fan site, a Star Trek Enterprise fan working for the LA Times has arranged a special deal for a discounted ad. Donations collected to date have covered the cost of the ad which will be located in the "A" section of the paper on Feb. 21."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Enterprise Fans Buy Full-Page Ad In LA Times

Comments Filter:
  • Good Luck (Score:1, Insightful)

    by drfindley ( 657462 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:36PM (#11655385) Homepage
    I hope it goes through! Go fans go!
  • Come on (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mr_null ( 16516 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:36PM (#11655388)
    Let it die already!
  • Re:Come on (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nuclear305 ( 674185 ) * on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:43PM (#11655435)
    "Let it die already!"

    I wouldn't consider myself a fan at the level of doing anything to save the series, but ...really; I'm sick of seeing all the "Let it die!" comments. On the other hand I'm sure all those who dislike Enterprise are tired of the "Save Enterprise!" campaigns--in which case I wish they'd just ignore them rather than complain about them.

    Anyway, to the it worth saving? Yes, I think so. I think I can safely say without a doubt that Season 4 gets better as each episode passes (Minus the time-traveling space nazi aliens)

    From the preview of upcoming episodes it seems they're finally going to mix things up and add some actual drama to the show rather than psuedo-drama that seems almost forced from Bakula.
  • Re:Come on (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:45PM (#11655452)
    I know it's common on Slashdot to think Star Trek should die. Let me tell let you in on a little secret: You don't have to watch it. Seriously. I like it, I want to watch it. How does it harm you if it's on?

    For example, I don't care that Stargate plays. Personally, I think I could create a better show based off of the contents of my toilet. Do I constantly complain about it and say that Stargate should die? No. Live and let live.
  • by reporter ( 666905 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:49PM (#11655476) Homepage
    I have been a fan of Star Trek - The Original Series (ST-TOS) and Star Wars (IV, V, & VI) for ages. The main strength of ST-TOS is that it dealt directly with the social issues of the day. Remember that the 1960s were a turbulent time in America.

    I like Star Wars because it has excellent acting and dealt with good versus evil. Star Wars is essentially a medieval tale (of knights and a princess) shrouded in sci-fi props: lasers, spaceships, etc.

    The problem with Enterprise is the bad acting. and bad casting. Captain Archer needs to be replaced. We need a swashbuckler like Harrison Ford to be captain. Also, the "sexy role" should be assigned to the communications officer. Being sexy is more than being endowed with breasts; being sexy requires emotion, which is absent from the Vulcan, T'Pol.

    We also need a new set of writers. We need to go back to the roots of ST-TOS. Deal with the social issues head on. Remember the old episode with the 2 aliens, each being half white and half black. At the end of the show, you realize that they hate each other because they are white on different sides. Wow. That was an excellent metaphore for race relations.

    Enterprise should take homosexuality or Tibet and frame those issues in a big metaphor and give the punch line at the end.

    If this ad in the "LA Times" succeeds, I hope that they revamp Enterprise in the way that I suggested. Gene Roddenbery had a great idea when he started ST-TOS. I just hope that it does not end in this horrible way: Enterprise and ST-Voyager.

    By the way, another thing that I really like about ST-TOS and Star Wars is the following. Life is full of evil people. Yet, the 2 sci-fi stories say that sometimes, just sometimes, the good people win. I like that idea.

  • by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:51PM (#11655482) Homepage Journal
    ...have long gone.

    Paramount owns Star Trek, and will not let the show continue on anything but UPN, and they've probably already filled Enterprise's time slot with some crud on Friday nights at UPN.
  • by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:52PM (#11655496) Homepage Journal
    The problem with Enterprise is

    The problem with Trek, in two words: Rick Berman.
  • by ArsSineArtificio ( 150115 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:56PM (#11655517) Homepage
    Enterprise should take homosexuality or Tibet and frame those issues in a big metaphor and give the punch line at the end.

    I'm not sure that The Tiresome, Preachy Metaphor Show would be any more successful than The Tired Premise Sci-Fi Western Show.

  • by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @09:10PM (#11655604)
    ...Enterprise Fans Waste Money On Full-Page Ad In LA Times

    While I respect the fact that some want it to continue, it's a truly futile effort which is not going to go anywhere. Save your money to pay for the service to watch whatever Star Trek incarnation comes along next.
  • by Belgand ( 14099 ) <> on Saturday February 12, 2005 @09:16PM (#11655652) Homepage
    Remember the old episode with the 2 aliens, each being half white and half black. At the end of the show, you realize that they hate each other because they are white on different sides. Wow. That was an excellent metaphore for race relations.

    This is intended to be read as sarcasm, right? I mean... honestly Star Trek was often a good show, but whenever it (or ST:TNG which often did the same thing) went to absurb lengths to create an episode that only served to be a heavy-handed lesson it was rarely good.

    Enterprise should take homosexuality or Tibet and frame those issues in a big metaphor and give the punch line at the end.

    You forgot the part where everybody hugs.
  • by Squeezer ( 132342 ) <> on Saturday February 12, 2005 @09:20PM (#11655680) Homepage
    the problem with enterprise isn't the show, its ha da great 3rd and 4th series that tie the episodes together. (unlike TNG where enterprise just flew around the galaxy doing whatever and none of the episodes tied anything together)

    Anyway, getting back to my point, the problem is that its shown on UPN. who watches UPN? nobody, look at their ratings on every show. If enterprise was on Fox the ratings would be through the roof. Heck where I live, there is no local UPN station (so I can't get with with my satalite subscriber or on a antenna) so I have to download the copy from usenet the morning after the new episode airs.

    but here we do have local fox, abc, cbs, nbc, and wb (bleh) affiliates. for gods sake, show enterprise on anything other then UPN and you'd have great ratings. The problem isn't enterprise, the problem is that nobody watches UPN, no matter what UPN has on tv.
  • by chrysrobyn ( 106763 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @09:20PM (#11655682)

    Let's look at this story another way. Enterprise fans (who are among the most rabid bit torrent users, many because of UPN's limited audience) don't believe they're spending enough money on the show through eyeballs (commercials) and uploading. They feel the need to tell the studios that they're willing to pay more, so they took out an ad.

    Do we need more evidence that current copyright law is hindering the progress of science and useful arts?

    Studios, the Internet is there for more than just commercials served as web pages. We're willing to pay for content. We're ready for you. You will lose money if you stand in the way of progress, just like the US Constitution foretold 200 years ago. You can either help with something like iTunes or sue dead grandmothers until teenagers teach their parents how to take care of this themselves.

    We have the technology to allow the market to directly tell you what they want. We want Firefly (just count those DVD sales). We want Family guy. Yet the studios count the millions who watch the Superbowl just for the commercials the same as a rabid fan base who will pay through the nose for a series on commercial free DVD. (Here's a tip, I don't like menus or "special features", I just want to use my DVD player like a CD player hooked up to the TV.)

    [karma whore]Wait, this is Slashdot. Nobody likes Enterprise. How much did both Enterprise fans have to contribute for the full page ad?[/karma whore]

  • Re:Good Luck (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 12, 2005 @09:48PM (#11655839)
    This might be interesting if the show didnt suck. Gene is rolling around in his grave! Pathetic fans you are an insult to all trekkies!
  • by nuclear305 ( 674185 ) * on Saturday February 12, 2005 @10:03PM (#11655966)
    Actually I have seen BSG; and frankly I find it a far superior series in many ways.

    However--BSG isn't looking for a timeslot, it already has one. My point was that no matter what new show they come up with it's probably just going to be something that already has 10 variations currently airing on other networks. If they fill it with reruns of some other show...same deal.

    A crappy Trek series is a better use of the timeslot it was in because I seriously doubt anything truly unique and creative will take its place, and reruns are just that...reruns, I'd rather watch new episodes of a mediocre series.
  • Re:ENOUGH! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kongjie ( 639414 ) <> on Saturday February 12, 2005 @10:08PM (#11656003)
    Turn-X Alphonse said:
    It seemed more of a parody which could of been named "Hicks in space".
    Well, before you accuse people of being hicks just because their English sounds different than your English, perhaps you should hit the books. There is no such phrase "could of"; what you mean is "could have," usually contracted as "could've" and thus sounding like "could of."
  • by Chandon Seldon ( 43083 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @10:12PM (#11656031) Homepage
    You sir are the sorry one.

    I don't care what the "horrible disaster of the day" is, it doesn't make spending money on anything but charity an evil selfish act.

    Apparently some people believe that Enterprise is a good enough TV show that it is worth their money to try to save it. I'm not sure that a newspaper ad is the correct way to spend that money, but supporting something you enjoy is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate thing to do.
  • by xC0000005 ( 715810 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @10:15PM (#11656049) Homepage
    (No, not "suck and die") but attract non star trek fans. I know many trek lovers at work. All of them hate Enterprise. Then there's the dedicated non SF crowd, like my wife, who actually likes Enterprise. She likes the characters more. Likes the lower tech "high tech." And she's not alone. The other Enterprise watchers I know didn't really like Trek before Enterprise. Enterprise's downfall? It isn't really working as a gateway drug. I don't know people who have moved off of enterprise onto harder SF. (Unlike firefly, which began soft and smooth, but I know people who live their social lives in the social equivalent of an abandoned building, straining shows like Andromeda through bread to get a SF high). Enterprise hasn't built a following of people who would watch another show from the same series. Contrast TNG, which made so many addicts that they were willing to watch a show about a space station that boldly sat in one place year after year.
  • by Genghis Cohn ( 781034 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @10:23PM (#11656106)
    I love the articles here, but any time I venture into the comments section, I wind up irritated and depressed at humanity's future prospects.

    Slashdot commentators seem to combine the arrogance and incivility of your average adolescent with the cantankerous anger of a bitter old man. Most of you don't seem to love anything, and if you do stumble across someone expressing appreciation or admiration for anything, you just DUMP ALL OVER IT.

    That's my general statement. Now about this topic in particular:

    I LIKE Enterprise. Yes, it has taken a few years to hit its stride. This seems to be the pattern for these Berman-produced Trek vehicles. They get better as they go along. I thought this one would be particularly challenging for them to pull off, because writing a past history for any established storyline is just hard. You have to work within the strictures of what has already been plotted, not violate any rules already laid down, but still keep things fresh and unpredictable. Furthermore, since they are working in a reality that is lacking quite a few of the standard Star Trek devices (meaning both technology and plot devices), they can't just fall back on old storylines like holodecks (not invented yet), Q continuum (won't meet them for centuries), the Borg (likewise), or even original Trek conventions like the Klingon War or the Romulan Neutral Zone (yet to happen/be established.)

    I wasn't wild about the Temporal Cold War plotlines, but there is an ongoing theme, well established during Voyager, that Temporal violations are possible and certain organizations work hard to prevent that from happening. The TCW plots at least establish some of the "history" (slippery word when you're talking about time travel) that led to that sort of management.

    And this season, I think they are really getting to the meat of the plots, the establishment of much of what we first came to like about Star Trek: The Federation (and Humans central role in bringing it about), the battles with the Romulans that will lead to the Zone, the roots of the Klingon/Terran conflict, the moral dilemmas that necessitate the Prime Directive, reliable Transporter technology, and so on. Between the First Contact movie and Enterprise, the Zefram Cochrane/Warp Drive/Vulcan first contact plot line has really been fleshed out, and now seems like a genuine part of Trek history.

    Those are reasons why I like it. I don't demand that YOU do. But why do so many people around here WANT it to die? This isn't 1975, with just three big TV networks and very limited programming space. It's 2005, there are dozens of networks and hundreds of channels. There's plenty of room for both Trek and Battlestar Galactica, and whatever else. If you don't like Trek, don't watch it. I'll admit that plenty of people have made that choice, and that's why the show is in peril. But ferchrisakes, don't demand that it be taken off just because it doesn't appeal to YOU. And if those of us who do enjoy it make some effort to keep it on, please try not to savage us, or disparage the attempt. I'm much more turned off by apathy than by people earnestly trying to do something, even something a little silly.

    Better to tilt at windmills than to just sit home in your underwear and type snide comments at people you haven't (and probably never will) meet.
  • by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @10:54PM (#11656298)
    The "pay for the show" fantasy is the biggest uneducated pipe-dream group-think that's ever occured, imho. Their "$13/person = we get our crappy show back" idea only works if UPN is a charity. It doesn't work when UPN is a for-profit business.

    Unless the geniuses behind this idea can come up with ((($13 * 3MilViewers) + n) * 22) where 'n' is an obscene amount of money equal to the maximum amount UPN can expect to make in advertising for the time slot then there's no chance whatsoever that UPN would re-up the show. Of course, if the fans did come up with the per-show costs + advertising revenue for a full 22 episode season then they'd want a full 60 minutes of show per week (since they paid for the advertising slots). That ups the per show costs and then their lump sum falls short.

    Enterprise got cancelled because it can't draw advertising revenue due to its low viewer numbers. UPN can slot something else on Friday nights with a much higher profit margin owed to advertising.

  • Re:Come on (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 12, 2005 @10:55PM (#11656302)
    There were some classic characters introduced in DS9:

    Quark and the rest of the Ferengi provided comic relief and poked fun at capitalism - clearly in the Rodenberry tradition.

    Odo and his struggles with individuation vs. his "natural" collectivism.

    Dukat and Kira - explorations of nationalism and how personal identity can be bogged down in it.
    DS9 had characters that served a purpose, and they were generally better written than the Enterprise characters.

  • Re:Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)

    by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:12PM (#11656397) Journal
    What are you doing wasting time on slashdot? Shouldn't you be spending every spare minute you have (when you're not working for minimum wage at a nonprofit) raising money for this disaster?

    Oh, wait, you sometimes spend your time and money in ways that benefit you and not others? Hypocrite.

  • by Bambi Dee ( 611786 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:32PM (#11656526)
    (unlike TNG where enterprise just flew around the galaxy doing whatever and none of the episodes tied anything together)

    That's why I actually ended up watching it, though. Sure, you had to figure out who's who and such, but episodes like Thine Own Self, The Inner Light or Emergence didn't require you to know much about Star Trek politics, alliances, factions, wars. They just used the ST universe as a vehicle for a couple quite original stories (by TV standards) that didn't have much of an effect on future episodes - which is unfortunate, yes, but OTOH I'm not sure the ST universe would have lasted long had every new week's weirdness followed the Enterprise around.

    My impression was that whenever ST develops drawn-out story arcs they tend to focus on these more conventional, more 'adventure story'-like aspects of the Star Trek universe, aspects that kinda require you to already "care". And while I liked DS9, it wasn't thanks to the, hm, execution rather than the Bajor/Cardassia/Prophets and Dominion stuff.

    Okay, I don't know how to get back on topic from here...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:47PM (#11656589)
    I would subscribe, in a heartbeat.

    Some book you can't find in a bookstore -clickety click-.

    Some piece of wood from slovakia you need -clickety click-.

    A set of diamond tipped drill bits and a plasma cutter -clickety click-.

    A 673 page report on why I should brush my teeth with my toes... hey, why not?... -clickety click-.

    Four t-shirts and a dual layer DVD burner -clickety click-.

    Half Life 2 -click-.

    Your favourite sci-fi show.... uh HELLO?.

    I can't get UPN, or SCI-FI, or SKYONE, or any of these other magical avenues of support for the media I want to see. It's like begging for quarters in the broom closet of the train station.... everyone's walking outside, but you offer your cup to a 'slipery when wet' sign, and blame the punters for not being able to afford a cup of coffee.

    Shits me, shits me, shits me.

  • Re:Paaaa-thetic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NOLAChief ( 646613 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @12:01AM (#11656661)
    Not to defend Berman or anything (he is a fuckwit), but I don't think the entire blame can be laid on him. I think the faceless (and brainless) network suits are at least partially to blame.

    Think about it, the three incarnations that have aired as part of a network lineup have either sucked, been cancelled early, or both. The ultimate reason is ratings. Network suits care only about ratings, because they are in a brutal competition to be the first to the bottom of the barrel. The two incarnations that aired in syndication, though, were actually quite good (or at least respectable). Because it's airing as filler for a station (yes it sounds bad, but bear with me) they aren't as worried about ratings, so there's less meddling by suits in order to get a short-term ratings boost.

    To illustrate, TOS was simply killed because it wasn't getting enough ratings. NBC had other stuff to work with, so no stupid stunts (and it was the '60s, we were much closer to the top of the barrel). Voyager wasn't too bad, but it was UPN's only show that was worth anything at the time, so they wanted to boost it's ratings (and cross-promote its other shows) any way they could to make the network look good. Unfortunately that led to the travesty of an episode guest starring the Rock and the "hey, CBS is doing a miniseries about an asteroid hitting earth this week, how quickly can we air an asteroid episode too?" insult that was the episode "Rise". Then, with Enterprise, they continued the ratings boost shenanigans from the beginning, alienating fans and leading to a horrible show. This time, because of the WWE deal, UPN can afford to abandon the ST franchise. Anyone else notice that when they put it in the Friday night deathwatch slot, the show got a far sight better?

  • Re:Come on (Score:3, Insightful)

    by felis_panthera ( 160944 ) <> on Sunday February 13, 2005 @12:02AM (#11656662) Homepage
    I think the baldness caused the coolness... the goatee and the Defiant were also essential in curing DS9 of it's suckiness... just like the dominion wars cured the series of its "what can we turn the shapeshifter into this episode"ism...

    Enterprise is also lacking, IMHO, a "freak" character... what I mean is the totally non-human character through whom we all learn more about ourselves... TOS had Spock (which means the vulcan thing was already done, as much as I like T'pol, she's not a freak)... TNG had Data (Worf's purpose was to introduce us to Klingon culture rather than act as a lens to view humanity through)... DS9 had Odo (who never did a great job of reflecting humanity)... Voyager tried to do it with 7 of 9, but really was just trying to add sex appeal and so I couldn't take her seriously as such...

    Enterprise... hmm... neither Floxx nor T'pol seem to me to be anything but eye candy...

    that said, I enjoyed what I saw of 3rd season enough to start making an effort to watch it in 4th season, which has just been getting better and better... the longer story arcs (while most likely just an attempt to draw people in) are great, and I think the series as a whole has near limitless potential...

    maybe captain Beckett should shave his head...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 13, 2005 @12:27AM (#11656788)
    Having Jolene Blalock in a shower once per episode is Puratin?

    They're pretty much already doing that, and it's not working.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 13, 2005 @12:34AM (#11656825)
    These guys put their ad in the wrong paper. I live in LA and my wife works in the entertainment industry. The only thing that matters is Variety. []. Everyone reads Variety. From wannabes to studio heads. Therefore, everyone in the biz advertises in Variety.

    The LA Times is a newspaper, not a trade rag. No one will the Enterprise ad. It was a waste of money and effort.
  • Re:Good luck (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @01:39AM (#11657081)
    If you've seen my post on this topic, you know that Paramount dearly misses Ronald D. Moore, who was involved in some of the very best episodes of ST:TNG and ST:DS9. If Moore were involved with ST:E I think the series would have far higher ratings.
  • Re:Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)

    by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @01:41AM (#11657085) Journal
    Time maybe, but then again, I have just returned from a month's voluntary stint out there.

    That is absolutely wonderful. However, I'm sure there are a couple dozen equally-worthy charities out there that you haven't spent five minutes or a dollar on. You have no right to dictate where others put their energies.

    Re money: I loved the Clerks animated series, for example. I'd dearly love to see a return to our screens. However, I'd rather donate towards a worthwhile cause, than a full page newspaper ad requesting this.

    Did you buy Clerks on DVD? Or have you ever bought anything on DVD? Couldn't that money have been better spent on the tsunami victims, or whoever had suffered a disaster that year?

    Yes, we're talking about different magnitudes of money here. But how do you know that those people don't regularly give much more to charity than what they spent on the ad?

    Sorry, but one of my pet peeves is people who get on a high horse and think that they are the arbiters of what is a worthwhile cause and where others should spend their time and money. Most people donate either time or money to charity. Everyone chooses different causes, and chooses to allocate different percentages of their time and money to those causes. Until you are living a completely luxury-free life and donating equally to all charities, you're in a glass house.

  • Re:Come on (Score:4, Insightful)

    by toddestan ( 632714 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @02:20AM (#11657320)
    Enterprise gets some of the hardcore trekkies into a dilemma - they eat and breathe Star Trek, so naturally they must watch everything Trek. They've seen every movie, every TOS episode, every TNG episode, DS9, Voyager - certainly more than once. But they also find Enterprise painful. So do they:

    1. Endure watching Enterprise for sake of completeness?
    2. Don't watch Enterprise cause it stinks, but miss out on this corner of the Star Trek universe?

    The easiest way to get around this delimma is to have Enterprise canceled. That way they won't have to endure any more episodes if they chose option 1, or if they chose option 2 - they can stop worrying about what they might of missed.

    I also must note that a simular problem exists for Star Wars fans, and the upcoming Episode III.
  • by Mattintosh ( 758112 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:07PM (#11662790)
    Viacom owns both Paramount and CBS. They could step in and force the sub-companies to play nice and trade shows.

    CBS could let UPN have a CSI in exchange for ST:E. Yay! Alphabet soup!

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"