View Full Version : Star Trek game - pics over on Facebook
Batmandu
08/04/2010, 19:15
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=fl_417965112017#!/photo.php?pid=4755067&id=133811649078
son of shamrock
08/04/2010, 19:22
I'm a little confused and slightly annoyed. Was this supposed to be heroclix compatible? Looks like a game for the younger crowd.
bullseye100
08/04/2010, 19:23
Weird... I will like to play it, just would've liked clicky figures...
PsychoHippie
08/04/2010, 19:25
Yeah, I thought there were supposed to be clicky ships in that thing.
Not that I care, since I wasn't buying in any event.
combatninja
08/04/2010, 19:26
Wow. That looks nothing like I expected. I was thinking it would look like heroclix/actionclix.
Who wants to play a Star Trek game that doesn't have starships?
They did say it wouldn't be compatible.
What's pictured isn't in the same family of games so it should NOT be "heroclix" branded.
Assuming there is a clix dial on an element we're not seeing yet, it could be called "clix".
It is simply not heroclix and would be completely misleading to label the packaging with the word heroclix.
bigbro911
08/04/2010, 19:28
"Expect....um...anything!!!"
:p
Batmandu
08/04/2010, 19:31
I'm a little confused and slightly annoyed. Was this supposed to be heroclix compatible? Looks like a game for the younger crowd.
They did announce Star Trek based games, not just the one - http://wizkidsgames.com/blog/2010/06/08/announcing-star-trek-based-games-from-wizkids/
So I guess this could just be the first one we're seeing.
Or maybe I'm just clutching at straws, as I thought that it was Clix branded as well...
It's hard to tell from an iPod but it looks like the game is still part mock-up. The pawns did not look finished
It's hard to tell from an iPod but it looks like the game is still part mock-up. The pawns did not look finished
if you look closely, the pawns are on clix bases. I didn't notice that the first time I looked at it.
mdasholdaker
08/04/2010, 20:10
I did the demo for this. This is not the finished game and it is one of two Trek games they are making.
I did the demo for this. This is not the finished game and it is one of two Trek games they are making.
if you did the demo, fill us in on how to play it, and what you thought of the game.
WakandaMan
08/04/2010, 20:49
Yeah doesn't look great. I was expecting at least minatures.
But please give us more info on how the actual game works. I know from past experience with euro style games, that they're often not much to look at but can be really fun to play.
I really hope that those pawns will be replaced by minatures. I have a feeling this is going to be based solely on the new movie though. :(
charlesx
08/04/2010, 22:35
Who wants to play a Star Trek game that doesn't have starships?
What he said.
I see chess pieces. Where's the m-effin' Starship Enterprise???
I don't get it.
This is not logical at all.
Yeah, it's a shame that a series highlighting humans should produce a game that focuses on humans.
Look, guys, I enjoy ships blowing each other up as much as the next guy, but that's not really what Star Trek is about.
Besides, you're getting a ships-blow-the-stuffing-out-of-each-other Star Trek game. This just isn't it.
Ironman1994
08/05/2010, 06:40
"A game demo of Star Trek Expeditions by Reiner Knizia at GenCon trade day. The game is in prototype stage - There will be a hard game board, 4 pre-painted plastic character & 2 painted ship minis. The game is a 2-4 player co-operative, mission based game that uses the HeroClix dials for record keeping"
"Hey everyone! This is a early prototype. The game has quite a bit more design work ahead of it. There will be a game board (not a paper map), There will be pre painted minis (4 characters/2 ships) The chits and cards will be printed on player card stock with rounded corners. All the Star Trek material being shown is in early prototype stages. I will try to post some images of the the ships we've been test sculpting for size and detail comparison."
"Just to confirm - This is the CO-OP game, not the ship based combat game"
I can understand how disappointing this announcement is if you didn't have any of wizkids' comments to read.
Granite Moose
08/05/2010, 10:36
I can understand how disappointing this announcement is if you didn't have any of wizkids' comments to read.
Rep for giving all the relevant information. Nothing personal directed to the OP, but this type of post is what causes all kinds of unfortunate jumping to conclusions.
This one doesn't look very interesting to me and I note STINO graphics which spells yet less interest. If the clicky ships are set in the JJ verse I suppose I'll be able to keep my promise of no more collectible gaming.
Batmandu
08/05/2010, 13:12
I can understand how disappointing this announcement is if you didn't have any of wizkids' comments to read.
Cheers, the WizKids comments weren't there when I linked the pic.
Rep for copying them over to this thread :)
Ironman1994
08/05/2010, 15:00
Cheers, the WizKids comments weren't there when I linked the pic.
Rep for copying them over to this thread :)
Just wanted to clarify that my last post was not a shot at you. Just trying to help.
d_knight7
08/06/2010, 01:50
Where's the m-effin' Starship Enterprise???
Man, I must be wwaaayy out of touch with the Enterprise.
Last time I checked it was only the NCC1701-E.
Is the -M from one of those future peek episodes?
There are two games and both are in pre-production stages right now.
One centers on the characters (pictured). The pawns will be replaced with characters from the most recent movie.
The other game utilizes starships and starship combat. The unpainted prototypes that they had looked very, very good. They had them in different sizes as they were still trying to figure out the scale that they wanted to use.
Both games will have the clix-style bases for record keeping purposes, but not necessarily for things like special powers.
All this is what Justin Ziran told me.
combatninja
08/08/2010, 20:06
Just found a pic of the starship prototypes at the Wizkids booth at GenCon.
http://twitpic.com/2ctmx1
http://twitpic.com/2ctn0x
http://twitpic.com/2ctn5j
Nice find Combatninja. :)
stormphoenix
08/17/2010, 16:36
NICE!
ok Wizkids, scale is really important so make sure you keep that in mind, ok?
I posted this over in the "Other Realms" section and it was pointed out to me there was this section for the Star Trek games...
Wizkids Star Trek games
This is over on io9.com. May be already posted somewhere.....
http://io9.com/5613267/wizkids-plann...tar-trek-games
Some info on the new Star Trek games.
Guess it first showed up here:
http://www.robotviking.com/2010/08/13/wizkids-planning-two-new-star-trek-games/
Star Trek: Fleet Captains looks pretty cool to me...
RookieBatman
08/20/2010, 13:03
That's cool. More good info. Those cards with the stats for the ships look pretty interesting.
I'm definitely more interesting in Fleet Captains. I'll look forward to that if only to see how the mechanic works. If they can pull off something that really does capture starship combat (and a touch of exploration) with all the complicated SFB/FASA rules and bookkeeping, then I'll definitely be very excited.
AntoineDodson
08/21/2010, 17:32
Yeah, it's a shame that a series highlighting humans should produce a game that focuses on humans.
Look, guys, I enjoy ships blowing each other up as much as the next guy, but that's not really what Star Trek is about.
Besides, you're getting a ships-blow-the-stuffing-out-of-each-other Star Trek game. This just isn't it.
QFT; rep; unrelated PM
I am pretty pumped for both of these games.
Been playing a lot of BSG and the multi-player joint effort game can definitely be fun.
Munchoboy
09/30/2010, 12:44
if you did the demo, fill us in on how to play it, and what you thought of the game.
Perhaps the following posts will be helpful:
Star Trek: Expeditions (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4912606&postcount=10)
Star Trek: Fleet Captains (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4912643&postcount=11)
These posts can be found in the post-GenCon thread here: Anything about Star Trek Clix at GenCon? (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=284522)
PlotTwistComics
10/11/2010, 22:38
heres what I have written in my notes from this weekend, sorry if this is all old info:
Star Trek: Expeditions
by Reiner Knizia
1 to 4 players
co-op game
mission based
6 pre painted minis
Star Trek: Fleet Captains
24 Pre-painted star ships
game by Mike Elliot
2 to 4 players
head to head game play
starship combat and exploration
Thanks for the info.
You've probably all seen this by now:
http://wizkidsgames.com/blog/2010/10/12/news-from-the-alliance-games-open-house/
Good to see some news coming out!
WakandaMan
10/12/2010, 18:30
Since there was a 'long line of retialers snapping pictures of the ships' how come we haven't seen any of those pictures yet???
PlotTwistComics
10/12/2010, 23:58
here is the best I got:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=443337452757&set=a.443336792757.230501.98901122757
WakandaMan
10/13/2010, 00:01
here is the best I got:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=443337452757&set=a.443336792757.230501.98901122757
Thanks! Those sculpts look pretty cool actually! And it gives me hope that they might even be usable in Heroclix
Looks like yellow on speed for the teleporters, Psychic Blast on Attack for Phasers, and Super Senses on Defense for the Tricorders. ;)
WakandaMan
10/13/2010, 00:02
I wonder if that Enterprise will be usable in the Fleet Captains game?
I'm not seeing a damage stat. Could make them a bit... unpopular as Heroclix. : - )
WakandaMan
10/13/2010, 20:11
They probably don't have point costs either. Just house rule the damage as 2 across the dial, and then feed them into a point calculator.
Of course, the values in the other slots could be anything, and who knows what other colours are on the dials. But there's hope!
The designer of 'Expeditions' has a lot of decent games under his belt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiner_Knizia#Games
Lord of the Rings
Lost Cities
Modern Art
Medici
Tajmahal
Just to name a few. I don't necessarily love all of those, but it is promising to know that an independant designer with his experience is involved.
happyoptimistic88
10/15/2010, 01:37
Wow. That looks nothing like I expected. I was thinking it would look like heroclix/actionclix.
Who wants to play a Star Trek game that doesn't have starships?
Likewise! Though I read there is another Star Trek game Wizkids is doing, but I don't know if that is heroclix compatible. Or it could be the same one but a different series, etc. We will just have to see when it releases.
WakandaMan
10/15/2010, 03:04
Likewise! Though I read there is another Star Trek game Wizkids is doing, but I don't know if that is heroclix compatible. Or it could be the same one but a different series, etc. We will just have to see when it releases.
Yeah there are two seperate games. One is kinda based on the new movie, and is a Coop style boardgame where you each play as one of the bridge crew on the enterprise
The other one is called 'Fleet Captains' where you build a fleet of starships to explore and fight Klingons (or you can be the Klingons).
Neither is compatible with Heroclix. But they look pretty cool!
sgtregis
10/21/2010, 02:12
They probably don't have point costs either. Just house rule the damage as 2 across the dial, and then feed them into a point calculator.
Of course, the values in the other slots could be anything, and who knows what other colours are on the dials. But there's hope!
That or just put in a dial from an existing clix figure and away you go. I am excited they are clix scale figures and not the bust-like items that was reported earlier.
I wonder if you will be able to get more figures...
WakandaMan
10/21/2010, 02:14
That or just put in a dial from an existing clix figure and away you go. I am excited they are clix scale figures and nut the bust-like items that was reported earlier.
I wonder if you will be able to get more figures...
Problem is, I want to play the actual game as well. And I'd rather not buy two copies of the game just so I can have some cool customs.
Hmmm....I wonder if the dial bottoms will be interchangeable.
from what little I've seen of the fleet game, I'm interested. The board game leaves me flat from what I've seen online; but the starship battle game looks good. If I read the elements I saw correctly, you start in a starting area, and as you move forward, you lay down space tiles as you "discover and explore them".
I could get into this... but they are going to have to broaden it beyond Federation vs Klingons....
WakandaMan
11/07/2010, 17:24
from what little I've seen of the fleet game, I'm interested. The board game leaves me flat from what I've seen online; but the starship battle game looks good. If I read the elements I saw correctly, you start in a starting area, and as you move forward, you lay down space tiles as you "discover and explore them".
I could get into this... but they are going to have to broaden it beyond Federation vs Klingons....
It looks like they plan to release expansions, as long as it sells reasonably well. Most likely the first one will be a Romulan Fleet, then hopefully we'll get the Dominion, the Borg, and maybe even a set with a bunch of minor races. :)
A friend sent me this today
http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=1462&pictureid=14117
Munchoboy
01/03/2011, 16:33
A friend sent me this today
http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=1462&pictureid=14117
Nice! :classic:
/Rep!
Do you think they actually made the recent Star Trek movie just to have affordable actor's images for Kirk & Company for games like this?
Did anyone actually see the movie? Was it any good? Could the new Kirk act?
Do you think they actually made the recent Star Trek movie just to have affordable actor's images for Kirk & Company for games like this?
Did anyone actually see the movie? Was it any good? Could the new Kirk act?
You mean you haven't seen it?
and nobody told you how great it was by now?
It was pretty great. Better than you'd expect.
Munchoboy
01/03/2011, 18:27
You mean you haven't seen it?
and nobody told you how great it was by now?
It was pretty great. Better than you'd expect.
Hellboy is correct!
See the movie Tom, preferably in HD and surround sound! ;)
WakandaMan
01/03/2011, 19:57
Do you think they actually made the recent Star Trek movie just to have affordable actor's images for Kirk & Company for games like this?
Did anyone actually see the movie? Was it any good? Could the new Kirk act?
Yeah I was really impressed too.
Very well cast. The new Kirk is a fairly good actor. But the new Bones and Spock are both fantastic actors! It's worth seeing for those two alone.
A friend sent me this today
http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=1462&pictureid=14117
Ooo, pretty.
***
Do you think they actually made the recent Star Trek movie just to have affordable actor's images for Kirk & Company for games like this?
Did anyone actually see the movie? Was it any good? Could the new Kirk act?
It's a good action movie. It's better than most Star Trek movies, really, but lacks the character depth to be truly great. Still, it's energizing, and I find myself hoping they'll build on this start and do something truly fantastic next time.
But, do see it!
Munchoboy
01/03/2011, 21:52
It's a good action movie. It's better than most Star Trek movies, really, but lacks the character depth to be truly great. Still, it's energizing, and I find myself hoping they'll build on this start and do something truly fantastic next time.
But, do see it!
In all fairness, given the subject matter and the fact that this a reboot of a decades-old (campy) franchise, "depth" is not something I was expecting to enter the conversation. :p
Campy? CAMPY! {insert 18 paragraphs of nerd rage}
Superman Green
01/03/2011, 23:36
In all fairness, given the subject matter and the fact that this a reboot of a decades-old (campy) franchise, "depth" is not something I was expecting to enter the conversation. :p
'Sir, there is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder.'
*FWUMP*
In all fairness, given the subject matter and the fact that this a reboot of a decades-old (campy) franchise, "depth" is not something I was expecting to enter the conversation. :p
See Here (http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/)
>>edit>>
I'm pretty annoyed I couldn't find a clip without ads.
Munchoboy
01/04/2011, 08:58
Perhaps this is a good time for me to point out that I am a big fan of Star Trek? :nervous:
All the same, the original series was campy, even by the standards of the day. That it evolved into something much larger is impressive nonetheless.
In short; Tom, see the new movie. :classic:
RookieBatman
01/04/2011, 09:51
All the same, the original series was campy, even by the standards of the day. That it evolved into something much larger is impressive nonetheless.
Nonsense. You can say it's campy by today's standards, and that's a little harder to deny (though I might still try if I get riled enough), but to say that it was campy by the standards of its own time is, to be frank, quite ignorant. Have you ever watched "Lost in Space?" (The old show, not the movie remake.) That came on the air a year or two before Star Trek, and that was what people considered normal for televised science fiction. Star Trek was dramatically groundbreaking, shattering everyone's preconceptions about what was possible for science fiction, and was one of the first major SF vehicles (televised or otherwise) that showed a future where mankind wasn't constantly at war with each other or some monstrous aliens, but was rather at peace, and seeking peace with its neighbors. It's easy to call a fifty-year-old show campy now, but I'm quite sure that nobody thought it was campy then.
Not to mention that it was largely responsible for paving the way for and inspiring many other sci-fi projects that came after. George Lucas was a fan of Star Trek, and attempted to secure the license for a Trek movie before he made Star Wars instead. Read about the unmade series "Star Trek: Phase II," that was planned before the first movie, and see how many famous and prestigious writers were drooling at the chance to even pitch a story to Star Trek. Note that the director of "Star Trek: the Motion Picture" was a multiple Oscar winner. There's plenty of evidence, if you care to look for it, that Star Trek was taken quite seriously at the time.
And, I daresay, the only reason some people consider it campy now is that they give too much preeminence to effects over story.
:cheeky: How's that for nerd rage? :p It's nothing person, I assure you, it's just that I love reading behind-the-scenes books about the entertainment industry, and so I've read a lot of non-fiction about Star Trek, and your remarks seem to indicate a distinct lack of historical context.
Munchoboy
01/04/2011, 10:12
And, I daresay, the only reason some people consider it campy now is that they give too much preeminence to effects over story.
I agree that ST: TOS was revolutionary for its time, but that was an opinion that was held by an extreme minority when the show originally aired. Science Fiction was well on its way out as a genre, and ST (despite a three-year run) had difficulty finding a core audience to sustain the show.
Frankly, the average American didn't know what to do with the series and many of the morals expressed in the show's stories were lost on folk as a result.
Most of ST's influence and popularity came from the syndication of the series that occurred post-cancellation. When the show re-aired, it found an audience that was far mroe receptive to the message behind the show's flashing lights and bright costumes.
So yes, the show was viewed as "campy" during its original run by many Americans. This in no way, at least IMO, diminishes its overall impact as a socially-aware media. I just maintain that most of its influence and longevity occurred after the fact. ;)
RookieBatman
01/04/2011, 10:51
I agree that ST: TOS was revolutionary for its time, but that was an opinion that was held by an extreme minority when the show originally aired.
Again, I think you're quite mistaken. Remember that when Star Trek aired, the networks didn't have our current system of Nielsen ratings, but rather a less effective system for tabulating viewership. NBC adopted the Nielsens shortly after Star Trek was taken off the air, and discovered to their surprise that by the new system, Star Trek had been one of their very highest-rated shows. Remember that Star Trek was saved from cancellation, not once but twice (it was almost canceled after the first season as well), by a letter-writing campaign which was so big that NBC actually posted an announcement at the end of a Trek episode, saying in essence, "the show has been renewed, please stop sending us letters," because they were receiving so many. That doesn't sound like an extreme minority to me.
There's plenty more anecdotal evidence to indicate that Star Trek then was on par with maybe something like "Lost" now. Just because the network didn't think it was profitable doesn't mean it wasn't popular.
Science Fiction was well on its way out as a genre,
Science fiction couldn't have been on its way out as a genre, because it hadn't been in yet, certainly not on TV. And the reason it did then come in was largely because of Star Trek.
and ST (despite a three-year run) had difficulty finding a core audience to sustain the show.
It did have a very strong core audience, especially in the 18-24 crowd, which is why the third season Friday night time slot was such a death blow. All those college kids (their established core audience) were out partying or having fun at that time, not sitting at home in front of the TV. If Star Trek then really had been a bunch of loser geeks living in their parents' basement, and not regular people with social lives, then there wouldn't have been any problem with the Friday night time slot.
Frankly, the average American didn't know what to do with the series and many of the morals expressed in the show's stories were lost on folk as a result.
I don't know from where you're drawing this assumption, but everything I've read indicates otherwise. Viewers, especially the young, "hip" viewers, responded overwhelmingly to the morals expressed on the show.
Most of ST's influence and popularity came from the syndication of the series that occurred post-cancellation. When the show re-aired, it found an audience that was far mroe receptive to the message behind the show's flashing lights and bright costumes.
True, it did flourish in syndication, but the show went into syndication almost immediately after it was canceled, and the reruns were a tremendous ratings success just as quickly. It wasn't like the show went into hibernation for five years, and then came back when a new cultural tone made the viewers more receptive to it. The overwhelming success of the reruns (which, in some markets, were put in prime-time and got better ratings than new material), simply demonstrated the popularity the show already had, which only wasn't known because of the less effective ratings systems used while the show was on the air. The only thing that "found an audience" in syndication was the rating figures. The show's audience had been there the whole time.
So yes, the show was viewed as "campy" during its original run by many Americans. This in no way, at least IMO, diminishes its overall impact as a socially-aware media. I just maintain that most of its influence and longevity occurred after the fact. ;)
And I maintain that you're making assumptions that are in ignorance of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Have you read any books on the subject? It doesn't make you less of a fan if you haven't, but just don't speak as if you're an authority on the subject, when you seem to just be making guesses based on your preconceptions.
I can't argue with you if you say that you think Star Trek is campy (although I certainly will disagree), but saying that most people thought it was campy back then is a statement of fact that is simply mistaken. It's like if someone said that the new movie wasn't real Star Trek, on the basis that the writers aren't fans of the old show. It's been well-established that the writers are fans of the show, therefore making such an accusation would only indicate a lack of awareness on the part of that poster. In essence, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't assume that other people (especially people fifty years ago) feel or felt the same. :)
Munchoboy
01/04/2011, 11:01
In all fairness, most of the media upon which you base your conclusions seems to be the product/result of Star Trek's resulting popularity. It's easy to conclude that Star Trek was "teh awesome for its day" when folk are looking at it, in hindsight, through rose-colored glasses.
Regardless, we're both arriving at the same destination. I am merely content to disagree with the route taken. ;)
RookieBatman
01/04/2011, 11:22
In all fairness, most of the media upon which you base your conclusions seems to be the product/result of Star Trek's resulting popularity. It's easy to conclude that Star Trek was "teh awesome for its day" when folk are looking at it, in hindsight, through rose-colored glasses.
Ironic that you say that, since your opinions are clearly based on even further-removed hindsight. True, most of my references aren't from the period while the show was on the air, but it is much closer to that point than what you seem to be working from. On top of that, I think I've made some assertions that are more based on observable facts (such as NBC being bowled over by the bigness of the letter-writing campaigns), and not just opinions. I know you don't care about this as much as I do, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if you did do a little research, the information is there for the finding. The lapse of the ratings system during Star Trek's run is well-known, and that's not a product of Star Trek's popularity.
Hey, it's not really a big deal. I'm a Star Trek purist, and so I get a little frustrated when people act like the original series was something that the franchise recovered from instead of being, in my opinion, as good as the franchise has ever been. That is, of course, purely a matter of opinion. There is, however, a lot of evidence to indicate that during the original series, it was at least as popular as it's ever been, and quite possibly even more of a cultural phenomenon than the new movie is now.
the historical record show that the fan base that was known as "Trekkers" who became "trekkies" and fueled the return of Star Trek, the beginning of the Sci-Fi Convention scene, the Return of Star Trek and the huge industry spanning success that followed; formed during the syndication years.
Pop culture historians report this fact fairly openly.
Star Trek got low numbers while in its initial run, and really built up steam during syndication. It's on record.
RookieBatman
01/04/2011, 11:59
Star Trek got low numbers while in its initial run, and really built up steam during syndication. It's on record.
It's also on record that the low numbers it got during its initial run were generated by a less effective polling system that didn't take into account demographics, and that by current rating systems, Star Trek would have gotten very high numbers during its initial run.
I had to go back ad read your lengthy post which I had previously skipped due to its length.
having absorbed the information therein, I'm prepared to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. The things you say make sense in the context of the things I do know about it.
RookieBatman
01/04/2011, 12:30
I had to go back ad read your lengthy post which I had previously skipped due to its length.
having absorbed the information therein, I'm prepared to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. The things you say make sense in the context of the things I do know about it.
Well, thanks. I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all, it's just that I've wasted so much time reading these books, I figure the knowledge should be put to use somewhere. :p
Perhaps this is a good time for me to point out that I am a big fan of Star Trek? :nervous:
All the same, the original series was campy, even by the standards of the day. That it evolved into something much larger is impressive nonetheless.
I think you're using the word "campy" wrong. Some elements of the original series are subject to zeerust (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Zeerust) nowadays, but it wasn't campy. Camp requires that something be intentionally exaggerated to the ridiculous for humor purposes. If they aren't doing it on purpose, it isn't campy. Other than The Trouble With Tribbles, classic Star Trek never really did camp. (Cyrano Jones? Pure camp.)
***
Nonsense. You can say it's campy by today's standards, and that's a little harder to deny (though I might still try if I get riled enough), but to say that it was campy by the standards of its own time is, to be frank, quite ignorant. Have you ever watched "Lost in Space?" (The old show, not the movie remake.) That came on the air a year or two before Star Trek, and that was what people considered normal for televised science fiction.
What, not Twilight Zone or Outer Limits or any of the other good sci-fi shows that preceded Star Trek? Normal is a hard word to define. Lost in Space wasn't exactly a typical show of it's time period. Or any other time period (thank goodness).
Star Trek was dramatically groundbreaking, shattering everyone's preconceptions about what was possible for science fiction, and was one of the first major SF vehicles (televised or otherwise) that showed a future where mankind wasn't constantly at war with each other or some monstrous aliens, but was rather at peace, and seeking peace with its neighbors. It's easy to call a fifty-year-old show campy now, but I'm quite sure that nobody thought it was campy then.
Oh, some people did. I found a 1960's article talking about how ridiculously campy Star Trek was. It had women in the military! How ridiculous! They would stop in the middle of combat to fix their makeup! And a black woman as a communication's officer? Preposterous! He actually used the word "camp" to describe the proceedings. One wonders if he was aware that we'd had women in combat already.
:cheeky: How's that for nerd rage? :p
Very unimpressive. I've seen better nerd rage in American Idol forums! You could try spitting a bit more, throwing some more insults around, referencing more obscure points. For instance, you haven't yet mentioned a single episode number! Nerd rage? Hardly!
***
Again, I think you're quite mistaken. Remember that when Star Trek aired, the networks didn't have our current system of Nielsen ratings, but rather a less effective system for tabulating viewership. NBC adopted the Nielsens shortly after Star Trek was taken off the air, and discovered to their surprise that by the new system, Star Trek had been one of their very highest-rated shows.
Would have had? How do you get "would have had"? It's hard to do retroactive information. There is no way to go back and "Nielson" what people were watching in times past. I'm sure they found that their methods were flaws and improved them over time, but any claim that a specific show would have done better under a system not in use at the time can't be anything but wishful thinking. I have no doubt many people made this claim, but it's unjustifiable.
Remember that Star Trek was saved from cancellation, not once but twice (it was almost canceled after the first season as well), by a letter-writing campaign which was so big that NBC actually posted an announcement at the end of a Trek episode, saying in essence, "the show has been renewed, please stop sending us letters," because they were receiving so many. That doesn't sound like an extreme minority to me.
It probably was. Star Trek was the first "letter writing campaign salvation", and practically the last because network executives discovered something important: A massive letter-writing campaign doesn't equate to a lot of viewers. Practically every sci-fi show canceled before it's time since (so... nearly all of them) has sparked a letter writing campaign, some of them quite large. Executives have learned to ignore them because they don't equate to subsequent success.
There's plenty more anecdotal evidence to indicate that Star Trek then was on par with maybe something like "Lost" now. Just because the network didn't think it was profitable doesn't mean it wasn't popular.
And there's a reason scientists don't really care about anecdotal data, it's not worth a lot.
Science fiction couldn't have been on its way out as a genre, because it hadn't been in yet, certainly not on TV. And the reason it did then come in was largely because of Star Trek.
Not quite true. There was a good dose of serious sci-fi on television starting in the late fifties with shows like Science Fiction Theater and extending into the late sixties. Television was moving away from the genre overall at the time. Star Trek was an attempt to get away from the anthology-style sci-fi programming that had predominated the early days (episodic sci-fi was limited to mostly children's shows, like Captain Video, or comedies) and pave a new path. It didn't really work and nothing like it would show up on television for quite a while, until the partially Star Trek-inspired Star Wars would inspire a new wave of science fiction programs. Most of them were garbage, of course. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle3tinj4tz)
So, the late seventies sci-fi boom is indirectly because of Star Trek, but not because of the original series being a success in it's time. The early seventies had almost no science fiction on television.
And I maintain that you're making assumptions that are in ignorance of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Have you read any books on the subject?
I have. I'm not impressed with most of them, as there is a lot of wishful thinking and retroactive declarations of "victory was assured the whole time" rampant in the literature, with very little justification. Memory is a tricky thing, and when you're writing form decades later, it's easy to misremember. It's been observed that if everyone who wrote today that their families had always gathered around the television for every episode of Star Trek had actually had families that had done so, the show couldn't possibly have had the poor ratings it did, no matter what kind of system was in use to determine them.
RookieBatman
01/05/2011, 09:00
Other than The Trouble With Tribbles, classic Star Trek never really did camp. (Cyrano Jones? Pure camp.)
Not to nitpick, because I know you weren't really trying to be exhaustive, but I'd have to add I, Mudd and A Piece of the Action to that list. :knockedou
What, not Twilight Zone or Outer Limits or any of the other good sci-fi shows that preceded Star Trek? Normal is a hard word to define. Lost in Space wasn't exactly a typical show of it's time period. Or any other time period (thank goodness).
True, those two shows were highly-respected anthology shows that did sometimes have strong sci-fi elements, but I was rather referring to a show that had the same characters coming back week after week.
Oh, some people did. I found a 1960's article talking about how ridiculously campy Star Trek was. It had women in the military! How ridiculous! They would stop in the middle of combat to fix their makeup! And a black woman as a communication's officer? Preposterous! He actually used the word "camp" to describe the proceedings. One wonders if he was aware that we'd had women in combat already.
Well, as you said, the correct usage of the word "campy" must involve the ridiculousness being intentional, so it would seem that the writer himself didn't understand the word quite correctly.
But that does sound like a very amusing article. Do you still have a copy?
Very unimpressive. I've seen better nerd rage in American Idol forums! You could try spitting a bit more, throwing some more insults around, referencing more obscure points. For instance, you haven't yet mentioned a single episode number! Nerd rage? Hardly!
I know you're kidding, but I used to be a regular on the trekbbs forum (under the same username, if anyone cares). There, I got into many a vitriolic discussion about the new movie, where there was much spitting, insults and obscure points (many of which came from a certain published Trek author who shall remain nameless). That was the main reason that I left that board, so I thought I'd try to get back into the habit of having civil disagreements without everything having to get so personal.
Would have had? How do you get "would have had"? It's hard to do retroactive information. There is no way to go back and "Nielson" what people were watching in times past. I'm sure they found that their methods were flaws and improved them over time, but any claim that a specific show would have done better under a system not in use at the time can't be anything but wishful thinking. I have no doubt many people made this claim, but it's unjustifiable.
I don't know specifically, but one guess would be that NBC just looked at the ratings for the first crop of reruns, since, as I mentioned, they went on the air pretty much right after the show was canceled. So even though that wouldn't be the exactly specific ratings of the first run, it was soon enough that the new figures wouldn't just be a product of a different culture.
It probably was. Star Trek was the first "letter writing campaign salvation", and practically the last because network executives discovered something important: A massive letter-writing campaign doesn't equate to a lot of viewers. Practically every sci-fi show canceled before it's time since (so... nearly all of them) has sparked a letter writing campaign, some of them quite large. Executives have learned to ignore them because they don't equate to subsequent success.
I guess at the end of the day, it's kinda hard to resolve the point one way or the other, because it'll eventually come down to differing opinions about what qualifies as an "extreme minority." My opinion is that any letter-writing campaign big enough for the network to notice could feasibly be considered a minority, but not an extreme one. But then it really just becomes a semantic argument, which would be fairly pointless.
And there's a reason scientists don't really care about anecdotal data, it's not worth a lot.
But if there's a large enough body of it, I think that can meaningful, taken as a whole.
In any case, if you've seen some of the anecdotal evidence and dismissed it, that's one thing. But what I'm really arguing against is not doing any research and just making assumptions based on preconception.
Not quite true. There was a good dose of serious sci-fi on television starting in the late fifties with shows like Science Fiction Theater and extending into the late sixties. Television was moving away from the genre overall at the time. Star Trek was an attempt to get away from the anthology-style sci-fi programming that had predominated the early days (episodic sci-fi was limited to mostly children's shows, like Captain Video, or comedies) and pave a new path. It didn't really work and nothing like it would show up on television for quite a while, until the partially Star Trek-inspired Star Wars would inspire a new wave of science fiction programs. Most of them were garbage, of course. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle3tinj4tz)
So, the late seventies sci-fi boom is indirectly because of Star Trek, but not because of the original series being a success in it's time. The early seventies had almost no science fiction on television.
I don't really have anything specific to say against this, but you get points for citing TVTropes. :grin:
I have. I'm not impressed with most of them, as there is a lot of wishful thinking and retroactive declarations of "victory was assured the whole time" rampant in the literature, with very little justification. Memory is a tricky thing, and when you're writing form decades later, it's easy to misremember.
It's been observed that if everyone who wrote today that their families had always gathered around the television for every episode of Star Trek had actually had families that had done so, the show couldn't possibly have had the poor ratings it did, no matter what kind of system was in use to determine them.
Sure, there is a lot of getting swept up in the later phenomenon that colors these things, but that's why I've tried to read as many of the books from different sources as I'm able. Some of them are even from less than one decade later, so that helps at least a little, and like I said before, it's really more about the overall total body of evidence than just taking each individual piece as gospel. There are some things that distinctly resonate through each of the sources. (Granted, there aren't exactly tons of books arguing for Star Trek not being a phenomenon, but there are at least plenty that are less worshipful than others.)
Not to nitpick, because I know you weren't really trying to be exhaustive, but I'd have to add I, Mudd and A Piece of the Action to that list. :knockedou
I'll grant you those for the sake of avoiding an argument. Certainly, the Fizz-bin scene was pure camp. Except on Tuesdays.
True, those two shows were highly-respected anthology shows that did sometimes have strong sci-fi elements, but I was rather referring to a show that had the same characters coming back week after week.
An interesting facet of this discussion is that, in many ways, the lack of serious episodic science fiction before Star Trek is largely because "serious" meant "anthology", not just in sci-fi, but in television in general. The shows that made the most effort to produce serious drama (as opposed to action-drama) were the anthology shows, like Playhouse 90 and whatnot. Episodic television drama in general, westerns, cop shows, detective shows, wasn't widely respected. Science Fiction wasn't unusual in this respect, its anthologies (The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits) were better quality, as opposed to it's episodic shows (Time Tunnel, Land of the Giants, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea).
To some extent, this derives from the format. Episodic television has traditionally had to have a "reset button", where everything at the end of a story is restored to the status quo so that the next episode can begin. Gilligan cannot get off the island before the series is over. Anthology shows allow the characters to experience an actual growth arc. Over the course of an hour, they can change in response to events because we never need to see these characters again. True character growth is trickier in episodic television, which is why most series don't even attempt it. (Star Trek included.)
I think I'll stop myself from spending the next hour pontificating on the ever changing state of television drama. I do have other things I want to do this afternoon. : - )
Well, as you said, the correct usage of the word "campy" must involve the ridiculousness being intentional, so it would seem that the writer himself didn't understand the word quite correctly.
But that does sound like a very amusing article. Do you still have a copy?
Yes, he was incorrect in using the word "camp", but I'm sure he thought it was accurate. : - )
And, no, I can't seem to find a copy of the article now, though I'm sure I made one at the time.
That was the main reason that I left that board, so I thought I'd try to get back into the habit of having civil disagreements without everything having to get so personal.
That's just sick. INSULT MY MOTHER ALREADY!
I don't know specifically, but one guess would be that NBC just looked at the ratings for the first crop of reruns, since, as I mentioned, they went on the air pretty much right after the show was canceled. So even though that wouldn't be the exactly specific ratings of the first run, it was soon enough that the new figures wouldn't just be a product of a different culture.
That still wouldn't have told them what the ratings would have been. Syndicated television didn't show up in prime time back then, so you're comparing its ratings against other syndicated fare during daytime hours vs. its performance in prime time. Those aren't just different kettles of fish, they're entirely different oceans.
I guess at the end of the day, it's kinda hard to resolve the point one way or the other, because it'll eventually come down to differing opinions about what qualifies as an "extreme minority." My opinion is that any letter-writing campaign big enough for the network to notice could feasibly be considered a minority, but not an extreme one. But then it really just becomes a semantic argument, which would be fairly pointless.
Well, I wouldn't worry about "extreme minority". Most television programs, even hits, are watched only by a relatively small fraction of people. Star Trek's letter campaign was noticed largely because it was the first of its kind. By the time there was a letter writing campaign to save the 80's Buck Rogers, it was old hat. By the time Dollhouse fans started a letter writing campaign before the show premiered, ... You know, honestly, I just don't know what to say to that. (Admittedly, they did schedule it for Friday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_night_death_slot), so fans could be forgiven for assuming it was doomed (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridayNightDeathSlot) at the start.)
In the end, sci-fi will almost always be watched by an extreme minority. The question is, whether it will be a large enough minority. Arguing about what the ratings of a show in the sixties would have been, if only they had satellite brain scanners to psychically check what people were watching... is typical of the internet so let's keep doing it. : - )
I don't really have anything specific to say against this, but you get points for citing TVTropes. :grin:
TV Tropes has ruined my life! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife) : - )
RookieBatman
01/05/2011, 13:18
I'll grant you those for the sake of avoiding an argument. Certainly, the Fizz-bin scene was pure camp. Except on Tuesdays.
The line that got me is when Kirk says, "No, I don't think you're stupid. I just think your behavior is arrested," and the other guy naturally replies, "I haven't been arrested in my whole life!" :cheeky:
An interesting facet of this discussion is that, in many ways, the lack of serious episodic science fiction before Star Trek is largely because "serious" meant "anthology", not just in sci-fi, but in television in general. The shows that made the most effort to produce serious drama (as opposed to action-drama) were the anthology shows, like Playhouse 90 and whatnot.
I really wish I could remember where I read this (that's the main drawback of reading so many of these books, is I can't remember what comes from where), but somewhere, it was stated that somebody like TV Guide, maybe, in the 70's had made a list of the best TV shows ever, and Star Trek was #3. #1 and 2 were anthology shows, not even Twilight Zone, but stuff like Playhouse 90 that we never see anymore (is that even on DVD?). I remember thinking how it may have been #3 then, but it's the only one that's still around now.
Not to denigrate the status of anthologies, though; it's really just a side-observation and anecdote.
I think I'll stop myself from spending the next hour pontificating on the ever changing state of television drama. I do have other things I want to do this afternoon. : - )
I do agree that there is a lot of value in what anthologies offered, but my taste is in favor of continuing characters. I am perhaps in the minority that I prefer TV over movies, because they're continuing stories. It's great that Star Trek and all these superheroes are getting grand summer blockbuster movies, but I'd take a decent TV show (that lasts four years or so) over any of the movies out there. But that's just me. I don't expect anyone to share that opinion.
That's just sick. INSULT MY MOTHER ALREADY!
Your mother likes the new Star Trek movie.
That still wouldn't have told them what the ratings would have been. Syndicated television didn't show up in prime time back then, so you're comparing its ratings against other syndicated fare during daytime hours vs. its performance in prime time. Those aren't just different kettles of fish, they're entirely different oceans.
One of my books did say that some stations showed the reruns in prime time, but that is, as always, an unconfirmed source.
In the end, sci-fi will almost always be watched by an extreme minority. The question is, whether it will be a large enough minority. Arguing about what the ratings of a show in the sixties would have been, if only they had satellite brain scanners to psychically check what people were watching... is typical of the internet so let's keep doing it. : - )
It's no good. I have to be able to at least uphold the illusion, if nothing else, that these arguments have meaning. ;)
I really wish I could remember where I read this (that's the main drawback of reading so many of these books, is I can't remember what comes from where),
I do believe you have just summed up my life. That and your signature, though I've only been playing since Cosmic Justice, so I probably shouldn't be as good as you. : - )
but somewhere, it was stated that somebody like TV Guide, maybe, in the 70's had made a list of the best TV shows ever, and Star Trek was #3. #1 and 2 were anthology shows, not even Twilight Zone, but stuff like Playhouse 90 that we never see anymore (is that even on DVD?).
None of the old non-genre anthology shows are, to my knowledge. I don't think anyone really cares about them anymore.
I do agree that there is a lot of value in what anthologies offered, but my taste is in favor of continuing characters. I am perhaps in the minority that I prefer TV over movies, because they're continuing stories.
Or can be. I greatly prefer ongoing stories to purely episodic ones. TV network executives seem to dislike them. Well, mostly dislike them. I don't understand why Dallas and Falcons Crest and what not are okay to have continual plotlines, but the studios gripe endlessly about Lost, Babylon 5 or Earth: Final Conflict having ongoing stories and being "too off-putting for new viewers". GAH! Some of us want more than bad-guy-of-the-week-gets-beaten every episode!
It's great that Star Trek and all these superheroes are getting grand summer blockbuster movies, but I'd take a decent TV show (that lasts four years or so) over any of the movies out there. But that's just me. I don't expect anyone to share that opinion.
They each can tell their own kind of story. I would rather watch the Arthurian cycle as a television series, but a lot of things work better as movies.
Your mother likes the new Star Trek movie.
Well, she did, so is that an insult or not? : - )
RookieBatman
01/05/2011, 14:42
None of the old non-genre anthology shows are, to my knowledge. I don't think anyone really cares about them anymore.
I do... sorta. It's more just historical curiosity, really. I'd probably watch a few episodes and then lose interest.
Or can be. I greatly prefer ongoing stories to purely episodic ones. TV network executives seem to dislike them. Well, mostly dislike them. I don't understand why Dallas and Falcons Crest and what not are okay to have continual plotlines, but the studios gripe endlessly about Lost, Babylon 5 or Earth: Final Conflict having ongoing stories and being "too off-putting for new viewers". GAH! Some of us want more than bad-guy-of-the-week-gets-beaten every episode!
Too true. But I guess if network executives were actually reasonable, then we'd probably have a lot more good programming on TV.
They each can tell their own kind of story. I would rather watch the Arthurian cycle as a television series, but a lot of things work better as movies.
True, but the thing I think I like about TV over movies, is that if you don't like the story, there's another one on next week! With a movie, there won't be another story with that character for at least two years, if ever. Honestly, I'd rather have a bunch of pretty good Batman stories than three really incredible movies. Because I'd bet that if a show had four seasons or so, there would probably be at least three really incredible stories in there (which would be made much more incredible for the depth that other episodes had given the characters). And we wouldn't have to sit around waiting years for the next one.
Well, she did, so is that an insult or not? : - )
:sleep: My work speaks for itself.
Believe me, a discussion with me about the new movie is probably something we all want to avoid.
I do... sorta. It's more just historical curiosity, really. I'd probably watch a few episodes and then lose interest.
I think that, by this point in our conversation, it's pretty clear that both of us are somewhat aberrant in our tastes.
I'd love for the old anthology shows to show up on Hulu or some other streaming content service. I'm not sure I'd be curious enough to buy them, but I'd love to see some.
Too true. But I guess if network executives were actually reasonable, then we'd probably have a lot more good programming on TV.
We all know that they have execu-bots programmed to underestimate middle America (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Futurama). If it is an underestimation.
I'm not a big fan of the JJ film which dampened my enthusiasm for this new clix endeavor considerably.
sgtregis
01/06/2011, 22:37
Your mother likes the new Star Trek movie.
Heh. Mine did.
Interesting points from both you and Suttkus. I agree and disagree with some points from both sides, but am way too tired to try to isolate them. So I'll just say "facinating".
The pic in another thread that shows the clix figures looks very nice. As another poster indicated, I will hate to spend that much on the one board game, and will look to see if I can find a copy cheaper somewhere. I would like to see if the bases are interchangeable with regular clix figures.
At least we have a release date now for the co-op game (June 15th).
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.