Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Activision Sues Star Trek Over Franchise Decay 93

Posted by simoniker from the sliding-inexorably-towards-upn dept.
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a press release announcing that Activision is suing Viacom for breach of contract over the Star Trek game license. The article summarizes Activion's complaints: "..through its actions and inactions, Viacom has let the once proud Star Trek franchise stagnate and decay", and furthermore that "..a continuing pipeline of movie and television production, and related marketing, is absolutely crucial to the success of video games based on a property such as Star Trek." Activision has terminated the contract agreement, and looks to recover damages and advances from Viacom - according to a Dow Jones story, "..the initial license agreement included $20 million in advance royalties and warrants, with additional payments to be based on game sales."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Activision Sues Star Trek Over Franchise Decay More

Activision Sues Star Trek Over Franchise Decay

Comments Filter:

  • It sounds like a legitimate gripe. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OwnerOfWhinyCat ( 654476 ) * on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @12:37PM (#6340847)
    Viacom should just pay up, or better still promise to invest the 20 mil. in the next ST movie.

    Let's see a show of hands for everyone who thought Nemesis was the best Star Trek yet?
    [crowd remains motionless]

    The likely problem I see is that damned corporate pride. There are all kinds of fun things to do in the StarTrek universe still. The Viacom execs. must have convinced themselves that "StarTrek is dead and we have the ratings from Nemesis to prove it."

    I certainly hope someone at that company has the balls to say Nemesis sucked because we made it suck, and shop for a decent script for a new movie.

    • Let's hope they're not using Nemesis as the yard stick for the popularity. However, I read somewhere that this was to be the last of the ST:TNG movies. Do any of us really want to see Neelix on the big screen? He's a fscking walking Catfish for chrissake.

      If the Voyager series makes it to the big screen, its going to take a LOT of hardcore action & space fight scenese to get me to go to it anywhere other than the dollar cinema.
      • It's not likely to happen, Voyager got home in their finale. Neelix was left behind, so he wouldn't show up in the next one. You'll recall from Nemesis that Janeway is an Admiral now (the nerve of her to be ordering Picard around, hmmph!), so she wouldn't be doing much.

        I can just see the movie now: In the 24th century, a new paper-pusher has come to StarFleet Command...

        Hey, it can't be any worse than Nemesis...
        • Yeah, I thought it was odd that Janeway was an admiral.

          Neelix left behind? YAAAAA! Admittedly, I stopped watching Voyager.

          I've seen a couple of the news series' episodes, despite my loathing of Scott Bakula. The hot Vulcan chic is the only reason to tune in, and even then the coldness of her character (yes, I know Vulcans as supposed to be that way) makes one lose interest.

          Nemesis blew. The Scimitar was a cool ship, but not cool enough to rescue the movie.

          • hot Vulcan chic?

            Just because you put someone in a catsuit that looks more like bodypaint does not make them hot.

            She's just there so Brannon Braga has a 'hot model' on standby for when his relationship with Jeri Ryan breaks up.

            Besides, she is the worst excuse for a Vulcan yet... and that is counting the racists Vulcans from DS9 who sucked at baseball.

            Want to see a hot Vulcan? Saavik. (Both of them).

            And a good looking woman on Bermanprise? Look no further than 'Hoshi Sato'.

            And don't even get me started

    • OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @01:00PM (#6341117) Journal

      I certainly hope someone at that company has the balls to say Nemesis sucked because we made it suck, and shop for a decent script for a new movie.

      A few weeks ago us.imdb.com had a brief blurb stating that Patrick Stewart had formally decided that Nemesis would be his last Trek. He said he was bitterly disappointed with the poor reception of the film and he thought it was actually quite good. Apparently he's pissed off enough that he's vowed never to do another Trek. He said that he was sorry that it would have to end on a low note but that he had lost all interest. Sorry I don't have a link.

      GMD

      • A few weeks ago us.imdb.com had a brief blurb stating that Patrick Stewart had formally decided that Nemesis would be his last Trek. (...) Sorry I don't have a link.

        Link [yahoo.com]
      • I didn't see Nemesis, but regardless of film quality, if Patrick Stewart (btw, isn't it Stewart?) thought the film was good and won't do any more because the movie didn't do that well, I just think that sounds a little childish. That's sort of like "You won't do [whatever] so I won't be your friend anymore!"

        One would think he'd take extra care to make sure that the next movie (if there is a next movie) was damn good, as to not duplicate Nemesis's's's poor performance.
      • I can't say that I blame him. Star Trek:TNG was never about action, and thats all people want to see anymore. Nemesis tried to be successful by making a good movie, instead of action and cool effects.

        The same can be said for Insurrection. I really liked that movie (though alot of people didn't), it and nemesis were more like episodes than movies.
      • If he really said that I've lost some respect for Patrick Stewart. It was lousy.

        (I don't doubt you - i read the bit on IMDB and other places as well)
      • Thing about Nemesis is... they did a really good job on a mediocre remake of Wrath of Khan. And that's just all there is too it. I look back on Nemesis and just weep at all the effort they wasted on a screenplay they already bloody shot !

        It looked good, the acting and direction were good, the script was good, the editing was good...

        oh yeah, pulling a major villain out of your ass just plain sucks.

      • A few weeks ago us.imdb.com had a brief blurb stating that Patrick Stewart had formally decided that Nemesis would be his last Trek.

        Strange, in this article [trekweb.com] he is advocating another one.

    • I certainly hope someone at that company has the balls to say Nemesis sucked because we made it suck, and shop for a decent script for a new movie.
      Viacom exec 1: Nemesis sucked because we made it suck.
      Viacom exec 2: Nemesis sucked? But everybody thought the script was so good when we used it for Wrath of Khan.
      Viacom exec 1: You're right. Maybe we went too far back.
      Rick Berman ... too far back. Hey, that gives me an idea. Maybe in the next movie we could send the crew back in time to save some whales
      • No no no, you got it wrong. You skipped a movie. The Enterprise is supposed to go back to that Nebula thing, find out that somehow when the Scimitar got destroyed with it's life-ending-weapon, that it created a new planet, and Data's body has been resurrected, and needs to transfer his mind out of B4 in order to remember who he is.

        Duh! :)

      • Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. (Score:5, Funny)

        by jafuser ( 112236 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:19PM (#6343505)
        Monkeys! Yes. That'd be new and fresh.

        (Lightbulb on!)

        I'd pay full price and buy a LARGE popcorn and LARGE soda just to see an officially licensed movie which combined Star Trek and Planet of the Apes.

        Wow.

        They'd resurrect MST3k just for this one movie alone...
      • Rick Berman ...

        Yeah, Berman and Bragga together are the touch of death. How many shows have you seen where nothing actually happens that weren't wrtten by Bragga? Who the hell are these guys sucking off to keep their jobs?

        The best thing Viacom could do to revive the franchise is get rid of Berman and Bragga! There have to be plenty of good idea people around the Star Trek universe who can bring in and produce more fresh ideas. You have the Star Trek book lines, plenty of fan fiction, Game writers, altern

    • for a good Trek movie, get the script... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @02:18PM (#6342021) Homepage Journal
      from just about anywhere but the USofA.

      This past weekend my wife and I went to "Bend It Like Beckham," a wonderfully fun movie. At the same second-run theatre we saw that Matrix2 was there already, and XMen2 had been playing for a few weeks.

      I'm convinced that it's a general problem with American business. First off, IMHO they believe that "business" is more important than other factors like talent and originality, and that a good manager can manage anything into profitability. Second, I don't really believe that they're even good businessmen, because a good businessman is willing to take a risk and make it work, or accept the consequences of failure. It's perceived as less "risky" to follow a franchise than to try something original, hence the collection of sequels and comic book adaptations.

      Gee, these sound like the same problems hounding the music industry - promoting "safe" rehashes of the same old stuff.

      But of course it's not really "safe", because movies are bombing and music sales are down. Oh wait, we can blame that on Internet piracy!

      The real issue is that it depends on what you mean by the word, "safe," and not in a Clintonesque way. There's "safe" in the media boardrooms and meeting rooms, and there's "safe" in the marketplace. These days, there's little correlation.

      Actually, "safe" in todays marketplace should mean taking risks, and that means that sometimes you'll bomb. But is that any worse than today's sequelmania? Consider that today's sequelmania is producing dismal results, is a bomb or two really that bad when originality will probably also bring some HITS?

      Plus, as others have said, big budgets and special effects do not necessarily correlate with a good movie. "Bend It Like Beckham" looked pretty cheap to make, as did "The Full Monty" of a few years back. Good writing and good acting are much more important.
      • There's a problem with this argument. It seems in the Grand Ol' USofA movie ticket sales have barely anything to do with the quality of the actual film. Overall sales may be down, but the blockbusters are still crap, and definately not risky. Besides, sequels sell, look at The Matrix Reloaded and The Phantom Menace.

        • TMR and TPM (Score:2, Informative)

          by dpilot ( 134227 )
          Both of which seem to have been 'over-anticipated' in retrospect. I guess they both made money, but neither really made fans happy.

          I guess a Fan and his money are soon parted.
      • Are you saying American writers do not write quality material? There are good writers here and they are writing good stuff. It's the American studios that refuse to buy most quality scripts because they base their projections on the lowest common denominator, i.e. mall focus groups. Script nationality has absolutely nothing to do with it.
        • You took the words...

          When I say "Go outside the US," I guess I'm being unfair to the writers. I suspect if US execs went outside the US looking for scripts, they'd manage to find the same kind of stuff they find inside the US.

          You've made my point, better.
      • It's perceived as less "risky" to follow a franchise than to try something original
        It is the fashion of the days - McDonalds corporate logo is more important than quality and health. This is the meaning of success these days, so naturally they will be risk averse and dump cheap crap into Star Trek. The DMCA will ensure advertising revenues will be the measure of success in the future.
    • Let's see a show of hands for everyone who thought Nemesis was the best Star Trek yet?

      Best Star Trek overall? Nope. Wrath of Khan seems to be unbeatable.

      Best Next Gen movie? I'd raise my hand there - based on the fact that it seems to have the fewest plot holes out of the four. Neither Generations nor First Contact should have made it anywhere near production if anyone had a clue what they were doing - I am unable to enjoy either one of them because the plot holes are utterly ridiculous.

      Meaning I ca
    • It's more than a legitimate gripe, it may very well be that Activsion is in the right. Obviously, I haven't seen the contract Activision/Viacom signed, but with this kind of deal, both sides usually have to give and take. Activision had to deal with the cost to buy the rights to Star Trek games, and has to deal with Viacom more or less micromanaging projects so that it sticks with the Trek "rules." The converse of this is that if the contract was written up as a partnership arrangement, then something would
    • Let's see a show of hands for everyone who thought Nemesis was the best Star Trek yet?
      [crowd remains motionless]

      Funny, everybody I know *loved* Nemesis. It was truer to the original Star Trek, which was a simple fly-around-and-blow-things-up type of show. The newer Star Treks have turned into namby-pamby self-important soap operas. If the special effects hadn't gotten so amazing in recent years, the god-awful scripts would have killed the show a long time ago.

      Here's a clue: shows like Star Trek are su

    • Ask Patrick Stewart. Or John Logan. Either will do.

      The script as written did not suck. It's just a shame that Stuart Baird decided that in order to turn a 3 hour script in to a 2 hour movie he had to chop out all of the parts that made the movie a Star Trek movie, instead of Generic Sci-Fi Action Film #470423.

      The biggest gripe I had with the film was not that it was a bad film, it wasn't IMHO, but that Baird's amateurish editing left us with events going on in the background that just occurred with no exp

  • Ok....? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MImeKillEr ( 445828 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @12:40PM (#6340901) Homepage Journal
    Viacom decided not to pursue any more ST TV shows or movies. Could this be because the latest series isn't as good? Could it be that the movies/TV programs have become less popular?

    And Activision wants Viacom to continue to invest in a less-than-profitable franchise so Activision can continue to ride their coattails & sell a few games?

    Lame.

    • Re:Ok....? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @02:10PM (#6341951) Homepage Journal
      No, Activision just wants Viacom to fire that idiot Berman, and hire some decent writers!

      Viacom probably doesn't care much about the Trek franchise any more, because it's part of that big white elephant known as UPN. Paramount started UPN because it had a theory that studios should own networks. (Same theory that made Disney buy ABC and Time-Warner start The WB.) I've always suspected that they cancelled TNG, despite high ratings, just to get out of syndication contracts that prevented them from moving the show to a network.

      Now Paramount is part of Viacom, which owns CBS. They'd unload UPN if they could, and they're not going to give it much attention in the meantime. But if they could be forced to spare some attention for this tiny part of their empire known as Star Trek, they could make some changes that would bring the fans back.

      • But if they could be forced to spare some attention for this tiny part of their empire known as Star Trek, they could make some changes that would bring the fans back.

        You're right. But the suits at Viacom are so far removed from the fans (hmm, sounds like the RIAA eh?) that they'll never realize this and ST will go away.

        In the long run, they're only hurting their pockets and the pockets of the cast & crew (as well as robbing us of what was once a great series..)

  • Alright viacom! (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @12:40PM (#6340903)
    Viacom. Doing what angry Trekkies have wanted to do for years.
    • I'm just surprised they're complaining about the lack of new Star Trek movies. You'd think each new movie further degrades the value of the franchise.

  • Quality of Games (Score:4, Funny)

    by Gr33nNight ( 679837 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @12:41PM (#6340907)
    Yeah, right Activision. And I'm sure making craptastic games had nothing to do with poor sales.

    Riiiiight.

  • Sue Rick Bermen! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Its all his fault Star Trek sucks.
    • It's Berman.

      And don't forget Brannon Braga, he's equally bad.

      They're the Beavis and Butthead that managed to turn Trek into one of the worst series on TV -- even Andromeda (with 'Hercules' Sorbo) is better.

      And before anyone starts with 'Berman was hand-picked by Roddenberry as his successor', that is an urban myth started by Berman himself.

  • Star Wars anyone (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr.Dippy ( 613292 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @12:55PM (#6341072)
    Now if we can get a lawsuit going on George Lucas then things will get interesting.

    Mesa thinks de star wars franchise jumped the shark a long long time ago.

  • StarTrek died the day it turned it into SF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @01:01PM (#6341133) Journal
    The original StarTrek was cowboys in space.
    It died the day they turned it into Science Fiction.

    "What must have happened is a shift in the space time continuim" yawn

    It must be a non story because there's nothing on here [wilwheaton.net] about it

    All a big shame because I was really looking forward to being Nelix' apprentice and learning to fry insects in the MMORPG. Maybe I can be a space gardener instead!

    • I would argue that the latest series is indeed "cowboys in space" much more than it is Sci-Fi. However, the ratings are dropping off.

      Personally, I like Enterprise. I also think Next Generation was a good series, mostly due to Patrick Stewart.

      Voyager did suck horribly though, which I think still attributes greatly to the lack of interest in Trek these days.

      • I find it funny that no one even mentions the ubercrappy Deep Space 9 thing. Like a soap opera in SPACE!!

        Seriously though, I was a trek person only through STtNG and the original (reruns), mostly because they actually clicked, damn good casts, good plots, characters you liked, and a small dose of comedy.

        DS9, Voyager and Enterprise lacked all of these elements. I hated EVERYONE in DS9, the captian rocked, but his spawn and the worfling took up too much of the show. That and the silly little war stuff, w

  • Re: Preposterous (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DrWho520 ( 655973 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @01:04PM (#6341164) Journal
    Could Starter or some other athletic wear manufacturer sue Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neil, Allan Iverson or Jason Kidd because their respective teams did not win the NBA championship? A loosing team does not sell merchandise as well as a champion...it has noting to do with whether the jacket falls apart or not.

    • Re: Preposterous (Score:5, Informative)

      by cicatrix1 ( 123440 ) <cicatrix1&gmail,com> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @02:59PM (#6342438) Homepage
      Activision isn't suing Viacom because everything since TNG has sucked, they are suing because they made a decision to stop producing any more series or movies. Your (4 Insightful, why??) analogy is way off. The proper analogy would be if the athletic wear manufacturers sued Shaq or others because they decided to quit their sport in the middle of a long term advertising deal, which would be a fair and lucrative suit.

      Also, please explain the concept of a loosing team. I am familiar with teams that lose games, and are hence labled 'losing teams'. Maybe the two terms are related?
      • Ooh! Ooh! I know this one: loosing teams are naughty groups of sex-offenders that work crowds in packs, distracting girls with rude puppet shows, while their mates sneak up behind them and unfasten their bras.

        Am I right?

  • More proof, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DuckDuckBOOM! ( 535473 ) * on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @01:23PM (#6341378)
    as if more were needed, that corporations now consider legal strategies at least as important as those of their product lines. Any day now, I'm expecting archaeologists to unearth documentation of a lawsuit brought by Giuliano deMidici against Leonardo DaVinci on grounds that his later works weren't quite up to Mona Lisa standards, thus depriving his patron of revenue through reduced attendance at his showings.

    Sheesh.

  • Activision should sue Interplay (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NetDanzr ( 619387 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @01:35PM (#6341522)
    After all, Interplay has had the Star Trek license since 1993, when it published Star Trek: 25th Aviversary. Over the next almost 10 years, Interplay managed to create a very narrow niche - sales of Star Trek games were never really good; in fact, very few ST games made it into the Top 10. So if anybody is responsible for relatively low sales of the games, it's Interplay.

    That's not to say that low sales are wrong, but Activision should realize that it acquires a highly profiled franchise, which will not appeal to the same number of people as games like The Sims or the Command & Conquer series.

    • That's not entirely correct. Paramount had this craptastic idea of shopping out the different show licenses to different publishers. Interplay had Classic Trek for years, Activision had ST:TNG, yet another had ST:DS9, etc. Paramount saw this as a cash cow opportunity to have other houses bid on each series. (This attitude seems to still exist.)

      After the terms of the agreements ended, Activision made a concerted effort to consolidate the franchises and bought the rights to the entire world of Star Trek.

      • Many thanks for this info. For the past two years, I've been trying to compile a database of the various relationships within the software entertainment industry (a project that started with tracking the copyright ownership of a couple of classic games), and I didn't know this. Will update my database and not make the same mistake again :)
    • ARGH. Interplay... Must... Die.
      I'm one of the many ticked off Mac users from the Star Trek: 25th Anniv. game where they kept promising and promising the Mac users would be able to do battle with the PC users. Same game, different versions. They'd release a patch for one, and then not the other. When they released a patch for the other, it STILL had them out of sync. They had a message board on the MacPlay site. It was a bloodbath. They had to shut it down because we were raking them over the coals. Don't ev

  • What they should do (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Analog Kid ( 565327 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @01:36PM (#6341534)
    is to stop trek for about 5 years, fire Berman, and his other buddy, and come back with fresh new ideas. Enterprise doesn't seem bad though, just I wanted it to continue in the future, future not 150 years, though the termporal cold war is an intresting idea so we can have some connection to the future. Though if they did that Activison would still be suing them.
    • Absolutely. Steven Ira Behr just got off a job, so he might be available to take over for Berman and Braga. He and Robert H. Wolfe and perhaps Ron Moore should be brought in to finish off Enterprise and start development (sloooowly) for another series. Probably in the early 25th century, a few years after everyone from TNG, VOY, and DS9 are retired or whatever.
      It would take a few years, but in the meantime, nobody has to worry about an odd-numbered movie farking everything up!
      And doggone it, if they ever do

  • They Are Alone... (Score:5, Funny)

    by vjmurphy ( 190266 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @01:37PM (#6341540) Homepage
    After the craptastic Star Trek: Nemesis and the lame Enterprise, Activision is actually the only entity that wants Viacom to make more Star Trek.

  • Activision sues Star Trek? (Score:3, Funny)

    by lightspawn ( 155347 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @01:51PM (#6341685) Homepage
    Man, I hope Star Trek gets a good lawyer, or the Enterprise might end up getting repo'ed.

    Guys, can you change the title to something that makes sense?

  • Amazing! (Score:3, Funny)

    by M.C. Hampster ( 541262 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {retspmaHehT.C.M}> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @01:52PM (#6341692) Journal

    Activision are suing Viacom for breach of contract

    I are flabberghasted!

    • No, you am just American. The Brits consider a collective noun (like the name of a company) to be plural, so "Activision are" would be correct.

      • Re:Amazing! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HardCase ( 14757 )
        No, you am just American. The Brits consider a collective noun (like the name of a company) to be plural, so "Activision are" would be correct.

        So since /. has adopted this idiosyncracy of the British, how come they don't include an extra U in certain select words, e.g., colour? For that matter, why isn't a truck a lorrie, a subway a tube and a television a telly? Shouldn't they be substituting C for S in a select number of words, e.g., defence?

        Obviously I'm too senstive to this whole affair of what

        • Ohboy.

          The Slashdot editor (myself) who wrote the post is English. Hence you will occasionally see Anglicizations (Anglicisations?) in my posts. This was actually one I wasn't aware of, and I'm going to try to viciously staunch it, as I have those poor 'U' characters - sentenced to death to save frenzied typing from Slashdot pedants the world over. Slashdot is, indeed, meant to be an American English zone, and I'll be doing all I can to strive for this important goal.

          It's 'lorry', btw.
          • Wow! Is that a Slashdot editor reading and replying to comments?

            Sorry if this is actually very common, I don't usually spend any time in the games section.
        • "am" does not agree with "you"....

          Did it hurt when they removed your sense of humor?
        • Obviously I'm too senstive to this whole affair of what constitutes "proper" grammar, but my English teachers always told me that "a" group of things was singular because there is only one group. Thus, "a" company may have a gazillion employees, but it is still "a" company.

          Ah, but you say "Activison sucks, they are evil" not "it is evil".

          Your english teacher is wrong, as evidenced by how people talk about sports teams.

          "The Celtics *are* going to win this year" not "The Celtics is going to win this yea

  • New Star Trek Icon suggestion (Score:3, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @02:25PM (#6342099)
    Suggestion for a new "Star Trek Decay" icon: ....a still snapshot of "The Simpsons" episode where a very round Scotty was waving his arms and complaining that he was too fat to reach the controls.
  • I'm a Star WARS fan, so anything knocking Trekkies makes me feel a bit better, but after playing through Elite Force I'm singing a different tune. Elite Force KICKED ASS and is one my favorite FPS. I have a feeling it was meant to tie in with a movie or something, because it felt very heavy on emotion, but that could just be me.

  • Whaddaloadacrap! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by parliboy ( 233658 ) <parliboy@ g m a il.com> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:44PM (#6344275) Homepage
    Part of Activision's statement in the article says that the suit is being filed because Viacom has let two series end since they signed the contract.

    In other words, they are suing because DS9 and Voyager ran for "only" seven years apiece.

    I call Shenanigans right there.
    • I (and a lot of other people) would submit that DS9 could have gone a season or two longer. Some of the actors wanted off, certainly, but I think they probably could have gotten away with one or two more departures without the series suffering too much. (Terry Farrell was/is a damn fool.)
      We never really heard anyone talk seriously about an eighth season just because their contracts ran out. Too bad. The 3rd season was when it really started to pick up. So maybe they owe us for seasons 1 and 2? :)
      • Lots of shows could go longer. But should it have?

        Consider the steaming pile of manure that was season 7 of TNG. The only really stand-out of that season was "All Good Things". Would the legacy of that show have been better served by cutting it off at 6? Possibly so.

        Similarly, would DS9 have gone downhill had it stuck around? I say yes.
  • Viacom believes they can halt the decay by reversing the polarity of the positron flow.

    Chris Mattern
  • ...to take over the Star Trek franchise entirely if they want. What's stopping them? Buy the rights from Viacom and then they could make the shows any damn way they felt like. Decent shows (not sci-fi that's softer than baby shit) would be the best advertising their games could get, if that's what they wanted.

    And then they could stop sueing and we could stop tuning into more disappointing episodes (hoping against hope that this will be the turnaround episode were something fun happens).
  • It is official; Activision confirms: Star Trek is dying...
  • While this seems like a silly lawsuit, it says something about the nature of certain games and their relationship to movies.

    From the publisher's point of view, you can see the attraction of a well-known franchise. Here's Star Trek, with legions of fans. The publisher, being a bean counter first and foremost, isn't really disposed to thinking, "I wonder what makes ST work," or "I wonder if we can translate what makes ST work on TV and in film to games," or "When are people going to get tired of this ST st

  • The Wrath of Khan was the only decent Star Trek movie. They should bring his ass back like they did Spock.

    Or better yet, make a Cocoon 3 where all the Star Trek cast members are revitalized by alien pods in a pool.

  • . . . dispite recent history. I'd like to see this finally convince Viacom that they need to do something about the eroding franchise. Of course, it's equally likely that they'd just use this as another excuse to abandon it all together. Given that they lost money on the last movie, the TV show's ratings are less than stellar, and now a licencee is suing them, they may vary well want to get rid of it all together. If so, I just hope they sell it to someone who'd do justice to what little dignity it has

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close