xenexian

Don't underestimate the power that TV viewers have on networks. Just look at season 3 of TOS for an example, it wouldn't exist if viewers hadn't voiced their displeasure with the network execs and their support for TOS.

I'm glad to see that I didn't inflame you. I'm afraid that I still have too much of my college debate team in me yet. I have a tendancy to play devil's advocate because there are always two sides to every story. Unfortunately, I have to disagree (there's that word again) with you about the power of the tv viewer. It has become insignificant. There are too many choices available today for the viewer that we may think we have power but we really do not. What happened with TOS was 35 years ago. Ancient history to the broadcast industry. At that time there were only three networks, if you don't count PBS, and the networks did a lot more listening then. Roswell was saved only recently only because UPN and WB are fledging networks. Apparently still not enough watched to satisfy the advertisers to keep the show on the air. I guess I need to point out a broadcast axiom here and many may not like this but tv and radio are not here to entertain us in the way you think. They exist to sell us products and services we don't need or think we need. It has always been that way. The advertisers call the shots and they always will. A show is just the medium they use to sell us things. Does anyone remember the scandal about "Married With Children"? The horrors of it all. They dared to show us a beautiful woman dressed in stockings, garter belt and bra. The Detroit housewife who complained did the correct thing by not going to the network but to the advertiser, Proctor and Gambel, and got them to pull their advertising by threatening to stop buying their product. a very hollow threat mind you since most of what P&G sells are personal hygiene products and was she really going to stop showering? Funny thing is, the show stayed on the air and what the network lost in advertising from P&G, they more then made up when other advertisers were more than willing to pick up the slack. The ratings increased. The average viewer today is really quite impotent when it comes to telling a network what to show. A case in point are the many shows that are thoughtfully written and produced but have a limited viewership. The show may wow the critics but doesn't draw in enough viewers for the advertisers to warrant it to continue. I'm sure you could name a few off the top of your head that fit this criteria. This is not something many people want to believe but it is true. As long as there are products to sell, there will be television to help them sell it. Oh, and between the commercials, here's a little entertainment you can watch until the next commercial block. That's the way it works. and that's why I also said you can be sure that you'll be seeing the same type of pop-ups and promos on all networks soon so really you can either watch or not watch or, in your case, download.

The fact that this thread exists doesn't mean that they are working, unless by "working" you mean "People see these things, get pissed off at them and turn on another channel". Then yes, they are working.

 

The second part of what I disagreed with is "There's Nothing we can do about it." Yes there is something we can do about it, don't watch. For those that really get upset about it then can e-mail or write letters and even make phone calls. Will any of that make a difference? Maybe not, but if enough people stop watching THAT will make a difference.

 

None of the rest of it matters (to me). The execs and their adverdising decisions, your experience in the broadcast industy, them using gimmicks to try to lure people to watch. The only thing that matters to me is "Spike TV" is not playing in my home and the reason is that I find these little popup and flyovers and banners annoying.

 

That's all, I find them annoying. So the meaning of this thread isn't that they "worked", the meaning of this thread is that they (the annoying little popups) did the opposite of what they wanted them to do (for me) and have turned me off on watching their channel.

There is an old saying that is so true in the broadcast industry. "There is no such thing as bad publicity". And what is really at work here is that you're talking about it. I'm not telling you to watch and you've already made the decision not to watch. But every person you complain to might not know what exactly it is that's so annoying to you so they will tune in to see what the fuss is all about. That's what the network wants. The Spike Lee fiasco was wonderful publicity for them and even while they were all filing their briefs, the execs were cheering in the background the whole time. Ratings are all that matters. Your decision not to watch is, of course, your decision. As you said as well, e-mails, letters and phone calls will alert them to your dissatisfaction but it probably won't cause any significant drop in viewership for them to make any wholesale changes and most likely bring in more viewers. I'm not trying to start any argument here please understand that, I'm just trying to point out a basic broadcast fact about how networks today position themselves in a highly competitive market. For every one viewer they lose, they have a very good chance of picking up three more. As I said, I find them slightly annoying too but then again I find that high humidity days annoying too. I can either go outside and enjoy my day or stay inside and sulk, it won't change the weather. There's also the possibility that in a couple of months, opnce they've re-established their schedule line up, the promotions will decrease but right now, they are going to use them. I realize that all of what you wrote is you opinion and you have that right to express it, I just wanted to let you know what your up against when I expressed mine. I never intended to inflame you.

Well perhaps a mini convention. Or maybe the start of a local chapter of some Federation alliance.

The fact that this thread exists and that everyone posting here is talking about it shows that it's working.

 

Viewers may not like it but there is nothing you can do about it.

I disagree that it's working, the fact of this thread is that the people expressing their thoughts here are saying "I don't like Spike TV and won't watch". If their (Spike) goal is to attract viewers and keep them on their network then this seems to not be working (At least in this small corner of the galaxy).

 

As for there being noting we can do about it, I am already doing something about it as we speak. I'm not watching Spike TV, I won't watch Spike TV and it's not just because I think the name of the network is incredibly stupid either. I used to watch The Nashville Network, I even watched The National Network from time to time but I won't watch Spike TV.

I'm sorry Vabeachguy, if you disagree but the ratings for Spike TV have already jumped over 7 points in the last month alone. You can check the cable and satellite trade mags to confirm this. The distracting promos and bars that they put on the screen are there for just that, promotion, and if you see them, all that means is that you're, or in this case the viewer, is already watching the network. Those promos aren't designed to bring in new viewers they are designed to keep you watching by letting you know what else they have to offer. The demographic they want are males 18 to 34 and that's exactly what they are getting. Everyone here can express all the thoughts they want about how they don't necessarilly like them but they are here to stay and as I said before, don't be surprised to see the major networks pick up on the idea. In fact, I believe that NBC is already experimenting with them as is FOX. On the network level when one sees what works on another, they'll all start doing it. If those networks and others jump on the bandwagon are you going to stop watching tv altogether? If you decide that you don't want to watch that's fine, and if you don't watch, why are you complaining? What is one person to the network when they have over 250 million in which to draw viewers from and many of those viewers couldn't give a rats *buttocks* how they do their promotion as long as they get to see what they want to see. I don't think that Womans Entertainment (WE) isn't too worried over my not watching their shows so I don't think that Spike TV is too worried about you not watching them. I personally agree with everyone here who finds them distracting but I've been in the business long enough to know that if the execs think it's a good idea, they are going to stick with it and there's nothing we can do. Are we really going to tell them how to run their business? It's the advertisers who like it as well since they buy the time on the shows that are promoted and if it draws in the viewers they want, they are going to stick with it. This is a reality of programming that the average viewer can't do anything about except complain and grumble, like we all do about the weather. And where has that ever gotten anyone? I don't mean to sound antagonistic here but I've been involved in the broadcast business too long not to see a trend and when the execs make up their mind about how to do promotion, that is exactly what they are going to do whether we like it or not.

Good Luck from me as well. If you are so inclined, my fellow producers and I have a regular attitude adjustment hour at DC Chases on Fridays. You are welcome to join us. You'll find DC Chases on 20th street, just west of Llewelyn in the heart of Ghent. Perhaps I'll see you there.

The whole idea of the ape-men scenes in the beginning of the movie was to illustrate the awakening of human intelligence.  The spark that put on the the path of being self aware.  The monolith was put on earth to observe and help spark that awakening.  The monolith on the moon was also put there by the aliens and buried.  The idea there was if mankind ever developed sufficiently enough to actually get to the moon, we would be more worthy of actual contact.  Remember, in the movie and the book, when the sunlight hit the moon monolith, it send a high frequency radio signal out toward jupiter as a signal that mankind was now a spacefaring species.  If the movie was too confusing, I would suggest picking up the book.  Arthur C. Clarke had much more freedom to explain what was happening there and makes the movie much more understandable.

i can understand that the ape scene was showing the evolution of man, but dont you think it was just a tad bit ON THE LLLLLLOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG DRAWN OUT SIDE? they couldve done it a whole lot shorter than they did, i think.

But this is Stanley Kubrick, you are talking about here. It's hard to argue about how he did things considering he's one of the most successful directors Hollywood has ever produced. It was his vision and that's the way he wanted it presented. It is still considered the most influential Sci-Fi film ever made and how can you argue against that?

The fact that this thread exists and that everyone posting here is talking about it shows that it's working. I've been involved with broadcast media now for over 25 years in one form or another and I can honestly tell you that in this highly competitive world of mulitple tv channels and networks, anything that gets the name of a particular network out there in the form of on screen promotion for a show or whatever, is good for the advertisers and the network itself. Viewers may not like it but there is nothing you can do about it. Haven't you noticed that all networks now don't even bother broadcasting the end credits and music of a show they way they used to anymore? It's now regulated to a side bar with the audio muted while the network uses that time to promote an upcoming show or event on the other half. You can't even catch the names of the actors or production people anymore because they flash them so fast and, because of the limited screen space, is almost impossible to read. Promotion and name recognition is the name of the game now and, as I said, there is nothing you can do about it. In fact, don't be surprised if you begin to notice the mainstream networks pick up on this idea. Rupert Murdock, and his lowest common demoninator network, FOX, started this and I don't see any significant changes on the horizon. The advertisers want this, the network execs want this and the producers have to comply. Yes, you have the right not to watch but you're not going to hurt the network by doing so, you only deprive yourself.

Okay, you got me here.  I'm a huge fan of the New Frontier series and read all present 12 books in a one month period.

 

Admiral Kirk Posted on Aug 11 2003, 08:19 AM

I've read a few and I've enjoyed them.

 

Xenexian, Admiral Kirk, I haven't read any of them but I would love to hear some juicy spoilers....

Sorry Alterego, but I'm one of those people who hate to give spoilers. I don't want to taint your perception of the books or characters. All I will tell you is that Peter David has done a marvelous job of combining charaters from TNG into this new aspect of the Federation. The plot lines, now 12 books long, are quite conplex and once you begin reading, I think you'll find that the main character, Captain MacKenzie Calhoun, is a worthy inheritor of the Star Trek command chair. The willingness to use Federation might against those who would dare threaten him and his crew is refreshing to read in this era of PC, even in the Start Trek universe. Please pick one up and read and, if you're so inclined, do so from the beginning. You won't be disapointed.

I'm sitting in front of my computer wearing my green & gold jersey with the number 4--GO PACK!!!  BRETT FAVRE RULES!!

God Bless You, Mrs. Kirk. It's tough being a Packer fan here in Redskins country but every sunday during the football season, there are Packer parties at my house. I invite all my football friends over since I sprung for the NFL ticket package on Direct tv. and if you don't root for the Packers, I charge for parking and beer. Brett Favre will rule the NFL this year. Although I will admit that the defense does not look too good yet. Hopefully this will be corrected by the time the Vikes show up for game one.

For those who have never read the comic book, especially those from the sixties, it was probably a boring movie but to those of us who are very familiar with the Marvel universe, it was a great movie. Another prime example of moviemaking finally catching up to the imagination of the Comics. I thought the Daredevil movie was a very fine adaptation of the comic on par with Spider-man, X-men and the Hulk. Those who didn't even know Daredevil existed before the movie came out and have no background with the character just probably didn't understand what he was all about.

The whole idea of the ape-men scenes in the beginning of the movie was to illustrate the awakening of human intelligence. The spark that put on the the path of being self aware. The monolith was put on earth to observe and help spark that awakening. The monolith on the moon was also put there by the aliens and buried. The idea there was if mankind ever developed sufficiently enough to actually get to the moon, we would be more worthy of actual contact. Remember, in the movie and the book, when the sunlight hit the moon monolith, it send a high frequency radio signal out toward jupiter as a signal that mankind was now a spacefaring species. If the movie was too confusing, I would suggest picking up the book. Arthur C. Clarke had much more freedom to explain what was happening there and makes the movie much more understandable.

I loved the original as well. at least the first 10 episodes or so before it fell into the network morass. I loved the idea of an aircraft carrier in space. I won't make judgements on the mini-series until I see it but from what I've seen on the teasers I get a feeling that this is going to be far better than the original.

And Jadzia looks far better in a mini skirt then Kira ever would. Kira, no offense here, has J Lo butt syndome. But outside of just looks, I would rather have Jadzia working on my side then Kira. Kira is far too reactionary for my tastes. I would rather have someone who could analyze any situation cooly and take the best possible course then someone who shoots first and asks questions later.

I hate AOL. They tried three times to bill me for service that I never asked for and even had the gall to bill my daughter, who is still a minor, for opening an account with them that none in my family ever asked for or ordered. A completely illegal move on their part. It took me 5 phone calls and the threat of legal action if they didn't stop before they removed my name from their list. My bank also sent me a letter that AOL tried to access my bank accounts to take money for service they said they provided me. Thankfully my bank called me first to confirm access codes before they let them do that. I personally consider AOL a complete waste of money for the bells and whistles that I would never use and just because I tried a free 1000 hours and then rejected their service, they considered me a customer and keep telling me that I was a subscriber. The threat of my lawyer calling them was the only thing that convinced them I was not.

A starfleet vessel doesn't necessarily have to be aerodynamic in structure to enter an atmosphere to fly or land. The shields of the ship can be modified to create an aerodynamic shape around the ship to allow it to fly and be controlled when it is used outside of it's design specifications. Otherwise all Starfleet vessels would have the flying charecteristics of a rock.

Okay, you got me here. I'm a huge fan of the New Frontier series and read all present 12 books in a one month period. I know that the 13th book is scheduled to come out this November but what is this you're saying about three new books? Please fill me in.

All of these are wonderful ideas and reasons, but the most important one is missing, and that is the jobs and the boost to the economy going back to the moon would create. Ray Bradbury put it best 30 years ago when he said during the Apollo cuts that not one red cent was ever spent on the moon. The money was spent here in places like Waukegan, Houston, Oak Creek and numerous other places where the money bought jobs for the contracted companies making parts and components for NASA. People were going to the moon with the astronauts because they were all responsible for the success of sending and landing and bringing them back safely. The only thing the cuts that congress made in the seventies did was put those same people on the unemployment line and turn our best and brightest people into cab drivers and short order cooks. This was dim witted, ten watt blub thinking and no doubt was a bigger part of the recession of the seventies then anyone in the government was willing to acknowledge. This was like saying lets fire more people in order to hire more people. Going back would give many college students who are studying things like astrophysics and such a real reason to continue their course of study and keep our best minds from being corrupted from the likes of Enron and other so called energy technology companies and also keep the public more involved since many of them would have livelihoods tied into the space program. You bet let's go back and keep the economy growing. Going into space is just not for the astronauts but for us ordinary joes here on earth. Does anyone really realize that much of our present technology is a direct descendant of the space program? Much of what we have and use today was first conceived in the minds of those NASA technologists who had to make things smaller and more powerful to fit into those tiny space capsules. Technologists who couldn't find a job after their postions were downgraded or outright eliminated. Is it too much to consider that the two shuttle disasters could have been prevented if congress wasn't so quick to take money away from NASA?

Can you say, "Space Gnomes".

As others here have said, this is another example of why, even though I live in a Navy town and very near the ocean, I don't like swimming in the sea. I admit it's one of my phobias but there are too many things in the ocean that are bigger than I am. It wouldn't surprise me to discover that whatever it is, was brought to the surface by perhaps some navy sonar experiment. We're already confusing and damaging the whales and dolphins that use sound in water for communication and finding mates. Whatever else is down there may not like what we're doing up here.

I posted quite a time ago and I thought it's still revelant to this thread. It's just my opinion but isn't that what everything here on this board is suppossed to be anyway? When it comes to the subject of episodic vs story arc, I believe that what it comes down to is how well the story lines are written in either genre. I personally prefer the continuing storyarc rather than the episodic. DS9 was exceptional doing this and hardly destroyed the idea of how star trek is done at all. In fact, it made it much more watchable and enjoyable then any of the others. I find it far more satisfying to have a complex story that can take the entire season or more then one season for that matter, than just to deal with a weekly new adventure. When you have to involve yourself in the characters and their respective histories, the viewer feels as if they become part of the program as well and missing an "episode" of the story line is tantamount to skipping chapter 6 to go to chapter 8. Why would you want to do this? As the viewer becomes more wrapped up in the story and the characters, the viewer finds themselves scheduling a part of their weekly schedule to watch, "What happens next". This keeps viewers interested and coming back for more and brings in more viewers as word of mouth spreads as to what is happening. This is the formula that soap operas or daytime dramas have used since the days of radio and is a proven successful formula. If it works for Star Trek, I would hardly use the line of fixing something that isn't broke. DS9 broke the mold and didn't break the way Start Trek was done at all. It improved it and it worked. If one looks at the rage of what passes for television nowadays, the reality shows are ALL continuing storyarcs and have been very successful (i.e. Survivor, The Batchelor and Joe Millionaire just to name a few). One reason that was not given as to why Paramount would prefer episodes rather then continuing storys, is that it's easier to sell the shows in syndication when you can show any episode in any order and not have to worry about what the viewer may have missed in an chronologically earlier show. It keeps the casual viewer interested in watching re-runs if they don't have to commit to a daily schedule. As for the true blue trek fans, who will watch any Start Trek show at anytime, this is a moot point. But for the bean counters who watch the dollars of shows in syndication, this becomes a valuable point in keeping the show on the air somewhere and any time. For those, like the writer of the post that started this, perhaps the problem doesn't lie with the just the preference of episodic vs storyarc, but with the attention span of the viewer. A point that I have brought up in the past is that todays television viewers have shorter attention spans then the viewers of the past. A fact that rears it's head in other fields as well, not just viewing habits. The MTV generation of production is prevalent in just about everything on tv today and requiring a viewer to have to pay attention may be almost asking too much. Is a continuing storyarc better overall? You bet. Give me a reason to keep coming back week after week to find out what happens next draws on basic human curiousity, a very powerful trait and doesn't allow me to just watch a particular show because of some perceived loyalty to a franchise or actor, but to a very real feeling of a saga to follow. Because of all this, DS9 in it's entirety, as well as selcted episodes of Voyager and TNG that contained these elements, are the ones that seem to be remembered the best and at times, brings up the most debate. Sorry, but after all this, I'll take my continuing and evolving storyarc of DS9 over all others and as far as the stand alone episodes go, they're fun when you see them again but adds little to the whole idea of an expanding Federation and the feeling of "Time Marches On". I'll get off my soapbox now.

Shadow is a very good story. It will surprise you when the perpetrator is revealed. It's very plausible especially if you like conspirisy theories.

I was under the impression that the experiment was an attempt to make a ship invisible to the radar of the time, not to actually make it dematerialize. Of course using high band electromagnetic waves would be unhealthy to living tissue and I could see where the brain could possibly be affected from close proximity to the wave emiters. I guess I need to see if any information on the experiment is actually de-classified now. It might be interesting to see if any of Tesla's formulas may have been part of the mix. Does anyone have any further info to share?

I've lived in Virginia now for 3 years and have yet to experience a hurricane. Needless to say, I'm not too thrilled about the season starting. I've gone through tornadoes and winter blizzards where I've experienced white outs but a hurricane is low on my list of things to experience. So far I've been lucky. Here's hoping that the luck holds.

I want a replicator too. Pizza and marguaritas every night forever. What a dream.

I doubt if I would be devestated but nothing lasts forever so I think I would go to my favorite watering hole, order a pitcher of marguaritas (straight up, shaken and no salt), and begin toasting everything trek that I could think of. By the time I got to Voyager, I probably wouldn't remember what I was making all the toasts for and just continue doing it until bar time. Either that or doing Klingon head butts in honor of the series and those who created it.