Why no official game?

[HobbitFan]

Yeah sorry Morrus I got sidetracked when I mentioned not liking the Abrams movies. I'll table that for now.

Why do I think interest has waned? I'm not sure but part of it was fanchise fatigue and fans sick of low quality trek. Voyager and Enterprise cost Star Trek alot of fans, as did Nemesis. Diehards and casual.
No current tv show...much less novels and only the online game for video games. Also much less Star trek licensed marchandise coming out.
And if you look at online fan sites and the traffic at big name fan sites there are just less people talking about trek and trek topics.
That's what I mean....

 

[Morrus]

Yeah sorry Morrus I got sidetracked when I mentioned not liking the Abrams movies. I'll table that for now.

Why do I think interest has waned? I'm not sure but part of it was fanchise fatigue and fans sick of low quality trek. Voyager and Enterprise cost Star Trek alot of fans, as did Nemesis. Diehards and casual.

You need to establish that interest has waned before you can start discussing why it has. You speak of how things "cost Star Trek a lot of fans" but you cite no evidence for this beyond - from what I can discern - your personal dislike for recent franchise offerings.

The data point we do have - indeed the only data point - is that STID made nearly half a billion dollars at the box office. This indicates the opposite of waning interest - there's clearly an appetite for Star Trek, and a significant one at that. Whether you, personally, are interested is neither here nor there, but that's the most successful ST movie ever.

So I have to refute your initial premise, I'm afraid. Interest in ST has not waned.

 

[HobbitFan]

Look guys I don't want to argue here.

I would humbly submit that you do some readings on the following internet topics: declining ratings, Voyager and Enterprise. Also research the box office of Nemesis and Insurrection.

You're right about the Abrams movies making alot of money. They did. But did they make any new trek fans? Did they bring any old trek fans back? Did they spark interest in Star Trek beyond the span of those two hours?

 

[Morrus]

Look guys I don't want to argue here.

I would humbly submit that you do some readings on the following internet topics: declining ratings, Voyager and Enterprise. Also research the box office of Nemesis and Insurrection.

Ratings of shows a decade or more ago don't really factor into it. TOS had abysmal ratings.

You're right about the Abrams movies making alot of money. They did. But did they make any new trek fans? Did they bring any old trek fans back? Did they spark interest in Star Trek beyond the span of those two hours?

No, it was just me watching it half a billion times. No others fans at all. I had to spend my lottery winnings somehow!

 

[HobbitFan]

Ratings do factor in Morrus. Paramount gauging fan loss of interest and trying to combat that is one reason they di the soft reboot of Trek '09 in the first place. Its very germane to the discussion, don't you think?

I can't say about Star Trek and Into Darkness. I know the movies made money but beyond that I'm just guessing and recounting anecdotal information I read online or got from fans.
The impression I get online is that less peole are interested in Star Trek, less people are talking about it.
That may well be just me reading into it.

I don't know really.

 

[Umbran]

Look guys I don't want to argue here.

This is a discussion board. If you write something, it may well be discussed. If you don't want to engage, then don't.

I would humbly submit that you do some readings on the following internet topics: declining ratings, Voyager and Enterprise. Also research the box office of Nemesis and Insurrection.

Insurrection was in 1998. Nemesis was 2002. Enterprise ended ten years ago. All of this is from a decade and more ago, and therefore is not indicative of interest today. Today, we have movies making a half-billion dollars.

They did. But did they make any new trek fans? Did they bring any old trek fans back? Did they spark interest in Star Trek beyond the span of those two hours?

What, you figure that if we can't prove that they did bring fans back, that your point is therefore correct? That's not how solid rhetoric works. Burden of proof lies with the person who made the assertion - you claim there's been waning. If you want others to accept it, you ought to give them evidence.

 

[Morrus]

I would humbly submit that you do some readings on the following internet topics: declining ratings, Voyager and Enterprise. Also research the box office of Nemesis and Insurrection.

I can't say about Star Trek and Into Darkness. I know the movies made money but beyond that I'm just guessing and recounting anecdotal information I read online or got from fans.
The impression I get online is that less peole are interested in Star Trek, less people are talking about it.

I think you're confusing yourself! You're holding two diametrically opposite positions simultaneously!

First you tell me to read up on the ratings of some 10-year old Trek films, because that proves there is no current interest in Trek. Then you tell me that the much higher ratings of the current Trek films do not prove that there is current interest in Trek.

So, do ratings matter or not? If they do, then there is more interest in Trek now than there has ever been - ever. If they don't, then cites about the ratings of 10-yr old shows aren't relevant. You need to pick one position or the other.

 

[Morrus]

Look guys I don't want to argue here.

Just a note - it's not an argument, it's a debate.

 

[HobbitFan]

You guys are right. I shouldn't have brought my personal opinion of the new movies into it as that is entirely subjective.
And I shouldn't have spoken as if my guesses about current state of fandom are facts when they are opinions.
So again my bad.

 

[aramis erak]

Did they attempt to fight against it? You say they didn't comply with the C&D, so clearly they disagreed. I did a Google search, but my Google-fu isn't good enough to come up with anything about the incident. I'd love to read it. How much do you actually remember?

I don't know if AOL bothered. They did mention the injunction, and even the judge who issued it. I'm not certain of the year, but it was definitely pre LUG-trek. Also, I've a nagging memory of reading about it in Sysop News, which would put it prior to 1996. (I switched to reading Datamation in 1996, because I was the IT contact for my unit in the National Archives & Records Agency, and wasn't a BBS sysop anymore at the time.)

Thing is, in the US, pre DMCA, the general process was a letter first, then an injunction - both are colloquially called "Cease & Desist". And the Injunction was usually part of a filed lawsuit for damages, but not always. But there was only required to be a reasonable attempt to make contact prior to filing suit. And BBS's were generally considered publishers for copyright purposes... and thus liable. So, an injunction coming in was a serious threat to AOL.

Now, DMCA indemnifies service providers (including BBS's).

Just a note - it's not an argument, it's a debate.

Technically, each statement in a debate is an argument. But I'm being pedantic. Argument has a very different connotation in general use.