Alpha Centauri 2

Community => Recreation Commons => Topic started by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2012, 05:18:39 PM

Title: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2012, 05:18:39 PM
I'm aware of a few subtle hints that our leader likes Star Trek, at least fake Star Trek, and I know I LOVE the REAL Star Trek, so let's talk about it...



[EDIT:  I want to interject that I'm teasing my friend and forum co-owner for a page or two here, and I don't think I ever stated explicitly in this thread until today, nearly 3.5 years later, that I am a fan of TNG/DS9/Voyager/and even Enterprise who watched them all pretty much in full and enjoyed them and wished they were better - and that the original had flaws.  I have written professionally a little and acted professionally (if wildly underpaid semi-pro stuff) a fair amount, and I do have a high opinion of my own opinions, claiming extensive knowledge of the subject and what goes into making it work as I do - but I don't want to put fans of TNG-era ST off.  Love what you love, proclaim your love and engage me and the other fans courteously.  You're wanted here.

We love Star Trek, and want to talk about it.

AbramsTrek love will be treated with respect towards the member expressing, but your ideas will tend to need extremely vigorous and articulate defense, not least because you couldn't be wronger. ;):D]
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: sisko on February 19, 2012, 05:23:21 PM
I'm aware of a few subtle hints that our leader likes Star Trek, at least fake Star Trek...
why fake?
Title: Re: Re: GotM ideas
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2012, 05:36:08 PM
I'm just old-school with the Trek, and being nasty about it. ;D
Title: Re: Re: GotM ideas
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2012, 05:38:37 PM
I heard a rumor that you like the Commander/Captain from Star Trek: Babylon 5, but where's the evidence of that?
Title: Re: Re: GotM ideas
Post by: sisko on February 19, 2012, 05:42:29 PM
well, at that time, the national television in my country had no money to spend on some new Star Trek series so i had to watch the entire DS9 series on cable in Italian language. can you imagine Sisko "parlare l'italiano"?  :o
Title: Re: Re: GotM ideas
Post by: sisko on February 19, 2012, 05:46:44 PM
I heard a rumor that you like the Commander/Captain from Star Trek: Babylon 5, but where's the evidence of that?
you mean him?

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2012, 05:50:54 PM
No, Bruce Boxleitner was actually good at playing a heroic lead character.  Avery Brooks is great at bad guys and anti-heroes, but they needed to have the balls to write Sisko dark, or cast someone who could play a convincing hero.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: sisko on February 19, 2012, 06:07:33 PM
actually Bruce Boxleitner was the lead character in Babylon 5 (no connection AFAIK with Star Trek)
other than this, i think i don't get the full meaning of:
Quote
I heard a rumor that you like the Commander/Captain from Star Trek: Babylon 5, but where's the evidence of that?

and if you don't know Sisko's dark side, look at this picture:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2012, 06:22:07 PM
Sisko had a mirror problem to Kira - both were great ideas for characters that they miscast and/or handled poorly.  Nana Visitor, a very charming and apealing actress, was no good at dark, so they backed off on/failed to commit to her freedom fighter/terrorist past, disapointingly enough.  (Michelle Forbes as Ro Lauren would have been infinitely better.)  Avery Brooks is only good at dark, and they kept trying to write Sisko as a heroic good guy, failing to commit to the burned-out fellow he was supposed to be.

His finest moment was late in the run, when he was Dr. Noah in Bashir's holosuite Bond fantasy.  He was a very convincing supervillain.



The Babylon 5 reference was a cheap shot at DS9, is all.  Fivers always swore DS9 was a blatant rip-off; they HAD taken a pitch meeting with B5's creator/producer, JMS, prior to creating the show.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2012, 06:24:38 PM
-Also, here's a BA shot of a green Orion babe, 'cause who doesn't want to see that?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: sisko on February 19, 2012, 06:37:47 PM
well, as much as i enjoied watching the series the first time (i think it was i my highschool years), i couldn't pass the fourth episode on the second attempt, that was last year.
i guess i'm not watching it with the same eyes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2012, 06:39:30 PM
Are we talking about real Star Trek, DS9, or B5 now?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: sisko on February 19, 2012, 06:48:07 PM
DS9 of course.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2012, 06:58:44 PM
It holds up to re-watching better than B5;  that, I liked a lot the first time, but can't get interested once I know how it'll end.  Good show, but written with all the subtlety of a 12 year-old with a sledgehammer.  DS9, I never liked as much the first time, but reruns hold up a lot better - it's just a more nuanced show.

(It was monolithic bullcrap how they ruined Bashir, though.  The fellow in the early seasons couldn't possibly have let himself get beaten up, and withheld his mental talents from near-death touch-and-go situations, so many times just to keep his secret.  I call shenanigans on that.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Zoid on February 21, 2012, 08:30:28 AM
It holds up to re-watching better than B5;  that, I liked a lot the first time, but can't get interested once I know how it'll end.  Good show, but written with all the subtlety of a 12 year-old with a sledgehammer. 

Hey!! B5 is the greatest Sci-fi series ever written! Well, after Doctor Who of course...  8)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 21, 2012, 12:55:54 PM
I stand behind my remark.  It had some great moments the first time through, but once you know the solutions to all the mysteries, it doesn't hold up on subsequent viewings.

In RL, people who are so very sure which is right and which is wrong, and that they are on the right side, are always jerks who are deeply in error.  The whole show is based in an immature two-valued world view.  I wouldn't want the "good guys" of B5 running around in analogue, all armed and agressive.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 23, 2012, 10:07:23 PM
$#@!   Forum just ate ten minutes worth of post elaborating on how quickly and casually people with such dichotomous world-views will screw you over and pretend -to themsleves and anyone they can make listen- that you were the bad guy.  Do not trust people like the ones on B5 - they're as bad as innerwebs nerdz, and they're armed and in the habit of shooting.  No good would come of that, if they were real.



Now, let's hope this pic of a fine-looking Orion lady will post this time and wash the B5 stank off:
Title: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 26, 2012, 09:42:17 PM
This is Dr Who companion Rose Tyler on the Enterprise.  With this hairdo, she looks like Jenna Jamison, which I didn't have the heart to tell BA...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 03, 2012, 01:49:02 PM
Mo' green [complaints or disagreeable women; may be a verb, may indicate management of prostitutes].
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 17, 2012, 04:08:29 PM
Star Trek: Insurrection and TNG just came up in a Skype conversation.  I think I articulated my feelings about fake Star Trek as well as is possible in a concise statement.

[10:57:34 AM] bustersuncle: I'd have LOVED it if they changed a few names and didn't call it Star Trek, because it's not Star Trek.
[10:59:06 AM] bustersuncle: Not because of new characters 75 years later, but because the people making it just didn't get Star Trek, and pretty much took a big poop all over the real show for years.

sisko, you've been called out, and all others are welcome to chime in, even the majority who are wrong.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 17, 2012, 08:45:07 PM
There is something to be said that what made the original Trek move was Shatner, and to a lesser extent Nimoy (moreso in the movies).  Even the writing, Kirk is just a more interesting character than most the rest of the cast.  He gives you a central HERO for the story.  This makes it a bit more simplistic in writing, but generally better for story telling. 

This is not the case in later Treks. 

Picard has some few and far between moments, but he's almost relegated to being the setting for all these interesting characters around him.  It becomes a muddy mess with no central theme, and episodes flail wildly as a result with little to no unifying theme and it's a miracle it made it past the first awful season.  (it picks up steam in later seasons once this multitude of 'supporting' characters each have defined storylines/backstories and can make a GOOD lead for an episode here and there)

DS9 I cant help but be more interested in the shady characters/villains than the captain and crew.  Garrick and Ducat MAKE that show, and Odo/Quark is infinitely more interesting than anything Sisko spews on about, save a few prophet episodes. 

All others are entirely forgettable, but Janeway plays second fiddle to a hologram and quantum leap-trek seemed like little more than an excuse to get vulcans in skimpy outfits.  (I admittedly only watched about 4 episodes of that series)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 17, 2012, 09:19:07 PM
Patrick Stewart is a trooper, and he's good, but he thought the gig was beneath him, and it showed a little.  ("25 years, Jon," he'd sometimes say to JanathanFrakes bewteen takes when he was tired/out of sorts, "25  years in the Royal Shakespeare Company for this.")

Rick Berman and Brannon Bragga are no-talent hacks who held the gig in active contempt -judging from the results- and it did nothing BUT show.  There was a whole range of talent performing onscreen in various iterations of fake Star Trek, ranging from Colm Meaney, who never, ever rang a false note ever, no matter what turd of a script he was polishing as O'Brien, to the utterly incompetent waste of space who played the admiral on the youth drug in the early TNG episode "Too Short a Season".  There was a little very good acting, and a lot of competant performances, but the scripts were almost always utter. stinking. hackwork.

Again, I claim some authority on this as a writer/artist/storyteller of some proven accomplisment, as a former professional actor/performer, and as someone holding a degree in Broadcasting.

Quantum Star Track had its good moments - they made a LOT of the same old mistakes, far and away most notably having 7 of Vulcan on the show - (you'll go broke really fast letting the public know how low you estimate their intelligence too blatantly) but, they did a lot of things really, really right.  Scott Bakula was the right guy to Kirk that sucker up as hard as it could be Kirked, in the very best sense.  The dude playing Trip, likewise.  Buster's Aunt assures me that it also mattered a lot that both are very attractive men, along with wassisname the helmsman.  And someone, I gather it was Manny Cotto who took over producing for the fourth season, worked in some dead brilliant bits from the beginning; the stuff about rage against the Vulcans for holding humanity back makes the bigotry Spock dealt with make sense.

Now, that there's something NEW for fake Star Track after a lot of years of a lot of fake - bolstering  and enhancing something in real Star Trek, instead of ignoring, contradicting and/or undermining it. 

Absolutely skip the horrid 3rd season of Enterprize, about the Xindi/911 - the first two are uneven and mostly dull.  Skip to the fourth season - they still blew up ST continuity as often as respected it, but that's improvement, and mostly it was fairly good.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 17, 2012, 10:12:54 PM
My point is not about Stewart, but about PICARD as a character.  He's just not as interesting, and is more of the stable backdrop against which the stories are told.  Many episodes where he's the actual main lead suffer since they never defined his character.  A few he does admirable on, yes (like the one where he's captured), but the character as a whole just SUCKS. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 17, 2012, 10:39:24 PM
Hi! I'm BUncle's sister.  He told me he'd posted some of my trek pictures here and encouraged me to visit and post myself.  Here's a 7 of 9 model I created for one of my friends last summer
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on October 17, 2012, 11:03:21 PM
All the hate against TNG/DS9/VOY era trek. ENT, I can understand. Season 4 of ENT is the only season worthwhile.

The way I look at it is pretty much the way Uno looks at it with additions. TOS was a one character driven series. You had Shatner which every story revolved around. The only other characters that mattered was Bones and Spock. Uhurah, Scotty, Chekov and the others were wallpaper with the exception of Scotty's drinking shtick.

Contrast with TNG, DS9, and VOY. The captians were important, but they shared the spotlight with other characters and had development on thier own. Even minor charaters like Garak off DS9 became memorable characters in thier own right. TNG era Star Trek had much better development than TOS. I mean, yes, the captian IS important. And, there are episodes where each captian reveals his or her own flavor of badass. But, I liked the deeper suppoerting characters. I mean, come on. On DS9, the whole Worf/ Jadzia/ Ezri thing was darn good acting.

Now, did TNG/DS9/VOY era episodes have silly stuff? Yeah. A good portion of TNG season 1 comes to mind. Some of the early Kes/Neelix stuff before they developed them on VOY comes to mind. Wesley needed to be killed off. But, TOS has some really silly things too that need to die in fire. I remember one episode where Kirk and crew go to some "alternate Earth" planet where everything is a tribal cold war thing and they worship a butchered US constitution. Just silly.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 17, 2012, 11:34:11 PM
Oh, that wasn't even nearly the worst episode.  That would be The Alternative Factor, the one about Lazarus from the Anti-Unverse and his anti-twin.  It just didn't hold together as a narrative at all - it's impossible to sort out which Lazarus is which no matter how many times you watch, or how hard you try, and npot because they meant to keep you guessing.  The guest star did a horrible acting job, and the episode also killed John Barymore's career.  I know my Star Trek, including all the fake Star Track, and that may be the worst episode of any of them, ever - including the TNG movies. 

Also, so? 

ST had heart - fake just didn't.  All were flawed, but real Star Trek wasn't a hollow thing done only for the money by everyone but Michael Dorn and Manny Cotto.



You neglected to greet the newb, dude.  That's some pretty sweet Pieces of Eight art up there.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 17, 2012, 11:41:52 PM
Hi! I'm BUncle's sister.  He told me he'd posted some of my trek pictures here and encouraged me to visit and post myself.  Here's a 7 of 9 model I created for one of my friends last summer
Very nice job, and it looks like her. You especially nailed the mouth.

But I know you'd want me to tell you what this needs to be perfect - her eyes are a tad too large and shouldn't turn up at the outside corners.  And the woman has a strong chin, and a pronounced, if delicate, jawline.  You need to bring the bottom of the face forward a bit.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on October 17, 2012, 11:52:00 PM
Hi! I'm BUncle's sister.  He told me he'd posted some of my trek pictures here and encouraged me to visit and post myself.  Here's a 7 of 9 model I created for one of my friends last summer

Oh yes.. greeting newb (not n00b, there is difference!). I am sorry, I get caught up in topic discussions sometimes and get blinders on!

That artwork of 7 of 9 is professional quality. Awesome job on one of the more interesting characters of VOY.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 17, 2012, 11:55:34 PM
:D A whole family of artists, folks, even the Reverend almost-doctor Buster's Daddy, who carves wood.  I'm very proud of them. :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 18, 2012, 12:04:41 AM
Thanks!  And glad to be a newb instead of a n00b...

I've been watching a lot of ENT recently.  It's much better than I remembered it being... but, then again, I think the show is greatly benefiting from very low expectations on my part.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 12:09:15 AM
I always told you it was better than you thought.  I don't know why everyone but me hated it quite so much.  7 of Vulcan got easier to take, or at least ignore, as it went.

Really hated the 9/11 season, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 18, 2012, 12:35:28 AM
I think watching the sleezy/hokey ads for the show predisposed me against it.  Also, it suffered from being stunningly un-ambitious.  The makers really didn't seem concerned about doing anything other than beefing up their franchise.  Didn't really stake out any new territory for this one. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 12:43:46 AM
7 of Vulcan sums up what was wrong with the show in a nutshell.  Pieces of Eight was a bad character in the first place; a vulcan clone was an unforgivably Bad Idea, not least because it was too obvious what they were doing.


My point is not about Stewart, but about PICARD as a character.  He's just not as interesting, and is more of the stable backdrop against which the stories are told.  Many episodes where he's the actual main lead suffer since they never defined his character.  A few he does admirable on, yes (like the one where he's captured), but the character as a whole just SUCKS. 
It's all part of the same thing.  Shatner began playing the exact same character as Captian Pike, writing-wise, but being a charming theater veteran and showman, didn't take it as seriously, adding a human, humorous touch that influenced the writing - and frankly, had everything to do with the quality of the show, breaking, as it did, from the tired sci-fi cliche' of the square-jawed ernest leader.  The Captain Kirk of the second season had evolved to fit the actor's style, and was no longer just Pike renamed - all shows go through this. 

So no, I think I'm exactly on track to lay a lot of it on Stewart - that he didn't blow hacky song-and-dance prettyboy Frakes off the screen like he was Al Pachino schooling Keanus Reeves in The Devils Advocate says to me that he wasn't trying.  He's not nearly so good an actor as his reputation would have it, but he is accomplished, thought the gig was beneath him, phoned it in a lot of weeks, and put him with a writing staff out of their dept, you get dull character.  On anything that runs long, the actors generally become the supreme guardians of their characters - this is especailly true of the star.  I think Stewart didn't care enough to fight for Picard; the checks cleared and as long as he didn't humilate himself any more than he did just by showing up, it was all good to him.

That it was a failure of the writing goes without saying - but the writing was so bad I don't expect anything of the writers.  It's sad that Riker grew more as a charcter toward the end of the run than Picard.  I bet I can guess why.

I hate when innerwebs nerdz start specualting about strangers' motivations, and now I'm doing it all over.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on October 18, 2012, 12:44:22 AM
I think watching the sleezy/hokey ads for the show predisposed me against it.  Also, it suffered from being stunningly un-ambitious.  The makers really didn't seem concerned about doing anything other than beefing up their franchise.  Didn't really stake out any new territory for this one. 

You must remember, VOY as opposed to DS9 and TNG was meant tot try to get viewers to a Paramount network. The problem was at the time was many cable companies were only offerring that channel as bundled with a lot of worthless channels. Even diehard "faux" trek fans had a tough time justifying increasing a cable bill just for one show, no matter how badass Janeway is.

Hence, the hokey ads you are refering to with 7 of 9 replacing Kes, who was a fairly weak character at least until later. They HAD to sell the show.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 12:57:23 AM
She's talking about Quantum Star Track, not Star Track: Lost In Space...

She kinda half-liked the latter, notwithstanding that girls hated Janeway at first, and Kes was cool, while that Borg Stripper was dumb.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 01:01:46 AM
...In fact, it's a pity they didn't just buy Jennifer Lien a padded bra.  She was really rocking the body suits before they got rid of her, and looked good with non-hideous hair.  It would have spared us a lot of ill-considered nonsense about the Borg, too...

Has anyone ever seen my four ST SMAC(X) factions?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 18, 2012, 01:21:17 AM
Yes, I was talking about ENT, but I think the point applies there as well.  The "Hey! Look at the Jolene Blalock body parts you get to see this week!" ad campaign did not appeal to me -- but since I was not an 18-25 year old male, I guess they didn't care whether I watched or not.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 01:31:52 AM
Kes with long hair in a body suit would have worked just fine - they could easily have worked in the stupid Borg stuff, too - just let them assimilate her for an episode, and go on from there the same way they did, only it's Kes.  Everybody liked Kes.

And in that episode where she returned?  I don't know what was really going on, but that wasn't Kes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2012, 03:46:56 AM
Quote
It's all part of the same thing.  Shatner began playing the exact same character as Captian Pike, writing-wise, but being a charming theater veteran and showman, didn't take it as seriously, adding a human, humorous touch that influenced the writing - and frankly, had everything to do with the quality of the show, breaking, as it did, from the tired sci-fi cliche' of the square-jawed ernest leader.  The Captain Kirk of the second season had evolved to fit the actor's style, and was no longer just Pike renamed - all shows go through this. 

So no, I think I'm exactly on track to lay a lot of it on Stewart - that he didn't blow hacky song-and-dance prettyboy Frakes off the screen like he was Al Pachino schooling Keanus Reeves in The Devils Advocate says to me that he wasn't trying.  He's not nearly so good an actor as his reputation would have it, but he is accomplished, thought the gig was beneath him, phoned it in a lot of weeks, and put him with a writing staff out of their dept, you get dull character.  On anything that runs long, the actors generally become the supreme guardians of their characters - this is especailly true of the star.  I think Stewart didn't care enough to fight for Picard; the checks cleared and as long as he didn't humilate himself any more than he did just by showing up, it was all good to him.

That it was a failure of the writing goes without saying - but the writing was so bad I don't expect anything of the writers.  It's sad that Riker grew more as a charcter toward the end of the run than Picard.  I bet I can guess why.

I hate when innerwebs nerdz start specualting about strangers' motivations, and now I'm doing it all over.

Kirk was given Flash Gordon as a template, yes, and it evolved from there.  A good, simple, heroic template on which to build. 

WHAT the HELL was Picard given as a template? Horatio Hornblower.  I'm sorry introspective self doubting seasick captains might make good reading, it just doesn't translate to serial television well.  At ALL.  I don't care what actor you want to shove in there. 

Riker was given the Gordon template (which went largely wasted)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 04:14:55 AM
Sorry, wrong.  Kirk was Horatio Hornblower -Roddenberry talked about it a lot- filtered through Lesley Nielsen's captain in Forbidden Planet and evolved from there.

Picard was Kirk, gotten old, and turned out not to be, for all their trying to claim John-Luke use to be a hellrake. 

TNG was ST:TMP with the serial numbers filed off.  Riker was Decker - And he was, only not as good as when Steven Collins did it.  Troi was Illia - surely you spot the parallel classical allusions, the parallel relationship and background.  Worf was Chekov, down to being raised by Russians and the security job he had in the movie.  Geordi was Sulu, starting as helmsman, always amiable and on the job.  Data sat in for Xon, the vulcan they were going to replace Spock with if The Motion Picture had instead been Star Trek Phase II, the TV series, as was planned.  Yar began as a rip-off of that wierdly hot latino lady marine in Aliens, before they cast that Bing Crosby girl instead.

They recycled 10 year-old scripts and story pitches for a while, with the second season opener being one I'd actually read in outline in a book about the aborted Phase II, with Illia having a weird space pregnancy/space baby. 

Trust me, man; my Trek knowlege is hardcore, and Mylochka can find the relevant documentation in a half hour or less, should our word not be good enough - only the Forbidden Planet stuff hasn't been openly admited to everywhere for a very long time, and just watch Forbidden Planet and tell me that isn't Captain Pike in a stupid-looking uniform.  (Also, tell me that the story set-up wasn't rehashed in several episodes.)


The actor in the A&E Hornblower movies was quite good.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2012, 04:30:37 AM
Gene WANTED Kirk to be hornblower, NBC wanted to emphasize the character's more heroic aspects so you got more Flash Gordon.

Picard didn't get the network meddling. 


I would have actually had to have WATCHED the old movies to understand your other points.  I'm mostly a second hand trek I wouldn't even say 'fan'.  hEt is a hardcore trekkie, so I've been required to sit through it all with her...

I've seen the movies starting from Generations...

First Contact, I would watch again, even.  Mostly for the evil borg chick and general horror movie feel. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 04:38:24 AM
...He had a lot more freedom on TNG, yes, and resoundingly proved that he's one of those guys like George Lucas who does much MUCH better work when compromise is forced upon him and he can't get carried away - but TNG wasn't very Gene at all after the horrific first season, and none whatsoever four years in - they'd have pushed him out if he hadn't gotten sick.  I think they did before, actually, though official accounts didn't admit it; he'd lost whatever touch he ever had that wasn't really Gene Coon, Bob Justman, Dorthy Fontana, etc.


Now Luke Skywalker was - actually Flash Gordon's son.  Flash went bad, you see - something Ming did to him...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 04:41:16 AM
You're going to have to call hEt in - from what you say, she'll get the names and references.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2012, 02:41:36 PM
Quote
Now Luke Skywalker was - actually Flash Gordon's son.  Flash went bad, you see - something Ming did to him...

Yeah, now STAR WARS, I'm enough of a geek that I actually have all three radio dramas on cassette.  Episode 1 made a lot more sense having that background (especially the episode 4 radio drama which has entire plot elements and characters that were cut from the movie).  If we could cut out the ewoks and gungans, the series as a whole wouldn't be so crappy. 

As it is, I'm relegated to being an Indiana Jones nerd.  And by extension, Gunga Din, which has to be viewed as a companion movie.  Temple of Doom is essentially Gunga Din 2, and technically is the 'first' movie since it's timeline is before Raiders.     

 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 03:03:41 PM
Well now, I love me some Star Wars - my only problem with SW is think Lucas is a vile turd, and so are too many fans.  It's the dumping on Trek that gets my goat; we don't have to be partisans, like it's politics or something's at stake.  That's stupid.

Lucas actually tried to get the rights to straight-up do Flash Gordon, before he had to turn to his own heavily-influenced material...

So talk about Star Wars is pretty welcome here, until such time as it might take off and need its own thread.  Raiders is more of a genre stretch, but we're, honestly, talking about escapist adventure stories in all cases, so what the heck.  Start new threads, post in this one - it's all good.

"No time for love now, Dr. Jones!"  ;lol
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2012, 04:51:33 PM
I think, as a kid, what drew me to star wars over trek was the better special effects.

The fact Star Wars was the first movie I ever went to probably had a lasting impact as well. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 04:57:15 PM
Well, they're different genres, too; ST is more-or-less science fiction, SW is fantasy with spaceships.  If you're familiar with the old Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon serials, and you really should be, SW is tonally that, done right but with magic superpowers.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2012, 09:08:14 PM
I've seen many parallels with arthurian legend as well, but that's present in the Gordon shows as well.  Guess I'm not much of a sci-fi fan, except for horror crossovers.  Alien.  Pandorum.  Insert alien abduction/invasion show here.  But, really, those are not "sci-fi" at heart. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 09:18:01 PM
[shrugs] Alien is SF horror done right.  I bet you didn't like Aliens as well - I liked even 3 and Resurrection.

I think we've discussed that I think Halloween is the apex of mad slasher horror - not my thing, but done really, really well, and a good movie.  Grossing me out is no substitute for pacing and suspence, and where almost all mad slasher horror loses me, hardcore. 

(Now we've stretched the topic too far - feel free to start a horror thread.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
Aliens is probably the better MOVIE.  But it's more action than horror.   Sigourney kicking ass is too hard to say no to.  :luv:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 10:02:34 PM
Agreed on all counts - I just figured you prefered the first, which is very good and they made it for you, to the second, which is very good, but they didn't.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2012, 10:07:57 PM
Sigourney's role/character is much better the second film.  The switch from wasp to hornets was also wise and gave the Alien depth.  (Alien was not originally conceived as a social 'bug', but a solitary one.) 

I find the directors cut of the first on equal terms with the second.  Very key scene cut from the original release that neuters the psychological impact of the film and the Alien character.  Ironically, it makes the second film not make sense...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2012, 10:21:31 PM
I did not know this.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2012, 11:18:15 PM
Yeah, scene where we find the alien has not been killing/eating his victims but rather cacooning them and laying eggs, and Sigourney kills the crew to save them the fate of the chestbursters.  Very powerful scene adds a psychological depth to both Ripley and the Xenomorph.  Kinda makes the whole hive/queen concept of the second film defunct....  Solitary, not social.   Makes the Aliens V Predator requiem movie make MORE sense though.   ;lol 

http://youtu.be/dS5MtzrW1vU (http://youtu.be/dS5MtzrW1vU)

(there's actually another, longer cut of this I can't find on cursory search)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 19, 2012, 12:17:54 AM
That could be handwaved away easily enough, I think - there are precedents in real hives losing queens.  You probably know about the bees.

I did not care for the Alien v Predator stuff, come to think of it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 12:23:19 AM
Back with another picture.  Since you've been talking about Star Wars, I thought you might enjoy my T'Poleia crossover...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 12:28:20 AM
 ;leia As alway with your girlie art, HAWT!  ;b; Also, logical  ;spock
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 04:03:51 AM
This one was for a Star Trek/Star Wars crossover challenge for my da group.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 04:16:19 AM
If you have a lot of time to burn when you don't feel like doing anything productive, google "Starcrossed".  I strongly disagree with the assumptions about the relative technolgy levels, and haven't actually read much of it, but ST gets respect, and the story's reputed to be very good.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 03:48:07 PM
I strongly recommend this little film created by an artist who uses the same 3d graphics program I do.

http://auroratrek.com/index.html (http://auroratrek.com/index.html)

You can also view the movie on YouTube here:  Star Trek: Aurora--Complete (Official Site) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mHyGlqsjsQ#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 04:45:12 PM
BTW, your leader models and art you've done with them drew very good notices in the Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri & Alien Crossfire Fan Art  (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=793.0) thread in the Theory of Everything forum.  I know you have a lot I've never posted...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 05:20:17 PM
Oh, okay!  Will post some stuff there.
I thought these might be fun to share. After I'd done a few pictures of T'Pol, a couple folks began to complain about her uniform -- which really doesn't look like anything else they ever show Vulcans wearing -- and wonder what she'd look like in the regular ENT uniform.  So I did this picture...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 05:22:42 PM
... And then we began to speculate on how she'd look in other era uniforms. Since I have textures for most of those, I did several.  This Captain Pike era one was my favorite.  Even though we haven't got a model that has exactly the right neck, I think she looks really wonderful in "Forbidden Planet" style hair and makeup.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 05:28:44 PM
Love it.  The collar wouldn't be all that hard to draw in, ya lazybones.  As before, too tight, but the likeness is even more pronounced with the uncharacteristic hair. 

Folks, she's been posting stuff I've never seen before - I have to critique.  She expects me to.

I thought these might be fun to share. After I'd done a few pictures of T'Pol, a couple folks began to complain about her uniform -- which really doesn't look like anything else they ever show Vulcans wearing -- and wonder what she'd look like in the regular ENT uniform.  So I did this picture...
Uniform's close, but (characteristically) too tight, especially compared to all the times she did wear it on the show, and somewhat off-model...  Not a bad likeness, though.

The problem with the character was never that she wasn't played by a decorative actress, and you've captured that...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 05:48:26 PM
Well, feel free to fix the collar if you want to.  I can send you a bigger version.  Here she is in classic TOS
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 05:48:55 PM
...and a full view...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 05:52:51 PM
It's your project, and I don't need more.

I was going to complain for a full until I scrolled down.  Good, but she doesn't belong in that the way the slug-chick from DS9 did, that's for sure.  She's a Pike girl, clearly.   Bring on the TNG now.


You HAVE to have done her as 7 of 9...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 05:57:01 PM
Hey Uno, that Jason and the Argonauts miniseries you complained about recently?  Jolene T'Pol Blalock played Medea in that.


Which reminds me of a pic you've never done, Sis...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 06:15:26 PM
Here's the TNG.

No, I didn't get around to doing her in the 7 of 9 get-up... but I do have all the textures for that one now, so...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 06:25:51 PM
Hawt-est yet - maybe not a Pike girl after all.



DO THAT PIECES OF EIGHT VULCANS!  DO IT NOW!  :whip:


Also a certain alien on the red carpet with his new wife and favorite beverage...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 10:20:02 PM
Okay, but this is only because I'm grading have several more legitimate hours of procrastination before I have to get serious... Also because that smiley-whip really stings! ow! ow! ow!

(Will work on that other request later... if I can find all the parts I need)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 10:27:12 PM
I see that I'm getting lots of views, but very few comments.  Fellas, you don't have to be like my brother and tell me what I did wrong.  A thumbs-up smile will do nicely... or a "I wish Jolene Blalock was my wife" smiley, if you've got one and are so moved...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 10:35:43 PM
Youn always get a lot of views and little comments.  Your pin-up work is genuinely hot, and makes us pasty-white nerdz feel funny. :)


Now do Pieces of 8 Vulcans making out with -- wassisnerd - Garret Wang.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rymdolov on October 20, 2012, 10:44:13 PM
I see that I'm getting lots of views, but very few comments.  Fellas, you don't have to be like my brother and tell me what I did wrong.  A thumbs-up smile will do nicely... or a "I wish Jolene Blalock was my wife" smiley, if you've got one and are so moved...

If you've read through various threads here and on unmentionable SMAC-related forums you already know that I'm your biggest fan (or should it be greatest? I mean the one not related to how much of my body consists of fat). As for the wife part... Well, who could resist a woman with pointy ears?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 10:53:17 PM
She does look like an awful lot of fun...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 11:24:54 PM
Youn always get a lot of views and little comments.  Your pin-up work is genuinely hot, and makes us pasty-white nerdz feel funny. :)


Now do Pieces of 8 Vulcans making out with -- wassisnerd - Garret Wang.

I don't have a Harry Kim morph right now.  The only Voyager faces I have are 7 of 9 and Janeway.  You don't want to see her making out with them, do you?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 20, 2012, 11:26:06 PM
I see that I'm getting lots of views, but very few comments.  Fellas, you don't have to be like my brother and tell me what I did wrong.  A thumbs-up smile will do nicely... or a "I wish Jolene Blalock was my wife" smiley, if you've got one and are so moved...

If you've read through various threads here and on unmentionable SMAC-related forums you already know that I'm your biggest fan (or should it be greatest? I mean the one not related to how much of my body consists of fat). As for the wife part... Well, who could resist a woman with pointy ears?

Hooray! I have a fan! I have a fan!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 20, 2012, 11:27:56 PM
You need to check the welcome thread in the GotM folder - you have other fans.

Youn always get a lot of views and little comments.  Your pin-up work is genuinely hot, and makes us pasty-white nerdz feel funny. :)


Now do Pieces of 8 Vulcans making out with -- wassisnerd - Garret Wang.

I don't have a Harry Kim morph right now.  The only Voyager faces I have are 7 of 9 and Janeway.  You don't want to see her making out with them, do you?
No.  You know I don't go in for that stuff. 

Everybody else does, though...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on October 21, 2012, 01:23:34 AM
I watched the original Star Trek and Next Generation, though I only saw slips of it being imported so im not up to date with every detail.

Lennard Nemoy was probably the best Spock in my opinion. Had the whole logical pragmatism we all know and love the character for.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 21, 2012, 03:29:55 PM
More alternate universe T'Pol
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 21, 2012, 03:39:06 PM
 :) You keep bringing the goodies, don't you?

The very tight uniform thing is actually to do with how the models interact with the clothes, isn't it?  You might consider fixing the series engine pylons to movie style, as that hurts the whole TMP look you're going for.  I can't believe you don't have an adequate movie-era ship model, much as I prefer the old-school real Enterprize.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 21, 2012, 06:03:46 PM
I forgot that the TMP ship was different than the TOS ship.  I'm not that much of a ship person...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 21, 2012, 06:22:17 PM
It's a crucial detail of the time/setting, and matters, not in just a pedantic sense.  FIX! :whip:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 21, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Ow! Ow!  This forum is rough!

How about we go on to the next pretty picture instead?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 21, 2012, 07:28:28 PM
That's (very) good too, but go back and fix. :whip:

You know it isn't the forum and that I'd beat you much more brutally in analogue...

Check your email.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 21, 2012, 07:42:24 PM
Hmmm.  T'Pol as T'Pau?


Good luck hawting that up.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 22, 2012, 02:26:04 AM
...Would you like to post a link to your DA group?  No policy against shameless plugs here, as long as that's not your only reason for coming...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 22, 2012, 09:37:53 PM
I can do that! :D

To see more of my art, please visit my site at Deviant Art: http://mylochka.deviantart.com/ (http://mylochka.deviantart.com/)

To see more excellent 3d Trek Art, visit the Star Trek Artists Unite! group: http://startrekartistsunite.deviantart.com/ (http://startrekartistsunite.deviantart.com/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 22, 2012, 09:44:06 PM
I was catching up with the Star Trek: Phase II episodes the other night while I had too much of a headache to work.  They've replaced the little cutie playing Chekov  :'( but have a new Spock who doesn't look like a pixie  ;)  They also have a new Kirk  :-* who doesn't look like an Elvis impersonator.

Here's a commercial for their upcoming season:  [Spoiler to Make You Watch This Clip - They have Arex at the end  :D] Star Trek Phase II - 04xV4 - Going Boldly - Subtitles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xim_PuEgRRc#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 22, 2012, 09:45:18 PM
Gimme time to have a look...

I can do that! :D

To see more of my art, please visit my site at Deviant Art: [url]http://mylochka.deviantart.com/[/url] ([url]http://mylochka.deviantart.com/[/url])

To see more excellent 3d Trek Art, visit the Star Trek Artists Unite! group: [url]http://startrekartistsunite.deviantart.com/[/url] ([url]http://startrekartistsunite.deviantart.com/[/url])
I'm familiar with the group, and it's a great bunch of people, mostly very talented.  I strongly endorse checking it out, if you like that kind of thing. 

That BA is a genius artist has already been well-established here.  Also endorsed.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 23, 2012, 02:12:40 AM
I was catching up with the Star Trek: Phase II episodes the other night while I had too much of a headache to work.  They've replaced the little cutie playing Chekov  :'( but have a new Spock who doesn't look like a pixie  ;)  They also have a new Kirk  :-* who doesn't look like an Elvis impersonator.

Here's a commercial for their upcoming season:  [Spoiler to Make You Watch This Clip - They have Arex at the end  :D] Star Trek Phase II - 04xV4 - Going Boldly - Subtitles ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xim_PuEgRRc#ws[/url])
This is a new season of what they called The New Voyages before?  I don't like the name change, as Phase II was something else.

The recasts are pure improvement, as far as looks, and they tried to get the hair right on this Kirk, and the actor, while not doing a Shatner impression, is playing Kirk, not someone much younger pretending to be Kirk very badly.  It's a pity his voice is 15-20 years too young; if he never spoke he'd definitely be a full lock for the part.

Captain Garth?  Really?  I can't see him ever back in Starfleet, given the givens.

It's hilarious that Garth and the admiral were wearing granny broaches as insignia; partly hilarious because they looked so right, if only they'd made sure we didn't see one in a close-up.  Big phail to letting that detail slip by.

CG Arex was impressively well-done.

The blending in of TMP elements at the end was revolting, IMAO.  I wish they hadn't done that.

It ought to be an even better season with what looks to be a much more fitting lead - I really do hate movie music, nacelles and warp effects on the formerly-real Enterprize, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: sisko on October 23, 2012, 06:09:57 PM
Hooray! I have a fan! I have a fan!
you have many more. they're just too shy to make a post in this thread. ;)

also, today is your birthday, so: Happy  ;spock Star Trek ;spock Birthday,  Mylochka!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 23, 2012, 07:40:22 PM
 ;spock It is only logical to extend congratulations on your birthday; always the best of times.  ;spock
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 04:36:28 PM
thanks for the sweet, Trek-appropriate birthday wishes!

Here's the last of the alternate universe T'Pol pictures.  I'm thinking about T'Pol as T'Pau... I've got the hair, but don't have all the pieces to the costume... Will have to study on this one a while...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 04:48:56 PM
Mirror T'pol is always a treat to look at, in any time period...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 04:58:51 PM
I agree with you about the Phase II stuff --

Captain Garth-- Yes, once you go homicidal maniac... well, actually twice in his case... then you need to not be trusted with planet-destroying-grade weapons anymore. 

CG Arex was a treat, wasn't he?  I'm looking forward to that.

I kind of like that they're going full-out Phase II, because I'd like to see some of those scripts... although we did see versions of those scripts in TNG and TMP... They did "The Child" which is a Phase II script

Star Trek Phase II - 4x07 - The Child - Subtitles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OJH3DdM0fI#ws)

It's watchable... even  interesting in spots.  I'd be happy for them to go in this direction.


Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 05:00:50 PM
Oh, and I wanted to post this picture before I forgot about it.  This is just a morph that I downloaded, but I thought it turned out to be a good likeness and made for some crossover fun...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 05:06:10 PM
Took me ten-fifteen seconds to register Skully, so not a perfect likeness.
 
I did a Borg leaderhead once that I think began life as Gillian Anderson in an evening gown - hold on, and I'll find something and post.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 05:16:11 PM
She's not in her Scully clothes with her usual Scully hair, so a few seconds delay is reasonable. 

Borg-Queen Scully sounds interesting.  She does have a haughty, imperial look sometimes. 

Now if you ever want a transparent .png file of any of these models (with or without hair and costume) that you can modify and put on top of a background, just ask.  It's pretty easy to do.   Making a morph from scratch that has to perfectly resemble a real actor is much more of a chore...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 05:23:57 PM
It's a helpful tip for getting SMAC(X) leaders into the ballpark - I think I told you for Aki to think sorta Michelle Pfifer with some Helen Mirren...

For the attachment, I wish I had the pic I worked from, that I found on an AC forum - it was very badly done and without any background, while below is my first-ever major redraw to make a leaderhead.  What I worked from barely looked alien at all, just bald.  I drew that borgy background, and figured out how to get the argle-bargle effect without using an advanced graphics program.

I think those are her (GA's) facial features left, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 05:38:53 PM
I kind of like that they're going full-out Phase II, because I'd like to see some of those scripts... although we did see versions of those scripts in TNG and TMP... They did "The Child" which is a Phase II script


It's watchable... even  interesting in spots.  I'd be happy for them to go in this direction.
Eh.  I'd sorta rather see them do their own stuff - although they've shown that their own stories aren't a lot better than you'd expect from a fan production...

I mentioned that about The Child upthread, specifically.

I'm rather fond of TMP - ST lost something when they changed styles so drastically for Wrath of Khan, something that didn't register as muich as it should because WoK was soo good - but I never much liked any of the movies that followed, cast in the WoK mode, which wasn't quite really ST.  TMP is a LOT closer in the right style, despite its enormous flaws, and it really was a mistake to go all military-actiony to the degree they did with and post WoK.

I'd still rather see them trying to do series-style ST.  I feel very strongly about it.  TMP style doesn't measure up.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 05:56:29 PM
It's a helpful tip for getting SMAC(X) leaders into the ballpark - I think I told you for Aki to think sorta Michelle Pfifer with some Helen Mirren...

For the attachment, I wish I had the pic I worked from, that I found on an AC forum - it was very badly done and without any background, while below is my first-ever major redraw to make a leaderhead.  What I worked from barely looked alien at all, just bald.  I drew that borgy background, and figured out how to get the argle-bargle effect without using an advanced graphics program.

I think those are her (GA's) facial features left, though.

Oh, she's niiiice!  Very Borg-y.  Really has a genuine SMAC game graphics look too.  Love that background. I would have never known she started life as an runway picture.  If you ever need to re-do this one, though, let me know, and I'll give you a lovely GA headshot .png with no background or hair to slow you down with... I'd love to see what you could do with that.

I've got a Faith morph that I downloaded that pretty much looks like her... Let me see if I did a render....
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 06:04:26 PM
If I did CCM over, I'd make her green or something - it's not clear enough that she's supposed to be an assimilated alien as I intended, not badly drawn in porportions.  Took a lot of work to lengthen her skull and neck, actually, and I hate that anyone might think I was drawing a "human actor" alien badly.  I'm pretty sure that that's why the other version of the borg I did, with someone else's excellent leaderhead,  has gotten so many more downl0oads over the years.

If I wasted my time on fake Star Track factions, I want to have wasted it well.



-Also?  FAITH!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 06:37:35 PM
I thought I'd done a "Faith as a Redshirt" picture, but I guess I didn't.  Here's a couple of quick renders without any postwork, but, yeah, Faith...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 07:14:30 PM
Hmm.  The second is better Faith than the other angle.

BTW, your Aki needs a longe nose, IMAO.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 07:19:03 PM
Love that background.
I mostly just drew randomish lines and then multi-sharpened the living heck outta the result to get the metalic wires effect.  Word to the wise.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 07:23:42 PM
Hmm.  The second is better Faith than the other angle.

BTW, your Aki needs a longe nose, IMAO.

It's the same morph, just different angles

Just Longer nose or Longer face too?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 07:32:32 PM
I figured as much - the model is a much better likeness straight on, which is something to keep in mind as you make still shots with it.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 07:53:54 PM
What I had intended to start posting was this series of magazine covers...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 08:23:59 PM
 ;lol  Funny.

Is that your Uhura morph?  Have I just not seen it at that angle?  Looks good.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 09:06:16 PM
Yes, that's my Uhura.  She always looks good!

here's the next one....
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 09:17:50 PM
;lol

Is Stardate Holozine always a women's magazine?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 09:48:38 PM
Yes.  It has been so far.  Hadn't thought about a Men's magazine... hmmm....

Here's another one...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 10:03:59 PM
Fabrini drug?  You mean the Venus drug?

"He's just not that into you, girl"

...
On the other thing:

lotsa stuff about green ladies - where to meet them, how to buy one, legal hurdles, dirty green fun, watch out for her dagger

the laced-finger back-slam will break your hand and not hurt the other guy at all

where to buy new uniform shirts

the pros and cons of a Vulcan wingman

geting your cranky older friend to shut up
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 26, 2012, 10:15:27 PM
No Fabrini, the "For the World is Hollow" folks. 

Yeah, those are great for Kirk!  Keep 'em coming! 
Spock's magazine cover has got to contain the phrase "That Incredible Vulcan Physique"
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 26, 2012, 10:25:31 PM
;lol  Pon Fun ;lol

One imagines that Vulcan honeymoons ARE a lot of fun - if tiring and rather dangerous.

Hmm.  Guy stuff customized to the men of real Trek - let me percolate in my brain, and I will email to ruin no further jokes with early exposure.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 27, 2012, 05:50:45 PM
Here's the next one.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 27, 2012, 05:57:39 PM
;lol

Is her hair right?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 27, 2012, 06:38:43 PM
close as I could get.

Here's a more obscure one...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt the Czar on October 27, 2012, 06:58:17 PM
Google Star Trek: Armada. It's like Warcraft III in SPAAAAAAAAAACE!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 27, 2012, 07:15:47 PM
close as I could get.

Here's a more obscure one...
The Who Mourns For Adonis stuff at the bottom confused me a tad.  Did you know that Leslie Parrish married the Jonathan Livington Seagull guy, and he, very appropriately, recently got killed crashing a biplane?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 27, 2012, 11:15:40 PM
No, I didn't know that.  Ironic.

I was talking about Tantalus... but it's a good rule of thumb for Star Trek.

Here's another obscure one...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 27, 2012, 11:37:20 PM
:D

You got a million of them.  These things are pure funny. ;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 28, 2012, 01:26:38 AM
Actually, I only have one more...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 28, 2012, 01:28:12 AM
:)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 04, 2012, 03:30:06 AM
Dunno what Dr. BA has been up to all week, but here's a ST booze ad.  I think it's one of her prettiest faces ever:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on November 06, 2012, 01:13:27 AM
Here's a random Green Lady...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 06, 2012, 01:18:04 AM
Hubba, Dr. BA, hubba.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 06, 2012, 06:30:02 PM
Star Trek Into Darkness - Extra Footage Japanese Teaser (HD) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrHlQUXFzfw#ws)

 ;bu;  Well?  I suppose you gots problems with this. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 06, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
Nothing specific thus far beyond it still not being Star Trek.

I knew, the second I saw you'd posted in this thread, that it would be about this.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 06, 2012, 07:35:46 PM
I think they have a SHOT this movie.  You're free of having to tie everything in, and should be aproached as a clean slate, IMO.  We'll see.  Depends on the villain. 


Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 06, 2012, 07:39:38 PM
It would be nice if I could say of this, as I said of later seasons of TNG long ago, that I'd love it if they'd just called it something else.  But the first one was pretty bad/dumb, and I don't see it happening.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 06, 2012, 07:46:42 PM
I honestly don't remember much of the first one other than a rather silly blood ship that made no sense whatsoever and Sylar-Spock falling for yo mamma jokes.  (yes I was a Heroes fan, at least the first season, and enjoyed the carnival season for research purposes.  Never could get past him being Sylar, and the yo mamma joke reactions didn't help that any.)

That's not a good sign, no.  Wasn't it always that only the even numbered movies were good?  Or was it the odd numbered ones?  Can't remember who/where I heard that even. 

Caught "Insurrection" on TV the other day.  Thank GOD hEt didn't drag me out to that one in the theaters!  Oi.  Ran like a bad episode of the series, but just kept going. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 06, 2012, 08:16:01 PM
Even numbered. 

I didn't hate Insurrection, but then my expectations were very low.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 06, 2012, 09:55:58 PM
Has anyone seen this?

Star Trek: Of Gods and Men (Official Complete Film) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFqAME7dx58#)

The pacing sucks and the acting is a bit weak, but it's not terrible...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 07, 2012, 01:54:47 AM
Whoa, 1:30.  I'll have to set that aside for later...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 07, 2012, 03:48:32 AM
I don't think you're the audience for that one.  Do you remember Charlie Evans?  Slapped Yeoman Rand on the butt? 

If the answer is no, you'd be better off if I posted the silly hour 1/2 redub episode someone patched together...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 07, 2012, 02:14:26 PM
Speaking of not being the audience....let me see if I can dig something up....
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on December 08, 2012, 01:48:16 AM
Has anyone seen this?

Star Trek: Of Gods and Men (Official Complete Film) ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFqAME7dx58#[/url])

The pacing sucks and the acting is a bit weak, but it's not terrible...


I have watched a bunch of the fan made stuff. I agree, the acting is sometimes weak, but, like modders of old games - at least someone is producing content and keeping things alive. Depending on paramount/ JJ Abrahms is not going to do it.

I am looking forward to seeing what the guy that played Tuvok is going to do with Star Trek: Renegades.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2012, 01:55:34 AM
I think the fan-made stuff is mostly lame --  but they usually have their hearts in the right place, and I will totally watch anyone doing a credible attempt at real Star Trek.

Have you seen this one? http://trekmovie.com/2012/08/06/first-vignette-from-star-trek-continues-fan-series-picks-up-where-tos-left-off/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/08/06/first-vignette-from-star-trek-continues-fan-series-picks-up-where-tos-left-off/)  I provisionally think it shows even more promise than New Voyages/Phase II - if they'll just get around to making some full episodes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on December 08, 2012, 02:04:37 AM
Wow. That looks a lot more realistic than New Voyages.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2012, 02:18:04 AM
Their Kirk?  That's the voice of Edward Elgar on Fullmetal Alchemist.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2012, 02:38:33 AM
Here's an interesting site with some production details for various iterations - I only looked at the Real ST & Phase 2 stuff, but I know that stuff pretty well and there was some information that was new to me - more about Planet of the Titans than I'd ever seen, for instance.

http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/forgotten-trek-returns/ (http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/forgotten-trek-returns/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 10, 2013, 02:00:01 AM
I've been reading and thinking a lot about Star Trek lately - it strikes me that TNG, etc., fans these days are in a place to finally understand how fans of real Trek like me have felt for 25 years now - this shiny new thing came along calling itself Star Trek, and it's like my thing never happened - except to dump on.  These kids today have no taste, and the suits have no respect.

Sucks hard, don't it?

...

Here's a funny picture to cheer you up.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 10, 2013, 05:15:53 PM
Probably everyone's already seen this, but just in case...

Star Trek Enterprise Pizza Cutter from ThinkGeek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWNc0yjC3T4#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 10, 2013, 05:30:34 PM
Neil DeGrasse Jr. High Tyson gets it right, as usual...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OyUN5vG1T8k# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OyUN5vG1T8k#)!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 12, 2013, 04:38:51 AM
Speaking of nerdrage: "Get out your angry feelings by beating up William Shatner. You'll feel better."

Anger is Illogical (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqIBv41b_Y#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on January 12, 2013, 04:52:16 AM
lol, BU....

I should have posted that in the corp chat (another thread in RC for those not reading all new posts) I was in when all that went down!

Then again, I do think more of us than would like to admit has had nerd rage to some degree in our gaming careers. Either on the recieving or giving end.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 12, 2013, 05:04:06 AM
I've been on both sides of that, the main difference being that the other guy was always wrong to feel that way.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 12, 2013, 11:50:51 PM
I've never seen Nemesis, but I read a lot about it and even sat through Mr. Plinket's review.  Contrarian that I am, I can never take it for granted that I'll hate what other people hate, but I have heard a lot about this flick, and it really does sound very bad.

So recently, I saw someone make a suggestion about how they could have made Nemesis good that strikes me as dead brilliant.  The basic problem with the movie was that Shinzon sucked, yes?  As Uno tells us, a good villain is everything in an adventure story.

So make villain Locutus instead.

...
...
...
Talk amoung yourselves...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on January 14, 2013, 03:15:59 AM
Which one is Nemesis? 

Not having Picard ever regress back to Locutus, however, is a terribly overlooked avenue.   
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 14, 2013, 03:47:28 AM
The last TNG one.  Since it was all Picard v. Picard clone anyway, having it turn out that there was a backup Locutus would have had a lot of resonance that what they did in Nemesis lacked.  Everybody hates Locutus.

Wesley Crusher would have been a better villain than Shinzon. (I'm serious, actually - Wesley's got superpowers.  Much Drama could be made there.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 15, 2013, 01:56:35 AM
This just strikes me funny.

FRESH HELL (S2E6) - The Birthday Party - Brent Spiner - Kat Steel - Brian Palermo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOx7Rp-2bIw#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 15, 2013, 09:16:11 PM
...Actually, I'd recommend going to YouTube and checking out the entire run of Fresh Hell.  It's rather droll and charming, and worth it for scoping the hot chick alone...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on January 21, 2013, 04:39:42 AM
Another green lady picture
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Zoid on January 21, 2013, 04:08:41 PM
(http://www.trekp.com/posters/gw002-brainfreeze.jpg)

http://www.trekp.com/gallery01.htm (http://www.trekp.com/gallery01.htm)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 07, 2013, 05:31:12 AM
From the 1954 movie Princess of the Nile:

PRINCESS OF THE NILE - Dance Sequence - Debra Paget (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FCM2_nYvQU#)

This can't be a coincidence, can it?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 01, 2013, 04:34:54 AM
(http://imgur.com/PYF99.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on March 13, 2013, 09:55:48 PM
New Green lady picture!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on March 13, 2013, 09:58:55 PM
Here's a native of the ill-fated planet Cheron...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 14, 2013, 07:17:24 PM
Can't remember which way is which, is that a slave or a master? 

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 14, 2013, 08:38:44 PM
That would be upper-class.  Had to look it up.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 14, 2013, 08:49:44 PM
I must say, there is something inherently awesome about the oldschool aliens compared to the 'make a funny forehead' aliens that followed. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 14, 2013, 10:38:02 PM
The funny foreheads got really old, didn't they?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 15, 2013, 12:34:09 AM
At least the spoonheads got the whole neck treatment.  That was a rather marvelous feat of practical effects. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on March 15, 2013, 01:35:49 AM
Such as..
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 17, 2013, 07:00:29 PM
From the 1954 movie Princess of the Nile:

PRINCESS OF THE NILE - Dance Sequence - Debra Paget ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FCM2_nYvQU#[/url])

This can't be a coincidence, can it?
Well, I see the video went away.  Go to 4:22 in the vid below-

Debra Paget RULES as "Princess of the Nile" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SrYRkHwEu0#)

Then watch this:

ORION SLAVE GIRL Vina (The Cage) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apuye0JcWqM#)

-and tell me there's no influence.

I bet they were laughing their butts off on the set.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 18, 2013, 03:25:18 PM
I've seen the same scene in any number of sword and sandal movie, why single out that one? 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 18, 2013, 04:42:28 PM
'Cause Jeffrey Hunter was in it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2013, 08:19:41 PM
"Trekkers Gonna Trek" Rebuttal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jKaghO949M#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 30, 2013, 04:15:47 PM
STAR TREK: THE VIDEO GAME -- Shatner vs. Gorn Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hnBp7x2QAE#ws)

...Too bad the game's fake ST.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 30, 2013, 05:37:05 PM
"Trekkers Gonna Trek" Rebuttal ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jKaghO949M#ws[/url])


I disagree that First Contact was just an action movie.  Lots of horror in there... (which doesn't make it trek, but does make it the only one I've actually enjoyed)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 30, 2013, 06:09:55 PM
Yeah, First Contact had its flaws, but I thought it was okay -- but then, I didn't hate Insurrection that much.  I don't think that's just contrarian impulses talking.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 30, 2013, 10:11:44 PM
Still haven't seen Insurrection.

In fact most the movies I'm spotty at best. 

1 and 3 I've seen, then the boss drug me to Generations (opening night at a fan club showing...who boy), First Contact, and whatever the Clone Picard one was.  She lost interest with that one, till the recent reboot.   Oh, and we went to the trek hotel a while back. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 30, 2013, 10:57:32 PM
Clone Picard was Nemesis, which killed the franchise until the abomination came along.  Did you hate it as much as everyone else did?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 31, 2013, 12:08:26 AM
Um, it was barely distinguishable from one of the TV episodes, which is the only movie I've seen I can say that for. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 31, 2013, 12:22:26 AM
They said that about Insurrection, too, like that's a bad thing.

I think one of the things wrong with the movies is trying to hard, because they're movies.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 31, 2013, 03:26:11 AM
I will say the trek hotel was pretty awesome.  Highly respect the makeup artists and actors to put that on every day.  Sad it's gone. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 31, 2013, 03:42:18 AM
The thing in Vegas?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 31, 2013, 04:15:18 AM
Yeah.  It was gonna reopen somewhere but now isn't or something. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 03, 2013, 04:47:16 PM
William Shatner's Star Trek Memories.mpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-5OMTa9G2Q#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 25, 2013, 07:06:06 PM
Some of this is a bit bittervet even by my standards, but the bitching about the awful '09 movie and the upcoming sequel tends to reflect my thinking:  http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=43313&PN=1&TPN=16 (http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=43313&PN=1&TPN=16)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 28, 2013, 03:01:53 PM
Star Trek Phase II answer to JJ Trek - Timeline Restored (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO1nvmDjofo#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on April 29, 2013, 02:19:08 PM
;lol  How come Acme never works for Wile E Coyote? 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 29, 2013, 07:27:44 PM
The roadrunner's a stockholder.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 07, 2013, 05:36:16 PM
Quote
'Star Trek' Galileo Shuttlecraft's Saviors: 8 Questions for Trek Superfans
By Miriam Kramer | SPACE.com – 2 hrs 32 mins ago...

([url]http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/jvS9Nu3_SUjZdc8INvIdNg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MTc7cT03OTt3PTU3NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/%27Star_Trek%27_Galileo_Shuttlecraft%27s_Saviors-839ad57473755c8c446c1e4d0cb77bd6[/url])
Dedicated fans are giving new life to the shuttlecraft used in the original "Star Trek" television series.

([url]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/SWVJBUKn2Wmqct_BdfHssQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zODM7cT03OTt3PTU3NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/%27Star_Trek%27_Galileo_Shuttlecraft%27s_Saviors-7b1c808ee9c6d556b46b577fbbf341d4[/url])
The Galileo shuttlecraft from the original "Star Trek" television series has been moved out of storage in Ohio, where it has been for 20+ years to Master Shipwrights, a professional boat restoration facility in New Jersey.

([url]http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/PDjmMN0ovGVyPGl_zBhawg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zODM7cT03OTt3PTU3NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/%27Star_Trek%27_Galileo_Shuttlecraft%27s_Saviors-9abfc01409ec6bf17fad1d01bf9da47a[/url])
On July 12, 2012, the "Star Trek" Galileo shuttlecraft was moved from former owner Lynn Miller's house to a storage facility in Ohio.

 
Two "Star Trek" fans are a couple of weeks away from fully restoring the last surviving large set piece from the venerable 1960s TV show.

Adam Schneider and Alec Peters are refurbishing the 24-foot (7.3 meter) long Shuttlecraft Galileo used to shuttle the crew of the Starship Enterprise back and forth from the ship.

SPACE.com spoke with Schneider and Peters about the restoration, the American space program and what "Star Trek" means to them. [See Photos of the Galileo Restoration ([url]http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AjChkgrT9Gmb2gUeZLse2iGsFWFH;_ylu=X3oDMTFqaWd2Ymg3BG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIEJvZHkEcG9zAzIEc2VjA01lZGlhQXJ0aWNsZUJvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTNhM2JvZW0xBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZjk5YmY3YTctZjg0OS0zNmM0LWFhMDUtOTRjMGRmZGYwMjUzBHBzdGNhdANzY2llbmNlfHNwYWNlLWFzdHJvbm9teQRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=0/SIG=12pb2jle4/EXP=1369153426/[/url]**http%3A//www.space.com/20791-star-trek-galileo-shuttlecraft-photos.html)]

SPACE.com: First of all, what makes Galileo important in the "Star Trek" universe?

Adam Schneider: "Star Trek" was the first show with a really giant ship, and they never wanted it to land basically for budget concerns. But after a while they realized that it was dramatically useful to have a piece that could land, be separate and get into trouble, get destroyed, injure people, have crash landings, all the stuff that happens you can't do to the big ship because then the show's over. So they invented the idea of a shuttlecraft [Galileo]. They used it to be able to show a limited number of people away and in trouble.



SPACE.com: You won the Galileo at auction in 2012. Why restore it?

Alec Peters: The Galileo is important because it's really the biggest surviving movie or TV set of the modern era. The Galileo is such an important part of "Star Trek", and not only to "Star Trek," it was important to literally the consciousness of the space program. It really is the precursor to the space shuttle Enterprise. So it was important for us that we looked for this for two years and we were finally able to find it in its shape. It was important to preserve it because it is a piece of not just TV history, but our space program's history.

Schneider: We can't think of a more important science fiction related to manned space travel piece out in the wild. This thing was in abysmal condition for a long time and I'm known as the guy who gets spaceships and restores them. I kind of felt it was a bit of a public interest to bring it back to life and to donate it to hopefully a world class facility that respects it and uses it for further education both in the entertainment business of science fiction and real world space travel.

SPACE.com: What was the state of the shuttlecraft when you won it?

Peters: When we actually went to look at it after winning, it very obviously didn't look anything like the television prop. It really needed to be restored to let people appreciate what we had that was so important to the consciousness that it termed the word "space shuttle" because that's where it came from.

Schneider: If you looked pre-restoration all you would do is cry. When you look at the post, you see what the original design and intent was. [Star Trek's Galileo Restoration: Watch the Video ([url]http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AkWxMYibjuyXozjuSXtzo.OsFWFH;_ylu=X3oDMTFqY2dxYjVxBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIEJvZHkEcG9zAzYEc2VjA01lZGlhQXJ0aWNsZUJvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTNhM2JvZW0xBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZjk5YmY3YTctZjg0OS0zNmM0LWFhMDUtOTRjMGRmZGYwMjUzBHBzdGNhdANzY2llbmNlfHNwYWNlLWFzdHJvbm9teQRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=0/SIG=13hf5ohh9/EXP=1369153426/[/url]**http%3A//www.space.com/20781-original-star-trek-galileo-spacecraft-where-is-it-today-video.html)]

SPACE.com: How do you go about restoring a set piece like this?

Schneider: There are no plans that we have ever found for this thing as built. We're doing all of this on the basis of Internet plans. There are dozens of pages of Internet plans, screen caps, very exacting measurements. The original Galileo was made by Gene Winfield … We're trying to get to that look [from the original show].

In fact, in the back is a little, what I would call, hood that Spock pulls down and he kind of looks and pokes at things. We have a fan who is replacing and putting in the components in the hood … People really want this to be — you can't go to perfect, there's no such thing as perfect — but they really want it to be as close as one can get [to perfect] because we hope that this is the last restoration.

SPACE.com: How many man hours have gone into the restoration?

Schneider: It's probably taken 2,000 man hours of work. It's a world-class restoration at a world-class shop. This is not me because I have no skills as an amateur doing work. This is a fabulous facility [Master Shipwrights in New Jersey].

Not only is it going to be cosmetically good, but from a structural point of view, from a quality of finish point of view, from a quality of wood point of view, and from an ability to move it safely without damaging it. It has never been in better shape.

SPACE.com: Where is the funding coming from? Was there a crowd funding effort?

Schneider: I didn't want to slow down the project to get crowd funding. So the crowd is us … We promised in the beginning that we would be donating to a place of public venue. It's a big out of pocket hunk … but let's get down to reality. We can't think of a more important "Star Trek" piece out in the wild.

SPACE.com: What does "Star Trek" mean to you personally?

Schneider: "Star Trek" is supposed to be our future in space. It is not fictional — it is of course — but it is not intended to be a galaxy far, far away. It is intended to be what we do on this planet with our capabilities over the next few hundred years, and, as such, it's inspiring ... It's the career I would have wanted to have. It's building the space ships. If I can't build the real ones, we may as well get together and build the mock ups.

Peters: Adam is more into the ship models. I'm more into the props and costumes, but for both of us, it's preserving this show that meant so much to us. I was born in 1960 so I was six when "Star Trek" premiered and I remember watching the first episode on TV. When "Star Trek.," in its third season, got moved to Friday nights at 10, that was past my bedtime and my mom would put me to bed at 8 at night, wake me up at 10, let me watch "Star Trek" and then put me back to bed. That kind of sealed my fate as a really hardcore "Star Trek" fan. We're both at a point now where we want to now preserve this show and preserve the assets of this show for posterity.

Schneider: Well, and for inspiration.

SPACE.com: Where are you hoping to place the ship once it's finished?

Schneider: I'd love to have it in a place where 10,000 space and "Trek" fans could [enjoy it].
http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-galileo-shuttlecrafts-saviors-8-questions-trek-135116691.html (http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-galileo-shuttlecrafts-saviors-8-questions-trek-135116691.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 09, 2013, 07:45:47 PM
Everything Wrong With Star Trek (2009) In 5 Minutes Or Less (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiQ9piVgtWM#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 09, 2013, 07:52:12 PM
Honest Trailers - Star Trek (2009) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 09, 2013, 08:20:59 PM
Everything Wrong With Star Trek (2009) In 5 Minutes Or Less ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiQ9piVgtWM#ws[/url])


A lot of that can be hand waived by science fiction and/or hollywood rules.  A couple things are explained in the movie. 

Bonus points for no hot green lapdance scene.   
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 09, 2013, 08:25:59 PM
Is it just me, or is McCoy the only one the remake really did justice to? 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 09, 2013, 08:27:59 PM
No justice for anyone.

A lot of that can be hand waived by science fiction and/or hollywood rules.  A couple things are explained in the movie. 

Bonus points for no hot green lapdance scene.   
Phooey.  Handwaving is for a few things.  The sheer size of the pile of crap counts.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 09, 2013, 09:10:12 PM
Oh please, they complained of hollywood physics multiple times.   You can do that in just about every movie ever made.  That's nit picking just because you like OT better. 

Problem was the pathetic villain, multiple character anomalies/changes, and wtf blood ship nonsense. 

The upcoming one at least appears to have a better villain...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 09, 2013, 09:32:11 PM
No.  There's a difference between a good film with a few mistakes -or some playing lose with some laws of physics, as is so lamentably common in SF- and something that defies any attempt to make sense of it.  One is a good film that is not perfect - the other is just stupid.

Loud and dumb.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 10, 2013, 01:51:47 AM
Yeah, because Vger makes perfect sense...



Anyhow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkByAkAdZs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkByAkAdZs#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 10, 2013, 02:26:40 AM
And before the TNG movies came out, TMP was widely considered the worst.

-Dude, this is like me coming into your horror movie thread to defend the Friday the Thirteenth flicks.  On the face of it, I'd be wrong...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 10, 2013, 03:33:54 AM
And before the TNG movies came out, TMP was widely considered the worst.

It was also the first, as this was the first of the reset.  Took OT a bit to hit a stride, the upcoming film so far actually appears to be addressing a few of the problems the first had. 

Quote
-Dude, this is like me coming into your horror movie thread to defend the Friday the Thirteenth flicks.  On the face of it, I'd be wrong...

I'm not defending it at all, I'm saying you're nit picking at things you overlook in other movies, which is silly.  Yes, it sucks, but not for all the reasons the above video was saying.  Nit picking every time physics in a movie...a sci fi movie no less, are not up to reality is just petty.  Especially when the physics involved are not really demonstrably worse than 95% of Hollywood titles. 

There's nothing wrong with loud and dumb as long as it's FUN.  (see Avengers) 

Now, we can agree that questionable character changes, wtf blood ship, and an awful villain make for a poor movie that is not fitting to the OT spirit. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 15, 2013, 08:55:08 PM
Reviews are not looking good.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 16, 2013, 07:51:02 PM
Quote
Why We Still Love 'Star Trek,' Final Frontiers and All
SPACE.comBy Miriam Kramer | SPACE.com – 7 hrs ago...

 
The interstellar voyages of the Starship Enterprise have captured imaginations around the world for decades.

Astronauts, movie makers, scientists, engineers and others from all walks of life cite "Star Trek's" science and technology as an influence on their lives and worldview. But why? What makes "Star Trek" the enduring and thrilling science fiction epic it is today?

The optimistic crew led by Captain Kirk in the original series and Jean-Luc Picard in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" gave a science-minded generation an outlet for expression, Dr. Mae Jemison, one of the astronauts inspired by the show said. [See the Evolution of the Starship Enterprise in Photos]

"I saw 'Star Trek' the original series as a little girl and for me it was really great because it talked about and it dealt with situations that were going on at the time, but you saw it with a lens of another place, another time, another world, another group of people," Jemison, a former astronaut and the principal for the 100 Year Starship Foundation, told SPACE.com. "So it was easy to actually do some of those morality plays and really bring a number of issues to the foreground and really talk about them."

When Jemison — the first African-American woman to fly in space — began watching the original series, she felt affirmed by the diversity of characters represented on the show. At the time, that diversity wasn't present in the real-life astronaut corps.

"I think the other thing that 'Star Trek' did was it basically said that humanity would make it through all of the conflicts and catastrophes that we were facing," Jemison said.

"Star Trek's" particular brand of science fiction has also motivated other scientists.

"I think it's one of those things it all goes back to a deep desire to see some very incredible things maybe come to pass one day," Harold White, a NASA engineer, said of his "Star Trek" fandom. "The idea of going 'beyond' is, I guess, just a soft terminology meant to capture anywhere in the cosmos so everyone has a soft spot for one of the old explorers. 'What's over the next hill' sort of things. There's something inside of us that resonates with that, so I think you see that in a lot of people not just in the space program."

"Star Trek" serves as inspiration for the people responsible for making the next generation of science fiction movies today.

"I'm a sci-fi nerd," Gary Whitta, the screenwriter for "After Earth," a new science fiction movie set for release on May 31, told SPACE.com. "I grew up on this stuff. I grew up watching 'Star Trek' and 'Battlestar Galactica.' This is the kind of stuff I've always wanted to do."

Perhaps one of the most appealing aspects of the series is that it represents an imagined future for humanity.

"'Star Trek' is supposed to be our future in space. It is not fictional — it is of course — but it is not intended to be a galaxy far, far away," Adam Schneider, the man restoring the original series' Galileo Shuttlecraft, said. "It is intended to be what we do on this planet with our capabilities over the next few hundred years, and, as such, it's inspiring ... It's the career I would have wanted to have."

With "Star Trek Into Darkness," the most recent re-boot of the series, set for release tomorrow (May 16), a fresh stock of audience members might get a chance to experience that kind of inspiration. Jemison, however, is doubtful that the new films capture the attitude of the originals.

"'Star Trek' is 'Star Trek' because it was 'Star Trek,' not because it was somebody else's version of it," Jemison said of the new movies. "My question is: Where is the hopefulness in it? … The science and the geekiness is important. It's not accidental."

NASA is riding high on the "Star Trek" excitement. "Star Trek Into Darkness" director [[intercourse gerund] hack] and some of the film's stars will take part in a Google+ Hangout with current space station astronaut Chris Cassidy tomorrow at 12:15 p.m. EDT (1615 GMT).
http://news.yahoo.com/why-still-love-star-trek-final-frontiers-112459310.html (http://news.yahoo.com/why-still-love-star-trek-final-frontiers-112459310.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 17, 2013, 02:43:38 AM
Quote
How the Battle Over 'Star Trek' Rights Killed J.J. Abrams' Grand Ambitions
The franchise's licensing and merchandising rights are split between CBS and Paramount which created headaches for the multihyphenate's production company Bad Robot

Published: May 15, 2013 @ 7:41 pm
   
By Brent Lang


A struggle over the U.S.S. Enterprise's past and future helped sour J.J. Abrams on the "Star Trek" franchise and may have contributed to his decision to take on the "Star Wars" universe.

Competing ambitions between Paramount, CBS and Abrams' production company Bad Robot over merchandising surrounding the first film in the rebooted "Star Trek" franchise led the director to curtail plans to turn the series into a multi-platform experience that spanned television, digital entertainment and comic books, according to an individual with knowledge of the dispute.

"J.J. just threw up his hands," the individual told TheWrap. "The message was, 'Why set up all this when we'll just be competing against ourselves?' The studio wanted to please Bad Robot, but it was allowing CBS to say yay or nay when it came to what was happening with the 'Star Trek' products."

"Star Trek Into Darkness" arrives in U.S. multiplexes Thursday with tie-ins ranging from Bing to Hasbro. It is expected to gross more than $100 million at the domestic box office over the extended weekend.

Yet this marketing assault pales compared to the one that Abrams (above) and Bad Robot once envisioned for "Star Trek" and now plan to construct around the new "Star Wars" films.

A major stumbling block: "Star Trek's" licensing and merchandising rights are spread over two media conglomerates with competing goals. The rights to the original television series from the 1960s remained with CBS after it split off from Paramount’s corporate parent Viacom in 2006, while the studio retained the rights to the film series. CBS also held onto the ability to create future “Star Trek” TV shows.

Paramount must license the “Star Trek” characters from CBS Consumer Products for film merchandising.

Much to the dismay of Bad Robot, CBS' merchandising arm continued to create memorabilia and products based on the cast of the original 1960s series and market them to Trekkies. The production company did market research and found that there was brand confusion between Abrams' rebooted Enterprise crew and the one starring William Shatner and DeForest Kelley.

TheWrap has learned that Bad Robot asked CBS to stop making products featuring the original cast, but talks broke down over money. The network was making roughly $20 million a year on that merchandise and had no incentive to play nice with its former corporate brother, the individual said. In response, the company scaled back its ambitions to have "Star Trek's" storylines play out with television shows, spin-off films and online components, something Abrams had been eager to accomplish.

Also read: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Review: Thrilling Sequel Balances Fun with a Post-9/11 Sensibility

Paramount declined to comment for this article and a spokesperson for Bad Robot did not respond to a request to comment.

"As the merchandising rights holder for Star Trek, CBS Consumer Products has ongoing relationships with all our partners, including Paramount," a spokesman for CBS Consumer Products said in a statement. "We have worked closely with them for the last five years to create merchandise to enhance the movies and satisfy fans. We are all looking forward to a successful opening of ‘Into Darkness.’”

Despite the initial bumpy ride, it appears that Paramount, Bad Robot and CBS Consumer Products worked more harmoniously on "Star Trek Into Darkness." The parties collaborated on a Star Trek video game (left) that will feature the voices of the film's stars Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto; a graphic novel prequel to the film that was overseen by screenwriter Roberto Orci; and a novelization from Simon & Schuster (below).

Still, Jeff Gomez, CEO of the transmedia consulting firm Starlight Runner Entertainment, says there could have been so many more lucrative tie-ins. He contends that the rebooted franchise has enormous potential outside the multiplex.

"Right now the 'Star Trek' movies are movies," Gomez said. "There is no apparent ongoing transmedia strategy behind them, just a handful of licensing opportunities around the release of 'Into Darkness.'

"Why would that be attractive to an artist who sees beyond the boundaries of the silver screen to envision a true multi-platform narrative all based on a global franchise?”

Abrams' ambitions to create a multi-platform film franchise will find a more natural home at Disney, analysts and industry experts tell TheWrap. As successful as "Star Trek" has been, few franchises match the profitability and cultural prominence of George Lucas' space opera, which would be difficult for any director to pass up.

“Disney has always been oriented to multi-platform revenue stream situations,” Seth Willenson, a film library valuations expert, told TheWrap.

Moreover, Willenson notes that Abrams, who has a deal that is believed to include creative and profit participation in "Star Wars" inspired merchandise and spin-offs, will have more control in shaping the legacy of the Skywalker clan than he would have had with developing side projects for the "Star Trek" crew. Unlike with "Star Trek," with its rights split between Paramount and CBS, Disney owns the rights to “Star Wars” outright thanks to its $4 billion purchase of Lucasfilm last year.

"The derivative rights situation on 'Star Trek' is complicated because you’re dealing with cross-company cultures, so it makes it harder to implement a grand plan," Willenson said.

As for Disney's grand "Star Wars" plan, it's sounding an awful lot like the one Abrams once envisioned for "Star Trek." There will be television properties, theme park rides and spin-off films all centered around the new trilogy that Abrams will oversee.

It's a page borrowed from Disney's exploitation of the Marvel comic books and if it works out, it should make Abrams very rich indeed.
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/how-web-star-trek-rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766 (http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/how-web-star-trek-rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766)

...For instance, IDW, the comic book company that currently holds the Star Trek license, was told that they could only publish ST derived from the 09 abomination.  The plan was all Abomination, all the time.

Anyone think we didn't dodge a bullet here?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 17, 2013, 02:53:16 AM
Quote
LeVar Burton To J.J. Abrams: "I Call Bulls**t"
March 7, 2013 By TrekNews.net Staff In Star Trek 2013, Star Trek: TNG

([url]http://www.treknews.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/levar-burton-jj-abrams-i-call-[/url][nonsense].jpg)


LeVar Burton, who played Geordi LaForge for seven seasons on Star Trek: The Next Generation, recently discussed the current direction of the Star Trek franchise — as it’s being handled by J.J. Abrams and the team at Bad Robot.


Quote
(Abrams’ Star Trek) was a great movie, and he brought a whole new generation to Trek. But I’m a little disquieted by things I hear coming out of his camp, things like he would like to be remembered as the only Trek – which would discount everything before he got there.


Burton went on to talk about how Abrams first film broke from the timeline of the original Star Trek universe.

Quote
There’s ‘breaking the canon,’ which he did (by re-inventing Star Trek’s timeline). But there’s also honouring the canon. And to pretend to be the only one is really egocentric and immature.


Burton, who’s character held the rank of chief engineer aboard the Enterprise D, discussed some recent scientific breakthroughs, which may lead to technology reminiscent of a holodeck and how TNG has influenced our culture.

Quote
I just came from a conference in San Francisco with Advanced Micro Devices, and they’re working on technology towards building a holodeck. That was Next Generation. And that’s part of what Star Trek has brought to the culture. So when JJ Abrams says, There should be no Star Trek except the one I make,’ I call bulls—, J.J.
/]http://www.treknews.net/2013/03/07/levar-burton-jj-abrams-i-call-[nonsense]/ (http://www.treknews.net/2013/03/07/levar-burton-jj-abrams-i-call-[nonsense)

Yeah; bulls**t, JJ.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 17, 2013, 02:46:31 PM
I always struggled to get past 'reading rainbow' with him...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 17, 2013, 11:44:45 PM
Star Trek: The Middle School Musical (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIkgcWtK_rQ#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 18, 2013, 04:38:16 AM
 ;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: CamKrist on May 18, 2013, 02:05:54 PM
Similar matter has already been discussed at yahoo answers. I can post the link if needed
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 19, 2013, 01:15:55 AM
 :bot:?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 19, 2013, 04:20:42 AM
killit!!!!  (seen the same post across several forums now)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 19, 2013, 04:31:33 AM
Good enough for me.  (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2406.0;attach=1704)  The Mighty BotSlayer done struck again.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Tarvok on May 19, 2013, 10:10:04 AM
Allrighty then. Read the first three pages, read the last three pages, that ought to be enough, given that this thread appears to be about letting our Big Damn Opinions hang out the front. So let's get opining, shall we? ;)

First off, the notion that TOS is True Trek, and everything that followed is Fake Trek: utter bollocks. The Original Series was a hybrid product of the mind of Gene Roddenberry and Executive Meddling from NBC. Per some Wikipedia editor, the show as originally conceived was "too cerebral", and so Captain Pike and his Female First Officer were replaced with scrappy womanizer William Shatner James Tiberius Kirk. This is also known as "Dumbing Down". You want True Trek, you have to go to The Next Generation, which lacked the Executive Meddling aspect of the series. The name similarity between Pike and Picard is no accident.

I agree with Green1 with regards to character development. TOS was The Shatner Show, whereas the following series had excellent ensemble casts. The Next Generation and DS9 occupy approximately similar positions among my preferences (though I have a marginal preference for DS9). Voyager and TOS are on the second tier, with a marginal preference for TOS over Voyager. Never bothered with Enterprise, primarily because their advertising felt like they were aiming for the Buffy demographic, which I do not occupy. (I had a similar problem with Stargate: Universe.)

As to why I tend to like DS9 best, I think it's mostly because of the character network. First off, the cast is the best ensemble in the franchise, in my opinion--and I really like ensemble casts. So many characters, all fairly likable, all getting development time. I also like good duos, and DS9 has duos in spades: Quark/Odo, Bashir/O'Brian, Bashir/Garack, and Worf/Jadzia, along with attempted duos Sisko/Dax, Kira/Jadzia, Jake/ Nog, and Kira/Odo. And I absolutely loved Captain Sisko, both how credibly he did "angry badass" and his relationship/rivalry/enmity with Dukat, who I also absolutely loved. That creepy Kira/Dukat dynamic was also quite enjoyable (and I think that was about the only time I really liked Kira).

TOS had no true duos; all it had was power trio Kirk/Spock/McCoy. And I think I'm maybe too young to properly appreciate TOS (it's kind of campy, which requires nostalgia to properly appreciate). But I stand by my recognition of TOS as a dumbed-down version of what TNG eventually became (rough first season notwithstanding).

I think TNG had a few attempted duos. I enjoyed Data/LaForge and Picard/Crusher (either of the Crushers, really, and it was when Beverly was interacting with Picard that I did not hate her). Guinan/Picard was a joy to watch (and Whoopie Goldberg's role in TNG was so well done my appreciation has spilled over into an appreciation of Whoopie Goldberg generally). Picard/Data was hit or miss, but Nemesis kind of ruined that duo for me. And then there's Q/Picard, which was always fun.

But what I really liked about TNG was the Captain. Kirk was a real hands-on, do-it-myself kind of guy; Picard knew how to delegate and develop his crew. Kirk lead through sheer energy; Picard maintained a certain calm, a kind of elegant gravitas. Picard was far better spoken than Kirk. Picard didn't need to be a womanizing scrapper; he had a first-officer for that. ;)

Speaking of William Riker, I loved Riker-centric episodes. So many of them dealt with weird, psychological horror situations where Riker's sheer force of will and presence of mind helped him to see through the deceptions. Probably my favorite episode of Star Trek, any series, was "Frame of Mind".

Finally, I am one of the few who do not hope for Wesley Crusher to die in a fire. I was of just the right age, when the series was running, for Wesley Crusher to serve as a sort of POV character for me.

As for Voyager... eh. It had enough momentum from prior series to be a fun watch, but had some rather severe problems as well. The Science Fiction of the series was generally either nonexistent or abominable (a CRACK in the EVENT HORIZON?!?!?!). In many ways Janeway, to my mind, was just Kirk with [woman's bosoms], which I suppose was the point... but I prefer Picard, in any event. And I failed to get into it the first time around because the first season felt like a medical drama... IN SPAAACE!.. and I don't really care for medical dramas. Probably would't have ever watched it had a certain special lady not guided me into it.

But, on the bright side, Kes was adorable (Nine was abominable), Chakotay was cool, Tuvok was awesome (though I mourned the death of Tuvix and hated the high-handed and occasionally borderline murderous Janeway even more after that episode), and the Kim/Paris duo was always fun (though why McNeill was Tom Paris and not Nick Locarno, who was basically the same character in temperament, skillset and essential background, I'll never understand). And I appreciated their treatment of the subject of time travel, both the way they went about it and the fact that they touched the subject at all, given that before you can have a Federation with a fully developed "time cop" like organization, you first have to have some moron make a whole lot of mistakes with it... and Katherine Janeway seved well as that moron.  ;lol

Finally, movies. First off, I regard the new movie series as a welcome reboot of the series. Old Trek was fun (and by "Old Trek" I mean everything from TOS to Voyager, and maaaaaybe Enterprise, but as I said, I never watched it), but let's face it: Old Trek is dead. If the franchise had any future whatsoever, it was in just this sort of a reboot, and while the first New Trek movie kind of overwhelmed me with how Big and Loud it was (and the birth of Kirk on an exploding spaceship to a Wagnerian soundtrack was a bit much), on a second watch I realized just how well they had done. I like Chris Pine better than William Shatner (sorry, guys). Zachary Quinto doesn't quite fill Leonard Nimoy's shoes... but who does? And I don't know where they dug up Karl Urban, but I am honestly very surprised that there's anyone alive today that can properly portray Country Doctor cum Space Medic Leonard McCoy... but Quinto pulls it off better than any of us had any right to expect.

And Into Darkness? Hoo boy, did I ever enjoy it. It's still too new for me to go into details (don't want to spoil it), but it has both cinematic enough quality in its own right and callbacks, references, and homages to the old movies my jaw just dropped, and stayed that way. The role reversals really, really worked (hopefully, only those who have seen it will know what I mean).

As to Old Trek movies, I will comment in order of preference.

Insurrection was my favorite. I'm a TNG fan, and Insurrection felt like a two-hour episode of TNG. No canon was overturned, we get to watch Picard fighting the hierarchy for the sake of the Federation's sacred principles, and so on. Good stuff.

The Undiscovered Country is, in my view, a cinematic triumph. It's probably a better movie than Insurrection. Their treatment of the difficulties in ending a generations-long cold war is quite compelling.

Save The Wales The Voyage Home was just plain delightful and hilarious. I don't think I'll ever get tired of "I am luuking for de Nuklear Wessels". Other parts of the movie were also good.

I will readily admit The Wrath of Khan is a great movie. I think, however, that its aesthetics are too generationally distant for me to properly appreciate it; too much Big and Loud during my lifetime. Still, there's some great acting, and it is the origin of some of our best memes ("KHAAAAAAN!").

Generations is a fairly decent movie, and that's about it. Here we hit the midpoint.

First Contact is a fairly decent movie, but I will never forgive the writers for The Borg Queen (or Wacky Data, for that matter). The Borg in The Next Generation were, in my opinion, a really neat enemy. I saw them as the ultimate P2P network, at a neural level, no privacy, to the point where the individual cannot distinguish between his own thoughts and those of others close by in The Collective. They weren't The Evil Dictatorship; they were The Blob... until First Contact. Then they invented The Borg Queen. The Borg didn't need an Evil Dictator, and I feel like they overturned some pretty impressive science fiction when they invented her.

The Final Frontier is MST3K levels of bad... which works, ironically, in its favor. I could enjoy watching it, if I had a friend I could riff with.

The Motion Picture is... boring. That's about it. But the only problem with watching it is I can never get those two hours back. I wouldn't exactly call it a form of torture.

Nemesis I *would* consider a form of torture. Maybe I'll look back on it years later and think maybe it makes good MST3K material... but not today. Their treatment of Nature/Nurture via cloning was both late and simplistic. Picard, I felt, was way out of character. B4 did not need to exist. And that scene with the land rover, or whatever it was? REALLY? Worst. Movie. Ever

tl;dr: BUncle is wrong about everything. :p
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 20, 2013, 04:20:50 AM
For those who don't know, this is exactly how I met Tarvok, lo, slightly over four years ago; he was rude about a matter of taste. ;) 

I swiftly became quite fond of him - there is a certain value in the opinions of even completely tasteless individuals for those of us who actually understand Star Trek and value Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Tarvok on May 21, 2013, 02:04:46 AM
lol, just responding in kind here, man. Also, this is how we first met? I don't recall. Was I insulting Vyeh or something?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 21, 2013, 03:23:47 AM
It was over my Sister Miriam deuglified at Apolyton.  I didn't let on at the time, but I was really, really cheesed off by your first post about it, before I got to know you.  [shrugs]  It's all good, man.

I've done several iterations since then - you can find everything to date here (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=793.0) in the last post of the first page and the first of the second.  I'm pretty happy with the last try.

...

Y'know - there's no accounting for taste, and someone on the internet being wrong about a matter of opinion isn't ever as important as it seems to one's inner child.  I really can't believe that, for example, anyone could possibly think Chakotay was cool, even Robert Beltran's mother, but I'll save my anger/distain about fakes and abominations for Rick Berman and J.J. Abrams, where it belongs.  I just can't get as worked up about this stuff as I could in 1987 -- but then, that's a good thing.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Tarvok on May 21, 2013, 04:48:30 AM
The Miriam thing? Huh. I guess I just really suck at giving constructive criticism. That or I remember it incorrectly.

I do hope the tone of my post here made it clear that I'm not trying to hurt anyone, just actively poking the bull, mostly because I know you can take it... or pretty sure, anyway. I don't do that to someone I don't know. Not unless they're *really* asking for it, and even then, it's all in good fun.

Maybe if I adopted a British accent and made my rants into funny videos... :p

I do maintain, however, that excluding The Next Generation from "Real" Star Trek goes beyond questions of taste. DS9 I can see, though I even if it isn't "Star Trek" as such, I still believe it a legitimate spinoff.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 21, 2013, 05:39:39 AM
It's --- tough to put a finger on it, but the original had something that none of the knock-offs did, and I include the movies in that.  You're - what?  In your thirties?  Some of it's historical context that's almost completely impossible to explain to someone who hasn't watched the old Flash Gordon serials, hasn't watched ST-contemporary crap like Voyage to the bottom of the Sea, Lost in Space...  There was nothing, nothing, nothing, out there in TV/movie SF that was as smart and well-done, save Twilight Zone for TV and Forbidden Planet for movies, by an order or two of magnitude until Star Wars came along.  I remember being so starved for science fiction that I watched Space 1999 every week; go dig up a few episodes of that stinker sometime, and tell me it doesn't make real Star Trek look like Shakespeare.  The likes of the Buck Rogers show and the real Battlestar Galactica weren't even trying for THAT smart, for all of being better-made TV.  By the time TNG came along, things were improving, and it wouldn't have been as special even if it had been as good.

Some of it - the first season of TNG wasn't just a little bit bad; it was wretched beyond all bearing, and I never really got over the disappointment.  Some of it is nothing more or less than the same reason I've always felt hostility to Star Wars - I LOVE Star Wars, actually, but Star Wars fans piss me off.  Most can't survive the challenge to tell me they've actually WATCHED all or most of Star Trek, and need to STFU and quit picking fights like hyper children.  Same thing with fake ST fans, pretty much.

There was something in the style of all the BermanTrek, once they'd finally found their style three years into TNG that put me off; the techno-babble that maybe superficially sounded more scientific, but really wasn't.  The smirk on Riker's face whenever Picard was talking and Jonathan Frakes didn't know what else to do.  The holodeck adventure after holodeck adventure after holodeck adventure, all too often combined with the 'Regular X wakes up in a weird situation and doesn't know what's real' plot they drove into the ground for something close to 10 years straight.  The writing wasn't very good, for the most part.

I don't know, man; I don't know.  There was something in Star Trek that really spoke to me, and wasn't even there in the movies, let alone all the imposters and zombie copies that followed.  Star Trek is very important to me, went away a very long time ago, and, as Steven R. Donaldson said in The Wounded Land, "There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 21, 2013, 03:03:39 PM
There was nothing, nothing, nothing, out there in TV/movie SF that was as smart and well-done, save Twilight Zone for TV and Forbidden Planet for movies

Do I need to go round up some Whovians to come lay some smack down? 
 

Movie wise, I think you are painting your strokes far too broad.  The 60's were a great time for scifi movies with HG Wells adaptations galore, and even Hammer horror tossing in Quatermass and the Pit, and of course you know me and Planet of the Apes.  But, come on, you have to give some credit to 2001 at the very least! Don't make me go posting videos of Santa Clause Conquers the Martians, now!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 21, 2013, 03:08:41 PM
Doctor Who (1963) - Original Theme music video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75V4ClJZME4#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 21, 2013, 03:17:49 PM
Doctor Who is an interesting case; my sister was saying just the other day how sad she feels when she talks to kids who like the revival - they'll never be able to go back and enjoy the originals because it was done for a bag of dirt by people intending to make a childrens' show, and even the very best stories were too long by half.  -Which is sad, what with the very best being pretty darn good, even padded, and they miss out on so much of that universe.


Of course you're right about me doing a grave injustice to a number of movies.  Even in the strictly 50s cheese mode,  I left off The Day the Earth Stood Still and This Island Earth.

I don't think we've ever discussed Planet of the Apes.  I'm just the age that that one really got to me - I even have fond memories of the TV series, and in fact, the crappy cartoon.  Apes is worth its own thread.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 21, 2013, 03:31:07 PM
My Dr Who experience is limited to the 4th Dr.  The others just tend to bore me (probably to do with a lot more horror emphasis during the 4th Dr's episodes).  I just know the whovians are quite fanatical. 


And probably one of the best theme songs ever. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 21, 2013, 03:51:13 PM
Of course you're right about me doing a grave injustice to a number of movies.  Even in the strictly 50s cheese mode


Riders to the Stars

Kick ass paper mache space mummy at 2:04 that kept me up nights...

A Blundered Meteor Retrieval in "Riders To The Stars" - 1954 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEdT1jfqp8A#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 21, 2013, 04:26:22 PM
THAT is some bad model FX right there. 

Y'know, I pity the kids who can't rock at all with some good cheese like that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 21, 2013, 04:36:07 PM
To think that was pretty standard of the day, too. 

That space mummy is still creepy as hell.  Bad anatomy adds to it I think.  Evil space alien mummy thing.  Maybe one day I'll muster up the courage to do an alien theme... 

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-w_VLEIQXw-M/UZuTlDj0o1I/AAAAAAAASJc/zvSWEbs40tY/s800/untitled.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 21, 2013, 05:52:11 PM
Captain Pike and his Female First Officer were replaced with scrappy womanizer William Shatner James Tiberius Kirk. This is also known as "Dumbing Down". You want True Trek, you have to go to The Next Generation, which lacked the Executive Meddling aspect of the series. The name similarity between Pike and Picard is no accident.
(Italics added.)

Life is too short for a point-by-point refutation of every factual error in the post I pulled the above quote from, but someone already did all the work for me on the ignorant canard about womanizing Kirk:

Quote
The Captain Kirk Womanizing Fallacy Pt. 1 - LONG

Captain James T. Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise gets a bad rap for being a galactic womanizer. Let's face it -- as soon as I mentioned his name, you immediately think of him with a girl at every Starbase, or spreading his space seed (heh) to every tin-foil bikini-clad green chick with a beehive hairdo that he possibly can. People joke about it all the time -- there's even a line in Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country that references it.

But the facts simply do not bear this reputation out.

Season One:

1. Where No Man Has Gone Before - Kirk does not flirt with Elizabeth Dehner -- he's too worried that his buddy Gary Lockwood is turning into Dark Phoenix to notice that she's doing the same thing, just more slowly.

2. Corbomite Maneuver - Kirk is too busy keeping the kid who drinks tranya from destroying the ship, and makes a snide comment about Starfleet giving him a hot yeoman in a red miniskirt and ugly beehive instead of a male yeoman. Okay, chauvanistic remark. No space nookie yet.

3. Mudd's Women - Harry Mudd brings space sluts hopped up on space goofballs and Rigellian aphrodesiacs on board. Kirk falls under influence. He's a victim in this case.

4. The Enemy Within - Transporter accident separates Kirk's aggressive, animalistic side with his passive, pussy side. The aggressive side attacks the hot yeoman from episode 2. Again, Kirk is vicitim to a plot device and not in control.

5. The Man Trap - Salt vampire disguises itself as McCoy's long-lost childhood sweetheart. Uhura practically spreads her legs for Spock on the bridge, but no nookie for Kirk.

6. The Naked Time - space virus gets everybody drunk. What does Kirk talk about in his drunken ramblings? The Enterprise. Not women.

7. Charlie X - Kirk has to teach a teenage boy with superpowers why it's bad to flirt with hot beehive-wearing yeomen, young boy doesn't get it (and who can blame him). No nookie for Kirk.

8. Balance of Terror - Kirk looks for a German submarine -- er, cloaked Romulan warship -- and performs a wedding. No nookie.

9. What Are Little Girls Made Of? - Nurse Chapel's long-lost fiancé forces a hot android chick to make out with Kirk and then slap him a lot. Again, Kirk's the victim.

10. Dagger of the Mind - A hot psychiatrist who flirted with Kirk at the ship's Christmas party that year uses an evil mind control device to make Kirk think he's madly in love with her. She's the aggressor, he's again the victim.

11. Miri - A two-hundred year old adolescent girl and the Yeoman Beehive vie for Kirk's affections while he's busy trying to survive a killer virus. Yeoman Beehive professes her love of Kirk and we never see her again (as it should be in real life).

12. Conscience of the King - The first time Kirk sort of falls for a woman, she tries to kill him because she's, well, crazy, and Kirk can finger her dad for being the escaped fugitive he is. No on-screen evidence that Kirk and the girl do anything other than hold hands and kiss on an observation deck. Kirk's the aggressor this time, bad choice on his part. So we're 1 for 12, but he doesn't nail her.

13. Galileo Seven - Kirk's too busy looking for Spock and McCoy who are lost in a shuttlecraft to worry about women. Besides, the last girl he asked out tried to kill him.

14. Court Martial - The prosecuting attorney in Kirk's court martial trial asks him to kiss her on the bridge after she's lost the case. She's the aggressor. Kirk does oblige, though -- 2 willing kisses in 14 episodes.

15. The Menagerie - Spock's courtmartial and airing of original pilot. No nookie here, though the hot yeoman who greets Kirk when he beams down has heard stories about him and keeps flirting with him.

16. Shore Leave - McCoy's making time with a female science officer and Kirk's pining for the girl he dated while at Starfleet Academy. No nookie, but fun fight scenes with the recreation of his old Academy nemesis.

17. The Squire of Gothos - Q's bastard son picks on Kirk. Tally ho! No nookie.

18. Arena - Kirk's too busy fighting an asthmatic lizardman. I. Will. Not. Kill. ...Today. Yeswe'rehumanbeings,yeswe'resavages. But I. Won't. Kill. Today.

19. Alternative Factor - There's no way to tell what the hell is going on in this psychadelic mind trip, but I can guarantee there's no women involved.

20. Tomorrow is Yesterday - Kirk's too concerned with getting the ship out of the 20th century and into the 23rd without altering the timelines. No women.

21. Return of the Archons - A young girl flirts with one of Kirk's officers in the landing party, but Kirk's too busy convincing the computer that runs the planet to shut itself off to notice.

22. A Taste of Armageddon - Kirk briefly tries flirting with a planetary dignitary who's too focused on the war her planet's waging with another via computer. She insists he's dead because the computer says so, Kirk uses other means to escape and teach them that War Is Bad instead.

23. Space Seed - Khaaaannnnn!!!! The only hot female on this episode is soaking the cushions for Khan, so Kirk's main focus is saving the ship yet again.

24. This Side of Paradise - Space spores make Spock fall in love with the girl who already wanted him. Kirk's too busy trying to get Spock to remember his priorities. No girl for Kirk.

25. Devil In The Dark - Kirk negotiates peace between an angry mob of miners and an egg-laying pepperoni pizza bubble. No women here.

26. Errand of Mercy - Kirk vs. the Klingons for the first time. No women, although the Organians come across as [ladyparts, sissies] in the beginning.

27. City on the Edge of Forever - Kirk falls for Edith Keeler but must let her die in order for the future to be restored. Tragic. He's in the '30s and it's '60s t.v., so the most they do is hold hands and kiss.

28. Operation: Annihilate - Space pancakes kill a Federation colony. Kirk watches his widowed sister-in-law descend into madness, pain and death, and Spock is nearly killed by a space pancake.

So -- in the entirety of the first season, while we have six women throwing or forcing themselves on Kirk, when he shows genuine interest in two women -- two -- all he does with them is hold hands and kiss.

Sounds like a real womanizer to me.

My next entry will be Season 2. Then we'll do Season 3 and the movies.
http://uncle-twitchy.livejournal.com/16916.html (http://uncle-twitchy.livejournal.com/16916.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 21, 2013, 05:56:37 PM
Quote
The Captain Kirk Womanizing Fallacy Pt. 2 - LONG

Continuing our analysis of the original Star Trek, in our quest to determine why, exactly, Captain Kirk has this reputation for being an intergalactic horndog.

Season Two:

29. Catspaw - Pipe-cleaner/fuzzball aliens disguising themselves as humans for Halloween. The "female" alien decides she wants to know what this thing called "kiss" is, and forces herself on Kirk, who just wants to get away. She's the agressor, Kirk's the victim. Familiar scenario, huh?

30. Metamorphosis - Andy Taylor's first girlfriend Elly (before Helen Crump) is dying, so she merges with an alien energy being that wants to know what this thing called "kiss" is so it can do it with a pre-James Cromwell Zephram Cochrane, back when he was from Alpha Centauri and not Earth. Kirk watches with a bemused smirk.

31. Friday's Child - Julie "Catwoman" Newmar's pregnant and the Klingons want the baby. Or something. Kirk has little patience for her bitching. No nookie involved.

32. Who Mourns For Adonais? - The god Apollo grabs the Enterprise and tries to force the crew to re-enact the Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony scene from "Fantasia" for all eternity. Kirk convinces the hottie anthropology officer who's all wet with the idea to set her priorities straight and focus on saving the ship. No nookie for Kirk, but Apollo may have gotten some -- he's a Greek god, after all.

33. Amok Time - Spock in heat, and Kirk's caught up in Vulcan courting rituals and nearly dies. No nookie for anyone but Stonn.

34. The Doomesday Machine - Attack of the planet-eating Nabisco bugle. Kirk's with Scotty and his crack engineering team on board the U.S.S. Constellation the entire episode. No women.

35. Wolf in the Fold - The only women here are killed by Jack the Ripper, and Kirk doesn't flirt with any of them.

36. The Changeling - I Am Nomad. I Am Perfect. I Am Not A Sexbot. No nookie for anyone, although Scotty gets killed and then "turned back on," and Uhura's mind gets wiped and she has to learn everything again.

37. The Apple - Chekov gets some Yeoman Hottie action while the bewildered natives gawk and try to figure out what this thing called "kiss" is, but Kirk's too busy trying to shut off the computer that runs the planet to care.

38. MIrror, Mirror - Kirk gets jumped by Evil Kirk's Cabin [promiscuous] but he simply uses the situation to get more information on his evil self -- and manipulates her into saving his life. This is the first time I can think of that Kirk actively takes advantage of the woman who pursues him, but he does so in the interest of his crew, and it's still her pursuing him.

39. The Deadly Years - One of his old flames helps solve the weird aging disease that's affecting Kirk and Co., but they just mention a past relationship -- no bridge kissing, but she's clearly still in love with him and he's not with her.

40. I, Mudd - Thanks to the efforts of our intrepid captain trying to rescue his ship and crew, android twins learn what this thing called "kiss" is, but that's all part of trying to mess with their "logic circuits" or somesuch.

41. The Trouble With Tribbles - Tribbles and Klingons. No one needs to learn what this thing called "kiss" is for any reason, and Kirk's pretty grumpy throughout -- mostly because William Schallert (Patty Duke's dad) is a dick.

42. Bread and Circuses - The space Romans throw a hot blonde space slave at Kirk to get him to join the space Roman church softball team or somesuch, but Kirk's too disturbed by watching Spock and McCoy in short pants and fighting in gladitorial combat to fall for it. "You hear that, Flavius? It won't work!"

43. Journey to Babel - Spock's folks visit, and Kirk fights an Orion disguised as an Andorian. No one makes out with Jane Wyatt, though she strokes Mark Lenard's fingers.

44. A Private Little War - Kirk's space buddy Tyree's wife (a kanutu woman, if that means anything to you) decides she's hot for Kirk because he's got a phaser, so she casts a kanutu space spell on him to get all hot for her -- she's the agressor, Kirk's the victim, the Klingons kill her before it goes much further.

45. The Gamesters of Triskelion - Okay. This one I'll give you to a point. After all, Kirk takes it upon himself to teach space hottie Angelique Pettijohn (who would later do cheap porn films) what this thing called "kiss" is for no reason other than to watch her writhe in pain when she gets so worked up her collar short circuits. But like in "Mirror Mirror," he does it to get information on how to escape an otherwise intolerable situation. Fifty quatloos on the newcomer.

46. Obsession - Kirk's obsessed with a gas cloud that kills people. No women.

47. The Immunity Syndrome - Kirk prevents a giant space ameoba from eating the ship. No women.

48. A Piece of the Action - Kirk's caught up having too much fun playing space gangster to even notice there are women.

49. By Any Other Name - Kirk teaches the nasty cthuluoid monster disguised in human form what this thing called "kiss" is in order to freak her out with the human emotions she's experiencing as part of a plan to save the ship and crew.

50. Return to Tomorrow - Kirk briefly flirts with Diana Muldaur before their minds are put into glass jars by ancient aliens who want robot bodies. The aliens may do it off screen, but there's no concrete evidence to suggest it, and besides -- Kirk's in a jar for most of the episode.

51. Patterns of Force - Kirk's busy fighting space Nazis. The one woman on the show is pretending to be space-Jew hating Nazi but is really focused on stopping the space Fuhrer. Kirk doesn't even bother flirting with her.

52. The Ultimate Computer - dosn't even boot up properly and kills a bunch of Federation officers. No women.

53. The Omega Glory - Kirk's too busy reciting the preamble to the Consitution to notice that the only woman in the episode kinda digs Spock.

54. Assignment: Earth - Terri Garr is utterly adorable, but Kirk's too busy trying to figure out what the hell he's doing in a pilot for an unproduced series to notice.

So. Season Two, Kirk takes advantage of three women (well, two woman and one space slug disguised as a woman) in order to protect the ship - and all he does is kiss them. We have four more women throwing themselves at him, but he's too focused on saving the ship to notice or he's under the influence of of magical space mojo. And he tries to short circuit a robot by kissing it.

Still say he's a womanizer? Let's go on to Season Three...
http://uncle-twitchy.livejournal.com/17312.html (http://uncle-twitchy.livejournal.com/17312.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 21, 2013, 06:08:57 PM
Quote
The Captain Kirk Womanizing Fallacy Pt. 3 - LONG

Okay, so far, as we've seen by the actual on-screen evidence, for a man with a reputation as being this huge lady killer, Captain Kirk hasn't even gotten lucky, the two women he showed genuine affection for he simply held hands and kissed, and he's been the subject of sexual aggression by no fewer than 10 women -- that's 10 in 54 episodes. Oh, and he used his obvious sexual charm to get three other female creatures and one robot to help him save his ship or crew.

So.

Season Three:

55. Spectre of the Gun - Aliens force Kirk and Co. to play Gunfight at the O.K. Coral. Chekov get's the space saloon girl.

56. Elaan of Troyius - While testing the Taming of the Shrew principle with a hot alien ambassador, Kirk inadvertantly falls under the spell of her space love potion, but is eventually able to shake off the effects in order to save the ship.

57. The Paradise Syndrome - Under amnesia on a planet of space Indians, Kirk -- as the tribe's medicine man Kirok -- falls in love with the local Indian princess, marries her, and gets her pregnant with his child, while Spock spends months trying to figure out where the on-switch to the phasers are so he can destroy an asteroid. So -- Kirk gets laid: 1 out of 57.

58. The Enterprise Incident - Spock makes time with a hot Romulan commander while Kirk plays Romulan spy in order to steal a cloaking device.

59. And The Children Shall Lead - Lead us right into lameness, that is. The devil tries to get kids to make Kirk take him to another planet. Why? No women.

60. Spock's Brain - Space bimbos steal Spock's brain and are too dumb to understand why Kirk would want it back. They're too stupid to even ask what this thing called "kiss" is, so Kirk doesn't even bother.

61. Is There In Truth No Beauty? - Kirk kinda likes blind ambassador Diana Muldaur, but Spock goes crazy, cockblocking the whole mess. I don't remember if Kirk teachs the ambassador what this thing called "kiss" is, but I suspect she already knows -- oh, and did I forget to mention she's crazy?

62. The Empath - Kirk, Spock, McCoy and a cute deaf mute girl play out some weird S&M fantasy for sadistic aliens until Kirk gets bored with it.

63. The Tholian Web - Kirk spends the entire episode in a spacesuit stuck between two dimensions.

64. For The World Is Hollow, And I Have Touched The Sky - McCoy gets a fatal disease, so naturally he choses to abandon his medical career to live with a hottie on an asteroid doomed to a collision course with a plot device. Kirk spends the entire episode trying to figure out if McCoy's being serious.

65. Day of the Dove - A glowing ball of energy forces Klingons and Enterprise crew to fight for its amusement. Kirk takes one look at Kang's wife Mara, decides Koloth was kidding when he said Klingons don't take "non-essentials" (i.e. women) on their missions, and goes on to laugh the glowing energy ball off the ship.

66. Plato's Stepchildren - Kirk is forced to kiss Lt. Uhura by telepathic aliens pretending to uphold the platonic ideal. Now, if it was me, I wouldn't have had to have been forced -- she was extremely hot back then -- but he's too distracted by his attempts to escape the aliens' evil clutches and too angry that he has to be forced to do this to enjoy it.

67. Wink of an Eye - The hot alien who moves faster than the human eye can see brings Kirk "up to speed" and then nails him so that she can get knocked up and ensure the survival of her species, since all their men are sterile. Kirk clearly enjoys it, and who wouldn't, but he's ultimately more concerned with escaping her clutches. The only other on-screen evidence that Kirk "got some," and she was the aggressor.

68. That Which Survives - Alien robot disguised as Lee "Catwoman" Meriweather runs around killing people by touching them. Defines "bad touch." Kirk avoids.

69. Let That Be Your Last Battlefield - The Riddler and some other guy paint themselves like checkerboards and spout bigoted rhetoric to belabor a point. No women.

70. Whom Gods Destroy - Batgirl appears as a green Orion chick living on an insane asylum. She tries to rape Kirk, but he's distracted by the former starfleet captain who can change into other people, including Kirk himself, to really notice.

71. The Mark of Gideon - A planet so overpopulated it has standing room only inexplicably builds an empty mockup of the Enterprise, lures Kirk into thinking he's in a Twilight Zone episode, and force one of the planetary leader's daughters on him so she can catch the flu and spread it among their people so they'll start dying off. Kirk realizes how truly sick and twisted this plan (and planet) is and runs (no doubt irritated that there's no computer running the place to shut off).

72. The Lights of Zetar - Bad sparkle effects representing the souls of a dead planet possess Scotty's new girlfriend. No women for Kirk.

73. The Cloud Minders - The planet leader's daughter is hot for Spock, the rebel miner is too busy trying to start a revolution, and Kirk's just trying to survive the inanity of this season's episodes.

74. The Way To Eden - The Space Hippies may be all about space peace, space love, and freaky space joy, and they truly grok Spock, and one of them used to groove on Chekov (who already has better luck with women than our "womanizing" Captain at this point), but Kirk himself is totally squaresville, daddy.

75. Requiem for Methuselah - Kirk makes yet another wrong choice and falls for a girl who turns out to be a robot. By the end, she's destroyed and Spock mindmelds the whole thing out of Kirk's memory.

76. The Savage Curtain - Evil chunks of lava force Kirk, Spock, and Abraham Lincoln to fight Genghis Khan. The less said, the better. No women for Kirk.

77. All Our Yesterdays - Kirk, Spock and McCoy end up on a dying planet's distant past. While Spock falls in love, Kirk gets tried for witchcraft. No nookie.

78. Turnabout Intruder - One of Kirk's old girlfriends (who was clearly crazy and that's why he broke up with her -- "Whoa, honey, you're too unstable for me!") forces him to switch bodies. She then goes on a power-mad freakout until the crew mutiny and put the real Kirk back in his body.


The movies are quick and easy to assess:

Motion Picture: V'Ger wasn't a woman, and when it made the mock-up of Lt. Ilia, Cmdr. Decker was the one who benefited.

Wrath of Khan: Runs into an old, old girlfriend with whom he had a bastard son. They obviously had a serious relationship in the past but different career paths broke them up.

Search for Spock: No women

Voyage Home: Kirk is obviously attracted to the mom from 7th Heaven, but she's too obsessed with her whales to care.

Final Frontier: No women.

Undiscovered Country: He flirts with the Chameloid (she, again, is the aggressor -- in more ways than one) and McCoy makes his snide, unwarranted comment, "What is it about you?"

Generations: Kirk remembers a breakup with a woman he was living with during a brief hiatus from Starfleet. Other than that, he's dead.

As we have seen, therefore, we have the only two actual on-screen instances that show Kirk to have gotten laid, one of which he was being captive and coerced (no matter how much he enjoyed it, and who would blame him?), the other he was genuinely in love. We have two instances where Kirk actually falls for women, but both relationships are doomed -- one dies, the other is a robot who is destroyed. We have one instance of Kirk falling under the influence of mind-controlling chemicals to fall for a woman, one instance of alien coercion, and another psycho throwing herself at him. Oh, and the whole weird mind-switch thing.

In total, that means Kirk really only ever pursued five women on the entire 78-episode run, and one woman casually in one of the movies. Three died (or were destroyed), the other two were bat[poop]crazy. However, we have fourteen instances of women throwing themselves at Kirk, three or four of which Kirk used to save his ship or crew. Oh, and one instance of Kirk deliberately manipulating an alien female's emotions so he wouldn't have to fight cavemen and andorians for the amusement of brains in a jar.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you that, in answer to Dr. McCoy's question to Captain James T. Kirk on the Rura Penthe penal asteroid in 2293 is this: he is a charming, confident, and determined man dedicated to his ship and his crew, which the ladies find extremely attractive.

They throw themselves at him, and he very, very rarely responds unless it's in the best interest of the safety of his ship and crew, his first priority. The few times he has been genuinely attracted to women outside his career and therefore disregards his priorities have all ended in disaster. All cliché aside, he is truly married to his ship.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is my firm belief that Captain Kirk's reputation as a interstellar womanizer is therefore unwarranted and totally fallacious. Is he a flirt? Absolutely. Does he hesitate to kiss a beautiful woman who throws herself into his arms? Very rarely -- he's a man's man, after all, and only rejects the truly crazy ones. But he never, never ceases to keep the safety of his ship and his crew his top priority.

I rest my case.
http://uncle-twitchy.livejournal.com/17434.html (http://uncle-twitchy.livejournal.com/17434.html)

Now, I fully grant that Uncle Twitchy (no relation) is a little too picky -Kirk pretty clearly gave in to the girl in Bread and Circuses, for example- but even granting that a lot of those women Twitchy dismisses as 'nothing happened' actually got his pants off offscreen, women came to him, not the other way around.  Kirk, for all that he was a charmer who was capable of giving it up when a hot lady insisted, or even being a man-[prostitute]when it might save his people (and the woman was hot), was a very lonely man who refused to fish off the company pier when he was sober and sane, and in fact, seemed to be one of those fellows who was really only interested in finding The One.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 21, 2013, 07:49:16 PM
Quote
was a very lonely man who refused to fish off the company pier when he was sober and sane


Well, there are those that think Kirk was a little more interested in Spock as well....
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 21, 2013, 08:59:53 PM
Yeah, and the fat girls into a little boy-on-boy usually have to invoke Pon Farr or some other unusual circumstance to make it work - look, in The Enemy Within the first thing Evil Kirk does is head to sick bay to get Bones to liquor him up -which means Kirk is normally too much of a boy scout to keep any booze in his quarters- and, having gotten his drink on, does he head for the bridge to commence his conquest of the universe?  No, he goes looking for Rand, 'cause he's clearly always wanted to hit that, but was too much of a boy scout.  He wouldn't do Spock when he was in his right mind, if for no other reason than the same one that he normally wouldn't touch Rand or Helen Noel.  He's a workaholic, and screwing his underlings is both a bad idea, practically speaking, and unethical.  He cares about doing the right thing and he cares about running his command well.  Mylochka says that Star Trek is ultimately about workaholic Kirk's problems with his job.  (I add that TNG, in that light, is largely about Picard [slowly] working out the best solution he can to whatever dilemma the current adventure presents.)

Get Kirk drunk, evil, or crazy enough, and he's trouble, granted.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Tarvok on May 23, 2013, 01:09:50 AM
This is how I like it. Don't express your hate for the New Trek, express your love for the Old Trek. I'm getting a nostalgia contact high off this, and I like it. I'm even considering switching from Crunchyroll to Hulu or Amazon Plus not only so I can complete my third watch-through of DS9, but also to see some TOS! (This, btw, was the purpose of my controversial tone: I wanted to stir things up.)

I think you maybe be right about Kirk-as-Womanizer being a myth. The ladies did, indeed, come to him, which is exactly the fantasy the viewers would prefer. I think people less familiar with the series tend to lump him in the same archetype as the likes of James Bond, who, yes, the ladies went to him, but you can bet he also went to the ladies.

And I do understand. The only thing I know both old and new of well enough to have a feel of how great the "old" was is the computer RPG series: The Elder Scrolls. For many, many years, I was pretty well convinced Bethsoft peaked with Daggerfall (buggy mess though it was). Years later, I thought they'd peaked with Morrowind, after I'd accepted it for what it was and stopped criticizing it for not being an upgrade of Daggerfall. Oblivion will forever be regarded as a wrong turn... but then, playing Skyrim, despite how completely they've severed ties with their old-style CRPG roots, I managed to catch a feeling I'd not had since Daggerfall.

Well, that and Thundercats. There are aspects of the old flavor I prefer from the original to the reboot... but I am willing to admit the writing is far superior (not to mention more consistent) for the reboot. I remember trying to re-watch the Thundercats on Cartoon Network one day. I don't even remember which episode it was... but it was bad. Very, very bad. Only a few episodes were good (specifically the pilot and the Trials, and maybe a few others I don't remember); the rest was the kind of cheap drivel cartoon hack shops put out regularly to keep toy sales up. The reboot, on the other hand, actually has some quality in terms of setting backstory and character development. It's a shame it failed commercially.

Dr. Who... I almost regret the fact that I can't appreciate the old series. But it's like trying to go back and play Chrono Trigger, which I missed when it was new because I was a Genesis guy. Intellectually, I can see the awesome. But the production values are just so substandard it's impossible for me to form an emotional attachment.

But, back to the thread topic. Um... great. This is what stands out to me:

Yeah, and the fat girls into a little boy-on-boy

See, this is why I went where I did. Always with the hostility. I get that the notion that there was any homoeroticism between Kirk and Spock is ridiculous... but do you really have to insult people over it? You claim your hostility is directed at B&B... but it's totally not. :-\
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on May 23, 2013, 02:26:08 AM
Turvok, you are not the lone ranger. You must forgive the Uncle as he has bittervet™ syndrome when it comes to Star Trek. I often think Sisko's avatar is in place to simmer the Uncle's rage.

Old Trek was okay, but with the exception of a few rotten episodes in season 1, TNG, VOY, and DS9 were much better written and much more cerebral. Particularly DS9. God, what deep stories and character development!

The JJ Abrahms reboot of Trek was interesting, but JJ himself said he never got into Trek because of the cerebral writing. Hence, reboot Trek is all just action. Unfortunately, while it was cool, I do not think it is as true Trek as TNG.

But, BU is not alone either. I know folks IRL that go into RAGE when confronted with new trek. One of my friends bought her long time convention buddy and ex-boyfriend some collectable Abrahms movie glasses because he collected Trek memorabilia. He got angry and snapped at her and refused to take anything "not true Trek".

Star Wars has this too, to some extent with the prequels. I am sure we will see this with episode 7.

If you enjoy it, cool. If not, not.

As for Old Trek, I am still waiting on Cawley and gang over at Star Trek Phase II to complete 3 new old trek episodes. Many already out even have the original 1960s incidental music and are well produced. As they go on, the episodes look closer and closer to an actual 1960s episode with much better production values.

Then again, I am just a sucker for all sci-fi as long as it does not outright suck.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 23, 2013, 02:47:33 AM
ThunderCats?  Hmmm.  That probably makes you late 30s.  I do a mean Skeletor voice, but I was perversely watching HeMan as an adult.

I'm actually pretty catholic in my tastes - but slash revolts me, and I don't apologize to the 'horny old fat girls' for feeling a little hostile to their vision that so fundamentally doesn't agree with mine or the creators - but I do apologize for echoing David Gerold in the unnecessarily misogynistic phrasing.

We lost something hard to describe when Saturday pro wrestling shows moved from local gyms and they stopped using the promoter's relatives for cameramen.  We lost something when they started printing the comic books on good paper (something John Byrne said in an interview about 30 years ago).  We lost something when George Lucas got complete control of his creation and ditched talented collaborators.  We lost something when the Battlestar Galactica remake didn't stop with the mini-series, when they'd said what they had to say and while they were ahead.

(We lost something when Green showed up to pile on. :P)

Back in, I dunno, 1990 or so, I said while watching TNG: "I'm pretty sure I'd like this if they'd call it something else."  I just don't need the pain and aggravation of constantly being reminded of this thing I miss so much.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 23, 2013, 03:40:18 AM
About Doctor Who - if the Beebe would hire a good writer, good video editor and good sound mixer, there's a mint to be made going through all the intact stories of the old show and editing them down to the length the story wanted to be, sans the pointless/boring running around that didn't advance the plot and served only to pad that sucker out to 4-6 episodes when 2 would have done. 

It's something I've noticed time and again, even when watching the good ones with the 4th Doctor and Romanna - over half is always boring filler.  (Mylochka and I watched Castrovalva last night, which was deadly bad for the first half it took to even get to the eponymous locality, then suddenly became not-terrible once TristanDoctor hit town.) I'm not advocating something like Star Trek Remastered with fixing the special effects to so-so results.  You'd still be stuck with the old scripts, old performances, much of the old sets, and all the costumes.  But good stories and bad alike could all benefit from tighter pacing and getting to the good parts a lot faster.

The BBC could make a mint selling DVDs of the old show to the same fans all over again, and have something much more likely to appeal to new fans and curious fans of the current version.  This is something even you or I could do crudely on the computer with something like Windows Movie Maker, provided only the will, the patience, and some good story-telling skills - and I wish some fans would, in hopes of the right people at the beebe seeing it on YouTube and getting inspired.

I'd really like to see a Good Parts version of Castrovalva, you see...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 23, 2013, 05:22:42 AM
Rehash them into a movie ala Flash Gordon?  Could work. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on May 23, 2013, 06:17:30 AM
The last episode, Name of the Doctor was pretty cool. Oswin was superimposed into scenes from classic who.

Ending was pretty epic, too...

But, you are right, BU about old doctor who. It dragged. Everybody talks up Tom Baker (4th Doc), but really, the guy was way too passive. Most of those episodes were just things happening around him and the Doctor and whatever companion merely coping. Not taking charge.

Now, McCoy, the Seventh Doctor... He is a manipulative, scheming dude. His companion Ace, I will put up against Rose/10th doctor which is supposed to be the benchmark for companion/doctor interaction any day. Whats not to like about a tough 16 year old from the 80s in a jacket that just happens to like to blow things up?

Oh, BTW... I know its a Trek thread, but the season finale of Doctor Who if you missed it. Very epic these new shows.

doctor who S7 E13 the name of the doctor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcv75hETSjk#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2013, 05:12:36 PM
I'm no topic Nazi, and you know it; however, Who is worth its own thread, should the quantity of discussion or simple demand justify it.  Discuss and demand away here in the interim.

I should add that I think we lost pretty much nothing when they revived Doctor Who.  They brought it back smarter and infinitely better-paced in the hour-long done-in-one format, taking advantage of the traditional flexibility of the show, with its occasional change of lead and very frequent change of tone and style.  They didn't make the mistake of rebooting and respected what had come before exactly as much as the original - which wasn't, frankly, all that continuity-obsessed, mind you.

Trek was a show for adults that was revived, repeatedly, by people who didn't respect the original and tended to dumb it down; Who was a show made for children that was revived by people who respected the original, but smartened it up and made something for grown-ups*.   THAT's the way you do it.


*(But didn't take it so far away from its roots that it bore no resembence to its original, like Battlestar Galactica).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 28, 2013, 01:11:46 AM
Okay, this is a thing you have to be a certain age to appreciate why it's so strangely amusing.  Shaun Cassidy was the Justin Beiber of 1980, and try to imagine him releasing a song that's a tune from the Into Darkness score, set to words.

Shaun Cassidy: A Star Beyond Time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9q6Va4Ee1g#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on May 28, 2013, 01:52:19 AM
About Doctor Who - if the Beebe would hire a good writer, good video editor and good sound mixer, there's a mint to be made going through all the intact stories of the old show and editing them down to the length the story wanted to be, sans the pointless/boring running around that didn't advance the plot and served only to pad that sucker out to 4-6 episodes when 2 would have done. 

It's something I've noticed time and again, even when watching the good ones with the 4th Doctor and Romanna - over half is always boring filler.  (Mylochka and I watched Castrovalva last night, which was deadly bad for the first half it took to even get to the eponymous locality, then suddenly became not-terrible once TristanDoctor hit town.) I'm not advocating something like Star Trek Remastered with fixing the special effects to so-so results.  You'd still be stuck with the old scripts, old performances, much of the old sets, and all the costumes.  But good stories and bad alike could all benefit from tighter pacing and getting to the good parts a lot faster.

The BBC could make a mint selling DVDs of the old show to the same fans all over again, and have something much more likely to appeal to new fans and curious fans of the current version.  This is something even you or I could do crudely on the computer with something like Windows Movie Maker, provided only the will, the patience, and some good story-telling skills - and I wish some fans would, in hopes of the right people at the beebe seeing it on YouTube and getting inspired.

I'd really like to see a Good Parts version of Castrovalva, you see...

There has actually been someone on Youtube remastering Doctor Who episodes, but only from the Sylvester McCoy/ Ace/ Seventh Doctor era. These were the last episodes before Doctor Who got canceled. The era was known for very dark stories. The doctor would "use" his companions like some evil game of chess, often hurting their feelings to gain advantages over his many enemies. Ace already had a lot of emotional issues. The doctor sometimes I think made this worse.  Not going to derail by embedding one of those DW episodes, but search one of the classic episodes like "Curse of Fenric". he did a good job.

While I heard accolades for the BSG reboot, I never could bring myself to watch it. Something about Starbuck with breasts. Just...no... Please crap moar on my childhood.

And, yes BU.... Sean Cassidy will be in hell singing a duet with Justin Bieiber. Hopefully in a galaxy far, far away from any Trek or Wars.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 28, 2013, 03:12:08 AM
My knowledge of Who gets a bit scant during the Davis era and increasingly moreso afterward, but I've seen Curse of Fenric.  Still could be improved by a phantom edit for faster/tighter pacing.

You should sit through the original miniseries of the BSG revival - seriously, it WAS very good, notwithstanding all the neat/cheesy/fun crap they threw out.  I cannot recommend the ongoing TV series, however, and the miniseries requires a certain flexibility of mind for anyone who was seriously into the original.  It's a very different thing.

And you're right; their Starbuck WAS hard to take, and not nearly as pretty...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 28, 2013, 08:29:24 PM
STC-E01 "Pilgrim of Eternity" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G-ziTBAkbQ#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 29, 2013, 03:03:16 AM
Okay - I've watched the above fan-produced episode, and I'm positively shocked at how well it came together.  I could go on for a very long time about where there's room for improvement, but the writing really has the feel as well as being as smart and well-structured as you could hope for from a fan production.

Their Kirk (Vic Mignola, the voice of Edward Elgar on Fullmetal Alchemist and the reason that I hereby dub this particular fan production Fullmetal Star Trek) is head and shoulders the best Kirk I've seen in a fan video.  Not wild about any of the rest of the cast, (even though Chris Doohan really sounds like Scotty and Grant Imanhara of Mythbusters does a credible Sulu voice) but a strong Kirk does a lot to carry a weak Spock (w/ a voice far too high - Spock without a deep voice doesn't scan as Spock, something even unlikeable SkylarSpock pulled off - these fan productions always cast fellows to young to pull off Spock successfully).  Unlike the boyish-seeming James Crawley of New Voyages, or the even younger chap who replaced him  for Phase II, Mignola is about the right age to be Kirk, which I think is a lot of why his reading of the part works so well.

Again, it's a fan video, and I'm cautioning you to go in with low expectations; but it IS surprisingly good, and I'm not just taking it easy on amateurs.  I Just plain liked it, and the redheaded girl is pretty hot.

Two thumbs up; Joe Bob says check it out.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Tarvok on May 29, 2013, 06:06:14 AM
I'm not sure I'm sufficiently immersed in TOS to judge it properly, but it is now in my "watch later" queue (too late tonight to start an hour episode). This best thing about this episode is that it shows that the chilling effect of an IP overprotective culture is finally wearing off. I remember when kids were getting "cease and desist" letters for putting up simple fansites. But fanfiction is often good enough that, given the chance to go to production (even low/no budget, talented amateur production) could result in considerable levels of awesome.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on May 29, 2013, 06:33:40 PM
Okay - I've watched the above fan-produced episode, and I'm positively shocked at how well it came together.  I could go on for a very long time about where there's room for improvement, but the writing really has the feel as well as being as smart and well-structured as you could hope for from a fan production.

Their Kirk (Vic Mignola, the voice of Edward Elgar on Fullmetal Alchemist and the reason that I hereby dub this particular fan production Fullmetal Star Trek) is head and shoulders the best Kirk I've seen in a fan video.  Not wild about any of the rest of the cast, (even though Chris Doohan really sounds like Scotty and Grant Imanhara of Mythbusters does a credible Sulu voice) but a strong Kirk does a lot to carry a weak Spock (w/ a voice far too high - Spock without a deep voice doesn't scan as Spock, something even unlikeable SkylarSpock pulled off - these fan productions always cast fellows to young to pull off Spock successfully).  Unlike the boyish-seeming James Crawley of New Voyages, or the even younger chap who replaced him  for Phase II, Mignola is about the right age to be Kirk, which I think is a lot of why his reading of the part works so well.

Again, it's a fan video, and I'm cautioning you to go in with low expectations; but it IS surprisingly good, and I'm not just taking it easy on amateurs.  I Just plain liked it, and the redheaded girl is pretty hot.

Two thumbs up; Joe Bob says check it out.

The quality was on par with the 1960s. Not so sure I liked the introduction of TNG stuff like on board councilors or early holodeck. I prefered the "Phase 2" progression with actual Roddenbury suggested characters that they were going to use for Phase 2, not this. I agree that was one weak Spock. Strong Kirk, Sulu, and Scotty. Bringing back the guy that played Apollo from TOS was really cool. I love how actors are supporting these fan efforts.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Tarvok on May 30, 2013, 03:20:41 AM
The holodeck was one of two methods Star Trek writers used to put their characters into situations the setting did not otherwise provide for; the other was "parallel earths" or whatever they called them. Assuming that stories where you take characters and throw them into alternate settings are fun and a good idea, which method do you prefer?

Personally, I prefer the holodeck.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 30, 2013, 03:33:50 AM
Honestly?  The admittedly retarded parallel earths don't bother me as much - but I assume that's because I was contaminated with that nonsense when I was very, very, young and uncritical.  It's nothing the current-day me would allow if they retroactively had to get my permission.

I did like the Captain Proton stuff on Voyager, and the time Sisko was a Bond villain on DS9, but that's about the complete extent of love holodeck adventures get from me...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 30, 2013, 05:31:42 AM
Okay - I've watched the above fan-produced episode, and I'm positively shocked at how well it came together.  I could go on for a very long time about where there's room for improvement, but the writing really has the feel as well as being as smart and well-structured as you could hope for from a fan production.

Their Kirk (Vic Mignola, the voice of Edward Elgar on Fullmetal Alchemist and the reason that I hereby dub this particular fan production Fullmetal Star Trek) is head and shoulders the best Kirk I've seen in a fan video.  Not wild about any of the rest of the cast, (even though Chris Doohan really sounds like Scotty and Grant Imanhara of Mythbusters does a credible Sulu voice) but a strong Kirk does a lot to carry a weak Spock (w/ a voice far too high - Spock without a deep voice doesn't scan as Spock, something even unlikeable SkylarSpock pulled off - these fan productions always cast fellows to young to pull off Spock successfully).  Unlike the boyish-seeming James Crawley of New Voyages, or the even younger chap who replaced him  for Phase II, Mignola is about the right age to be Kirk, which I think is a lot of why his reading of the part works so well.

Again, it's a fan video, and I'm cautioning you to go in with low expectations; but it IS surprisingly good, and I'm not just taking it easy on amateurs.  I Just plain liked it, and the redheaded girl is pretty hot.

Two thumbs up; Joe Bob says check it out.

It's hard to push past that spock...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 30, 2013, 03:55:10 PM
Yeah, it's going to be a horrible problem, ongoing - you can carry a weak Spock for one episode easily, but hard to imagine it working as Star Trek in the long run with him.  This one only works at all as a smaller part. 

Their McCoy sucks, too.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 30, 2013, 04:43:47 PM
Yeah.  I got about 20 minutes in.  Writing was overall decent, but Spock sucked (and I think they knew that as there were several skipped oportunities for him to interject), and McCoy was TOTALLY off, even the writing for McCoy was off.  I actually grew to find him more distracting than Spock.  I don't know, maybe if the guy had any charisma he could have made the lines work.  As it was he was coming off as a bad charicature or even comic relief.  Without a good Spock OR McCoy, it's just not worth my time no matter how good Kirk is doing.   

Generally interesting layers and threads to the storyline (or rather the setup with only getting 20 minutes in), had the right 'feel' overall, but they were going too long.  Yes, hour episodes, but with US TV that means you need 45 minutes of air time, they've padded the episode 5-7 minutes too long, and it shows on top of the other problems.   

Kinda sucks watching that, you can see how it COULD work...and it's not to be. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 30, 2013, 07:18:06 PM
You're right, come to think of it; that episode was long, AND the pacing was a bit slow.  Needs a Phantom Edit.

Good catch, man.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on May 31, 2013, 03:52:39 AM
I think I am going to stick to Star trek Phase 2. James Cawley  and crew tended to get it a bit better for me, although there is definite room for improvement in that whole series, as well. Also, what happened to the three episodes they were supposed to have out by now?

The holodeck was one of two methods Star Trek writers used to put their characters into situations the setting did not otherwise provide for; the other was "parallel earths" or whatever they called them. Assuming that stories where you take characters and throw them into alternate settings are fun and a good idea, which method do you prefer?

Personally, I prefer the holodeck.

I agree, Tarvok... TOS episodes like Omega Glory that did that really stunk.

But, pre-TNG era tech, the holodeck just does not fit.
 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 31, 2013, 10:23:12 PM
DeForest Kelley - talking about his favourite fan letter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgcE6NxgrEc#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 01, 2013, 08:39:29 PM
Patrick Stewart Gives Passionate Response to Question At Comicpalooza 2013 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqFaiVNuy1k#ws)

Y'know what? Very Star Trek.  Way to go, Cap'n. [salutes]
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 03, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
A fair bit of NSFW language - and not nearly so insightful and funny as previous Plinkett reviews.  You have been warned...

Mr. Plinkett - Star Trek: Into Reference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeyLm-pLVm4#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 02:03:50 AM
First Contact is on TV. 

I know Frakes is on record as saying he studied Aliens in preparation for making this film, and it really shows in the scenes on the ship.  There are some good (if cliche B movie quality) horror shots on the ship. 

The away team scenes really drag on, however. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 02:05:44 AM
I didn't hate First Contact - and after Generations, I really, really, REALLY wanted to.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 02:08:25 AM
I think Generations' problem was they were too busy trying to make Picard into Kirk. 

I enjoy the horror elements in First Contact.  But, I'm biased that way.  Kind of reminds me of Pandorum a bit.  LOVE that show.  (which is not to say it's a good movie) 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 02:14:55 AM
First Contact is the (metaphorical) story of a rape survivor hell-bent on vengeance, y'know.

I'm sure I've mentioned at least twice in this thread that I didn't hate Insurrection, either...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 02:25:10 AM
Yeah, haven't seen much more than 20 minutes of Insurrection. 

Yes, rape/revenge for First Contact.  But the rapists have plenty of horror elements tied up in them....pretty much like space vampires.  Like a kind of Dracula in space. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 02:41:50 AM
I have no trouble buying into wanting to wipe out the Borg for stealing my identity -if it'd happened to me- nosirree.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 02:44:08 AM
Imagine how good the series would have been if Stewart had showed the same emotion in the series...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 02:44:55 AM
1.  Having watched him in other things, he's highly overrated as an actor to begin with, IMO.
2.  He clearly phoned in a fair number of episodes. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 02:58:07 AM
How many pages/months ago did I make the same two points?

He is a decent actor, just not the great one people make him out to be.  Royal Shakespeare Company experience is overrated, as those with it tend to forget that they don't have to be heard in the back row when acting in other mediums.  That's the same thing Shatner, a serious stage-trained actor, too, so often did wrong.  Stewart ay have been aware of that, given his usually low-key readings, but rarely found the right balance on TNG.


And I should say that I spent a lot of time watching YouTube vids of fake ST actors convention appearances back in January -most of the stuff out there with real ST actors is either really old or just too sad to enjoy- and it eventually struck me that they couldn't help that the scripts were mostly bad. [shrugs]
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 03:24:45 AM
How many pages/months ago did I make the same two points?


Don't know, I don't read everything.  I just was recalling how awful he was in his version Scrooge.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 03:51:42 AM
He's no George C. Scott...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 03:54:42 AM
Wow, terribad practical effects on data after his skin melts/whatever.  Someone should be embarrassed.  (granted most people probably won't notice.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 03:58:56 AM
Yeah, the Borg Queen was a bad idea, and the Data plot sucked, too.  That part of the movie just wasn't good.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 04:10:24 AM
I personally like the queen.  Especially Alice Krige.  Her makeup is mostly well done, too.  The CGI floating spine thing is cringe-worthy though. 

The Borg had been neutered in the series, and giving them a charismatic evil presence was good adaptation....and that's what they should have written in.  The QUEEN as the ultimate consequence of whoever that one dude was introducing individuality to the Borg, not some always there you just didn't know BS. 

It also mirrors the Alien (movie) evolution from a faceless every alien is a breeding machine to a queen/hive dynamic.  They both lose some of their more alien (as in strange) nature, and become something more approachable by the viewing public at large.  We can understand a hive structure more. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 04:24:55 AM
Eh - not that they ever knew what they were doing with the Borg, but she was a bad fit.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 04:55:30 AM
I mean, they're supposed to be a big group mind - I can see the appeal to the writers to put a face on the Borg, but it really takes something away, too.  Some Doctor Who fans really dislike Davros for the same reason; Dalek stories tend to end up being about him and not them.  That's sorta what I'm saying here, too.

Like, it's better horror, and you can't deny that there's a horror element to the Borg at their best, when it's this faceless, implacable, unstopable horde that you can't even talk to...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 12:33:15 PM
I mean, they're supposed to be a big group mind - I can see the appeal to the writers to put a face on the Borg, but it really takes something away, too.  Some Doctor Who fans really dislike Davros for the same reason; Dalek stories tend to end up being about him and not them.  That's sorta what I'm saying here, too.

Like, it's better horror, and you can't deny that there's a horror element to the Borg at their best, when it's this faceless, implacable, unstopable horde that you can't even talk to...

Yes, you do lose something...which is why I think the Alien queen is a mistake.  THOSE things are truly ALIEN.  But in Trek, PARTICULARLY in the TNG world, I feel the queen works better.  ESPECIALLY since Locutus already established the borg putting a face on the evil to better assimilate humanity, and Hugh (had to google it) added the concept to the collective already.  Basically, IMO, they had already lost the faceless, completely alien evil, and the Queen was the best possible step they could take. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 06:58:43 PM
They never had a plan for the Borg, and some of the ad-hoc stuff they slapped together as they went was tres' lame.  Voyager made it a lot worse, of course.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 04, 2013, 07:14:19 PM
We weren't watching Voyager by the time they got around to the Borg. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2013, 07:29:11 PM
hEt was a Kes fan?

That was a pity; everybody liked Kes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 14, 2013, 06:30:18 PM
Quote
Copernicus On The Science Of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS!!
 

For those who don’t know me, I occasionally write movie reviews for Ain’t It Cool News, but I’m also a professional astronomer.  I occasionally write articles on the science of movies (most recently, AVENGERS), not because I want to nitpick at every little thing, but because it is a good chance to sneak in a little knowledge about how the universe works.  But I also do it because I get annoyed when writers get lazy and don’t think twice or talk to a scientist, and as a result produce movies that are way less cool than they ought to be.  And at the same time, I want to celebrate those awe-inspiring moments in movies that do mean more if they are based in real science. 

 

 

NIBIRU, SERIOUSLY?

Sadly, right from the title card you can tell STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS has disdain rather than respect for science.  The planet Kirk and company are there to interfere with is named Nibiru.  This is a made up idea by some certified nutbars who have claimed that it is a rogue planet variously hiding in our own solar system(!) or about to zoom through it, somehow ending life on Earth by bringing about a “pole shift,” or some such [nonsense].  Nibiru was originally mixed up in this Comet Hale-Bopp craziness in 1997, then it was claimed it would destroy humanity in 2003, and then people attached it to 2012 Maya stupidity.   

I know Bob Orci, one of the writers of Star Trek, is a conspiracy nut.  We’ve gotten into arguments about whether the Big Bang happened.  Maybe he was just trolling professional astronomers by slipping Nibiru in there?  After all, he didn’t like my take on the science of the 2009 STAR TREK, even though I was positive on the movie.  I don’t care what the reason is -- stunts like this are a slap in the face to what made Star Trek great in the first place.  One of the many legacies of Star Trek is thousands of astronomers and astronauts who were inspired to devote their lives to uncovering the awe and wonder of the universe because of the show’s message of cooperation and exploration.  Shame on you, JJ Abrams and Bob Orci, for defiling the legacy of Star Trek by valuing lazy delusional paranoia over its true principles:  critical thinking and reason.

 

 

THE VULCAN-OLOGIST

According to the dialogue near the beginning of the film, a volcano is about to erupt on the planet that will wipe out all life on it, or at least civilization.  Is this plausible?   It is true that large volcanic eruptions over Earth’s history have killed tens of thousands of locals at a time.   And Earth’s history is filled with records of volcanic eruptions affecting temperatures globally, sometimes for years after the eruption.  Effects have even included the “year without a summer.”  Some have speculated that the one of the largest known volcanic eruptions in Earth’s history, the Toba event from about 70,000 years ago, was responsible for a genetic bottleneck in human mitochondrial DNA.  However, that idea seems to be contradicted by other evidence, so isn’t widely believed.

But what about other planets?  At 14 miles high and covering the size of France, Olympus Mons on Mars makes Earth volcanoes look puny in comparison.  And Venus may have been resurfaced by volcanism about 500 million years ago.  Io, a moon of Jupiter, is constantly being repaved by sulphur-spewing volcanoes.  Some shoot so high, they almost launch material into orbit.

But all of these scenarios have problems for wiping out all life on a planet.  It takes many volcanic eruptions to cause catastrophic global effects.  So stopping just one won’t do very much in the long term.  On a volcanically active planet, there will be more.

Well, what if the planet were much smaller than Earth?  Could you wipe out all life then?  There are two problems with that -- one is that the surface gravity would be lower, so we’d see Kirk and crew bouncing all around.  And the second is that small planets cool faster (that depends on the ratio of surface area to volume) and so don’t have a molten core, or volcanism, for long -- not on human evolutionary timescales.  What about Io, you say?  As a moon of Jupiter, it isn’t huge.  That’s true, but its interior doesn’t cool because it is constantly heated by tidal forces from Jupiter.

What if all the humanoids only occupy a small region of the planet?  That’s problematic because they would have been prone to catastrophe in the past.  Basically, if life evolves on a planet for billions of years, it has to be stable on billion year timescales against catastrophes wiping out all life, even if it might have the occasional devastating event.

But the real problem is that if a planet is that volcanically active, plugging up a single volcano (a) isn’t likely to work, and (b) is just a short term solution.  Why isn’t it likely to work?  Let’s calculate how much energy is in a supervolcanic eruption -- the kind that didn’t even succeed at wiping out humans, but was the best the Earth could do.  These explosions measure an 8 (the highest ranking) on the Volcanic Explosivity Index, and are thought to eject 1000 cubic kilometers of stuff more than 25 km high. 

Great, we can estimate how much energy this is!  It is just gravitational potential energy:  U=mgh, where m=mass, h=height, and g=acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s2).  How much does 1000 cubic kilometers of the Earth’s mantle weigh?  The density is about 4000 kg per meter cubed.  And there are a billion cubic meters in a cubic kilometer.  So we have m = 4000 km/m3 (1000 km3) (109  m3 / km3) = 4x1015 kg.  In round numbers, that makes the energy, U = mgh = 4x1015 kg (10 m/s2) (25,000 m) = 1021 J.  A large nuclear weapon releases about 1017 J.  So this volcano has the energy of about 10,000 of the largest nuclear weapons.  That’s about how many there are on Earth.  So basically, Spock’s little ice plug has to hold back the equivalent energy of all the nuclear weapons on Earth.  And the newly-frozen surface that he’s standing beside is just the tip of the iceberg.  And heat is just a small part of it.  There are massive pressure forces in the planet too.

So he isn’t likely to succeed.  But if he could, how would he go about it?  There are endothermic reactions on Earth, like those “ice packs” that aren’t ice at all, but chemicals in a container you can break to mix them and turn the thing cold.  That absorbs heat to change chemical bonds, but it is too inefficient for the amount of energy absorption we need here.  And besides, they tell us that this is a “cold fusion device.”  Ok, that makes no sense.  Cold fusion, has of course been debunked -- this sounds like just another Orci / Abrams attempt at getting crackpottery being discussed by more people (see FRINGE).  And besides, cold fusion is supposed to gain energy, not absorb it.   

But ok, if I had to design something that you might call a “cold fusion device,” and have it get rid of energy, how would it work?  Well, iron-56 is the most tightly bound atomic nucleus. Every time you fuse two nuclei lighter than that together, you get energy.  That’s what powers the sun.  Only hydrogen and helium (and a little lithium) were created in the Big Bang.  All the other elements up to iron were forged in a star.  But stellar fusion only works up to iron.  If you try to fuse any two elements to make something heavier than that, you lose energy instead of gaining it.  But you can do fusion beyond iron inside a certain kind of supernova (which is what I study professionally).  That’s how we get all the elements heavier than iron.  Take gold, for example.  It was created in a supernova -- but it took energy to produce it. 

So my idea for a “cold fusion device” would be to do just that:  the kind of fusion where you absorb energy instead of gaining it.  Looking at this chart, to get the biggest energy sink, we want to somehow fuse iron-56 (binding energy 8.8 Megaelectron Volts (MeV) per nuclear particle, or nucleon) to uranium-238 (7.6 MeV per nucleon).  Doing that, we can absorb 8.8-7.6 = 1.2 MeV / nucleon = 2 x 10-13 Joules (J) / nucleon. To absorb 1021 J, it would take 1021 J / 2 x 10-13 J per nucleon = 5 x 1033 nucleons.  Since Fe-56 has 56 nucleons (protons and neutrons) per atom, it would take 5 x 1033 / 56 = 1032 atoms of iron.  A mole of iron (6 x 1023 atoms) has 56 g of it, so 56g (1032 atoms) / (6 x 1023 atoms) = 1010 g = 107 kg = 2 x 107 lb.  So to absorb all the energy in the volcano, Spock’s “cold fusion device” would have to weigh 20 million pounds!  He’d start with that much iron and end up with about that much uranium.  If he wanted to be an alchemist, he could start with a bigger bomb and turn it all into gold.  (Medieval alchemists failed because they didn’t have hot enough ovens).

Also:  why didn’t they just beam the “bomb” right into the volcano?  They couldn’t beam into the volcano because they needed a direct line of sight?  [nonsense], the Enterprise beams people through entire planets on a daily basis.  You never hear:  “Beam me up, Scotty.”  “But Cap’n we have to wait until our orbit is above your position, so hold on for an hour or so.”  And if so, big deal, fly over the damn thing and beam it in.  And don’t give me some BS about how Spock had to arm it.  We already have volcano-exploring robots.  No, correction, we already had them twenty friggin years ago.

 

 

WE ALL LIVE IN A YELLOW ENTERPRISE

But now here’s the really ridiculous part.  Why was the Enterprise hiding underwater?  It makes no goddamn sense.  You can’t transmit electromagnetic waves underwater, at least not normal ones, since saltwater attenuates them.  This is a huge problem for submarines.  Normal radio communications don’t work.  Only extremely low frequency (ELF) waves (3-300 Hz) will penetrate a significant distance undersea.  Because of the low frequency, these transmissions have low bit rates -- you can only transmit text, and only a few characters a minute.  And it is one-way -- from a land base to a submarine -- the tricks you have to use to do this are such that you couldn’t have a transmitter on a sub.  So the messages tend to be short -- like “surface” or “send a buoy to the surface to communicate.”  Or, my favorite, go to the underwater telephone!  They have these stations set up where they can communicate acoustically.  You can’t reply using ELF from the sub because these are very long wavelength waves -- thousands of kilometers.  You’d need an antenna a good fraction of the size of the Earth to transmit.  The US military had a batshit insane plan, Project Sanguine, to build 6000 miles of antenna covering 40% of the state of Wisconsin, powered by 10 underground power plants.  They ended up devising another trick, using the Earth itself to act as part of the antenna.  Now they probably use HAARP to make the ionosphere into an antenna.

In the actual movie, I think they can still communicate with the Enterprise underwater (fine, who knows how those damn communicators work -- they do have “subspace” communications in Star Trek after all), but they can’t use the transporters.  Indeed you couldn’t -- those things have to be either beamed energy or matter, and that wouldn’t work underwater. 

But you know else wouldn’t work underwater?  Everything!  Take thrusters, for example, which are simple plasma jets that we see working later in the movie.  Or the shields, which are no doubt electromagnetic (as opposed to the metal and kevlar shields on the International Space Station).  I’m just giving them the fact that the force fields that provide structural integrity when the ship experiences extreme accelerations can save them from the underwater pressure. 

But the main point is that, as every engineer knows, if you are building something, every new requirement forces you to make design tradeoffs.  So if you are building mankind’s foremost tool for exploring vast distances in the galaxy, you want it to excel at that.  You can’t have the design compromised by all these idiotic things that would allow it to go underwater just in case there was a sub-moron for a starship captain.  This is why you never see flying cars, car-boats, airplane-boats, ship-trains, etc., outside of a few nuts who don’t understand this design principle.  It is *way* better to design a boat that is good at being a boat and a car that is good at being a car, instead of something that sucks at both.

 And the only reason they were underwater was to hide!?!  You don’t have to hide when you can friggin’ orbit and you are dealing with a paleolithic society.  And how, exactly, are you hiding, when you are parked right next to this giant settlement of people!  You had to get down there and get out somehow?  And by hiding in the water, you give up your most important ability.  The ability to [intercourse gerund] teleport!  Oh you’ve got some arrows?  That’s nice, I can DISAPPEAR!  Jesus this version of Kirk is criminally stupid.  Oh and one other thing.  This isn’t science, but I can’t help myself.  The real Kirk wouldn’t run from tribesmen, or any other threat for that matter.   

Interestingly enough, when Kirk and Bones jump in the water, they rocket down to the Enterprise.  Jet boots!  I was watching the movie with my friend and fellow astrophysicist, Ben Mazin, who invented something called Jet Boots -- a diving propulsion system used by militaries.  He flipped out.  Real-world Jetboots don’t emit bubbles, but the ones on Star Trek do.  This raises the question -- why were Kirk and Bones wearing this underwater propulsion system in the first place?  Seems like they knew they were going to have to jump off a cliff and swim to the enterprise.  So that monster they were going to hitch a ride on was only to take them a few hundred meters?  Sounds like a ridiculous plan.

Also, would they be ok from the pressure if they zoomed down underwater like that?  Remarkably, yes!  People have free-dived hundreds of meters.  Your lungs shrivel into a tiny ball from the pressure, but blood plasma seeps in, keeping them from completely collapsing and damaging them.  Free divers can go much farther down than SCUBA divers, because they aren’t breathing the high pressure air that divers breathe.  That leads to nitrogen dissolved in the bloodstream, and when you try to rise too quickly, you could get the bends.  Now, once Kirk and McCoy were onboard the submerged Enterprise, they, along with the rest of the crew, would be breathing high pressure air. So there’s a limit to how fast the Enterprise could safely rise, which would decrease the pressure.  And even then, nitrogen would remain in the bloodstream of all the crew members on the Enterprise for 24 hours.  You aren’t supposed to fly for 24h after diving (much less go into space), because the low cabin pressure on airplanes would cause that nitrogen to outgass from your blood and tissues and give you the bends.  So, good job, Kirk, you’ve killed the entire crew because of your stupid desire to take the Enterprise underwater.

 
(Continued next post)
 

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 14, 2013, 06:30:50 PM
Quote
THESE PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF WARP

Ok, we know from relativity that you can’t travel faster than light.  The way around that in the Star Trek universe is that you warp space, kind of folding it and shortening the distance between two points.  Then you are actually going at sublight speeds in the warp bubble, but the in another reference frame you are going faster than the speed of light.  That’s why Trek ships are designed the way they are -- these enormous space-warping nacelles are kept separate from engineering and the crew quarters.

This has a few consequences.  For one, you can’t just warp right out of spacedock.  This is quite well established in all previous incarnations of STAR TREK.  Can you imagine what warping space around a spacedock would do?  Oh let’s take all the space this dock is contained in and collapse it all together!  WRATH OF KHAN showed how you pilot a ship out of spacedock.


What a masterful scene that is.  In just a few minutes it simultaneously: shows off the majesty of the Enterprise, establishes how Kirk is truly no longer in command of the Enterprise and is uncomfortable with it, “humanizes” Lt. Saavik as being completely unexperienced despite her overconfident demeanor, shows that this scenario where Spock is in command, but Kirk is on the Enterprise, is awkward, provides no small measure of verisimilitude by drawing parallels between a space ship and a seafaring vessel, and on top of it all, allows the score to soar!  This is the problem with STAR TREK INTO STUPIDITY in a nutshell.  It discards these key moments that ground the characters in humanity, ground the fantastic elements in both the lore of the series and parallels to our reality, and provide breathing room and awe. 

In fact, they don’t even like to go to warp inside the solar system in real STAR TREK.  The stated reason is that they could run into something, like an asteroid.  But it makes sense for another reason too.  These ships are analogous to boats.  In a real boat, you don’t just go cruising at top speed through an area with a lot of other boats, or a residential area, because you make waves that are really annoying and possibly damaging to anyone who lives there.  There is an is an analogous situation with gravitational waves.  Einstein’s theory of relativity says that gravity distorts spacetime.  Once prediction is that orbiting neutron stars or black holes produce gravitational waves -- ripples in the very fabric of spacetime.  But it isn’t just orbiting superdense bodies, any large spacetime disturbance ought to do it, like, say, warping it to send a starship to superluminal speeds.  Hulse and Taylor won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for showing that two orbiting neutron stars are losing energy and spiraling into each other due to the radiation of gravitational waves.  We haven’t detected gravitational waves directly yet, but this may happen with the Advanced LIGO detectors come online in 2014.

 

 

DROP OUTS

It isn’t super-well established where Kronos is in Star Trek lore.  The most direct statement is that in STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE, Archer says it is 4 days away at warp 4.5.  Since that is about 80 times the speed of light, that puts it at 80*300,000 km/s * 345,600 s in 4 days / 9.4e12 km/ly = 0.88 lighyears (ly).  That makes no sense -- the closest star to the Sun is about 4 lightyears away.  Kronos must be less than 90 ly away, because at some point on Enterprise, after they’ve visited Kronos, they say 90 ly is the farthest they’ve traveled.  Let’s be relatively conservative and say Kronos is only 10 ly away.

They get back from Kronos to Earth in about a minute in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS.  How fast are they traveling?  If it would normally take you 10 years to get there, traveling at the speed of light, instead they do it faster by the number of seconds in 10 years divided by 60s in a minute. that’s c*3e8s/60s = 5 million times the speed of light.  And remember that is pretty much a lower limit because I chose such a close distance for Kronos.  That’s thousands of times faster than Starfleet ships are supposed to go, even the ones in the far future.  Our galaxy is about 100,000 lyr across.  At that speed you could cross it in 7 days.  So much for the plot of the entire run of STAR TREK: VOYAGER!

And another ridiculously stupid thing about the plot: they drop out of warp (actually they are kind of shot out, they don’t seem to actually try to stop the Enterprise), almost on top of the Moon.  The radius of the moon is 1700 km and it fills up the screen, so they must have been about 1000 km away from it.  Traveling at the speed above, if they had come out of warp literally one nanosecond later, they would have crashed into the moon.  Even if we want to be really ridiculous and say they were only traveling at the speed of light, they would have crashed into the moon 0.003 seconds later.

And then!  To top it off, they start crashing into, what?  Not the Moon, the Earth!  I *think* some character mumbles something about them being caught in the Earth’s gravity, and they are all the sudden being pulled in.  Here’s where the movie gets a little cloudy, or maybe it is just my understanding of what was supposed to be going on.  Within a few minutes they are pulled from right next to the Moon all the way into the Earth’s atmosphere.  This is just insane

Rather than go through some equations about how long this would take, instead we can just look at the case of Apollo 13.  We launched a rocket from Earth, and due to a catastrophic failure of one of the oxygen tanks, they had to abort their lunar landing mission and move to a “free return” trajectory around the moon, and back to Earth.  “Free return” just means that you don’t have to fire the rockets to return to Earth, you just use lunar gravity to swing you back around to Earth, with some minor course corrections.  This is cool, because it tells us how long it takes a spaceship to “fall” back to Earth from the moon, if it can’t use its engines!  In the case of Apollo 13, it took about 64 hours.  Actually, that’s faster than it otherwise would have, because they did burn the descent engine two hours after swinging around the moon to speed their return to Earth by 10 hours.  Anyway, the bottom line is that it takes *days*, not minutes, for a spacecraft to fall to Earth from lunar orbit.

 

 

ANGULAR MOMENTUM

When the Enterprise is falling into the Earth, it looks like it is falling straight into it, as if the two are balls on a string being drawn to each other.  That’s not the way two bodies gravitationally attracted to each other work -- they approach each other on curved paths.  Have you ever wondered why everything in space orbits something?  It is because of conservation of angular momentum.

The most famous terrestrial example is an ice skater spinning.  When she draws in her outstretched arms, she starts spinning faster and faster.  The same thing would happen to the Enterprise as it fell to Earth.  It wouldn’t fall straight in, it would kind of orbit.  If it didn’t have the energy to make a complete orbit, it would still sort of half-loop around the Earth, and come in at an angle. 

What energy would it have?  Ignoring vectors, the formula for angular momentum (L) is L=rmv, where r is the distance from the axis of rotation to the thing rotating around it, m is the mass, and v is the velocity perpendicular to the line defined by r.  We can make a ratio of the angular momentum at the Moon’s orbit and the angular momentum as the Enterprise enters the Earth’s atmosphere.  Then, since angular momentum is conserved, and mass is conserved, these two quantities cancel.  We’re left with vE=vM*(rM/rE).  The ratio of the distance to the Moon to the Earth’s radius is about 60.  That means whatever transverse velocity the Enterprise had at the orbit of the Moon would be amplified by a factor of 60 by the time it reached Earth, just due to conservation of angular momentum. 

Would they have even crashed into the Earth?  The escape velocity of the Earth (the velocity needed to achieve orbit) is about 7 km/s if you are already in space (it is higher if you have to leave the surface).  And 7 km/s / 60 = about 100 m/s.  So if the Enterprise was traveling at 100 meters per second or more relative to the Earth when it was at the Moon’s orbit, it never would have fallen all the way to the Earth, it would have attained orbital velocity by the time it reached the atmosphere.  One hundred meters per second is not very fast -- that’s only ten times faster than a human can run!  That’s nothing for a ship that just dropped out of warp and is being hit by projectiles.  Just shoot a photon torpedo in the opposite direction and let the back reaction give you the tiny push to remain in orbit.

Fine, so you have to have them actually crash into Earth, because the script calls for it.  My point is, show them streaking into the atmosphere at an angle, not falling directly down on the Earth.  It is a small thing, but to anyone who knows science, it is glaring, and just shows that most people who worked on this movie know very little about physics and didn’t talk to anyone who did.

 

 

BEAM ME ACROSS THE GALAXY, SCOTTY

In the original STAR TREK series, they didn’t have the budget to show the Enterprise landing in every episode, so they invented transporters that could beam characters to the surface.  But to keep this from becoming a solution to any problem, it had to have limitations:  you can only do it over short distances, in certain conditions, etc.  There was a bit of silliness involved, because it meant that every episode they had to lose communication with the ship or lose transporter functionality.

 In STAR TREK (2009), the writers wrote themselves out of a plot hole by disregarding the way beaming works, deciding that their Scotty was so smart he came up with a way to beam people anywhere, any time.  This is a classic example of sacrificing the future to pay for the present.  To the (sort of) credit of the creators of STAR TREK OUT OF SANITY, they don’t just ignore this disaster, for better or worse, transwarp beaming is now a part of this new TREK universe.  Kind of.  Just as before, it is ignored when it is convenient.  As in, almost all of the time.  For example, why can’t Starfleet just transwarp beam the bomb into the volcano?  Why can’t they just beam the villain back from the planet he escapes to?  Why do they need super-advanced stealth torpedoes, when they can now just beam a bomb directly onto a planet or near a starship?  Why didn’t they just beam the Starfleet commanders out of the room being attacked?  (You’d think “fire alarms” in the future would just beam everyone in the room to a safe place).

This is a problem that plagues every aspect of this new incarnation of Trek:  “red matter” from the 2009 STAR TREK obviates the need for any other kind of weapon, magic blood means you can revive the dead, automated starships mean you now don’t need a crew, transwarp beaming means you don’t need starships at all!  It is lazy writing for a moment of kewl-factor, ignoring the fundamental consequences down the road.  The original Trek universe was one with a rules and a logical underpinning.  That’s absolutely necessary for the audience to buy into such a fantastical concept.  In this one, it seems almost anything goes, and things just happen willy-nilly because the writers wrote it that way.

 

 

WHO BUILT MY BATTLESHIP?

A major plot point in STAR TREK INTO OBSCURITY is that a new class of starship is secretly being built in Jupiter orbit.  Stupidly, the characters refer to the location of this starship as a set of coordinates, as if the thing is static in space and not in orbit around a planet.  Yes, I realize there are four coordinates, as if time is one of them.  Still doesn’t work.  Astronomers don’t use coordinates like this for a reason.

Ok, so they’re building a giant new starship that is bigger, faster, and tougher than the Enterprise, and is so automated it requires almost no crew AND CAN EVEN BE RUN BY A SINGLE PERSON.  This is moronic.  First of all, why risk the lives of hundreds of people at any point in the future by having a huge crew on a starship?  And second, this means the Enterprise has to be rebuilt for the next movie, because there is no way Starfleet is sending them out there in light of the Klingon threat with obsolete tech.

Also, why does this badass starship have giant, cavernous hangars with hangar doors that are about ten feet in diameter?  And why would the crew be “private security” if clearly tens of thousands of people in Starfleet know about this operation.  First, it is a project of the admiral in charge of Starfleet.  Second, he has a whole research division devoted to it.  Third, it takes thousands of people to build a modern aircraft carrier -- a starship is surely no different.  Clearly this is a project approved at the highest levels of Starfleet and whatever government exists on Earth in the 23rd century.  They are going to be pissed about Kirk’s meddling.

 

 

COINCIDENCES

In my review of this movie’s predecessor, I mentioned how it was a crazy coincidence (i.e. lazy writing) that out of all the area on a planet, Kirk crash-lands right next to where Spock is hiding in a cave, and just happens to run into that cave.  At least you could kind of explain that by saying that the Enterprise sent Kirk to near where the Starfleet base was, and that’s where hobo Spock was hanging out too.  But in this movie, our heroes head to an abandoned part of Kronos, only to be intercepted by Klingon warbirds, leading them on a chase through this area of the planet.  Just when our heroes think they are free, they are surrounding by Klingons and forced to surrender.  And who should just happen to be hanging out exactly where they land?  Our villain, John Harrison!  And it wasn’t because they knew where he was -- they might have initially been headed to his last known coordinates, but then they got diverted by the chase.  To keep this scientific, let’s say they are traveling at the speed of a 747:  250 km/s.  If they are being chased for a 100 seconds, that means they traveled 25 km on the surface.  Even if they knew John Harrison was somewhere along that line that they had traveled, and he could have run there from 100m away, there‘s still only a 1 in 250 chance that they wold have landed near him. 

Also, if John Harrison has this device that can beam him anywhere in the galaxy, why did he go to the Klingon homeworld?  Why did he bring massive guns and carry them around on the planet?  An Earth man wandering a Klingon planet with a giant gun.  That doesn’t attract attention.  None of it makes any sense.

I could go on about a great many things: why did they need the villain’s blood when they had 72 superhumans on the ship, how can you just kick a nuclear reactor to get it restarted, why didn’t they beam Kirk to sickbay, etc.  But I’m just tired of all the nonsense in this movie.  This isn’t science fiction, it is just a Michael Bay-level mindless action film shoehorned into an overly convoluted, senseless plot.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 15, 2013, 08:10:17 PM
(http://global3.memecdn.com/Female-Vulcan_o_34320.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 16, 2013, 11:03:24 AM
On the Vulcan uniform, home-made, or bought?

On the movie review, what these writers fail to understand, is that glaring inconsistencies are scripted in for a a reason: they make a (partial?) living out of it.  :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 17, 2013, 03:28:13 PM
I could do better ears...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 20, 2013, 10:25:22 PM
But can you do hotter?

...


Quote
Star Trek creator to become part of space archive
Associated Press – 1 hour 37 minutes ago..

 
LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) — Remains of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, his wife and the actor who played Scotty will get a final resting place in the "Final Frontier" under plans announced Thursday to launch a space archive.

The project is being developed by the Houston company Celestis, which for years has offered a service that takes partial remains into space and then brings them back.

Celestis announced the new project a day before a launch from Spaceport America takes its 1,000th capsule into space. Ashes from the Roddenberrys have been on previous flights.

But this time they will stay in space. Plans call for the archive to be launched with a large experimental solar sail planned by NASA next year. The public can pay to have digital files, photos and DNA samples included. Also on the mission will be hair from science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke.
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/star-trek-creator-become-part-space-archive-193223046.html (http://omg.yahoo.com/news/star-trek-creator-become-part-space-archive-193223046.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 21, 2013, 02:20:36 AM
But can you do hotter?

...
I could try to convince the boss if you really want...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 21, 2013, 03:26:47 AM
hEt's a babe.  Pleez?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 22, 2013, 08:40:25 PM
Only if you ask her prettily :nono:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 23, 2013, 02:53:46 AM
hEt's a babe.  Pleez?

She says no to a vulcan, yes to a starfleet uniform.  Would consider a klingon, romulan, or bajoran (sp) as well. 

Local Comicon in Sept.  Shatner and Frakes...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2013, 03:16:14 AM
This is gonna end up being fake Star Trek, isn't it?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 23, 2013, 04:03:21 AM
She is the TNG fangirl. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 02, 2013, 03:38:46 AM
We haven't had anything new from wassername in a while, so:

(http://th08.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2012/012/a/4/tru_blu_explorer_02_by_mylochka-d4m3sca.png)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 02, 2013, 09:43:05 PM
Quote
'Star Trek' Superfans Restore Galileo Shuttlecraft to 1960s Sci-Fi Glory
Tariq Malik, Managing Editor
Date: 29 June 2013 Time: 05:00 PM ET


([url]http://i.space.com/images/i/000/030/408/original/galileo-shuttlecraft-restoration.jpg?1372537918[/url])
The Galileo shuttlecraft from TV's "Star Trek" is shown fully restored after a yearlong project led by Trek superfan Adam Schneider of New Jersey. The restored Galileo was unveiled on June 22, 2013 at Master Shipwrights Inc., in Atlantic Highlands, N.J. CREDIT: SPACE.com/Karl Tate



A life-size spaceship prop from TV's original "Star Trek" series, once lost and in shambles, has been lovingly restored to its former glory by die-hard fans for a new mission: to live long and prosper as a museum piece.

After nine months of restoration, the Galileo shuttlecraft — a life-size spaceship prop from the iconic 1960s science fiction TV series — was publicly unveiled last week in a ceremony amid loud cheers from a crowd of "Star Trek" fans and friends on hand to see the ship before its sendoff to its final frontier. It shipped off Space Center Houston, the visitor's center for NASA's Johnson Space Center, on Wednesday (June 26).

"This is amazing," "Star Trek" superfan Adam Schneider told a crowd of more than 350 friends and fellow fans as he unveiled the restored Galileo on June 22 in Atlantic Highlands, N.J. Schneider bought the huge Trek spaceship prop at auction with the specific goal of restoring it and donating it to a museum for the public to enjoy. "Despite spending [nearly] 50 years basically outdoors, for a prop built to last a year or two, she's ready for her next journey."

Schneider unveiled the fully restored Galileo shuttlecraft, at Master Shipwrights Inc., a boat restoration company that performed the work on the Trek prop. Schneider's wife Leslie broke a bottle of champagne to commemorate Galileo's resurrection, but only off to the side so as not to damage the ship.

"This means a lot to everybody, all the fans," said Mike Stein of Nutley, N.J., who commands the U.S.S. Justice fan club and was one of the many "Star Trek" fans attending Galileo's unveiling. "This is going to be an inspiration of what our vision for the future was for the people who will see it."

One fan, amateur astronomer  and retired psychiatrist Willie Yee of New Paltz, N.Y., drove to see Galileo in a white Toyota Prius modified to look like a "Star Trek" shuttlecraft, complete with a Federation flag symbol, Trek logo and striping and a bunch of Tribbles (fictional fuzzy critters from the show) in the trunk.


Warp speed to Houston

Galileo's new home is the museum Space Center Houston, which is located next door to NASA's Johnson Space Centerin Houston, Texas, the home base for the U.S. astronaut corps and Mission Control. There, the "Star Trek" shuttlecraft will be presented with other Space Age relics to help convey the history of the U.S. space program. Galileo will be formally unveiled at Space Center Houston on July 31.

"This will be a centerpiece in their display showing the linkage between science fiction and real space travel," Schneider said, adding that Galileo predated NASA's own space shuttle fleet by more than a decade. "This will be the iconic piece in the best possible home at the gateway of the manned space program. [Galileo Shuttlecraft to Land at Space Center Houston (Video)]

The Galileo shuttlecraft made its "Star Trek" debut in 1967 in the episode "Galileo Seven," in which the ship ferries crewmembers (including commander Spock) from show's starship, the U.S.S. Enterprise, down to the surface of a hostile planet. The Galileo is damaged, leaving the crew to find a way to survive until they can be rescued.

Built by car customizer Gene Winfield, the Galileo shuttlecraft is about 23 feet (7 meters) long and has 5.5-foot (1.7 m) ceiling height. It was primarily made of painted wood and sheet metal over a steel frame. The huge prop appeared in seven Trek episodes before the series was canceled in 1969 after a three-season run.

"This is easily the largest 'Star Trek' prop in the wild, and this is a spaceship," Schneider said. "It's not a chair, it's not a ray gun … it's a spaceship."


Galileo's real-life trek

After the original "Star Trek" TV series cancellation, Galileo's voyage truly began. The shuttlecraft was initially donated to a school for the blind, and then resold to a series of collectors and would-be restorers until June 2012, when Schneider bought the Trek prop in an online auction. He has not disclosed the cost of Galileo or its restoration.

But Schneider's goal of restoring Galileo for donation seemed a daunting challenge. By the time obtained Galileo, the shuttlecraft was in bad shape. Time and the elements had left Galileo little more than a shade if its former self. And the shuttlecraft did not come with an instruction manual either, Schneider said.

"My plan right away was to buy it, figure out what to do to restore it, and then to donate it," Schneider said. "I was told by an awful lot of people that it was too far gone, that too many years had passed, that it would be too hard."

Working with his partner "Star Trek" blogger Alec Peters, Schneider and the team at Master Shipwrights — led by craftsman Hans Mikatis — tracked down vital details about Galileo to restore it as accurately as possible. By tapping into the expertise of that fan base, Schneider and Peters were able to identify key details for Galileo such as the markings on the side not facing the camera during its television appearances.

One Trek fan even built a key component for Galileo's restoration, a small compartment filled with electronic-like gear mounted to the aft of the shuttlecraft.

"There are no plans of the ship, as built, that we've ever found," Schneider said. "But there are a lot of pictures of it, and a lot of fans."

Now, with Galileo one its way to Houston (it was shipped overland by truck) the end of its long voyage is in sight.

"I hate to admit it, but I think Adam and I are going to miss you," Leslie Schneider told the shuttlecraft during its unveiling. "Live long and prosper, Galileo, and warp speed to Houston."
http://www.space.com/21784-star-trek-galileo-shuttlecraft-restoration-unveiled.html (http://www.space.com/21784-star-trek-galileo-shuttlecraft-restoration-unveiled.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 18, 2013, 03:41:41 AM
(click to show/hide)

Whoever wrote this really knew their stuff, even if this does Godwin the issue...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 18, 2013, 06:03:55 PM
William Shatner Star Trek Billy Blackburn's Rare Home Movies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qv16CBWkeU#)

Can anyone name all the episodes in this?  I reckon I can. 

I'm so lonely.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 20, 2013, 05:59:40 PM
STAR TREK by 70's Kids (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvd9B2iMmfc#)

Someone redubbed a film they'd made as a kid in the late 70s.

Impressing fight choreography, considering.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 30, 2013, 07:17:28 PM
Quote
'Star Trek's' Shuttlecraft Galileo to Be Unveiled at Houston Museum Wednesday
SPACE.com
by Miriam Kramer, Staff Writer  2 hours ago
 

After close to 50 years in disarray, an iconic piece of restored "Star Trek" memorabilia is about to boldly go on display in its new home.

On Wednesday (July 31), Space Center Houston — the visitor's center for NASA's Johnson Space Center in Texas — will unveil the new permanent display for the Shuttlecraft Galileo, a life-size spaceship prop from the original 1960s "Star Trek" TV series.

The Galileo's restorer, "Star Trek" superfan Adam Schneider, thinks that the space center — which is next to NASA's home base for Mission Control and the astronaut corps. — is the ideal place for the shuttlecraft.

"If somebody told me when I was a little kid that I'd be donating a spaceship to NASA, I would have said that they were kidding," Schneider, whose restoration took about nine months, told SPACE.com. "How does it feel? It feels amazing. It almost feels like it's all downhill from here because this is such a high. It feels truly like a success."


([url]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Tu0gTNub23YWn46o0dul4w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQzMDtweW9mZj0wO3E9ODU7dz01NzU-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/%27Star_Trek%27s%27_Shuttlecraft_Galileo_to-a1d661f2dfbb25af7c9f753bae7d7eb8[/url])
The Galileo shuttlecraft from TV's "Star Trek" is shown fully restored after a yearlong project led by Star Trek superfan  Adam Schneider of New Jersy.


The Galileo's road to Houston has been a long one. Before Schneider won it at auction in June 2012, the shuttlecraft was in shambles. Schneider and his wife Leslie employed the help of craftsman Hans Mikaitis and his team of ship restorers at Master Shipwrights in Atlantic Highlands, N.J. to help return the shuttlecraft to its former glory.

The finished 23 foot (7 meter) long Galileo was revealed for the first time in late June before a crowd of more than 350 "Star Trek" fans and friends of the restorers before being shipped via truck to Texas for tomorrow's opening.

"The life-size spaceship will be on permanent display inside the Zero-G Diner and will be one of the few exhibitions in the world where visitors can see iconic sci-fi history that influenced generations of innovators," officials from Space Center Houston wrote on the center's website.

Space Center Houston will host a public event in honor of the arrival of Galileo on Wednesday. A celebrity panel will discuss the influence of science fiction on space exploration and an astronaut will make a presentation.

"Like any good project, when it ends you're a little regretful because the experience was positive," Schneider said. "We had fabulous people to work with. We had a fabulous experience in the 'Star Trek' community, so I think we're a little sad and regretful that it's over at one level. On another level, this is a permanent addition to the fan base, so to speak, and we're really very proud that it actually is going where it's going."
http://news.yahoo.com/star-treks-shuttlecraft-galileo-unveiled-houston-museum-wednesday-151314104.html (http://news.yahoo.com/star-treks-shuttlecraft-galileo-unveiled-houston-museum-wednesday-151314104.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: sisko on July 31, 2013, 07:08:49 AM
 :o inspyring.. yes. but c'mon, it's just a tin box sitting next to the humanity's best efforts!  ;q;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 31, 2013, 01:31:09 PM
Star Trek inspired a lot of NASA people...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on July 31, 2013, 02:09:15 PM
Not to mention they indirectly inspired many of the greatest technological advances in general: The concept for cellular phones and personal, portable computers can be attributed to Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: sisko on July 31, 2013, 02:39:09 PM
you may be right, but to me, it is like a fake painting in an art museum. :dunno:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on July 31, 2013, 02:49:14 PM
But then there is the question: What defines fake and real?

Then we got a philosophical conundrum. I get your point though.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on July 31, 2013, 03:38:47 PM
Not to mention they indirectly inspired many of the greatest technological advances in general: The concept for cellular phones and personal, portable computers can be attributed to Star Trek.

Rockin' my flip phone communicator.  I need the sound effect...I'm too tech unsavvy to find/install it. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 06:36:26 PM
I'm aware of a few subtle hints that our leader likes Star Trek, at least fake Star Trek, and I know I LOVE the REAL Star Trek, so let's talk about it...

All STAR TREK post STAR TREK II, that posits a resurrected Spock, is false.  All records of the actual Star Trek timeline that bear any historical accuracy ended there.  The rest is just wish fulfillment fan fic written by driveling Spock fans in the 23rd Century. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 06:43:12 PM
 ;lol

I concluded the same thing shortly after seeing In Search of Spock in the theater back in the day.

For a nickel, in fact, I'd throw out Wrath of Khan too.  Despite being the only Trek film that was actually good, it wasn't really Trek.  Things have continued to degenerate since, and without being good, for the most part.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sigma on August 02, 2013, 06:47:37 PM
;lol

I concluded the same thing shortly after seeing In Search of Spock in the theater back in the day.

For a nickel, in fact, I'd throw out Wrath of Khan too.  Despite being the only Trek film that was actually good, it wasn't really Trek.  Things have continued to degenerate since, and without being good, for the most part.
How exactly is Wrath of Khan bad Star Trek?

The only bad thing about Wrath of Khan is the fact that practically ever Star Trek movie since then has been so overshadowed by its reception that it feels the need to imitate it. Including not just one but both reboot films.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 06:56:06 PM
It's really military, it's a story about a fight with a bad guy instead of exploring or the Big Space Thing, and the thematic spine of the narrative is about getting old.  Not a bad theme, mind you, but not a terribly Star Trek one.

ST was about a lot of things week-to-week, sure, so that's not a major knock on the flick.  It's the uniforms and all the "Permission to come aboard?" stuff that really puts me off.


And you're totally correct about the size of the shadow it cast - subsequent movies had the look and feel I didn't love, without the quality...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 07:03:13 PM
You can't throw out WRATH OF KHAN.  It's uberpulp.  It's Classic TREK... one of the ultimate pulp franchises... given a timeline that actually works. 

Beyond that, it's moral fiction.  Instead of saying "Hey, our heroes never get old", it says "Hey, people do get old, they move on, they take on other roles that are just as important... and they pass the torch to others who will walk in their footsteps, following the trails that they have blazed".

It takes pulp fiction and makes it REAL.

That the plot is full of holes doesn't matter.  It's all about the characterization.

And it's the best goddam heroic sacrifice in fiction.

I'm all about WRATH OF KHAN.  It's the best that Trek will ever be, and something for all pulp fiction to aspire to. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 07:21:11 PM
I agree, but my point still stands.

Star Trek is an example of being careful what you wish for - my first love is the series, being a fan from before even the cartoon.  TMP disappointed everyone - Steven Collins mother, even.  Wrath --- well, it's possible to see it for how truly good it is, and still feel that 'this part right here is still off-model'.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 07:28:14 PM
From my blog:

"The Wrath of Doc

I used to game with a bunch of guys in Syracuse, and sometimes some of us would get together to go out and see movies, too. They very quickly learned (right around the time STAR TREK III first hit the theaters) not to ask me how I felt about the movie we'd just seen. The last time they did it was, in fact, after we all watched STAR TREK III for the first time. We were all walking out and they were gibbering like idiots about how wonderful it had been, the best Star Trek yet, and quoting "Don't call me TINY!" over and over again... and one of them, I think it was Gary, said "Hey, you're kind of quiet, what did YOU think?"

So I said "Well, for starters, when the best line in a movie is 'Don't call me TINY' and it's supposed to be funny because it's a little Asian guy saying it... that ain't good. Also, next time one of you repeats that idiotic piece of drivel, I'm going to throw up on your shoes. No lie."

After which, I proceeded to dissect the moronically plot free morass that was STAR TREK III: "There was a moment," I began, low, my voice almost reverent, my tone deliberately pitched to inspire confidence, "a shining moment of wisdom and truth in the Star Trek franchise... a moment when Hollywood itself opened its corporate eyes and said 'Hey, you know what? People get older. They mature and move on. They get promoted, they grow, they change, they take on new roles, new responsibilities. They age, and others come along the trail that they've blazed, walking in the footprints they've left, bringing their own skills, their own strengths, their own peculiar ways of doing things, to the tasks that will always be there, the roles that will always need to be played.' There was a time when a great and classic franchise accepted that entropy happens and we all get older, but it ain't all bad; there was a time when yesterday's titans and heroes gracefully passed the torch, after one last grand adventure, to the sons and daughters of their bodies and spirits, when they handed over the baton of frontline duty and entrusted the guardianship of the universe to newer, younger, fresher hands. There was a moment when that happened, and it was wondrous and moving and for that one brief shining instant, the two dimensional, almost cartoonish near caricatures that were Kirk and Spock and Scottie and McCoy and Sulu and Uhura became truly human and three dimensional and far more than the sum of their parts."

And I paused, for a great crowd had gathered 'round to hear my mighty rolling words. And I let my voice come back up, and I continued:

"And then Paramount sobered up the next day, said 'What the [fuddle-duddle] were we THINKING?' and greenlighted a movie that completely destroyed that moment, that went back and pissed and [poop] and vomited all over that wondrous shimmering transcendent moment, that did its best to kill that unique and glorious moment so dead that no one would ever remember it had happened, by rooting out every last new, innovative element of that franchise which that moment had introduced and murdering them, butchering them, blowing them straight to hell and oblivion with retarded [nonsense] plot devices like 'protomatter', completely trashing the greatest heroic sacrifice in the history of heroic fiction with what had to be the most ridiculously contrived and hopelessly dumbass resurrection stunt since the Jackal cloned Gwen Stacy, and proving once and for all that the good of the many never ever EVER outweighs the good of the few or the one, if the few are stockholders in Paramount Pictures, and the one is a Leonard Nimoy terrified he'll never ever have another part. And that glorious moment when James T. Kirk was an Admiral and Spock was his Captain and the Enterprise merely a training craft and that was *okay*, it was *all right*, because the galaxy was still vast and the frontier was still final and other heroes and heroines were standing ready to boldly go where no one had gone before... that moment was gone forever, beaten down, broken, burned to ashes and trampled underfoot into the muck of mediocrity. And once again, then and forever, galloping around the cosmos was a game for the old, the tested, the true, the guaranteed box office."

And my voice became a naked flame as I spat: "Star Trek III sucked so hard I thought the movie theater had suffered a hull breech. The characterizations didn't exist, the dialogue was drivel, the plot was so utterly vacuous as to make the admittedly nonsensical plot of STAR TREK II look like Shakespeare, and if William Shatner had chewed the scenery any harder he'd have gone into toxic shock from an overdose of paper mache and spraypaint. That movie was sheer [poop] from back to front, start to finish, top to bottom, and now I feel like I need to take my brain out and have it dry cleaned."

Okay, I may not have said all that quite that eloquently, but I said a lot of it, as we drove in Gary's car back from the movie theater.

And they never asked me for my opinion of a movie again.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 07:50:11 PM
-And it just wasn't very good.

Honestly; that's the bottom line - I didn't like it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 07:52:35 PM
Yeah, it sucked pretty bad, too.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sigma on August 02, 2013, 07:59:23 PM
It's really military, it's a story about a fight with a bad guy instead of exploring or the Big Space Thing, and the thematic spine of the narrative is about getting old.  Not a bad theme, mind you, but not a terribly Star Trek one.

ST was about a lot of things week-to-week, sure, so that's not a major knock on the flick.  It's the uniforms and all the "Permission to come aboard?" stuff that really puts me off.


And you're totally correct about the size of the shadow it cast - subsequent movies had the look and feel I didn't love, without the quality...
The problem is that you can't really do "classic" Trek as well in films because it doesn't translate as well into a two hour format. The three closest attempts were The Motion Picture, The Undiscovered Country and Insurrection, and none of them were particularly successful (but Insurrection suffers from the fact that all of the TNG movies are bad). Those are about, respectively, discovering something strange and unknown in space; space politics; and a boring Planet-Of-The-Week episode played out in long form.

I'll agree though that the military side of Starfleet gets overexposed in the films, though it is ever present in the TV series, especially The Original Series, where Kirk at one point flat out says that he is a soldier first and foremost (Errand of Mercy, I believe).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 08:16:47 PM
::shrug:: Movies have bigger budgets and Gene Roddenberry was an arrogant turd who took himself MUCH too seriously... so his wife still insists that everybody take him much too seriously, too.

STAR TREK was always intended to be WAGON TRAIN in space.  Roddenberry himself said that many times.  It's pulp fiction and it's not supposed to be grand or meaningful or say much of anything.  It's just entertainment.

Roddenberry himself got so puffed up and full of himself that he forgot that, and with bigger budgets come bigger pretensions. 


Very few big budget films, now that I think of it, have done pulp right.  JURASSIC PARK III is one of the few, as is CONGO.  But as soon as the TERMINATOR franchise got some money, it stopped being pulpy and started being preachy. 

Pulp may have to be cheap.   Maybe that's part of the essence. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 08:25:27 PM
Money ruins everything, yes - that's pretty central to my thesis about fake Star Track, and really, everything since the cartoon, which would have been improved by a better budget.


The problem is that you can't really do "classic" Trek as well in films because it doesn't translate as well into a two hour format. The three closest attempts were The Motion Picture, The Undiscovered Country and Insurrection, and none of them were particularly successful (but Insurrection suffers from the fact that all of the TNG movies are bad). Those are about, respectively, discovering something strange and unknown in space; space politics; and a boring Planet-Of-The-Week episode played out in long form.

I'll agree though that the military side of Starfleet gets overexposed in the films, though it is ever present in the TV series, especially The Original Series, where Kirk at one point flat out says that he is a soldier first and foremost (Errand of Mercy, I believe).
I can't agree that it can't be done well, just because it hasn't been.

Otherwise, yeah.  You have to remember that the show, before anything else, was a business venture - if they cut out ALL the fights in favor of the veiled social commentary Roddenberry preferred doing, they'd have never have made it through the first season.  But part of the charm and success of Trek was the variety of types of stories they could do.  Starfleet was a military, a space patrol/coast guard, and an exploratory/science service all at the same time.

I doubt I'd like if the movies had been nothing but science (bad science, no doubt) and exploration to the exclusion of all else, either.  Or only rescue missions and medical aid to colonies.  Military was only part of what it was in the beginning, and the movies lost a lot in throwing out the rest.

Star Trek was straightforward adventure, and social commentary, and even tried to be actual science fiction at times.  Star Trek was a dream of a better future, and a show that really stood out in its time for it's sincere attempts to be quality.  Star Trek is a 'franchise' that was long ago hijacked by people who didn't under stand or like Star Trek.  I refuse to drink that last bit of koolaide, and I think some of it began with Wrath, alas.

...

-And for MY nickel, Insurrection might have been pretty good if they'd come up with decent villains, instead of the Videans from Voyager with the serial numbers filed off...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sigma on August 02, 2013, 08:26:05 PM
::shrug:: Movies have bigger budgets and Gene Roddenberry was an arrogant turd who took himself MUCH too seriously... so his wife still insists that everybody take him much too seriously, too.

STAR TREK was always intended to be WAGON TRAIN in space.  Roddenberry himself said that many times.  It's pulp fiction and it's not supposed to be grand or meaningful or say much of anything.  It's just entertainment.

Roddenberry himself got so puffed up and full of himself that he forgot that, and with bigger budgets come bigger pretensions. 


Very few big budget films, now that I think of it, have done pulp right.  JURASSIC PARK III is one of the few, as is CONGO.  But as soon as the TERMINATOR franchise got some money, it stopped being pulpy and started being preachy. 

Pulp may have to be cheap.   Maybe that's part of the essence.
Roddenberry actually had nothing to do with Wrath of Khan or any of the Trek movies past The Motion Picture, since Paramount kicked him out after it failed to perform at the box office. Also Majel Barret died a few years ago.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 08:29:20 PM
Rod hated Wrath, actually.

It was the beginning of a huge behind-the-scenes power struggle that went on for years.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 08:29:45 PM
I understand that Gene had nothing to do with WRATH OF KHAN.  I like WRATH OF KHAN.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 08:31:54 PM
To make things clearer:  I loathe Gene Roddenberry.  He was the anti-Christ of 'science fiction'.  The fact that he wanted STAR TREK to be WAGON TRAIN in space fills me with contempt. 

Just wanted to get that on the record.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 08:35:08 PM
Knowing what I've come to know and surmise about the man, I wouldn't go that far, but cannot understand why people who knew him loved him so.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sigma on August 02, 2013, 08:36:47 PM
Knowing what I've come to know and surmise about the man, I wouldn't go that far, but cannot understand why people who knew him loved him so.
I don't think they really did love him so much as they loved what he created.

It's worth saying that my favorite Trek is DS9, which I'm sure sent Roddenberry spinning in his grave after the second season or so.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 08:40:09 PM
While those power struggles were going on, he was strongly asserting that Star Trek wasn't about space battles, which peeved authors wanting to write novels along those lines off to no end.  He wouldn't have approved of the Dominion War seasons, no.

Bob Justman and Herb Solo spent a whole book bitching about weasel crap Rod pulled over the years - and SWORE they loved the guy.  Go figure.  Somehow it didn't set my bullcrap detector off, and I honestly still believe them.  Gene is universally attested to have been a very charismatic man.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 08:42:51 PM
DS9 has on more than one occasion referred to a Spock who lived past ST II, and therefore, is fake Trek, and I need not have an opinion on it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sigma on August 02, 2013, 08:46:49 PM
While those power struggles were going on, he was strongly asserting that Star Trek wasn't about space battles, which peeved authors wanting to write novels along those lines off to no end.  He wouldn't have approved of the Dominion War seasons, no.
I think it was more portraying the Federation as anything less than a perfect communist utopia that he would have objected to.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 08:50:17 PM
It did have that element, yes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 08:51:03 PM
Socialist.  The Federation is not communist.  People get what they want in addition to what they need, and they don't seem to be required to give back anything in exchange... at least, not if they are willing to settle for basic, subsistence level life.

The central government takes care of everyone, and demands nothing in return... which is only made possible because they have INSANELY cheap energy, plus the ability to rearrange matter at will.   

What drives me crazy about STAR TREK is that they don't use their technology logically, nor does their technology change their behavior in any way.  I mean, yeah, it's pretty much eliminated racism or petty crime, but... people still get old.  Non mainstream sexuality is still obviously taboo.  People still get sick.  It's annoyingly stupid.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sigma on August 02, 2013, 08:58:56 PM
Socialist.  The Federation is not communist.  People get what they want in addition to what they need, and they don't seem to be required to give back anything in exchange... at least, not if they are willing to settle for basic, subsistence level life.

The central government takes care of everyone, and demands nothing in return... which is only made possible because they have INSANELY cheap energy, plus the ability to rearrange matter at will.   

What drives me crazy about STAR TREK is that they don't use their technology logically, nor does their technology change their behavior in any way.  I mean, yeah, it's pretty much eliminated racism or petty crime, but... people still get old.  Non mainstream sexuality is still obviously taboo.  People still get sick.  It's annoyingly stupid.
It's hard to make that compelling television though. I'd argue that non-mainstream sexuality being taboo is more a limitation of it being a television show than what would reasonably occur in that kind of setting.

If you want exposure to what the Federation would become if taken to its logical extreme, you need to read Ian M. Bank's Culture novels.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 09:01:06 PM
[ninja'd; also, what Sigma said]

You're judging it by print standards.  Screen SF STILL hasn't caught up, and ST was contemporary to Lost in Space.  The context matters.

TV and movies maybe aren't good at exploring the future in a smart way - at least, no one's impressed me with that sort of thing, onscreen.  Different media do tend to have different strengths.  [shrugs]  I wish I could get my sister on here to talk about characterization and soap opera, and why girls like Star Trek, and not so much Larry Niven novels...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 09:02:02 PM
Roddenberry was interested in compelling television.  I'm interested in either good science fiction or good pulp.  STAR TREK was almost never the first and hardly ever the second.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 09:05:19 PM
[ninja'd; also, what Sigma said]

You're judging it by print standards.  Screen SF STILL hasn't caught up, and ST was contemporary to Lost in Space.  The context matters.

TV and movies maybe aren't good at exploring the future in a smart way - at least, no one's impressed me with that sort of thing, onscreen.  Different media do tend to have different strengths.  [shrugs]  I wish I could get my sister on here to talk about characterization and soap opera, and why girls like Star Trek, and not so much Larry Niven novels...

MAX HEADROOM was good science fiction.   You can do it on TV.  Roddenberry just didn't want to.

I wouldn't despise Roddenberry so much if he'd just been honest.  If he'd done good pulp with rayguns and space ships, fine, I like good pulp.  But STAR TREK was always half assed.  He was too full of himself to do good pulp -- you can't imagine Roddenberry ever reading a Doc Savage novel, for example -- and too lazy/dumb to write good science fiction.

I'm sure there have been some other good sf shows on TV.   The third season of that submarine show, with Michael Ironsides... it had some good SF in it.  There have probably been a few others.  But good SF has little mass appeal; it requires people to be able to think.  TV audiences hate that.  Witness the idiocy that was the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sigma on August 02, 2013, 09:06:26 PM
Roddenberry was interested in compelling television.  I'm interested in either good science fiction or good pulp.  STAR TREK was almost never the first and hardly ever the second.
Then go read Consider Phlebas by the aforementioned Ian M. Banks. It's exactly what you'd surmise the Federation would evolve into given enough time, and it's a pretty good book too.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 09:12:41 PM
[I hearby call attention to the fact that these jokers are out-posting me this afternoon; ninja'd again]

Mind you, I think the girls miss a lot, not keeping up on their Niven...

The BS:G remake did indeed wear out its welcome with me in a hurry.  Strong-ish start, but went on WAY after they ran out of stories.  And dreadfully unimaginative and un-SF from the very beginning.  I even missed the robot dagget before they wrapped up.

If you want to poke around on previous pages, BTW, I posted videos of the entirety of all three Flash Gordon serials a few months ago.  That stuff rocks.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 09:12:50 PM
I've got a lot in my in stack, and haven't heard good things about Banks.  But thanks for the recommendation.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 09:25:39 PM
Yeah.  The first BS:G was good pulp SF.  The second was just a mess. 

From my blog, long ago:

Should we, or should we not, watch the galactically stupid Battlestar: Galactica?

So, we watched the first two episodes (after the pilot, I mean) of Battlestar Galactica's first season. And, yeah, interesting characters, fascinating human interactions, decent dialogue, hot naked blonde chicks in virtual hot tubs... I get the appeal. Really, I do.

But does it have to be so, well, galactically stupid, from the scientific POV?

First -- as with nearly any TV SF, I'm already working hard to ignore so much on this show. I mean, these characters are, literally, unEarthly human beings. Which is to say, they are not from Earth. They have never been to Earth. Earth is naught but a vague, ancient legend to them, and it's not even the human race's common origin point from millenia in the past... no, it's the mythical '13th Colony', that is 'beyond the farthest star', a place which is as exotic, alien, and utterly unknown to them as their planetary settlements are to us.

And yet, they wear the same clothing styles and fashions as we do, not just on Earth, but in Western 21st Century culture. Their clothes hangers, their padlocks, their bricks of plastic explosive, their detonators, their carrying cases and tool boxes, their flashlights, their small arms, their books... all are virtually identical to the items that perform the very same very specific tasks in our own Earthly culture.

Plus, while the actual cards are somewhat differently shaped and designed, these unEarthly human beings pretty obviously play poker, too.

And they use the exact same kind of money we do. And they're all free market capitalists, and their government is a republic that places an obvious premium on individual liberty which is ruled by democratically elected representatives. And their chief executive's title? President, naturally.

Now, I think it was Shakespeare who noted that tools designed to be used by similar beings for similar purposes will often end up similar in appearance, and I'm not discounting that, but these are very very specific artifacts designed to perform very very specific tasks, and there's no reason why, for example, we need to be watching characters from a distant star system who have never set foot on Earth opening what is obviously a clothes closet and taking what is obviously a military jacket off of what is obviously a clothes hanger. Why can't they have some kind of oddly geometrical gridwork with hooks jutting off it at irregular intervals that folds into the wall once you hang your clothes on it? Why can't their hand weapons look like laser pointers or chrome eggs or headbands or jeweled brass knuckles or wristbands with metal spigots or something? Why can't they read geometrical printing on triangular plastic scroll sheets wrapped around metal batons, instead of Earthly printed volumes? Why can't their explosives be lengths of metallic cord, and their padlocks be open triangles of metal with little dial-rings embedded in one vertice?

And if I can come up with all these viable, completely exotic seeming alternative presentations of very common, everyday artifacts in five minutes of free association while I'm typing, why can't the professional writers employed on Battlestar: Galactica come up with something even better? Why do they seem so absolutely determined to never, ever remind us that these people aren't from Earth, except when someone mentions it in a specific bit of expository dialogue?

And, for the love of the jesus, why can't these characters wear articles of clothing besides jackets with zippers, and skirts, and V neck sweaters, and button up collared white shirts with neck ties, and goddam nylon stockings with goddam high heels? I mean, NECK TIES? A race of humans from beyond the furthest star completely independently invented NECK TIES as formal wear for the male half of the race? And I completely balk at the idea that any other sentient race anywhere has ever inflicted nylons and high heels on their women. I just absolutely balk.

I mean, I'm already willfully ignoring -- not suspending my disbelief, there isn't enough titanium alloy cable in the universe to let me do that, but by sheer force of will, straight up refusing to think about -- stuff like what the hell these people do for gravity when they're out in space, and how they have Hispanics and Asians and Africans and other very recognizable, very specific Earthly human subraces, and how is it exactly that they can create artificial intelligence and live comfortably for an indefinite time period in the harshest natural environment known to man and travel faster than light, and they can do all this and yet, still, the remainder of their clearly evident technological infrastructure is exactly identical with that of industrialized 21st Century Earth?

They have cheap, apparently limitless power, but they don't have focused energy weapons. They have artificial gravity, but they don't have anti-grav. They have some kind of effective radiation shielding that works for years on end in space, and highly efficient environment control technology, and they can create autonomous, self programming artificial intelligence, yet they don't seem to have any kind of cloning, or genetic engineering, or rejuvenation of injured tissue, or any sort of advanced medical technology at all (although they do have some kind of anti-radiation medicine they can inject themselves with, when, as always, the plot requires it).

They can jump entire fleets of space ships across parsecs of empty space instantaneously, and yet, they still use motorized vehicles to get around on the surface of their planets.

There may be plausible explanations for some of this, but the only reasonable explanation for ALL of it... for the exact technologies we need to fulfill the requirements of the ongoing story arc to be the only advanced technology they have, and to have those things have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the surrounding technological infrastructure -- is that godlike aliens showed up at some point in their past and gave them everything they need to travel in space. The ability to construct viable long term artificial life support environments, the artificial gravity, the cheap and apparently limitless power, the faster than light drive, the capacity to build self aware artificial life forms -- they can't possibly have actually invented or developed any of it themselves. Because if they had, this stuff would have grown out of other technological advances and it would have spawned other advanced technological offshoots. That's how an actual advanced technology works... but not on Battlestar Galactica.

So I have to willfully ignore all that to watch this show, and I do it, and it's damn hard work. But they'd make it enormously easier for me to do this if they'd put just a little bit more imagination into dressing the sets. Hire some actual SF geeks to work in the props department. Come up with some truly alien appearing tools, weapons, and wardrobe choices. And, hey, maybe even spend a little money making a few extras up as members of an exotic, unEarthly in appearance human sub-race, as well. Maybe a completely hairless people with visibly reddish skin. Or a group of overly hirsute dwarves with pointed ears and epicanthic folds around their eyes. A gold skinned race with solid black eyes, and webbed fingers and toes that lives on a mostly aquatic planet. People with really weird hair. People with antenna. People with horns, or chitinous spurs projecting from their heels and wrists. The possibilities are endless, and you wouldn't need to have many of these weirdos around. One regular supporting character, and the occasional sight of a few others in the background would go light years for establishing verisimilitude on this show.

But while SF in books is for the intelligent and the imaginative, SF on TV and in the movies is nearly always for brain-dead droolers who not only don't notice any of this [poop], but who would probably be deeply troubled (without understanding why) if a nominally science fiction TV show presented any kind of truly exotic, unEarthly environment or characters on a regular basis. So I understand why they can't do any of this, or why they choose not to, anyway.

It tasks me, but, yeah, I get it.

But here's what I don't understand -- in the second episode of the first season, a stinking Cylon saboteur blows up half the Galactica's water tanks, and 60% of their available water gets vented to space, and this is a huge thing, because suddenly a water supply that would have lasted for several years with their completely efficient recycling systems will now only last, maybe, three hours and twelve minutes if they go on strict water rations. So Edward James Olmos has to order all his cool little cargo ships out scout around the nearby star systems desperately looking for water, and if they don't find it by the end of the episode, then they're all doomed to die... a horrible death.

And nobody apparently is aware that there's plenty of water -- in fact, there is exactly as much water as they need to replace what they've lost -- traveling in the exact same ballistic path as the Galactica, in the form of a cloud of ice particles surrounding the Galactica. I mean, jesus christ, you idiots, the water didn't vanish into a [intercourse gerund] black hole when it blew out of your tanks, it turned into ice instantly and is still floating out there in the vacuum of space. Yes. RIGHT THERE, you [intercourse gerund] dumbasses. Give your crew-guys in their dorky orange coveralls some space suits, jet packs, and butterfly nets and go get it back, dipshits.

I mean, I'm sorry, but this is just galactically stupid.

Now, as I said, I like the interactions and I like the drama and I like the humanoid Cylons and I like the dialogue and the characters and the actors and all that stuff. But you know what? The backdrop, the science, and the essential internal conflicts in the plots themselves are also important stuff.

I don't know why I'd expect any better from Ronald D. Moore, a man who has mastered the art of creating utterly craptastic and completely brainless hack non-science fiction for television while toiling in the moronic franchise vineyards of post Roddenberry Star Trek and the likable but perpetually stupid Roswell. And honestly, I don't know why I keep hoping for real, honest to god science fiction to show up on TV. And I'm perfectly aware that on the very rare occasion when SF does show up on TV and the internal science makes sense, either the human elements are hackneyed and utterly predictable (Babylon 5), or the show itself lasts only eight episodes before vanishing forever (Max Headroom).

I'm still very pleased I got this for Christmas. But I'd be a great deal more pleased if the producers of this show would hire, like, the Comic Shop Guy from The Simpsons, or some other ubergeek, to fact check their scripts and make intelligent suggestions to the prop department.

Actually, I'd really really like it if they'd hire me, because, you know, that's got to be way better than working in a call center.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 09:36:50 PM
As I said about six months ago in this very thread, we really lost something when they threw out the yarns and centons and amobrosia and socialites and daggets - aside from the joke about the value of a life without amobrosia and socialites.  It's not the same without, not only the wonderful cheese of it, but a legitimate attempt to make these space people a little bit alien.

I imagine any hard-core fans of the original real BSG wouldn't need me to explain my cranky distain for fake Star Track.  People who didn't get it did a revival that didn't get it.  It's hard to take, seeing that done to something you love.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 09:42:38 PM
Socialators were one of the very few real, actual science fiction elements in the original BS:G, or on TV at all, for that matter.  Here was a futuristic non Earthly society that had DIFFERENT SEXUAL MORES from us.  Amazing.

(Not different sexual mores than any human culture, though... many historical cultures have legitimized prostitution.  Just not ours.)

I also liked the laser bolos. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 09:48:00 PM
Exactly.

It's a pity that real BSG wasn't very good.  It had a lot going for it, honestly.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 02, 2013, 09:53:22 PM
It could have been good.  But not under Glenn Larsen.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2013, 09:58:09 PM
I cannot say.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sigma on August 03, 2013, 05:44:16 AM
BSG wasn't designed to be hard science though; it's science has about the same degree of accuracy and integrity as, say, Star Wars, and knowing that it's an intentional decision allowed me to enjoy the show for its merits rather than for failing astrophysics class. As for your comments on culture, you're absolutely right and that is largely irrelevant; the show isn't about the kind of clothing people wear or what card games they play, the show is about how the characters deal with faith, doubt, betrayal and destiny, as well as cool space dogfights.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on August 03, 2013, 05:56:37 AM
You also have to remember who the show is being marketed to: Sure, people like us want hard science coupled with exotic cultures and completely alien experiences (pardon the pun) something different to shatter our spines with and make us want more.
But you have lots of people who just tune in and want something contemporary and familiar, and that's what these shows lack depth in aspects of realism and other things.


For me personally I find there is certain shows that portray different cultural values and cultures in general are generally ones based on alternative history or ones based on historical events. I caught a show that aired a while back, someone linked me online to it called VIKINGS. Now sure, the name is simple enough and while the cast is interesting and initially the plot is pretty simple the show grows a bit and it shows the contrast between cultures: While still having some identifying points. They also have a certain character to show contrast between the character's culture and the Christian "culture" as well, and generally there is a subliminal atheist tone about the show, at least how it comes off. And it shows the societies in a nice, blunt way, straight to the point. Sacrifices, sex and pillaging with some powerplay its got some appeal to it.

Of course its no Sci Fi or Fantasy obviously but I am one for more realistic shows to begin with. I personally like harder Sci Fi's and am more a fan of the post apocalyptic genre as opposed to mild Space Opera's like Star Trek or Space Fantasy's like Star Wars.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 12:52:35 PM
BSG wasn't designed to be hard science though; it's science has about the same degree of accuracy and integrity as, say, Star Wars, and knowing that it's an intentional decision allowed me to enjoy the show for its merits rather than for failing astrophysics class. As for your comments on culture, you're absolutely right and that is largely irrelevant; the show isn't about the kind of clothing people wear or what card games they play, the show is about how the characters deal with faith, doubt, betrayal and destiny, as well as cool space dogfights.

Then it shouldn't be dressed up with the trappings of 'science fiction'.  In science fiction, the science is important.  Apologists who come in afterward and whine and boo hoo because, you know, a show that's about people living in a gigantic space craft for years while they flee from renegade robots of their own creation... oh, THAT show isn't REALLY about science... frankly, I have no time for that.  To say that STAR WARS, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, or STAR TREK "aren't about the science" is just stupid.  If they're not about the science, then that is an inherent and unforgivable flaw in how the show is conceived and executed, because they ARE about the science, or they aren't science fiction.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on August 03, 2013, 01:19:23 PM
Note though, Science FICTION. And not all fiction explains things properly; though I do agree that on the account of Star Wars/Star Trek they don't explain lots of the technology sufficiently enough or provide logical means as to how they work. Not sure about BattleStar Galactica as I've never really watched it. But does it mean the shows/movies are necessarily bad...? Debatable, depends on your stance on how hard you want the science part of the science fiction.

Edit: Whats a good Sci Fi that tickles your fancy? Just seeing where your interests lie, maybe have read/seen it myself or its worth checking out.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 03, 2013, 01:28:55 PM
BSG wasn't designed to be hard science though; it's science has about the same degree of accuracy and integrity as, say, Star Wars, and knowing that it's an intentional decision allowed me to enjoy the show for its merits rather than for failing astrophysics class. As for your comments on culture, you're absolutely right and that is largely irrelevant; the show isn't about the kind of clothing people wear or what card games they play, the show is about how the characters deal with faith, doubt, betrayal and destiny, as well as cool space dogfights.

Then it shouldn't be dressed up with the trappings of 'science fiction'.  In science fiction, the science is important.  Apologists who come in afterward and whine and boo hoo because, you know, a show that's about people living in a gigantic space craft for years while they flee from renegade robots of their own creation... oh, THAT show isn't REALLY about science... frankly, I have no time for that.  To say that STAR WARS, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, or STAR TREK "aren't about the science" is just stupid.  If they're not about the science, then that is an inherent and unforgivable flaw in how the show is conceived and executed, because they ARE about the science, or they aren't science fiction.

True, but there are different levels that sci fi takes science. There is hard sci fi and space opera.

Take Ender's Game or any of that entire series. Space travel does pay attention to relativistic travel in those novels. Star Wars and Star Trek, not so much so.

It's all sci fi, just different levels of realism.

I am with you that I like my sci fi a bit more on Heienlin side and a bit less on the George Lucas side. But, I am a sucker for a good story, too and will overlook some things.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 02:47:01 PM
Science fiction is about exploring how human behavior is changed by technology.  To boil down nearly all my gripes and [complaints or disagreeable women; may be a verb, may indicate management of prostitutes] about SF as done in visual medias meant for huge audiences of stupid humans -- the technology is simply there as plot fodder and eye candy.  The characters still behave exactly like their audience members.  Same culture.  Same taboos.  Same mores.

People who live with access to the level of technology they have in the Federation would live very differently than we do.  But most people would not be comfortable watching a STAR TREK with a bisexual Kirk or Riker.  They would not want to hear about Picard's four wives and two co husbands back in France.  And the writers do not want to lose the drama of someone who needs implants to see, even though you should be able to cure any injury or disease by running someone through the transporter.  There shouldn't be any old age, either, and people should be able to switch genders at will. 

But all of those things would give rise to extremely different cultural behaviors, many of which would shock and offend potential audience members. 

So we can't have real science fiction on TV.  Or in the movies.

I get that.  But sometimes it just gets SOOOOOOO stupid and scientifically subliterate that I can't watch any more. 


Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 03, 2013, 04:41:57 PM
I hear you. I could see the shock if you put a movie up like what you talk about. Imagine Hieinlins Cat Who Walks Through Walls as TV series, lol. Those books are exactly like that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 05:08:39 PM
Well, CAT WHO WALKS THROUGH WALLS, like most of the last few Heinleins (except FRIDAY and JOB) is very weak and kind of stupid, compared to the original material that RAH is trying to go back and 'correct'.  Read TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE, and throw out your copies of BEAST, CAT, and SUNSET. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 03, 2013, 05:46:13 PM
Well, CAT WHO WALKS THROUGH WALLS, like most of the last few Heinleins (except FRIDAY and JOB) is very weak and kind of stupid, compared to the original material that RAH is trying to go back and 'correct'.  Read TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE, and throw out your copies of BEAST, CAT, and SUNSET. 

Time Enough for Love was excellent. I disagree somewhat about Cat. The first part was excellent. Ending was stupid, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 05:56:39 PM
CAT simply had too much stupidity jam packed into it for me to like it at all.  The first three chapters were the best of it, but old school publishers generally used to buy the first three chapters and an outline.  This is why so many bad Zelazny books have a wonderful first three chapters, and then drop into the toilet.

Honestly, though, I simply have no tolerance for Heinlein's The World As Myth.  Any story in which the characters know they are characters in a story bores the [poop] out of me.  It's the ultimate plot cop out.  I simply cannot respect it.  And Heinlein used it as a plot cop out, too... "why are these strange things happening?  Because the writer wants them to!"  No, Bob.  Screw you.

Heinlein really did lose control badly over his last half dozen books or so.  He kind of kept FRIDAY disciplined... a little, there's still quite a lot about that book that ain't right... and in JOB, he made the whole surreal thing work for him... but JOB did not go back and rape the storylines of previous, better books.  It was just, essentially, Heinlein's way of saying "you know that weird [poop] I did in 'Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag'? I can do that better now".  And he did.  So I was okay with that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 03, 2013, 06:08:45 PM
But... back to your analysis of Federation society. I got some food for thought.

I believe, other than some of the sci-tech glitches, it is pretty close.

The thing about Star Trek - particularly TNG era more than TOS (because of TV censors), is it is a Unitarian Universalist  work. Roddenberry was a staunch UU and member of that church. UUism, for those that do not want to tab out to wikipedia is that all people have merit and are all valuable despite any belief system. It is Roddenberry (and the UU church's) vision of paradise on Earth. Everybody is valuable. Everybody is a skeptic. Everybody respects everybody else.

Now, just because the UU does not care if, say, Kirk slept with men and women, does not mean that society would all of the sudden be all bi or gender changing each week just because they can. It means that as long as it does not violate any covenants (UU term for not slouching on promises you made or hurting folks.), no one cares.

Now, in TNG, Riker did have an affair with a male androgynous alien. I think it was about the best they could get away with. Still, even in future society, those that will choose homosexuality will still remain the same percentage. Changing your sex will still be a major procedure because you ARE teleporting organs around and having to match them up.

Polygamy is a totally separate matter. In UU, it is not judged but discouraged. This is why: it is not the best for society. While it is true, folks do not care in UUism about others relationships, there is still supply and demand. In ploygamy, you end up with a shortage of available partners. Imagine a world where the Admiral has 10 wives, the captains have 5, and maybe LTs. have 1. Quickly, you could end up with half of the population  single with no prospects! In past societies, you called these people slaves. Now, I hear you when you say that morals would be different. But still, even 300 years from now, human children still would require parents and folks responsible for raising them. Now, strong gay rights futurists would say which ever gender that is left behind in the minority would just turn gay is being ludicrous. Folks do not "turn" gay, they or either that way or not. It would still remain only 10 to 15 percent of society even 200 years in the future.

There IS one caveat to your polygamy/free love that could change my view above: Star Trek increased tech. In TOS, no. But, if you are talking Voyager on where you have sentient machines and holograms that have and can enter relationships just as humans and there is no social stigma with "not being cool enough to date a fellow human", that could change things. You could just manufacture folks to fill emotional/sexual needs.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 06:26:12 PM
Oh, holodecks would destroy society if they were as freely available as they seem to be in STAR TREK.  Few would have the strength of character to deal with the problems of the real world and real people if they could live in a programmed fantasy land all the time.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 03, 2013, 06:39:38 PM
Oh, holodecks would destroy society if they were as freely available as they seem to be in STAR TREK.  Few would have the strength of character to deal with the problems of the real world and real people if they could live in a programmed fantasy land all the time.

depends. Remember, Star Trek is a UU work. In UU society, everyone is valuable and every one has a voice. It is a totally different society than today where one person is "better" than another. You do not have landlords or employers. Many soul draining, monotonous tasks are non existent. If you were depressed, a hypospray could get you undepressed. If you are sociopathic, like many CEOs are, they cure you. People do not treat others like they do in the real world in a perfect UU society.

Now, Holodeck time is something they limit in TNG/DS9/VOY era. You had it, but it was like a novel or a practice room. You still had to actually go to a place because at that tech level, it required too many resources and energy to be in everyone's house. Think the arcades of the 1970s-80s versus the XBOX. Just like folks addicted to MMOs, you do remember you still, even in a "perfect UU society" like Trek one guy who did have holodeck addiction.

My thing I wanted to see is the advancing tech past VOY. At the end of Voyager, from the defeat of the Borg, new borg tech, and HUGE advances in holograms and AIs the Federation would be going to REALLY interesting levels. Now, the holodeck walks amongst humans. It has feelings, an AI indistinguishable from any other sentient being, a real "person". Think of the stories! Much better than a JJ Abrahms reboot. I want to know what happens after VOY.

Far more cerebral than a "action" film recasting kirk. Better, too.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 06:44:55 PM
Wasn't it the Dilbert guy who observed that the holodeck would be humanity's LAST invention?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 06:48:41 PM
Limiting holodeck access on board starships makes sense... everybody has a job to do, they can't spend all their time boinking holographic Troi and holographic Yar.  If they do, the ship won't function.

And if you want to presume that holodecks require so much energy that individuals on Earth, where nobody seems to need to work if they don't want to, can't have one in their closet... well, sure.  Make that assumption, that holodeck access must be rationed, and you can build a society around it.

But I find those presumptions doubtful.  The Federation's society is predicated on infinite free energy; otherwise, nothing that they do can possibly work.  The energy that would be involved in one use of one transporter is simply mind staggering. 

So they may well be limiting access to holodcks.... but if so, it's a conscious limitation imposed by an authoritarian regime on the citizenry.   I can't see how it would be necessary.  Not if they can do the other stuff they do, casually, constantly.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 06:50:26 PM
On that note, I have a theory about artificial gravity and warp drive in that universe...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 03, 2013, 06:53:06 PM
Wasn't it the Dilbert guy who observed that the holodeck would be humanity's LAST invention?

Only if, what dareen and I contend is wrong and society values do not change.

Things remain as is. Yes...

But do not worry... if society stays as is, the holodeck would be used for control. You would have 15 minute tampon commercials every 5 minutes during your RL virtual porn star wife fantasy, thank you. Of course, directly imprinting the nurons in your brain so you would not be able to get rid of the tampon jingle :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 03, 2013, 06:54:11 PM
God... holodeck brain adware .......
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 06:54:20 PM
THAT'S no utopian vision of the future...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 06:54:48 PM
There is no gravity, Gene Roddenberry just sucks?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 06:58:13 PM
Well, it starts with the plainly observable fact that everyone's artificial gravity is insanely reliable.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 03, 2013, 07:03:17 PM
Well, it starts with the plainly observable fact that everyone's artificial gravity is insanely reliable.

Sci fi shows really should work on that. But, that, like the teleporter was all about budget.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 07:15:55 PM
Clearly, none of this is original intent, but not only is it crazy reliable, but so cheap they put it everywhere, and every. single. species. that makes it into space has it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 07:18:07 PM
My theory is, all pulp fiction takes place in a virtual reality.   Especially superhero fiction.  In these virtual realities, the laws of physics are just code.  You want a character/person to do extraordinary things, change the code.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 03, 2013, 07:30:38 PM
My theory is, all pulp fiction takes place in a virtual reality.   Especially superhero fiction.  In these virtual realities, the laws of physics are just code.  You want a character/person to do extraordinary things, change the code.



But, it goes by your original point. Us sci fi folks WANT realism, not VR unless VR is called for.

But, you know, in video media I can not really think of anyone that does the gravity thing right. In fact, I can only think of these examples:

Apollo 19, PlanetES (but the Manga is annoying), Moonlight Mile, The Europa Report, Moon, 2001 and 2010. Maybe more, but sheesh.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 07:32:00 PM
My theory is, all pulp fiction takes place in a virtual reality.   Especially superhero fiction.  In these virtual realities, the laws of physics are just code.  You want a character/person to do extraordinary things, change the code.
Yeah, but it's more fun to pretend it's real and try to make sense of it.  A game at least as old as the existence of nerds.


So I conclude this:  in the ST universe, there's stuff about how gravity works that was discovered by the mid 90's.  Khan's ship had artificial gravity, and it wasn't spinning or accelerating.  So there's a way to make, dunno, a gravity deck plating cheaply that works for a very long time with little or no power input.  Every race discovers this application of the law of gravity pretty soon after they go into space.  The same, or similar, techniques make for a nifty non-reaction gravity drive, which Starfleet calls "impulse".  A slightly more sophisticated application involving the interaction of fields from two gravity generators distorts warps space-time and makes for a nifty FTL drive.  Thus, everyone and his mother has a FTL starship with two drive pylons of some sort.  Both types of drive take a lot more juice then the deck plates because the gravity fields, by the nature of the thing, are not static, but have to expand and contract and vary in intensity.  That Warp is probably by an order of magnitude more power-hungry than Impulse naturally follows.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 08:25:19 PM
My theory is, all pulp fiction takes place in a virtual reality.   Especially superhero fiction.  In these virtual realities, the laws of physics are just code.  You want a character/person to do extraordinary things, change the code.
Yeah, but it's more fun to pretend it's real and try to make sense of it.  A game at least as old as the existence of nerds.


So I conclude this:  in the ST universe, there's stuff about how gravity works that was discovered by the mid 90's.  Khan's ship had artificial gravity, and it wasn't spinning or accelerating.  So there's a way to make, dunno, a gravity deck plating cheaply that works for a very long time with little or no power input.  Every race discovers this application of the law of gravity pretty soon after they go into space.  The same, or similar, techniques make for a nifty non-reaction gravity drive, which Starfleet calls "impulse".  A slightly more sophisticated application involving the interaction of fields from two gravity generators distorts warps space-time and makes for a nifty FTL drive.  Thus, everyone and his mother has a FTL starship with two drive pylons of some sort.  Both types of drive take a lot more juice then the deck plates because the gravity fields, by the nature of the thing, are not static, but have to expand and contract and vary in intensity.  That Warp is probably by an order of magnitude more power-hungry than Impulse naturally follows.

That works.  I'm no physicist... in fact, for a geek I'm pretty dumb... but in EARTHQUEST, I have Webster Madison discover that the entire galaxy pretty much runs on artificial microsingularities.  They use them for everything, from cheap energy to artificial gravity.   

On the other hand, they've never invented computers. They have some really huge complex mechanical calculating machines, but most ship piloting is done as in STARMAN JONES... laboriously, from books and tables, using mechanical aids.  Some of the richer organizations have genetically engineered idiot savants specifically to calculate things. 

They've never invented much in the way of TV, vcrs, or image transmission, either.  They have it, but its crude and bulky... Webster revolutionizes it pretty easily, and invents a 3D hologram projector, too, which he sells for billions... or, rather, enough to re equip his stolen spaceship so he can get on with his search for Earth.

But they do have focused energy weapons, artificial gravity, and a weird faster than light drive... they can travel from star to star at irrelevant velocities, but only by 'skating' along gravitic starpaths between stars.  You blast up out of a star's gravity well to the outer rim of the system, find the starpath leading to a neighboring star, hop onto it by manipulating your ship's EM field, and then blast along it.  In the starpaths, for some reason, Einsteinian physics is suspended, and you can build up a lot of velocity.

Then you hop out again, hopefully having calculated your departure point correctly.  Otherwise, you may end up too close to the sun at the other end of your chosen path, or to close to something planet sized, and... whoops.  From hell's heart I spit at thee.  Briefly. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 08:41:44 PM
I came up with that ST gravity theory about six months ago, and it kinda thrills me how well it fits the observable facts, and how much sense it makes.  I can't even think of anything in fake ST that contradicts this.  I'm amazed that it was even possible in a universe so thoroughly pawed-through by so many paws for so many years with no plan - it shouldn't be possible.  I think I win the innerwebs today -when I can get on, anyway.  The making sense game can be a lot of fun.

Of course, if someone made that much sense of something in Dr Who, I'd consider myself utterly topped...

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 08:52:03 PM
DR WHO exists in a virtual reality.  I don't care how much fun that isn't.  It has to be true.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 08:56:33 PM
Still more fun to make sense of it - if you can.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Doc Nebula on August 03, 2013, 09:03:35 PM
Make sense of DR. WHO?  That's insane troll logic, sir.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 09:09:55 PM
Should I ban myself?  I guess I could get sisko to ban me.


Did you see my proposal in this thread a few months ago about how they ought to release edited versions of old WHO serials, cut down to something reasonable for pacing?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 09:38:09 PM
About Doctor Who - if the Beebe would hire a good writer, good video editor and good sound mixer, there's a mint to be made going through all the intact stories of the old show and editing them down to the length the story wanted to be, sans the pointless/boring running around that didn't advance the plot and served only to pad that sucker out to 4-6 episodes when 2 would have done. 

It's something I've noticed time and again, even when watching the good ones with the 4th Doctor and Romanna - over half is always boring filler.  (Mylochka and I watched Castrovalva last night, which was deadly bad for the first half it took to even get to the eponymous locality, then suddenly became not-terrible once TristanDoctor hit town.) I'm not advocating something like Star Trek Remastered with fixing the special effects to so-so results.  You'd still be stuck with the old scripts, old performances, much of the old sets, and all the costumes.  But good stories and bad alike could all benefit from tighter pacing and getting to the good parts a lot faster.

The BBC could make a mint selling DVDs of the old show to the same fans all over again, and have something much more likely to appeal to new fans and curious fans of the current version.  This is something even you or I could do crudely on the computer with something like Windows Movie Maker, provided only the will, the patience, and some good story-telling skills - and I wish some fans would, in hopes of the right people at the beebe seeing it on YouTube and getting inspired.

I'd really like to see a Good Parts version of Castrovalva, you see...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on August 03, 2013, 10:10:42 PM
My theory on Star Trek travel is they use the gravity of celestial bodies to transport themselves, sort of like a slingshot effect and then a sort of "pong" style thing with gravity, using planets, stars and other bodies as relay points. Because in nearly every episode of Star Trek they are near SOME form of celestial body, and if they aren't they are generally having an issue.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 03, 2013, 10:13:16 PM
WHO is probably too big and diffuse for Make Sense Game to work - but I'll award five internets to anyone who can satisfactorily work out and explain how Space: 1999 was even faintly possible...

(I think a wizard did it.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 07, 2013, 01:55:38 AM
(http://media.scout.com/media/forums/emoticons/168/1269602956_dr-mccoy-and-captain-kirk-approve.gif)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 07, 2013, 07:23:58 AM
WHO is probably too big and diffuse for Make Sense Game to work - but I'll award five internets to anyone who can satisfactorily work out and explain how Space: 1999 was even faintly possible...

(I think a wizard did it.)

Maybe we should explain for the younger ones, BU.

The premise of Space:1999 was that the moon left Earth orbit and became it's own planet. That is not that bad. Thre are things that can knock moons out of orbit and the Moon IS traveling AWAY at 1 cm a year.

The way the story has it is that nuclear waste from Earth stored in mass bulk on a part of the Moon blew up. The explosion rocketed the Moon out of orbit with inhabitants of a moonbase still on the Moon.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 07, 2013, 02:51:17 PM
Yes, and my point is that in just the first episode, the Moon is knocked of into space, and on the way out of the solar system Moonbase Alpha sees a newscast from Earth about the tidal disaster caused by the Moon leaving. 

Yeah.  Something well over half the human race and closer to 90% of the broadcast news facilities are situated on a coast, and if that happened to the Moon, they'd most all be dead in hours.  Alpha might catch a local newscast from Colorado, and it would be all Armageddon, not widespread disaster.  This is assuming it's traveling, at that point, slow enough for speed of light transmissions to catch up, slow enough that doppler effects don't screw up the frequency too bad for the communications system to adjust.

And at the beginning of the second hour, the Moon arrives in a new solar system, having traveled FTL, and dawdles there long enough for some Eagle flights and an adventure...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 07, 2013, 04:16:45 PM
Yeah.  Something well over half the human race and closer to 90% of the broadcast news facilities are situated on a coast, and if that happened to the Moon, they'd most all be dead in hours.  Alpha might catch a local newscast from Colorado, and it would be all Armageddon, not widespread disaster.  This is assuming it's traveling, at that point, slow enough for speed of light transmissions to catch up, slow enough that doppler effects don't screw up the frequency too bad for the communications system to adjust.

- The broadcast would most likely be satellite-enhanced, not coming from Earth's surface directly.
- I don't remember if searises were mentioned as the disaster. It could as well be that lots of harbors became less accessible because tides are lower. For instance, the Schelde river here in the lowlands can only carry huge container ships during high tide. Economic rather then natural disaster thus.
- Alpha would always be able to catch speed of light transmissions. It is matter, so always traveling slightly slower then electromagnitic signals.
- descrambling a signal (if strong enough) only needs a good doppler filter to make it intelligable. The newscast becoming garbled while the Alpha crew was watching only means they crossed a signal strength boundary when it was received.

Quote
And at the beginning of the second hour, the Moon arrives in a new solar system, having traveled FTL, and dawdles there long enough for some Eagle flights and an adventure...

Blame "the story is larger then real physics" syndrome here. ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 07, 2013, 04:56:03 PM
But the studio was on Earth, probably within 20 miles of a sea coast, and ain't there to film the show no more.

You're not even talking sensible physics about what would happen if the Moon's pull suddenly vanished.  All the high and low tides in the world would suddenly seek a new equilibrium, i.e., God's Own Apocalyptic Tidal Wave happens in every body of water on Earth large enough to have tides.  Which would travel hundreds of miles inland up the major rivers.  -Good for your career, if you work in TV news in Denver or Ulan Bator.

You'd be one of the dead, along with everyone in Belgium.

Incidentally, most every fault on Earth just had the biggest earthquake it could.  This occurred to me when I was 11.  The entire Pacific rim is uninhabitable for hundreds of years because of the volcanoes.  And the ash cloud ruins the environment everywhere in the whole world for at least ten years.

And if the Moon didn't move away from Earth exactly straight out, all the water got a sideways twist, making it a lot worse.  We're talking easily three-four billion dead in weeks, assuming current population levels.

-And it gets better.  Where did the push come from?  The side of the Moon away from Earth.  The Moon got a lot closer to Earth on its way out.  On top of how THAT would exacerbate the effects on Earth, it's a bad day to be in LEO, the trojan  points, or anywhere nearby.

Earth: 1999 would be a possibility for a post-apocalyptic spin-off...

-Finally, the Moon inexplicably travels at varying velocities even in that one episode, so Alpha would NOT always be able to do anything.  Koening and crew don't die of old age between episodes, so FTL between stars, not so much while near them.  This is the fundamental WTF of the show, BTW.

The newscast alone doesn't work, because that wasn't a guy at some mountainous inland station reporting the end of the world.  At the most top-crack, professional operation imaginable, there'd be people constantly handing the anchor bulletins, and a thinly-veiled atmosphere of near-hysteria - at best.  I've worked professionally as a journalist, and have a degree in broadcasting, for what appeal to authority that's worth.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 13, 2013, 04:37:14 PM
Here's a Steampunk version of Uhura that I created for one of my pals...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 13, 2013, 06:36:24 PM
Steampunk Trek.  That's something would be fun to see all the way around. 

Nice take on the uniform, too. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 13, 2013, 06:57:28 PM
She's got a lot more Steampunk Trek.  She's having a bad day, but I'll try to see that there's more - I believe this isn't the first SteamTrek art she's posted in this thread, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 13, 2013, 07:17:09 PM
I'm not a frequent inhabitor of this thread, though.  Mostly when I see she posted last.   ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 13, 2013, 07:37:28 PM
I just had a quick glance at all her posts, and I look to be wrong.  Mylochka has a lot more SteamTrek to show, though, and I'll get on nagging encouraging her to share right away.  It's pretty awesome stuff.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 13, 2013, 10:49:39 PM
The other steamtrek pictures are on my other computer, but here's another green lady picture I've not posted here...

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 13, 2013, 10:51:07 PM
Oh, wait, I do have this one...

Title: Sean Kenney
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 15, 2013, 05:30:22 AM
The fellow who played Crippled Pike under all the makeup?
 
(http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1319.0;attach=5625)
This is Sean Kenney in considerably less makeup.
 
I'm quite surprised by this revelation.  Once I became aware that it was someone else in the part long ago, I'd always since thought the difference really showed, and it only worked at all because you didn't tend to notice at the time.
 
50 lashes to the makeup department for successfully concealing what features made a younger actor look so much like Jeffery Hunter.  Those eyes and that brow should have definitely shown more, and surely they could have found a way to let the marked and characteristic intensity of demeanor come out in Pike's frozen face.  That was a botch.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 15, 2013, 03:14:08 PM
How about a steampunk Uhura with glasses that point upwards? So she's likely to look at you with a raised chin instead of the other way around?  ;lol
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 15, 2013, 03:21:27 PM
Sort've like the moment in the rec room in Space Seed when she wordlessly defies Khan's goon?  She looked all cute and gutsy when she did that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 15, 2013, 03:45:58 PM
Is Steamtrek considered blasphemous by fans?  I seriously would like to see a full on cast/LARP/cosplay of this. 

Oh, and for BU. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/fans-name-star-trek-darkness-604978 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/fans-name-star-trek-darkness-604978)

Quote
Galaxy Quest is the seventh greatest Star Trek movie ever made, according to Trek fans -- who also judged this summer's Star Trek Into Darkness to be the worst of all time. At least that's the pronouncement of fans from this past weekend's Star Trek 2013 Convention in Las Vegas, who were invited to rank the movies inspired by Gene Roddenberry's long-running space fantasy.

our editor recommends
How Many 'Star Trek' Cosplayers Can You Fit Into One Convention Hall?Box Office Report: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' on Course for $83 Million Debut'Star Trek's' Urban Wants More Originality in Third InstallmentAs Badass Digest's Devin Faraci shared, attendees to the "One Trek Mind Live" panel this weekend were asked to order the 12 official Trek movies -- and 1999's Galaxy Quest, which gently parodied the franchise and its fandom -- in terms of preference.

RELATED: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci to Return to Write Next 'Star Trek' (Exclusive)

The results were pretty much as you might expect -- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the favorite film, closely followed by Star Trek: First Contact, the second Next Generation movie, while the much-maligned Star Trek V: The Final Frontier propped up the bottom of the list -- with the distaste for Into Darkness coming out as the biggest surprise.

According to Faraci, "Star Trek Into Darkness was met with boos when it was mentioned, and one guy took the mic to say these reboots shouldn't even be considered for a list of Star Trek movies." Into Darkness was met with hardcore fan apathy when released in May -- although both fans and mainstream audiences seemed to enjoy it -- but that it's unpopular to the point of booing (or being named the least popular movie in the series, for that matter) may be something that Paramount and executive producers/writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman might want to take into account before planning the third movie in the rebooted serie


First contact is, of course, my personal favorite.  But Frakes openly admitted to basically copying horror movie pacing when directing it, so that makes sense. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 15, 2013, 03:56:02 PM
I desperately wanted to hate First Contact, and it has some non-trivial flaws, but I found myself loving it.

I 'spose we could wrangle out our own rating list of the movies, but I haven't seen Nemesis or Wrath of the Abomination...


SteamTrek is loved by those who love it, and I think, ignored by the rest.  Mylochka could speak from superior knowledge.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sigma on August 15, 2013, 04:03:36 PM
I desperately wanted to hate First Contact, and it has some non-trivial flaws, but I found myself loving it.

I 'spose we could wrangle out our own rating list of the movies, but I haven't seen Nemesis or Wrath of the Abomination...
Not a big Into Darkness fan I see?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 15, 2013, 04:04:23 PM
Haven't seen it.  Those guys proved they just didn't get it, already.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 15, 2013, 11:53:18 PM
I don't know of anyone playing around with Steamtrek ideas except for me and some of my friends at the Star Trek Builders Unite thread at DAZ's forum.  No stories so far, just some discussion, a few pictures, and a couple 3d models.

Here's some pictures by my pal Ptrope of models he's created.  I'm still waiting for him to complete and release these.  (His art gallery is here if you'd like to see more of his work: http://ptrope.deviantart.com/gallery/ (http://ptrope.deviantart.com/gallery/) )
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 16, 2013, 12:22:24 AM
Little too shiny, but love that communicator pocketwatch idea.

The idea of the view screens is good, but needs some fleshing out, like big old predicta TV's.  http://www.scotthelmke.com/predicta.html (http://www.scotthelmke.com/predicta.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 16, 2013, 02:16:21 PM
I'll pass that suggestion along to Ptrope.  Here's a Steamtrek Sulu...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 16, 2013, 02:25:22 PM
And here's another angle of Ptrope's SteamTrek bridge...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 16, 2013, 04:08:51 PM
Yeah, that phaser on Sulu's the ticket.  Not so shiny, and the rivets.  That asthetic needs to be carried onto the ship. 

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 16, 2013, 04:25:16 PM
Strongly disagree.  The bridge of the Enterprise was always very bright, with glaring orange rails - Kirk runs a tight ship.  He's got his people so well trained that we never see him having to say anything.  And SteamKirk sees that the brass on the bridge is always immaculately polished, or he isn't Kirk at all.

The engine room and likely some other working areas of the ship would be an entirely different thing, mind you.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 16, 2013, 05:09:23 PM
That's just it, it shouldn't BE brass everywhere.  Brass is for decoration, structurally, we should be seeing more bronze. 

Take the bottom pic of the first 3 there.  The wood paneling accented with the brass, the handrails of different material, that makes some sense.  The other where the whole thing is polished brass is too much shiney.  I say have it bronze with riveted brass accents on the edges. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 16, 2013, 05:48:57 PM
Brass is a good enough structural metal to use in small cannons.  Are you talking about the pocket watch/communicators?  I don't see why brass is worse that, even if bronze is more substantial, which I do not believe is the case.  Not a lot of difference between the alloys anyway, the difference being mostly zinc v. tin and ratios thereof, I think.

We are tending to be talking about an accessory issued (the ones we mostly see, anyway) to officers, and it would be very Victorian to make such a thing shiny even if doing so is impractical.

Now, my first reaction to Ptrope's work was one of pleasant surprise - when you're scrolling down to look at steampunk art, you expect a gothic look - but he, correctly I feel, saw that that wouldn't be right for the bridge  of the Enterprise.  In fact, it would be very Victorian, not just ST, for much of the ship to look like a coal bin, but the bridge to be very spit-and-polish.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 17, 2013, 02:50:11 AM
Here's more along the lines of what I'm talking.  granted, it's a Tardis, but ya know.  CONTRAST for the shiny. 

http://douglas442.livejournal.com/ (http://douglas442.livejournal.com/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 17, 2013, 03:27:42 AM
That's nice work.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 21, 2013, 02:28:04 PM
Into Darkness gets the honest trailer treatment: http://io9.com/honest-trailers-aims-its-phasers-at-star-trek-into-dark-1174225947 (http://io9.com/honest-trailers-aims-its-phasers-at-star-trek-into-dark-1174225947)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 21, 2013, 03:11:49 PM
Lens flares!  ;lol
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 21, 2013, 05:45:39 PM
Hey Valka - Mylochka and I are second wave ST fans, being from a CBS family (the kids don't know what that means, having had remotes all their lives) and catching it first during the first round of syndication before even the cartoon came along.  You're the same age; how about you?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on August 21, 2013, 10:10:51 PM
I'm just old-school with the Trek, and being nasty about it. ;D
I watched Star Trek: Generations yesterday. (They give us one ST movie each Tuesday this summer on a network).
BUncle: anything caustic to say about the movie?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 21, 2013, 10:27:30 PM
Is there anything NOT caustic to say about that one? 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on August 21, 2013, 10:32:24 PM
I don't know.
But since he thrashed The Undiscovered Country last week, I prefer asking...

(By the way, "The Undiscovered Country" seems a lttle lame as a title. The French one would translate as "Star Trek: on unknown land". It has something more I think.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 21, 2013, 10:37:47 PM
I'm just old-school with the Trek, and being nasty about it. ;D
I watched Star Trek: Generations yesterday. (They give us one ST movie each Tuesday this summer on a network).
BUncle: anything caustic to say about the movie?
I hated it the most of any ST movie, (only one of which was actually inarguably good, though I liked a few others okay, and have hated more of them than otherwise.)

If I speak frankly enough on the subject of Star Trek: Generations, I will have to ban myself.  It's that bad.  Do you really want me to go into it?  (I reserve the right to tone it down to un-banworthy.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 21, 2013, 10:45:00 PM
My review:  There were many episodes of TNG better than that movie. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on August 21, 2013, 10:47:25 PM
Do you really want me to go into it?
I'll go into it but not at 11:45PM here.
I hope I won't forget what I hold.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 26, 2013, 03:22:38 AM
Here's a nice picture of a blue lady...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 26, 2013, 02:39:07 PM
Andorian Rhapsody?  :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 26, 2013, 02:47:45 PM
Ain't she sweet?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 26, 2013, 06:07:57 PM
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100422224753/jamescameronsavatar/images/7/7c/Moatcrying.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 26, 2013, 09:01:07 PM
What's with the dances with aliens pic? 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 26, 2013, 09:03:33 PM
He ain't right is my take on it...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 26, 2013, 09:30:28 PM
What's with the dances with aliens pic?

Couldn't find wolves.  ;)

He ain't right is my take on it...


That's your take with anyone not agreeing with you.  ;lol


Did you ever wonder why so few (if any) ST sentient races had tails?



Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 26, 2013, 09:38:29 PM
No, that's my take on GeoModder - it's possible for reasonable people, however, to be wrong.  Uno is wrong about Dune and he's     a bad example - never mind.


I haven't.  ST aliens tend to suck due to budget constraints and the unavailability on non-human actors who can act.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 26, 2013, 10:02:40 PM
OLD Trek aliens were actually quite remarkably diverse, given the budgetary constraints.  Can't knock em for not tossing what would have been a nonfunctional tail into a costume. 

Now, TNG's decision to mostly bring on more funny foreheads was unfortunate. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 26, 2013, 10:18:10 PM
Only in that they went there every single time, but yes, I got sick of stupid-looking foreheads, and agree passionately.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 29, 2013, 03:05:45 AM
In honor of stupid-looking foreheads...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on August 29, 2013, 03:08:26 AM
May be a weird forehead xenos, but I'd still reproduce with her.  ;lol
 :danc: :danc: :danc: :danc: :danc: :danc: :danc:


Though in all honestly, if you really want to make something alien you have to avoid the human form or humanoid or even Earthlike characteristics: (Two eyes, one mouth, two arms etc. and just make an entirely different shape.)

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on August 29, 2013, 05:12:12 AM
With Star Trek aliens, sometimes it got to the point of being the "plastic forehead of the week". Voyager was particularly bad about this.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 29, 2013, 04:21:19 PM
In honor of stupid-looking foreheads...

Not to mention compulsary ear ornaments...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 30, 2013, 02:37:38 AM
(http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/7015/tiberiussquarepants.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 30, 2013, 03:49:50 AM
http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/world-war-z-star-trek-into-darkness-double-feature/ (http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/world-war-z-star-trek-into-darkness-double-feature/)

Quote
Paramount Bundling ‘World War Z’ And ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ As Double Feature

By THE DEADLINE TEAM | Tuesday August 27, 2013 @ 6:10pm PDT
Tags: Paramount, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z
 
inShare
1
COMMENTS (9)
World War Z Star Trek Into Darkness Double FeatureThe studio plans to squeeze more life out of its undead hit and space sequel. Paramount and a clutch of exhibitors are going back to the future for a week with an old-fashioned double feature of summer tentpoles World War Z and Star Trek Into Darkness starting Friday. The twin bill screens in 3D or 2D through September 5 in select AMC, Regal, Carmike, Marcus and other World War Z Star Trek Into Darkness Double Featuretheaters for the price of a single ticket. It’s the second stunt playdates for Brad Pitt’s zombie flick — third if you count a late-add IMAX run — following its $50 “Mega Ticket” deal that included an advance screening, a home video copy of the film, 3D glasses, a poster and popcorn. With more than $526 million worldwide, WWZ is Pitt’s highest-grossing film ever. J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness has banked $458.7M worldwide and spawned another sequel.


WWZ is panned as equally among zombie buffs.  So, double feature of crappiness foe your enjoyment!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 30, 2013, 08:08:11 PM
Vish, where's that movie review you were gonna do?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on August 31, 2013, 12:09:11 AM
Finally I wonder...
Since you all seem to loathe all the movies, all the series (save 1967) and you even hate the make-up, why spend my time in this?
Haters gonna hate, they say!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 31, 2013, 12:21:10 AM
'Cause I may hate that movie, but I actually love fake Trek - it's like having a sibling who annoys you and hurts your feelings a lot, so it's complicated.  If it didn't pretend to be Trek I'd sure love it a lot more, though.

And I think I'm the only person to denounce fake Trek in this thread, actually.  I'm interested in what you thought of Generations.  Perhaps our respective opinions are worth discussing - I have nothing against you for having them.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on August 31, 2013, 06:06:04 PM
Ok, if you want it, I'll try to write it. But these things take time...

To make you wait, start by asking yourself these simple questions:

- If you could live your life again, would you change a thing or leave it all the same?
- If you had the chance again, would you change a thing at all?
- When you look back at your past, can you say that you are proud of what you've done?
- Are there times when you believe that the right you thought was wrong?


Iron Maiden - Judgement Of Heaven (With Lyrics) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt8kZKC4jYs#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 31, 2013, 06:33:13 PM
Rhetorical questions, or do you want answers?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on August 31, 2013, 10:50:41 PM
A pretty blue girl to look at while you think deep thoughts...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on September 03, 2013, 06:32:55 AM

 If you could live your life again, would you change a thing or leave it all the same?

While in this hypothetical situation I would've changed a lot of things, specifically my actions in certain situations (I am not proud of some things I've done to people) and possibly changed the circumstances, most of what I did I didn't really have much of a choice and at this point I can't dwell on it. But one thing I would change is that I wish I was able to go and visit my first wife in her last days... at the time I was abroad and I couldn't get shipped back in time. Needless to say I was pretty miserable about it. (and it still hurts to think of it, even after all these years)

- If you had the chance again, would you change a thing at all?


If this change was meant as in, I could change circumstances or my actions, if its the former I would've wished my first (and arguably only true, loving) wife wouldn't have had cancer to begin with. If it's the second... No. What I did was out of survival, not proud of it but if I hadn't of done it I and others would've died.

- When you look back at your past, can you say that you are proud of what you've done?

No. Not for the most of it im not. I've done a lot of terrible things in my lifetime and I've ruined many people's lives. I've taken enough life to warrant me a mass murderer yet I am respected for it. But on the other hand, if it wasn't for me many men and women who were in those bull[poop]situations would not have made it and would have not been alive today for some of the things I've done. So its a bit mixed, I did my job and I did it the best I could.


- Are there times when you believe that the right you thought was wrong?[/b][/i]

There is no such thing as right and wrong, and to think so is foolish. There is only what is done, what happens and what doesn't happen. I have done things, some I am not happy with. I did things because it was necessary, and things happened because of it. And because of what I did, some other things didn't happen. But the point is, for the people I did help and for myself as well, life happened for us and continued. To think otherwise in my case would drive me into depression, so I avoid it.

Edit: I will be honest though. Some people deserved to die in the situations I was involved in, and I have no regrets having killed them. My respect for them as human beings was non existent for what some of those monsters did.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 05, 2013, 01:09:58 AM
Captain Kirk watches Miley Cyrus performance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Lb3kFwJRQ#) vrV_s1LKFXxbmNIQ&index=1
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on September 05, 2013, 02:25:11 AM
 ;lol
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 05, 2013, 04:05:19 PM
I'm so not going to watch that...  ???
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 05, 2013, 11:27:35 PM
I loathe every little thing about Q without let or hindrance, but since everyone loves Spock and some of you will enjoy this, have at it:

Spock vs. Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kATX-3TNqqE#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 06, 2013, 01:22:10 AM
Quote
Redesigning 'Star Trek': the original series brought to life in 80 pulp posters
Artist Juan Ortiz turned an obsession into a great new book
 
By Andrew Webster on September 5, 2013 10:06 am


For 30 days in 2011, Juan Ortiz gave himself a task: create a new poster every day, each one illustrating a single episode of the original Star Trek series. "I had little sleep during that time," he says. When he was finished, some friends convinced him to reach out to CBS directly. The posters were a hit, and with CBS' blessing, Ortiz ultimately managed to make one for each of the original series' 80 episodes. The results have been collected in a new book called Star Trek: The Art of Juan Ortiz, which for the artist is something of a love letter to the show. "The original series is ingrained in my head," he explains.

The designs feature a vintage style, with some reminiscent of classic movie posters and others harking back to the covers of pulp sci-fi novels. According to Ortiz, what makes them work — and fun to work on — is the sheer diversity of the episodes he illustrated. "Each episode is its own story," he says. "A court drama, a monster flick, a love story, a war story, a western, etc. So it was easy to approach each episode on its own merits and not be bored with the same idea throughout. I was also my own art director, so I had the freedom to create images of just about anything that I wanted, unhindered by the series' low budget — like dragons on Vulcan."



"Each episode is its own story.".

Ortiz has worked as an artist and illustrator since 1985, creating images for the likes of Disney, Warner Bros., and DC Comics. But despite this experience, he claims he doesn't really have a style of his own, which came in handy for this particular project. "I tend to see things as though they were designed by someone else," says Ortiz, "mostly by designers that have inspired me. I have an eclectic taste in genres, music, movies, and books, so the challenge was to create images that were inspired by works that I love, rather than copied."

Some of the best loved episodes proved intimidating to illustrate, and Ortiz's favorite was a poster that almost didn't even get made. The first pilot episode for the original series, known as "The Cage," was filmed in 1965, but didn't actually air until 1988, well over a decade after the show was off the airwaves. Because of this, it was the last piece he worked on, and it was a challenge to get it finished by CBS' deadline. "It was also the most colorful, having been inspired by the artist Shag," Ortiz explains. "Shag is the reason that I taught myself vector art; I had fun adding the copy, too."

You can check out a few of Ortiz's posters below, but be sure to grab Star Trek: The Art of Juan Ortiz to get the full experience.

 .
([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164423/1.jpg[/url])
 .
([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164421/2.jpg[/url])
 .
([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164379/3.jpg[/url])
 .
([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164359/4.jpg[/url])
 .
([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164327/5.jpg[/url])
 .
([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164335/6.jpg[/url])
 .
([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164351/7.jpg[/url])
 .
([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164343/8.jpg[/url])

([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164347/9.jpg[/url])

([url]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3164355/10.jpg[/url])
http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/5/4697206/redesigning-star-trek-the-original-series-in-80-posters (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/5/4697206/redesigning-star-trek-the-original-series-in-80-posters)

Starring BATGIRL!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 06, 2013, 02:57:57 PM
Not batting stargirl?  :(
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 06, 2013, 06:40:58 PM
Nope.  The (oh, so hot) green lady in Whom Gods Destroy was Yvonne Craig, who played Batgirl.

Stargirl is only a comicbook character.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 06, 2013, 06:44:58 PM
Oh, yes, I have seen those.  They're cool!

At the STAU group at da, we had a contest to create posters for the cartoon episodes.  Here's a couple I did:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 06, 2013, 06:48:31 PM
;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 06, 2013, 07:08:12 PM
Ooops, included a regular episode in there too..

Here's a poster from my pal Ptrope... He's the only person I know who actually claims this episode as a favorite...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 06, 2013, 07:10:40 PM
Ooops, included a regular episode in there too..

Here's a poster from my pal Ptrope... He's the only person I know who actually claims this episode as a favorite...

([url]http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1319.0;attach=6837[/url])
There's someone who liked Majicks?  Huh.  The web is a weird and wonderful thing.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 06, 2013, 07:16:45 PM
Yep.  He says "It's a great story with a radical premise (for '70s television, especially on Saturday mornings!): that 'the Devil' might actually be real, an alien, and not the evil entity we believe him to be."
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 06, 2013, 07:19:30 PM
That's definitely an ST premise, but goodness, the execution was SO phail.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 06, 2013, 07:25:10 PM
Oh, yes.  As he goes on to say (and I enthusiastically second) "The Filmation cartoons were fun, but let's face it - the animation was pretty mediocre. I'd love to see this episode and other redone in CGI."

Here's another of his ST episode posters
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 06, 2013, 07:29:06 PM
Those are very artistic - not what I'd expect of a ship moddler.  Ptrope has real talent.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 06, 2013, 08:28:26 PM
He is cool.  We also did some pulp novel covers of Star Trek episodes.  Here's our takes on "City on the Edge of Forever"
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 06, 2013, 08:50:09 PM
Those are a bit of a stretch in the pursuit of pulpiness.  Edith was practically a nun, if not actually - the episode didn't exclude the possibility.

They're great pulp, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 06, 2013, 09:19:03 PM
When have pulp fiction covers ever been an accurate reflection of a novel's content?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 06, 2013, 09:22:28 PM
Oh, roughly never.
They're great pulp, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 07, 2013, 05:03:38 PM
(http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/line9-6-9-620x402.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 09, 2013, 01:41:10 AM
Happy 47th Birthday, Star Trek!  :bot: ;spock
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on September 09, 2013, 01:42:19 AM
Damn, those eyes AND lips are tantalizing...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 09, 2013, 04:59:02 PM
Damn, those eyes AND lips are tantalizing...

Thanks!  The face morph is supposed to be of the character Willow from the show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."  It looks more like the actress in this Vulcan makeup than it does with a regular texture, though...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 09, 2013, 05:01:14 PM
Happy 47th Birthday, Star Trek!  :bot: ;spock

Strategically placed phaser!  ;lol
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 09, 2013, 05:06:16 PM
And Happy 40th Birthday to Star Trek: The Animated Series...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 09, 2013, 05:15:17 PM
Niice.

And just because I stumbled over the shot, and it's a cool cover:

(http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/5/5a/STARTREK441972.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 10, 2013, 03:47:32 PM
Here's a series of pictures that I think might appeal to you -- They "re-imagined" Science Fiction classics as Star Trek episodes.  For example:

Star Trek: Rama
by Arthur C. Clarke and James Blish

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember Bantam Publishing's experiment with adaptating classic SF stories into the Star Trek universe. I'm not sure how many books were in the series all told, maybe one of you can remind me? In any event, this is my recreation of the cover done for my favorite volume. Unlike what passes for Star Trek these days, Star Trek: Rama lived up to the idea of exploration and mystery that made the original series a touchstone in science fiction history.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 10, 2013, 03:49:00 PM
Here's another:

Another gem from my collection of rare Star Trek crossover novels. This particular one brought together the talents of Alan Dean Foster and Cyril Hume to produce what is probably my favorite book in the series. Why? Simply because the story of Forbidden Planet fits so perfectly into the style of Star Trek that few changes, major or minor, had to be made to the story. My only complaint about this book is its length. I really feel the publisher did it a disservice by limiting its length to make it fit in with the other books in the series. It probably would have benefitted greatly from being half again as long. How many books can you say that about these days?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 10, 2013, 03:50:34 PM
I liked this one:

After Fred Freiberger left the show and John Meredyth Lucas was brought in as executive producer for the 4th season, he managed to get several top names in science fiction, along with newcomers who went on to be very influential; even though these were seen as some of the best episodes of the series' run, it was too late to undo the damage of the previous season. One script that they produced had actually been received during the second season and shelved; even though Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was then published as a novel in 1968, Philip K. Dick enthusiastically agreed to let them adapt his original 1967 script, retaining the title, and after it received very positive reviews, introducing the tragic Starfleet robots known as "Golem" to the series, Dick then worked with Gene Roddenberry to expand that script into a Star Trek novel for Bantam Books, even keeping the same title as his own novel. Like the rest of the 4th season, the novel - the entire "Premiere" series, in fact - quickly vanished from the market (it's believed that Paramount encountered numerous and insurmountable trademark issues with these properties), and only a few copies remain, most of them carefully preserved in collections and rarely appearing for sale.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 10, 2013, 04:34:49 PM
;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on September 11, 2013, 10:43:59 PM
I would watch it if someone were to make the forbidden planet crossover. 


No updating of Robbie, though.  Dust him off and fire him up. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 11, 2013, 10:45:54 PM
Agreed.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 18, 2013, 05:38:33 PM
The Star Trek: TNG crew looks amazing in Original Series uniforms (http://io9.com/the-star-trek-tng-crew-looks-amazing-in-original-serie-1333833842)(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/190g23zu4djj7jpg/original.jpg) I'm beeefy...     Okay, this is just awesome. One Redditor photoshopped the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation into the original series uniforms, and the results are amazing.
All of our love to deadfraggle (http://www.reddit.com/user/deadfraggle) and their delightful photoshopping skills, mainly because we want more more more more more. Let's add Wesley Crusher, Tasha Yar (in a dress!!!) Guinan and The Traveler. We beg you, do them all! Please!
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/190g2b6b7r8ybjpg/ku-medium.jpg)8hawt! (http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/190g2cbqxrhbgjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)8Worf is crushing this look. Oooooo  red shirt.... Sorry Worf. (http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/190g2db9gaa2cjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)8"I canna give ya any more captain!  She can't take it!" "Just don't mess with my visor. This car air filter thing is retro enough." (http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/190g2egp3uqznjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)8Engaging sensORs. (http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/190g2faak8gc7jpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/190g2g1wv2ibqjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)8Daaaaaamn. Troi is even hotter in this look. (http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/190g2hd9l3w6njpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)
[Via Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/Treknobabble/comments/1lf0c4/remember_that_episode_when_the_tng_went_back_in/)]
 
http://io9.com/the-star-trek-tng-crew-looks-amazing-in-original-serie-1333833842 (http://io9.com/the-star-trek-tng-crew-looks-amazing-in-original-serie-1333833842)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 18, 2013, 08:08:28 PM
Not bad indeed.
But how about the original cast in TNG uniforms? ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on September 18, 2013, 08:13:35 PM
As Ship's Counselor, Troi should have had a blue uniform.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 18, 2013, 08:44:18 PM
I thought the same thing.

Not bad indeed.
But how about the original cast in TNG uniforms? ;)
That would be wrong.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 18, 2013, 09:28:00 PM
Only for you. ;cute
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 20, 2013, 06:21:13 AM
Here's virtual Deanna in an appropriately tinted uniform...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 21, 2013, 01:08:06 AM
Has anyone heard about the upcoming book These Are The Voyages (http://www.jacobsbrownmediagroup.com/the-trek-begins-here.html)?  Looks interesting...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on September 22, 2013, 02:35:31 AM
It's been received favorably on TrekBBS. It looks very interesting, although it's hard to know which version of the truth is really the truth, since every single behind-the-scenes book or (auto)biography has told a different version of the same incidents.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 22, 2013, 02:49:16 AM
Where there's memo exchanges or other records covering something, that can be pretty definitive, though, within limits.  This book is supposed to have a lot of that...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on September 22, 2013, 02:58:29 AM
It'll be interesting to see if those memos match the ones in Stephen Whitfield's The Making of Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 22, 2013, 03:01:36 AM
...Which Roddenberry had entirely too much veto power over to make a reliable history.  At least, I've long found it a teeny bit suspect on that account.  I mean, I reread the book in the last few years, and it really struck me how self-serving it could be...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 22, 2013, 03:51:27 AM
I just read this review at Trekcore (the best spot for getting ST screenshots) http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/08/review-these-are-the-voyages-tos-season-one/ (http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/08/review-these-are-the-voyages-tos-season-one/)

I'm interested that the book goes through the production of each episode.  There are some (The Alternative Factor for example) episodes where I'd love to hear what went wrong and why some strange choices were made.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 22, 2013, 04:04:15 AM
John Barrymore was too drunk to show up, and the last-minute replacement hadn't time to prepare and wasn't very good to begin with.  Simple.

-Also, the script must have run long, or they didn't get everything they really needed shot so the narrative made sense, or something...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 23, 2013, 07:49:17 PM
It was Walter Koenig's birthday last week.


(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/RickSenger/2013-09-23_180819_walterkoenig_ss_mg_3649.jpg)

Our little Chekov is all grown up. 

I think he looks better now without the toupee or pathetically-combed hair than when I met him at a con thirty years ago.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 23, 2013, 08:40:15 PM
Our little Chekov is all grown up. 

I think he looks better now without the toupee or pathetically-combed hair than when I met him at a con thirty years ago.

Oh, I see he Picarded. :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 23, 2013, 08:46:47 PM
I think with the bald out, he makes a good-looking old man; he made a very sad-looking middle-aged man who was trying too hard.

That's the same thing Shatner was doing wrong for over 20 years.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on September 26, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
http://cdn.shortlist.com/resource/binary/e98b5fa29cf19528b159d48ed4f7deed/starshipfull.jpg (http://cdn.shortlist.com/resource/binary/e98b5fa29cf19528b159d48ed4f7deed/starshipfull.jpg)

Scale poster of all scifi ships. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 26, 2013, 04:48:21 PM
Not all of them...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on September 26, 2013, 05:36:39 PM
a decent chunk of them. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 26, 2013, 05:41:32 PM
They were commendably thorough. 

And isn't it just like innerwebs nerdz to go to all that trouble to make a chart comparing the ridiculousness of the numbers various shows and movies pulled out of their butts?  Oh wait ---
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on September 26, 2013, 06:01:10 PM
I have to say, I didn't realize how comparitively small the ST stuff was. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 26, 2013, 06:02:18 PM
They pulled less ridiculous numbers out.  Where's the Death Star, anyway?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on September 26, 2013, 06:04:08 PM
It's a "station" not a "ship"  ? 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on September 26, 2013, 06:06:09 PM
I'm a fairly decent star wars nerd and don't know where they pulled half those ships from...way too much EU garbage...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 26, 2013, 06:14:32 PM
Way too much videogame garbarge and way too much Babylon Five and Stargate junk.  If we're going to waste time on shows that went away and no longer matter, where's the Blake's 7 ship?  Where's the 'six-mile-long slave ship Gruzap' the Tenctonese of Alien Nation came on?  Where's the Worldship of Starlost?  Where's the United Planets Cruiser C57-D of Forbidden Planet?

Where's Dr. Zarkov's ship, for that matter?  These kids these days got no sense of history.

It's a "station" not a "ship"  ? 
Feh.  I'm asking what everyone who has a look asks.  It had engines, and obviously wasn't too fast in Newtonian space, but it moved and had an FTL drive.  It was built to move around and menace planets that didn't toe the imperial line.  It's a ship.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on September 26, 2013, 07:02:09 PM
Love how they just handwave HOW the thing moved, though, don't ya?  We just cut to the next shot where it's around another planet.  A lot of the early "technical" stuff hand waved it too. 

It would dwarf pretty much everything else there, IIUC, probably just too big to put on there. 

(Also of note ROTJ pretty much denounces most of the 'technical' drawings of how the death star works, but that's getting way too nerdy.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 26, 2013, 07:41:28 PM
It's a "station" not a "ship"  ?

It is not a moon, that's for sure.  :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 26, 2013, 08:36:24 PM
Unreliable narrator - who happened to be proved right.

Love how they just handwave HOW the thing moved, though, don't ya?  We just cut to the next shot where it's around another planet.  A lot of the early "technical" stuff hand waved it too. 

It would dwarf pretty much everything else there, IIUC, probably just too big to put on there. 

(Also of note ROTJ pretty much denounces most of the 'technical' drawings of how the death star works, but that's getting way too nerdy.)
Everything about SW that isn't on the screen is way too nerdy.  Read up on Bobba Fett on Wookipedia sometime.  EU is the very definition of nerdz never ever leaving well enough alone.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on September 28, 2013, 01:20:46 PM
Way too much... Stargate junk.
Wow!
You're bitter than I thought. I had to go and count them: only 12.
And there weren't even neither the human Prometheus class nor the lantean Destiny from Stargate Universe.

Comparing to the 56 Star Trek... ::)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 28, 2013, 03:58:52 PM
Who's bitter?  You had to count.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on September 28, 2013, 07:41:10 PM
Before grumbling I prefer to have my facts straight.  :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 28, 2013, 07:47:31 PM
I watched Stargate.  I liked Stargate, albeit that I think it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been.  But it's not the sort of show that major lasting fandoms get founded on, and it's gone now.  Several of the shows I named are just as important and influential, and got left out entirely.  The Prometheus was the only ship that made a lot of appearances got shown extensively form the outside, and generally mattered, it not being a spaceship show, by the nature of the thing.   That is all.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 28, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/redshirt.jpg?resize=600%2C368)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 28, 2013, 10:44:22 PM
Why was the cpt runnin' nakid in that episode?  :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 28, 2013, 10:49:24 PM
He'd just been in the gym.  It wasn't anything important to the plot or I'd remember more.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on September 28, 2013, 10:49:40 PM
If I remember correctly, he was getting a physical from Dr. McCoy and hadn't finished getting dressed before running out into the corridor.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 28, 2013, 10:53:14 PM
That's probably it.  One of those "You're in fine shape, but need a vacation" scenes.

Mylochka says Star Trek is about workaholic Kirk's problems with his job.  There's definitely something to that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 29, 2013, 03:50:33 AM
Quote
How 'Star Trek' Vision of Future Inspired Next Generation Actor LeVar Burton
SPACE.com
by Miriam Kramer, Staff Writer  15 hours ago


([url]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ux8bdpGsw3vyZmJ9sdXoMA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTgwMDtweW9mZj0wO3E9ODU7dz01Mzc-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/How_%27Star_Trek%27_Vision_of-8f0db65db41ed666bab3cd9722377807[/url])
Levar Burton as Geordi La Forge in “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”


 
Playing Geordi La Forge on TV's "Star Trek: The Next Generation" was more than just a job to actor LeVar Burton.

Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek," which preceded "The Next Generation", gave Burton a glimpse into a hopeful future as a child growing up during the civil rights movement in the United States. Burton started off as a fan of the venerable TV show, he said last week at the third annual 100 Year Starship symposium, a conference looking at ways to inspire people around the world to get involved in sending humanity to the stars.

"I was a young, black kid growing up in Sacramento, California, hooked on sci-fi," Burton said. "'Star Trek' was one of the few representations of the future that included me. I was really attached to Gene's vision. … 'Star Trek' has always represented that hopeful aspect of this yearning that we have. When I was a kid, that was the present I wanted to live in."

Burton also thinks that science fiction today has a lot to learn from "Star Trek's" vision of the space-faring world of the future: "I wish there were more hope in the science fiction voice," Burton said.

Instead of competing for resources, the residents of the "Star Trek" universe learn how to get along and cooperate, without letting issues of class, gender or economics get in the way for the most part, Burton said.

Burton isn't the only "Star Trek" actor who started off as a fan inspired by the show. Whoopi Goldberg, who played bartender Guinan on "Star Trek: The Next Generation", also remembers watching the original "Star Trek" series when she was growing up in the 1960s.

"Well, when I was 9 years old, 'Star Trek' came on," Goldberg has said, as quoted by startrek.com. "I looked at it, and I went screaming through the house, 'Come here, Mum, everybody, come quick, come quick, there's a black lady on television, and she ain't no maid!' I knew right then and there I could be anything I wanted to be."

While 'Star Trek' influenced people around the world, the show's unique brand of science fiction has also greatly influenced some real science being conducted today.

"I was at a conference earlier this year in San Francisco," Burton said. "We are working on geosynchronous architecture in computers that will enable us to maximize the computing power and give us the opportunity to, in real time, do more and complicated computations that would be required for something like a holodeck." On "Star Trek: The Next Generation," the holodeck was a reality simulator that could replicate various environments.

Scientists working with NASA are also looking into warp drive technology, and recently a crowdfunding campaign to create the Scanadu Scout — a medical device like the tricorders used on the show — raised more than $1.5 million on Indiegogo.com.

The TV show is even beloved by scientists working for real-life space agencies. Earlier in September, NASA used a quote and theme music from "Star Trek" to add a little dramatic flare when officials from the agency announced that Voyager 1 became the first object built by humans to reach interstellar space.
http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-vision-future-inspired-next-generation-actor-114052488.html (http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-vision-future-inspired-next-generation-actor-114052488.html)

They left out Nichelle Nichols's Martin Luther King story.  She was the black lady in Whoopie's story, Dr. King was right, and they didn't even name or picture her in a story that was actually about how much Uhura mattered.  &^%$#@~! Kids these days - no sense of history...  ;clenchedteeth
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 29, 2013, 04:28:34 AM
Nichelle Nichols Met Martin Luther King (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqoZ0C0cnRE#ws)

I bet she tells that story like it's her middle name.

"Hello.  I'm Nichelle Martin Luther King was a Trekkie: Star Trek and Equality. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOZxOo5Czo#) Nichols."

Nichelle Nichols meets Star Trek fan Dr. Martin Luther King (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX1ZKi1wblE#ws)

Star Trek's 45th Anniversary - Lt. Uhura talks about Meeting Martin Luther King (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77jHvcry0hw#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JarlWolf on September 29, 2013, 05:05:10 AM
You know, even after all these years, she's still quite a pretty woman.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 29, 2013, 05:15:02 AM
I gather her wits are draining away, but yeah - pretty cute, still.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 30, 2013, 07:58:48 PM
Interesting thread (http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=45532&PN=1&totPosts=17).  A fellow's work took him onto the Paramount lot, so he tracked down the Star Trek soundstages and took some pictures.  Copy/pasting the whole thread would be a bit much, but check out that link.

I will put up these two, of one of the ST stages, Stage 32, where Citizen Kane was shot, and Community shoots now.  Note the remaining backlot in the background:
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/TimONeill/2013-09-29_123155_stage_32_exterior.jpg)

Now, thrill to the same building from the opposite angle:
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/TimONeill/2013-09-29_123512_stage_32_extrior.jpg)

-The ghosts of Edith Keeler and Floyd the barber are smiling.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 02, 2013, 07:21:43 PM
From the always informative Star Trek Fact Check blog:

Quote
Review: These Are The Voyages, TOS, Season One


([url]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fHui8UABysQ/UjeAx-fnyCI/AAAAAAAAAVc/hn2Q_ZFbmFk/s400/these_are_the_voyages_cover.jpg[/url])







These Are The Voyages, TOS, Season One is the first book about the making of Star Trek to extensively use the show's production files currently housed at the University of California, Los Angeles. Written over the course of six years and researched over the course of three decades, it is without a doubt the most detailed account of the making of Star Trek's first season that has ever been published. Including snippets of hundreds of production documents and interviews, These Are The Voyages offers Star Trek fans a wealth of new behind-the-scenes information. Unfortunately, despite the author's years of diligent research, These Are The Voyages is a disappointing book, which is badly edited, clumsily written, and at times ethically dubious.




It is immediately evident that the book has not been proofread. There are hundreds of typos ("sweat kiss," "run the gambit," "Kahn," "Roddemberry," etc.) and a comparable number of small factual errors. For example, Robert H. Justman is repeatedly described as the associate producer of various programs prior to his involvement on Star Trek. This is simply false; in fact, Justman's ascension from assistant director to associate producer on 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' (Byron Haskin had the job on the first pilot) was an important step in his career. Although IMDb says Justman was an (uncredited) associate producer on The Adventures of Superman, a fact which These Are The Voyages repeats, he wasn't. In another passage, Cushman describes Roddenberry's Hollywood career as meteoric, going from a nobody to arriving at "the biggest studio in Hollywood" in just nine years. Although Roddenberry's career profile certainly grew dramatically, when he arrived at MGM in late 1962, the studio was far from its glory days of the 1940s, when it could bill itself as having "more stars than there are in heaven." In fact, the studio was actually in the midst of a decline and hardly "the biggest motion picture studio in Hollywood." In yet another example, Cushman identifies the non-professional fan films Star Trek: New Voyages and Star Trek: Of Gods and Men as a television series and a videogame, respectively, probably the result of relying on (and misreading) Grace Lee Whitney's IMDb page. These examples only scratch the surface when it comes to small factual errors that would have been caught by a proofreader.




A more significant problem than the book's lack of proofreading, however, is that is has been poorly edited. Although three editors are credited, I suspect they had little influence on the structure and content of the book. First of all, the book is simply bloated with excess material. Nearly every chapter begins with one and half pages of filler (a plot summary, quotations of dialogue, and the author's assessment) which amount to over fifty pages of material that any serious editor would have asked the author to cut. The plot summaries and quotations repeat material that will be familiar to everyone reading this book. Cushman's assessments, on the other hand, are too short to offer any substance, and often overly praiseworthy. In one, he writes, "Gone with the Wind... Casablanca... Love Story... Somewhere in Time... and 'The City on the Edge of Forever.'" Hyperboles like these betray Cushman's lack of knowledge about film and television history beyond his favorite subjects, and seem particularly egregious in light of the author's insistence that the book is so long it must be sold in three separate volumes.




The book's lack of editorial input leads to another major problem: all too frequently, Cushman seems to print conjecture as if it were fact. This is most glaring in the chapter on 'The Alternative Factor,' although it is apparent in other places as well. In that chapter, Cushman writes:

With only a few days left before the start of production, Gene Coon began receiving off the record phone calls suggesting that either Janet MacLachlan be replaced with a white actress or that the script be changed to remove the last of the scenes that depicted sexual or romantic interest between Lazarus #1 and Charlene Masters. (p.414)

This is a damning accusation to be levied against both NBC and Desilu. It is not the first time someone has speculated that the casting of a black actress led the role of Charlene Masters to be drastically reduced, but it is the first time that this has been asserted as fact. Unfortunately, Cushman doesn't bother to present any evidence to back up this claim. It is not supported by an author interview, a production document, or a secondary source. (It's also a bit odd that, in all his years of tilting at windmills about the network's alleged racism, Gene Roddenberry never once brought up the event.) Without evidence, it must be speculation, even if it is not so framed. This isn't the only time Cushman prints his own speculation as if it were fact in the chapter, either. Earlier, he quotes from a Roddenberry memo:

In both 'Space Seed' and this story, we have a crew woman madly in love with a brawny guest star and flipping our whole gang into a real mess because she is in love...do they have to do [this] in two of our scripts? (p.413)

"Roddenberry wasn't suggesting 'The Alternative Factor,' first to film, be altered," writes Cushman. "His criticism had more to do with 'Space Seed' using the same plot device." Again, this is fine speculation, even plausible, but there is nothing in Roddenberry's memo which actually points to the executive producer's preference in rewriting one episode versus another.




The most troubling aspect of These Are The Voyages, however, has nothing to do with its editing, or even the text at all. Rather, it has to do with the photographs used to illustrate the book, many of which were furnished to the author by a Star Trek fan I will only identify as 'The Collector.' Although the book is filled with a variety of images attributed to many sources (in one particularly lazy case, a still from The Andy Griffith Show is simply attributed to the TrekBBS) most give credit to The Collector, who is also prominently featured on the Jacobs Brown Press webpage and credited (along with Marc Cushman and co-author Susan Osborn) for the book's "interior design." Unfortunately, many of the images in the book attributed to The Collector actually originated from Star Trek History and birdofthegalaxy (both sources, of course, have contributed information and images to this blog). To my knowledge, neither the author or the publisher ever asked either of these sources for permission to use their images (which they painstakingly restored) in a for-profit work. When presented with this information (on both Facebook and Amazon) the publisher could only make excuses, none of which stand up to much scrutiny. Adding insult to injury, the images in the book are small, low resolution, black and white, and rarely factor in the text. Their main function, it seems, is to make reading the book easier on the eyes.


 To be fair, These Are The Voyages offers a great deal of material that will be exciting for fans of the original series, especially those who will never have the opportunity to explore the archival collections at UCLA (although those collections are open to the public as long as you make an appointment). Nonetheless, in the final analysis, These Are The Voyages is too problematic to earn my endorsement. Not only is it profiting off the labor of other fans without their permission, but it is amateurish and error-ridden. A much needed second edition has already been rumored. Hopefully, it will address the first edition's many problems. My advice would be to wait for it.




Author's Note: Cushman's ratings thesis has made some waves online. Essentially, he argues that the series was a hit, but NBC concealed this fact so that they could blame Star Trek's cancellation on low ratings. I don't think his argument is entirely sound, but it is certainly worth discussing on this blog in much greater detail at some point in the future. Additionally, for those who plan on using this book to support their own research, bear in mind that although the book is generally organized chronologically, it has no index. Lastly, in the interest of full disclosure, I emailed the publisher about interviewing Cushman and requested a review copy of the book using their website. The publisher never replied to my request for an interview, and I never received a review copy of the book. The publisher did, however, revise some advertising copy when I informed them in an email that the UCLA files were publicly accessible and that Marc Cushman's access could hardly be called "exclusive."
http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2013/09/review-these-are-voyages-tos-season-one.html (http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2013/09/review-these-are-voyages-tos-season-one.html)


I suspect that a serious ST historian like the author, being extremely detail-oriented, is going to find a little sloppiness much more difficult to overlook than you or I would...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 02, 2013, 07:43:57 PM
The Wonder Years Parody of Star Trek: TOS: Spock's Brain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS3-kbqqR70#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on October 02, 2013, 08:20:32 PM
Even if it were 100% factual in all things, I refuse to spend money on a book that hasn't been proofread.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 02, 2013, 08:29:20 PM
I refuse to spend $40 on any book.  Wait a year, and it's out in paperback, or at least can be picked up used for $12.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on October 02, 2013, 08:43:51 PM
From what I understand about this one (there's a thread about it on TrekBBS), it's print-on-demand. You're not likely to find a new copy anywhere.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 02, 2013, 08:56:37 PM
Huh.  Well, that's a penny-ante way to operate, and nobody ever got rich off POD besides some low-rent publishers, maybe. 

Disappointing.  I want to read it, but not that bad.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on October 02, 2013, 11:16:35 PM
You never know... a copy could turn up on eBay. It wouldn't be new, of course, but it would hopefully be a lot cheaper.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 04, 2013, 04:24:09 PM
Star Trek - Klingon Happy Meal (1979) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvRyBRVpJGw#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 07, 2013, 04:15:34 PM
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/m4fSJ5aGIAISnYOBbugYhw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQxMjtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz0zMDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/rp131007.gif)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 22, 2013, 05:19:08 PM
Quote
Interview with Marc Cushman, Author of “These Are The Voyages”



In August, the first book of Marc Cushman's These Are The Voyages series was released, taking a look behind the scenes at the first season of the original Star Trek series. TrekCore's Dan Gunther, who reviewed the book for us, caught up with the author this month to discuss the creation of this first book, and to see where the series will continue in future volumes.
([url]http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/div_spacer.png[/url])

TrekCore: Your reference book, These Are The Voyages: TOS Season One was an incredible read. How did you come to write this particular account of the show's inception?

([url]http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/cushman.jpg[/url])

Marc Cushman: I was happily assigned the job of meeting with Gene Roddenberry and interviewing him for a television special I was hired to write on the Star Trek phenomenon. This was in 1982 for a Los Angeles-based company that made programs of that type for local TV. Gene was wonderfully gracious and giving, with both his time and materials -- he provided me with all the scripts from TOS, along with numerous other documents.

I was amazed by the amount of documents he had kept from Star Trek -- memos between him and his staff (and NBC), letters, production schedules, notes from the productions, budgets, contracts, and even fan letters from 1966 through 1969. I had read "The Making of Star Trek," which utilized some of these documents, but had no idea there was such a wealth of materials. I must have looked like a kid in a candy store to him, because Gene invited me -- even dared me -- to try to find a way to include substantial elements from all this material into a book.

I accepted the dare but told him it would be years before I could start on such a project. He gave me a letter of endorsement and told me he would find the time to cooperate in all ways possible when I could make time to take it on.

I stayed busy in television and film for a few decades and couldn't even start the work required to undertake such a massive job, but I did interview people as I came across them, starting with D.C. Fontana (on three different occasions) and Bob Justman (half a dozen different times), as well as others involved with the production -- writers, directors, crew personnel, and actors from the series as well as guest performers who appeared on the various episodes.

I met with Gene many times and, on one of those occasions, pitched the story for TNG episode "Sarek" to him. I was preparing to write the book when he became ill. That postponed it. Bob Justman picked up the torch in 2007 and provided me with many documents not found in the UCLA Roddenberry/Justman collections, where I also spent several months doing research.

It took six years to write this book -- which turned into seventeen-hundred pages, which the publisher then decided to release in three volumes, each covering one season of the show. I don't think a book spine has been made that can handle that many pages... and who'd want to pick that thing up!?

([url]http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/thesevoyages_cover.jpg[/url])

TrekCore: From reading These Are The Voyages, it’s clear that a lot of care went into the research for this book. How important was it to you that this be the definitive account of the production of Star Trek?

Marc Cushman: It was absolutely crucial to me that it be the definitive book on Star Trek. There would be no reason to write it, otherwise, since there are many other books out on the series. I almost didn't write it because of the Solow/Justman book ("Inside Star Trek: The Real Story"). But then I decided that book left me unfulfilled, since it was written from only the management's point of view. And it didn't deal with the individual episodes. I see each episode of the classic series as a major event in the story of Star Trek, but no one has focused on them -- at least, not to the degree that I would like.

I had too many questions unanswered, such as what the hell happened to "The Alternative Factor"? What went wrong? And what were they thinking when they made "The Way to Eden"? Or why was Melvin Belli cast in "And the Children Shall Lead"? And who really wrote "The City on the Edge of Forever"? Were the ratings really as bad as NBC claimed? That alone seemed impossible to me because I was there, as a teenager, and did not know anyone -- not at school, not on the block where my family lived -- that wasn't watching Star Trek. There is a great deal of speculation out there, but I wanted to find out the truth.

This is the book Gene Roddenberry and Bob Justman wanted to see. They saved all those documents so that they could become public record. And I had promised them that, if I did a book on Star Trek, it would utilize those records as never before. And that's why I pushed ahead, and put other aspects of my life on hold for several years, and why it took 1,700 pages and six years.

TrekCore: What was the most surprising or unexpected fact you learned about the making of Star Trek’s first season while researching this book?

Marc Cushman: If you want only one example, I'd have to say how much of the information out there on the internet, and in past books, is wrong. Pure folklore that has been accepted over the decades as being fact. And it is not fact. At the top of that list is the ratings. I licensed all the ratings from A.C. Nielsen, for every episode of the series. Star Trek was not the failure that we had been led to believe.

It was NBC's top rated Thursday night series and, on many occasions, won its time slot against formidable competition, including Bewitched, ABC's most popular show. And when they banished it to Friday nights, as Book Two will reveal, it was the network's top rated Friday night show. Yet NBC wanted to cancel it! Even when they tried to hide it from the fans at 10 p.m., during Season Three, it's numbers were not as bad as reported. So, once I made this discovery, then, of course, I needed to find out the real reason for the way the network treated Star Trek, and the documents regarding that, which build as we go from Book One to Two and then Three, are quite fascinating.

([url]http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/changein.jpg[/url])

If I may tell you a second thing that was surprising to me, in a story filled to the brim with surprises, it would be about who wrote what on the series. The name of the writer given in the screen credits is deceiving. Readers will be surprised to discover, through the documents I provide in the books, that Gene Roddenberry wrote most of what we see and hear in the first thirteen episodes.

He should have been given screen credit as top writer. And then Gene Coon, and on many occasions, Dorothy Fontana, during the last part of Season One and throughout Season Two, wrote very nearly more, if not more, of the dialogue in every episode, with the exception of "The Trouble with Tribbles," where David Gerrold really nailed it and did 90% of the writing.

The other writers just couldn't get the voices of the primary characters down, or the feel of the show. It took Roddenberry, Coon, John D.F. Black and Dorothy Fontana to clean all those scripts up and make them into Star Trek.

TrekCore: How open or accommodating were your sources while researching this book, beyond the memos and references in the archives? Were people quite willing to discuss their experiences, or did you encounter any reticence or reservations from various people involved in the making of Star Trek?

Marc Cushman: They were willing but time has a way of distorting the memory. This is why I always prefer to search out old interviews, especially ones from the time that the show was being made. I collected hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles with interviews in them, to be sure that all the voices of the people involved were included (since many are now gone), and that those voices would be as fresh as possible, meaning, the words were spoken as close to the time of production as possible. Beyond this, when I interviewed participants, I asked them questions that other interviewers had not.

They told me this; they were often surprised by my approach. I explained to them that these books were meant to serve as a time machine, and each of these people I was interviewing were one of our guest tour guides. I'd try to take them back to 1966, or '67, or the later years for Book Two and Three, and get them to remember what it felt like, what was playing on the radio, what the offices looked like, or the stage, or the clothing.

I would really get heightened recollections by doing this, like when Malachi Throne said to me, and I paraphrase here, "Yes, I did feel a bit uncomfortable at first, because there were no pockets in the Starfleet uniforms. I didn't know what to do with my hands. We couldn't smoke, or play with props as we would in a contemporary story. So it was a very alien environment, and I had to learn from Shatner and Nimoy and the others how to be comfortable in those rooms and in those clothes. They were all so good at it."


TrekCore: Were there any challenges in writing this book that were particularly difficult to overcome?

Marc Cushman: Many. And again, that comes down to failing memories, or memories that have been compromised by things that a person is told about himself and his work over four or more decades. I would be told one thing by a person I interviewed, and feel grateful to this person and want to write something they will be happy to read, but then I'd be told something else by another person involved on that particular script, or that day of filming, and the show files would bring out yet another perspective.

I wasn't going to censor anyone, but, what I did, was create a conversation between the different participants on the page, bringing all the different points of view together. It's like the reader gets to sit in the middle of a conversation that has a great deal of conflict in it. And conflict makes for the best story telling. There is always conflict. It doesn't have to be invented; it's all around us, and especially present in ventures such as Star Trek, with all the time pressures, and creative differences involved.

Gene Roddenberry was very supportive and helpful to me on this project, and yet, even though I feel I honor him greatly, and reveal his genius through many of his memos, I also reveal his darker side through many of his own words, in both the interviews he granted me and his memos and letters. And statements made by others. But I truly believe he would approve of my handling of it all.  I know others do because they have called to tell me so.


TrekCore: Conversely, what aspects of researching and writing this series were the most fun?

Marc Cushman: My god, all of it. I love researching. I love searching for missing treasure. And with each new nugget I would find, I felt like yelling out, "Gold! I stuck gold!" Especially when I'd see how all these pieces would fit together and solve so many mysteries about all the various episodes -- why this one is so good and this one isn't. But you want a specific answer. Okay. The ratings. Talk about striking gold -- dispelling forty-five years of folklore that was begun with intentionally misleading information.

Discovering the true production order of the episodes, which on more than a couple occasions is different than what we think we know by the deceptive production numbering and the DVD sequencing of episodes.  Finding out that an episode that says written by Jerry Sohl, should have said story by Jerry Sohl, written by Gene Roddenberry and, perhaps, Jerry Sohl.  And so many other occurrences such as that. And feeling like I have now witnessed the writing and the making of Star Trek and I am able to share that experience with other fans. I really do write for me -- write what I would want to read. I would have given almost anything to read these books, and I suppose I did.


TrekCore: It is interesting that this book was not published through Simon & Schuster, who have the rights to Star Trek publications. Was there an attempt to publish this through them, and if so, is there a reason they opted not to publish it?

Marc Cushman: There was an attempt. Simon & Schuster asked to see three chapters and my agent sent in the first three. Now, I've received a lot of letters in the last couple weeks from people who love the first three chapters, saying they have found out more about Gene Roddenberry's life and career before Star Trek, and about Lucille Ball being the sponsor of Star Trek, and the mind set of NBC, all things that are examined in those early chapters.

([url]http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/desilu_small.jpg[/url])

But Pocket Books was not dazzled and said, basically, that with two books out on Roddenberry, and a couple out on Lucy, and that no one cares about what NBC was thinking, that they didn't see enough there to justify them publishing. If they had read any of the chapters that deal with the episodes -- and there is a separate chapter for each episode -- I think they would have thought differently.

And they would have seen how the information in those first few chapters pays off as you continue reading. But once a publisher says "no," it's always going to be "no." Bottom line, my agent sent in the wrong chapters as a sample of what these books are really about.

CBS has not picked up on this yet -- has not endorsed it -- because they wrote and told us they didn't have time to read a six-hundred-page book, to be followed by two more books of about five hundred pages each. So we had to go out without their stamp of approval, which certainly limits us in how we can promote this book, in the cover images we could legally use, even in the title.

But Jacobs Brown Press was very supportive of me, and I was determined this work would come out for the fans, and for those I knew from the show, and all those I'd interviewed. Malachi Throne and William Windom were two, both wonderful to me, and they didn't live to see these books come out. Bob Justman didn't live to see them out, even though he was there while I was writing them. I wasn't going to let that happen again.


TrekCore: Have you heard from any of the original TOS actors?

Marc Cushman: Yes. Walter Koe[person of African ethnicity]even carried the book out on stage at the Vegas convention and talked about it for a couple minutes, urging fans to buy it. Harlan Ellison called to say he liked it. I'd been nervous about that. I allow everyone to have their say about him and his script for "The City on the Edge of Forever." And some of those words are harsh. But I allow Harlan to have his say, as well, and I bring forward the documentation which proves who wrote what and when various drafts were delivered, and so on. Harlan's recollections are sometimes proved right, sometimes wrong, and yet he called to say that he wouldn't call the book awesome, because he reserves that word for the Grand Canyon and Eleanor Roosevelt, but that it comes close. That was a wonderful moment.

Someone came over and bought a book at the publisher's booth during the Las Vegas Star Trek convention and said William Shatner had showed him the book so he decided to get one for himself. I haven't heard from Shatner... but, I suppose in a way, with that, I have. Leonard Nimoy, sounding very much like Mr. Spock, called and told me the research was "astounding." Walter Koe[person of African ethnicity]agreed to write the foreword for Book Two after reading Book One. He paid me a wonderful compliment in saying that, after reading the book, he trusts me.

John D.F. Black and his wife Mary, who was there, working as his executive assistant on TOS, tell me that this book takes them back to that time and place and they impressed that there is clearly no agenda on my part other than to report the story. So, I'm very happy now. I've been living in a cave for six years researching and writing and not even coming out of the past long enough to watch the news. I had to keep my head and my heart in the 1960s and at Desilu studios. So it is very rewarding to find that people are responding so well to this.


TrekCore: Are there any sneak peeks or surprising tidbits that you would be willing to reveal about seasons two and three?

Marc Cushman: I'll tell you that, for me, as a writer, and as a person who loves to read biographies, Book Two is better than Book One and Book Three is the best of all.  The story of Star Trek -- the struggle those talented people went through to make that series -- gets richer with each season, and more dramatic. The hurdles get higher; the challenges unbearably difficult. Among other things, in Book Two, you will learn why Gene Coon really left Star Trek, and you will be surprised to find out how much he contributed to the episodes where he is not credited as producer.

As for Book Three... You won't find a fan anywhere that will tell you that the third season was as good as the first two, even though there were many excellent episodes during that last year. But it is certainly the most interesting to find out about and, I think, read about. In Book Three, you will be surprised to find out how much Gene Roddenberry had to do with Season Three, contrary to everything we have heard before. And how much he antagonized the network. He had good reason, of course, but fighting with the network is not a good way to keep your series on the air. The truth is in the memos.


TrekCore: Moving forward from TOS, do you have any plans to do another reference such as this for another aspect of Trek history? If you have no such plans, would you ever be interested in doing so?

Marc Cushman: It has been suggested that I take on Next Generation. But I do have a couple other biographies that I have already started that have nothing to do with Star Trek and I would like to see them through. But Next Generation is certainly tempting. I know so many from that show and spent a small amount of time there myself, with the story I contributed, the script I wrote based on that story, which was too much like TOS for Gene's taste at that time, and numerous other pitch sessions and springboards to episodes that I provided.

I think the treatment I gave to TOS would work very well for TNG, because Gene Roddenberry lived in memos, god bless him, and those memos mean there is a great deal of documentation that reveals the thinking going on, episode by episode.

TrekCore: Thank you again for this opportunity! It was a real pleasure to be able to ask about the creation of These Are The Voyages. You have provided a pretty valuable resource to scores of Trekkies and Trekkers, and I for one am very grateful.

Marc Cushman: Thank you for your interest, Dan. It's been my pleasure.
http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/10/interview-with-marc-cushman-author-of-these-are-the-voyages/ (http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/10/interview-with-marc-cushman-author-of-these-are-the-voyages/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 23, 2013, 10:30:02 PM
"Ptolemy Wept" Animated STAR TREK episode, Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q_Po_ZVO70#)

Quote
Uploaded on Apr 15, 2011 


The U.S.S. Enterprise crew takes on a Federation historian to investigates an ancient space station which has suddenly appeared in orbit of a planet that the crew has visited before. After they enter the space station, they soon realize that there is much more to the ancient complex than they expected.


This film entitled "Ptolemy Wept" was written, directed, animated and produced by Curt Danhauser and is the second new animated STAR TREK episode featuring Captain Kirk and his crew to be produced in more than three decades. The last new official animated STAR TREK episode was produced by Filmation and aired on NBC-TV Saturday morning, October 12, 1974. Now, after more than 35 years, new episodes are being produced. These new episodes are intended to be a direct continuation of the 22-episode animated STAR TREK series produced by Filmation Associates from 1973-1974.

Subsequent parts of this full-length animated episode will be released on youTube in the months to come.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 23, 2013, 10:31:59 PM
"Ptolemy Wept" Animated STAR TREK episode, Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H83Y-xa-GI#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 23, 2013, 10:48:29 PM
"Ptolemy Wept" Animated STAR TREK episode, Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roSupqN0dFU#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 23, 2013, 11:20:28 PM
"Ptolemy Wept" Animated STAR TREK episode, Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k5Rg_UKVmk#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 24, 2013, 03:04:24 PM
This looks interesting: http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/23/new-fan-film-star-trek-axanar-to-tell-garth-of-izar-story-features-bsg-star-richard-hatch-as-klingon/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/23/new-fan-film-star-trek-axanar-to-tell-garth-of-izar-story-features-bsg-star-richard-hatch-as-klingon/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 30, 2013, 06:02:51 PM
Quote
Captain Kirk to command new Navy destroyer
By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo News 2 hours ago

([url]http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/4umbrQRicGtrMgUYOu54OQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTY0MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2013-10-30/1729f44b-ba86-4369-aa95-95646d46cde7_131028-O-ZZ999-103.JPG[/url])
U.S.S. Zumwalt



The commander of the U.S. Navy's sleek new guided-missile destroyer, which launched late last week in Maine, has a name to match its space-age look: Captain Kirk.

Captain James Kirk, the prospective commanding officer of USS Zumwalt, will lead the 610-foot vessel, the Navy's largest destroyer and first of three new Zumwalt-class ships "designed for littoral operations and land attack," the Navy said.

Kirk, a native of Bethesda, Md., was commissioned at the U.S. Naval Academy in 1990 and has served in a variety posts as a "surface warfare officer," according to his online bio. "Ashore, Captain Kirk has served as Executive Assistant to the Navy’s Chief of Legislative Affairs and as an Action Officer on the Joint Staff."


([url]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/bg6uUVF5bU5AfHEHLESpRg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTcxOTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2013-10-30/649fe30a-2b4e-4ee4-9699-fbf33bd715a7_captain-kirk.jpg[/url])


Kirk obtained a master's degrees in national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College and U.S. Army War College, where he undoubtedly heard more than his share of "Star Trek" jokes.

The ship, which was moved from dry dock in Bath, Maine, to a pier on the Kennebec River on Friday, is loaded with new technologies, including "radar reflecting angles, a striking inward-sloping tumblehome hull" and advanced gun system.

The lead ship and class are named in honor of former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Elmo R. "Bud" Zumwalt Jr., who served as chief of naval operations from 1970 to 1974.

According to the Navy, construction on the first Zumwalt is "more than 87 percent complete," with remaining work on the hull scheduled to be completed before delivery in late 2014.

So who will serve as Capt. Kirk's "Spock" on the Zumwalt? According to the Navy, it's Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Hickox, who was named prospective executive officer of the ship.
http://news.yahoo.com/captain-kirk-navy-destroyer-135551630.html (http://news.yahoo.com/captain-kirk-navy-destroyer-135551630.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on October 30, 2013, 06:10:31 PM
;lol ;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 30, 2013, 06:12:44 PM
His parents were cruel.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on October 30, 2013, 06:17:02 PM
Graduated in 1990. Mmm... he's just old enough then to indeed be named to the ST captain.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on October 30, 2013, 06:53:41 PM
Quote
Walter Koe[person of African ethnicity]even carried the book out on stage at the Vegas convention and talked about it for a couple minutes, urging fans to buy it.

So is there some reason why half of Walter Koenig's name is censored? That's insane.  ::)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on October 30, 2013, 07:09:47 PM
Let's test this: Walter Koenig

Seems to work fine. :dunno:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 30, 2013, 07:12:27 PM
We have a crappy swear filter is all.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 31, 2013, 05:08:34 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/JohnByrne2/2013-10-30_055933_Coming.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 15, 2013, 05:16:03 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/BillConway/2013-12-14_080552_StarTrek3SMALL.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 04, 2014, 04:37:13 PM
Star Trek Phase 2: "Kitumba" - Episode 4x08 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=419hNYe2OaY#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 04, 2014, 06:29:33 PM
Where are the other episodes? ;cute
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 04, 2014, 06:34:27 PM
If you go to the YouTube page, many are in the sidebar on the right.  Also, http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/ (http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 04, 2014, 07:12:17 PM
So, TOS ran to year 4 episode 5 back then?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 04, 2014, 07:20:18 PM
No.  What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 04, 2014, 08:14:01 PM
No.  What are you talking about?

Well, this fanmade 'Phase II' project seems to start with year 4, episode 6? Unless there are earlier episodes besides the 3 I saw on their website.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 04, 2014, 08:16:32 PM
Oh, my error. Didn't look below the three episodes with thumbnails. :-[
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 04, 2014, 08:24:16 PM
Oh, I see; what threw you is that they bill their fan production as season 4 of ST...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 04, 2014, 11:00:20 PM
Bloody hell, for all intents and purposes, the series should have ended before my birth! ;lol
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 05, 2014, 12:01:43 AM
Oh, it totally did.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 05, 2014, 02:15:50 AM
(http://api.ning.com/files/XjhMMZugbJfkmtYJVy2JulIABLnmc3SkxH-sBHQZctU_/6453_1167744444880_1566008565_30428930_7168283_n.jpg?width=604&height=453)

Did anyone else recognize her?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on January 05, 2014, 04:33:47 AM
Was she playing in ST-TNG?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 05, 2014, 10:27:21 AM
Worf's 'mate' in TNG?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 06, 2014, 11:26:46 PM
Okay, remember the fan production about six months ago that put a red-headed proto-Troi in as a new "ship's counselor"?   Her.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on January 08, 2014, 10:58:31 PM
I liked the actors playing Chekov and Xon; they were cute.  :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 08, 2014, 11:11:46 PM
I can see it for their Chekov...  Xon needed a haircut.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on January 08, 2014, 11:41:19 PM
Nah, he's fine just as he is.  :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 09, 2014, 05:11:48 PM
About this latest episode you linked for us, BUncle. I wonder why we saw so many non-ridged Klingons in the episode. Are those actors prefering to look old-style Klingon or simply members of another species within the Klingon Empire?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 09, 2014, 05:19:44 PM
They were using the Enterprise continuity, where a virus -an attempt to augment, like Khan- altered many of them.

I wondered why any hairy turtles were in it...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 09, 2014, 06:57:34 PM
I assume the augmented Klingons were the ridged version?


Hairy turtles?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 09, 2014, 07:41:00 PM
No, it's the more human-looking ones.  The real Klingons.

The others have all the hair, and heads like turtle shells...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on January 09, 2014, 08:00:39 PM
Some of those Klingon headpieces look like a combination of turtle shells and octopus suckers.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 09, 2014, 08:17:12 PM
The boy-emperor's headpiece definitely didn't fit around the nose.
(so this means the Klingon's actually accept a changed one as their ruler)

As for what are real Klingons, I'm afraid TNG was my real introduction to Trekkieverse. ;cute
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 09, 2014, 08:25:20 PM
I bet you have no idea how many things are wrong with that post.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 10, 2014, 11:42:31 AM
I claim genuine sixties ignorance. ;cute
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 14, 2014, 03:34:40 AM
Interesting.  An attempt to list every non-regular who appeared more than once:
https://sites.google.com/site/cytherians/Home/guest-stars-extras
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on January 14, 2014, 03:30:08 PM
They were using the Enterprise continuity, where a virus -an attempt to augment, like Khan- altered many of them.

I wondered why any hairy turtles were in it...

Wait, so what? 

Didn't watch much of Enterprise.  I remember the DS9 crossover where everyone made fun of Warf trying to get him to spill the beans and he wouldn't say anything as to why the older klingons were different.  "We don't talk about it" IIRC.  Bashir listed several magical possibilities, but it was mostly just hand waved. 

(I seem to recall Enterprise had the turtle heads for klingons?  At least early on???)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 14, 2014, 03:53:22 PM
It did.

The point I'm making is that including stuff like that defeats the purpose of trying to make real Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on January 15, 2014, 12:26:09 AM
I thought I remembered being a bit confused why enterprise didn't do the smoother heads. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 15, 2014, 02:12:40 AM
I remember being very disappointed.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 25, 2014, 02:29:27 PM
(http://liveapartmentfire.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/insp_spocks_brain.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 30, 2014, 04:33:15 PM
(http://i.space.com/images/i/000/026/014/i02/star-trek-45-years-130207a-02.jpg?1360277271)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on February 01, 2014, 07:09:44 AM
I have seen something for you... ;lol

http://www.trekkiedating.com/ (http://www.trekkiedating.com/)

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on February 01, 2014, 08:31:59 AM
You shouldn't make fun of BUncle like that. Trekkies have needs too! :mad: ;q;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 10, 2014, 06:21:33 PM
Star Trek Continues E02 "Lolani" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mOpmIFTxkE#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on February 10, 2014, 08:01:07 PM
*snif*
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on February 11, 2014, 08:43:36 PM
Almost like Original Star Trek. :) Thank you for posting this, BUncle.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 13, 2014, 03:50:26 AM
[Spoilery - read before watching the episode at your own risk.]

Ok, not quite 10 minutes in -  No.  The Federation honors Orion slavery by returning slaves?  Just, no.  That's about the last thing in the universe would have gotten pat Roddenberry.  They should have put a lot more thought into setting up the situation - perhaps a major recent diplomatic incident, at least...


Man; Wilma Deering has gotten old.

Are Tellerites attracted to Orions, sexually?  Does that stand to reason?  Why else buy a green lady, then.

We could really do without the low rumbling every time they do a ship exterior.

Kirk rarely pushed the wall com button with a finger - he pounded it.  Points off for that.

I'm not sure killing your way out of slavery is murder...

The scoring is pretty excellent on this.  A good selection of the usual suspects from the ST TV music, used in the right places, and at an excellent volume level - does a lot to sell the thing.

Ah, good - he punched the com button that time.

Weak Spock is wearing a tank top under his uniform.  And his hand is too pink.  However, either I'm getting used to him, or he's not quite as inadequite in this one.

I'm pretty sure a semi-competent lawyer could get you off for killin' your way out of a rape attempt...

They tried something, with latex, I think, that didn't quite work for some of the green makeup.

It's a pity their McCoy is so poor - this is an episode where the real thing would surely have been in fine rant form...

Bad Sulu hair.  Bad Uhura hair until the last shot of her, where she suddenly had it in a tail, which somehow worked.

...

I'm glad this was made - I enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 16, 2014, 11:24:57 PM
Anyone else want to chime in?  I love how much this fan production both looks and feels like ST - they've got a really strong Kirk, IMO, (though, as we discussed previously, the rest of the cast is fairly weak, which doesn't bode well for the long run).

...

Something that might be of interest to youse Valjiir types - Phase II, the other fan-made ST, has adaption of The Mind Sifter in production.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on February 16, 2014, 11:41:01 PM
That would be the version of Mind-Sifter as published in the New Voyages paperback? The final one, not the draft that wasn't professionally published?

I'll give it a try, but honestly 'Star Trek Continues' is the closest I've seen to REAL Star Trek without it being actually official.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on February 17, 2014, 12:02:25 AM
How many groups outthere are making their own new serie(s) of TOS? ???
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on February 17, 2014, 12:59:07 AM
Star Trek Continues
Star Trek Phase II


I don't know of any others...  :scratch:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 17, 2014, 01:53:18 AM
The first post purports to be an exhaustive list of fan films/audios: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=60711 (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=60711)

All I know about the production of The Mind Sifter episode is that they're doing one - I think it's safe to assume that it will be more interested in fidelity to Enterprise/movie/TNG, etc. continuity than Valjiir.  (As I've mentioned many times before, I have a real problem with these fan productions trying to be anything but real ST and the frequent references to all the subsequent inferior pro knockoffs annoy me.)  -But it's still of interest that they're producing a story that happens to also be foundational Valjiir.  As Mylochka mentioned to me just a few minutes ago, they've always had a problem with good writing, and it's probably good that they seem to be looking at adapting the best of the decades of fanfic that's out there.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on February 17, 2014, 02:01:39 AM
There's lots of great fanfic that would make wonderful episodes/movies. One of the TrekBBS members, Alpha Flyer, has a great series of Voyager stories that take place post-Endgame, and they're about Tom Paris. She posts them on fanfiction.net. If anybody ever decided to do Voyager fan productions, these stories would be a goldmine of good material.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 22, 2014, 05:31:29 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/FrancescoConsoli/2014-02-19_083821_May_14_Byrne.jpg)

Word is, new ones bi-monthly...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valjiir1 on February 28, 2014, 05:24:23 AM
Where can I find this?!?!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 28, 2014, 05:34:05 AM
I think it's in square-bound glossy comic book format - published by IDW.  John Byrne is a fan from the beginning and a major, MAJOR comicbook artist (and a very good one, too) who should, by rights, have done a better job of choosing and laying out shots than the old photonovels.  His drawn ST comics have been pretty good.

So the answer is google it, unless you're familiar with a local comic book shop.  The first one, released a few mouths ago, was a sequel to  http://Where No Man Has Gone Before.  I haven't seen any of them first hand -just a few pages online- but it looks like he knows what he's doing.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valjiir1 on February 28, 2014, 09:58:08 PM
Thanks!  Will Google or get down to the comic shop in St. Paul ASAP.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 28, 2014, 11:46:29 PM
You may enjoy his collected mini-series (drawn) about the Romulans, too, if they'll let you flip through to decide...  Do you like comics, or is this more a 'new photonovels' thing?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 02, 2014, 08:56:23 PM
Incidentally, here's something a fan posted yesterday on Byrne's own forum:

Quote
Been giving it a lot of thought lately... in terms of post-1969 TOS iterations (novels, illustrated comics, The Animated Series, the film series, the Abrams reboots, etc.), I'm starting to think that the JB photonovels are exactly, finally what the doctor ordered, to help fill our insatiable need for "new" stories of Kirk, Spock & Co.

We get to SEE these characters again, without having to put up with limited animation, miscast new actors or even (as has often been suggested) CGI recreations.

This looks & feels like new, "old" STAR TREK. And what's great is that we can use our own (*gasp!*) imaginations to fill in just the right line deliveries and music cues.

Really, truly warming up to the idea of more adventures in this photonovel format.
I think that articulates the appeal nicely, provided that they turn out to be good...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 02, 2014, 10:33:48 PM
Quote
John Byrne Expands Star Trek Visions
Ongoing Mission Becomes Ongoing Series
Friday, Feb 28th, 2014



San Diego, CA (February 28, 2014) - Last year, comic-book legend, John Byrne set out "to explore strange new worlds" within the Star Trek universe, using a unique technique, the photonovel. The resulting Star Trek Annual 2013, which is completely sold out through Diamond and headed for a second printing, was a creative success due to this distinctive storytelling device. This May, Byrne will continue his quest "to seek out new life and new civilizations" using the photonovel format to produce an ongoing bi-monthly series, Star Trek: New Visions.


([url]http://media.ideaanddesignworks.com/idw/news/2014/02_feb/mcith/mcith_0228-startrek.jpg[/url])

 
 "What John does on these photonovel stories is nothing short of amazing," said Chris Ryall, IDW's Chief Creative Office/Editor-in-Chief. "He's moved far beyond photo-manipulation and montage to constructing his own set pieces, uniforms, and characters. Much more than just comic stories, these tales are the closest thing to Original Series-era 'lost episodes' that the world will ever see."
 
 Each issue of this all-new series will be an extra-length affair. New Visions begins by going through the looking glass to tell the story of what happened after the classic "Mirror, Mirror" episode of the original series. In issue #1, "The Mirror, Cracked," the crew of the Starship: Enterprisediscovers two strangers in their midst, and things take a turn when they learn that one of them has made a pact with one of James Kirk's oldest foes.

Star Trek: New Visions #1, a 48-page, full-color, $7.99 comic book, debuts in May 2014. Diamond Order CodeMAR140370 E  STAR TREK NEW VISIONS #1 MIRROR CRACKED
A new printing of the sold-out Star Trek Annual 2013 will also ship in May. Diamond Order CodeMAR140371 E  STAR TREK ANNUAL 2013
http://idwpublishing.com/news/article/2750/ (http://idwpublishing.com/news/article/2750/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 02, 2014, 11:50:54 PM
That would be the version of Mind-Sifter as published in the New Voyages paperback? The final one, not the draft that wasn't professionally published?
As it turns out, the original version http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=238012 (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=238012)  I had no idea about any of that having happened...  Which version is Valjiir continuity?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 03, 2014, 01:24:58 AM
Here's a link to the original version of The Mind Sifter, BTW http://www.simegen.com/fandom/startrek/showcase/show02/showcase-mind-sifter.html (http://www.simegen.com/fandom/startrek/showcase/show02/showcase-mind-sifter.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 07, 2014, 09:00:50 AM
That would be the version of Mind-Sifter as published in the New Voyages paperback? The final one, not the draft that wasn't professionally published?
As it turns out, the original version [url]http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=238012[/url] ([url]http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=238012[/url])  I had no idea about any of that having happened...  Which version is Valjiir continuity?

The New Voyages paperback version, since the extra material with Chekov and McCoy on Earth isn't in the Shadow Captain stories, and it's Spock who finds Kirk, not Chekov.

There's an alternate story to the Shadow Captain storyline, though: "Secret Seas," which explores another way the story could have gone - what if Spock (plus Ruth, Sulu, and Jilla) had resigned from Starfleet and searched for Kirk on their own? This story is still in progress, and I'm really looking forward to the rest of it. :)
Title: Trekking Bad
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 07, 2014, 09:07:26 PM
Lots of NSFW bad words - but not terribly stupid ST talk...

Breaking Bad - Star Trek Scene (Season 5 Episode 9) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIsauNJ392o#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 07, 2014, 09:18:08 PM
Spock would never take part in a pie-eating contest. They're illogical.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 07, 2014, 09:21:33 PM
Sure, but I'm re-reading Spock Must Die! right now, which makes that extra funny. ;spock

Just got back from the book store, BTW - Mylochka scored a copy of Spock's World, so we'll be able to discuss in detail soon...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 07, 2014, 09:26:59 PM
It's been at least 3 decades since I last read that book, but I'm sure there wasn't any pie-eating contest in it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 07, 2014, 09:38:09 PM
;lol I was talking about all the transporter stuff, y'know.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 07, 2014, 10:23:59 PM
I was trying not to think about that part.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 13, 2014, 02:24:21 PM
http://www.robotjackalope.com/?p=205 (http://www.robotjackalope.com/?p=205)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on March 13, 2014, 07:24:00 PM
[url]http://www.robotjackalope.com/?p=205[/url] ([url]http://www.robotjackalope.com/?p=205[/url])


I think my head just started to spin in phi-circles... :help:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 13, 2014, 07:26:15 PM
Right.  Too much math, but all that Golden Mean stuff was interesting.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 19, 2014, 07:37:08 PM
Custom ST figurines at a low, low price.

http://cubify.com/en/Store/StarTrek (http://cubify.com/en/Store/StarTrek)

If you think $70 for a little statue is low.  -I suspect the creation process will make an amusing custom photo, if anyone wants to try it and not finish...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on March 19, 2014, 09:33:13 PM
Can we expect a change of avatar from you?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 19, 2014, 09:38:54 PM
Naw.  I tried it, and no pic - possibly, it displays if you sign up, but if I wanted to put a hippy head on a picture of Captain Kirk, I don't need them to do it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 21, 2014, 07:21:36 PM
Fake Star Trek as The Love Boat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWyxZR69CI0#)

...I wish I had the foggiest about why video embedding works some days and not others.  It would have been funnier that way, and someone might have actually watched it...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 22, 2014, 03:54:38 AM
Star Trek as The Love Boat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWyxZR69CI0#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on March 22, 2014, 03:55:19 AM


...I wish I had the foggiest about why video embedding works some day and not others.  It would have been funnier that way, and someone might have actually watched it...

I think I riddled it out one day, the forum don't like the https version of the videos.  Just cut the S and it autoembeds. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 22, 2014, 04:00:58 AM
Let's try an edit...

...

Uno sir, you da MAN!

 :unworthy: :adore:  ;worship
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Impaler on March 23, 2014, 01:49:17 AM
Love the guest list their, but I think they missed Doctor#4

I've always been a big Fan of Trek, but for me TNG is home, it was the series I watched in my formative years. 

Original series I saw only intermittently years later and while I certainly like it their is just so much less material that actually got shown as they only show the best most famous episodes like Balance of Terror or the Gorn episode, absolute classics but it hardly feels like a series, more like movies in a sense.

DS9 was also damn good and got better as it progressed, the writers had just enough darkness to satisfy the modern audience without going into the over-the-top masochist extremes that become the norm in the early 2000's.  It was Rodenbery's idealistic universe grappling with darkness, rather then being over-run by darkness, their morality fraying at the edges but the core was preserved.  This was just indicative of better writing then a all bright or all dark story.  I always felt their should have been a DS9 movie, particularly to resolve some of their final episode cliffhangers.

Voyager and the brief Enterprise thing were both abysmal primarily due to bad writing and character development, every Voyager character was made of wood, 7-of-Hawtness was a rather shameless addition for sex-appeal (which is neither here nor their) but then SHE was written even more woodenly then the rest of the cast.  The Enterprise series was centered around the Archer/T'Pol antagonism/respect relationship which while OK could not compensate for the wooden crew, nor could it be sustained for more then about 2 seasons, new dynamics were necessary to carry things forward.  Also the writers consistently resorted to techno-deus-ex-machina to resolve the plot by having the crew suddenly 'invent' a familiar TOS tech, this consistently betrayed the whole premise of the series as being set long before TOS in which the crew would not have these tech marvels, they did this in the series PREMIER for gods sake!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 02:02:54 AM
Seven of Vulcan was, by far, -and I mean hands-down- the most horrific creative mistake they made with Enterprise.  It was just too plain what contempt they had for their audience.  And you are correct that she was, all of them were, written woodenly.  I would, however, point out that she eased up on the Jeri Ryan imitation in her performance as the series wore on, and got easier to take.  Scott Bakula was never wooden in his performance, even though the writing of Archer was; he and whoever played Trip were a couple of charismatic trooper turd-polishers.

I have nothing positive to say about the writing of the first three seasons - but I wish Manny Coto had been in charge from the beginning; that last season had its moments, and was a quantum leap better.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 23, 2014, 04:30:27 AM
I always felt their should have been a DS9 movie, particularly to resolve some of their final episode cliffhangers.
Interesting. There's a current ongoing thread at TrekBBS on this very topic, and a couple of the arguments are centered on how well-known DS9 was/is in popular culture, along with "Is Nana Visitor too old to play Kira Nerys in a movie"?


I couldn't disagree with both of you more about Seven of Nine. She's my favorite Voyager character.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 04:59:05 AM
[shrugs] Without Kes, there was nobody likeable left on that show, so why not the stripper wrapped in duct tape?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 23, 2014, 05:04:34 AM
Yeah, well, I was GLAD when Kes was written off. I found her ungodly boring and not very likeable.

One measure of how good a show or character is, is whether or not you seek out fanfic about that show/character.

There are at least a dozen stories/series I'm following on fanfiction.net about Seven of Nine, as well as a damn good series of stories about Tom Paris (post-Endgame). I am reading/following exactly ZERO stories about Kes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 05:07:26 AM
I disagree: that's only a sign of how much a character gives nerdz the horn.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Impaler on March 23, 2014, 05:15:11 AM
I always felt their should have been a DS9
I couldn't disagree with both of you more about Seven of Nine. She's my favorite Voyager character.

Well their has always been a character 'searching for their humanity' in every series, from Spock, Data, Odo, Seven and T'Pol (though you might argue T'Pol is searching for an understanding of humanity rather then her own).  So I don't object to that premise, again it just comes down to bad writing, everyone on Voyager is badly written Seven included, is she the worst, no not by a long shot.  I think Harry Kim takes the cake on that one.  (Yes even worse then Kes, you actually REMEMBER Kes, you literally forget Kim even exists)

Buster:  I agree Bakula acting skill was good and he used that to compensate for bad writing, the rest of the cast was far weaker and could not compensate.  I think the writers even knew this on some level and the Archer character ended up shouldering a disproportionate share of the whole series compared to TNG which did a good job of spreading out the material among the whole cast and developing all the characters fully.  The wooden-crew syndrome was self-reinforcing, weak actors get lower quality writing and less screen time, leading to weaker character development and poorer writing in a downward spiral.  The Captain character alone can not sustain a Series for more then 1-2 years, a series lifespan is directly proportional to how many compelling characters it can develop, in TNG & DS9 it was the whole cast, in Voyager (in my opinion) no one and in Enterprise just 2.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 23, 2014, 05:22:57 AM
I disagree: that's only a sign of how much a character gives nerdz the horn.
I don't understand what that means.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 05:25:16 AM
COUGHmakesthemhornyCOUGH    :-[

I always felt their should have been a DS9
I couldn't disagree with both of you more about Seven of Nine. She's my favorite Voyager character.

Well their has always been a character 'searching for their humanity' in every series, from Spock, Data, Odo, Seven and T'Pol (though you might argue T'Pol is searching for an understanding of humanity rather then her own).  So I don't object to that premise, again it just comes down to bad writing, everyone on Voyager is badly written Seven included, is she the worst, no not by a long shot.  I think Harry Kim takes the cake on that one.  (Yes even worse then Kes, you actually REMEMBER Kes, you literally forget Kim even exists)

Buster:  I agree Bakula acting skill was good and he used that to compensate for bad writing, the rest of the cast was far weaker and could not compensate.  I think the writers even knew this on some level and the Archer character ended up shouldering a disproportionate share of the whole series compared to TNG which did a good job of spreading out the material among the whole cast and developing all the characters fully.  The wooden-crew syndrome was self-reinforcing, weak actors get lower quality writing and less screen time, leading to weaker character development and poorer writing in a downward spiral.  The Captain character alone can not sustain a Series for more then 1-2 years, a series lifespan is directly proportional to how many compelling characters it can develop, in TNG & DS9 it was the whole cast, in Voyager (in my opinion) no one and in Enterprise just 2.

They had trouble casting the leads half the time; Brooks and Mulgrew were in over their heads/miscast.  You can't overcome terrible writing, and you can't work around the star of the show sucking.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 23, 2014, 06:40:51 AM
COUGHmakesthemhornyCOUGH    :-[

I always felt their should have been a DS9
I couldn't disagree with both of you more about Seven of Nine. She's my favorite Voyager character.

Well their has always been a character 'searching for their humanity' in every series, from Spock, Data, Odo, Seven and T'Pol (though you might argue T'Pol is searching for an understanding of humanity rather then her own).  So I don't object to that premise, again it just comes down to bad writing, everyone on Voyager is badly written Seven included, is she the worst, no not by a long shot.  I think Harry Kim takes the cake on that one.  (Yes even worse then Kes, you actually REMEMBER Kes, you literally forget Kim even exists)

Buster:  I agree Bakula acting skill was good and he used that to compensate for bad writing, the rest of the cast was far weaker and could not compensate.  I think the writers even knew this on some level and the Archer character ended up shouldering a disproportionate share of the whole series compared to TNG which did a good job of spreading out the material among the whole cast and developing all the characters fully.  The wooden-crew syndrome was self-reinforcing, weak actors get lower quality writing and less screen time, leading to weaker character development and poorer writing in a downward spiral.  The Captain character alone can not sustain a Series for more then 1-2 years, a series lifespan is directly proportional to how many compelling characters it can develop, in TNG & DS9 it was the whole cast, in Voyager (in my opinion) no one and in Enterprise just 2.

They had trouble casting the leads half the time; Brooks and Mulgrew were in over their heads/miscast.  You can't overcome terrible writing, and you can't work around the star of the show sucking.
Um... I harbor exactly ZERO sexual feelings for either Jeri Ryan or Robert Duncan MacNeil.

Kate Mulgrew was better than the actress they originally had to play Janeway.

I hardly read any DS9 fanfic.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 06:44:28 AM
You're lucky Spud's so fast...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 23, 2014, 07:03:06 AM
Why?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 07:37:51 AM
Because that's so awesome.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 23, 2014, 09:40:04 AM
On another forum, Spud is accompanied by three little pigs.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 04:12:11 PM
And Kes was accompanied by Nelix.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 09:14:46 PM
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=7865 (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=7865)

(http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7865.0;attach=9383;image)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 23, 2014, 09:52:07 PM
And Kes was accompanied by Nelix.
I was referring to my sig on another forum.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 09:54:17 PM
I was comparing Nelix to pigs.

I apologize to pigs for that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Impaler on March 23, 2014, 10:28:46 PM
What?? Nelix was easily one of the better characters on Voyager.

Um... I harbor exactly ZERO sexual feelings for either Jeri Ryan or Robert Duncan MacNeil.

Kate Mulgrew was better than the actress they originally had to play Janeway.

I hardly read any DS9 fanfic.

I Think Buster meant that the quantity of fan-fiction about a certain character is proportional to their fan-base wide sex-appeal, not that your reading choices were determined by your such feelings.  It's just statistically more likely that 7of9 will be the subject of any randomly selected fan-fiction.

Who was originally cast to play Janeway?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 10:33:34 PM
I am surrounded by Klingons.

They ate the Philistines for being too sophisticated.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Impaler on March 23, 2014, 10:41:49 PM
Mind you when I say 'Better' on Voyager it is all relative to just the other characters on Voyager, aka Harry Kim's and Tuvoks that just fade into the background.  Why don't you elaborate on which characters were better or worse if you think my opinions are Klingish.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 10:53:39 PM
I will when I get caught up on my duties.  It's not a subject for brevity.

I Think BU meant that the quantity of fan-fiction about a certain character is proportional to their fan-base wide sex-appeal, not that your reading choices were determined by your such feelings.  It's just statistically more likely that 7of9 will be the subject of any randomly selected fan-fiction.
With correction, correct.

Who was originally cast to play Janeway?
Geneviève Bujold (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fname%2Fnm0000991%2F&ei=lmQvU7_VHKjx2wXdo4G4Cg&usg=AFQjCNEiIsYDYUGKiOhFpDGDyg_e6_IEkg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.b2I) - most notable as Anne Boleyn in Anne of the Thousand Days (a film with the subjective runtime right there in the title.  -Gorgeous to look at, though, on many levels, despite Richard Burton).

I posted video of her as 'Nicole' Janeway many pages back. and I cannot agree that Mulgrew was better.  I could have played a better Janeway.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 23, 2014, 11:05:10 PM
Easily googled, so why make anyone search the thread?

Nicole Janeway vs Kathryn Janeway 1/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pgAFV2YxLQ#)

Nicole Janeway vs Kathryn Janeway 2/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NANUpPaiGG8#)

Keep in mind that Bujold is poorly served with scenes that haven't been polished in post-production compaired to ones that were.  It's a more subtle reading of the part than we got from Mulgrew, who struck a pose every time Janeway gave an order for two years.  Her's was an easier to follow performance, not a better one.  Everything she did was pure soap opera, in the very worst sense.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 24, 2014, 05:29:00 PM
I understand Cpt. Jellico has died.

(http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/movies/2014-03-23/1c2055c0-b2b6-11e3-9048-53312666a592_TheGame.JPG)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 25, 2014, 06:47:56 PM
Quote
Warnog, official Klingon beer launched by Star Trek, with 'notes of clove, banana and caramel'
The craggily foreheaded warrior race from Star Trek now have an alcoholic drink to call their own, following the launch of Vulcan Ale last year
Ben Beaumont-Thomas
theguardian.com, Tuesday 25 March 2014 07.51 EDT   


([url]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/25/1395747807614/Klingon-beer-002.jpg[/url])
This means Warnog … the official Klingon beer.



Star Trek's warrior race the Klingons may be more famed for drinking the alarmingly red bloodwine in outer space, but on Earth at least, they have a new official booze of choice: Warnog, a beer with notes of clove, banana and caramel.

The Federation of Beer, a Canadian company who have an official partnership with the Star Trek franchise, has commissioned the 'Roggen Dunkel' style ale, to be brewed at the Tin Man Brewing Company in Indiana. It's their second themed beer, following their Vulcan Ale last year, an Irish Red chosen to match the red planet of Vulcan where Spock hails from.

Warnog "incorporates rye malt into a modern Dunkelweizen grain bill, creating a flavor profile that is both familiar and unique," the Federation explains in a statement. "Warnog's aroma is predominantly mild banana and clove produced by the German wheat yeast, supported by subtle sweet malt character from the use of Munich malt. The flavor draws heavily from the blending of the rye malt and traditional clove character, creating a very rich and unique flavor. The inclusion of wheat and caramel malts help to round out the mouthfeel of this beer, making this Dunkelweizen hearty enough to be called a Klingon Warnog." Warnog was drunk by Klingons in both The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine TV series.

It's perhaps appropriate that a race in thrall to opera and the works of Shakespeare should have such a nuanced flavour profile to their beer, though some aren't convinced that these warriors would care for a sweet taste. "A real Klingon would probably be more into blood and steel flavors, something that tastes like more like victory and less like wheat," argues Amanda Kooser at CNET.

There are still plenty of potential beverages for the Federation to get through – as well as a Romulan ale that is being planned for brewing next year, 'The Definative [sic] Guide To Star Trek Drinks' has found many more besides. Chech'tluth is a potent and smoking Klingon beverage served in 2365 to the leader of the Bringloidi, while Raktajino is Klingon coffee that becomes a hit amongst various races – the shows' writers would print in-jokes onto the Raktajino packets, such as '100% Colombian' or 'Made from the Green Hills of Earth', a reference to sci-fi author Robert Heinlein. There are also multiple recipes for bloodwine, (including one that begins "heat 18 quarts of blood in a large cauldron") perfect for serving in bloodwine cups that are for sale on Etsy.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/mar/25/star-trek-warnog-official-klingon-beer (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/mar/25/star-trek-warnog-official-klingon-beer)

No prune juice?

I have an opinion about Klingon fans.  ;goofy;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 25, 2014, 06:49:28 PM
Real fans hold out for Saurian Brandy...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 25, 2014, 06:49:47 PM
Or Tranya...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on March 26, 2014, 05:06:54 AM
Or Fijian Kava. ;cute
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 26, 2014, 05:09:41 AM
No, Fiji -and things thereof- sux.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on March 26, 2014, 06:19:04 AM
No, Fiji -and things thereof- sux.

I'm afraid my expertise on this matter is superior to yours.
You're wrong - not all things related to Fiji suck. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 26, 2014, 06:50:57 AM
 Well, Nugog does, and Kava is nothing to do with ST. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on March 26, 2014, 07:27:46 AM
You only achieved half of a full score there. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 26, 2014, 08:17:29 AM
Some obscure thing from Fake Star Track don't count.

And $#@! Nugog.
Title: On the Very First Star Trek #1
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 27, 2014, 05:43:39 PM
This is the first half of page 1 of 6, if you're interested...

Quote
On the Very First Star Trek #1
by Julian Darius | in Articles | Mon, 13 May 2013


([url]http://sequart.org/images/Star-Trek-Gold-Key-1-200x300.jpg[/url])
Star Trek (Gold Key) #1 (July 1967)



Star Trek has a long history in comics. In fact, the very first Star Trek comic book began in 1967, at the end of the original series’s very first season.

This first series was published by Gold Key, an imprint of Western Publishing founded only five years before, in 1962. Gold Key experimented with the comics format, initially using rectangular word balloons and thought bubbles, to give their comics a sleeker feeling for a new era. Although Gold Key abandoned this, it produced big black-and-white hardcover reprints and slimmer original hardcovers, aiming at the book and department store market in a manner that prefigured the rise of the graphic novel.

Perhaps aiming at this wider audience, the publisher was known for its remarkably array of licensed properties. It’s hard to imagine a better staple of child-oriented fare than characters licensed from Disney (Uncle Scrooge), Warner Bros. (Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck), Hannah-Barbera (The Flintstones), and Universal (Woody Woodpecker). But Gold Key also published characters licensed from King Features Syndicate (like Flash Gordon and The Phantom) and plenty of titles drawn from TV, including The Three Stooges, My Favorite Martian, Ripley’s Believe It or Not, and even The Twilight Zone.

Yes, and also Star Trek.

Gold Key not only began Star Trek in 1967, when the TV show hadn’t even been on the air for a year. But Gold Key kept publishing Star Trek comics after the TV show was canceled in 1969. The comics series continued through the 1973-1974 Star Trek animated series, outlasting it too. Gold Key’s series finally came to an end in 1979 (#61, Mar 1979) — almost a decade after the original series had aired its final episode. The comic wasn’t cancelled due to low sales, but rather because Gold Key lost the Star Trek license to Marvel, on the eve of the first Star Trek movie (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which debuted on 7 Dec 1979).

In comparison, the first original Trek novel (Mack Reynolds’s Mission to Horatius, which featured illustrations by Sparky Moore) was published in 1968. It was the only such novel published while the original series was airing. The next (James Blish’s Spock Must Die!) didn’t appear until 1970. The next appeared in 1976, after the animated series was also off the air. Trek novels have been appearing regularly ever since, often enough to great attention and occasional acclaim.

But Trek comics? They were a part of Star Trek almost from the start.

Most Gold Key covers were painted, helping to make its comics visually distinctive next to the line art of other publishers’ covers. Instead, the first nine issues of Star Trek featured stylish photo-collage covers that were no less distinctive. Particularly successful was the multiple, differently colored Enterprises on the cover of issue #4 (June 1969), with text describing the story inside running across the cover along the same rising line as the ships. So too was the cover for issue #7 (Mar 1970), with a purple Spock gazing upward, while Kirk and Bones stare out from colored trapezoidal panels, joined between them by an orange line like some sort of mod, 1960s light fixture. Beginning with issue #10 (May 1971), Gold Key’s typical painted covers began, although with tiny photos of Kirk and Spock as a visual reminder of the original series (at least until #45, July 1977, when those too disappeared).


([url]http://sequart.org/images/Star-Trek-Gold-Key-7-Mar-1970-199x300.jpg[/url])
Star Trek (Gold Key) #4 (June 1969) Star Trek (Gold Key) #7 (Mar 1970)


In fact, almost everything about the series’s presentation was stylish. The comic didn’t use the original series’s on-screen logo — which wasn’t nearly so iconic then. Instead, the comic had its own version of the Star Trek logo — a jazzy, wild thing that seemed to pivot along a central line, defined by a tiny, silhouetted Enterprise’s route.

Rounding out the comic, in the early issues, was photographic material from the show. In the first issue, for example, the inside front cover presents an image of the Enterprise herself and brief text adapting (sacrilege!) the voice-over heard during the opening titles. It’s a particularly stylish way of recapping the series’s premise (fulfilling the same function Marvel later did with awkward boxes at the top of its comics’ first pages). The inside back cover presented a couple photos along with text about Kirk’s greatness and the crew’s loyalty to him, in the style of a movie photo book. (The text incorrectly states that the ship’s crew numbers into the “thousands.”) The back cover is a rather suggestive image of Kirk, framed on the top and bottom by stylish, angled color swaths.


([url]http://sequart.org/images/Star-Trek-Gold-Key-1-inside-back-cover-e1364437386486-197x300.jpg[/url])
Star Trek (Gold Key) #1 inside front cover Star Trek (Gold Key) #1 inside back cover Star Trek (Gold Key) #1 back cover


The Gold Key Star Trek stories had a unique format. Running 22-26 pages (a number that diminished over time), each story was broken into two parts (roughly of equal length). This break doesn’t add much, although occasionally it can feel like a representation of a commercial break, as if one is reading two acts out of a half-hour show (which is usually broken into three or even four acts, each separated by a commercial).

Each story also began with a splash page, teasing what would happen later in the tale, before jumping backwards to show how this situation developed. Silver Age DC comics often used this same device, frequently using the opening splash page as a kind of second cover, teasing the drama that was to come. Technically, Gold Key Star Trek comics would abandon the splash page, since it broke that first page up into multiple panels — but these first pages, despite having multiple panels, continued to jump forward in time and tease the story to come until Gold Key’s final issue.

While this device is rooted in comic books, it has a special resonance with Star Trek, which sometimes featured teasers — the brief segment before the title sequence — that were quite shocking and seemed to radically upset the status quo. One example is “The Enterprise Incident” (which aired as episode two of season three), which opens with Kirk, appearing somewhat emotionally disturbed, ordering the ship into the Neutral Zone against Federation law, where the ship’s quickly surrounded by Romulan ships. True, such episodes don’t then flashback to reveal how they got into these extraordinary situations — instead, these details are provided through revelations as the story unfolds, without flashback. Nonetheless, the opening flash-forward page of Gold Key’s Trek comics can, at best, produce some of the same sense of dislocation for the audience that some classic Trek episodes did.

Early Trek stories, outside of the original series, are often fascinating for how different they are from the show — which wasn’t yet considered a beloved touchstone of American culture and certainly wasn’t available on demand for all to see at their convenience. Even the animated series — which was endorsed by Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, starred almost the entire original cast as voice actors, and even featured some of the original series writers (such as D. C. Fontana) — took liberties, adding force field belts to avoid animating space suits, casually inserted a holodeck onto Kirk’s Enterprise, and featured an episode (“The Slaver Weapon,” by Larry Niven) that massively rewrote the galaxy’s entire history in ways that would (thankfully) never be mentioned again.

But then again, the original series didn’t see itself as sacred either. Roddenberry refused to pin down when the series was set, preferring to keep it ambiguous, and several inconsistent references resulted. There’s a lot of silliness too — and not just the god-like beings that pop up every few episodes, nor people after Spock’s brain. Indeed, one of the things that separates the original series from its later spin-offs — besides that almost every episode, with a musical signal, goes into hand-to-hand combat mode at some point — is the original series’s humor. Part of the show’s charm was that, for all its intelligence and philosophizing, it never took itself too seriously.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that the first Trek comic series differed from the original series we remember (or think we do).

For one thing, the series’s first artist was the Italian artist Alberto Giolitti, who had never viewed the show and used publicity photos as reference. He didn’t have a photo for Scotty (played by James Doohan), so he essentially recast the role!

When artists had to invent a design for a car or a ship from scratch, knowing Star Trek was set in the future, they frequently designed sleek and futuristic vehicles — that often seemed powered by rockets. Such designs seemed to belong more to Gold Key’s Flash Gordon. Vehicle design on Star Trek, while often brilliant, also tended toward the boxy — because physical models of ships had to be glued together, often on the cheap, and filmed. Seeing a sleek hover-car that could be made of glass blows the whole aesthetic.


([url]http://sequart.org/images/Star-Trek-61-page-e1364479874265.jpg[/url])
from Star Trek (Gold Key) #61
http://sequart.org/magazine/20548/on-the-very-first-star-trek-1/ (http://sequart.org/magazine/20548/on-the-very-first-star-trek-1/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 27, 2014, 06:28:07 PM
"The Slaver Weapon" was the first official crossover, as far as I know, since Larry Niven's Known Space series was already established. It may have clashed with previous canon, but it did give Alan Dean Foster the opportunity to write a heckuva good adaptation, and add new material to make a fun novel.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 27, 2014, 06:38:48 PM
Niven was unhappy about that adaption being in print, competing with the original...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 10, 2014, 10:49:58 PM
Trailer: The Green Girl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Feb1wioCA_8#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on April 10, 2014, 11:00:29 PM
Niven was unhappy about that adaption being in print, competing with the original...
He shouldn't have been. He probably got a lot of sales out of it, from people who otherwise wouldn't have looked twice at his books, if they even noticed them at all.

I get rather annoyed at SF writers who sneer at Star Trek, since if I'd never been a Star Trek fan, I wouldn't ever have started reading science fiction novels. I started out with the best stuff, btw - Heinlein, Clarke, Bradbury, and went on from there. I'd include Asimov, but I was more into his science essays than his fiction.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 10, 2014, 11:05:39 PM
That wasn't the problem with Niven - he's totally a fan.  He just wasn't thrilled to have Foster's adaption out there.  Business is business, after all, and Niven takes the business he's in seriously.  I think he felt a little screwed over by a rights loophole, and I may have given the impression he's more put out than he seems to be; but he's a somewhat low-affect fellow, and it's hard to tell.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on April 10, 2014, 11:21:02 PM
Yeah, I get that authors have to look out for themselves first. But some of them do it the wrong way, if they want fans to have any sympathy for them. I've read some of Niven's books, exactly because I first read Alan Dean Foster's adaptation. There was no competition. I bought both authors' books.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 11, 2014, 01:53:57 AM
Google is my friend...

Quote
Urban Myth: Legal Issues Behind the "The Slaver Weapon"
by Greg Tyler
November 22, 2006


One popular myth among Star Trek fans is that there was a legal entanglement between Larry Niven and the producers of the animated Star Trek television series over the episode "The Slaver Weapon." This episode, written by Niven, features the Kzinti, a felinoid species reminiscent of the Kzinti from Niven's Known Space series of novels and short stories.

In December 2002, to learn the truth behind the myth, I contacted Larry Niven through his web site and asked him directly. Here was his reply (email addresses removed):


From : email address removed
 Sent : Friday, December 20, 2002 2:04 PM
 To : email address removed
 Subject : Thank You for using my FAQ

Here is my answer to your question:
 You asked me: I'm a Star Trek fan, and I wanted to ask about what could possibly be nothing more than an urban myth.

Is there some kind of legal controversy surrounding "The Slaver Weapon," an episode of the animated Star Trek television series?

Thanks!

My response:
 "The Slaver Weapon" was adapted, with permission, from Niven's story "The Soft Weapon." Then "The Slaver Weapon was novelized in Star Trek Log Ten into a short Story by Foster. Niven has gotten all the credit he deserves for having written the original story. He may not have been thrilled about the re-adaptation, but AFAIK, there isn't any legal battle looming.

Larry has this to say:

The sequence went like this:
 I published "The Soft Weapon", a novelet.
 Gene Rodenberry suggested I turn it into a Star Trek animation. Hence "The Slaver Weapon".
 The company sold novelization rights to Ballantine Books.
 Alan Dean Foster did the novelization.
 So I wound up competing with myself, and I find that annoying, but no legal action was ever threatened nor taken.

Larry Niven

Thanks to Larry Niven and the webmaster of Larry Niven's web site for sharing this information.

http://trekplace.com/article19.html (http://trekplace.com/article19.html)

...

I do believe, reading between the lines, that Niven may be too much of a gentleman to publically comment on what he thinks of the quality of Foster's work.  This is a low-confidence guess, however.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valjiir1 on April 11, 2014, 02:01:06 AM
To coin a phrase - fascinating! Sounds like Susan Oliver was one of the first "liberated" women in Hollywood.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 11, 2014, 02:02:05 AM
I think I WOULD like to see that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on April 15, 2014, 12:46:03 AM
Just randomly noticed the trek cartoon is on netflix...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 15, 2014, 01:10:37 AM
Ooh!   ;excite;

Mylochka has them all on disk, but still.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on April 15, 2014, 10:52:50 PM
I'm still really enjoying your sigline every time I visit. I just like to watch.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on April 15, 2014, 10:53:59 PM
My Spud is faster!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 15, 2014, 10:56:38 PM
You want Spud shooting a Klingon?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on April 15, 2014, 10:59:13 PM
No, thank you. Spud may be a biker, but he's a pacifist biker.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2014, 12:00:11 AM
I'm still really enjoying your sigline every time I visit. I just like to watch.
:D  ;nod
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on April 28, 2014, 11:02:35 PM
So, I decided to kill some time looking at star trek online...

They ran with the new movies' storyline with the romulans world blowing up...and used the opportunity to totally rewrite anything I had learned about the romulans. 

The Klingon storyline is similarly...odd.  They absorbed the Gorn and Naussican (spelling, don't really know them off hand) and...um, someone else.   Orions? 

Anyway, these are all playable, and regular crewmen on Klingon vessels now...I just don't really see that happening.  Since I'm playing a Gorn captain, the storyline makes no sense in spots that deal with Klingon religion crap.  I scrapped all my Klingon officers and am running with a full Gorn crew.  Unfortunately the Gorn ships are 'premium' which I'd consider if they weren't EXPENSIVE. 

The game itself...the ground missions are cliche, but the space battles are entertaining. 

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on April 29, 2014, 12:41:12 AM
I've only played the game a little.  Have barely got though the training mission...  Friends asked me to create replicas of the uniforms, so I had to do a little research.

http://fav.me/d3aau69 (http://fav.me/d3aau69)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 15, 2014, 12:25:49 AM
(http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/star-trek-spock1.jpg)

No reason, except I love Spock.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlaneckW on May 15, 2014, 05:42:09 AM
Everyone loves Spock.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 15, 2014, 07:06:52 AM
And it goes really, really well with your sigline.

"Live long and prosper"  "... Romulans, not that long. "
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 15, 2014, 01:02:13 PM
I let them escape this time. ;nod
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 15, 2014, 05:18:31 PM
Everyone loves Spock.
Everyone.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 15, 2014, 09:05:03 PM
Not Sylar-Spock.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 15, 2014, 09:12:13 PM
Correct, sir.

Why do we love the real Spock so much?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 15, 2014, 09:36:10 PM
Because he had enough presence of mind to keep his shirt on? ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on May 15, 2014, 09:39:09 PM
In the seventies? As an alien?? I bet he'd be lynched if he didn't!!! :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 15, 2014, 09:39:53 PM
Because he had enough presence of mind to keep his shirt on? ;)
Sorry to do this to you, but it's my duty as a nerd.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2486/4126507346_7bc64f7d8f.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 15, 2014, 09:43:23 PM
Because he was wise  enough to know what it was that he didn't know.
For example, if he had Counselor Troi, he would have made good use of her every episode.



I have no problem with that. I remember.  He stayed in shape.

I also know that he was a fast learner, and switched out of red shirts to blue in the opening scenes to improve his survival chances.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 15, 2014, 10:36:18 PM
Most of all, I love him for this-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZlWmYe8HM4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZlWmYe8HM4)

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 15, 2014, 10:48:04 PM
Embedding works if you take the s out of https:  I don't understand why, either.

Civilization IV: "In The Beginning" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZlWmYe8HM4#)

Good narration.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 16, 2014, 12:10:05 AM
Correct, sir.

Why do we love the real Spock so much?

He was a reasonably believable alien.  The first, IIRC, and quite possibly the best one ever put on screen.  90% of trek aliens are humans in makeup, virtually no distinctive characteristics to differentiate them.  (We've been watching TNG again lately, and come to realize the Romulans are the most HUMAN characters on TNG)  Spock was that just enough off, yet not totally unapproachable perfect combination.  And most importantly, Nimoy NAILED it.  Even the crap he was given, he NAILED his part. 

Sylar-Spock really showed he COULD do the job (haven't seen the second movie, so just based on his acting ability in the first), but whoever wrote the whole yo momma joke bs that turned Sylar-Spock into a raging inferno ready to go off any second was an idiot. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 16, 2014, 12:21:19 AM
I thought Sylar was playing Tuvok, not Spock.  Think it over; his "Spock" was a peevish unlikeable [male member], like his annoyance at humans was showing all the time, not the deep, shy trying-to-be-cold real Spock we admire.

I think we love Spock partly because he's a heroic figure.  He gets results, he has superpowers, he works hard.  He's different, as you say, but in a way you can wrap your head around easily.  It's a credible attempt at suggesting alienness within the limits of 60's TV, but the issues Spock struggles with -self control, trying to be the person he wants to be, alienation in the lonely sense- are ones the target audience, us nerdz, can really get behind.

I am Spock.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 16, 2014, 12:36:39 AM
Sylar was just pissed ALL THE TIME.  And it was WRITTEN that way.  Can't fault the actor. 

Tuvock...I'd have to rewatch that.  (unlikely)  I thought he was one of the better parts of that show. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 16, 2014, 12:39:56 AM
Disagree.

Still the same basic personality, if you can stand to watch some Voyager...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 16, 2014, 12:41:59 AM
Have you seen the latest movie?  Do I even want to redbox it?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlaneckW on May 16, 2014, 12:43:45 AM
Have you seen the latest movie?  Do I even want to redbox it?
If you are referring to "into darkness", it wasn't quite the blah action film like the one before.  I would compare the plot to that of a cold war film or something, more than Star Trek.  Khan is Afghanistan.  Lots of wordy 'virtuous' talk/conceptualization and plot symbolism along with it's action, to try and resemble star Trek morality play or something.  If you want that, then get it.  Heck, it was better than Quantum of Solace...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 16, 2014, 12:53:04 AM
Haven't seen it, don't want to, and hate that thing that happened in New York slimeing my escapist fantasies.  I wish they'd stop that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlaneckW on May 16, 2014, 01:00:31 AM
I think they are trying to sell movies, but the second film redeemed somewhat what they are doing with the license.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 16, 2014, 01:18:55 AM
hate that thing that happened in New York slimeing my escapist fantasies.  I wish they'd stop that.
Passionately.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlaneckW on May 16, 2014, 05:09:05 AM
hate that thing that happened in New York slimeing my escapist fantasies.  I wish they'd stop that.
Passionately.[/quote]
I found the affluence rather revolting.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 16, 2014, 05:14:09 AM
Beg pardon?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlaneckW on May 16, 2014, 05:16:47 AM
Beg pardon?
The affluence of Star Trek, New York in into darkness.  I found it distasteful.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Impaler on May 17, 2014, 05:32:17 AM
Disagree.

Still the same basic personality, if you can stand to watch some Voyager...

By freakish coincidence when I was attending an Organic Gardening Fair in Asheville one day I was wearing my 'Many Moods of Spock' T-shirt (all the same picture, get it) and a Vendor saw in and started chatting with me about Trek, jumps to Voyager and the and then pointedly asks to what I though of the character Tuvok. 

I have to answer in all honest that Tuvok was (with the possible exception of Harry Kim) the most boringly written characters ever in Trek, he's ALWAYS in this narrow mold of being the 'pure' Vulcan and never gets to show any emotion and never has any growth as a character through the series.  In contrast Nelix and The-Doctor are radically different at the end of the series which puts them slightly above the morass which is Voyager.

Well it turns out the vendor is the brother of Tim Russ (the Actor who played Tuvok), feeling a bit embarrassed now that I've kind of trashed his brother I assure him that it's the fault of the writers and Rick Berman in particular (guys named Rick screw up everything, see Microsoft).  Also the vendor was selling some fufu mango-sunscreen lotion stuff, which in hind sight might have been a good buy as we did end up getting sunburn when working in the garden.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 17, 2014, 06:13:38 AM
See, I think the biggest 'problem' with Tuvok was that he was never given a foil.  Spock wouldn't have been SPOCK without McCoy.  Tuvok had nothing, save some irregular banter with Neelix later in the series.   

No, Chakotay easily takes the prize for worst Voyager character.  HOW the hell does the Chakotay of episode 1, badass hardcore Maquis terrorist/idealist with serious issues against the federation suddenly become this ideal by the book starfleet second in command by the end of the second episode?  WHAT the sam hell kind of crap was that?  And he just DISAPPEARS after that... except for the EMBARRASSING episode on Native American spirits. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 17, 2014, 03:08:30 PM
As someone said of Voyager on TrekBBS a few months ago, Voyager was all about missed opportunities...

I may have a lot more to say when I wake up...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Impaler on May 19, 2014, 05:28:46 AM
Well if your judging my missed opportunity in the characters basic premise, then yes Chakotay takes the cake in the sense that what should have been a 7 year transition from Maqui rebel to a prim and proper Star-fleet Officer took place in 7 minutes, after which their was nothing left to develop, the other 'rebellious' characters in the crew Paris and B'Elanna at least took a while to really fall in line.

But contrast that with Harry Kim, a character with absolutely NO dramatic potential right from the get go, he was always going to just be the competent yet self-doubting, shy yet friendly stereotypical Asian male.  For me he is absolutely the worst character in Voyager because he literally fades into the background, can you honestly name anything he ever DID, not just done TOO him, something he actually did that was pivotal to the plot.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlaneckW on May 19, 2014, 09:15:02 AM
Oh who really wants to be a rebel anyway.  The maqui are only rebels because they want to kick the cardassians out.  I find it more surprising that everyone buys into the whole get-all-the-way-back-to-earth thing.  I certainly wouldn't.  If we aren't being racist, there are plenty of species to throw your lot in with - like the borg.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 19, 2014, 03:13:14 PM
The Gamma Quadrant was packed with lame aliens.  The villains on that show were weak, if we leave the Borg out - and I'd argue that they suck, too.

Well if your judging my missed opportunity in the characters basic premise, then yes Chakotay takes the cake in the sense that what should have been a 7 year transition from Maqui rebel to a prim and proper Star-fleet Officer took place in 7 minutes, after which their was nothing left to develop, the other 'rebellious' characters in the crew Paris and B'Elanna at least took a while to really fall in line.

But contrast that with Harry Kim, a character with absolutely NO dramatic potential right from the get go, he was always going to just be the competent yet self-doubting, shy yet friendly stereotypical Asian male.  For me he is absolutely the worst character in Voyager because he literally fades into the background, can you honestly name anything he ever DID, not just done TOO him, something he actually did that was pivotal to the plot.
I liked Kim at first.  Hey, he was me only nicer - getting to serve on the Enterprise, overwhelmed by it all - only he never grew to the next stage.  The writers didn't know what to do with him and the actor wasn't very good.  Burned through the newb arch in a season or two, and never had anything else to offer.

Now, Paris and Torres are other sorts of missed opportunities, but I don't want thrash that out first thing in the morning.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 19, 2014, 04:59:52 PM
I thought Sylar was playing Tuvok, not Spock.  Think it over; his "Spock" was a peevish unlikeable [male member], like his annoyance at humans was showing all the time, not the deep, shy trying-to-be-cold real Spock we admire.

I think we love Spock partly because he's a heroic figure.  He gets results, he has superpowers, he works hard.  He's different, as you say, but in a way you can wrap your head around easily.  It's a credible attempt at suggesting alienness within the limits of 60's TV, but the issues Spock struggles with -self control, trying to be the person he wants to be, alienation in the lonely sense- are ones the target audience, us nerdz, can really get behind.

I am Spock.

That sounds logical.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 19, 2014, 05:27:49 PM
 ;spock
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on May 21, 2014, 04:31:33 AM
The Gamma Quadrant was packed with lame aliens.  The villains on that show were weak, if we leave the Borg out - and I'd argue that they suck, too.

Even TNG had this problem. VOY just took it over the top. I think they called it "plastic forehead of the week".

You would think there would be vastly different aliens other than just humanoids with weird heads.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 21, 2014, 04:35:06 AM
Yep, yep, yep and yep.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 22, 2014, 05:00:15 AM
ALL scifi has the funny forehead problem, frankly.  And there's nothing wrong with making a creature of the weak series either (see early xfiles).  But make them interesting creature of the weeks. 

In all honesty, I can't remember a single alien from voyager outside the crew. 

Oh, well, there was Fear the clown, he made me laugh.   
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2014, 05:01:33 AM
creature of the weak series
That's Voyager all over...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 22, 2014, 05:04:55 AM
creature of the weak series
That's Voyager all over...
You could describe the original series the same way.   
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2014, 05:08:13 AM
No.  No I could not.

They only met makeup people, not forehead people.  And this part of the galaxy is full of parallel Earths, for some reason.

You don't even know real ST well enough to insult it right.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 22, 2014, 05:14:57 AM
It was a creature of the week show.  What form that creature takes doesn't really matter. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlaneckW on May 22, 2014, 05:16:30 AM
You don't even know real ST well enough to insult it right.
Episodes were more atomized, but you didn't need to have Janeway remind you every five minutes that they are explorers.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 22, 2014, 04:12:40 PM


They only met makeup people, not forehead people.  And this part of the galaxy is full of parallel Earths, for some reason.


Yes, that would be my impression/ characterization. Except for Tribbles and the silicon based mine monster. Sounds like budget issues, doesn't it?

Has Fan Fiction or anything else come up with a backstory? You know, all of the "Earth-type planets" were seeded or colonized or something by a dying civilization?  "The Athenians", or something of the sort, which fell prey to the Romulans, or a super-Nova?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 22, 2014, 04:15:53 PM

Has Fan Fiction or anything else come up with a backstory? You know, all of the "Earth-type planets" were seeded or colonized or something by a dying civilization?  "The Athenians", or something of the sort, which fell prey to the Romulans, or a super-Nova?


There's a TNG episode that is pretty much that, exactly, though I forget what killed off the civilization in question. 

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Chase_(episode) (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Chase_(episode))
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2014, 04:22:51 PM
Real ST did it first - Sargon's people in Return to Tomorrow, and the Preservers who put generic Native Americans on the planet in The Paradise Syndrome.  No indication whether the two are connected, though I'd bet that way.

It was a creature of the week show.
Disagree.

It was sometimes a creature of the week show - if that had been the case in general, they'd have had more rubber suits - the Horta, the Salt Vampire and the Gorn being the exception, not the rule.  The Mugatu counts, too, despite the fur, and maybe the little puppets at the end of Catspaw.  The Tellerites when they appeared.  You can't come up with a lot more rubber suits, because I think I just nearly swept the table - maybe one tenth of the episodes.

No, the typical alien was a funny color and/or had space hair, occasionally funny ears, but most often was indistinguishable from an Earth human if they even dressed funny.

The Enterprise explored Strange New Worlds, and encountered space monsters, sure.  But the worlds/aliens weren't very imaginative as mainstream science fiction, Star Trek being heavily influenced by Twilight Zone before it, and being more about ideas and being science fiction in a very old Swiftian tradition - holding up a mirror to the issues of the day in which it was made.

Now, The Outer Limits, to name something almost contemporary, was definitely monster of the week, and so did Lost in Space become.




They only met makeup people, not forehead people.  And this part of the galaxy is full of parallel Earths, for some reason.


Yes, that would be my impression/ characterization. Except for Tribbles and the silicon based mine monster. Sounds like budget issues, doesn't it?

Has Fan Fiction or anything else come up with a backstory? You know, all of the "Earth-type planets" were seeded or colonized or something by a dying civilization?  "The Athenians", or something of the sort, which fell prey to the Romulans, or a super-Nova?
I've said before in the Valjirr thread, that there's a good fanfic idea in there.  Cher had actually already done a little something on those lines, though I don't know much about it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 22, 2014, 04:30:12 PM
You're too obsessed with the costuming.  Makeup, rubber suit, body paint, doesn't matter, a creature of the week doesn't really matter appearance.  Supernatural's first two seasons are no more than a creature of the week, and every other episode is insert ghost of the week.  The difference is in the interesting uniqueness of the individual creatures.  TOS had originality going for it, Supernatural has unique back stories going for it.  Voyager had...cliche after cliche. 

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2014, 04:54:40 PM
I am NOT too obsessed with costuming - creatively, they actually should have been a lot bolder with outrageous clothes and strange hair, but they knew the audience would freak if they went too alien/futurey.

Right on about Voyager, though.  One of the villain races was fat space polluters.  That was their entire hook.

And, appallingly, they used those guys more than once.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 22, 2014, 05:05:06 PM
I read those episodes. Thanks, guys.
Strangely, I remember the Original episodes, which I wasn't allowed to watch at the time, but saw as late night re-runs in the late 70's ( although I tended to doze ).
I watched Next Generation weekly, but don't remember that episode.

To quote myself "That makes more sense of the Universe".
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2014, 05:15:33 PM
The alien in the TNG episode The Chase that Uno referred to was projection of a very long-dead humanoid, looking a bit like a bald Odo.

I would submit that with all the aliens that look exactly like Earth humans, it's unlikely that so much parallel evolution happened to look like each other so much more than the source race that claims to has seeded the galaxy, but then the Preservers may have been a separate group and Sargon's people really didn't have noses.  We know the Preservers were active as recently as a thousand years or so ago, or the Native Americans they transplanted would have had time to develop a culture and style of dress not so recognizably a generic Hollywood version of Native American.

Betcha the Preservers were behind all the parallel Earths, and are human themselves - best reason I can think of to take so much interest in humans.  Earth is probably not the original, you know...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on May 22, 2014, 05:41:44 PM
The alien in the TNG episode The Chase that Uno referred to was projection of a very long-dead humanoid, looking a bit like a bald Odo.

Same actress as the female evil odo, iirc. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2014, 05:47:28 PM
It's unfortunate that they recycled actors as much as they did, but then ST used Dianna Muldar twice, and she was all wrong for Is There in Truth No Beauty?...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2014, 05:56:24 PM
Star Trek - Taking Control of Kirk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6P9tfiZ98k#)



58 3x03 - Star Trek - TOS - The Paradise Syndrome Commentary - SciFi Channel Special Edition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojVA2fS42-M#)
(Start about 3 minutes in.)



Star Trek The Next Generation (The Chase 1993) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbHGYlB7208#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2014, 06:53:29 PM
I'm listening to that Paradise Syndrome vid while I work on various things, and at 19:40, Miramanee reveals that her people have historical memory of contact with "the Wise Ones."

Quote
The Wise Ones brought us here from far away.  They chose a medicine chief to keep the temple - and to use it when the sky darkens.

There's more on the Preservers towards the end of the episode after Spock gets zapped...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2014, 10:50:56 PM
Correction: if Spock got zapped and learned anything about the Preservers, it got cut out of the vid.  I don't have the entire series memorized.

Yet.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Impaler on May 23, 2014, 02:12:40 AM
If were defining a 'Creature of the week' show as something like Lost-in-Space (or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, which would frequently reuse the same rubber suit used the week earlier on Lost-in-Space), then yes I would agree that TOS was not THAT shlock. 

I think yall are arguing over DEGREE of creature usage, the one-dimensionality of a 'MONSTER' type creature, and the CENTRALITY of the weeks creature to the plot.  In the full out Lost-in-Space level show the Creature is not any kind of allegory, it's just a Monster or some kind of whimsical creature that needs to be dealt with, dealing with it is the whole of the plot.  TOS never had a creature that flat and simplistic, even the Gorn were an allegory.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 23, 2014, 02:47:04 AM
Yes.

...

Related to what I said earlier, has anyone realized the implication of Miramanee's people thinking "Kiroc" was a god because he was a stranger who came from the "temple"?

Consider the following observations:

Mirmanee said they had been brought there from far away - the Preservers didn't just knock them out and they woke up in a strange land with a strange night sky - they were told something.

No actual description of the "Wise ones" - but nothing about them being extra-mysterious or hidden, either.

I already said why I think they're advanced humans, noting that there's unmodified humans all over the place - most of them looking European-descended, BTW.

The People don't seem to have developed much of a religion around the Preservers.  Spock thought he recognized three tribes the population was probably derived from, looking across the lake.  -Again, evidence of recent transplantation.  I think it was only 400 years ago, maybe as little as 300, roughly when European diseases started decimating native populations all over North America before most of them even heard of white people.  There may have also been a cultural preservation motive in the mix.

Kirk is white.

In The Omega Glory, a parallel Earth (didn't look like Earth from orbit, like Miri's planet) with an America w/ identical-looking constitution and Asian communists who fought a biological WWIII, one Komm's father was alleged to be over 1,000.  If true, this means the paraAmerica with that We The People constitution was 800 years, minimum, ahead of Earth...  !!!

You'd think that even if you set up parallel societies, you'd want to check back in on them from time to time, whatever the reason for setting them up.  Long-term projects, though not as long-term as terraforming.  Note Miri's planet, and that there are an INSANE number of really hospitable Class M planets around that look exactly like Northern California ranches.  And whoever made the Shore Leave planet made the Keeper looking like a tall old white Human.

Naturally, when Miramnee's people saw the white man come from the temple, they called him a god, because they meant Preserver.



My conclusion?  The Preservers aren't only human, they're so recently active that they're probably still around, and may be a known race concealing their sophistication and power.  Miramanee's people met some of them, and found them pale, but not so strange as to have appearances worthy of mention in her brief account.  They may be well on their way to evolving to the Organian/Metron stage, or not.  (Sargon's people had gotten part of the way...)  Probably Gary Seven's backers, too...

Earth is one of the Preservers' experiments/projects.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Impaler on May 23, 2014, 04:23:08 AM
I don't think we can really fit any of the numerous "Earth equivalent" episodes of TOS into any kind of logical canon, they are fun episodes sure, but they simply were not written with any sense of continuity or coherence with the wider 'Federation/Alpha Quadrant' history, in TOS only the recurrent races like Klingons, Vulcans and Romulans were written with an eye towards canon.

The episodes with an Earth equivalents for example that planet full of Romans, or the one converted to Nazism would today be written with Time-travel as  the premise of finding another Earth will not pause the giggle test on a modern Sci-fi audience.  Even TOS learned this lesson and started to produce much more enduring episodes like COEF.

In contrast every TNG rubber forehead alien got at-least a little continuity consideration, generally their own planet/culture/language that might have 'interesting parallels' to Earth history to make for unsubtle allegories, but wasn't a blatant copy.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 23, 2014, 04:27:40 AM
Very different budgets is the bottom line for the difference - but why spoil the fun with reality? 

I think my hypothesis holds together really well...  Not as well as my Theory of ST Artificial Gravity last year, but nothing does.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Lorizael on May 24, 2014, 03:25:37 PM
I've got a theory about the Prime Directive. A lot of people complain that it basically makes the Federation into moral cowards, but there's a way to interpret it (and a few other things) that makes the Federation come off quite well.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 24, 2014, 05:12:53 PM
I think I know where you're going with this, but I'd like to hear your version.  Give.

...

The TNG episode where the little girl on a dying planet contacted Data WAS moral cowardice.  Picard decided WRONG.  The Prime Directive is for the protection of primitive less technologically sophisticated peoples, and when THEY. ARE. ALL. GOING. TO. DIE., simply doesn't apply.  Kirk would have saved them, not least because he had better writers.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 24, 2014, 06:10:01 PM
Well, perhaps The Prime Directive was because of the time Dr. McCoy jumped into the time vortex and saved the life of Joan Collins, with dire consequences.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 24, 2014, 06:13:33 PM
It was already in place by then, I think.

Where was the first mention of the PD, ST scholars?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Lorizael on May 24, 2014, 09:54:05 PM
I think I know where you're going with this, but I'd like to hear your version.  Give.

...

The TNG episode where the little girl on a dying planet contacted Data WAS moral cowardice.  Picard decided WRONG.  The Prime Directive is for the protection of primitive less technologically sophisticated peoples, and when THEY. ARE. ALL. GOING. TO. DIE., simply doesn't apply.  Kirk would have saved them, not least because he had better writers.

Pen Pals, iirc.

But my theory covers even that episode.

Later on in Trek, they introduce the Temporal Prime Directive. We know from various episodes that talk about the future that it's basically a pretty awesome time for the Federation and everyone in it. We also know via Star Trek: Enterprise that a temporal cold war existed over the fate of the future. Given that we hear nothing of the temporal cold war after Enterprise, we can conclude that the Federation essentially "won" the cold war and that they now control the future.

Thus, it is easy to imagine that the future Federation invented the Prime Directive as an extension of the Temporal Prime Directive. Being from the future, they know precisely what actions from the past are required to create the utopian future they live in, and they must also know what can never happen. The Prime Directive does not exist to protect any individual species; it exists to ensure that the utopian future of the Federation comes to be, ensuring the livelihood of possibly trillions of entities. This moral calculus will always outweigh the supposed moral cowardice of the Prime Directive, because if it didn't, the future Federation would have created a different Prime Directive.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 24, 2014, 10:17:09 PM
That's not what I expected at all, and isn't invoking a grandfather paradox complicating things needlessly?

(I agree w/ your observations, even though the Temporal Cold War was lame.)

I mean, the Future Feds have a life-or-death interest in the status quo that leads to them existing - does it make it more interesting to bring in a chicken or egg time travel story?  Or was the Prime Directive the straight-forward 'let's not whiskey and smallpox blankets innocent beings to death anymore, and no jetpacks til they're ready, either' thing it so obviously seemed to be?

My way doesn't let Picard off the hook, but gosh, it really makes more sense if you're not bent on writing the time travel story.

Incidentally, have you noticed that we have a fanfic folder?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Lorizael on May 24, 2014, 11:08:30 PM
I hadn't noticed, no.

And yes, the temporal cold war was lame, but I do love me some time travel stories.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 12:06:29 AM
I know a place that would luvvv to host a write-up...


...And BTW, I have most of the fiction I've ever written in there, and not a thing of it I'm ashamed of.  I think Prophet, Interupted, the last thing in the oldest thread, is genuinely good...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 01:53:58 AM
From Twitter:
Quote
Timothy O'Neil  @timoneil5000 

You can't tell me there isn't enough ST: TNG nostalgia after all this time for one more project.


 Expand Reply
Retweet
Agreed.  I would at least be eager to see it when I could for free.  I sorta miss those guys, and since '09 came out felt sorry for the fans.  It's like fake Star Trek was never there these days, and even Enterprise was better than deserving that.

-I do hope Fake Fans now understand how I've felt since 1986...

(I think they oughta do a cartoon w/ Riker and Troi on the Titan, BTW - Mylochka's idea.  Wil Wheaton is available for that...)

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Lorizael on May 25, 2014, 03:45:39 AM
If you see interviews with Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis, it turns out the two of them are funny and pleasant and have a lot of chemistry. Shame that never came across in the show.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 03:59:12 AM
She was playing too far away from her own personality/comfort zone w/ a poorly-written/considered character.  I would write the older Troi as turning into her mother, which is Marina to a t.

He, on the other hand, says himself that he's the second-best actor in his own home.  He says that because he's more terrible than Genie Francis.  He's a charming man, and a charismatic public speaker, but didn't know what Riker should be doing while Picard talked, and apparently the directors never told him to stop w/ the worshipful smirk.  Even William Shatner has mocked him to his face for that.


I am an actor, and one of the marks of a good one most people don't know to look for is what business they come up with for their character while someone else is the focus.  He really was also a victim of terrible directing.  And writing (Stewart was phoning it in, but troopers like him and Spiner were dependable about decent delivery and got all the best writing - also Dorn; dunno why Burton got left out).  It was a pretty show, but dumb, dumber than people mostly notice.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on May 25, 2014, 04:43:01 AM
Just like you feel with old Trek, a lot of us do not like this reboot.

Unlike TNG or even, dare we say ENT or VOY, there is no philosophy. Star Trek was more about what we SHOULD BE and an exploration of the issues and growing pains towards that.

Yes, action is awesome. But it should not ALL be action.

JJ Abrahms will do a great job with Star Wars 7, I think that is up his alley. But the ST we loved is dead except for fanfics. At least many of the fanfics or high budget and professional.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 04:46:22 AM
Oh, I think Bad Robot might go away before it's too late now that JarJar has gotten what he really wanted - I piece of the SW merchandising, I betcha.

Just like you feel with old Trek, a lot of us do not like this reboot.

Unlike TNG or even, dare we say ENT or VOY, there is no philosophy. Star Trek was more about what we SHOULD BE and an exploration of the issues and growing pains towards that.
;b;  Yeah; they really did try to do that with even the worst of Fake ST.  And good on them for trying.



I would totally watch the Star Trek: Titan cartoon if it was any good at all, BTW.  Enthusiastically. 

We need to stir up some fan buzz talking the idea up around the net - it could be done relatively cheaply, gets around that the stars are getting old, and there's bucks to be made - there are elements at CBS that don't like/undermine/kick against the Abrams control of the franchise, and would jump all over it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on May 25, 2014, 05:17:45 AM
"I am an actor, and one of the marks of a good one most people don't know to look for is what business they come up with for their character while someone else is the focus.  " - Buncle

I knew about that, but my sister was a professional theater stage manager and director.

I always liked the way James Garner did it.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 05:22:47 AM
Garner was a what I call a charisma actor -John Wayne was an archetype if you found John Wayne charming- he wasn't so much with playing different people different ways, but comfortable and natural in the character he played in most everything he did.  Quite a few stars past and present fall into the category.  If people liked the character they always played, they had good careers.  Garner played the Garner character even better than Tom Selleck did/does.

Versatility is good, but not the whole of acting.  ACTING! acting is overrated.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Green1 on May 25, 2014, 05:25:26 AM
From what I read of control of Star Trek, it is as convoluted as Alpha Centauri. Some folks control some aspects of it, others control others.

I do not think Abrahms is going to control ST much more. The mouse has him now. So all of us may be in limbo except fanfics.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 05:34:57 AM
When he's gone, others will want to move in and cash in, and we could get lucky - and Jarjar demonstrated that the original has power and pulls in the 100 millions here in the future, and broken out of the TNG mold that long (mistakenly in the eyes of suits who didn't understand) overshadowed the archetypical appeal of teh Spock that had never gone anywhere.

I don't want people going back to the well of trying to animate De Kelley and Jimmy Doohan's corpses, actually - but maybe the next people to take over will find a fourth way more satisfying to (the real) fans of old and new, if not the DumbTrek.

What I REALLY want to see?  The idea for Enterprise done right.  Captain Robert April on the first voyage of the real Enterprise.  Go all retro Forbidden Planet on that mother.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 07:54:37 PM
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/roberto-orci-to-direct-star-trek-3-1201180140/ (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/roberto-orci-to-direct-star-trek-3-1201180140/)
Quote
Roberto Orci to Direct ‘Star Trek 3′ (EXCLUSIVE)
Variety
Justin Kroll Film Reporter  @krolljvar  May 13, 2014 | 06:06PM PT


([url]http://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/roberto-orci.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1[/url])
Paul Archuleta/FilmMagic



After weeks of rumblings that Roberto Orci was the frontrunner, sources have told Variety that Skydance and Paramount have indeed tapped Orci to direct Paramount and Skydance’s “Star Trek 3.”

Orci is currently writing the story with J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay and had been campaigning to replace J.J. Abrams as director for some time. Abrams is busy with directing the next installment of the “Star Wars” franchise and will only be producing this pic.

Par, Skydance and his reps had no comment.

Plot details are unknown, but cast members including Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are expected to return. Abrams will produce along with his producing partner Bryan Burke and Skydance’s David Ellison.

The news comes after Orci and longtime writing partner Alex Kurtzman decided to go their separate ways on future filmmaking endeavors (although their TV production company is staying intact). Sources had told Variety that both were looking to direct more pics and that going solo would be in the best interest of both parties.

Orci is repped by CAA.
:( Comes as no surprise, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 08:16:26 PM
Been catching up today on an ST forum I follow but have neglected lately...

Starship Exeter has finally come out with it second episode, 10 years in the making.  Haven't watched this yet.

Starship Exeter: The Tressaurian Intersection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkuJG1_2MnU#)

Quote
The second episode of the fanfilm series STARSHIP EXETER began
filming in 2004. The teaser and first three acts have been floating
around in cyberspace for years, with promises that the episode would
eventually be finished.

Well, it's finally happened!

[url]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkuJG1_2MnU[/url] ([url]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkuJG1_2MnU[/url])


I must say that, of the various TOS-inspired fanfilms I've seen, this is
my favorite. It's exactly what I would want a TOS fanfilm to be--it's
essentially STAR TREK, but set on a different Constitution class
ship.

The acting is expectedly hit-and-miss, but the story, characters, and
style are pretty darn solid. There's very little wink-wink fannishness to
be seen here, especially in comparison to some of the more well-known
fanfilms, like NEW VOYAGES/PHASE II and STAR TREK
CONTINUES.

Fun they may be, but the fanfilms which recast Kirk and crew don't
quite sit well with me. I prefer the idea of using the established TOS
framework, but with a new and different ship and crew.
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46870&PN=1&totPosts=3 (http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46870&PN=1&totPosts=3)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 09:18:46 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/FrancescoConsoli/2014-05-21_054255_JB_ST_June.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 25, 2014, 09:54:24 PM
From what I read of control of Star Trek, it is as convoluted as Alpha Centauri. Some folks control some aspects of it, others control others.
Interesting example of this from what I understand from John Byrne, who did a lot of Trek comics (Crew, about the early career of Number One, was great, the Romulans stuff good, and Leonard McCoy, Frontier Doctor meh,) for IDW, the company that currently holds the license, before embarking on the current original-story photonovels as seen above, is that there's been a lot of back-and-forth from the licensing department.

When he started playing around with shooping up a comics-format photo version of The Man Trap strictly for fun because he's an artist and a fan at the beginning of last year, his fanboys on his forum were instantly "IDW!", and he was all "No, Word From Above is, NuTrek only. :("

It mutated into an original story just to see if he could patch together the available screenies, and he liked the results.  So, no hope of making a buck off his fanfic, but he showed it to the president of the company anyway, and a couple of months later, Word From Above was "Go." [shrugs]

I'm sure it was in this thread or the Valjiir one that I posted the news story about JarJar taking over the Trek franchise because he wanted to be an action figure billionaire like George Lucas, and Trek looked like his chance - he may not be a fan, but it's kind've a gimme.  Star Trek is undeniably a name to conjure with, and he could make it into more the sort of thing he liked that made Lucas Richer Than God, and less like what didn't make Roddenberry all that rich when HE was struggling for control of the franchise in the 80s.  The news story is what it is, and I'm not making this up, or even extrapolating boldly - just combining everything I know into a coherent picture.

SO - just like when Rod was stepping on pro fanfic novel ideas he didn't like as part of studio politics circa 1987 (and the poor man HATED Wrath of Khan and all the other movies he was shut out of) JarJar couldn't make a cent off dolls of the real Spock, and it makes every kind of sense that Bad Robot insisted on pushing the Abomination version on all spinoff licensed properties.  I despise him for that, but I certainly understand why.

But like Rodenberry before him, studio politics are what they are - so IDW publishes a series recreating Real Trek episodes as Nu, which I've heard are at least better than the movies, but without any participation from Byrne, by an order of magnitude the company's biggest star, but a Real fan who doesn't need the money bad enough to prostitute himself doing stuff he holds in contempt, and meanwhile, also publishes his Real Trek photnovels that he says are his favorite project in his entire long career.

Studio politics - just not fan-friendly.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Lorizael on May 26, 2014, 12:45:29 AM
When he's gone, others will want to move in and cash in, and we could get lucky - and Jarjar demonstrated that the original has power and pulls in the 100 millions here in the future, and broken out of the TNG mold that long (mistakenly in the eyes of suits who didn't understand) overshadowed the archetypical appeal of teh Spock that had never gone anywhere.

I don't want people going back to the well of trying to animate De Kelley and Jimmy Doohan's corpses, actually - but maybe the next people to take over will find a fourth way more satisfying to (the real) fans of old and new, if not the DumbTrek.

What I REALLY want to see?  The idea for Enterprise done right.  Captain Robert April on the first voyage of the real Enterprise.  Go all retro Forbidden Planet on that mother.

I remember hearing late last year about two Star Trek shows in development. Basically Star Trek:CSI and Star Trek:EMS.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 26, 2014, 12:50:32 AM
They oughta be looking to do the Captain Sulu show as a cartoon, too, while the voice actors are still able.  Walter Koenig  hasn't got ten years left, I guarantee, so time's a-wastin'.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 26, 2014, 02:45:07 AM
Been catching up today on an ST forum I follow but have neglected lately...

Starship Exeter has finally come out with it second episode, 10 years in the making.  Haven't watched this yet.

Starship Exeter: The Tressaurian Intersection ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkuJG1_2MnU#[/url])

Quote
The second episode of the fanfilm series STARSHIP EXETER began
filming in 2004. The teaser and first three acts have been floating
around in cyberspace for years, with promises that the episode would
eventually be finished.

Well, it's finally happened!

[url]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkuJG1_2MnU[/url] ([url]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkuJG1_2MnU[/url])


I must say that, of the various TOS-inspired fanfilms I've seen, this is
my favorite. It's exactly what I would want a TOS fanfilm to be--it's
essentially STAR TREK, but set on a different Constitution class
ship.

The acting is expectedly hit-and-miss, but the story, characters, and
style are pretty darn solid. There's very little wink-wink fannishness to
be seen here, especially in comparison to some of the more well-known
fanfilms, like NEW VOYAGES/PHASE II and STAR TREK
CONTINUES.

Fun they may be, but the fanfilms which recast Kirk and crew don't
quite sit well with me. I prefer the idea of using the established TOS
framework, but with a new and different ship and crew.
[url]http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46870&PN=1&totPosts=3[/url] ([url]http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46870&PN=1&totPosts=3[/url])
So I listened to over half instead of watching, but got sucked in towards the end.  Gonna have to actually watch it all the way through, 'cause...

...I think this is the best fan production ST I've ever seen.  The comment I quoted goes way too easy on the acting, which is mostly terrible -really bad-  --- so you know there's serious compensating factors.

Probably hands-down the most solid script I've ever seen in a fan production.  Just hit all the right marks, good pace, nice mixture of thoughtfulness and action.  Solid.  Excellent, really.

And the production values were first-rate and avoided some minor missteps both the imitation Kirk ones suffer from in a minor way - whoever did the color balancing/leveling in post-production is a genius.  Other fan productions, with their meticulous recreations of the often-garishly colored sets, tend to end up too bright and colorful on modern cameras.  This did not have that.  The colors look like Star Trek for once.  Same thing on all the ship exteriors - even professional CGI guys frequently make the mistake of leaving the color saturation too high, and that's a dead giveaway.  This stuff looks like top-grade model work, which is how ST should be...

Again, best fan production ever, maybe, and that's despite not-at-all good performances.  The other elements were THAT good.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Impaler on May 28, 2014, 06:42:27 AM
Agree that Exeter is by far the best fan recreation Trek, the thing I like best about it is the core premise to use a DIFFERENT SHIP (of the Constitution class), it's simply so fresh in what it allows complete freedom in creating a cast from the production teams available acting talent.  Now obviously their Captain is very Kirk-ish and most of the rest have overtones of the famous characters but the positions are scrambled up, the Captain's old friend is the Engineer rather then his first officer.

On top of the originality of the premise they do balance the action and pacing of their episodes brilliantly, and while their acting is far below TV grade, I would say it is far better then most fan work.

Huge props btw for their use of an Andorian, they are fresh and classic at the same time, Exeter makes better use of them then the Enterprise prequel show.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 28, 2014, 02:52:26 PM
Yes, exactly. 

The script did a nice job of setting up characters who were individuals and their relationships with each other - that it could easily be rewritten into KirK-Spock-McCoy w/o doing much violence to much of anything but Kirk's backstory is not a minus.  It was solid writing, and if the writer is fast enough, I'd say (s)he is easily good enough for professional television work.  (S)he is ready.

I'm very much on the bus with the "do Star Trek, but on another ship" thinking.  Everyone loves Spock, but we've never seen a single soul who wasn't Leonard Nimoy play him satisfactorily.  Spock's always weak in fan productions, every single time.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on May 29, 2014, 06:48:54 AM
Watched the 'pilot' of starship Exeter yesterday.
God, they used awful effects back in the days.

The captain was doing pretty fine qua acting, with a second place for the Andorian comm crewman for hilarity.

Two dialogues I found hilarious: the one about Andorians living underground because they considered themself the apex lifeform ln their planet while giant predators still ran galore on the surface, and the lne at the end, "I understand completely, you wanted to cover all your bases."
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 02, 2014, 10:53:29 PM
On those original Byrne original story photonovel comics I post about occasionally -
Quote from: John Byrne
Chris Ryall forwarded to me an email from Walter Koenig. Apparently he was impressed with "Strange New Worlds."

Initiating warm, fuzzy glow!
Now THAT's gotta be a :danc: moment for a fan...

...Contact with Walter where he wasn't rude...


Has anyone read any of those photonovel comics?  Cher?  Anyone?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valjiir1 on June 04, 2014, 03:01:04 PM
On those original Byrne original story photonovel comics I post about occasionally -
Quote from: John Byrne
Chris Ryall forwarded to me an email from Walter Koenig. Apparently he was impressed with "Strange New Worlds."

Initiating warm, fuzzy glow!
Now THAT's gotta be a :danc: moment for a fan...

...Contact with Walter where he wasn't rude...


Has anyone read any of those photonovel comics?  Cher?  Anyone?


I don't read any ST graphic/photo novels, have never seen the ST series you all are talking about, have never read any ST novel with the exception of the novelizations of TOS and the one which the Valjiir Shadow Captain stories are based on.  I did read fanzines back in the 80's.  And I've seen some New Voyages and another of the re-creations (the one with John Cho as Sulu).  Other than that, I'm totally ignorant about any 'other' ST - except for Valjiir, of course.  So, unfortunately, I really don't have much to contribute.

Except to say that I've met George Takei twice and he's a dear, wonderful man.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 04, 2014, 03:02:40 PM
I never heard a single story against him...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 04, 2014, 05:34:28 PM
He's the only cast member I ever saw in person. Unfortunately it was on a day when the flu was creeping up on me all day and by the time for autographs, I was so sick, I could barely stand up. I enjoyed his presentation earlier, though. This was in 1979.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 05, 2014, 02:29:59 AM
Spock's World by Diane Duane.  On the strength of Duane's previous The Romulan Way, which was magnificent until a crap ending, and Valka's recommendation, Mylochka picked this up.  I keep falling asleep without making it many pages, sometimes less than one, but that reflects my current circumstances, not the quality of the work so far.
I didn't agree with every single little thing in there about the Vulcans, but this is basically the way I see them - some work harder at the logic-and-self-control stuff than others.  (Kirk called Spock "more Vulcan than the Vulcans" at one point.)  They have a regard for ceremony and tradition that may not be entirely logical, but it IS there and a thing.

Possibly Dr. McCoy's finest hour, playing against expectations nicely , even straining credulity.

A decent yarn.  It was no (most of) The Romulan Way, alas, but still recommended.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sava on June 07, 2014, 02:06:25 AM
Who is the only person to portray themselves in the Star Trek universe?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 07, 2014, 02:08:09 AM
[Jeopardy theme plays in head]  Oh, you're counting fake ST ...

Steven Hawking.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sava on June 07, 2014, 02:40:08 AM
Wrong.  Stephen Hawking :danc:

Also, "fake ST"?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 07, 2014, 02:42:00 AM
Yeah, that's anything that doesn't have the real Mr. Sulu in it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sava on June 07, 2014, 01:59:11 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 07, 2014, 02:03:43 PM
;nod
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sava on June 07, 2014, 02:20:23 PM
Roddenberry would not approve of that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 07, 2014, 02:23:54 PM
He approved of money - for him.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sava on June 07, 2014, 02:27:31 PM
He approved of money - for him.

I will protect your right to be wrong. ;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 07, 2014, 07:56:12 PM
Yeah, that's anything that doesn't have the real Mr. Sulu in it.

So, did Mr. Sulu play in ALL TOS movies?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 07, 2014, 08:15:34 PM
I don't recall him missing in any...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 07, 2014, 09:15:28 PM
And did he never appear in TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise NX or whatever more recent branch of Star Trek?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 07, 2014, 09:25:07 PM
Not a time; not even in Generations, although he was mentioned because of his daughter...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 07, 2014, 09:48:01 PM
Ah, a real and honest 'purity' character then for your purposes. :D
Title: Levar Burton, 'Star Trek: TNG' Star, Beams Up $2 Million for 'Reading Rainbow'
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 09, 2014, 02:21:50 AM
Levar Burton, 'Star Trek: TNG' Star, Beams Up $2 Million for 'Reading Rainbow'
Space.com
By Elizabeth Howell, Space.com Contributor   |   May 30, 2014 01:20pm ET


  (http://i.space.com/images/i/000/033/040/original/levar-burton-imdb-screenshot-2.jpg?1380200092)
  Levar Burton as Geordi La Forge in “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”  Credit: IMDb Screenshot / Star Trek: The Next Generation / Gene Trindl – © 1987 Gene Trindl – Image courtesy mptvimages.com 

 
 
Talk about warp drive. A "Star Trek: The Next Generation" star's quest to reboot his 1980s-era reading show exceeded a $1 million crowdsourcing goal in just 11 hours.

And with more than a month to go in the campaign, backers of "Reading Rainbow" pushed the pool of money on Kickstarter past $2.6 million.

"We just crossed the million-dollar threshold on the first day. I am overwhelmed," a teary LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge on "Star Trek: The Next Generation") said in a video message Wednesday (May 28). "Thank you so much. This will enable us to really, really, really do a lot of good."


Reading Rainbow Kickstarter Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8DLihxcj14#ws)


LeVar Burton plans to revive his beloved children's show into a Web series, create a special version for the classroom and then make it available for free to "schools in need".

Unsourced statistics on the website say that 1 in 4 children in the United States grows up illiterate, and Burton said he hopes the campaign will change that.


  (http://i.space.com/images/i/000/009/341/i02/5665069446_fcfe1dda87_b.jpg?1304087405)
 Actor and Producer Levar Burton tweets with two devices during the STS-134 Tweetup, Thursday, April 28, 2011, at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla. About 150 NASA Twitter followers attended the event.  Credit: NASA/Paul E. Alers


15 million tablet views

"Reading Rainbow" was originally developed for television when it launched in 1983, which makes it a bit of a dinosaur among a generation raised on iPads and mobile phones.

Recognizing this, two years ago Burton's group launched a "Reading Rainbow" app for tablets. To date, users have viewed about 15 million of the videos and books included on the app, he said.

But not every family can afford a tablet, which is why Burton wants to make the show available on the Web. The television star also heard from teachers that they wanted to present the show in their classrooms.

As the funds mount for the campaign, Burton said he plans to expand "Reading Rainbow" to as many schools as he can.

"The first million raised will help us get onto the Web and into 1,500+ classrooms … But now that we're there (!), we've got some big ideas for stretch goals," Burton stated on Kickstarter.

"We promise: Every dollar you contribute will help us bring 'Reading Rainbow' to more platforms, and provide [the show] for free in more classrooms."

For more details on Levar Burton's "Reading Rainbow" Kickstarter campaign, visit: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/readingrainbow/bring-reading-rainbow-back-for-every-child-everywh (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/readingrainbow/bring-reading-rainbow-back-for-every-child-everywh)


http://www.space.com/26070-levar-burton-reading-rainbow-star-trek.html (http://www.space.com/26070-levar-burton-reading-rainbow-star-trek.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 09, 2014, 02:24:05 AM
Who is the only person to portray themselves in the Star Trek universe?
[Jeopardy theme plays in head]  Oh, you're counting fake ST ...

Steven Hawking.
Arguably, also Joe Piscipo...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 09, 2014, 02:37:17 AM
Not a time; not even in Generations, although he was mentioned because of his daughter...
Sulu was in an episode of Voyager (Flashback).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 09, 2014, 02:48:09 AM
Yes, of course.  I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 09, 2014, 08:03:29 AM
Yes, of course.  I stand corrected.

 :danc:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 09, 2014, 06:42:12 PM
Star Trek episode mirror mirror recap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyY6k-gEVEE#ws)

Star Trek Shore Leave epsiode recap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEcEjMMU0a4#ws)

Star Trek Pizza Monster episode recap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnjPr4Hx6VY#ws)

Star Trek The Menagerie episode recap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuwgn1U8aTc#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 09, 2014, 09:53:22 PM
Is the old series really considered appropriate for young children in the USA?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 09, 2014, 10:08:21 PM
Define "young." I was 12 and found "Miri" a bit uncomfortable to watch...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 09, 2014, 10:12:04 PM
Young as in around the age of those girls in the videos BUncle linked 3 posts up.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 09, 2014, 10:18:07 PM
I would say it's a bit much for a four year-old...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 09, 2014, 10:58:19 PM
I very much doubt the kid really understands what she's saying.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 10, 2014, 02:14:21 AM
Gary Lockwood As Captain Gary Mitchell. Star Trek Equinox (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTI7_IXaZ9Y#ws)

This doesn't look promising...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 10, 2014, 02:59:57 AM
Apparently Mylochka had something to do with this.

Quote from: 3D-Freemason
I do plan on Thanking Mylochka (and a couple others in the 3D Trek community) in my final End Credits for both inspiration and idea sourcing that led me to optimized solutions (like Uhura's opacity mapped hair). However I generally re-make things I need with my own mesh, textures etc. if for no other reason than to try to up the quality of the end result a bit.


STAR TREK TOS: "BEYOND ANTARES" Part 2/3 - (& Part 1 ReDo) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCD9tgWeZYQ#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on June 10, 2014, 03:42:35 AM
Wow!  Yeah, several of those are hair models that I created (some of which I still use) but different face morphs... Sort of looks like he's working with an entirely different program...  And yes, I did spread the idea that someone could take the audio clips from the old Star Trek 25th Anniversary game and make an animated version of it... or actually, several different versions of it since there's many, many different ways you could patch together those sound files.  Cool! 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 16, 2014, 08:45:10 PM
Star Trek Continues E03 "Fairest of Them All" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 16, 2014, 09:35:11 PM
The kids really liked the new movie (on netflix now), haven't watched,myself.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 16, 2014, 09:44:17 PM
The Wrath of Sherlock?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 16, 2014, 11:36:37 PM
Star Trek Continues E03 "Fairest of Them All" ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w#[/url])
This was amazingly well-paced.  Considering that it heavily featured their weak Spock as Evil Weak Spock, astonishingly good.

Mind, I think the script wildly underestimates Evil Kirk, and they missed a couple of chances to do something interesting with Evil Scotty -who, in the original episode, was clearly below Evil Sulu in the Evil pecking order and probably a drunk or something- but still, very good.   ;b; ;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 18, 2014, 06:33:58 PM
Star Trek Continues E03 "Fairest of Them All" ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w#[/url])


SPOOOOOOOOOOOOCK!!!  ;lol ;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 18, 2014, 08:12:08 PM
So where did the Tantalus Device Nullifier come from - did Marlena make it?  ;lol

It was a decent episode.  :)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 18, 2014, 08:17:29 PM
Probably Evil Helen Noel...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 18, 2014, 08:56:49 PM
So where did the Tantalus Device Nullifier come from - did Marlena make it?  ;lol

I thought they only said where Evil Kirk obtained it?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 18, 2014, 08:59:14 PM
Alien woman scientist on Tanalus IV - and you know how Kirk gets on with the space ladies...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 19, 2014, 04:25:58 PM
Middle son watched into darkness again the other day, and I sorta half-watched while reading.  Overall thought Silar-spock did a better job than the first one, but the rest of the cast not so much.  Plot was all over the place inconsistent. 

Yet...I could see how it might work better as a Star Wars show, so somewhat guarded optimism that reboot might be half decent with Abrams. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 03, 2014, 10:55:15 PM
It's so easy, even Kirk could do it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJPqrVVtjNE#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on July 03, 2014, 11:02:29 PM
Meaning there's an alien fem somewhere at the help desk? :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 03, 2014, 11:26:07 PM
An busty green one.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on July 11, 2014, 08:19:59 PM
Star Trek Continues E03 "Fairest of Them All" ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w#[/url])


I want to add my recommendation of "Fairest of Them All."  This is by far the best fan-made Trek episode I've ever seen.  The script was really good.  I love a good mirror universe story.  This one was tightly paced and engrossing.  Not a false note.  Even though I wouldn't have thought their Spock had the weight (literally or figuratively) to pull off the driving role he played in this one, that lil' Vulcan gave me chills at more than one point!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 09, 2014, 04:49:57 PM
Silly Sulu ! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PILJNq8Sedc#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on August 09, 2014, 09:25:52 PM
Where is this from? Did Phase II release a blooper reel for "Mind-Sifter"?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 09, 2014, 10:37:47 PM
They released this.
Title: 'Star Trek: Axanar' Fan Film Warps Beyond Crowdfunding Goal
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 16, 2014, 08:57:27 PM
Quote
'Star Trek: Axanar' Fan Film Warps Beyond Crowdfunding Goal
Space.com
By Elizabeth Howell, Space.com Contributor   |   August 16, 2014 07:00am ET


([url]http://i.space.com/images/i/000/041/418/original/klingon-approach-axanar.jpg?1408050537[/url])
The crowdfunding campaign for a new fan-funded "Star Trek" film more than doubled its expected goal.  Credit: Axanar Productions

 
 
A new "Star Trek" fan funding campaign has just hit warp speed.

The crowdfunding campaign for "Star Trek: Axanar" — a fan-funded "Star Trek" film — has raised more than $200,000, donated through the website Kickstarter, blowing well past the original goal of $100,000. The campaign comes on the heels of another wildly successful Kickstarter launched by the team earlier this year. The budget for the film is about $600,000, and other fundraising campaigns are possible, said the executive producer of the project.

"They love what we’re doing," said Alec Peters, the executive producer of the project, of the fans who have followed "Axanar"for the past few months. "We get so much positive feedback. It inspires us to be better, and whenever we release something, they tell us something else they’d like to see."

The Kickstarter campaign closes to donations on Aug. 24.

Additionally, a 20-minute mock documentary on the battle of Axanar — the fight on which the movie is based — premiered July 26 after raising more than $100,000 through crowdfunding. Actors in the film, called "Prelude to Axanar," include Richard Hatch of "Battlestar: Galactica" and Gary Graham of "Star Trek: Enterprise."

Both Trek fan films focus on the Battle of Axanar, which was briefly mentioned in the original 1960s "Star Trek" series, but the battle itself never appeared on screen. The event was mentioned in the original series' third-season episode, "Whom Gods Destroy," which followed battle winner and Starfleet captain Garth of Izar.


Discount filming

Peters has had a lifelong fascination with Garth's story, which came to the forefront after he played the character in a fan production in 2010. He got permission from CBS representatives to go ahead with "Star Trek: The Battle of Axanar" and quickly marshaled actors and production staff to make a cinema-quality project. (The movie is allowed to proceed as long as the filmmakers do not make a profit.)

When Peters went on to Kickstarter with a $10,000 ask for the mock documentary, he received many times that amount. He attributes the success to laying out the budget concretely and constantly updating his fan funders.

"We have an active donor's group on Facebook of 1,200 people, and we've got about 2,500 donors total," Peters said. "We update them, probably, three times a week on the Kickstarter page … [and] on Facebook, we're on every day talking to them."

It took sacrifices to make a Hollywood-style film on a thrift-store budget. The production staff worked without pay. The actors took advantage of a clause in their union contracts that allows them to work for less than their rate, because this is a "new media" film.

Off-screen staff will be paid for their work on the new production but at a lesser rate than usual. Even so, "that alone is an extra $100,000," Peters said. The actors will also take a cut to their rates.

The group is still figuring out the timing of the feature film's release. They estimate it will take about 20 days to shoot, and they hope to start filming in December in Los Angeles to avoid the hottest times of year.

Fans can learn more about "Star Trek: The Battle of Axanar" and donate to the project through the film's Kickstarter crowdfunding website: [url]https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/194429923/star-trek-axanar[/url] ([url]https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/194429923/star-trek-axanar[/url])
http://www.space.com/26839-star-trek-axanar-kickstarter-fan-film.html (http://www.space.com/26839-star-trek-axanar-kickstarter-fan-film.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 20, 2014, 06:13:09 PM
Prelude to Axanar - Full Film (1080p) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W1_8IV8uhA#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 20, 2014, 06:33:45 PM
Really good.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 20, 2014, 06:42:18 PM
Well, that was quite the lengthy teaser. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 23, 2014, 11:04:36 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/ErnestDegollado/2014-08-22_233202_kirk6.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on September 03, 2014, 05:46:16 PM
When was this from?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 03, 2014, 05:59:37 PM
In stores now, I understand.  I wanna say Target.
Title: George Takei Helps Beam $650K to 'Star Trek' Fan Film
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 07, 2014, 01:48:04 AM
Quote
George Takei Helps Beam $650K to 'Star Trek' Fan Film
SPACE.COM
By Elizabeth Howell, Space.com Contributor | August 27, 2014 07:00am ET


([url]http://i.space.com/images/i/000/041/643/original/star-trek-axanar-drydock.jpg?1409088265[/url])
Concept art for "Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar" depicts a Federation starship in drydock.  Credit: Axanar Productions

 
 
With the backing of none other than Sulu, a fan-made production of a feature-length "Star Trek" film raised more than $650,000 to chronicle one of the U.S.S. Enterprise's adventures.

"Battlestations! RT if you want exciting new Star Trek filmmaking. Let's make this happen--just hours left to help," George Takei, who starred in "Star Trek the Original Series," wrote in a tweet Saturday (Aug. 23). His efforts beamed about $200,000 to the funding campaign for "Star Trek: Axanar," according to an estimate by the filmmakers.

The newly crowdfunded feature-length film follows a mock documentary called "Prelude to Axanar", which was released a few weeks ago.

"The most important part was Prelude itself, because it gave us enormous credibility," team leader Alec Peters said in a statement. "Combine that with an amazingly-loyal and passionate group of donors from our first Kickstarter, who tirelessly evangelized for us, and the aid of the geek media, which got behind the project after seeing our first trailer, and there was no stopping the momentum we'd built up."
 
All told, the filmmakers have raised more than six times their original $100,000 goal. The film will follow the events of the Battle of Axanar and Garth of Izar, which were events briefly mentioned in "the Original Series."

Actors in the new production include Richard Hatch (of "Battlestar: Galactica"), Gary Graham (of "Star Trek: Enterprise"), while production staff includes people such as Frank Serafine (who did sound design for "The Hunt For Red October") Tobias Richter, a visual effects artist who assisted with the remastered "Star Trek: The Next Generation" Blu-rays.

Actors are working at reduced rates to make the cheaper production possible, which is possible because independent films are treated differently in union contracts. The timing of release has not been firmed up yet, but filming is expected to occur in December.

You can learn more about "Star Trek: The Battle of Axanar" through the fan film's Kickstarter website: [url]https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/194429923/star-trek-axanar.[/url] ([url]https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/194429923/star-trek-axanar.[/url])
http://www.space.com/26954-star-trek-axanar-george-takei-film.html (http://www.space.com/26954-star-trek-axanar-george-takei-film.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 28, 2014, 02:36:10 AM
Stumbled over on Facebook:

(https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10639470_592094357568728_2667951836609782527_n.jpg?oh=8c2e675afee8c63473bb1a80b3af66a9&oe=548E08D3)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 01, 2014, 12:12:58 AM
(http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ST-APES-coverA-ed423-620x941.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on October 01, 2014, 06:04:20 PM
 ;lol
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 02, 2014, 05:53:29 PM
Obsessed - Meet the Cast & Crew of Star Trek Continues with Vic Mignogna (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x20dru9)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on October 03, 2014, 05:01:29 AM
That was interesting. :) There's all kinds of speculation on what their fourth episode is going to be about, whether something original or revisiting another TOS episode (I heard rumors of "All Our Yesterdays").
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 03, 2014, 05:05:56 PM
Probably best to avoid going to that well too often.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on October 03, 2014, 08:41:30 PM
That particular one, yes, unless they intend to film the Ann Crispin novels. I suspect that would be beyond their budget to purchase the rights, even if the Crispin estate was interested. And then there is the question of whether the legal owners of Star Trek would allow it.

It's confusing, who owns the rights to what. Phase II is doing "Mind-Sifter" based on the version published in the Bantam paperback, rather than the original fanfic version. They have the original author's blessing (and that of her estate, since she died some time back), but I don't know if there were legalities involved with the publishing company.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on October 03, 2014, 08:43:01 PM
Really? The 'Scotty' in this fanmade series is the son of the TOS Scotty?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on October 03, 2014, 09:08:35 PM
Yes, he really is James Doohan's son, Chris Doohan. He does a great job of playing Scotty.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 03, 2014, 09:24:44 PM
You didn't know, Geo?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on October 04, 2014, 06:11:55 AM
I do now. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 05, 2014, 12:50:20 AM
([url]http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ST-APES-coverA-ed423-620x941.jpg[/url])


is that real? I might have to get me some of that.

please tell me it's Kirk, none of the other captains have any business dealing with the apes. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 05, 2014, 12:59:45 AM
I understand it's real, and that sure ain't Picard's uniform...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on October 07, 2014, 04:06:47 PM
Now, did 'Trekverse went ape, or was someone monkeying around?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 09, 2014, 11:51:54 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/TimONeill/2014-10-08_113654_cry_vengeance.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 14, 2014, 12:57:33 AM
Orion: I’m on Board – Nichelle Nichols (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNAyBekeVyw#ws)
Title: Opinion: ‘Star Trek’ time capsule 2047 launches as Earth burns
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 15, 2014, 01:42:56 AM
Quote
Opinion: ‘Star Trek’ time capsule 2047 launches as Earth burns
MarketWatch
Paul B. Farrell  Oct 14, 2014 8:13 a.m. ET


([url]http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2014/10/13/Photos/ZH/MW-CW279_star_t_20141013160006_ZH.jpg?uuid=94b89c06-5313-11e4-92a0-4f0af9836a46[/url])
Patrick Stewart as Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in the “Star Trek: The Next Generation” episode “The Inner Light.”



One very special “Star Trek: The Next Generation” episode haunts me. From stardate 45944.1: “The Inner Light” gives us a brief glance at the star-crossed future of two civilizations. One boldly exploring new worlds. The other leaving behind a brief snapshot of its mysterious death. A bold metaphor for our own planet, in the near future, perhaps 2047?

The facts: The U.S.S. Enterprise is on a research mission, completing a magnetic survey of the Parvenium system when it encounters a probe floating in space. Suddenly a telepathic energy bolt drops Capt. Jean-Luc Picard on the deck, unconscious.

He wakes up on a strange planet. Dazed, recovering from a fever as “Kamin.” He cannot recognize his wife. Friends think he’s delusional, mumbling about being a starship captain.

Time passes. He gradually adapts to this new reality on this far-off world. Memories of his prior life slowly fade. He falls in love with his wife again, raises a family, his children give him grandchildren. He lives the quiet, peaceful life he never imagined in his space travels.

The planet’s natural resources gradually disappear as temperatures rise. Water gets scarce. Desert lands replace forests and rich farmlands. Food supplies depleted. The planet is dying. Near the end, he stands alone, a wide brimmed hat shielding his eyes from the blinding sun, watching the launch of a rocket, soaring into the clouds, contrails disappearing into the heavens, carrying the final record of a great civilization on a once-rich planet.

Suddenly the probe powers off. Picard wakes up on the floor of the Enterprise bridge. Only a few minutes had passed. Back in command. Engines power up. They accelerate to warp, continuing on their mission, boldly going where no one has gone before.

Picard is left with long memories of a simpler life on a planet that vanished thousands of years earlier. Alone in his quarters, Picard begins playing the flute retrieved from within the drifting space probe. A haunting melody fills his ship ... time and space fade to black.

A metaphor for Earth? Perhaps, but which one? We live with 7.3 billion people today. By 2047 the United Nations estimates the population will rocket to 10 billion, with everyone competing with America’s 400 million capitalists for ever-scarcer resources.

Yes, huge odds against us, with the rest of the world outnumbering us 22 to 1. Every nation, every society, everyone fighting for their own version of the American Dream, in an unsustainable lifestyle war that will require the resources of not one but six planets.

An impossible quandary in a world where population demographics — the bubble of all bubbles — becomes the force driving all other bubbles, economic, political, cultural. The ultimate force driving us in an accelerating trajectory into an unsustainable reality on a planet that can never feed 10 billion people.


WWIII 2020: Capitalism on a winning streak, climate keeps losing

That’s right, by 2047 Planet Earth will be incapable of feeding 10 billion people. Many already own over a million cars that also feed on an endless supply of gas. This dilemma is clear in Naomi Klein’s new classic, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate”: “There’s something fundamentally wrong with the way we’re organizing our economy and thinking about our place on the planet.” Yes, capitalism. And as Einstein would say, we cannot fix the problems of capitalism with capitalist solutions.

Still, capitalists believe capitalism is the solution to everything. Stalemate. Only worldwide revolutions shift this paradigm. Which are likely to come, but too late. We’re in denial: We get wake-up calls from many leaders like Klein. But our brains are wired to ignore them. Gallup polls confirm: Global warming is not a major national issue for 76% of Americans.

None of this is new: America had a huge wake-up call over a decade ago at the launch of the Iraq War. In the “Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare” Fortune analyzed a classified George W. Bush Defense Department report on climate and global warming, one that sounds eerily like the Star Trek scenario.

Yes, our own Pentagon predicted global climate wars, coming even before 2047. Listen: “The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues … massive droughts, turning farmland into dust bowls and forests to ashes … by 2020 there is little doubt that something drastic is happening, an old pattern could emerge — warfare defining human life.”

Too many people, too few resources, competing interests, the clock’s ticking loudly. And 2020 is dead ahead.

Get it? We have been warned. Many, many times. Even by America’s own generals and our war machine. But America just keeps digging, deeper and deeper, into our collective denial. We get wake-up calls. We ignore them. Nothing new, we prefer denying reality.

Are we “boldly going” anywhere? Should America launch its own time-capsule probe now? In 2020? Wait till 2047, when it may be too late to do anything about it?

Let’s here from you, in the comment section below. And if you can’t be civil, don’t be snarky, try rational. Be on your best behavior, or silent. We may post the best of the best. Advice, policies and decisions that articulate what future civilizations need to know about our experience on global warming and climate change ... from both the right and the left ... what works, what didn’t. How to build opportunities. Avoid mistakes. Do the right thing.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/star-trek-time-capsule-2047-launches-as-earth-burns-2014-10-14?siteid=yhoof2 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/star-trek-time-capsule-2047-launches-as-earth-burns-2014-10-14?siteid=yhoof2)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on October 15, 2014, 11:11:50 AM
Stupid article.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on October 15, 2014, 04:37:16 PM
Why do you think it's stupid?

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on October 15, 2014, 05:02:16 PM
Ameri-centric all the way. Why assuming the rest of the world is still reaching out to get the inside  American Dream? A concept that's largely been dead anyway even within USA borders.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 17, 2014, 11:09:01 AM
Ran into a guy at work that has a doodad that makes the door sound whenever someone enters his office.  Made me smile.

(there's also 2 other Halloween wackos at work but they are more of the store bought collector variety)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 17, 2014, 09:54:48 PM
Star Trek TAS music. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p03jG546GQc#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 18, 2014, 12:28:16 AM
Only tastes good at night!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6dnms69R40 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6dnms69R40#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2014, 01:44:01 AM
More puttering about.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Nh1FW3XRa2Y/VEFeafx_joI/AAAAAAAAcFc/sXiEbBPc5fA/s800/IMG_0102.JPG)

Dug out some....uh...well some stuff that's been literally rotting back behind the shed for the last 5 years, fits in rather well.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Zm20KHS8CwE/VEFecdyVNSI/AAAAAAAAcF0/1iUKaGKLvk0/s800/IMG_0105.JPG)

So, we started to decorate the rest of the sticks.  (can't see real well but some small rib bones hanging here and there too.)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jPAeg7Kg7aI/VEFeaRLA_TI/AAAAAAAAcFg/YYBAnc2W7M0/s800/IMG_0103.JPG)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on October 18, 2014, 01:53:06 AM
Very Star Trek  ;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on October 18, 2014, 06:00:40 AM
oh...kay?  Oops. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on October 18, 2014, 04:29:23 PM
A show for "Ship Guys"...

Trekyards EP2 - Phoenix Warp Ship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24_KbYyVC3k#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 16, 2014, 09:34:25 PM
Shut Up, Wesley! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhMMcAHlKw#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on November 16, 2014, 11:19:05 PM
I have a button that says "Shut up Wesley... in an airtight box."

It's mean, I know. He wasn't always bad.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 16, 2014, 11:22:31 PM
...I may have to find and post a Sparks McGee vid, out of respect for Wil Wheaton...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 18, 2014, 09:21:01 PM
From warp drives to holodecks: 7 Star Trek technologies scientists are working on
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=13555.msg62184#msg62184 (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=13555.msg62184#msg62184)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 22, 2014, 03:16:41 AM
Uproxx Exclusive: 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' Season 7 Gag Reel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3_YTmAKBaA#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on November 26, 2014, 10:04:48 PM
STAR TREK: GENERATIONS
was on TV tonight and despite all the things I have to do I chose to watch it again and come here posting.

A moving movie!
It's about youth and about old age. About time and what it means.
About the choices we made, what we've gained from them and what we had to let as we went ahead, and so it's also about regrets. It's about duty and its contingencies, having children or protecting those who have. About sadness and pride and hope.
The past and present and future and whether we accept them or not.
It's about passing the baton instead of keeping it forever.
Of course there is a Deus ex Machina at the end but, hey,  this is Star Trek.

What kind of man could hate this movie without hating all movies?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on November 26, 2014, 10:47:09 PM
Funny you mention all that now.
I just finished watching two episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, with most of what you talked about in them.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 02, 2014, 08:02:28 AM
I don't know how to post YouTube videos here, but the latest Phase II/New Voyages fan film is out now. "Mind-Sifter" is based on an old fanfic that was edited and professionally published in the anthology Star Trek: The New Voyages, back in the late '70s. The author, who died some years ago, gave the Phase II producer permission to film her story.

The result is a mix of the original fanfic and the published story, plus a bit of original material and a cameo that will make people who have seen other Phase II fan films chuckle.

The premise of the story is that the Klingons kidnap Kirk and torture him for information on the Guardian of Forever. He escapes and leaps back in time... and ends up in a 1950s mental hospital, with amnesia induced and reinforced by the torture he endured from the Klingon Mind-Sifter. While the 23rd century people think Kirk is dead, Spock becomes the captain.

This story was the inspiration for the Valjiir "Shadow Captain" series of stories, that have been extensively discussed in the Valjiir thread on this forum.

Anyway, here is the link to "Mind-Sifter"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFjikVnvypg&list=PLx-UrTqWFFk8LZyFaxt0-Agy8HWjb_ZqF&index=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFjikVnvypg&list=PLx-UrTqWFFk8LZyFaxt0-Agy8HWjb_ZqF&index=1)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 02, 2014, 02:23:19 PM
Just delete the s off the http and they autoembed. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 02, 2014, 03:49:00 PM
Star Trek New Voyages: Mind Sifter Modern VFX in Stereo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFjikVnvypg#noexternalembed)

Oh poo.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 02, 2014, 06:05:51 PM
That's odd; it worked on CFC (it's in the "All Things Star Trek" thread in the Arts & Entertainment forum in the Colosseum section).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13585296&postcount=410 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13585296&postcount=410)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 02, 2014, 06:26:58 PM
"Report me, and I won't be gentle next time!" :-*

"Spock has been missing for over a month"???  :o
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 02, 2014, 07:18:56 PM
It was Kirk who was missing for over a month. I noticed that some of the actors didn't enunciate their words very clearly at times.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 02, 2014, 07:30:52 PM
Just finished watching it.
I give it a 'sufficient' overall, with a 'moderately good' on the human side of things.
Kinda like the red-shirted helmsman most, especially when the audience has to hang on his words. :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 02, 2014, 07:40:51 PM
That's Ensign Walking Bear, who is a character from the Animated Series. The original story has Chekov and McCoy beaming down to find Kirk (the original author never noticed for a moment that she was having a Russian-accented character wandering around the U.S. in the 1950s).

I don't know why this production didn't use Chekov, but considering they eliminated that part of the plot anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter. And it's nice to see another character.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 02, 2014, 09:50:52 PM
(the original author never noticed for a moment that she was having a Russian-accented character wandering around the U.S. in the 1950s).

I have the impression that, accent-wise, Polish and Russian-speaking people are indistinguisable from each other when speaking English. Weren't there a fair number of Polish immigrants living in the USA at the time?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 02, 2014, 10:04:16 PM
The story wasn't about how much crap Polish immigrants in the US in the 50s had to take, which I imagine was considerable.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 02, 2014, 11:29:17 PM
The point about Chekov's accent is that during the 1950s, the U.S. tended to be distrustful of anyone or anything Russian. Want to wreck someone's career? Label him or her a communist or socialist and get them blacklisted. That's what happened to quite a lot of people in the 1950s.

The Cold War years were unbelievably paranoid in some places.


And it seems that the video won't work on CFC, either, now.  :-\
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 08, 2014, 01:34:48 AM
Any other comments about the fan film? It's been generating a bit of controversy elsewhere.


On the topic of a different fan film series, Star Trek Continues, I've just read that the guest star of their fourth film is going to be Colin Baker (who played the Sixth Doctor in Doctor Who). I don't know if that's confirmed as official, though, or if it's just rumor.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 01:46:56 AM
Things are hoping on the forum, but I'll try to break down and watch the episode tonight, and get back to you.

I really liked Baker in that silly thing Davidson directed last year - came as quite a surprise.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 03:13:22 AM
...And they've kept me busy since.  A big project has broken out today, and I've gotta stay on top of it.  Tonight or tomorrow, though...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 03:35:23 PM
...Poor choice of score in the teaser...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 03:44:00 PM
...10 minutes in, I'm a bit bored.  The acting is not good...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 03:47:26 PM
Nightmare at 30,000 Feet - playing in the 50s.  Cute.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 03:48:54 PM
As if I hadn't been jarred out of the scene enough already, hating the Elvis guy.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 03:52:52 PM
The Enterprise model work is mighty showy - not trying to look like Star Trek.  The model's fine, but the Enterprise should move with gravity...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 03:54:42 PM
The McCoy yelling at Spock stuff is pretty mandatory, but I always hated that stuff - there's somewhere I wouldn't mind a lack of faithfulness to the original.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Fat Kor, having merged with the boss from Office Space, wanders the bridge, goblet of coffee in hand, saying "If you could just go ahead and tell me where the Guardian of Forever is, that would be greaat."
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 04:15:46 PM
Those are some sad-looking Klingons...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 04:29:22 PM
The pacing really draaags in spots.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 04:34:10 PM
...Hard to get past the thick drawl on their McCoy...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 04:38:47 PM
...Aaaanf here's the shipporn...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 04:47:09 PM
If they'd cut this down to regular length, that would have helped the pacing.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 04:51:18 PM
Aaand they just set up Yesteryear.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 04:54:07 PM
Well, that sucked - but I can't imagine how one would tell the story as a good episode to begin with.

They forgot to work in Peter Kirk, WHO IS GAY!  DEAL WITH IT!  YOU MAY NOT LOOK AWAY!  -So points for that.

I wish these fan productions could find stronger Spocks - always too young and not deep-voiced enough.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 08, 2014, 06:16:41 PM
As if I hadn't been jarred out of the scene enough already, hating the Elvis guy.
But... but, that's James Cawley! The guy who executive-produced this! He's the Guy In Charge of the New Voyages/Phase II fan films! He used to play Captain Kirk, before stepping down and hiring the guy currently playing him! And his RL job is being an Elvis impersonator! So it's an in-joke! It's supposed to be funny!

And if I said the above paragraph on TrekBBS, I'd be mercilessly flamed for the next 10 years, at least, since several of the New Voyages/Phase II people post there and one of them is a moderator... That forum actually allows not only moderators, but admins as well, to troll and flame regular members.


I've read multiple versions of this story from the pro version to the fanzine version to a script on fanfiction.net, not to mention the excellent Valjiir interpretation. I really wanted to give an unconditional 5/5 rating to NV/Phase II, since I've loved this story for nearly 40 years.

But I can't. For one thing, this is the second attempt they made at filming the story (there are some clips from the original version on YouTube when Cawley was playing Kirk and they had different scenes). Based on previous familiarity with Cawley's acting, I do think he'd have been better.

I don't actually mind this Spock actor. He's certainly better than most other fan film Spocks I've seen. Can't blame the actor for a couple of the weird speeches he had to give, or turning up in a mental hospital looking like a Vulcan version of Fonzie.

They still haven't found a decent McCoy. The previous one looked grouchy all the time and substituted yelling for acting. This one... there are no nuances. And that memorial service was awful. The Uhura actress can't sing worth a damn, which may explain why they went with the most minimal arrangement possible for "Amazing Grace" and still have it recognizable.

The Enterprise model work is mighty showy - not trying to look like Star Trek.  The model's fine, but the Enterprise should move with gravity...
There is supposed to be a version online that does look more '60s. They did the special effects and model stuff two different ways, as an experiment.


What leaped out at me was the costuming... as in it's just wrong. A "doctor" (there is absolutely nothing about this woman that suggests she's actually a doctor, instead of the original nurse) wearing socks and shoes that a high school girl would wear? A short-sleeved sweater? A doctor bringing a patient outside barefoot?


Well, that sucked - but I can't imagine how one would tell the story as a good episode to begin with.

They forgot to work in Peter Kirk, WHO IS GAY!  DEAL WITH IT!  YOU MAY NOT LOOK AWAY!  -So points for that.
The original script they were going to use did have Peter in it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 08, 2014, 06:27:40 PM
If their Peter was anything BESIDES gay, I wouldn't have a problem with it - but that's the problem; he's not a person, he's (just) GAY.  Well bully for him, but he takes up space interesting characters with personalities could occupy.  Lame.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 10, 2014, 04:41:40 PM
Mylochka reminded me of something important I left out of my remarks - their new Kirk is definitely a better fit.  Cawley didn't do anything exactly wrong I can put a finger on ...  but just wasn't right for the part.  Absolutely no macho swagger - Kirk needs a hint of that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 10, 2014, 04:50:55 PM
I did like at the start Kirk's act on the bridge when he ordered the ship into the neutral zone. Came quite close to how Shatner did the part in similar scenes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 10, 2014, 08:58:07 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/TimONeill/2014-12-10_131809_new_visions_mudd_cover.jpg.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 11, 2014, 02:40:28 AM
Mylochka reminded me of something important I left out of my remarks - their new Kirk is definitely a better fit.  Cawley didn't do anything exactly wrong I can put a finger on ...  but just wasn't right for the part.  Absolutely no macho swagger - Kirk needs a hint of that.
Well, for one thing he's dark-haired. The first time I watched a New Voyages/Phase II fan film, I had to keep reminding myself that it's Captain Kirk in charge of the ship, not Elvis Presley.

Cawley eventually did grow on me as a decent Kirk, but it took awhile. The guy who plays Kirk in the Star Trek Continues fan films, on the other hand, nailed it the first time.

This new actor wasn't portraying a normal Captain Kirk this time, though. We should be able to tell when the next film is released, if he can really do justice to the part.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 11, 2014, 02:47:22 AM
This is definitely true - we need to see him doing the stock Kirk stuff before we can be sure he a good Kirk.

Did you think he carried off trying to kiss the doctor in proper Kirk style?  (Needy, sick in-crisis ala' Dagger of the Mind Kirk being an entirely different creature than in-control-and-charming-on-purpose Kirk, as exampled in Conscience of the King, mind you.  There's something lonely and needy deep inside the man that's looking for The One, contrary to his reputation as a womanizer - which he is, but only a little.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 11, 2014, 03:40:59 AM
This is definitely true - we need to see him doing the stock Kirk stuff before we can be sure he a good Kirk.

Did you think he carried off trying to kiss the doctor in proper Kirk style?  (Needy, sick in-crisis ala' Dagger of the Mind Kirk being an entirely different creature than in-control-and-charming-on-purpose Kirk, as exampled in Conscience of the King, mind you.  There's something lonely and needy deep inside the man that's looking for The One, contrary to his reputation as a womanizer - which he is, but only a little.)
Kirk in Dagger of the Mind only kissed Helen because he was being mind-controlled. In Conscience of the King, he was using Lenore to get to her father, not knowing at the time that he was romancing a serial killer.

I wonder if there's a YouTube video of all the Kirk kisses (actually I'd be surprised if there isn't one). I should compare them and see if Brian Gross' technique is anywhere near that of William Shatner's (not planning to gather evidence in person  ;no ).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 11, 2014, 03:43:42 AM
Ewwww.

I can never unsee the mental image of old fat Shatner macking on Lala Ward.

---

I'm not sure your characterization of either episode is entirely accurate - in both cases, I think there was also a non-trivial element of Kirk Digs the Ladies in the mix.  Lenore really got to him, y'know, despite his initial motivation.  I don't know what he saw in her, but she got to him...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 11, 2014, 12:22:23 PM
Ewwww.

I can never unsee the mental image of old fat Shatner macking on Lala Ward.
WHAT???!!!  :o

When were William Shatner and Lalla Ward in the same show?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 11, 2014, 03:33:16 PM
Never, that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 11, 2014, 06:03:07 PM
Then I don't understand your previous post.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 11, 2014, 06:08:38 PM
I know a lady, who looks kinda like Lala Ward, who sez she's not interested in kissing old fat Bill Shatner...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 11, 2014, 06:54:03 PM
Okay, now I get it. Actually, William Shatner was never my idea of someone to kiss, even when he was much younger.


On the subject of Kirk and Lenore... I get that Kirk likes beautiful women, but at that time in the series, he was supposed to be 33-34 years old, and she was 19. That's just slightly less inappropriate than some of what was going on in Miri, where the female character was supposed to be something like the equivalent of 13-14 years old, at most.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 11, 2014, 06:59:19 PM
I'll have Kirk's back in the case of Miri - he did nothing to encourage her - and she was, after all, about 300 years older than him.

But yeah, wanting to get involved with Lenoe was a bad idea, even leaving out her being a mad-dog killer.
Title: 'Star Trek' Suds: Canadian Company Boldly Brews a Klingon Ale
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 14, 2014, 04:15:56 PM
Quote

'Star Trek' Suds: Canadian Company Boldly Brews a Klingon Ale
SPACE.com
By Elizabeth Howell  December 12, 2014 12:30 PM


([url]http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Q.VhkJLH3gLf39XJ5Sx6Yg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQ2MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz01NzU-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/%27Star_Trek%27_Suds_Canadian_Company-5dfff433ed792716c538380ef3d160d0[/url])
gons come out to Halifax, Nova Scotia's Garrison Brewing after the launch of Klingon Warnog Roggen Dunkel Ale in November 2014.



A new "Star Trek"-themed beer warped into stores in Canada in November, and it's making a splash.

A Klingon ale concept made it big last month after a Canadian brewery heard that it had approval from "Star Trek" creators to make the beer. A company in Vulcan, Alberta, collaborated with Nova Scotia's Garrison Brewing to create the Klingon Warnog Roggen Dunkel Ale in time for a comic convention in Halifax in November.

"We’re beer geeks and a lot of us are sci-fi geeks, so it was a pretty logical fit," said Brian Titus, the president and co-founder of Garrison. "We just love the idea of doing it. The neat thing about 'Star Trek' is over the years, there have been so many variations of it. It's gone on in some different form for decades, and everyone can relate to it."

And the response to the Warnog ale was far more than what Titus, who created his craft-beer brewery in 1997, ever expected. In fact, it led to a brief Klingon invasion of his Halifax-based location.


Klingon Warnog: A warrior's ale

The beer collaboration dates back to licensing agreements that Alberta-based Federation of Beer made with CBS/Paramount a few years ago. Federation was interested in creating Vulcan ale with a brewery in Montana, an idea that received warm support from beer lovers and "Star Trek" fans alike.

When Federation approached Garrison in hopes that a Canadian brewery would make a beer with them, Titus said he jumped at the opportunity. It was up to his brewery to create the recipe, so he decided to go for the unexpected.


([url]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ztFZeOdmHVWDesVPIZ3MJQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTU3NTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz01NzU-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/%27Star_Trek%27_Suds_Canadian_Company-e35ae598eaef11edb7a455270dbd8f9f[/url])
Klingon Warnog Roggen Dunkel Ale on the shelves after Garrison Brewing's launch of the Star Trek-themed beer.


The base was a dark German weissbeer, which is usually light and hazy, but Garrison added chocolate, dark malts and spices to change things up. "There's a lot of neat things going on in this brew," Titus told Space.com.

Warnog is a Klingon alcoholic beverage that is not quite as popular as bloodwine, according to "Star Trek"-themed site Memory Beta, but it was mentioned on television in shows like "Star Trek: The Next Generation."


A beer with honor

In this case, a healthy contingent of Klingons showed up in association with Hal-Con (a comic convention held Nov. 7-9). The local Klingon Assault Group, which does a number of charity events, not only drank the beer but helped serve it to other willing clients, Titus said.

"We knew it would tap a nerve, but we didn't realize it was quite as big a nerve as we saw," he said. "We had long-time customers – we've never exchanged the words 'Star Trek' before – come in wearing some T-shirt from back in the day and picking up a four-pack."

Even after paying Paramount a licensing fee, the brewery still turned a healthy profit and is looking to get the ale on the shelves in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. More "Star Trek" brew is coming in the future, Titus added.

"We'll definitely be doing this beer again," Titus said. "Then there's also the Vulcan ale in the lineup as a potential brew for us to do here, and there are a couple of other ideas that could stew around."

You can learn more about the Klingon Warnog brew at the Federation of Beer website: [url]http://www.federationofbeer.com/.[/url] ([url]http://www.federationofbeer.com/.[/url])
http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-suds-canadian-company-boldly-brews-klingon-173055170.html (http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-suds-canadian-company-boldly-brews-klingon-173055170.html)

---

No thank you.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 14, 2014, 05:08:51 PM
Blood bear? ;lol
Btw, what kinda Star Trek outfit do you run around in, BUncle? The ears? A phaser set to stun? Captains' badge? ;cute
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 14, 2014, 05:14:12 PM
I had a blue science division 'Spock' shirt when I was 12 - never wore it much and don't know what became of it.

I was never a fan of geeks running around in public dressed up, and RenFairs reinforced that.  Saw too many friends going out after the show without changing and declared that I don't freak out the squares unless I'm getting paid.

Didn't that Geek Hierarchy chart I posted a few years ago have Klingon cosplayers at the bottom of Star Trek fandom?  It's certainly how I feel.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 14, 2014, 05:37:01 PM
Personally, I respect the Klingon cosplayer a lot more that a Federation jumpsuit or shirt wearer.  Some real work goes into a Klingon getup, and it would NOT be comfortable.  Really had to respect those poor slobs at the Trek hotel doodad back in the day.  Half the Federation types didn't even attempt to stay in character.  The Klingons were always 'on', and fantastic. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 14, 2014, 05:45:46 PM
I never met anyone cosplaying a real Klingon...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 14, 2014, 06:02:31 PM
I never met anyone cosplaying a real Klingon...

But... the ridged ones have so much more élan! ???
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 14, 2014, 06:17:35 PM
They're so much fatter!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 14, 2014, 06:19:14 PM
...You gotta remember that I used to do a sort of cosplay for a living - you can't expect me to be impressed with the amateurs...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 14, 2014, 07:37:40 PM
I never met anyone cosplaying a real Klingon...
You don't see many OS cosplayers at all, frankly. 

I was talking about the professionals, btw.  At the old 'experience' in Vegas.  The Klingon actors were spot on, and very professional no matter what they were actually doing.  A lot of the Federation types were just people in a shirt playing cashier, bored, and it showed. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 14, 2014, 07:45:56 PM
I'm wouldn't know about them - but it sound like partly a management/direction problem.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 14, 2014, 07:46:59 PM
They're so much fatter!

Lies! Klingons have lots of ridged belly muscle!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 14, 2014, 07:47:47 PM
Ridged belly FAT!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 14, 2014, 08:11:17 PM
I suppose its a necessary fad in fat 'merica. :-\
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 14, 2014, 08:24:24 PM
I'm not making that up about a lot of them being fatties - the armor and makeup are rather forgiving of that, and Fake ST did cast some rather burly actors as Klingons, so it looks less out of place than with humans and most other aliens.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 15, 2014, 03:14:30 AM
I'm wouldn't know about them - but it sound like partly a management/direction problem.

In my experience, those that have to work for the costume are more likely to take it serious.  Professional, or otherwise.  And let's face it, there is little effort required to throw on a red or yellow shirt and maybe a pin, where the Klingon at the  very least has to spend some time getting the makeup on.  That effort just to get ready thus lends to the actor in question taking some ownership of the role. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 15, 2014, 03:18:26 AM
Still - I bet the Klingons did group bat'leth warmups before the show and that was somebody's idea, and someone led the exercises...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 15, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
I blame WOrcle,.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 15, 2014, 01:45:33 PM
Still - I bet the Klingons did group bat'leth warmups before the show and that was somebody's idea, and someone led the exercises...

The beer show?  The Klingon Assault Group doesn't do weapons unless the organizers of whatever event they are attending request a demonstration, according to their rules.  My guess is they were just there to serve the beer and brew up publicity.

At the Vegas thing, they were just there to provide flavor to the shopping area.  Might have also doubled as real security, not sure. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 15, 2014, 04:54:02 PM
Might have also doubled as real security, not sure.

 ;lol ;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 15, 2014, 05:47:23 PM
I've put security in costumes in a haunt before, don't see why it couldn't be done in that kind of venue. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 15, 2014, 05:59:38 PM
It's the kind of thing they'd do in a RenFair, if the renaissance had had Klingons...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 15, 2014, 06:18:33 PM
Instead of the city guard, you had to deal with the fair guard, BUncle? :whistle:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 15, 2014, 06:25:38 PM
They don't need security for regulating the performers, fortunately.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 15, 2014, 06:29:33 PM
...The sort of people who go in for playing Klingons, incidentally, are not the sort I'd consider allowing to regulate the customers, (leaving aside that they're in heavy makeup/costumes not conducive to exertion).  -But it might be different at the professional level of a Vegas show...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 15, 2014, 07:39:49 PM
I've read of some Star Trek conventions dressing their security like Klingons. Ditto for some other conventions, except their were dressed like Dorsai.

Nobody messed with these guys.  :)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 15, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
...Klingons were security at the infamous Con of Wrath, come to think of it...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 18, 2014, 08:52:14 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/FrancescoConsoli/2014-12-17_063802_JB_ST_January.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 18, 2014, 08:56:46 PM
I take it from that image that Number One eventually gets her own captaincy?

If so, does it give her a real name, or is she known as Captain Number One?  :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 18, 2014, 09:03:14 PM
She got at least as far as Commodore, actually, and Byrne has been careful to avoid naming her.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 18, 2014, 09:50:38 PM
 ;llap

Mmm. Is Leonard Nimoy left -or righthanded?
It just striked me both Spock smilies here use a different hand to give the 'llap' greeting.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 18, 2014, 09:55:41 PM
I'm pretty sure right-handed; at least, that's the hand he makes the sign with in my memories of him doing it.  I had nothing to do with that green one...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 18, 2014, 10:15:49 PM
Ah, okay. Thought that was your work too.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 18, 2014, 10:32:44 PM
I seem to remember the mind meld was lefty, though? 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 18, 2014, 10:49:12 PM
[shrugs] The mind meld is a complex two-handed thing, usually.  I guess somebody could google Nimoy's handedness - but my money's still on right, and not because of the odds.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 19, 2014, 10:28:48 PM
I thought the two handed aproach was post-spock.  :dunno: 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 19, 2014, 10:38:39 PM
No - casual one-hand melds were movie-era and afterwards.  The first time Spock did it in Dagger of the Mind, he was totally gripping Van Gelder's whole face in both hands and making a major ceremony of it.  Likewise with the Horta, (Devil in the Dark) sans face.  His meld-grip was slightly more casual in Specter of the Gun, but that was a sloppy episode in the third season, and he had to do the whole landing party under a time limit - and I believe it was still both hands.  I think Evil Spock used one hand on McCoy in Mirror, Mirror.  I'm not sure the time in By any other Name (and Operation: Annihilate!?) through a wall counts, but he used both hands on the wall, IIRC.

What I think of in determining his handedness is the peace sign, appropriately enough.  Unless I'm profoundly mistaken, he always did it with his right hand.  As a good OG Trekker, I can do it easily with either hand, of course.

I did think it over quickly when I was making Dancing Spock below.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 20, 2014, 04:33:35 PM
[shrugs] The mind meld is a complex two-handed thing, usually.  I guess somebody could google Nimoy's handedness - but my money's still on right, and not because of the odds.

Right appears to be right.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 20, 2014, 06:03:34 PM
As a good OG Trekker, I can do it easily with either hand, of course.

Did you have to work at it?  I was easily able to the first time I remember trying as a kid.  Others in my family, not so much.  Figure it was the piano lessons.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 20, 2014, 06:07:01 PM
I had to work at it - those are muscles and neural pathways gentiles don't typically use, and I had to teach them how.  Left was tougher than right, of course, but the ability has stayed once gained.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 20, 2014, 06:12:02 PM
Do you have to put both groups of two fingers on a different angle to spread them? Can't do it with my left hand. Surprisingly, since I'm predominantly left-handed.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 20, 2014, 06:17:02 PM
I did at first, as a kid.  Once the muscles were well-trained, I could skip that part.

It was rather like training my eyebrows to wiggle independently.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on December 20, 2014, 08:36:41 PM
I can do the salute ambidextrously, always could. I attributed it to my many years of playing keyboard instruments.

Unfortunately, I'm not ambidextrous when it comes to writing. :(
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on December 20, 2014, 08:51:21 PM
Unfortunately, I'm not ambidextrous when it comes to writing. :(
One of my favorite things to do to freak people out is to write with both hands at the same time, 2 different things. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on December 20, 2014, 09:56:10 PM
One of my favorite things to do to freak people out is to write with both hands at the same time, 2 different things.

Oooh. Haven't tried that one. :D
Title: Star Trek 3′ Sets July 8, 2016, Release Date
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 23, 2014, 10:49:14 PM
Quote
Star Trek 3′ Sets July 8, 2016, Release Date
Variety
Dave McNary  December 23, 2014 | 11:42AM PT


([url]http://i0.wp.com/pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-enterprise.jpg?crop=0px%2C6px%2C1920px%2C1068px&resize=670%2C377[/url])



Paramount Pictures will release “Star Trek 3″ on July 8, 2016 — marking the 50-year anniversary of the television launch of the landmark science-fiction series.

“Star Trek 3″ is the first title to be dated for July 8, 2016. Steven Spielberg’s “The BFG” and Warner Bros.’ live-action “Tarzan” open a week earlier.

The TV series debuted on Sept. 8, 1966, on NBC and aired for three seasons.

Tuesday’s dating announcement came a day after Justin Lin signed on to direct the third installment in Paramount’s rebooted “Star Trek” franchise. The hiring of Lin came two weeks after Roberto Orci backed away from the directing gig.

Orci had been hired for the helming job earlier this year after J.J. Abrams had to exit the sequel due to his commitment to direct Disney’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” Abrams directed the first two “Star Trek” reboots in 2009 and 2013.

David Ellison’s Skydance Prods. and Abrams’ Bad Robot are producing. Orci and Abrams are the producers. Patrick McKay and John D. Payne worked on the most recent draft of the script.

Lin directed the third, fourth, fifth and sixth installments of the “Fast and Furious” franchise.

Last year’s “Star Trek Into Darkness” grossed $467 million worldwide, including $229 million domestically.
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/star-trek-3-sets-july-8-2016-release-date-1201386320/ (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/star-trek-3-sets-july-8-2016-release-date-1201386320/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 29, 2014, 11:12:54 PM
'Star Trek' Called On to Study 24th Century Heart Health
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=14865.0 (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=14865.0)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 02, 2015, 09:21:34 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/TonyTower/2015-01-01_195749_picardo.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 03, 2015, 03:31:15 AM
Wow. Either he has aged, or was quite a bit brushed up before running his sickbay.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 03, 2015, 03:33:32 AM
It's been around 20 years and he wasn't fresh out of college then.  I recall when he played Dana Delaney's love interest on  China Beach in the late 80s and had hair.

He's just old.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Flux on January 03, 2015, 04:26:04 AM
 ;st


what a waste of a post
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on January 03, 2015, 04:51:48 AM
([url]http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/TonyTower/2015-01-01_195749_picardo.jpg[/url])


Possibly the best thing from that series. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Flux on January 11, 2015, 04:52:56 AM
I've seen around 50 episodes of the original Star Trek on Netflix. Can't get enough of it. That and Twilight Zone might be the best things on Netflix. I could never get into any of the other series.
It's an interesting show, no doubt. But if you've seen any of the original series, the bloopers will make you laugh.
STAR TREK BLOOPERS 1960`s Original Series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZAkGfJY05k#)
Also, on the first episode there is a different captain... I think it was "Captain Pike" or something. Was he just for the pilot? I think they actually mentioned in that episode that he planned to resign.
This is also a pretty funny parody of it.
KRE-O STAR TREK Stop Motion Digital Short (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC6R76Deb1E#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on January 11, 2015, 05:27:16 AM
I've seen around 50 episodes of the original Star Trek on Netflix. Can't get enough of it. That and Twilight Zone might be the best things on Netflix. I could never get into any of the other series.
It's an interesting show, no doubt. But if you've seen any of the original series, the bloopers will make you laugh.
STAR TREK BLOOPERS 1960`s Original Series ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZAkGfJY05k#[/url])
Also, on the first episode there is a different captain... I think it was "Captain Pike" or something. Was he just for the pilot? I think they actually mentioned in that episode that he planned to resign.
This is also a pretty funny parody of it.

Captain Pike was only in the first pilot, originally titled "The Cage." This episode was later incorporated into a two-part episode called "The Menagerie." The actor who played Pike, Jeffrey Hunter, was unavailable for the second pilot, and a few years later he died in an accident (a shame, since he was a good actor; my favorite of his non-Trek roles is Jesus in the movie King of Kings). Who knows how Star Trek would have fared if Hunter had stayed in the part of the Captain? There has been a lot of debate over his and William Shatner's approaches to acting in general and on Star Trek in particular. This is one of those things we'll never know.

As for the parody... sorry, not a nuTrek fan here. Not one bit.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 16, 2015, 01:52:01 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/p280x280/10858408_934066109946158_1921280005930325565_n.jpg?oh=28b17e8a6b8f2eca22fa36acc2ac8e6c&oe=552B38A2&__gda__=1428880196_241c0136c7f829b72a11edf7d161e6d1)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Flux on January 16, 2015, 02:06:02 AM
Is nuTrek the next generation series?
I remember trying to watch that. it felt so wrong after watching the 60's version. I turned it off and never looked back about halfway through the first episode.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on January 16, 2015, 02:22:53 AM
Is nuTrek the next generation series?
I remember trying to watch that. it felt so wrong after watching the 60's version. I turned it off and never looked back about halfway through the first episode.
The Star Trek spinoffs are The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager. The Animated Series is an animated attempt to continue the Original Series. There was a "prequel" series called Enterprise, that contradicts a lot of stuff established in the Original Series, the Animated Series, and The Next Generation. Personally I don't consider Enterprise to be real Star Trek, any more than I consider the two (soon to be three) Abrams movies to be real Star Trek. The fan films are more authentic than either Enterprise or nuTrek.

The term "nuTrek" refers to the Abrams movies that started coming out in 2009. In my opinion these movies are utter garbage, for many reasons, and therefore I refuse to accord them the status of genuine, authentic Star Trek. So when I refer to nuTrek this series of movies is what I mean. NuKirk, nuSpock, nuMcCoy, nuScotty, nuUhura, nuChekov, and nuSulu refer to the characters in these abominable movies. As far as I'm concerned, they're just caricatures of the real characters.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Flux on January 16, 2015, 02:53:59 AM
Is nuTrek the next generation series?
I remember trying to watch that. it felt so wrong after watching the 60's version. I turned it off and never looked back about halfway through the first episode.
The Star Trek spinoffs are The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager. The Animated Series is an animated attempt to continue the Original Series. There was a "prequel" series called Enterprise, that contradicts a lot of stuff established in the Original Series, the Animated Series, and The Next Generation. Personally I don't consider Enterprise to be real Star Trek, any more than I consider the two (soon to be three) Abrams movies to be real Star Trek. The fan films are more authentic than either Enterprise or nuTrek.

The term "nuTrek" refers to the Abrams movies that started coming out in 2009. In my opinion these movies are utter garbage, for many reasons, and therefore I refuse to accord them the status of genuine, authentic Star Trek. So when I refer to nuTrek this series of movies is what I mean. NuKirk, nuSpock, nuMcCoy, nuScotty, nuUhura, nuChekov, and nuSulu refer to the characters in these abominable movies. As far as I'm concerned, they're just caricatures of the real characters.
Eh, the only StarTrek I ever liked was the 60's series.
So I guess I'm anti-nuTrek to an extent.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on January 16, 2015, 06:53:50 PM
The first season of TNG is ESPECIALLY painful, but the series hits a decent stride 3-4 seasons in. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 16, 2015, 06:58:11 PM
It was getting better when they quit making it, as far as characterization of the regulars.

-But they'd run a lot of tropes into the ground (think holodeck stories, for example) years before with no signs of stopping...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on January 16, 2015, 07:17:08 PM
It was getting better when they quit making it, as far as characterization of the regulars.

-But they'd run a lot of tropes into the ground (think holodeck stories, for example) years before with no signs of stopping...

Holodeck, Q, space anomaly of the week...

yeah....

Saw one the other day, started out most fascinating with the death of an extra, but they were showing all the different crew members attempting to cope with the loss.  It was going to be the anti-extra-joke episode, and was rather interesting...

And then they ruined it by introducing some bizarro alien BS into the mix and turned it into the extra joke as all grief was pretty much just brushed off.  Man, just let the characters grow for god sake. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 16, 2015, 07:24:13 PM
The writing was just plain bad - and as you noted in the first season, EVERYTHING was bad.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Flux on January 25, 2015, 03:51:57 AM
Has anybody here seen GalaxyQuest?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 25, 2015, 04:00:48 AM
Yes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on January 25, 2015, 06:36:25 AM
The writing was just plain bad - and as you noted in the first season, EVERYTHING was bad.

My problem with Next Generation  was basically the existence of counselor Troy. If they'd properly utilized her, they could have solved many of their problems and crushed the plots of their episodes without getting into dire peril, and deprived the series of drama.The fact that they didn't makes Piccard and his first officer look stupid and incompetent. Why Data never suggested it is beyond me. The solution is not to have the character with such abilities to begin with.

Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on January 25, 2015, 07:38:50 AM
Empath code of conduct, perhaps?
And, after all, she was kinda a psychologist on the ship.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 25, 2015, 02:40:49 PM
No - Rusty is right.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 05, 2015, 08:20:30 PM
TrekCore at the Smithsonian: Nacelle Troubles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28HDjWkRUF8#ws)
Title: George Takei's musical 'Allegiance' finally gets to Broadway
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 07, 2015, 03:35:26 PM
Quote
George Takei's musical 'Allegiance' finally gets to Broadway
Associated Press
By MARK KENNEDY  February 5, 2015 2:39 PM


([url]http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/R7umkupus8Yfh1mmqQVOHA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTc0NjtpbD1wbGFuZTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/6206c38ccebe48056d0f6a7067002c53.jpg[/url])
In this Jan. 31, 2014 file photo, actor George Takei attends "Howard Stern's Birthday Bash" in New York. Takei is boldly going to Broadway _ the "Star Trek" star’s personal and heartfelt show about Japanese-Americans behind bars during World War II has found a spot on the Great White Way this fall. Takei is boldly going to Broadway _ the "Star Trek" star’s personal and heartfelt show about Japanese-Americans behind bars during World War II has found a spot on the Great White Way this fall. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP, File)



NEW YORK (AP) — George Takei is next boldly going somewhere special — to Broadway.

The "Star Trek" star's personal and heartfelt show about Japanese-Americans imprisoned during World War II has found a spot on the Great White Way this fall with him in a starring role.

"It is absolutely thrilling," Takei, who helped turn his childhood memories in an internment camp into the new musical "Allegiance," told The Associated Press. "I consider this production my legacy project."

"Allegiance" is a multigenerational tale with two love stories that's framed by a Japanese-American war veteran looking back on his family's time in a Wyoming camp. Previews are set to begin on Oct. 6 at a Shubert Theatre still to be announced.

It will mark the first Asian-led cast of a musical on Broadway in more than a decade, since "Flower Drum Song." David Henry Hwang's play "Chinglish," with a predominantly Asian cast, played 109 total performances in 2011-12.

"Allegiance" features music and lyrics by Jay Kuo — which blends Big Band sounds with Japanese folk melodies and brassy Broadway numbers — and a book by Marc Acito, Kuo and Lorenzo Thione. It is being directed by Stafford Arima, who directed "Carrie" and "Altar Boyz" off-Broadway and whose own father was interned in Canada during the war, a dark chapter in American history that not everyone knows.

"I'm always shocked by the number of people I consider to be well informed who, when I tell them about my childhood and growing up behind barbed-wire fences, they are aghast and shocked. They'd never heard of it," Takei said.

The show had a sold-out premiere in 2012 at the Old Globe in San Diego, starring Takei, Lea Salonga and Telly Leung. So far, only Takei has signed on for the Broadway run but he said "we are working to recreate that." The producers are Thione and Andrew Treagus.

Takei was 5 years old when soldiers marched onto his front porch with bayonets in May 1942 and ordered his entire family to leave their Los Angeles home. His school days began with him reciting "The Pledge of Allegiance" but he could see the barbed wire and sentry towers through his school room window.

It would be nearly four years until the family was able to return to Los Angeles, penniless and forced to start over on Skid Row. His parents "worked their fingers to the bones and got us back on our feet," Takei said. They went on to buy a three-bedroom house and send all three of their children to good universities.

"I owe so much to my parents, and, in many ways, this production is my tribute to them. It's a kind of lifetime of gratitude coming to fruition," said Takei, who would earn fame as Sulu aboard the USS Enterprise. "It's a very, very personal project."

Takei said he believed his musical will be the first Broadway show to investigate the internment of Japanese-Americans and pointed to other great musicals that tackle tough moments in history, including "Les Miserables" and "Cabaret." At the heart of "Allegiance" is the importance of family, he said and that's something "everyone can identify with."

Finding a Broadway berth has taken years, partly due to the complicated logistics of traditional theater booking and partly because the subject is a mostly unknown chapter of American history.

"All the Broadway theaters had been booked up and there was a long line of productions waiting for the next vacancy. So we just had to get in line and vamp our time," he said. "It is very, very frustrating and anxiety-ridden. We're absolutely thrilled that we're at this point now. 2015 is going to be the year of 'Allegiance.'"

A bottom-up, grass roots effort to land it a home in New York has included leveraging fans of Takei — a wry social media magnet known for his catchphrase "Oh, My!" — as well as a Facebook campaign with more than 530,000 likes, and an unprecedented offer for theatergoers to reserve a seat for the show before it had gotten a theater.

___

Online: [url]http://www.allegiancemusical.com[/url] ([url]http://www.allegiancemusical.com[/url])
http://news.yahoo.com/george-takeis-musical-allegiance-finally-gets-broadway-170315171.html (http://news.yahoo.com/george-takeis-musical-allegiance-finally-gets-broadway-170315171.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Flux on February 07, 2015, 07:51:58 PM
No matter how serious these are, the dancing Spock at the end kills the seriousness.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 07, 2015, 07:56:47 PM
Spock didn't grow up in a concentration camp.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on February 07, 2015, 10:55:34 PM
I saw a clip of this play on YouTube. I'd go to see it in a theatre.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on February 08, 2015, 08:55:15 PM
This made me laugh today.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 14, 2015, 12:04:16 AM
Simpsons Star Trek inspired closing credits (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2e0wzi)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2015, 01:29:42 AM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/FrancescoConsoli/2015-02-18_062636_JB_ST_March.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 19, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
The Klingon Mek'leth - How practical is it? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0dLUtMViUI#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rusty Edge on February 20, 2015, 05:32:20 AM
Well, did he say it wasn't very practical? I normally compute without sound.

Being a former boomerang guy, it looks like a throwing weapon to me. That would be the reason for the lack of a proper grip, or a point for thrusting.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 20, 2015, 05:43:38 AM
He said he wished it had more of a point for thrusting, but was surprisingly workable.  The shortness and the end-heaviness makes for a workable close-in hacking blade, although the wrapping on the grip was pathetic.  I expected him to complain of the possibility of the hand slipping and getting cut, be he did not.

He mentioned that doesn't find bat'leths much use as weapons, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on February 20, 2015, 01:57:05 PM
Being a former boomerang guy, it looks like a throwing weapon to me. That would be the reason for the lack of a proper grip, or a point for thrusting.

 ;nod
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on February 24, 2015, 04:17:28 AM
George Takei Disses William Shatner & Leonard Nimoy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY73VAw2e3Q#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 02, 2015, 08:56:33 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/TimONeill/2015-03-01_204504_midtown_3.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on March 09, 2015, 10:14:23 PM
I do not know, if someone mentioned it here already, but apart from movies, tv series, animation, there are comic books of star trek. And they can also be quite expensive - these old ones, golden key issues. However, they happened to collect many of them in electronic version, and as they say, all commic book issues (with annuals) from 1967 to 2002 are on one DVD. This is like around 6 Gb of scanned into pdf format comic books.
Some people say, they regretted doing so - issuing it for so low price, as all of it is for $50 still, and I just checked on amazon and ebay:
 http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Complete-Comic-Collection/dp/B001B5KYR2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425938337&sr=8-1&keywords=Star+Trek%3A+The+Complete+Comic+Book+Collection (http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Complete-Comic-Collection/dp/B001B5KYR2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425938337&sr=8-1&keywords=Star+Trek%3A+The+Complete+Comic+Book+Collection)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/STAR-TREK-Comic-Book-COMPLETE-Collection-DVD-Rom-FREE-US-Shipping-/380711635969?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item58a42e8c01 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/STAR-TREK-Comic-Book-COMPLETE-Collection-DVD-Rom-FREE-US-Shipping-/380711635969?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item58a42e8c01)

This is not the same as reading printed hard copy, but when considering, that especially these issues of gold key series can reach prices like $10-20 or more for a single issue! then having possibility to read all of them for this price is really a steal. As for me, I would probably never get all of these 61 gold key issues otherwise. And when comparing them with more recent comic books, there is something in those old stories, that they are so much better in my view.

I thought, it would be interesting for star trek fans, who haven't heard about these digital comic book issues.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 09, 2015, 10:53:25 PM
-Keep in mind that those Gold Keys were done, at first, by people who didn't know enough about ST to know Uhura was black...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on March 09, 2015, 10:59:59 PM
You mean, that these comic books violate star trek canon?
I am used to it, but they still are good stories to read.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 09, 2015, 11:07:09 PM
I mean that it was eventually written by fellows like Marv Wolfman and Len Wein, who knew their ST and sent the Italian artist good photo references, but it was initially produced by people who'd never even seen the show at all.  Sometimes the art was good, despite being so off-model.  More often, everything about the comic was just plain bad.  Caveat emptor.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on March 09, 2015, 11:50:29 PM
You mean, that star trek comic books were made badly? or it whole idea of bringing star trek to comic books was bad?

I like comic book stories since I was very young and still like stories with pictures. Maybe my view on this is somewhat influenced here, but when I consider ST comics, I have seen much much worse comic adaptations of other stories. Also, I have seen much worse drawn comic books. Although it depends what a person like. For example nowadays, there are some software apps for comic book color? Like recent star wars - I prefer so much these old way made comic books.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 09, 2015, 11:54:44 PM
Oh, I just don't think the Gold Key ones are very good, not that I've ever seen a ST comic from anyone that I found to be first-rate.  -But the Gold Keys are especially dumbly-written and slap-dash in the art.  Again; white Uhura.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on March 10, 2015, 12:10:52 AM
Yes, they were not stories, like good for tv episodes. Just good for a comic book.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 17, 2015, 11:13:12 PM
Walter Koenig  Q&A - Lexington Comic and Toy Convention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qZ6T0UHWfs#ws)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 18, 2015, 02:10:58 AM
He's getting on, too. :(

Still, it was interesting. The only time I ever got to see any of the cast members at a convention was at a one-day event in Calgary, back in the '70s (George Takei).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 18, 2015, 03:24:23 AM
I saw Walter twice back in the early 80s.  He told all the same stories both times.

He's really rude in person.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 20, 2015, 02:40:54 AM
PSA Star Trek TAS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMEKifNfic#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 22, 2015, 02:32:11 AM
Caption this:

(http://www.tor.com/images/stories/blogs/15_03/st-noman4.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on March 22, 2015, 10:03:36 AM
It wouldn't be the first time a drunk captained a (star?) ship?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on March 22, 2015, 08:05:11 PM
Today is William Shatner's 84th birthday.

(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/RickSenger/2015-03-22_121422_William-Shatner-william-shatner-11865182-587-650.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on March 23, 2015, 12:11:46 AM
It wouldn't be the first time a drunk captained a (star?) ship?
That's the doctor.

I've been mulling over some captions.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Flux on March 24, 2015, 02:47:46 PM
Caption this:

([url]http://www.tor.com/images/stories/blogs/15_03/st-noman4.jpg[/url])

"Fascinating."
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on April 02, 2015, 07:36:46 PM
For an illustration, I needed a shot of the Enterprise's armory.  To the best of my knowledge, the armory appears only in "Day of the Dove"  (see picture here http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3x07/dayofdove_163.jpg (http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3x07/dayofdove_163.jpg) ) when its not exactly looking like itself.

Here's a picture of what I came up with for a "normal" shot of the armory.  Does this seem like a reasonable extrapolation to you guys?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 02, 2015, 10:01:36 PM
I suppose there'd be racks of phasers...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on April 02, 2015, 10:22:03 PM
I can't remember if they ever used 'rifle' phasers in TOS? If so, that'd definitely would be a mainstay of the armory.
A couple TOS spacesuits as wel perhaps? For if the security needed to go out in vacuum gear in a hurry (hull breaches, transporters unoperational,...)
The overall style sofar looks like it would fit, and the handle/battery thingies in the center of the room are really spot on IMO. Not sure what the big gunlike equipment on the left could be though. But it looks TOS all right.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on April 02, 2015, 11:12:24 PM
The phasers are on that thing on the wall.  I had trouble finding a way to display them so that they would be recognizable....

Environmental suits are a good idea.

Phaser rifles didn't appear very often, but they were in the original series -- Here's one example http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x03/wherenomanhasgone290.jpg (http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x03/wherenomanhasgone290.jpg)

The big thing in the middle of the room is this phaser cannon http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/0x00/thecage254.jpg (http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/0x00/thecage254.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on April 03, 2015, 07:20:03 AM
I don't even remember seeing a phaser rifle or -gun onscreen in TOS. Let alone Spock in a yellow shirt.
Then again, the series was probably never completely broadcasted here back then. Scifi was more of a filler on TV then.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on April 03, 2015, 09:54:42 AM
I don't even remember seeing a phaser rifle or -gun onscreen in TOS. Let alone Spock in a yellow shirt.
Then again, the series was probably never completely broadcasted here back then. Scifi was more of a filler on TV then.
A phaser rifle was used in the episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before." It's what Kirk used to kill Gary Mitchell.

Spock never wore a yellow shirt in the TV series. Mylochka's illustration is for one of the "Shadow Captain" Valjiir stories, in which Spock served as Captain while Kirk was on Earth in a 1950s mental hospital, and during his recuperation after they rescued him.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on April 03, 2015, 11:55:23 AM
Oh? I thought that "wherenomanhasgone290.jpg" pic link in Mylochka's latest post was from the series. No render or something.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on April 03, 2015, 05:28:00 PM
The picture from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is from one of my favorite moments in Star Trek.  Kirk is talking on the communicator to the ship.  Scotty asks, "Did you get the phaser rifle?"  Kirk replies, "I didn't order any phas..."  And in walks Spock (who usually represents the more pacifistic, tolerant approach to alien encounters) looking all badass with this giant phaser rifle balanced on his hip with an expression on his face that says,  "Yeah, it's on now..." 

Ol' Gary Mitchell should have refrained whatever his last joke about pointed ears was...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on April 03, 2015, 06:39:45 PM
Ah, so at one point Spock did wear a yellow shirt. :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on April 03, 2015, 07:58:37 PM
Yes, in that episode, he did.  Not sure why...  Even in "The Cage" he wore a blue shirt

 http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0050.jpg (http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0050.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on April 03, 2015, 08:02:48 PM
Sorry, my mistake. For some reason I blanked that one out. Although to my color sense it wasn't really yellow, but more of a peachy-beige...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on April 03, 2015, 08:22:15 PM
 ;lol ;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2015, 11:34:17 PM
Right here is a thing that REALLY bugs me about fake ST - I get disappointed a lot when people don't make any distinction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dbl45otRBiw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dbl45otRBiw)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on May 22, 2015, 11:51:09 PM
Okay, that's interesting... I like the landscaping. There must be quite a bit of emphasis on athletics stuff, wherever that is.

But that's not like any starship I remember.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 22, 2015, 11:57:17 PM
Judging from the shape of the saucer, I believe that's supposed to be the Sovereign-class E from most of the FakeTrek movies.  It seems like a more likely subject than Voyager with the pylons in the down position.

-I thought it was going to look like the real Enterprise from the way the link I stumbled over was introduced.  I really hate when people do that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on May 23, 2015, 12:05:12 AM
Fake Trek as in nuTrek?

Actually, some of the elements of this building remind me of some of the cutesy gadgets you can buy on ThinkGeek. In other words, I was thinking about the Star Trek pizza cutter, the Star Trek bottle opener, and so on.

Junky, knickknacky stuff, in other words.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 23, 2015, 12:15:30 AM
I was using "Fake Star Track" to refer to NextGen, ect., for twenty years before JarJar came  along and relieved himself all over my childhood.

That's The Abomination in my personal terminology.


It's given me a new appreciation for Brannon Braga and his little fans.  Seriously, it has.

I actually think they should do that Titan show people talk about as a cartoon.  I look at interviews on Youtube that Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis have given together and think "They should play Riker and Troi as themselves.  Riker has gotten to being a laid-back, charming ex-prettyboy in his middle age, and Troi turned into her mother."  IRL, completely unlike Riker and Troi on the screen thus far, they have a lot of chemistry.  And both being terrible actors, they might do a lot better playing people more like their real selves.  In both cases, if you assume that Riker was always concealing a massive lack of self-confidence (and that would explain a great deal about him, played badly all those years by a man who freely says "I'm not even the best actor in my own house") it's a reasonable extrapolation of who they might have become over the years.  Sirtis is a pill IRL, and playing Riker as Frakes, privately feeling like a fraud not up to the legacy of the Great Master he studied under -Picard/Stewart- would give the character some dramatic dept.

Do it as a cartoon because it's cheaper, and they haven't aged all that well.  Wil Wheaton is available, I betcha.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on May 23, 2015, 12:25:16 AM
Gah.

I've watched a few of Wil Wheaton's gaming shows and a video where both he and Neil deGrasse Tyson were on a panel with some other people. I don't actually mind him; he's much more articulate as himself and nowhere near as annoying as Wesley.

I'd still watch Patrick Stewart read the phone book. I wouldn't pay money, mind, but I'd watch him do it.

The rest of the TNG cast can just fade into obscurity.

There's a thread over at TrekBBS asking if people miss Data. There are actually people there who want an Abrams-style TNG reboot.

Thank goodness it's going to take me YEARS to catch up with all my Star Trek reading that I've got now, never mind future stuff.

That said, I'm like the rest of the Star Trek Continues fans, counting down the days until the new episode is posted...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 23, 2015, 12:29:15 AM
Total agreement on that last.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 23, 2015, 12:40:04 AM
The fundamental failure of NextGen, etc., was the writing.  It's hard to untangle what's bad writing and what's bad performance of the script, but everything could have been fixed with good writing.

They had something with Data, but they didn't know when they'd played it out, and stop featuring him so heavily while they were ahead.  The android Pinocchio thing got old a couple of years in, but they beat that horse's corpse for another four years anyway.  If I'd had any say, the first time Data had emotions would have also been the last time - Bret Spiner, a man not without talent, has a really smarmy smile.  I was incredibly sick of Data for over half of the run.

-This is a long topic, running through the regulars; both performance and writing, and the intersection of the two as on ongoing process in a serial fiction.  Let me percolate my thoughts and come back as I get them organized.  I should have led with Stewart and worked down.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 23, 2015, 02:55:50 AM
Quote
'Star Trek: Captain Pike' Fan Film to Boldly Go to Pre-Kirk Enterprise
SPACE.com
By Elizabeth Howell  May 21, 2015 7:08 AM



A group of dedicated "Star Trek" fans want to make a new movie, featuring a character from "The "Original Series" who was captain of the Enterprise before James T. Kirk. And they plan to have experienced "Star Trek" actors taking part.

Christopher Pike was featured in the first pilot episode of the original "Star Trek" TV show. That episode, called "The Cage," concerns a mission in the year 2254, when Captain Pike and his crew are leaving the planet Rigel VII, where several team members were killed.

"The incident filled Pike with so much guilt that he is considering resigning his commission. But that's all we know about Captain Pike, and we want to know so much more. Don't you?" the group's Kickstarter page reads ([url]https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/528924618/star-trek-captain-pike[/url]).

"This is the story of Captain Pike when he first takes command of the Enterprise and his first mission aboard her," it adds. "And with your help, it will lead into a 90-minute Captain Pike film or Web Series."

The group — which calls itself Rigel 7 Productions — aims to first make a 45-minute feature called "Star Trek: Captain Pike," then produce the 90-minute movie "Star Trek: Encounter at Rigel."

So far Rigel 7 Productions' Kickstarter campaign has raised almost $24,000 of its $112,000 goal. The campaign will close on June 3.

Rigel 7 Productions says "Encounter at Rigel" would answer three questions raised by "The Cage" pilot episode: What happened to Pike's first officer and science officer (Mr. Spock) on the first mission; if Pike ever went into battle; and what alien race he encountered.

Pike will be played by Todd Shawn Tei, the producer of the show. The cast also includes Robert Picardo, who played The Doctor on "Star Trek: Voyager."

Other headliners include Bruce Davison ("Star Trek: Voyager and Enterprise"), Dwight Schultz ("Star Trek: TNG"), Linda Park ("Star Trek: Enterprise") and Chase Masterson ("Star Trek: Deep Space 9").

The funds will go toward payments for items such as set construction, filming, actors and make-up, with a small portion going to charity, project representatives said.

Paramount Pictures, which is working on a third film in the rebooted "Star Trek" series in Hollywood, allows "Star Trek" fan productions to go forward as long as those projects do not make a profit. Last year, another project called "Star Trek: Axanar ([url]http://www.space.com/25265-star-trek-prelude-to-axanar-kickstarter-video.html[/url])" warped well past its crowdfunding goal on Kickstarter.
http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-captain-pike-fan-film-boldly-pre-110802234.html (http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-captain-pike-fan-film-boldly-pre-110802234.html)

---

I have always thought that more could be done with young Pike, but my suck-sense is tingling.  Let us hope that I am wrong.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on May 30, 2015, 06:47:00 PM
The newest episode from Star Trek Continues is up now. It's called "The White Iris" and is available here: http://startrekcontinues.com/episodes.html (http://startrekcontinues.com/episodes.html)

I haven't seen it yet, so can't comment.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 30, 2015, 07:49:33 PM
It's up on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUg8-Tz69_I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUg8-Tz69_I)

And Vimeo:
https://vimeo.com/128304406 (http://vimeo.com/128304406)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 30, 2015, 09:13:19 PM
I've mentioned on occasion that when I was a print reporter, I was the paper's theater critic and had a rule of thumb that any show that managed to make me cry got a good review.

Well, I thought the opening on the Planet of the Fat Fanboys in Robes sucked, because that was what it looked like and that took me out of the story.  I thought the pacing of the whole episode dragged, I was very reminded of the TNG episode where Riker's injury required him to undergo a Clip Show Procedure - though this was infinitely better than that waste of an hour I'll never get back.  -And any holodeck use at all gives me a rash, as it surely does anyone who suffered through Fake ST.  I also can't see Kirk involved with Wendy Williams.  And if I'd had an actress with such a good likeness of Rayna, I would have done more with her.

But the payoff with the shortest of the visions --- this gets my recommendation.

Kirk is a very lonely man - not my fan interpretation, mind you, but something Trek made explicit many times over.  Any talk of him being a space womanizer w/ green skank in every port is simply ignorant of Star Trek.  He wasn't above using charm to keep himself and his crew alive -and sleeping with the slave girl on the Roman planet was pretty sleezy/rapey, IMAO- but the guy got his heart broken a lot.  He's a big mushpot, always looking for The One, and lamenting that his addiction to a fast ship and a star to fly by gets in the way.

Give it a look - and stick with it to the end.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on May 30, 2015, 10:11:40 PM
I just finished watching it... and yeah, I cried as well.

I don't like inserting the Holodeck into TOS.  ;q;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 31, 2015, 02:19:43 AM
The little girl --- if there's anything in the universe that's going to really get to Kirk, instantly and completely, she's it.  My eyes totally teared up for him, though I suspected that was who she was.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on May 31, 2015, 02:34:25 AM
This brings to mind this question: If David hadn't been killed, would Kirk ever have told him that he had a half-brother or sister who died unborn?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 31, 2015, 03:10:22 AM
Dunno - do you always tell your kids stuff like that when you don't have to?

Remember, too, that David was in a continuity where Kirk never regained that memory...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on May 31, 2015, 03:31:43 AM
It wasn't Miramanee Kirk forgot, it was Rayna. He always knew he'd married Miramanee and that she was pregnant with his child.

At least that's the impression I got at the end of "The Paradise Syndrome" when Kirk's first question on seeing Miramanee wasn't "Who is this woman and why did she just call me 'Kirok'?".

It would have been a natural thing for David to wonder if he had siblings, given how many years had passed.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 31, 2015, 03:40:01 AM
I'd have sworn the old memories crowded out the Kirok ones...

And that is the sort of thing you avoid telling your kids - "Yep yep yep; dad boinked a lot of babes besides yer maw."
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on May 31, 2015, 03:59:24 AM
Well, it's not like David was a child, teenager, or even young adult. He was already grown, and could very well have fathered several kids of his own (based on his age).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 01, 2015, 01:13:34 AM
BTW - the little girl playing the little girl was Sarai, who does the YouTube ST reviews in four year-old speak, and is utterly adorable.  I posted a vid or two last year.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 01, 2015, 01:28:50 AM
Here she is; at least the links still work.
Star Trek episode mirror mirror recap ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyY6k-gEVEE#ws[/url])

Star Trek Shore Leave epsiode recap ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEcEjMMU0a4#ws[/url])

Star Trek Pizza Monster episode recap ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnjPr4Hx6VY#ws[/url])

Star Trek The Menagerie episode recap ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuwgn1U8aTc#ws[/url])
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Trenacker on June 08, 2015, 04:42:15 AM
So. My favorite 'Trek was Enterprise because I thought that Archer's was the most realistic, and perhaps relatable, portrayal of a captain. By designed, he botched a great many things, which made the entire series seem more realistic, not that there wasn't something to admire in Picard's consistency, mind you.

Also, I appreciated how the ship was up-armored, up-gunned, and up-crewed for its forray into the Delphic Expanse. The MACOs were an awesome addition and I've never really forgiven their elimination in subsequent lore.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 08, 2015, 04:57:09 AM
[winces]

I liked Enterprise better than most, despite Seven of Vulcan, but you had to go and mention stuff from that horrible, horrible 3rd season...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Trenacker on June 08, 2015, 10:54:08 PM
That season was, by far, my favorite, and I dearly wish that they'd have extended the arc, although I realize that the moral dilemma posed by the Xindi was a bit "on the nose" for an immediately post-9/11 viewership.

The concept of the Enterprise as unwilling warship was fun, and the writers did a lot to make credible the sense that this was a special mission. But then, you're talking to the guy who likes watching Last Ship for things like getting to see firefighting procedure and SEAL training.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 08, 2015, 11:09:24 PM
And you're talking to a guy who hates, hates, HATES finding metaphors for that thing that happened in New York 14 years ago in his escapist fantasy.  It's rather antithetical to the whole point of consuming escapist fantasies during a decade I had to stop watching the news out of disgust.

Now the FORTH season is a different matter...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 08, 2015, 11:12:06 PM
...And God bless Scot Blackula.  If him and whatisname who played Trip aren't a couple of charismatic turd-polishing performers, I don't know who is, because the writing was not good on that show for three years, except for a few bits, and they usually made whatever lame scene they were in shine so hard they'd give Patrick Stewart a sunburn.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Lorizael on June 09, 2015, 12:13:26 AM
I mostly concur with B's U, except I'd add Doc Phlox to the list of turd-polishers.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Lorizael on June 09, 2015, 12:14:43 AM
Also, Dr. Sam Beckett is not a black vampire.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 09, 2015, 02:03:54 AM
It's funnier than my usual Scott Dracula - a joke I'm sure he'd bruised a lot of knuckles over very young.

Scream Quantum Leap Dude, Scream

I once had a job grading Texas High School competence exam essays, and Sam had apparently leaped into some kid - he signed a reasonably good essay
"-Dr. Sam Beckett".


Mylochka says of Enterprise Quantum Star Track, among other things "and their Nelix-figure was a lot easier to take."  The writing staff definitely had trouble failed at getting a handle on who he was/what might be interesting for him to do -Charles Emerson Winchester's nicer brother with a funny head?  Really?- and he sometimes managed to overcome, and sometimes didn't, IMAO.  The time Seven of Vulcan went into ponn farr in decontamination and tried to vulk him?  He was hilarious.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 13, 2015, 02:38:47 AM
Valka - that idea that Enterprise was in a new post-First Contact continuity is an interesting one, don't you think?  I mean, obviously it was, explicitly so, as I recalled when Egon pointed it out - but I was kinda talking about NextGen creating itself - and how it explains that Archer et.al. seems to have been erased from history in between, with absolutely no mentions or hints -EVER- of Archer and a previous Enterprise as late as Nemisis...  How's them apples?

Also, you get to dismiss the douchey Vulcans as not of the REAL ST timeline...  Though I have some thoughts about why you shouldn't...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 14, 2015, 04:27:29 AM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/1533943_10203805190244326_4517276799162662422_n.jpg?oh=3a0e03f312d0b77a6407caa1d3b70627&oe=55EE55B5)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 14, 2015, 06:01:39 AM
Like Janeway, time travel (at least the non-TOS Star Trek version) gives me a headache. I would love it if there could be a logical case for ignoring the entire existence of the Enterprise series.

Just stating that I didn't like it doesn't get me anywhere but flamed (over at TrekBBS - on that site even the mods will flame people who don't like Enterprise or the nuTrek movies).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 14, 2015, 02:37:24 PM
Odd, that; my perception is that fans of Star Trek and fake alike strongly tend to strongly dislike Enterprise.  It steps all over one and seemed like a regression to the other.

Now, I thought it had non-trivial redeeming qualities - I loved some of the ideas behind it, though I was terribly disappointed by a lot of the execution.  (Most notably featuring another curvaceous showgirl w/ superpowers too obviously like the stripper-wrapped-in-duct-tape of the previous show - people HAVE gone broke making it too obvious how much they underestimate the intelligence of the American public.)

The douchey Vulcans, y'know -I never liked Tuvok or SylarSpock in a similar vein, but still- were actually a clever bit of continuity; the overt racism towards Spock, the everyone always shouting racist stuff in his face when they got mad at him, had to come from somewhere, some profound collective hostility and frustration, there being no real grounds for it shown in Star Trek.  Vulcans as the dominant big brother always telling the smelly dumb emotionally immature space hillbillies to cool their jets and wait 'til they're ready fits - and explains a lot.

(I've always argued that Spock and Sarek were special, from a leading family in the Vulcan meritocracy, thus the cold pressure on Spock all his life to conform and excel, thus his buried complexes and insecurity about his differences from the Vulcan mode.  Not examples, at any rate, to be relied upon for knowing an entire species.  -And Spock's gramma T'Pau fit with them Enterprise Vulcans pretty well at that.)

...It's just too bad the show wasn't Robert April w/ more of a Forbidden Planet retro vibe, and that they didn't try harder for consistency with the original, preferring TNG-era flourishes like Klingons who didn't look like Mexican bikers on acid.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Metaliturtle on June 15, 2015, 03:38:33 PM
Is this the one with Luke and Leia or Gandalf?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 15, 2015, 03:38:48 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Metaliturtle on June 15, 2015, 03:50:27 PM
k
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 12:37:36 AM
Quote
George Takei Opens Up About Feud With William Shatner
Good Morning America
By MICHAEL ROTHMAN  4 hours ago


([url]https://s1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/bMtEeXSYgoQHNXnT6mFLlw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTU0MDtpbD1wbGFuZTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/gma/us.abcnews.gma.com/GTY_takei_shatner_jef_150616_16x9_992.jpg[/url])



"Star Trek" icon George Takei is opening up about his ongoing so-called feud with former co-star William Shatner.

"It’s all coming from Bill. Whenever he needs a little publicity for a project, he pumps up the so-called controversy between us," he told the New York Times Magazine, adding that there's no real tension.

When asked about Shatner, 84, calling Takei "psychotic" seven years ago, he responded, "Two months after my wedding, he went on YouTube and ranted and raved about our not sending him an invitation. We had. If he had an issue, he could have easily just phoned us before the wedding, simple as that. But he didn’t. And the reason he raised that fuss two months later is because he was premiering his new talk show, 'Raw Nerve.'"

The 78-year-old actor said any problems the two have date back to the days of "Star Trek."

"It’s difficult working with someone who is not a team player. The rest of the cast all understand what makes a scene work -- it’s everybody contributing to it. But Bill is a wonderful actor, and he knows it, and he likes to have the camera on him all the time," he said.

Takei did say he doesn't need to forgive Shatner and has already invited him to his new musical "Allegiance," which he wrote about his family's struggles during WWII in an internment camp. It will hit Broadway in November.

Shatner's representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
https://gma.yahoo.com/george-takei-opens-feud-william-shatner-191939980--abc-news-celebrities.html (https://gma.yahoo.com/george-takei-opens-feud-william-shatner-191939980--abc-news-celebrities.html)

---

"Also," an impishly smiling Takei added, "he spams up everywhere about how great he is until all conversations are about him.  It's like Ben Kenobi molested the Clown Posse and the baby was born half-vyeh in the 40s."

"The universe was just that revolted," he said.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 17, 2015, 01:38:24 AM
Guess as good a thread as any.  Been slowly working into Farscape on netflix.  Not bad background noise when I'm working something. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 02:08:53 AM
I love the Farscape.  Unpretentious space adventure w/ appealing characters.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Metaliturtle on June 17, 2015, 04:29:10 AM
Is this Star Trek?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrG4JnrN5GA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrG4JnrN5GA)

Gandalf is hilarious.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 17, 2015, 04:40:11 AM
That's cute! Love how they got "Shut up, Wesley" in there. :D

You mean you're unfamiliar with Star Trek: The Next Generation?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Metaliturtle on June 17, 2015, 04:43:23 AM
That's cute! Love how they got "Shut up, Wesley" in there. :D

You mean you're unfamiliar with Star Trek: The Next Generation?

I'm aware of it but never was able to get into it, not into sci-fi as much as fantasy
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 17, 2015, 05:48:52 AM
Well, there are lots of varieties of Star Trek around, what with 6 TV series, TOS movies, TNG movies, many excellent fan films, and if you're really desperate, there's always the nuTrek crap.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Metaliturtle on June 17, 2015, 05:52:24 AM
Well, there are lots of varieties of Star Trek around, what with 6 TV series, TOS movies, TNG movies, many excellent fan films, and if you're really desperate, there's always the nuTrek crap.

Personal favorites?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 06:25:43 AM
See sig smilie.

Accept no substitutes - literally.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 17, 2015, 06:41:59 AM
My favorite is, of course, the Original Series (TOS). My second favorite is Voyager, followed by the Animated Series, Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and I don't like Enterprise at all. So that's the TV shows.

Movies... well, in my opinion only the first 4 TOS movies were any good. And I did like the character of Lily Sloane in First Contact. The rest of the movies range from "not very good" to "what a waste of resources it was, making this garbage."

Fan films... There are a lot of them! I tend to follow only a couple of series, though, and both are based on TOS. Phase II/New Voyages has put out quite a lot of fan films, some guest-starring George Takei and Walter Koenig. Those are the better ones, in my estimation. Star Trek Continues hasn't done as many, but the quality of those they have done is top-notch. It looks and feels almost like real Star Trek. There are a couple of other fan film series I've seen, and they go strictly for humor: Stone Trek, which is Star Trek done in the style of the Flintstones, and The Red Shirt Diaries, which is told from the POV of a female red shirt who has, so far, managed to survive.

NuTrek (aka Abramstrek, Abramsverse, JJverse)... if you're into pointless retcons, actors who can't act, plots that make no sense, an Engineering room that looks like a brewery, gratuitous underwear scenes (really, if you don't want the guy to look when you're changing, don't stand there and pose for him when he does sneak a look), completely unprofessional officers (Captain, I know this is a serious mission and we could be killed, but just shut up while I whine at my boyfriend, kthxbai), and blatant ripoffs of what's been done before, in a far superior way with much better actors... well, nuTrek would be for you.

However, TV and movies and fan films are not all that's available. Add in hundreds of novels and fanfic stories that number in... probably the millions (including the terrific Valjiir series, stories and artwork by members of this very forum - see the Valjiir thread for more information ;)).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Metaliturtle on June 17, 2015, 06:48:19 AM
My favorite is, of course, the Original Series (TOS). My second favorite is Voyager, followed by the Animated Series, Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and I don't like Enterprise at all. So that's the TV shows.

Movies... well, in my opinion only the first 4 TOS movies were any good. And I did like the character of Lily Sloane in First Contact. The rest of the movies range from "not very good" to "what a waste of resources it was, making this garbage."

Fan films... There are a lot of them! I tend to follow only a couple of series, though, and both are based on TOS. Phase II/New Voyages has put out quite a lot of fan films, some guest-starring George Takei and Walter Koenig. Those are the better ones, in my estimation. Star Trek Continues hasn't done as many, but the quality of those they have done is top-notch. It looks and feels almost like real Star Trek. There are a couple of other fan film series I've seen, and they go strictly for humor: Stone Trek, which is Star Trek done in the style of the Flintstones, and The Red Shirt Diaries, which is told from the POV of a female red shirt who has, so far, managed to survive.

NuTrek (aka Abramstrek, Abramsverse, JJverse)... if you're into pointless retcons, actors who can't act, plots that make no sense, an Engineering room that looks like a brewery, gratuitous underwear scenes (really, if you don't want the guy to look when you're changing, don't stand there and pose for him when he does sneak a look), completely unprofessional officers (Captain, I know this is a serious mission and we could be killed, but just shut up while I whine at my boyfriend, kthxbai), and blatant ripoffs of what's been done before, in a far superior way with much better actors... well, nuTrek would be for you.

However, TV and movies and fan films are not all that's available. Add in hundreds of novels and fanfic stories that number in... probably the millions (including the terrific Valjiir series, stories and artwork by members of this very forum - see the Valjiir thread for more information ;)).

See Buncle, this is what should be encouraged, I'm actually gonna watch star trek because of this post.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 06:59:11 AM
Valka is pure gold.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Metaliturtle on June 17, 2015, 07:02:35 AM
Glad you've got her in this jumbleytown you made then :)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 07:07:50 AM
Yes. ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 17, 2015, 06:50:26 PM
And I did like the character of Lily Sloane in First Contact.


As a fan of the only Trek/Horror crossover, I'm sorry, but Alice Krige totally stole that movie.  Lily Sloane did make Stewart's stage acting tolerable, though. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 07:15:31 PM
Rape survivor revenge story -an honorable horrorish trope in addition to the creepy Borg running around like zombie hordes- and so he needed more than usual to play it big and hit the back seats...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 08:01:25 PM
Star Trek: The Motion Picture, for all its considerable crippling flaws, is a much better watch in later edited releases (especially with a remote in your hand to fast-forward through the expensive long exterior FX scenes and concentrating on the people), and is the only one that I find to have made a credible on-model Star Trek with the right kind of look and themes we loved in the real thing on TV.

The Wrath of Khan, loser of absolutely zero polls ever in this contentious world for best ST film, was undeniably an infinitely superior film --- that was pretty off-model and ruined everything that followed with its dominatingly successful example.  Military procedure dialogue, uniforms that look like military uniforms -you may think Star Trek space pajamas are hilarious, but that's the ST look- and a story about violence and death.  Off-model for ST, if a thrilling little adventure tale - and ST did those a lot, but ST's claim to legitimacy as good science fiction (and no small part of what speaks to us fans of the Real Thing) is in its Jonathan Swiftian political analogy.  The show was about ideas, with adventure tales as mass appeal added.  TWOK was about an adventure on the model of Moby Dick and Paradise Lost, with some good grace notes about feeling old and then young appended.  Not as much about the ideas/ideals, the question the crappy first had about life the universe and everything for an example of ST:TMP doing right, if failing.

Hated In Search Of: Spock.  I cried when he died, I loves the Spock - but it was a logical death, and a creative mistake to resurrect him, especially in such an inferior movie.

Hated The Voyage Home a lot more - the Mcguffin didn't actually make any sense, in that the deal with the probe was never explained -stupid, just incompetent plotting there- and I didn't find the jokes very funny.  It was Star Trek for people who hate  Star Trek, and I don't care that a lot of people are wrong and like it - I'm sticking to my guns.

Hated Star Trek V: The Final Frontier a lot less than most fans did.  It wasn't --- good, but it had a few moments, and for all that it was done in the WOK look, the theme was the only other on-model ST-appropriate one, if, like TMP before it, executed very badly.

I liked one thing (and that only) about The Voyage Home - Captain Sulu.  He studied for many years at the feet of the Ascended Master of starship captaincy, Kirk, as Kirk's most focused and reliable person on the bridge besides Spock -watch the show and try to tell me differently- and now he's taken his turn in the big chair, drinking his freakin' tea like nothing can touch him, letting his people know he Always Knows What To Do - and he's doing it his way, not, with all respect, the Master's.  He's his own man, he learned his lessons well, and our little Sulu is all grown up - and Good At His Job.  -He always was.


...I may follow up with similar on the fake/TNG movies, but in my personal headcannon, Spock is still heroically dead, and nothing since really happened.  Green1 can call me a bittervetTM all he wants - it's my head and that's my Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 17, 2015, 09:30:42 PM
Rape survivor revenge story -an honorable horrorish trope in addition to the creepy Borg running around like zombie hordes- and so he needed more than usual to play it big and hit the back seats...

Eh, it's his schtick.  Rarely does he break away from stage acting, and NEVER when he tries to show any emotion.  One of my favorite episodes of TNG is where he's being tortured by insert bad cardassian here.  The Cardassian delivers a stellar performance, and gets responded by multiple slips into stage acting by Stewart. 

I mean, he even overdid SCROOGE, a role written for such a stage actor, then they piled on the ghost of christmas jawa. ugh.   
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 09:39:43 PM
You don't have to sell me on Stewart being over-rated as an actor, as you know, and you put your finger on exactly his shortcoming.  But he is --- never terrible.  These Royal Shakespeare Company people almost never are, if not as good as most people think they are.

The normal low-affect tendencies of Picard are by design, I daresay, and not a bad design, creatively; he's old bald Kirk in concept, after all.  (And they failed utterly in attempts to sell that Picard was ever young Kirk, but still.)

First Contact, as Picard's rape survivor metaphor story, was Picard losing it, Picard out of control - explicitly in the story, ex. machine-gunning the Borg on the holodeck.  You may have seen his performance beats coming, may have found it all too obvious, but the arc called for Big Performance.  Personally, I wanted the movie to suck very much after the previous, and that I enjoyed it at all on any level was a triumph - and enjoy it I did, considerably, for all its flaws.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 17, 2015, 09:59:25 PM
...I may follow up with similar on the fake/TNG movies, but in my personal headcannon, Spock is still heroically dead, and nothing since really happened.  Green1 can call me a bittervetTM all he wants - it's my head and that's my Star Trek.

Please do. 

ST TMP:  Damn near put me off Trek all together, watching at a young age. 

TWOK:  My second favorite of any movies.  Good Buck Rogers feel to it in a lot of ways made it FUN. 

I'd need a synopsis of the rest just to be able to tell which is which...maybe watched them once.  Twice if there was nothing else on before netflix. 

Generations:  All but unwatchable

First Contact:  My personal favorite ST film, mostly due to it's admitted influence from Aliens (which happens to be my favorite scifi and horror movie).  It has enough of that horror element for my tastes, and thus comes off less "clean" than a lot of the Trek shows.  It's a dirty universe, the captain has flaws, the enemies are ruthless and fight dirty, it just works for me.  Directing is reminiscent of early Sam Raimi work in places. 

Insurrection:  Plays like a bigger, longer TV episode.  That's not a BAD thing, but there wasn't much remarkable either.  See lots of lost opportunities for more moral dillema and more horror for both what the enemies were going through and were about to do to the 'good guys'.  Paramount wanted it "lighter tone" though, and I think it suffers from that decision most. 

Nemesis:  WTF?  This wasn't Trek or TNG as far as I can tell, and bad SciFi at that.  Not an awful story, really.  Bad choice of directors, IMO.  It's not like Frakes was totally messing up the previous two films, and half the cast rebelled at the decision and it shows on screen as they just cash the check.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 17, 2015, 10:10:31 PM

First Contact, as Picard's rape survivor metaphor story, was Picard losing it, Picard out of control - explicitly in the story, ex. machine-gunning the Borg on the holodeck.  You may have seen his performance beats coming, may have found it all too obvious, but the arc called for Big Performance.  Personally, I wanted the movie to suck very much after the previous, and that I enjoyed it at all on any level was a triumph - and enjoy it I did, considerably, for all its flaws.

I get it, he is what he is, and he delivered about the best you could expect.  It wasn't BAD, but it's certainly worth mentioning.  Just saying that Lily Sloane helps to mitigate some of that coming from Picard as they get attached to the hip, and I think her presense probably makes this the best Picard showing of the movies (series) hands down.  Something none of the regulars could manage.  He never really had a good foil, as Kirk had with Spock.  She gives him that in a way no one else could. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 10:14:48 PM
Please do.
I will.  I probably would have anyway, since Turtle asked for this kind of thing and I both aims to please and have something to say -despite all my bittervetTM stuff sliming this thread from end to end, I'm an actual TNG/DS9/Voyager/Enterprise fan who watched them pretty much in full, and enjoyed them and wished they were better - not something -I confidently, if arrogantly, assert- that most fake Star Track fans can say in reverse.

We should all do overviews of the various shows in the same vein, according to our knowledge, actually.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 10:21:46 PM
I get it, he is what he is, and he delivered about the best you could expect.  It wasn't BAD, but it's certainly worth mentioning.  Just saying that Lily Sloane helps to mitigate some of that coming from Picard as they get attached to the hip, and I think her presense probably makes this the best Picard showing of the movies (series) hands down.  Something none of the regulars could manage.  He never really had a good foil, as Kirk had with Spock.  She gives him that in a way no one else could.
You're right about John Luke having no Spock, for all that Data was sitting right there hitting a lot of Spock's story beats in his own way (nor did he have a McCoy), and excellent point.

But I have to disagree about Lily - Dr. Crusher would have been less exposition-friendly, but could have otherwise filled the exact same role, likely even better - and given the poor woman something to do.  I'm sure that you will be shocked, SHOCKED to hear that I think there were a lot of very bad writers among the Brannon Bragga hack posse.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 17, 2015, 10:39:17 PM
We should all do overviews of the various shows in the same vein, according to our knowledge, actually.

Original:  Have liked what I've seen, but it's been out of order and sporratic.  As a kid, I always wondered why it looked so crappy when Battlestar Gallactica looked so good, yet both were on TV.  I've grown to accept the technological differences, and even appreciate what older shows managed to pull off.  It is very dated, though, and if you can't look past that, it's best to avoid. 

TNG:  Watched sporratically with the first awful season, and began to appreciate it several seasons in.  It's a very hit or miss show where some episodes really suck and some are pretty good. 

DS9:  My favorite series, watched from the get go.  Yes, it's Star Trek does Babylon 5, but it holds up better, and Garrick (garrack?) is my favorite character of all star trek.  Like the movies above, the series shows it's a dirty world, the federation has flaws, the commander/captain has flaws, the enemies are ruthless, etc.  Something a lot of Trek misses.  The Sisko is the prophet stuff falls flat a lot of times, and Ducat regularly steals scenes IMO.  But, I love me a good villain so that might just be me.  Where Picard is usually at his best when dealing with a quiet relationship, Sisko is at his worst, and his kid is an albatross most the time.  Overall I like the more defined story arch of the series as a whole. 

Voyager:  WANTED to like really bad.  I just couldn't get with it.  Interesting idea of mixing the two crews and how it would lead to all kinds of problems.....and it never did.  What the hell?  The Doctor ALMOST manages to save the show, and is absolutely the best thing about the series.  Tuvok plays it straight, and the actor deserves mention as well.  I really wanted to like Janeway, but never managed, always thought Chakote would make the better captain for their particular plight. 

Enterprise:  I struggled with quantum leap captain, and whoever the vulcan chick was really could take some lessons from Tuvok if not Spock.  Then all the temporal cival war and alternate history BS started and I lost interest all together.  A faceless mass of a crew in my mind with no one really standing out.  The alternative medical treatments are about all I remember as being somewhat clever.  The Star Trek equivalent of treating with leaches.  In fact, they might have in one episode, literally. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 17, 2015, 10:39:39 PM
I realized I needed to amend the OP of this thread because of that thing Green1 keeps calling me, and because the teasing of my good pal sisko inevitably is going to -and has- put off Fans O' Fake. ;nod

I'm aware of a few subtle hints that our leader likes Star Trek, at least fake Star Trek, and I know I LOVE the REAL Star Trek, so let's talk about it...



[EDIT:  I want to interject that I don't think I admitted explicitly in this thread until today, nearly 3.5 years later, that I am a fan of TNG/DS9/Voyager/and even Enterprise who watched them all pretty much in full and enjoyed them and wished they were better - and that the original had flaws.  I have written professionally a little and acted professionally (if wildly underpayed) a fair amount, and I do have a high opinion of my own opinion, claiming extensive knowledge of the subject as I do - but I don't want to put fans of TNG-era ST off.  Love what you love, proclaim your love and engage me and the other fans courteously.  You're wanted here.

We love Star Trek, and want to talk about it.

AbramsTrek love will be treated with respect towards the member expressing, but your ideas will tend to need extremely vigorous and articulate defense, not least because you couldn't be wronger. ;):D]
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on June 17, 2015, 10:45:50 PM
But I have to disagree about Lily - Dr. Crusher would have been less exposition-friendly, but could have otherwise filled the exact same role, likely even better - and given the poor woman something to do.  I'm sure that you will be shocked, SHOCKED to hear that I think there were a lot of very bad writers among the Brannon Bragga hack posse.

Yeah, Whoopie (However you spell that character name) serves that purpose on occasion, too, and manages when given the opportunity in the series. 

The problem with Beverley was she skipped out on a season or two, fairly early, and they filled her shoes with a foil for Data in the somehow tech averse doctor whatshername.   
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 18, 2015, 07:13:46 AM
My favorite is, of course, the Original Series (TOS). My second favorite is Voyager, followed by the Animated Series, Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and I don't like Enterprise at all. So that's the TV shows.

Movies... well, in my opinion only the first 4 TOS movies were any good. And I did like the character of Lily Sloane in First Contact. The rest of the movies range from "not very good" to "what a waste of resources it was, making this garbage."

Fan films... There are a lot of them! I tend to follow only a couple of series, though, and both are based on TOS. Phase II/New Voyages has put out quite a lot of fan films, some guest-starring George Takei and Walter Koenig. Those are the better ones, in my estimation. Star Trek Continues hasn't done as many, but the quality of those they have done is top-notch. It looks and feels almost like real Star Trek. There are a couple of other fan film series I've seen, and they go strictly for humor: Stone Trek, which is Star Trek done in the style of the Flintstones, and The Red Shirt Diaries, which is told from the POV of a female red shirt who has, so far, managed to survive.

NuTrek (aka Abramstrek, Abramsverse, JJverse)... if you're into pointless retcons, actors who can't act, plots that make no sense, an Engineering room that looks like a brewery, gratuitous underwear scenes (really, if you don't want the guy to look when you're changing, don't stand there and pose for him when he does sneak a look), completely unprofessional officers (Captain, I know this is a serious mission and we could be killed, but just shut up while I whine at my boyfriend, kthxbai), and blatant ripoffs of what's been done before, in a far superior way with much better actors... well, nuTrek would be for you.

However, TV and movies and fan films are not all that's available. Add in hundreds of novels and fanfic stories that number in... probably the millions (including the terrific Valjiir series, stories and artwork by members of this very forum - see the Valjiir thread for more information ;) ).

See Buncle, this is what should be encouraged, I'm actually gonna watch star trek because of this post.

Yay! (and thanks - it's always nice to know that my posts are appreciated  :) )



Valka is pure gold.
Glad you've got her in this jumbleytown you made then :)
Yes. ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod ;nod

You two have just made not only my day, but my week as well.

Thank you, both.  :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on June 18, 2015, 05:54:12 PM
Generations:  All but unwatchable
:o    ???    :mad:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 18, 2015, 07:52:57 PM
I'm with Uno, there - I'll talk about it in detail soon, but I do hope you noticed the more generous tone I was taking to TNG, etc., on the last page, since you've complained in the past.

Actually, you've morally obligated yourself to do that review of Generations you've previously been a horrible tease about.  I'm gonna show you mine, Vish, and you shouldn't chicken out.  (Bockbock bock baBOCK! ;)) :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on June 18, 2015, 08:00:09 PM
STAR TREK: GENERATIONS
was on TV tonight and despite all the things I have to do I chose to watch it again and come here posting.

A moving movie!
It's about youth and about old age. About time and what it means.
About the choices we made, what we've gained from them and what we had to let as we went ahead, and so it's also about regrets. It's about duty and its contingencies, having children or protecting those who have. About sadness and pride and hope.
The past and present and future and whether we accept them or not.
It's about passing the baton instead of keeping it forever.
Of course there is a Deus ex Machina at the end but, hey,  this is Star Trek.

What kind of man could hate this movie without hating all movies?
You'll have to do with that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 18, 2015, 08:13:56 PM
No really; I think you're a man of principals and I hope when I've written up my analysis, I will not.

I want you to acknowledge that I've done better recently, too... ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 18, 2015, 09:12:31 PM
Just finished watching Star Trek: Borg on YouTube. ;cute
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 18, 2015, 09:15:37 PM
Sure hope you feel like writing it up when work stops kicking your butt next week...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 18, 2015, 09:20:32 PM
Writing it up?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 18, 2015, 09:25:34 PM
Writing about what you thought in a little detail, and what (and why) you liked or disliked in different parts.  What we were doing on the last page.

You enjoyed it, of course; it's rather good.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 18, 2015, 09:41:58 PM
Well, I kinda like the movie "Next", and this one kinda follows in its tracks with all the retries and so on. I think the thing that got old quickest was the 'first person' camera angle all the time.
And the speed at which a 'borgified' crew member attained implants well away from a regular Borg 'outfit shop' was a bit over the top.

I do wonder, do all those 'regular' actors from the 'official' ST movies/series get a similar pay check for performing in these 'fanmade' productions?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on June 18, 2015, 09:47:55 PM
Wasn't that a game, or interactive movie? Not really fan made, but made for franchise?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 18, 2015, 09:50:07 PM
Oh.  I'm stupid and thought Geo had watched First Contact and called it a silly name...  :-[

Got a link to that YouTube vid, Geo?  I don't know whether I've seen that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 18, 2015, 10:42:47 PM
It's my understanding that any professional actor appearing in a fan film is paid something (since the union they belong to insists they be paid), but it's a substantially reduced fee. Fan films are not allowed to make a profit, so they can't do anything that would make them professional in the sense of competing with CBS or any other company licensed to produce Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 18, 2015, 11:19:49 PM
I'm pretty sure nothing but scale would satisfy SAG - or some good pretext under which to work for free, but nothing in between.  Seriously doubt the pro names are getting their accustomed rate, mind, so we may be saying the same thing.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 19, 2015, 12:05:35 AM
Some of the producers of these fan films post at TrekBBS so I don't have any reason to doubt their word about keeping these productions just on this side of nonprofit to satisfy the legal requirements of CBS while still satisfying whatever legal requirements there may be to pay SAG members for their participation. I don't think they're allowed to work for free, but there is some provision for productions that are not-for-profit.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 19, 2015, 12:20:22 AM
I check the TBBS Fan Productions subforum at length from time to time -I did about a month ago when the latest Continues was released- and I don't think we're all that far apart.  I do seem to recall that there are some (fairly stringent) conditions under which some free work is condoned; charities would be an easy example, and I'm not sure that something like a non-profit fan film would be completely out of bounds, necessarily.  Now, whether any of the fan productions meet such union requirements, I don't know; but I assume the issue of whether any pros have any interest in working for free renders the question moot.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 19, 2015, 12:29:11 AM
James Cawley doesn't have any problem getting people like Walter Koenig  or George Takei, and both of them are SAG members. Ditto some of the other people - as I recall, Barbara Luna appeared in one of his fan films. And Star Trek Continues had Lou Ferrigno and Erin Gray guest starring in "Lolani."
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 19, 2015, 01:01:35 AM
Yes?  I don't think they were doing it as a free favor - though Mignogna had Ferrigino over for Thanksgiving and reportedly got on like a house afire.

Richard Hatch and the Apollo guy, too.  It's an admittedly long list of actors with not-so-great (or former) star status.

I DO wonder what Chase Masterson is doing in so many projects, mind you - I think I smell a hint of desperation on that one, and we're not talking about a single one making bank in their day-to-day careers, save Takei, and only him later when he made something out of coming out...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 19, 2015, 01:34:55 AM
I just meant that Cawley and Mignogna don't seem to have much difficulty in getting professional actors to appear. Whatever legal things they might need to do to make that possible is not anything I get bothered about. It might concern me if I were one of the people who contribute to their Kickstarter fundraising campaigns, but I'm not.

However they make it work, I'm just glad they're able to do it.


I only ever saw Chase Masterson in Deep Space Nine and Sliders (she played Wade's sister). It's unfortunate that she's been treated so poorly by some people - they basically ran her off TrekBBS when she joined there, and some of the guys there who are utter sexist jerks made her time there miserable.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 19, 2015, 01:46:16 AM
Agreed.


[blinks] Nerds?  Acting misogynistic in MY fandom?  It's more common than you think.

She was in Of Gods and Men as the green girl on the bridge of the evil Enterprise (I don't think a lot of people recognized her).  My memory gets hazy after that, but I believe she was recently announced as attached to that whiify thing with John Savage as Cpt. Ransome, and is in Rebels if that ever finally gets released -- and I vaguely STR her in some strictly fan thing.

I liked her well enough on DS9 -she didn't hurt my eyes at all, though she didn't have anything interesting to do- but I'm just speculating that it looks like she's definitely not having the career she probably hoped for.  (Incidentally, she really looked just a little too much like Nana Visitor to be on the same show in the same alien makeup but as unrelated characters.  They should have at least dyed her hair or something...)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 19, 2015, 01:59:11 AM
Equinox.  It was Equinox with John Savage I was drawing a blank on.  Has the stank of never-gonna-actually-happen ALL OVER it.

-Radiating off the webpage so hard it hurts the eyes, mind you, like so many Donald Trump presidential candidacies, with Ross Perot as running mate, for good measure, and Lyndon LaRoche as campaign manger.  Endorsed by the ghost of transsexual Hitler jailhouse married to OJ and making snuff-scat pron for campaign commercials. ;nod
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 19, 2015, 02:42:35 AM
This will embed now, so-

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUg8-Tz69_I#)

Crap.  That was the latest Continues.  Gamera, there are a lot of fan production videos posted in this thread of astonishingly non-pathetic quality if you care to go back and flip through...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 19, 2015, 02:56:06 AM
I never thought of her as resembling Nana Visitor before. It might have made an interesting twist that they were related - half siblings, or maybe cousins, and ended up taking very different life paths in dealing with the Cardassian occupation.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 19, 2015, 02:59:54 AM
YouTube took The White Iris down almost as soon as it was up, and although CBS told them to put it back, they haven't. There's been a lot of complaining about that in the Fan Film forum at TrekBBS, and someone asked why STC doesn't just upload it again. I haven't checked back yet to see what the answer was.

The only place we can see it is on Vimeo (which won't embed here as far as I know) or via the STC website.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 19, 2015, 03:40:08 AM
Vimeo tries to embed here, but only leaves a big empty space where the vid goes.  DailyMotion definitely works, as you know from the Dr. Who thread.  All the previous episodes are on there, but I just checked again, and no joy on this yet.

I never thought of her as resembling Nana Visitor before. It might have made an interesting twist that they were related - half siblings, or maybe cousins, and ended up taking very different life paths in dealing with the Cardassian occupation.
Tend to think making them related is too obvious to be a good move - I would have liked a line about them being a common Bajoran type, though, at least.  -Sorta like Sava looking like every guy in Chicago.

I saw a recent headshot of Ms. Visitor recently - now, I wouldn't mind kissing her 20 years ago, and find her to be rockin' the silver hair today - I could probably be talked into that kiss without giving you a headache with time travel, should she and Sid prove to be cool with that.  Her mother aged very well, too.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 20, 2015, 02:08:32 AM
Walter Koenig  or
;lol ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on June 23, 2015, 10:55:42 AM
Star Trek Borg

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi2HO5e_oeM#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2015, 07:27:35 PM
Thanks, Mart. ;b;



Valka, I don't recognize the new avatar.  More Enya?



It looks like I'll be able to write up the TNG movies today - and I haven't forgotten that thing I promised about breakdown of TNG characters and the intersection of the acting and the writing and how to feed each other over the course of a long serial fiction...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 23, 2015, 07:36:10 PM
Valka, I don't recognize the new avatar.  More Enya?
Yes, it's a new Enya picture. I cropped this portion from a larger image.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2015, 07:39:20 PM
Lalla Ward.  Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 23, 2015, 07:48:40 PM
What does she have to do with Star Trek?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 23, 2015, 07:59:53 PM
Larger avatars. Just sayin'.  ;)

I recently won an avatar contest at TrekBBS with a Lalla Ward avatar. The person running the contest in the Doctor Who forum decided on a "Companions" theme, and to everyone's surprise it ended in a 4-way tie between Sarah Jane, Captain Jack, Romana II, and Rory. So there was a tie-breaker vote, and my Romana avatar won.

(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b66/vox_stellaris/Avatars/TrekBBS%20Avatar%20Contests/romana2_zps3wvx4lm6.jpg)


What does she have to do with Star Trek?

Once upon a really long time ago, I started writing a Star Trek/Doctor Who crossover which featured Romana and K-9, but not the Doctor ('cause Romana had already left with the Tharils).

Imagine...

It's the morning after the night before, when former Transporter Chief Kyle had been celebrating his promotion to a new rank and a new job, in the Security division. He wakes up to hear a weird noise in his quarters... he stumbles out of bed, staggers into the main area of his quarters... and sees a blue Police Box.

His immediate thought is that somebody (or rather, a group of somebodies) was playing a practical joke on him. But then the door opens. Someone emerges from the Police Box - an attractive young woman, blonde, and wearing civilian clothing. While he's staring in shock, she smiles at him, says, "Hullo!", and...

I didn't get the story finished, but it's always been something I meant to get done some day.

So yeah, there's a Star Trek connection. :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2015, 08:00:31 PM
I'll have a look at the size options today, no random event triggering, and make it 100x if I can.


[ninja'd]
What does she have to do with Star Trek?
Nothin'.

(First I've heard about Val's fanfic.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2015, 08:13:16 PM
Okay - I went 150x, which makes everything in the user galleries instantly obsolete (something north of 2,000 of my work, I think, that didn't size/crop themselves, and some were a lot of work, like the one I'm wearing was), and I don't care for really big avatars - but I ain't running this place entirely for my own benefit, and it's stupid for a place that's co-owned by a big avatar guy to be stuck in the 90s.

Enjoy your voyage.  ;st
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 23, 2015, 08:14:27 PM
What does she have to do with Star Trek?

You may well ask what Enya has to do with SMAC. On the surface, nothing. But she's one of my favorite singers, and music is a part of civilization. And this is the only forum where I use Enya avatars.

My CFC avatars have had a variety of themes over the years, but I've settled on cats, whether photos of real cats, cartoon cats, cat art, lolcats, etc. Back when Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos was on TV, I used a photo from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, in which Sagan was sitting in front of a radio telescope. Apparently there is a whole generation that doesn't know who Sagan was and what he looked like... because one of the people reading that thread asked if that was a picture of me.  ???

At TrekBBS I enter a lot of avatar contests, have won a few, but I've had the same avatar there for years: a tractor beam.

(http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/tractorbeamf.gif) (http://www.millan.net)



Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2015, 08:17:26 PM
Would you like me to alter that .gif so the smilie is Spud?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 23, 2015, 08:25:13 PM
I'll have a look at the size options today, no random event triggering, and make it 100x if I can.


[ninja'd]
What does she have to do with Star Trek?
Nothin'.

(First I've heard about Val's fanfic.)
It's the first time I've mentioned it to anybody online (at least that I can recall). A couple of people knew about it in RL and said they'd like to read it when it's finished... but it's one of those stories that got started, set aside, and never did get any further.

Okay - I went 150x, which makes everything in the user galleries instantly obsolete (something north of 2,000 of my work, I think, that didn't size crop themselves, and some were a lot of work, like the one I'm wearing was), and I don't care for really big avatars - but I ain't running this place entirely for my own benefit, and it's stupid for a place that's co-owned by a big avatar guy to be stuck in the 90s.

Enjoy your voyage.  ;st
Thank you! :)

Are you sure this isn't going to distort the forum? I know that some kinds of forum software can get out of whack if they allow avatars or photos that are too big.


Would you like me to alter that .gif so the smilie is Spud?
That would be cool! :) I'm not sure I'd dare use it at TrekBBS, though - Camilla (the smiley artist) knows I use the tractor beam smiley there, and she's adamant that people don't alter her images.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2015, 08:31:18 PM
Put on your Romanna and see - I only saw it was exactly 150x after I changed the limits - it'll run off the right edge of the postbit if it's too big.

(There's a User Gallery trick I just figured out how to use as a reward or something right now...)

I already saved the .gif, and have opened it in GIMP...  (I bet TrekBBS would take the Enterprise smilie as an avatar...  It'll work here, now, I think...)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 23, 2015, 08:42:56 PM
Three responses to the same remark? ??? Must listen more to Enya to be on the safe side... ;cute
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2015, 08:52:43 PM
:)

---

-Okay, since Val was gone when I surfaced, I saved her Romanna (filename: RomannaHominahomina.jpg :D) and put it on myself, to confirm it fit.  It does, and 150x is close to width limit, I think (maybe up to 200w would work, I'd guess, and tall would only make your short posts tall - no problem). -Then I decided to test the smilie (141x45) - and I think I'll wear that for a while.  Animated .gifs sometimes don't want to work for citizens, but they always do for me, provided they're not too big, so ask if you have trouble with one and I can make it work.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 23, 2015, 09:45:26 PM
Three responses to the same remark? ??? Must listen more to Enya to be on the safe side... ;cute
The first I heard of her was when she was associated with Clannad - the group that did much of the music for the old '80s TV series Robin of Sherwood. Then later, I saw one of her music videos ("Orinoco Flow") and it just blew me away. The next song of hers I heard was "Only Time," and I was hooked.

On a more sobering note (sorry, no pun intended), "Only Time" became one of the pieces of music associated with CNN's coverage of the September 11 attacks. I watched a lot of Larry King Live back then, and he often had musical guests - people who performed classical, uplifting pieces (although Charlotte Church seemed not to understand what it was all about and did some bizarre rendition of one of the songs from "Carmen"...).



:)

---

-Okay, since Val was gone when I surfaced, I saved her Romanna (filename: RomannaHominahomina.jpg :D ) and put it on myself, to confirm it fit.  It does, and 150x is close to width limit, I think (maybe up to 200w would work, I'd guess, and tall would only make your short posts tall - no problem). -Then I decided to test the smilie (141x45) - and I think I'll wear that for a while.  Animated .gifs sometimes don't want to work for citizens, but they always do for me, provided they're not too big, so ask if you have trouble with one and I can make it work.
I disappeared long enough to watch my soap (General Hospital). I have to catch it fast on YouTube, as Disney has begun enforcing its geographical-based copyright rules and blocks Canadians from viewing videos from any TV show they own (current ones, anyway; I seem to still be able to watch older episodes if they're from years ago).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2015, 09:49:28 PM
;b; It's all good in the (Federation) neighborhood, Ms 'Dur.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 23, 2015, 10:11:23 PM
Here's a User Gallery problem I stumbled on a few years ago - two tech avatars, one 100x violating the 80x size limit, and one I forgot to resize when making that the forum software didn't, either.  UG-installed apparently bypasses the size limit.

Now, this suggests that I can upload big-as-will-fit avatars into a User Gallery folder called "Use only by permission" (this is the part I only just thought of) for rewards, and enforce w/ my mighty owner powerz...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 24, 2015, 07:57:33 AM
The first I heard of her was when she was associated with Clannad - the group that did much of the music for the old '80s TV series Robin of Sherwood. Then later, I saw one of her music videos ("Orinoco Flow") and it just blew me away. The next song of hers I heard was "Only Time," and I was hooked.

I like Celtic-styled music too. Besides the two you mentioned, I have a McKennitt CD too.
I once made a SMACX aquatic faction with some of their basenames borrowed from Clannad song titles. :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on June 25, 2015, 01:26:08 AM
Just found this old (from 2011?) article about ST:Voyager.

6 Reasons Star Trek: Voyager Never Really Worked (http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/6-reasons-star-trek-voyager-worked.html)

Some of the points, I do not agree with them, some, I agree.
Voyager is the series I like rather more than DS9, though there are excellent DS9 plots.

Anyone has read it before?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 25, 2015, 04:17:31 AM
I'm really put off by the failure to distinguish ST from all the TNG-era stuff - not liking that tendency is the main reason I've soiled so much of this thread with bad-mouthing TNG, etc.

Sites that post this six-parts-on-seven-pages-list stuff always take too long to load - obviously, I'm live-blogging as I go...

Okay, I think point one is dead wrong.  Janeway didn't work because they wrote her as a man's idea of a tough woman, not like an actual tough woman is.

The writer is only half-right about Torres.  Roxann Dawson passed for a decent actress in that low-bar crowd, and was more charismatic than most; the writing staff failed to do anything interesting with her, not Dawson, who was at least never less than decorative.  -She was also the only character/actor who had any chemistry with Choky.  Choky sux, BTW - I'm definitely going to see him trashed before this is done...

...Aaand there he is.  Okay, correct points.  -But they left out what a limp actor, and at the heart of the failure to commit to the Maquis stuff of the premise...

Disagree completely with almost everything in the fifth page.  Neelix was a millstone around the show's neck, the Doctor was doing the Pinocchio bit Data already had -and they ran it into the ground at warp, which Data had also already done- but they were right about the Paris/Torres relationship sucking.  I would have liked to have seen Jeri Ryan in a bodysuit in a well-written part on a competently-written show, but instead we got Pieces of Eight on Voyager.

Full marks on page six.  (As someone said on TrekBBS over a year ago, Voyager was ALL ABOUT missed potential.)  I'm regaining my will to live.

True on the last page.

They left out a lot, but the show, for all of a lot of energy I missed on the previous Bermanverse shows, could have been SO much better.

---

Valka, I haven't forgotten about TractorSpud...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 25, 2015, 06:24:46 AM
Okay, I just read the article... and I have to say as well that I agree with some but not with all.

After the TOS/TAS series, I enjoy Voyager the most. I love Tom Paris, the Doctor, and Seven of Nine.

Somebody once said that one measure of how good a TV show is, is how much fanfic gets written about it.

Fanfiction.net alone has over 8000 Star Trek: Voyager stories, and many of those are multi-chapter novels. I've been following and reading the stories written by a British university student whose pen name is "scifiromance" and she achieved the impossible several years ago: She found a way to write stories about Chakotay and Seven as a dating couple, a married couple, and as parents... and make them interesting. She even dealt with the old question of "what happened to the Borg baby".

Another series of stories I enjoy is written by a TrekBBS member who goes by the name of AlphaFlyer. She's Canadian, and writes some really good post-Endgame stories about the future careers of Tom, Harry, Janeway, Seven, and crosses over with TNG (as in Harry serves on Riker's ship for awhile - once Riker finally gets his own ship) and DS9 (Joseph Sisko's restaurant makes an appearance), and the nasty Admiral Alanna Nechayev (Picard's old nemesis on the Admiralty) is also a recurring character. This series of stories is a really good blend of Voyager and TNG, with the feel of TOS. Tom Paris is out there fighting Orions, Andorians, and in some cases being very Kirklike as he puts his street smarts and bluffing skills to work to get his ship and crew out of danger.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 25, 2015, 04:31:09 PM
I think I posted these long enough ago that the attachments broke when a lot of the olds one did, so what the heck.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 26, 2015, 03:18:17 PM
...I made "A literary debate", and that's me flashing Vulcan gang signs - out of frame, I'm pushing the capture button on my webcam with my toe.  Y'all may post to laugh at my jokes and praise me now...


Once I'd figured out sizing and orientation of pasting Spud in -not easy; not easy at all, with the hat and the lighting effects on the bill-  the challenge was the steering wheel.  It moves relative to his face as everything is tugged on.  I had to paste the back of the cap on his head, and paste that back, matching position in each frame and erasing the pixels that would have covered the steering wheel before I dropped the paste in, 17 times.  I shaved off superfluous empty background border around the edges, and ran an optimization of the file, also minimizing colors in the .gif palette, w/o discernible quality loss, before I saved.  The file should be smaller now, and therefore that much less of a burden on sites where it's used.  (It was 35K before, and 9k savings matters.)

Spud is so cool.  He just don't give an intercourse about nothin'...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on June 26, 2015, 04:29:27 PM
Somebody once said that one measure of how good a TV show is, is how much fanfic gets written about it.

Fanfiction.net alone has over 8000 Star Trek: Voyager stories, and many of those are multi-chapter novels. ...
I remember, sometime around season 4 or 5? of ST:VOY, I found a forum, that had something like a storytelling fanfic/rpg. So forum members were assuming positions on a starship, that had the mission to contact USS Voyager, possibly bring it back. The idea was to write interesting story with a feel of a role-playing game. I almost signed for it, but then it did not work, since I had to attend my RL things.
I cannot find it now, don't remember the ship's name, the one they were serving on.
Some difficulty was, that till season 7, Voyager had no or little contact with alpha sector. The story was always in "danger" of some next episode spoiling it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 26, 2015, 04:42:43 PM
...Mylochka and I were somewhat heavily involved in a ST club in California back in the caveman days of snailmail before and slightly after TNG came out.  There was a general newsletter, and a shipboard one where everyone assumed a crew character and wrote -I guess, memos- and there was no attempt at making it go anywhere like a story (and thus, comedy, comedy, comedy) - so, it was much like a forum where everyone's put on a fake persona, only you put a lot more into crafting a post, because it was gonna take a month.

I was writing both our characters -she was an obvious Sgt. Benjamin rip-off who took over the shuttlebay for a split-level condo and threw a never-ending party.  That one really caught on with everyone.  I came in later as a hard-boiled reporter covering the starship Tradition, and ST fandom being unlike most a traditionally a reverse-sausage party the ladies of the crew I had molestering me in my reports received it rather enthusiastically.

Good times, good times.  Too bad about TNG coming along and gutting fandom.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 26, 2015, 05:02:31 PM
...I made "A literary debate", and that's me flashing Vulcan gang signs - out of frame, I'm pushing the capture button on my webcam with my toe.  Y'all may post to laugh at my jokes and praise me now...


Once I'd figured out sizing and orientation of pasting Spud in -not easy; not easy at all, with the hat and the lighting effects on the bill-  the challenge was the steering wheel.  It moves relative to his face as everything is tugged on.  I had to paste the back of the cap on his head, and paste that back, matching position in each frame and erasing the pixels that would have covered the steering wheel before I dropped the paste in, 17 times.  I shaved off superfluous empty background border around the edges, and ran an optimization of the file, also minimizing colors in the .gif palette, w/o discernible quality loss, before I saved.  The file should be smaller now, and therefore that much less of a burden on sites where it's used.  (It was 35K before, and 9k savings matters.)

Spud is so cool.  He just don't give an intercourse about nothin'...
;lol

That is terrific!

This whole thing with Spud is that he was the first avatar I had at CFC that was actually worthy of being called an avatar.

Somewhere waaay down in one of the old DYOS stuff, there's a picture CivGeneral did of Spud - as a kind of "thank you" to me for whatever reason... friendship, helping the DYOS guys find a home on that site, etc. So Spud has been immortalized in a webcomic.

I just wish the old smileygenerator forum hadn't crashed and burned. There was a massive server failure, and while some of the smiley sets and generators still work, the forum itself is gone, along with a few hundred of my PM messages, tens of thousands of miscellaneous smileys, and a ton of great posts from a lot of people...

Anyway, I think there are 2 or 3 complete Spud sets around somewhere - I'll try to find them. One set is a Couch Potato, with Spud sitting on a couch, watching TV. There was a time when another member of that forum made a "Mrs. Spud" and three spudlets (apparently Spud's children were born underground, but they were still pretty cute - not sure if I managed to save that image).

But I always imagined him as an adventurous bachelor, not really the type to settle down and get married. At least not yet.

I tried incorporating him into my RPG at Dragonloft forum, crashing the Christmas/New Years party one year. The problem was, nobody else there had any idea what kind of character he was, so a motorcycle-riding potato didn't really mesh well with the usual storyline.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 26, 2015, 05:24:57 PM
...Mylochka and I were somewhat heavily involved in a ST club in California back in the caveman days of snailmail before and slightly after TNG came out.  There was a general newsletter, and a shipboard one where everyone assumed a crew character and wrote -I guess, memos- and there was no attempt at making it go anywhere like a story (and thus, comedy, comedy, comedy) - so, it was much like a forum where everyone's put on a fake persona, only you put a lot more into crafting a post, because it was gonna take a month.

I was writing both our characters -she was an obvious Sgt. Benjamin rip-off who took over the shuttlebay for a split-level condo and threw a never-ending party.  That one really caught on with everyone.  I came in later as a hard-boiled reporter covering the starship Tradition, and ST fandom being unlike most a traditionally a reverse-sausage party the ladies of the crew I had molestering me in my reports received it rather enthusiastically.

Good times, good times.  Too bad about TNG coming along and gutting fandom.
Well, the beauty of fandom is that if there's something you don't like, you can always write satire about it. A RL friend and I collaborated on a TNG crossover parody, and we were merciless in mocking the characters. The starship Surprise!'s captain was Captain Jacquard, and his 3rd Officer (aka Number 3) was Commander Bill Biker (don't ask what happened to Numbers 1 and 2; it was kinda messy...). We renamed everybody with puns or parodies of their TNG names (some names better than others). Data became Info, Deanna Troi became Hellana of Troy, and Beverly and Wesley Crusher became Beverly and Eastley Smasher. We made this a first-season parody, so Security was run by Lieutenant Wharf after the untimely death of Yasha Tar. I don't actually remember offhand how we renamed Geordi - he was an awfully forgettable character in the first season. But one thing I insisted on was dragging Star Trek into the modern era, and they were going metric. So Miles O'Brien became Kilometres O'Brien.

This was back in the late '80s, and unfortunately I don't have copies of most of the issues of our club newsletter (Thataway!). But this parody was a regular part of it, and so were Letters Home (the crew writes home to their families), and profiles of the crew personas our members adopted (as with a lot of Star Trek groups, we were organized like a ship). Some of us had more than one persona, which is how I ended up simultaneously playing a human A&A officer and a Horta geologist (note to self: do not eat the decorative rocks on the grounds at Starfleet Academy, as the humans tend to get upset about that...).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 26, 2015, 06:10:56 PM
There was a half-horta on the Tradition.  -Transporter accident.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 26, 2015, 07:29:23 PM
So Miles O'Brien became Kilometres O'Brien.

 ;lol
Wasn't fair. You're Canadian. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 26, 2015, 07:32:26 PM
Having to be Canadian IS unfair, now that you mention it...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 26, 2015, 11:31:40 PM
So Miles O'Brien became Kilometres O'Brien.

 ;lol
Wasn't fair. You're Canadian. :P
I just got really annoyed by how Rosalind Chao (Keiko) kept pronouncing "Miles."

"MY-YULZ!" she'd screech or whine... there was just one episode she was ever in that I liked - the DS9 one where she went up against Wynn over the Bajoran equivalent of teaching Genesis in school.


Having to be Canadian IS unfair, now that you mention it...
Well, at times it's damned annoying when Disney won't let me watch General Hospital on YouTube and people keep talking about all this extra content that's available for Big Brother that I can't access (Canadians are not allowed to watch CBS.com).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 26, 2015, 11:54:45 PM
What's to miss on CBS? ???
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 27, 2015, 01:54:18 AM
Big Brother - she done told you that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on June 27, 2015, 08:05:57 AM
Sneak TV - she done told you that.

Corrected that for ya.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on June 27, 2015, 08:52:32 AM
No, I "done" specified CBS. I watch their three main reality shows - Survivor, Amazing Race, and Big Brother. I can find snippets of extra material on YouTube sometimes, but the feeds are not available to Canadians.

I'm surprised they let us vote for the next Survivor cast. Must've been the extra click revenues they wanted... /grumpy cynicism
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 28, 2015, 10:25:22 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/JohnByrne2/2015-06-17_062711_STAR.TREK.ANDREA.CVR.B.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 28, 2015, 10:26:27 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/JohnByrne2/2015-06-17_063211_STAR.TREK.ANDREA.02B.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 02, 2015, 12:30:59 AM
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/chaosonthebridge (https://vimeo.com/ondemand/chaosonthebridge)

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4UAInrMiT4#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mart on July 09, 2015, 08:38:15 PM
I just found this review of a ST book, or actually comic book, as they say there, "The Ashes of Eden."
http://them0vieblog.com/2013/08/19/star-trek-the-ashes-of-eden-by-william-shatner-et-al-dc-comics-review/ (http://them0vieblog.com/2013/08/19/star-trek-the-ashes-of-eden-by-william-shatner-et-al-dc-comics-review/)
Written by William Shatner with co-authors, quite interesting story. I read it already years ago and liked it, although some moments were like "really?"
Recently, I listened to a recording, dramatized with sound, read by William Shatner!
Was this his first book about Kirk?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 12, 2015, 12:50:40 PM
A little art challenge.  I wonder what the Shake it Off lyrics would sound like set to the Orion Seduction Ballad?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 13, 2015, 01:56:42 AM
;notes; Shake it o-o-o-o-o-ooff (keep moving)
Shake it o-o-o-o-o-ooff (you love me),
I've got this music i-i-in my-y mind
Sayin' it will be-e all right
And so I dance to te-empt all the men
With my glossy green behind
and take comfort in the end,
I know I'm riii-ight!
;notes;

;lol
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on July 16, 2015, 07:53:28 AM
Is that a greeny call, or what? :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 16, 2015, 02:22:33 PM
Both.

ORION SLAVE GIRL Vina (The Cage) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apuye0JcWqM#)

Not quite the arrangement of the tune I was writing to, but still.

(Scene, BTW, heavily derivative of the 50s Jeffery Hunter movie Princess of the Nile .
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 16, 2015, 02:39:50 PM
STAR TREK DANCE ("Vena's Dance") MONTAGE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGku4h070J8#)
Without the green (ladies), but without dialogue over it, too.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 16, 2015, 03:33:52 PM
"Paint her greener!"  :D (from The Making of Star Trek)

I will say this: Jeffrey Hunter had gorgeous eyes...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 16, 2015, 05:02:51 PM
That was Majel in a pre-production test shot, BTW.

He totally did.  What woman did not spot the new guy who looked kinda like him in First Contact?  I thought that was a lovely callback, if done knowingly, and was sorry/disappointed he got killed - the looking like Pike kept me from expecting that he was created as cannon fodder, when I'd looked for canon fodder...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 16, 2015, 10:20:11 PM
I've seen First Contact several times and never noticed anyone who looks like Jeffrey Hunter.  ???
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 16, 2015, 10:29:42 PM
The young bridge guy -maybe navigator and had lines, killed in the fight on the dish- coulda been Pike's great-grandson or something...

...Hope I didn't just spoil an 18.5 year-old movie for anyone...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 16, 2015, 11:42:43 PM
Hmm. Well, this is one of the Star Trek movies currently available on Canadian Netflix now, so maybe it's time to watch it again.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 17, 2015, 02:19:52 AM
So hEt?  Who's your favorite captain?  What your favorite fake ST?  I think Uno said you were TNG - it's all he seems to know, anyway...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 17, 2015, 04:34:20 AM
My ranking of the TV series in order from favorite to least-favorite (actually it seems absurd to even put one of them on the list since I don't think it should have been made in the first place):

Star Trek (The Original Series)
The Animated Series
Voyager
Deep Space Nine
The Next Generation
Enterprise


TOS movie rankings:

The Wrath of Khan
The Voyage Home
The Motion Picture
The Search for Spock
The Undiscovered Country
The Final Frontier


TNG movie rankings:

The only one I can even tolerate is First Contact. The rest are crap, so there's no point in ranking them.


NuTrek:

Waste of resources with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, except for one line uttered by nuSpock in STiD, and it might have fit into a TOS episode if Spock were being sarcastic.


Fan Films

I've seen all the ones in the New Voyages/Phase II series and all the ones in the Star Trek Continues series. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but I have to give the nod to Star Trek Continues because those episodes feel like they could have been done as the real 4th TOS season if they'd had one.

I've seen some of the Red Shirt Diaries and as much of Stone Trek as is available (for some reason some episodes seem to have been removed from YouTube). But neither has any aspiration beyond being a parody.

Back in the '70s, Wayne & Shuster did a spoof called Star Schtick. The jokes are really dated and some of them only make sense to people familiar with the Canadian politics of that time. But I still get a chuckle out of it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 22, 2015, 02:03:36 AM
Beginning my run-down of the TNG movies, as Uno encouraged:


Star Trek: Generations
Well, to begin with, it made a terrible start; it had ST movie-era characters using TNG-era 'technobabble' - they were reconfiguring stuff in an emergency aboard the Excelsior.  A nerd nit-pick, you may say?  (And why are you bothering to defend this turkey that's absolutely no one's favorite, anyway?)  Perhaps, but also a sure sign of a problem inherent to the picture throughout; barely-competent TV writers way in over their heads trying to do a movie.  It didn't help that it was a huge rude finger raised to fans of the real ST, but leaving that aside entirely, it just wasn't well-thought-out, well-paced, was a waste of Malcolm McDowall as a supervillain, and just wasn't a very good movie on any level.

I have nothing good to say about it (and am biting back considerable profanity) EXCEPT-

I'll swim against the tide in regards to a key plot point many fans like to harp on - Picard breaking out of the Nexus fantasy when Kirk failed to do so.  One is my hero and the other is Picard, but, while the two men have much in common, both being isolated and lonely men who want only a fast ship and a star to steer by to find Strange New Worlds -- Kirk, on a profound level, was looking, throughout the series, for The One, and when the Nexus gave both the love in their lives they deeply craved, Picard must have still wanted the fast ship more.  Kirk was maybe ready to settle down at that stage of his life, and I'll let them have that one - I can't believe he'd be happy, exactly, living grounded in a Christopher Pike ranch fantasy, but having the love of his life asleep in the next room becoming more important, I'll buy.


(Protip:  this is the harshest assessment I have for a TNG movie; I rather liked the next two and Nemesis sank so quickly I've never seen it and have no useful opinion except that if they were going to bring in a Picard clone, it should have been Locutus.  That's a more winning approach on SO many levels.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 22, 2015, 06:23:04 AM
^Did you mean to talk about First Contact or Generations? Kirk was never in First Contact.

One of the worst things about Generations is simply this:

WHO THE HELL IS ANTONIA???!

Edith Keeler was the love of Kirk's life. Yes, Harlan Ellison would have demanded $$$$$ to use the character's name. So what? It would have made more sense than some woman we never heard of before.


And killing off Robert and Rene? Not cool.  :mad:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 22, 2015, 02:28:44 PM
$#@! Corrected.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 25, 2015, 08:26:39 PM
I goggled for Evil Spock for Shop purposes, but stumbled onto this and had to post for Mylochka.

(http://img06.deviantart.net/cefa/i/2010/002/d/8/mirror_chekov_by_neenabluegirl.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Mylochka on July 28, 2015, 02:41:28 PM
Oh, Evil Chekov...! 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on July 28, 2015, 10:05:00 PM
Beginning my run-down of the TNG movies, as Uno encouraged:


Star Trek: Generations
Well, to begin with, it made a terrible start; it had ST movie-era characters using TNG-era 'technobabble' - they were reconfiguring stuff in an emergency aboard the Excelsior.  A nerd nit-pick, you may say?  (And why are you bothering to defend this turkey that's absolutely no one's favorite, anyway?)  Perhaps, but also a sure sign of a problem inherent to the picture throughout; barely-competent TV writers way in over their heads trying to do a movie.  It didn't help that it was a huge rude finger raised to fans of the real ST, but leaving that aside entirely, it just wasn't well-thought-out, well-paced, was a waste of Malcolm McDowall as a supervillain, and just wasn't a very good movie on any level.

I have nothing good to say about it (and am biting back considerable profanity)...


(http://images1.tickld.com/live/postimages/863c79059325b765e7d656e0b591aa69.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 28, 2015, 10:22:28 PM
I've never been a fan of large memes that are intended as a substitute for real words with coherent explanations. That's a TrekBBS thing. Surely we can do better here?

I take it you don't agree with BUncle. So what is your opinion of Generations?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 28, 2015, 10:29:42 PM
SIC 'IM, Valka! :D

He didn't even quote the part where I defended, and only speaks up in here to complain and run away again.  :P  At least I talk about what I love and why.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on July 28, 2015, 10:53:05 PM
(And why are you bothering to defend this turkey that's absolutely no one's favorite, anyway?)
You called me a no one, you asked for it!  :D

And you didn't say anything about why you dislike the movie. No facts, no arguments, nothing.
Ah, yes, the technobabble at the beginning doesn't seem right... Like 99% of the viewers would care!
You here really give Geek a bad name (you can even put bad Bon Jovi music on it  ;lol)

My opinion is quoted on #1037
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 28, 2015, 11:03:38 PM
You're saying the turkey in question is absolutely your favorite?  You got no taste, man.  It's not a well-made movie. ;no

And you get NO $#@! refund - I was holding back when I didn't go into details.  Forget you, Vish. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ColdWizard on July 30, 2015, 05:45:28 PM
Movies:
Wrath of Khan
First Contact
Voyage Home
Generations - generally entertaining
Undiscovered Country - somewhat entertaining
Insurrection - meh
Search for Spock - meh
Motion Picture - meh
Nemesis/Reboot - tied in suckitude because they're not worth putting any effort into tie-breaking
Final Frontier/Into Darkness - try to make me watch these again and one of us is leaving. Possibly with some velocity. And possibly through a window.

TV:
ToS
.
.
.
Voyager, I guess.
Maybe Wesley-free eps of TNG.
They made others, I heard...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on July 30, 2015, 07:17:43 PM
Beginning my run-down of the TNG movies, as Uno encouraged:


Star Trek: Generations
Well, to begin with, it made a terrible start; it had ST movie-era characters using TNG-era 'technobabble' - they were reconfiguring stuff in an emergency aboard the Excelsior.  A nerd nit-pick, you may say?  (And why are you bothering to defend this turkey that's absolutely no one's favorite, anyway?)  Perhaps, but also a sure sign of a problem inherent to the picture throughout; barely-competent TV writers way in over their heads trying to do a movie.  It didn't help that it was a huge rude finger raised to fans of the real ST, but leaving that aside entirely, it just wasn't well-thought-out, well-paced, was a waste of Malcolm McDowall as a supervillain, and just wasn't a very good movie on any level.

I have nothing good to say about it (and am biting back considerable profanity) EXCEPT-

I'll swim against the tide in regards to a key plot point many fans like to harp on - Picard breaking out of the Nexus fantasy when Kirk failed to do so.  One is my hero and the other is Picard, but, while the two men have much in common, both being isolated and lonely men who want only a fast ship and a star to steer by to find Strange New Worlds -- Kirk, on a profound level, was looking, throughout the series, for The One, and when the Nexus gave both the love in their lives they deeply craved, Picard must have still wanted the fast ship more.  Kirk was maybe ready to settle down at that stage of his life, and I'll let them have that one - I can't believe he'd be happy, exactly, living grounded in a Christopher Pike ranch fantasy, but having the love of his life asleep in the next room becoming more important, I'll buy.


(Protip:  this is the harshest assessment I have for a TNG movie; I rather liked the next two and Nemesis sank so quickly I've never seen it and have no useful opinion except that if they were going to bring in a Picard clone, it should have been Locutus.  That's a more winning approach on SO many levels.)

Ya know, on a lot of levels, Generations was more a bad episode of The Outer Limits than anything. 

I LIKED the general idea of insert incredibly destructive space thingy BEING HEAVEN.  (that it's an illusion was needless BS that makes little to no sense, IMO.  Yer dead/trapped/whatever, IT IS YOUR REALITY at that point. )

To go along with that, I LIKED the general idea of villain willing to commit truly EVIL acts to get to heaven. 

That the villain was an evil insert whoopie's character alien here was intriguing from a writing perspective. 

(Was it ever explained why insert evil villain couldn't have just flown a ship into the damn thing?) 

Anyway, we really didn't get a good setup of the incredibly destructive thingy IS HEAVEN, NOR did the villain ever really threaten anything we are invested in, so he falls completely flat.  Sure we're TOLD he's evil and gonna do evil and we end up on the top of a desolate desert mountain threatening...what? 

So, I think the bones are there for a good show, they just didn't get fleshed out. 

Let the villain insert religiousity rant crap about heaven and/or the reckoning.  He's practically immortal and been spending his life listening to all the religions in the galaxy anyway, and TASTED Heaven, now he wants BACK.  Let Whoopie fill in as needed. 

Put Kirk/Picard in HEAVEN.  Not illusionary bliss.  Make their decision one of "everyone's safety is more important than my happiness" not, "this is not real". 

Put the villain on...oh, let's say the MOON.  Earth, big and bright in the background, he's about to destroy something we CARE about now. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 30, 2015, 07:33:29 PM
...Thing is, Malcolm McDowell as a supervillain sounds like a can't-miss, but he ended up being wrong for THIS supervillain.  Swap in, oh, David Warner for a hacky bad guy performance, and the movie goes up 50% in quality automatically, I think...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on July 30, 2015, 07:56:40 PM
I don't do actor names...

Dude was fine, just had nothing to work with.  Give him religious zealot lines and he'll shine.  IMO. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 30, 2015, 08:01:42 PM
He does his best work sordid and swearing - it's the Clockwork Orange and Caligula guy we're talking about.

Agreed that he didn't have anything to work with, or he'd have been much more compelling, but the role was a pretty melodramatic one, albeit with mitigating/grace notes, that would have been better from a specialist in mustache-twirling.  Mylochka says Alan Rickman would have been perfect - I used David Warner as an example of a (competent) hack at these sorts of things who probably still would have been better.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ColdWizard on July 30, 2015, 08:06:49 PM

(Was it ever explained why insert evil villain couldn't have just flown a ship into the damn thing?) 


IIRC, Whoopi's character said something along the lines of the ship would start breaking up too soon and getting in would be chancy.

Quote
Anyway, we really didn't get a good setup of the incredibly destructive thingy IS HEAVEN, NOR did the villain ever really threaten anything we are invested in, so he falls completely flat.  Sure we're TOLD he's evil and gonna do evil and we end up on the top of a desolate desert mountain threatening...what? 

It was going to destroy an inhabited planet further in. Being rather standard to "save the aliens" in ST, I was fine with that premise.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Vishniac on July 30, 2015, 08:50:53 PM

(Was it ever explained why insert evil villain couldn't have just flown a ship into the damn thing?) 


IIRC, Whoopi's character said something along the lines of the ship would start breaking up too soon and getting in would be chancy.

Quote
Anyway, we really didn't get a good setup of the incredibly destructive thingy IS HEAVEN, NOR did the villain ever really threaten anything we are invested in, so he falls completely flat.  Sure we're TOLD he's evil and gonna do evil and we end up on the top of a desolate desert mountain threatening...what? 

It was going to destroy an inhabited planet further in. Being rather standard to "save the aliens" in ST, I was fine with that premise.

Thanks!
Everytime I read a bad review on the internet, I wonder if people are unable to understand the movie, don't listen or just do something else while watching. And after, they come and say the movie was crap...
If you can't understand a movie, don't criticize it!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 30, 2015, 08:57:57 PM
No, I remembered the handwaves in the movie.  -I didn't believe them, but I haven't complained about them, either.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on July 30, 2015, 10:53:02 PM

(Was it ever explained why insert evil villain couldn't have just flown a ship into the damn thing?) 


IIRC, Whoopi's character said something along the lines of the ship would start breaking up too soon and getting in would be chancy.

Wasn't Kirk pulled in off a ship though, and the ship weathered it remarkably well? (minus insert impressive technobabble damage)  An OLD ship, mind.  Or am I foggy braining it?  If you say it was explained, I'll take your word.  I watched it 20 years ago and can foggy brain portions.  It wasn't a criticism it was a question.  I LIKE the whole destroy billions to get to heaven concept. 

Quote
Quote
Anyway, we really didn't get a good setup of the incredibly destructive thingy IS HEAVEN, NOR did the villain ever really threaten anything we are invested in, so he falls completely flat.  Sure we're TOLD he's evil and gonna do evil and we end up on the top of a desolate desert mountain threatening...what? 

It was going to destroy an inhabited planet further in. Being rather standard to "save the aliens" in ST, I was fine with that premise.
[/quote]

I KNOW it was going to kill (insert impressively large number of people here) on random planet at some point later.  My point is I'm not invested in those people as an audience.  IIRC we don't even SEE those people, let alone develope FEELINGS for them.  That's what I mean when I say we're TOLD he's going to be EVIL.  We don't really get to SEE it.  This is a trap Science Fiction gets into a lot, mind you.  If you want us to CARE about (insert aliens here) we need to see it, not just be told we SHOULD care. 

Or maybe I'm a cold hearted SOB. 

Well, no maybe about that really.

Quote
Thanks!
Everytime I read a bad review on the internet, I wonder if people are unable to understand the movie, don't listen or just do something else while watching. And after, they come and say the movie was crap...
If you can't understand a movie, don't criticize it!

Go ahead and explain what you think I didn't understand.  Never said it was crap, just that it had good ideas that could have been done better. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ColdWizard on July 31, 2015, 04:52:41 PM

Wasn't Kirk pulled in off a ship though, and the ship weathered it remarkably well? (minus insert impressive technobabble damage)  An OLD ship, mind.  Or am I foggy braining it?  If you say it was explained, I'll take your word.  I watched it 20 years ago and can foggy brain portions.  It wasn't a criticism it was a question.   



Kirk was pulled in off a ship. But it was the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B (I looked it up), so a big ship and state of the art, as it were. Old compared to the Enterprise-D though. I'll agree that it weathered it remarkably well, but that's because of Kirk's noble sacrifice. ;)

(http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/excelsior/enterpriseb-generations-damaged.jpg)

I may be foggy braining if it was Whoopi's character that said ships were too risky or, as stated in wiki, that Data and Picard determined that later. I do assume that ships the caliber of the Enterprise-B are rare even in the TNG-era and the main villain does not seem to be wealthy enough for a ship of quality.

Quote
I KNOW it was going to kill (insert impressively large number of people here) on random planet at some point later.  My point is I'm not invested in those people as an audience.  IIRC we don't even SEE those people, let alone develope FEELINGS for them.  That's what I mean when I say we're TOLD he's going to be EVIL.  We don't really get to SEE it.  This is a trap Science Fiction gets into a lot, mind you.  If you want us to CARE about (insert aliens here) we need to see it, not just be told we SHOULD care. 

Or maybe I'm a cold hearted SOB. 

Well, no maybe about that really.


Should care is enough for me, for this franchise, since it's a goody-goody save all lives deal. I can definitely see how that might not be enough but I think showing them would drag out the plot and be difficult to do within time constraints of movies.

Also, it would also get dull if all the movies were save Earth all the time, the galaxy is large and all the bad things happening in a specific part of one solar system would start messing with suspension of disbelief.

Quote
I LIKE the whole destroy billions to get to heaven concept.


I liked the concept too, but the execution of heaven didn't really fit my perception of either of the captains. If they were to have families/relationships, I'd still expect them to be on a ship of some sort.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 31, 2015, 05:48:38 PM
Which picture got hotlinked above?


Regarding the Enterprise-B, it was state of the art new... except half of its essential systems (like weapons) weren't due to be delivered until Tuesday (presumably Kirk was pulled into the Nexus on a day that was not Tuesday).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on July 31, 2015, 05:57:55 PM
Should care is enough for me, for this franchise, since it's a goody-goody save all lives deal. I can definitely see how that might not be enough but I think showing them would drag out the plot and be difficult to do within time constraints of movies.

Also, it would also get dull if all the movies were save Earth all the time, the galaxy is large and all the bad things happening in a specific part of one solar system would start messing with suspension of disbelief.

Doesn't always need to be Earth.  The TNG episode where Picard gets the flute does a good job about making you care about the fate of insert random alien here.  Heck, Guardians of the Galaxy does a decent job with practically no setup of who or what Nova Prime is, a couple shots of panicked citizens is all it took.  Any suitably random M-class planet works.  Hell, toss in a class O with mermaliens for all I care. 

Mermaliens...love that word...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ColdWizard on July 31, 2015, 07:21:24 PM
Which picture got hotlinked above?


Exterior shot of Enterprise-B showing Scotty, Chekov, and Captain Whots-is-face looking out into space for Kirk.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 31, 2015, 07:25:01 PM
John Harrison, wasn't it?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 31, 2015, 07:35:38 PM
Harriman. You're thinking of nuKhan's alias on STiD.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 31, 2015, 07:42:42 PM
I actually thought of that when I saw you'd posted.  Harriman is from Heinlein; I should remember it by that...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: hEtErOdOx on July 31, 2015, 09:22:34 PM
Well, I find I don't have a lot to contribute, apparently I've become a pseudo-fan.  I hardly remember Generations.  I remember liking it fine at the time, but disappointed that it wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be. 

As for your question a page back about my favorite Captain... Uno's right, it's Picard, although I really fell for Kirk first, through the Movies.  My first Star Trek Movie was The Voyage Home.  My dad took my siblings and I (I think my mom managed to get out of it somehow).  I loved the movie, but remember, I was about 10?  From that point on I was a fan. 

Picard IMO is the quintessential perfect Captain...wild in his youth, becoming more wise with more experience.  As an actor, I find Stewart understated, preferring to shine during episodes that highlighted him and fading into the background when other cast members were highlighted. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 31, 2015, 09:29:31 PM
He did have a gift you don't always find in RSC-trained actors, that he didn't try to hit the back row when he was on-camera and it wasn't right for the scene.

I can't imagine him going all Brian Blessed anyway, but RSC people tend to try a lot...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 31, 2015, 09:35:18 PM
Brian Blessed isn't always bombastic. There are some excellent dramatic scenes in I, Claudius when he speaks in a normal tone of voice, very sincere, such as when he and Claudius have a frank discussion about Germanicus and Postumus.

Unfortunately, that's the episode in which Livia kills him...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 31, 2015, 09:41:43 PM
Brian Blessed isn't always bombastic. There are some excellent dramatic scenes in I, Claudius when he speaks in a normal tone of voice, very sincere, such as when he and Claudius have a frank discussion about Germanicus and Postumus.

Unfortunately, that's the episode in which Livia kills him...
...He was a bit too Brian Blessed for the part, even so - Augustus was a very somber man, careful of his dignity even in private, and Blessed made him seem frequently a bit ridiculous.  -Not that that was a bad reading of I, Claudius, a book I've read many times, but not a good reading of the historical figure...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on July 31, 2015, 09:48:40 PM
I prefer his interpretation of Augustus to the one in the Rome series. Mind you, just about all the characters in that series were crazy in some way.

I think we need a thread for historical dramas, since I could talk all day about those.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on July 31, 2015, 10:06:35 PM
Go for it. ;nod
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on August 02, 2015, 09:14:33 AM
After I finish cycling through the themes.  ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2015, 03:05:53 PM
;b;
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 02, 2015, 09:59:52 PM
Challenger, Columbia wreckage on public display for 1st time (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=16745.msg78723#msg78723)

(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/V4JnpE59atFZEutNbdy3yw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTYwNDtpbD1wbGFuZTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/b235bb8d22a3cd227d0f6a706700b936.jpg)
In this Tuesday, July 21, 2015 photo, the lunch box astronaut Michael P. Anderson used as a child are among his personal effects displayed in the "Forever Remembered" exhibit and memorial for the astronauts that perished on the Columbia and Challenger space shuttles, at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Cape Canaveral, Fla. (AP Photo/John Raoux)
Title: POOPING IS LOGICAL - STAR TREK Potty Training Book Based on Vulcan Principles
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 06, 2015, 12:47:56 AM
POOPING IS LOGICAL - STAR TREK Potty Training Book Based on Vulcan Principles
geektyrant
by Joey Paur  8 hours ago


(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/55c224c1e4b0a966b092f419/1438786756440/pooping-is-logical-star-trek-potty-training-book-based-on-vulcan-principles?format=750w)



Star Wars: Rogue One writer Gary Whitta and his wife Leah have written a Star Trek-inspired potty training book called Pooping is Logical. The couple used Vulcan wisdom to potty train their own three-year-old daughter, and they thought they would share it with the world in book form.
Quote

POOPING IS LOGICAL! tells the story of a young Vulcan child who, just like kids on Earth, is hesitant to make the leap out of diapers and onto the potty. Fortunately his parents, who are wise and loving, are on hand to help him through this transition and assure him that pooping on the potty is a perfectly natural, safe, and grown-up thing to do. In a society based on logic, what could be more logical than pooping?

While talking about the book on his Tumblr, Whitta says they are having problems getting the book published because, “We can’t get anyone to take this seriously.” So he’s encouraging people who might want to buy the book to RT this tweet about it with the hashtag #POOPINGISLOGICAL to show potential publishers that there is interest in a logic-based potty training book set in the Star Trek universe. I'd totally buy it, which is why I'm posting about it here!


(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/55c224d2e4b0ea0e6b349cd2/1438786780319/pooping-is-logical-star-trek-potty-training-book-based-on-vulcan-principles1?format=1000w)


http://geektyrant.com/news/pooping-is-logical-star-trek-potty-training-book-based-on-vulcan-principles (http://geektyrant.com/news/pooping-is-logical-star-trek-potty-training-book-based-on-vulcan-principles)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dio on August 06, 2015, 12:54:37 AM
What does a person say in response to such an idea?  ??? :-\
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 06, 2015, 01:28:22 AM
POOP!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dio on August 06, 2015, 05:31:26 AM
Challenger, Columbia wreckage on public display for 1st time ([url]http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=16745.msg78723#msg78723[/url])

([url]http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/V4JnpE59atFZEutNbdy3yw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTYwNDtpbD1wbGFuZTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/b235bb8d22a3cd227d0f6a706700b936.jpg[/url])
In this Tuesday, July 21, 2015 photo, the lunch box astronaut Michael P. Anderson used as a child are among his personal effects displayed in the "Forever Remembered" exhibit and memorial for the astronauts that perished on the Columbia and Challenger space shuttles, at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Cape Canaveral, Fla. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

This product appears to match the interests of BUncle quite well  :).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 06, 2015, 02:06:07 PM
That is indeed a nice lunch box. 

Mine happened to be a lone ranger.  1981 version, I believe, but my mom was just as likely to have bought an older version at a garage sale somewhere.   

Man I loved the lone ranger....too bad he died in 1982.  (my grandpa: he'd make up stories of the lone ranger on the spot, and had "silver bullet" casings scattered in his garden whenever we would come so you KNEW he was telling the truth, sly little devil.  I may have inherited something there...) 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 06, 2015, 02:19:13 PM
Ah.  It wasn't Clayton Moore who died in 1982, I don't think, so who is the Long Ranger of whom you speak?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Unorthodox on August 06, 2015, 02:28:32 PM
My Grandpa.  His stories WERE the lone ranger to me, much more than any TV.  I KNEW the lone ranger rode down by his farm. 

Just like Santa (his brother, my great uncle) Died in 1997.  It wasn't till I was in my late teens that I learned the 'santa' mom always called was my Uncle Blaine.  And he'd always just pull a story out of thin air.  I distinctly recall the time she actually dialed one of the 900 numbers and got a recording.  That weren't no santa! 

edit: Ironically, Santa got me drunk at age 8, and I've never cared for a beer again...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dio on August 07, 2015, 03:57:49 AM
My Grandpa.  His stories WERE the lone ranger to me, much more than any TV.  I KNEW the lone ranger rode down by his farm. 

Just like Santa (his brother, my great uncle) Died in 1997.  It wasn't till I was in my late teens that I learned the 'santa' mom always called was my Uncle Blaine.  And he'd always just pull a story out of thin air.  I distinctly recall the time she actually dialed one of the 900 numbers and got a recording.  That weren't no santa! 

edit: Ironically, Santa got me drunk at age 8, and I've never cared for a beer again...
I think that is an unusual version of Santa.
Title: 'Star Trek' Fan Film Recruits Real-Life Astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 21, 2015, 01:41:24 AM
Quote
'Star Trek' Fan Film Recruits Real-Life Astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti
SPACE.com
By Elizabeth Howell  13 hours ago


([url]http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ytSUmj89YoxoONkU3qTNqA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM4MztweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz01NzU-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/Star_Trek_Fan_Film_Recruits-d0a65184819c734ac5586048510fe146[/url])
Astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti, the record-holder for the longest continuous spaceflight by a woman, joined on as a cast member in the fan project "Star Trek: Axanar." In April, she tweeted this photo posing in the International Space Station



After spending 199 days on the International Space Station, a European astronaut is readying for her next big mission: joining an independent "Star Trek" production.

Samantha Cristoforetti, an Italian astronaut for the European Space Agency, will join the fan-produced film "Star Trek: Axanar" in an as-yet-undisclosed role, film officials said in a blog post. Cristoforetti was the first Italian woman in space during the space station's Expeditions 42 and 43, which wrapped up in June.

The news comes as the production wrapped up a crowdfunding campaign  that raised $487,076, nearly double the original goal of $250,000. Filming will begin in early 2016.

"Star Trek: Axanar" follows the story of Garth of Izar, a character who was introduced in the "Star Trek: The Original Series" episode "Whom Gods Destroy." Garth's story takes place about 21 years before the events of the first "Star Trek" episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

The new, full-length film will follow from a 20-minute crowdfunded prelude that was released last year. Stars in the feature-length film include Richard Hatch, Kate Vernon (both of "Battlestar: Galactica"), Gary Graham ("Star Trek: Enterprise") and Tony Todd ("Candyman", "Chuck", "24"). It is led by Executive Producer Alec Peters.

After a crowdfunding campaign last year on Kickstarter that raised more than $600,000, the filmmakers have decided to break the feature-length film into four episodes costing at least $250,000 each.

The base goal for the work is $1 million, but the filmmakers need at least $1.32 million in total to cover costs from using the crowdfunding site Indiegogo, which takes a cut of projects funded on its site, as well as "ongoing studio costs" and "payment processing," according to the Indiegogo page.

Cristoforetti wouldn't be the first astronaut to appear on Star Trek. In 1993, NASA astronaut Mae Jemison played a small role on "Star Trek: The Next Generation."
http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-fan-film-recruits-real-life-astronaut-111200274.html (http://news.yahoo.com/star-trek-fan-film-recruits-real-life-astronaut-111200274.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Trenacker on August 24, 2015, 05:05:40 AM
I've seen both the "Axanar" prequel, which is gorgeous and well-acted, and the new "Renegades" short film by the same director, which is anything but.

Both use the Star Trek universe as the backdrop for stories about war, although Axanar most succeeds at capturing the contemplative side of 'Trek.

"Axanar" is shot in the style of a documentary, and includes a handful of well-known actors. Screen time is divided between gorgeous space battles in high definition and close-ups of interviewees, both Federation and Klingon. The film benefits immensely from this format, which spares it the need for an expensive set or high-complexity green screen work. The actors are also highly believable and the script is well done.

"Renegades" is a self-described "Dirty Dozen meets Star Trek." The cast is full of actors who would be instantly recognizable even to an audience that had never before seen an episode of Star Trek, but none of them do more than phone it in. (Robert Picardo, in the film for all of five minutes, manages to deliver the strongest performance.) Among the worst acting is delivered by Koenig himself, although Russ is not far behind. The director of Axanar takes the cake, though, which is sad because his talent is so obviously on display in that project. The writing is poor to the point that major plot developments are spoken rather than seen. A majority of the characters are inexplicably angry, and more than a few behave stupidly for that reason -- so stupidly, in fact, that it stretches the bounds of plausibility. The villain, while visually impressive, is entirely one-dimensional. My advice is to skip this one even though it's now apparently going to appear as a YouTube serial.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on August 24, 2015, 05:25:47 AM
The Axanar thread over at TrekBBS got so heated and vitriolic, the mods shut it down. As far as I'm concerned, if they finish it some day I'll watch it. If not, there will be much fury from the people who contributed money, but since I'm not one of those, I won't get too worked up about it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 26, 2015, 11:59:25 AM
Star Trek Renegades is finally out:

Star Trek: Renegades (Official Complete Film) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE2Wgop9VLM#)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on August 27, 2015, 06:57:51 AM
Wow. That was...

Um...

The music wasn't too bad.

 :-\
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Trenacker on August 27, 2015, 11:21:33 PM
I tried to warn you. :(
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dio on August 27, 2015, 11:47:50 PM
I tried to warn you. :(
This movie resulted in a net loss that approximately equals one and a half hours of my life :(.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 27, 2015, 11:48:21 PM
I still haven't seen it, but what does one expect of that many 'professional' actors doing a fan film?

-Not exactly something Brad Pitt has time for.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on August 28, 2015, 01:16:13 AM
There's no need to put quotation marks. These people to whom you refer are professionals; at least they've got legitimate acting credentials.

The problem isn't so much the acting, it's the script and the directing. Mind you, Walter Koenig... well he just couldn't keep his Chekov accent consistent.

The only problem I had with Adrienne Wilkinson is that I identify her so strongly with her role in Xena as Livia/Eve and she had a lot of Livia-type fight scenes, that I kept expecting Lucy Lawless/Xena to show up, make mincemeat of the aliens, and get everything over with. As for her character, I have absolutely no idea in hell what that was all about. I get that she's apparently so special that Evil Bad Men wanted her as a child and her mother tried to protect her and (apparently) died, but why is something I don't remember being mentioned.

This is the first time I ever saw Sean Young in anything other than the 1984 Dune movie. I wouldn't have known it was her if someone else hadn't mentioned she was in it.

Edward Furlong? Well, obviously he's no longer the smartalecky kid from the second Terminator movie. He did an adequate job.

Icheb's character background makes sense in the context; he states that after Voyager got back, he was recruited by Section 31. This Icheb is much darker than his Voyager character, though, and the script plays fast and loose with some of his established character traits.

It was nice to see Robert Picardo again. And Tim Russ, while not on my list of "favorite Voyager actors", did an adequate job as Tuvok.

A surprise was Admiral Paris... and talk about character assassination. This version of Paris was not like the one we knew on Voyager. Talk about screwing up a thousand times worse than Tom ever did...

There were some other characters running around... a Betazoid with dysfunctional telepathy, an Andorian computer hacker, and another character who I can't tell what she's supposed to be - a Klingon/Vulcan hybrid, judging by the abysmal makeup job.

The girls playing Chekov's granddaughter and her fellow cadet were cute.

And the story added up to a huge WTF? because none of it made any sense at all. This is an example of a "Bad Fanfic Script" that doesn't have sufficient respect for its source material (in that respect it's just like the nuTrek movies).

If they ever make another, I guess I might watch it... maybe. Depends on who is in it, since I do like Robert Picardo.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 29, 2015, 02:08:31 AM
I thought I laid this out pretty well today, probably better than I put it here months ago, so just as well share here.

Quote from: Buster's Uncle;13941590
I'm thinking of the multiple parallel Earths they found, including Miri's world.  I'm thinking of the generic Native Americans in Paradise Syndrome who were transplanted so recently by the Preservers that Spock thought he recognized the tribes from across the lake. -Probably circa only 500 years ago, when Europeans introduced smallpox and were about to ruin everything for the natives.  -It couldn't have been much longer back, and that supplies a motivation for a rescue transplant.

-The Preservers -who may or may not have any connection to Sargon's progenitor race, but it's a neater story if they do- were around, alive and active, THAT recently.

I'm thinking about humanoids, often indistinguishable from European-descended earthlings, everywhere.  (It must annoy the living crap out of the Klingons and Romulans if the same holds in their territories.)

I'm thinking about Miri, from a world that not only looks like Earth -without clouds for some reason- who is running around, an immortal little girl already 100 years old right. now. in a city that looks like 50's US gone to seed.

I'm thinking about the Comm's father in Omega Glory -Captain Tracy certainly believed it hard enough to turn traitor and mass murderer- who is already 800 right. now. on a world that must have even had its own Thomas Jefferson to write that US Constitution somewhere in the neighborhood of over 1,000 years before we did.

We don't know what year it was on the Roman world -though it looked like 60's US, AD. 1,000 is possible, but it could be anytime a few hundred years after the western Empire fell on our world, to give them time to develop the tech- but it had a Jesus (or close enough) in its far past.

Some parallel world's histories were based on a model we hadn't gotten to yet.


Earth is not the original Earth, QED.


-And SOMEbody(s) very powerful, old and patient is clearly active out there -for more than a thousand years, at least, and until very recently, if not currently- with a deep interest in humans and (massive long-running) historical -or something- experiments.
...That's a good novel's worth of story premise -or more- right there.

If only we knew some accomplished fanfic writers...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 29, 2015, 02:16:52 AM
Say - how much have I talked about my connected-to-the-above ideas on ST galactic history, human evolution and the Galactic Barrier?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 31, 2015, 03:18:27 PM
.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 31, 2015, 03:23:25 PM
Try making it white, if you're going for invisible.  That'll work half the time...

Buncle's pastime:
(http://alphacentauri2.info/MGalleryItem.php?id=965)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 31, 2015, 03:37:16 PM
Κραπ, θε πηκτυρη χεαντηρ χοβς. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 31, 2015, 03:46:06 PM
Oh please, not that crap again.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 31, 2015, 04:07:13 PM
Γρηκποβερ! :danc:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 31, 2015, 05:15:31 PM
Illogical ;spock
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on August 31, 2015, 07:03:09 PM
It's all Greek to me.  :-\

















 :D

(At least I think it is.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 31, 2015, 07:10:37 PM
Folks, I'm going to see about modding the Enterprise theme to actually have something to do with Trek besides the name...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 31, 2015, 08:15:05 PM
(At least I think it is.)

Ητ ης!
(It is!)
See, wasn't *that* hard, wasn't it? ;cute
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 31, 2015, 08:18:13 PM
 ;bored
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on August 31, 2015, 08:59:14 PM
 :bot:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on August 31, 2015, 09:05:39 PM
Can he do any Greek dances?

There's a half-second of a girl doing the Zoidberg in the Taylor Swift video.  ...Don't make me swift-vid you...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on September 01, 2015, 02:31:30 AM
(At least I think it is.)

Ητ ης!
(It is!)
See, wasn't *that* hard, wasn't it? ;cute
Way back in junior high school, I started seriously studying astronomy and trying to learn stellar nomenclature. That meant, in part, learning the Greek alphabet. So I can recite it and write most of it (a couple of the letters are a bit squiggly for me). I don't know very many words and have no idea how to string any together to make a sentence, but at least I know how to say "thank you" in Greek (though my accent is probably atrocious).

True story: There's a Greek restaurant in town and my dad was friends with the owner. Nick used to help us out by paying my dad under the table for doing odd jobs and running errands, and one of those errands was to pick up some stuff from a local hardware store. For payment, my dad had been told to charge it to the restaurant. So when the clerk was making out the bill she asked what name to put on it, and my dad replied, "It's All Greek To Me."

The clerk thought my dad was being a smart-aleck (since that phrase is a slang way of saying "I don't know"), so my dad explained about the name of the restaurant and that the owner had to fix a few things (he didn't go into details, but people who dance on chairs tend to damage them, which meant my dad had a job repairing them).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 01:49:04 AM
I see Valka was by about noon, so she saw what I been up to today - I'd only been at it six hours, and it might have still been a terrible mess, then.

Getting into the home stretch now, though...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 02:44:34 AM
...I found and fixed the missing post format buttons, and ran down the almost-invisible links, BTW...

Is there anything left besides the &^%$#@! pull-down menu?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 02:47:46 AM
-I just got an idea about how to do that, actually...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 04:45:43 AM
(http://alphacentauri2.info/MGalleryItem.php?id=969)

So, if the Enterprise theme is a dog, it's now had a bath and, after some grooming, turns out to be a purebred show winner. ^This^ just didn't have a lot going for it.

The background is a jigsaw, with corners and repeating middles, eight sections in all.  That put limits on what I could do, and took a while to figure out and get all the replacements to line up just so.  The physical dimensions of those files also determine the margins of the pages - literally; I'd have saved hours -half the day- of searching for margin settings in the .css if I'd known that going in.

It also keeps some files in unique places, and lack the main_block and menu_gfx files all other themes I've worked on use.  I think I'm going ton have to make a menus_gfx.png for the last thing I hope to do.

I found and installed the files for two missing post formatting buttons, and I tracked down invisible link color and corrected.

I figured an easy way to dump the superfluous toppspace-hogging crap, though I had no luck -and wasted hours trying- to bring back the collapse pointer so I could just close them.

But now, here it is, (and I put a number of people known to me to be fans); I present Enterprise:
(http://alphacentauri2.info/MGalleryItem.php?id=970)

:proud:

It's got all the displays and functions working that I want in a keeper theme - except the menu pull-downs.  I've concluded that I'll have to strip out the modded menu to get them back; I think I can get the standard menu to use a patched-together image made for what the mod uses as a background, and make it work right and look almost identical.

-Or break the theme real bad and have to reload the .css it came with from the zip, and loose all the settings I changed today...  [shrugs]  Without risk, there would be none of the themes I've fixed up.  Risk is our business.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on September 02, 2015, 06:29:32 AM
Love having the REAL Enterprise! :D

I'll check the rest out after the pizza guy gets here.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 01:32:02 PM
I know, right?  It's just not the same without the round nacelles and orange rails.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 02:59:31 PM
Naturally, there have been avatar spinoffs from this project.

Four of the Enterprise:
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 03:01:58 PM
Three symbols.  -All uploaded the Star Trek folder of the user avatar gallery.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 02, 2015, 05:34:52 PM
..., but at least I know how to say "thank you" in Greek (though my accent is probably atrocious).

"Εφαριστω" by chance? At least, that's what I heard in Crete.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 05:40:06 PM
*Siigh*
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on September 02, 2015, 05:52:14 PM
..., but at least I know how to say "thank you" in Greek (though my accent is probably atrocious).

"Εφαριστω" by chance? At least, that's what I heard in Crete.
That's the word.  :D


I learned that from a Hardy Boys mystery that takes place in Greece.  :)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Geo on September 02, 2015, 08:19:22 PM
BUncle, you really should broaden your linguistic horizons. It really won't ;brainhurts.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 08:44:57 PM
But it hurts my feelings.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Valka on September 02, 2015, 08:48:37 PM
Why does Greek hurt your feelings?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 02, 2015, 08:54:54 PM
Because I posted something vaguely on-topic, and it's not as interesting as Geo posting gibberish.
Title: How Gene Roddenberry Got ‘Kicked Upstairs’ And Off ‘Wrath Of Khan'
Post by: Buster's Uncle on September 05, 2015, 06:10:57 PM
Quote
How ‘Star Trek’ Creator Gene Roddenberry Got ‘Kicked Upstairs’ And Off ‘Wrath Of Khan’
Uproxx
By Andrew Husband • 09.03.15 


(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/gene-roddenberry-star-trek-cast-space-shuttle-enterprise.jpg?w=650&h=375)
Getty Image



1979’s Star Trek: The Motion Picture is many things to many people — the first time these beloved characters ever appeared on the big screen, the beginning of the Star Trek movie universe, and the anti-Star Wars. However, it also marks the last significant contribution to the Star Trek movies by Gene Roddenberry, the man who first brought the idea of Star Trek to life in 1966. That’s because Paramount removed him from his supervisory role after the film’s box office numbers came back.

“Wait a minute,” you’re probably thinking. “Why would Paramount ditch the guy who created the property in the first place?” Money, for one thing, was definitely a major factor in the studio’s decision to oust the man much-beloved by science fiction fans at the time. Yet to truly understand the division between Roddenberry and studio executives, we have to dig a little deeper into the complex muck that was and will always be attached to Star Trek.


From Cancellation…

After running for three seasons on network television, including a third and final stretch lobbied for by a now-famous letter-writing campaign, NBC finally axed Star Trek and sent all 79 episodes into syndication, otherwise known as TV’s retirement home. Such was to be the final nail in the coffin in which Roddenberry’s creation would be buried. However, the writer had grander plans for his show, and fans new and old were about to make them a reality.

That’s because Star Trek thrived in syndication, where it quickly developed a cult following among science fiction fanatics and lay audiences alike. Paramount noticed the growing interest and, along with Roddenberry’s involvement, announced plans for a Star Trek film adaptation in 1975. Filming would begin on July 15, 1976, Roddenberry would produce, and most of the original series’ cast could be involved.

Unfortunately, the announced date came and went, and Paramount had nothing to show for it. That’s because — despite everyone’s enthusiasm for the project — the studio executives, Roddenberry, and several other writers brought on board the film couldn’t agree on a story. As the November 1976 issue of Starlog notes, the scripts contained ideas that were just too complex:

“The first script,” Roddenberry recently explained, “was a story that dealt with the meaning of God. What I think bothered Paramount was that I had a little sequence on Vulcan in which the Vulcan masters, the people Spock studied under, were saying: ‘We have never really understood your Earth legends of gods. Particularly in that so many of your gods have said, “You have to bow down on your bellies every seven days and worship me.” This seems to us like they are very insecure gods.'”

The story, known as Star Trek: The God Thing, contained too many complicated and possibly controversial ideas, so Paramount rejected it and asked for another. (It later became the basis for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.) Many other well-known science fiction writers with ties to Star Trek, including Harlan Ellison and Ray Bradbury, submitted scripts, story treatments and outlines to Roddenberry and the studio. All were scrapped.


…to Phase II

Following the stellar success of Star Wars in 1977, Paramount decided to pull the plug on the Star Trek film adaptation. The ongoing script issues proved too difficult to overcome, and with the blockbuster status of another studio’s brand new science fiction/fantasy property out in the open, executives decided not to compete. However, Roddenberry wasn’t finished, so he announced the return of Star Trek to television with a brand new series.

Tentatively titled Star Trek: Phase II, Roddenberry claimed that — per a “verbal agreement” with the studio — the beloved property would return to its serial roots with a show that would supposedly reinvent the original series. “Hopefully it will be even superior,” he told the Associated Press at the time. Despite the distinction, Roddenberry assured fans that Phase II would include “as many of the old faces as possible, as well as an infusion of new ones.”

Roddenberry and Paramount Television’s announcement also included plans for a “fourth network” to compete with ABC, CBS and NBC — the “Paramount television service.” It would air programming one night a week and would be carried by independent stations interested in its content, though Star Trek provided the main appeal according to Roddenberry:

“It seems [Paramount] said, ‘Instead of gambling on high grosses on a motion picture, why not gamble Star Trek on something that could conceivably be ten or a hundred times more profitable than even a hit movie?’ — which is the kind of money involved if they are successful in starting the fourth network. So the final thing that got Star Trek movie cancelled was the realization that Paramount could use Star Trek as bait, as a leading sales item for a new television network.”

Yet as soon as the announcement for Phase II had circulated through the press, Paramount pulled the plug on its network-building foray and decided to pump some new life into the then-abandoned plans for a film adaptation.


Back to the Movies
Star Trek: The Motion Picture trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nkegWQe1ZM&feature=player_embedded#)
Quote
On March 28, 1978, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was announced in what at the time was the largest press conference ever held by Paramount Studios. The script was based on the one written for Phase II‘s pilot episode, “In Thy Image,” and would feature many of the same plot points and characters as the abandoned second series. Academy Award-winning director Robert Wise would helm the production, based on a story devised by Alan Dean Foster and a screenplay written by Howard Livingston. Roddenberry remained on as producer, a move that ultimately cost him his spot in the production of future Star Trek films.

That’s because, despite what he did for the original series, the first attempt to make a movie, and the scrapped Phase II revival, Roddenberry demanded what executives thought was too much control. Although Foster wrote the initial treatment of “In Thy Image,” which was revised as a teleplay by Livingston, Roddenberry wanted sole writing credit for the film. He didn’t get it, but he stayed on as producer per his contract with Paramount, and constantly provided notes throughout the film’s production.

“In his original Star Trek concept, there wasn’t any conflict,” Nicholas Meyer, the director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, explained in a 2011 interview. “So he always had problems with writers who were trying to write conflict, because that’s what drama is.”

Star Trek: The Motion Picture earned $82 million domestically for a $139 million worldwide gross, making it one of the top-earning Star Trek films of all time when adjusted for inflation. However, according to Terry Lee Rioux, DeForest Kelley’s biographer, the film’s total budget came in at a whopping $46 million — a far cry from the $5 million the studio had originally given Roddenberry. Paramount expected more from the movie, so when the numbers didn’t add up, they added it to the Roddenberry blame pile.


The Wrath of Roddenberry
Wrath of Khan trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOIYaRb6XpQ&feature=player_embedded#)
Quote
This pile became too heavy to add to during pre-production for Wrath of Khan, when Roddenberry’s desire to control all aspects of