Slashdot Mirror


Star Trek XI: Romulan Wars?

Tycoon Guy writes "TrekToday reports that the next Star Trek movie will deal with the war between Earth and the Romulans that led to the founding of the Federation. According to Rick Berman, the film will be 'set before the time of Kirk, but will not be connected with Enterprise.' So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?"

753 comments

  1. Uh.... by raehl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe the Romulans wear Vulcan disguises?

    1. Re:Uh.... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the War was supposedly fought entirely in space. The treaty was handled over audio COMMs only, so the Federation never managed to find out what the Romulans looked like.

      Of course, they could just do like Space: Above and Beyond and goo the bad guys every time someone tries to peek inside their suit.

    2. Re:Uh.... by freqres · · Score: 5, Funny

      That sounds supisciously like Sci-Fi pr0n to me.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    3. Re:Uh.... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      That sounds supisciously like Sci-Fi pr0n to me.

      In S:AAB, the characters actually referred to the problem as "The bad guys spooge every time their suit is opened."

      I was trying to find a more polite term for it. :-)

    4. Re:Uh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I think a bigger question is whether any Klingons in the film will appear with ridged foreheads, of if they'll just be vaguely hispanic looking guys with goatees.

    5. Re:Uh.... by b0r0din · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually, the War was supposedly fought entirely in space. The treaty was handled over audio COMMs only, so the Federation never managed to find out what the Romulans looked like.

      I would say, congratulations on still being a virgin, but I guess that's sort of redundant here, huh? :)

    6. Re:Uh.... by PierceLabs · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah, it is clear that all Romulan warships of the time used weapons that emitted BLINDEON particles.

    7. Re:Uh.... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Seems you're the second person who need this exact text.

    8. Re:Uh.... by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      This is Star Trek, where no-one even tries to look inside an aliens' suit. Remember the Breen? They appeared in many episodes throughout ST, even attacking Earth and destroying San Francisco in one episode of DS9.

    9. Re:Uh.... by raider_red · · Score: 1

      It's a joke. Don't take it personally.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    10. Re:Uh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what a funny orignal joke at that! Yes, it sure did deserve a +5 funny.

      When will there be a +5 sheltered teenage moron?

    11. Re:Uh.... by cozziewozzie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, Romulan redshirts (or their low-rank equivalent) wore shiny helmets in the TOS timeline. If hand-to-hand combat happens, the humans won't necessarily see any of the distinguishing features (like Vulcan-like pointy ears, for example :))

      On the other hand, Star Trek X pissed on the Romulan canon so badly that I have given up any hope of the proud race of Romulans ever being represented in their full TOS-era glory again.

      I believe that they will turn Romulans into some kind of Al-Qaeda terrorist organisation which kills civilisations for fun, hey that brings in money these days :-(

    12. Re:Uh.... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Romulanes Eunt Domus!

      --
      How ya like dat?
    13. Re:Uh.... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Iso-blindions, or temporal blindions? The former tend to burn out relays when diverted through the warp chamber.

    14. Re:Uh.... by JamesKPolk · · Score: 1

      That only happens if you reverse the polarity of the warp chamber conduits.

    15. Re:Uh.... by EnterpriseNCC-1701 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, to quote Spock, "stations. Constucted on asteroids, they monitor the Neutral Zone established by treaty after the Earth-Romulan conflic over a centruy ago. As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought, by our standards today, with primative atomic weapons an in primitive space vessels, which allowed no quarter, no captives, re ws there evn ship to ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or allie has ever seen the other."

      There was a war and they did not see eachother.

      -Lauren

      --
      "Most interesting how often you humans seem to obtain that which you do not want" -Spock
    16. Re:Uh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People called Romulanes, they go, the house?

    17. Re:Uh.... by raider_red · · Score: 1

      When will there be a +5 sheltered teenage moron?

      It's really the same thing on this site.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    18. Re:Uh.... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      But you're ignoring the entire harmonic modulation of the deflector dish frequencies. We're talking about total protonic reversal Ray. The end of the universe.

    19. Re:Uh.... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      > We're talking about total protonic reversal Ray. The end of the universe.

      --Would that be so bad, given that Stargate SG-1 is of sufficient quality to completely substitute for Trek these days?

      --Someone may doubtless mod me Troll for this one, but it's true - I realized it last night while watching the Stargate season premiere.

      --The reason I don't watch "modern" Star Trek (beyond Next Gen) is because Stargate's writing team has completely surpassed Trek! Interesting plots, interesting aliens, character development, etc. And Major Carter (hottay) FINALLY got promoted... What else could a sci fi fan ask for - we even got to see Carter's doppelganger in the altogether! (OK, it was from the back and tastefully done, but still!)

      --Stargate delivers today what Trek fans have been longing for. Think about it.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  2. Kill all the crew... by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting


    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?"

    Perhaps no human that saw a Romulan made it back to Federation space to report the fact?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Kill all the crew... by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?"

      You mean besides the damage done to the time-line by not only the Enterprise E in First Contact, but the temporal cold war where a race of people have intentionally mucked with Earth's time line to get us all wiped out? Well that's a tough one, I don't see how they could wriggle out of that.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Kill all the crew... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You forgot the Cloaking device before the Cloaking device was invented. Personally, I'm a bit worried about B&B doing this project. These are the same guys who are PROUD of the fact that they never watched the original series.

    3. Re:Kill all the crew... by blowdart · · Score: 5, Funny
      Simple.

      Berman : "How do I fix this"

      Braga : "Particle of the week"

    4. Re:Kill all the crew... by grub · · Score: 1


      Whoa, man.. don't bring too much logic into a Trek thread. Your karma is at risk... ;)

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    5. Re:Kill all the crew... by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

      omg, not INTERFEREONS! And interfereometric waves!

    6. Re:Kill all the crew... by unmuzzled+and+mean · · Score: 3, Funny
      Simple they'll just ignore what was meant to be just like they have all other series.

      "To boldly ignore what's gone before"!

    7. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, the Romulans were just mooning us.

    8. Re:Kill all the crew... by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You forgot the Cloaking device before the Cloaking device was invented."

      Yeah, well I'm sorry that I disqualified myself from being a nerd. It doesn't matter, anyway. The Suliban brought cloaking technology into the new timeline. Any number of events could have happened for it to land in Romulan hands. And, gee whiz, they're exactly the type of race that'd fight hard to get it and use it.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:Kill all the crew... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoa. No offense was intended there. If I came off a bit strong, it's probably my anger at B&B showing through. I was just pointing that out as one of the biggest barriers to doing a decent Star Trek movie. If we just accept B&B's screwed up timeline, then we'll have to accept that Star Trek is finally dead.

    10. Re:Kill all the crew... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the humans in the crews of the Federation ships are blind.

    11. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Star Trek is finally dead

      You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Star Trek's future.

    12. Re:Kill all the crew... by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Whoa. No offense was intended there. If I came off a bit strong, it's probably my anger at B&B showing through."

      No no, wasn't offended. Actually I should be the one apologizing with the 'sorry I'm not a nerd' comment.

      I'm overreacting a bit. Every time there's a Slashdot story about Enterprise, somebody get's modded up to +5 for complaining about continuity. I get frustrated when I think about how somebody can have Trek's vaguely defined timeline from the original series memorized to the minutist detail, but they don't remember the events of one of Star Trek's most popular movies. They don't even notice when they get beaten over the head with the whole temporal cold war concept that was established in episode 1. I'm surprised that there isn't still an argument about why the NX-01 isn't a statue in the Enterprise-D ready room.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    13. Re:Kill all the crew... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, the temporal cold war was part of the original series- Remember the Mirror Universe? There's suggestions in some of the books that it started about the same time Lake Sloan on Alpha Centauri III changed it's name to Lake Riker- thus the incursion in First Contact created the new timeline Enterprise is in, the shadowy figure the Suliban are following is likely Emperor Tiberius Kirk or somebody from his government, and the people from the thirtyeth century are trying to head off the mirror universe before it causes too much damage.

      Along the way we also have the Sphere Builders the Xendi were fighting (read the New Voyages books for more info on this one) and now this new movie.

      But back to the original thread- Balance of Terror's claim of a lack of information about the Romulans can be explained one of three ways:
      1. This is the original timeline not in the mirror universe, so without Suliban interferance the Federation didn't even meet up with the Romulans until the war.
      2. This is the mirror universe- so due to Suliban interferance in the timeline, the Romulans gained a whole new set of technolgies- including cloaking technology- that allowed for the creation of the minefield seen in that Enterprise episode that I can't remember the name of right now, and therefore this movie will use Enterprise-style cloaking beacons to defeat cloaking, changing the entire nature of the Romulan War.
      3. Due to use of Nukes, nobody in the Romulan war actually ever sees a Romulan- at least, not without getting a lethal dose of radiation, as insinuated in Balance of Terror.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    14. Re:Kill all the crew... by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      First question, it's an odd numbered movie, so it's doomed. And it's Berman so it's extra doomed. But will two dooms make it good?

      If anyone wants to see Trekkies 2 Sunday night in Sacramento, email me. Sneak preview.

    15. Re:Kill all the crew... by Starsmore · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The only bit of Shatner's writing that works for Star Trek (the whole 'Kirk survives Generations, saves the galaxy another ten times' series) is that the events in First Contact are what triggered the split timeline, leading to the Mirror Universe (as seen in 'Mirror Mirror' and a dozen or so DS9 episodes).

      He explains it that humanity, realizing that big bad guys exist (because of the Borg), become more militaristic, leading to the formation of the Terran Empire, instead of the Federation.

      Doesn't explain Enterprise, but most Trekkies ignore it anyway. :)

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    16. Re:Kill all the crew... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No no, wasn't offended. Actually I should be the one apologizing with the 'sorry I'm not a nerd' comment.

      It's okay. I'm actually not that much of a stickler for continuity, but the way that B&B off handedly destroy everything that's known and cherished about the Star Trek series is truly a disgusting sight to see.

      BTW, here's my post about how the movie *should* be done. All they need is one big reset button, or the whole movie premise will be shot.

    17. Re:Kill all the crew... by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
      we'll have to accept that Star Trek is finally dead
      Some of us already have, and have moved on. As far as I'm concerned, Star Trek died when DS9 went off the air. They kept the body on life support for Voyager, but it was brain dead. Enterprise is a brain-eating zombie made from the dead carcass of Star Trek. The only reason Rodenberry isn't spinning in his grave is that his ashes are in orbit.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    18. Re:Kill all the crew... by modecx · · Score: 1

      I'm betting they're going to fix it in an equally weird way as they "fixed" the Klingons from the original show into the Klingons of TNG.

      Something along the lines of "I don't want to talk about it!" Mmmm. Wonder which episode that was.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    19. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More interestingly, how will we end up fighting the war with "primitive nuclear weapons" after gaving already discovered both phasers and photons...

    20. Re:Kill all the crew... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Romulans wore big helmets so the Feds couldn't see their faces...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    21. Re:Kill all the crew... by bkhl · · Score: 1

      ...or maybe they just don't make it fit, a bit like with Enterprise.

    22. Re:Kill all the crew... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Close, very close.

      Actually, Enterprise takes place in *ANOTHER* timeline (non-TOS and non-mirror). In this timeline, the borg attacked earth (ala "First Contact"), but the Temporal Cold War and Xindi attack caused a butterfly effect.

      Since neither of these events happened in the TOS timeline, BB and company have a pretty much clean slate to work with. All canon events are now moot.

      Anything can happen, like alien Nazis...

    23. Re:Kill all the crew... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      or netcraft to confirm it, but yes - star trek is dying.

      film at 11.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    24. Re:Kill all the crew... by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I'll wager that turns out to be the case. In addition, it's been stated somewhere (perhaps that original episode) that the treaty with the Romulans was basically negotiated by proxy or something, such that the sides never personally saw each other.

      I know that the novels Spock's World and The Romulan Way established that the Romulans were an extremely xenophobic group of Vulcans that left the Vulcan homeworld after the twin events of Surak's promulgation of logic as the way to live and Vulcan's first contact with an alien race.

    25. Re:Kill all the crew... by PepsiProgrammer · · Score: 1

      Its trials and tribbleations or something, an episode of ds9 where the defiant travels back in time to the TOS trouble with tribbles episode

      --
      "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
    26. Re:Kill all the crew... by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Dork.

      If you know this much about Star Trek, you're a dork, not a nerd.

      There IS a difference.

    27. Re:Kill all the crew... by doublem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I must say, that's the best summary of the state of Star Trek I've read in a while.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    28. Re:Kill all the crew... by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Funny
      "Whoa. No offense was intended there. If I came off a bit strong, it's probably my anger at B&B showing through."

      "No no, wasn't offended. Actually I should be the one apologizing with the 'sorry I'm not a nerd' comment"

      "It's okay. I'm actually not that much of a stickler for continuity..."

      Sheesh, get a room, you two.

      Steven's corollary to Godwin's Law: There is a positive relationship between the number of apologies give two avoid a flame war in successive threads and the amount of nausea felt in the reader's stomach.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    29. Re:Kill all the crew... by Derang() · · Score: 1

      The last even numbered trek wasn't all that good either. There goes the even/odd theory ;)

    30. Re:Kill all the crew... by zakezuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm overreacting a bit. Every time there's a Slashdot story about Enterprise, somebody get's modded up to +5 for complaining about continuity. I get frustrated when I think about how somebody can have Trek's vaguely defined timeline from the original series memorized to the minutist detail, but they don't remember the events of one of Star Trek's most popular movies.

      The movies are easier to remember (ok I had to check the startrek.com site to remember them all)

      1. The search for v'ger (aka a plot)
      2. The Search for K'han
      3. The Search for Spock
      4. The Search for Whales
      5. The Search for God
      6. The Search for Shakesphere
      7. The Search for William Shatner
      8. The Search for Vulcans
      9. The Search for Little Picard

      And the rule of thumb, even numbered trek films don't suck (as much).

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    31. Re:Kill all the crew... by Jahf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly ... the Enterprise folks have already said that because of the past-based events in Enterprise that many pieces of TOS have been altered. Essentially TOS (old show) was what would have happened had the events in Enterprise not. Now that they have, they are free to do whatever they want in regards to the timeline.

      Cop out? Yep. Then again, at least we can be fairly sure there won't be a holodeck in this movie, and no Data either.

      I do think it could be more interesting if they kept a "no Romulan's seen" going, but it would be more work than most screenwriters would want to deal with when they have a way out that no longer violates continuity (in their opinion :)

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    32. Re:Kill all the crew... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They don't even notice when they get beaten over the head with the whole temporal cold war concept that was established in episode 1

      Personally I disliked Jar Jar being in the star trek timeline.

    33. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dork being a whale's penis. Nerd being a nerd.

    34. Re:Kill all the crew... by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      I know it's the evens that are better, but the idea of Shatner vs. God is a great idea. Nothing like Kirk's rabbit punch to God to move a movie. As long as I watch #5 with my beer induced sarcasm on high, it's entertaining. Hardly any Homer Simpson's, "wait, the police knew Internal Affairs were setting them up" type of thoughts.

      Homer: Wait, I'm confused about the movie. So the cops knew that internal affairs were setting them up?

      Glen: What are you talking about? There is nothing like that in there!

      Homer: Oh, you see when I get bored I make up my own movie. I have a very short attention span.

      Jane: But our point is very simple. You see, when-

      Homer: Oh, look! A bird! HEHEHEHE [runs out of the room, laughing, and chases a bird.]

    35. Re:Kill all the crew... by MrBlue+VT · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doctor Hibbert: What are you doing? You're wasting thousands of dollars worth of Interfereons!
      Homer: Well, you're interfereon with our good time!
      Homer squirts some into Hibbert's mouth
      Doctor Hibbert: What do you know? That cured my canker sores.

    36. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for clarity's sake I think I'll mention that: 9. was 'The Search for the Fountain of Youth' and that means 10 was 'The Search for Little Picard' In short, you forgot Insurrection.

    37. Re:Kill all the crew... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Now that they have, they are free to do whatever they want in regards to the timeline.

      That's exactly why the show sucks. If you want to do Star Trek, do Star Trek. If you want to do some other show, do some other show. If you want to make Star Trek into some other show, you can expect that fans are going to be ROYALLY PISSED.

      X-Men did the same thing in the comic with the "Apocalypse alternate universe". I stopped reading it about then.

      Then again, at least we can be fairly sure there won't be a holodeck in this movie

      You forgot that Holodecks were introduced in Enterprise. For example, there was the episode where everyone on this crashed ship was really a hologram.

      and no Data either.

      Several posts in this forum have stated that Data's character will somehow work into the new movie. It might not be true, but I wouldn't put it past B&B.

      In other words, behold the unmatched, creative idiocy of Berman and Braga!

    38. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I'm concerned, Star Trek died when DS9 came on the air.

    39. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I do think it could be more interesting if they kept a "no Romulan's seen" going, but it would be more work than most screenwriters would want to deal with when they have a way out that no longer violates continuity (in their opinion :)"

      In what way would it be more work? It would be like two submarines fighting each other. There have been good submarine movies-- well at least one anyway.

    40. Re:Kill all the crew... by pclminion · · Score: 2, Funny
      The only reason Rodenberry isn't spinning in his grave is that his ashes are in orbit.

      Maybe his ashes are spinning in orbit. Is his orbit getting higher? Have we found a way to extract zero-point energy from the gravitational potential of Gene Roddenberry's spinning ashes?!

      Terrible Star Trek Series: They Keep Gene Spinning In His Capsule, And Your Lights On (tm)

    41. Re:Kill all the crew... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      B&B These are the same guys who are PROUD of the fact that they never watched the original series.

      Oh yeah! We'll I'm proud of the fact that I never did fractions or decimals back in grade school! And now I'm on the President's balanced budget advisory board!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    42. Re:Kill all the crew... by why-is-it · · Score: 3, Funny
      If we just accept B&B's screwed up timeline, then we'll have to accept that Star Trek is finally dead.

      Not until Netcraft confirms it!

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    43. Re:Kill all the crew... by Yet+Another+Smith · · Score: 1

      The only reason Rodenberry isn't spinning in his grave is that his ashes are in orbit.

      So he's revolving in his grave.

      I'll split the diff on whether beginning/end of DS9 is the death. The bullet cut the artery when The Dominion entered the scene. They were a lame 'We miss the black-and-white no-moral-quandriness of the Klingons.' The Cardassian conflict was an interesting cold war allegory. Dominion was boring. You knew they'd lose in the end.

      --
      if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
    44. Re:Kill all the crew... by Naffer · · Score: 1

      Must...resist...urge...to...hang...out...with...
      geeks...watching...geeky...movie.

    45. Re:Kill all the crew... by ringbarer · · Score: 0, Funny

      Many people wish they could.

      --
      "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
    46. Re:Kill all the crew... by Laivincolmo · · Score: 1

      However, it was a multiple of 5, which is a much stronger force than odd/even.

    47. Re:Kill all the crew... by hondo77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They kept the body on life support for Voyager...

      But, oh, what a body!

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    48. Re:Kill all the crew... by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      The "Balance of Terror" episode from TOS was a submarine fight. The scenes were like a 1950s WW2 submarine movie. Right down to the Romulans tossing debris and bodies out the airlock to fake damage. "The Enemy Below" with spaceships.

      Great episode, personal favorite.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    49. Re:Kill all the crew... by MadChicken · · Score: 1

      I think 9 was "The Search for Any Reason to Have a Face-Stretching Machine"

      Which means Nemesis shoulda been 9.5, to stick to the even-numbers rule...

      --
      SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
    50. Re:Kill all the crew... by datasetgo · · Score: 1

      ahhh... such nice boys, they are... I bet they'll grow up to be the best nerds ever. **gush**

    51. Re:Kill all the crew... by Grant_Watson · · Score: 2, Funny

      "9. The Search for Little Picard

      "And the rule of thumb, even numbered trek films don't suck (as much)."

      You left out Insurrection (at number 9). That makes Nemesis number 10, and Nemesis sucked muchly.

    52. Re:Kill all the crew... by Mike+Markley · · Score: 1

      That is impossible, we are the Mooninites!

    53. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several posts in this forum have stated that Data's character will somehow work into the new movie. It might not be true, but I wouldn't put it past B&B.

      Oh, probably. We'll see Kirk as a little boy, building Data in his spare time from working on his pod racer, until of course Picard and Jar-Jar come and rescue him from his life of slavery -- wait, hang on a second...

    54. Re:Kill all the crew... by TEH+FUNNEY · · Score: 1
    55. Re:Kill all the crew... by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I think 9 was "The Search for Any Reason to Have a Face-Stretching Machine"

      Which means Nemesis shoulda been 9.5, to stick to the even-numbers rule...


      Yes I stand corrected, however I feel a sence of pride the fact that I can't remember all the startrek films.

      1. The search for v'ger (aka a plot)
      2. The Search for K'han
      3. The Search for Spock (I have had enough of you)
      4. The Search for Whales
      5. The Search for God
      6. The Search for Shakesphere
      7. The Search for William Shatner
      8. The Search for Vulcans
      9. The Search for Youth (Face-Stretching Machine)
      10. The Search for Little Picard

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    56. Re:Kill all the crew... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      If we are watching the mirrored version of the star-trek universe, could somebody give me the URL of the original, this one seems corrupt :S

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    57. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so you are the freak at Slashdot? ;-)

    58. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn. you guys are awesome.

    59. Re:Kill all the crew... by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      Or chose to ignore it, which I wouldn't blame him for, :)

    60. Re:Kill all the crew... by Malc · · Score: 1

      DS9 died before it went off the air. The whole last season was spent propping up the dead body. It got so painful to watch. Stupid and sentimental and just really annoying.

    61. Re:Kill all the crew... by Kethinov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your comment is nicely worded but I don't agree. It seems that the norm on Slashdot is to bash the shit out of modern Star Trek and Star Wars prequels for some reason. Take it from a fan since the TNG days: DS9 was great, Voyager was great, and Enterprise is great. And all that was made before I started watching was great. I'm not the only fan who feels this way. Perhaps I am on Slashdot though.

      I've seen every episode of Star Trek and every Trek movie ever made and they all more or less capture the spirit that the show was founded on. I really wish people on Slashdot would give this Trek and Star Wars bashing a rest. I don't agree with all the decisions TPTB have made, but Trek is still good quality intelegent television in a word where mindless reality shows dominate the ratings.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    62. Re:Kill all the crew... by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      There will be beer and geeks making fun of themselves for being geeks. And maybe some bullies to beat up the geeks. Free wedgies for everyone!

    63. Re:Kill all the crew... by iomanip · · Score: 1

      So wait, if his ashes are in orbit, the the orbit around the earth is, in fact, his grave. Given that, I would imagine his ashes are moving about as they orbit the earth. So, would that make him technically spinning in his grave?

    64. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one between 8 and 9 -- The Search for Immortality. And yes, it makes the last one break the even/odd rule, but we can always pretend one of them doesn't exist... oh wait...

      -Mike

    65. Re:Kill all the crew... by Jahf · · Score: 1

      I'm lazy, so not directly quoting ...

      I either missed that episode of Enterprise (I skipped much of seasons 2 and 3) or I blocked it out completely. Either way, thank goodness I missed it and damn them for bringing it back. Next thing you know we'll have a completely holographic crew member ;)

      And as for Data, hopefully if they put him in the story (I was kinda hoping that the timeline incongruitites due to Enterprise would selectively delete a few characters, his being primary) they will do so back when he didn't act like he wanted be human. It got real old.

      Then again, I don't hold out hope and I haven't seen any of the last couple of Trek movies in the theater. Just not worth the money. I'm not a big fan of ST but I am a big fan of well plotted continuity.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    66. Re:Kill all the crew... by effex100 · · Score: 1

      X-Men did the same thing in the comic with the "Apocalypse alternate universe". I stopped reading it about then.

      But then they did it again with the Ultimates series of comics and those have been a huge success. Sometime creating an alternet world to try new things is better than screwing with the current. The Ultimates series of books works because the normal books are still there and a fan can chose one or the other or both.
      Maybe thats what Star Trek needs to do?

      --
      SMOKE... are ya smokin yet?
    67. Re:Kill all the crew... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1
      And the rule of thumb, even numbered trek films don't suck (as much)

      I never understood that reasoning. The Search For Spock, while far from perfect was a lot more interesting and thrilling than that neo-hippie fest that was number 4. Besides, I got a kick out of seeing Night Court's Dan Fielding and Taxi's Jim Ignatowski as Klingons.

      The first one wasn't so bad either, in that long, plodding 70's kind of way.I'll agree it wasn't strictly a Trek movie, though.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    68. Re:Kill all the crew... by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      ST:Insurrection was eminently forgettable. You're entirely forgiven.

    69. Re:Kill all the crew... by Babbster · · Score: 1
      Slight renumbering (you missed one):

      9. The Search for McCormick
      10. The Search for Little Picard.

    70. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you look at Babylon 5 (which many people here consider Sci-Fi done Right), they Had a slightrly similar situation. Mentioned in the series was the fact that one character won a victory because he "mined the asteroid belt with nukes".

      In a later movie covering that time period, it is shown that his ship is disabled and he, sheerly out of desperation, drops his last 2 or 3 weapons on nearby asteroids and sends out a fake distress call to lure the enemy. The enemy approaches, and one or 2 nukes take them out.

      Notice how that version of events is slightly different than "mined the [entire] asteroid belt". But it's not SO different that a few retellings wouldn't mutate one into the other.

      Maybe the Federation forces are shot down on a planet where the best weapons the locals have are "primitive nukes", and maybe they cobble together their last few shuttlecraft to carry the nukes toward the Romulans.

      Or maybe the Romulans ships have shields that stop our regular weapons, but some bright engineer (Scotty's Grandparent?) comes up with the idea of using old fashioned nukes to colapse the shields, whereupon the Roms retreat....

    71. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed one...

      8.5. The one where Picard gets some.
      a.k.a The Search for LaForge's Eyes
      a.k.a The Search for the Bar of Soap

    72. Re:Kill all the crew... by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      "Age of Apocalypse" (the aforementioned X-Men alternate universe thing) was actually pretty good.

      It was always done as a four-month stint, gave the writers a different change of pace, different directions to go with the characters, different things to try with the characters.

      I like it. It was something different. "Age of Apocalypse", however, is nothing like what B&B are doing with Star Trek. There's a difference between 'doing something different' and 'running a franchise into the ground'.

      "Age of Apocalypse" did not ignore everything that had happened. It was like a 4-month comic version of 'Mirror Mirror' (and all those DS9 episodes). It gave the writers the chance to try something different.

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    73. Re:Kill all the crew... by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      ST:Insurrection was eminently forgettable. You're entirely forgiven.

      Not only is it eminently forgettable, but the fact Nemisis could have just as easily been titled Insurrection. After all, the central plot is a Romulan/Reman insurgence lead by little Picard. Hince when I checked startrek.com and I saw "Insurrection" I didn't think of face streching machines and happy go lucky crew feeling so young. That's the problem with one word titles, it's hard to associate them with a specific story. If I were to say "Star Trek The Motion Sickness" everyone would know specificly what I was talking about.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    74. Re:Kill all the crew... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      The problem was that when the reset button was hit, things didn't go back to normal. I really had no problem with the "Age of Apocalypse" story line. I thought it was intriguing. It was the switch back that was the killer.

    75. Re:Kill all the crew... by isomeme · · Score: 2, Funny
      "Whoa. No offense was intended there. If I came off a bit strong, it's probably my anger at B&B showing through."

      No no, wasn't offended. Actually I should be the one apologizing with the 'sorry I'm not a nerd' comment.

      Oh, for Pete's sake! You modern kids can't even have a Trek flamewar properly!
      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    76. Re:Kill all the crew... by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I never understood that reasoning. The Search For Spock, while far from perfect was a lot more interesting and thrilling than that neo-hippie fest that was number 4. Besides, I got a kick out of seeing Night Court's Dan Fielding and Taxi's Jim Ignatowski as Klingons.

      The Search for Spock wasn't horrible but it was no Wrath of Khan. A single Klingon bird of prey with a tiny crew gets widdled away till finally there is a hand to hand confrontation between the two captains which ends in "I have had enough of YOU".

      The Search for Whales is generally amusing as we return to classic Star Trek cultural diffrences between the reborn Spock and 1980's culture. You can be somewhat critical of it because of it's similarity to the first film The Motion Sickness. Probe comes from parts unknown to talk to someone or something that is long since dead. But part of Star Trek has been taking current issues such as the killing of whales and showing why it might be a bad idea, in this case it might result in a large rock sphere and cylinder comming and blanketing the earth in rain.

      The first one, the motion sickness was pretty bad by anyone's standards. It's interesting in the fact that we get to see the possible result of 20th century thinking, let's toss out probes into the universe having no idea what is out there and not even think about the result of who or what they might bring back. But bad in the resolution is to make love not war and disapear in an orgasmic shockwave.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    77. Re:Kill all the crew... by OpenSourceOfAllEvil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Instead, I think the Star Trek and Star Wars universes should merge. That way there will be only one crappy SF series to ignore or cry about. And think about it, with a merger Lucas can Special Edition away of all those pesky incongrous timelines and plot holes fans keep going on about.

      If you throw in Spielberg it will be easy to explain why Romulans and Earthicans never saw each other -- because all phasers will be replaced by walkie-talkies.

      Farscape forever you insensitive clod.

    78. Re:Kill all the crew... by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      So it wasn't a master reset, but they handled it nicely. The higher powers of the Marvel universe knew that something was up... so did the X-Men (and all the rest), cause they saw the wave coming.

      What happened in the following months after AoA was just people dealing with having 4 months of your life disappear in questionable circumstances.

      I stopped reading once they hit Onslaught, though, couldn't keep up with having to buy 10 comics a month to get the full story.

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    79. Re:Kill all the crew... by fwarren · · Score: 2, Funny
      Resistance is futile

      -------

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
    80. Re:Kill all the crew... by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1
      Dork. If you know this much about Star Trek, you're a dork, not a nerd. There IS a difference.

      You're splitting hairs ...

    81. Re:Kill all the crew... by mriker · · Score: 1

      Trek IX was Insurrection; Trek X was Nemesis.

    82. Re:Kill all the crew... by taernim · · Score: 1

      Lucas must have taken a cue from that for his awful midichlorians idea...

      --
      "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    83. Re:Kill all the crew... by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      You forgot 9...and what you call 9 is actually 10. Here's the list reposted, with corrections:

      Star Trek I: The search for V'ger (aka a plot)
      Star Trek II: The Search for Khan
      Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
      Star Trek IV: The Search for Whales
      Star Trek V: The Search for God
      Star Trek VI: The Search for Shakesphere
      Star Trek VII: The Search for William Shatner
      Star Trek VIII: The Search for Vulcans
      Star Trek IX: The Search for Data
      Star Trek X: The Search for Little Picard

    84. Re:Kill all the crew... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention Godwin's law, but how does it apply to those episodes that directly refer to Nazis?

    85. Re:Kill all the crew... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      What, you figure with 2 odd digits in there, it's doubly odd/bad? Better to make it an odd number of odd digits though, like 9.5.7. Hmm, that sounds like a open source software version...

    86. Re:Kill all the crew... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      I only mod up references to movie/historical pirates. Willing to change that to Jack Sparrow?

      PS Take the "movie pirates" however you want to, Mr. Valenti.

      PPS Yes, I'm aware that no warez kiddies in their right mind will be willing to pirate this new movie...

    87. Re:Kill all the crew... by Cornelius+Chesterfie · · Score: 1

      I've never watched Star Trek (gasp! well I did see the one with Khan), so perhaps that explains why no one else (to my knowledge: I'm reading at a high treshhold) has mentionned it, but couldn't the Romulans just be wearing armors or something? Since the odds of having a war movie where the combatants never encounter one another are slim, the Romulans will probably be wearing masks or helmets or some such, hiding their bodies. Technically you didn't see the Nazgul King's face either in LOTR:ROTK.

    88. Re:Kill all the crew... by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      I on the other hand as a true trekker/trekkie had no problem remember all of them plus all the episodes of the orginal series (no kidding). You must bow down to my leetness.

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    89. Re:Kill all the crew... by UnseenEnigma · · Score: 1

      Wasnt their a catch-all for these issues that they came up with in ds9? Something about an alternate universe (where the original took place and where kira is a dominatrix) that could be reached through a "modified" transporter. Or do i have this wrong Im a part time treky - no time for details :)

    90. Re:Kill all the crew... by Da+Web+Guru · · Score: 1

      Actually, you left one out (Insurrection). I think that it should go like this:

      9. The Search for the Fountain of Youth
      10. The Search for Little Picard

      --

      --guru

    91. Re:Kill all the crew... by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      In light of the even/odd suck ratio I have always numbered them thus:

      1. Star Trek I: The Motionless Picture
      2. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
      3. Star Trek III: The Search for Plot
      4. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
      5. Star Trek V: Let's go meet God!
      6. Star Trek VI: The Apology
      7. Star Trek VII: Oh so very tired (stolen from The Simpsons)
      8. Star Trek VIII: First Contact
      9. Star Trek IX: The one I didn't bother to see (This will be my official title for all further Star Trek films by the way)

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    92. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is how I've been watching Enterprise. I also do my best to ignore that putz from the future who keeps telling Archer that he's the man behind the Federation. He's obviously an escaped mental patient from the 30th century who's been hit on the noggin one too many times.

    93. Re:Kill all the crew... by builderbob_nz · · Score: 1

      Ahh you forgot one, your number 9 should be number 10 as number 9 is "Insurection" ... The search for a big holo-ship maybe?

      --

      Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.
    94. Re:Kill all the crew... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Well, not totally brain dead. There was the occasional spark of neural activity. What they really need is to get Harlan Ellison to write the stuff. Even if it wasn't good for continuity, it would make some damned good episodes.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    95. Re:Kill all the crew... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      It's what dorks and nerds do.

      Geeks, on the other hand, are great fun at parties.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    96. Re:Kill all the crew... by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1
      It's what dorks and nerds do. Geeks, on the other hand, are great fun at parties.

      My point is that most people view all of those as synonyms.

    97. Re:Kill all the crew... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yes...and?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    98. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, least they could do is start arguing about Trek vs. Star Wars.

      "Enterprise E vs Death Star: Who would win?"

      I honestly heard a couple people arguing about that in real life, and never wanted to put someone in a locker before in my life, but... if there'd be one handy, they'd have been locked up for a while, perferably far enough away from each other to not be able to continue the discussion.

    99. Re:Kill all the crew... by TheKAVH · · Score: 1

      Insurrection?

    100. Re:Kill all the crew... by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 1

      Wow. I'm speechless and this is the only thing I could type. Great stuff people.

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
    101. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Enterprise is a brain-eating zombie made from the dead carcass of Star Trek."

      As literally demonstrated in the 'Ship of the Vulcan Zombies" episode. That pretty much killed any feeble hope I held for the series.

    102. Re:Kill all the crew... by Micro$will · · Score: 1

      8. The Search for Vulcans
      9. The Search for Little Picard


      10 is the search for the younger Picard, 9 is The Search for the Fountain of Youth (Insurrection).

    103. Re:Kill all the crew... by Mazem · · Score: 1
      ... but they don't remember the events of one of Star Trek's most popular movies.

      Ahem, 2 of Star Trek's most popular movies.
      </nerd>
    104. Re:Kill all the crew... by CanadianCrackPot · · Score: 1

      4. Enterprise gets blown up back in the 1930s fighting Alien Nazi's all Captin's Logs are lost and along with it the f*cked up timeline, the Federation gets formed without Archer has a war with the Romulans because they are sh!tdisturbers, same reason with the Klingons, then Kirk and Co come along and pasify the angry slashmasses.

      --
      Good programmers drink beer to relieve job stress.
      Great programmers drink hard liquor and work best hungover.
    105. Re:Kill all the crew... by kunwon · · Score: 1

      Star Trek. Did you know that Gene Roddenberry originally wanted to call it 'Wagon Train to the Stars'?

      But anyway, Yeah, all of the Star Trek franchises have been entertaining. The problem is, Star Trek is distributed to the masses by a company whose primary concern is making money. If they make a Star Trek series that caters to the true uber-fans but doesn't make much money, then in their minds, they have failed. They're in the business to make money, and make money they shall.

      Now, setting that aside, Star Trek, throughout all of it's incarnations, has remained true to the spirit of the original.

      Star Trek is an idealistic vision of the future of our race, with a few less than idealistic neighbors. In TOS and Enterprise, they're still building to that ideal. In TNG and the early seasons of DS9, the peak of that ideal is realized. And, in latter episodes of DS9 and Voyager, the ideal begins to decline quite a bit. For me, there's no better Star Trek experience than the final episode of TNG. But then again, I'm a sentimental kind of guy.

    106. Re:Kill all the crew... by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      You left out Insurrection (at number 9). That makes Nemesis number 10, and Nemesis sucked muchly.

      Yes. It should be:
      9. The Search for the Fountain of Youth
      10. The Search for Little Picard

      You know, that last one sounds kind of like a pr0n parody flick...

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    107. Re:Kill all the crew... by putch · · Score: 1

      actually, it should be:

      9. The Search for the fountain of youth
      10. The Search for little picard

      --
      just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
    108. Re:Kill all the crew... by hobo2k · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the late comment. But, dude. Did you mean to imply that Lucas could actually make an existing product better? I think you just violated the nerd prime directive!

    109. Re:Kill all the crew... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Plus, being killed a time or two didn't help...

    110. Re:Kill all the crew... by Strych9 · · Score: 1

      You missed one:
      8. The Search for Vulcans
      9. Search of immortality
      10. The Search for little Picard

    111. Re:Kill all the crew... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      > Besides, I got a kick out of seeing Night Court's Dan Fielding and Taxi's Jim Ignatowski as Klingons.

      --Holy crap, you're right! I never knew that Maltz was JL!
      http://imdb.com/name/nm0488662/

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    112. Re:Kill all the crew... by enthused+i+swear · · Score: 1

      You forgot (understandably so) about The Search for Youth

      (Star Trek 9, Nemesis was 10)

      Wow these movies are just getting worse and worse...

    113. Re:Kill all the crew... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You mean besides the damage done to the time-line by not only the Enterprise E in First Contact, but the temporal cold war where a race of people have intentionally mucked with Earth's time line to get us all wiped out? Well that's a tough one, I don't see how they could wriggle out of that.

      Archer's last act as Captain of the Enterprise will be to go back in time and prevent the TCW from ever happening. Trek's biggest Big Reset Button Ever.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    114. Re:Kill all the crew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything can happen, like alien Nazis...

      That happened in TOS. "Patterns of Force"

    115. Re:Kill all the crew... by goodEvans · · Score: 1

      Erm, 10 was the search for little picard. You forgot Inusrrection, which was the search for a hot milf...

    116. Re:Kill all the crew... by Tassach · · Score: 1

      Too bad she's a prude, otherwise I'd make the obligitory "I'd hit it" remark. Besides, Terry Ferrell was always more my type than Jeri Ryan.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    117. Re:Kill all the crew... by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Did you know that Gene Roddenberry originally wanted to call it 'Wagon Train to the Stars'?
      Actually, that's false. That's how he pitched it. To get a studio to make a TV show you have to distill your pitch down to it's primal essence -- a single sentence which is expressed in terms which are familiar to a nitwit studio executive. Hence you compare your proposed show to one which is popular at that time.
      For me, there's no better Star Trek experience than the final episode of TNG.
      On that we agree. That was not just one of the best Star Trek episodes ever, but probably one of the best TV episodes ever.

      If B&B could turn out a product of that quality on even a semi-regular basis, my ass would be glued in front of the TV on Wednesday nites. Sadly, even the best Enterprise episodes pale in comparison to routine TNG or DS9 episodes.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  3. Easy by belg4mit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just make sure whomever does, dies. Sheesh.

    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
    1. Re:Easy by Madcapjack · · Score: 1

      Actually, the word is that Data's return from death is going to be an integral plot element in the upcoming feature. Somehow, he's involved in the foundation of the Federation. Maybe he impresses the Vulcans?

    2. Re:Easy by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Well, his head has been in a mine under San Francisco (or something) since the 1800's. He went back in time and met Samuel Clemens, then got blown up by time traveling, lifeforce sucking aliens.

      Maybe, they activate his head, he helps out, but eventualy asks for his head ot be put back so Enterprise will find him.

      OR NOT!

    3. Re:Easy by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      No somewhere there's an explanation (in one of the older Role-Playing Games). The Kingons were advanced geneticists. (they didn't have the whole "that testing isn't ethical" problem)

      The Klingons in the original series where human/klingon hybrids. They also had Romulan/Klingon Hybrids. The logic being that first official contact would occur with beings resembling their newly found enemies. Thus when finally encountering the Imperial Klingons, their opponents would be caught off guard.

      I belive this is the one.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    4. Re:Easy by Mr.+BS · · Score: 1

      It was my understanding that the Klingons just don't like to talk about their history. Worf told O'Brian this on a DS9 episode (Trials and Tribble-ations) when O'Brian fist saw one of the 'older' Kilingons on the TOS Enterprise.

      If they didn't ave the whole "that testing isn't ethical" problem then, they have one now!

    5. Re:Easy by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      It's not ethical. It's a question of whether the tactic worked. Did they conquer the Federation? or the Romulans? No. So the hybrid programs lost their funding.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
  4. Hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kirk: "I'm old....and....noonelistenstome.......anymore."

    1. Re:Hehe by Madcapjack · · Score: 1

      He's certainly not as old as he used to be!

    2. Re:Hehe by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not old, dagnabit!

      With my handy Romulan Viagra McCoy hooked me up with, the green chicks still live in fear of my "Photon Torpedo"!

  5. Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by numbski · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Heh, further proof thatBerman couldn't get an original idea to save his life.

    Okay, so it's not EXACTLY the same, but dang, how close can a guy get? Anyway, sounds to me like this would be better 'experimented' as a TV miniseries, as you're going to have to introduce characters, do character development, plot development, and plot resolution all in a single flick. In a miniseries, you'd have more screen time to work with, and wouldn't have to rush through it all.

    Oh wait, this is Berman we're talking about. Then again, we'd be bashing him if this were announced as a miniseries talking about how much it's going to suck. :\

    My personal feeling is that until they return to the TNG timeline, come up with a believable story plot, and give the Berman team a rest, things aren't going to get better. Perhaps dropping the franchise altogether is the answer, but not so long as the cash flows is that going to happen.

    I know! Captain B-4 of the Starship Enterprise-F! :P Always remember to keep a reliable backup of your Data. ;)

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    1. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by B3ryllium · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My opinion is that Joss Whedon is what B&B can never be; a quality writer who cares about the material.

      That's why I plan to eschew Star Trek movies in favour of Serentity, due out in 2005. :)

    2. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not the only one to complain. I have a few wishes that had better be met if this movie is going to be any good:

      1. There better be a reset button hidden in that Temporal Cold War. We need to wipe out that idiot Enterprise episode where the Romulans were able to cloak. Not to mention the "invention" of phase cannons and photon torpedos.

      2. NUKES! BIG FRIGGIN' NUKES! There's only one way to fight a space war before phasers and photons, and that's with Gigawatt lasers/masers and BIG ASS NUKES!

      3. No hull plating. That stuff is the stupidest invention yet. They can use M2P2 shields for protection against radiation and nuclear explosions. Fine. But "charged" hull plating that "wears away" is just stupid. Ablative armor is the way REAL wars are fought.

      Think they'll listen?

      NAH. It will all be "photons", "phasers", "Oops, I fell on [bimbo of the series] boobs", and "Oh, yeah. There's like this... war... thing, going on. Guess we better save the day. Let's act REAL angry and tell them they're wrong. That always works."

    3. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Oops, I fell on [bimbo of the series] boobs"

      It's kind of pathetic and twisted that Star Trek fans like you, who'll still be virgins at 40, keep complaining about the small amount of sex appeal that's been put in to appeal to us normal guys.

    4. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      It's kind of pathetic and twisted that Star Trek fans like you, who'll still be virgins at 40, keep complaining about the small amount of sex appeal that's been put in to appeal to us normal guys.

      I'm married and have two kids. I don't think I'm the one with the problem. You might want to stop projecting on others. It tends to give away things you might not want them to know...

    5. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by xoboots · · Score: 1
      It's kind of pathetic and twisted that Star Trek fans like you, who'll still be virgins at 40, keep complaining about the small amount of sex appeal that's been put in to appeal to us normal guys.

      I'm married and have two kids. I don't think I'm the one with the problem. You might want to stop projecting on others. It tends to give away things you might not want them to know...

      Most excellent reply!! Sure, eye candy is all fine and good I suppose, but when that's the whole damn thing, it gets boring right quick. Get your rocks off on the internet if you must and leave some room in those multi-million dollar shows for real intrigue, drama, suspense and blowing-things-up. Star Trek was way more interesting before it became Soft Trek and way, way more interesting before B&B inherited the whole vision of the thing.

      I wonder if this new movie will get made though--didn't they lose something like $100M on the last dog they released?

    6. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can't believe I'm reading this.

      There's never enough cleavage on TV.

    7. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      That's why there's the Internet.

    8. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Jerf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hey, all you nerds! Even if Firefly wasn't your cup of tea, let's help Serenity kick Star Trek's ass at the box office. It would be good for everyone... most especially Star Trek, which needs all of us to stop shoveling our money over for crap so that there is an incentive to stop making that crap.

    9. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of movies from writers who know science fiction, anyone have recent news about the B5 movie?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    10. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if Firefly wasn't your cup of tea, let's help Serenity kick Star Trek's ass at the box office.

      I loved Firefly, but I'm not gonna see the movie unless A) Universal shelves it and someone else picks it up, or B) Universal changes it's attitude and becomes a decent company. (That means dropping the stupid lawsuits, issuing a public apology, and giving a few mil to everybody they've screwed with their barratry.)

    11. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're going to have to introduce characters, do character development, plot development, and plot resolution all in a single flick

      Yes, and we all know how difficult that is - that's why movies like American Beauty, Deliverance, The Shawshank Redemption, 12 Angry Men, Citizen Kane, The Abyss, Pulp Fiction, Braveheart, It's a Wonderful Live, and The Princess Bride couldn't be told in a single movie.

      Umm, wait...

    12. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by krb · · Score: 1

      hear-frickin-hear!

      damnfools at FOX... firefly was GOOD dammit.

      --
    13. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.stardestroyer.net/Nemesis/Pictorial-1.h tml

    14. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      *ahem* SerenITY, not SerenTITY. There's a difference. *chides self*

    15. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by MadChicken · · Score: 1

      You're probably right about 1...

      But as for 2 & 3... absolutely. (I still enjoy the fact that Andromeda doesn't appear to have any energy shielding)

      I would enjoy seeing your version a lot more than any likely ST XI, I think...

      --
      SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
    16. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by noewun · · Score: 1
      as you're going to have to introduce characters, do character development, p


      You'd have to go back to the original series to find any of this, and even then it was thin at times. Trek has always had its share of melodrama and putting ideas in front of character. Unfortunately, with the new series character was almost completely abandoned for technobabble and special effects.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    17. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I still enjoy the fact that Andromeda doesn't appear to have any energy shielding

      That's another show I wish they hadn't screwed up. (I lost track of it after they converted it from "good storyline" to "Hercules in Space".) There was nothing quite like Andromeda zipping out of slipstream, and opening up with forward cannons, missiles, and slip fighters. And if that failed, go for the nova bomb.

      Probably my favorite sequence was Dillan's Machiavellian maneuver with the giant robots. "How to seriously kick ass in three easy steps."

      See, this is what happens when you give ships to people who deserve them. (As opposed to touchy, feely, "hair-bun of steal" captains.)

    18. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But everyone likes TITY.

    19. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by abb3w · · Score: 1

      NUKES! BIG FRIGGIN' NUKES! There's only one way to fight a space war before phasers and photons, and that's with Gigawatt lasers/masers and BIG ASS NUKES!

      You have obviously not learned the Kzinti Lesson, studied Operation Hard Rock, nor considered the weapons implications of antimatter, which we know the proto-federation has at its disposal in at least modest quantities, or the weapons possibilities of a teleporter. (NB: "Given the assumptions in (I) and (II) you don't really get a society. You get a short war.") Nor, for that matter, realized that some SF implications of 9/11 were considered at least back in 1998, over three years before the plane hit the Pentagon.

      SF wars have been considered for for a long time now, and there's many other promising possibilites besides nukes. (And if you think the military doesn't pay attention, think again. They have been giving at least half an ear to what the SF guys are babbling about for a long time now.)

      That said, I'm also one of those hoping this temporal cold war thing will end with one last change wiping it out of history, even though they've done that trick before.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    20. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by RevAaron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pretty recently, JMS said that it was still going ahead and was way past just talk. Money has changed hands, JMS has scheduled around it, and a couple drafts have been gone through. It apparently will be called B5: The Movement of Shadows, though it is unclear if that is to be the final name of the film, or just a working title.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    21. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      4. Some really sophisticated smart weapons. Military tech that is coming out of the labs now should be seriously cool by Enterprise's time. The Xindi had some neat stuff (that gooey crap they shot at the wall behind some security guys that perforated them.) But a few handguns, a couple of "phase" cannons and hull plating just seems a bit too primitive.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    22. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1
      I'm with you up to a point, however I disagree with this bit:
      sounds to me like this would be better 'experimented' as a TV miniseries, as you're going to have to introduce characters, do character development, plot development, and plot resolution all in a single flick
      All movie directors have to do this. Part of the art of film-making is developing your characters in the limited time you've got in Act 1 so that the audience begins to give a shit what happens to them once the complication arrives in Act 2.

      As far as the TV show goes, I also found this an interesting bit of reading - from the article:

      Braga also discussed the storylines in development for Enterprise's fourth season, including the return of the Temporal Cold War. "One thing we're discussing is possibly blowing the lid off the Temporal Cold War once and for all," he reportedly said. "That's probably something we'll do in this first storyline. I can't say that for sure, because we're just getting into it. But I'd really like to resolve that and put a cap on it. It would be a nice thing to do after three seasons of teasing it along."
      So there you have it. They're still making up this stuff as they go along. And it shows.

      I've said this before and I'll say it again: If you want to tell a story over a five-year arc, write the skeleton of the story in the first place so that the twists look a lot more clever when they do arrive. Hint: get J. Michael Stradzinsky of Babylon 5 fame to do the writing and at least give the impression that you have a bit of foresight.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    23. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by isorox · · Score: 1

      *see sig*

    24. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Having watched most of Firefly, a smattering of rerun Angel episodes, and a Buffy here and there, I feel qualified to judge you a retard deserving no less than a lifetime in a hospital for the criminally insane.

      Besides, it's like arguing who is more evil, Hitler or Stalin & Mao.

      JMS, on the other hand...

      PS Am I the only one who thinks Kerry looks like a Narn?

    25. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      Well. This has a potential of being original. Let's run this through the Five Scripts of Star Trek and see what happens.

      1) "Aww! It's a totally new, cute little space alien!! Wook at the cute wittle space alien! Let me pet it and stroke it and help it and dont screw up the Primary Directive and.... - Hmm. Romulans would be new to them so it uses Script #1
      2) "Oh no! It's a Rift!! Quick! get the "How to use the Deflector to fix a rip in the space-time continuium" manual and fix it before it destroys the universe! It's under the "What to do when the Holodeck Goes self aware and traps the crew" manual! -Definetly doesn't sound like a rift is involved.
      3) "Oops! We Traveled Through Time!! Lets get out of here before we screw up histo...Wait a Second, WE ALREADY SCREWED IT UP! OH NO! WE GOT TO FIX IT!! - doesn't sound like time travel is involved.
      4) "Oh My god! This guy is Nuts!! We have to stop him at all costs! That means you die, and you die, and you die, in fact the whole ship is gonna probably be destroyed! Hmm. I always wanted a new ship. Boy I love that new ship smell! Hope you live to smell it with me! - Definetly getting a Khaaan!!! vibe from the title. looks like a lot of red shirts are going to ignite. So it least sound like it has to potential to use Script #4
      5) "Holy Crap! The Holodeck is trapping the crew!! We got to Get them out of the.. Wait a second. WE'RE IN THE HOLODECK! OH NO! WE GOT TO GET OUT BEFORE ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!! - Since Holodecks wouldn't have been invented yet, its a safe bet that this won't be used.

      On Second though, it sounds like the same old crap. War is a nice touch though.

    26. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      But did you watch Firefly in-order, instead of Fox's fuckled-up scheduling?

    27. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      The order couldn't have made any meaningful difference. I already hated Enterprise, and literally any scifi had a better than likely chance of hooking me. I can even watch Andromeda or SG1 once in awhile. It wasn't anything compelling. He's some full of himself art director, that thinks literally *everything* is acting, only he chooses barely passable actors, and gives them little to work with. The spaceship could easily have been a hippy bus in the 1960s, with literally compromising not a single story/plot element. Even as bad as Enterprise is, you can't say that of it.

      Not to mention their engine looked like a giant turd wrapped into tinfoil and squashed. I am a high school dropout, but even my laymen's physics could come up with far better.

    28. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm married and have two kids.

      And you're gay?! Does your wife know, or are you still living a secret double life?

      There's only one answer to the question of should cleavage be on TV:

      Yes.

      Now, there'd better be a good actress in possession of that cleavage, otherwise you end up with Star Trek Voyager. After all, look at the captain: No cleavage, poor actress. At least 7 of 9 had cleavage, even though she was still a poor actress.
    29. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by ultranova · · Score: 1
      That's why I plan to eschew Star Trek movies in favour of Serentity, due out in 2005. :)

      When I read this, my first thought was "They're going to make a movie about Sailor Moon's mother ?" and was mighty disappointed when it turned out to be a movie about a freighter. I wonder if I'm too much into anime... Nah.

      That said, one could make a very good scifi/fantasy movie about the war between the Moon Kingdom and Dark Kingdom... Politics ! Aliens ! Earth-shattering magick ! Evil masterminds from beyond ! Romance ! Action ! War ! Decisive battles ! And space empires ! Sailor Moon, for all its faults, does have that certain grandiosity which most movies (and, indeed, all stories) seem to lack nowadays.

      Offtopic, I know, but still...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Ablative armor is the way REAL wars are fought.
      You're right. When they introduced the Defiant on DS9, I recall it having ablative armor.

    31. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You're right. When they introduced the Defiant on DS9, I recall it having ablative armor.

      It wasn't the same thing. The DS9 ablative armor was a "recharging" armor. Supposedly replicators were used to constantly deposit armor on the outside the ship so that weak spots would eventually cover over. Real ablative armor (like the kind used on Battleships) is simply a thick plate of something protective (like steel). As it takes enemy fire, it "ablates". i.e. It starts to chip away. It generally takes a complete replacement panel to fix damage to the armor. (Although I wouldn't be against some sort of "super-bond" stuff that they can spray and cure.)

    32. Re:Berman, future, past, and stealing ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moon Princess Make-Up!

  6. Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Masks, of course

    1. Re:Duh! by Wally+Fenderson · · Score: 0

      Only if they're Nixon masks.

      --
      It must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.
  7. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use time travel like everything else.

  8. Oh hell no by Coldeagle · · Score: 1

    Why, oh WHY are they going to do this? I don't pay 9+ dollars to see Star Trek when it's something that might not even be that interesting, considering the last movie (they killed off Data, the bastards), I mean come on Paramount, let's move on to DS9 or Voyager movies!

    1. Re:Oh hell no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DATA is still alive...just a different body

    2. Re:Oh hell no by KingEomer · · Score: 1

      They killed off Data!? THOSE BASTARDS!

    3. Re:Oh hell no by ryan76 · · Score: 1

      They killed Data? Which movie was this? Have been this out of touch?

      --
      http://threetechguys.info Come, discuss Technology. Got a technology question? Come ask!
    4. Re:Oh hell no by kpansky · · Score: 2, Funny

      Voyager or DS9 movies??? Yeah. I would pay to see those characters killed off.

      --

      --Kevin
    5. Re:Oh hell no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They killed off Data?

      I was waiting for a positive review before watching that one, and now you've ruined it for me, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:Oh hell no by Madcapjack · · Score: 1

      Actually, the word is that Data's return is going to be an integral plot element in the upcoming feature. Somehow, he's involved in the foundation of the Federation. Maybe he impresses the Vulcans?

    7. Re:Oh hell no by najay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They killed Data the same way they killed Spock. Death is, more or less, an abstract concept when dealing with major characters in the Star Trek universes.

    8. Re:Oh hell no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm reminded of Dr. Who's archvillain, the Master. Basically, it was common to have episodes where it seemed like the Master was going to die, only to show his escape at the last moment. Well, one time they had an episode where the Master was good and thoroughly killed. All burnt up, no more Master. A sad day for fans.

      Well, he shows up a few episodes laters and the Doctor basically sputters, "but... but, how did you..."

      The Master simply says, "Come now Doctor, you know I'm indestructible."

    9. Re:Oh hell no by toriver · · Score: 1

      The last one, Nemesis: Data sacrifices himself to blow up a ship about to fire a death ray weapon on a planet (Think Spock in Wrath of Khan, "the needs of the many" etc.). However, all his memories have been transferred to a Data-type android they found lying about. :)

    10. Re:Oh hell no by irving47 · · Score: 1

      So you were planning on seeing this when WHO sees it? Maybe Berman or Braga releases a review?

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    11. Re:Oh hell no by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      -nod- MacGuyver had Murdoc... this villian archetype shows up a lot. =)

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    12. Re:Oh hell no by Wally+Fenderson · · Score: 0

      Actually, that mightnot be a bad idea...

      A MacGyver Movie....
      Hmmmm....

      No...that is a bad idea

      --
      It must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.
    13. Re:Oh hell no by PierceLabs · · Score: 1

      hey found lying about....

      conveniently and for no reason early in the movie. Its like they decided that they were going to kill data and then needed to come up with a way to keep him alive. Then they realized how much they suck and came up with the script for Nemesis. Not that the rest of the movie *shudder* was any good.

    14. Re:Oh hell no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There is a MacGyver movie already(looks like more than one), look at Richard Dean Anderson's IMDB page and look at the MacGyver ones.

    15. Re:Oh hell no by natelr · · Score: 1

      And this should be a lesson to us all... Always backup your "DATA."

    16. Re:Oh hell no by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      They had already ruined Data's character, the one truly compelling of the entire series. I can ignore Geordi getting real eyes... he was nearly one dimensional anyway.

      Data on the other hand, was the most human of all of them (Worf comes in a close second), even if he never realized it. For years, wanting to be one, he was the child that Wesley was supposed to be.

      He loved, though he had trouble using that word.

      He grieved for that love.

      When someone tried to claim he was nothing more than a machine, he didn't sit there and wait for it to happen. He resigned, tried to leave. (Though a more interesting plot twist, that could have lasted a season or more, would have been him forcing this issue... what army could have stopped him if he had done so?).

      When confronted with a sociopath, he didn't do all the liberal "let's work this out in therapy" that all the other characters would have done. He tried every reasonable strategy available, and when that wasn't enough, he decided to vaporize the sonofabitch. (Again, more interesting would have been if a plot contrivance hadn't prevented him from doing so).

      He learned that he had a fucked up family. I for one, sympathize with the entire dysfunctional thing going on there.

      And then Braga and Berman have to fuck all that up with a golly-gee "emotion chip" ? The entire series was the story of him not needing it, of it being the placebo while he cured himself. This is nothing profound, small children should be able to recognize this. Him hiding behind cover "scared" when he could move so quickly as to appear as nothing more than a blur is ludicrous. His sacrifice in the last movie was even worse though. Too sacharine, too contrived. The stupid thing is the size of a button, but transporters can be this miniaturized and not take 2 passengers?

      The amazing part though? Even as bad as it was, they had to go and do worse. They were simply too pussified to go through with it. So one last plot contrivance allows him to "not really be dead".

      Compare to B5, with Sheridan dying on Zha'ha'dum. Cheesy? Yeh, I *LOVE* B5, but it's a little bit cheesy. But it simply didn't feel contrived, JMS meant to do this all along. Angels revealed themselves to save him, and ultimately died, immortal though they were, when begged to intervene on his behalf. When even that won't do, God himself steps in, to give him one last chance to set things right. But you cared about him, you could suspend disbelief.

      Star Trek 10's idea of the worst that could happen: Some romulan you know for 10 seconds has his face melted off, and Data "kinda" dies (but not really).

      B5's: On the personal level, Sheridan's wife is worse than murdered by aliens that might as well be demons. She walks around, still, has her memories, but is some sort of sociopathic vampire. Later on, even his son will be possessed by them, and will live his life as the worst of tyrants. On the galactic level, the entire planet Earth is taken over in a coup d'estat by some Hitler wannabe that gets his jollies ordering attacks on unarmed refugee ships. Staging wars with other civilizations at the behest of demons, they leave in their wake ruin and death to countless millions, in the end triggering civil war even in the society of the Minbari, enlightened people who haven't known murder among themselves in ages. Decades pass before things settle down.

      Even this summary doesn't do any kind of justice to the show. Real people die in it, often tragically, without being able to tie up every loose end. Hell, there is limited time travel, and you keep hoping they'll have enough foreknowledge to fix things they might have been able to (Could Sheridan have protected Molari from the watcher, or at least his son?). But they don't. JMS has his share of brainfarts, to be sure. There is even one episode that is genuinely unwatchable. But the man still understands the basics, compelling stories can't be told without letting some wrongs go unrighted. The cartoon hero shouldn't magically fix everything in the last 5 minutes of the show.

  9. SIMPLE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't get out of the ships. Duh!

  10. You expect coherence without conflicting claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Obviously you're not from around here


    And don't read the bible

  11. 'Secret history'? by Mordant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One way to handle this would be to work the plot out so that Romulans are actually seen by Terrans and/or allies, but that those who see them are either a) all killed or b) that it's all hushed up (I like this latter option, as there are all kinds of cool foreshadowin things which could be done).

    1. Re:'Secret history'? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "One way to handle this would be to work the plot out so that Romulans are actually seen by Terrans and/or allies, but that those who see them are either a) all killed or b) that it's all hushed up (I like this latter option, as there are all kinds of cool foreshadowin things which could be done)."

      Or maybe they could just say "wow, the Enterprise E sure set off an interesting change of events that dramatically altered history!"

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:'Secret history'? by freqres · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they could save money by booking the flight with Priceline.com?

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    3. Re:'Secret history'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One way to handle this would be to work the plot out so that Romulans are actually seen by Terrans and/or allies, but that those who see them are either a) all killed or b) that it's all hushed up (I like this latter option, as there are all kinds of cool foreshadowin things which could be done).

      That actually wouldn't be a bad idea. Vulcans and Romulans are physically very similar, so they could have covered up this fact to prevent prejudice of their allies.

    4. Re:'Secret history'? by wickedj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, that's a good idea. Considering that Romulans and Vulcans have blood history that had been kept under wraps for such a long time. I remember something about Romulans being illogical, emotional Vulcans that were exiled from Vulcan. To prevent political strife, the Vulcans and higher up humans could have covered up seeing Romulans.

    5. Re:'Secret history'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, we had the same idea one minute apart. That must mean it's a good idea :)

    6. Re:'Secret history'? by Gaijin42 · · Score: 1

      Vulcans and romulans are more than physically simmilar, they are the same race. There was a schism some time back. The TNG/DS9 episodes with spock in them touched on this.

    7. Re:'Secret history'? by afish40 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they could just say "wow, the Enterprise E sure set off an interesting change of events that dramatically altered history!"

      Or maybe the Enterprise-E was supposed to travel back in time and assist Zephram Cochran's warp flight. After all, when Seven of Nine mentioned these events in Voyager, the Feds seemed oblivious to the Enterprise ever having done such a thing, so Cochran supposedly kept the secret well enough that the Enterprise crew never found out about it before doing it. Sounds like a pretty tight loop to me.

      --
      Thanks a million. Push Start to replay.
    8. Re:'Secret history'? by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      Hey, this could be the founding of Section 31!

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    9. Re:'Secret history'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As they say: 'Great minds think alike'

      Although in the case of you two I think it is more like: 'Fools seldom differ'

    10. Re:'Secret history'? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "so Cochran supposedly kept the secret well enough that the Enterprise crew never found out about it before doing it. Sounds like a pretty tight loop to me."

      It's not so tight. It doesn't explain the lack of any NX-01's hanging on the walls of various incarnations of the Enterprise.

      A better description is that the NX-01 wasnt' originally called Enterprise. Then the Ent-E went back in time and turned Cochrane's life around. Inspired, he built the NX-01 warp-5 ship, and named it after the Enterprise. Or something like that.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    11. Re:'Secret history'? by mfh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > One way to handle this would be to work the plot out so that Romulans are actually seen by Terrans and/or allies, but that those who see them are either a) all killed or b) that it's all hushed up (I like this latter option, as there are all kinds of cool foreshadowin things which could be done).

      For me, I think it comes down to motive. Why would a government want to include in history the fact that Romulans were never seen by a human? Let's face it, they look an awful lot like the Vulcans, and in fact are related to them. You remember how racist TOS was when it came to Klingons? Maybe the higher ups were afraid that people, captains, would want to turn against the Vulcans if they ever knew what Romulans looked like.

      I think it'd be easy for this information to be marked classified, and be done with it. If anyone ever saw a Romulan, they were usually about to die anyway, or be hauled off to Remus to do dillithium mining...

      The thing I always wanted to see from Trek, that likely wouldn't ever happen, is a series about Roumulus. Just follow Captain Sula around on all her truly dark and mysterious missions. That'd actually be too dark for prime time, but the Sopranos has shown that even the darkest series can work and be huge success stories.

      I would love to see Roumulans in a series about Romulans. Wouldn't it rock? Show it from their side of things, with their dark and mysterious logic. It'd be cool as hell.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    12. Re:'Secret history'? by noewun · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's not so tight. It doesn't explain the lack of any NX-01's hanging on the walls of various incarnations of the Enterprise.

      There's a very, very, very good explanation for this: Enterprise wasn't written when those scenes were filmed.

      It's that simple.

      I know there is an enormous amount of disagreement here, but, to me, a lot of it misses a very simple point: you can't undertake a successful creative endeavor by starting with contraints, and the desire of many Trek fans that new series stick to a timeline which was made up on the fly by Roddenberry et al. in the original series is an enormous impediment. Personally, I felt that TNG, DS9 and friends were dreadfully boring series which seemed to excel only at technobabble and pseudoscience. The characters were one-dimensional audioanimatrons, the plots predictable and tired. Watching TNG was sometimes like watching a lecture in "how to be an evolved species", and DS9 was like some freshman creative writing project gone all wrong.

      Yawn.

      Enterprise is the first show since the original series I can really sink my teeth into: imperfect characters, unknown space and some good old fashioned alien ass kicking. I don't care about fidelilty to some idea of fictional continiuity. I care about a series I can enjoy watching.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    13. Re:'Secret history'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As they say: 'Great minds think alike'

      Although in the case of you two I think it is more like: 'Fools seldom differ'


      Well, there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right. Popularity is not always an indicator of something being correct, granted, but bad ideas are far more numerous.

      Besides, I think it would be logically consistent.

    14. Re:'Secret history'? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      A Roumulan series done *just right* could be awesome. However it would be really hard to pull off. You have to fit the Romulans in with their "Bad Guy" role yet have sympathetic characters without turning them cheezey. Even with the right person running the show and the right writing, the whole tone of the show would have to be pretty dark and might not fly well with the "general public". Will people tune in to a dystopia every week? Even if they do, will companies want to advertize in the middle of a dystopia?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    15. Re:'Secret history'? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Remus to do dillithium mining...

      Boy, they'd sure be in a pickle then, wouldn't they.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    16. Re:'Secret history'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already have a prehistory from the book FINAL FRONTIER written by Diane Carey. I'll ignore the movie and just re-read this.

    17. Re:'Secret history'? by teraph · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you have to say about the different series. Even Enterprise has only managed to engage me for one or two full episodes.

      However, I have to disagree with this statement:

      you can't undertake a successful creative endeavor by starting with contraints

      Human beings create amazing things while under constraits. If the suits at Paramount said "don't violate any part of the Star Trek continuity," that wouldn't stop a good writer from creating a good story.

      In your comment, you dimiss the importance of continuity but then object to the use of technobabble and pseudoscience. If continuity is not that important, why should science be? Isn't that just another constraint they shouldn't have to accept?

    18. Re:'Secret history'? by egg_green · · Score: 1

      I believe that ine one of William Shatner's books, it is explained that the "Mirror Universe" from TOS was actually created by the Enterprise-E. If I remember correctly, the first known divergence between the two universes was the name of a lake on the moon, called Lake Riker instead of Lake Lilly.

      Also, the reason that the Federation was so militaristic in the Mirror universe was that Cochrane warned them about "bad guys" like the Borg out there, so Starfleet was always primarily military.

    19. Re:'Secret history'? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Only problem is, they'd just do every R.A. Salvatore book about the drow and Drizzt with the romulans and some new hero character yet to be introduced.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    20. Re:'Secret history'? by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you don't want such constraints as following an already-established history, then DON'T WRITE A PREQUEL!

    21. Re:'Secret history'? by noewun · · Score: 1
      In your comment, you dimiss the importance of continuity but then object to the use of technobabble and pseudoscience. If continuity is not that important, why should science be? Isn't that just another constraint they shouldn't have to accept?

      Because the backbone of every piece of good fiction is character development. Science and continuity are nice, but they don't make up for having people in the show we care about.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
  12. Many options for resolving the conflict by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Funny
    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?

    1: Facial cloaking devices that bend light around the head
    2: Bandannas ("this here's a stick-up, human")
    3: Big helmets!
    4: The hero slingshots around the sun, goes back in time, and unveils Romulan faces, negating the old episode. Yes, it's a time paradox, but if "First Contact" could get away with telling Zeffrem Cochran about his future...
    5: Ignore old Trek on the assumption that only the geekiest fans would remember that episode and the rest wouldn't care.

    - Greg

    1. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by raehl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ignore old Trek on the assumption that only the geekiest fans would remember that episode and the rest wouldn't care.

      I think the real assumption is that a geeky fan who pays for a ticket isn't any better than a geeky fan who pays for a ticket and gets pissed off about plot inconsistencies.

    2. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by Zocalo · · Score: 1
      6: The Romulan equivalent of "Agent K" steps up with a small electronic device - "look this way..." *FLASH*.

      It's not like Berman has ever come up with anything really original, is it? But I suspect that they'll just never have any humans or Romulans in the the same scene because the Vulcans insist on handling all of the the negotiations because the humans are *so* not ready to deal with something like this on their own.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by Matrix272 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ignore old Trek on the assumption that only the geekiest fans would remember that episode and the rest wouldn't care.

      It seems that's the MO for Enterprise. Except they forgot that their core audience IS the geekiest fans. So if the rest don't care, they don't watch, and the geekiest fans are put off by inconsistencies... sounds like a perfect recipe for Enterprise.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    4. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by krisp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just give them the Breen suits. Then we don't have to hear them either!

    5. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think the real assumption is that a geeky fan who pays for a ticket isn't any better than a geeky fan who pays for a ticket and gets pissed off about plot inconsistencies.


      Except the geekier fan will probably know about the inconsistencies before having seen the movie and even if they don't, they won't be buying the DVD after seeing the movie.
    6. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by Dexx · · Score: 1

      Based off of this would it be hard to believe that if a Romulan came to the humans and said they were Vulcan we'd be able to tell the difference?

      --
      Feel the fear and do it anyway.
    7. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? the original episode:Balance of Terror, was just a Star Trek remake of the movie The Enemy Below, a very good WWII destroyer vs sub movie.

    8. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by taustin · · Score: 1

      6. The humans see the Romulans, and realize they look just like our good buddies the Vulcans, so they form the Federation to implement a massive conspiracy to make all humans who saw the Romulans forget they had.

    9. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people are put off by the fact that Enterprise sucks. Nobody watches it except hardcore fans, and even they are tuning out because it's so bad that it brings down the whole saga by association.

    10. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the original series, Cochrane wasn't even from Earth. He was from Alpha Centauri. There must have been some sublight colonization flights in there somewhere.

      They still haven't explained the Klingon turtleheads... :-)

    11. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1

      I think the real assumption is that a geeky fan who pays for a ticket isn't any better than a geeky fan who pays for a ticket and gets pissed off about plot inconsistencies.

      You are exactly right. However, there's a growing realization among the more clueful marketroids that there are customers and there are fans and one fan is worth 100 customers. Because fans go out and see the movie on the first night and tell everyone about it and buy the DVD and invite their friends over to see it and debate timeline inconsistancies on web forums therefore keeping interest up and tipping fence-sitters into doing the same. Its just a question of when the marketroid cluetrain at Paramount runs over B&B and squishes them flat.

      I hope soon, because I won't be partaking of any more B&B trek flim flam.

    12. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      3: Big helmets!

      Most of the Romulans in Balance of Terror wear ear-hiding helmets due to the low budget for prosthetic makeup in TOS. And, since the mutation that caused the forehead ridges of TNG-era Romulans hadn't occurred by Balance of Terror, they could get away with it, potentially.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    13. Re:Many options for resolving the conflict by Mazem · · Score: 1
      I think the real assumption is that a geeky fan who pays for a ticket isn't any better than a geeky fan who pays for a ticket and gets pissed off about plot inconsistencies.
      They already tested that theory with Voyager and Enterprise. Considering the waning support for new Star Trek I'd say the test failed.
  13. No human ever saw.... by gmuslera · · Score: 1
    ... or at least lived enough to tell "they are like vulcans!" to the public.

    You now, even with fiction, history is what is documented, not necessary what really happened.

  14. Should be called by Neil+Blender · · Score: 2, Funny

    Star Trek XI: Why didn't I save any of my money? KAHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

    1. Re:Should be called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean khaaan!!!

    2. Re:Should be called by cuzality · · Score: 1
      KAHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!
      See www.khaaan.com to get the full effect. All caps on slashdot just doesn't do it justice...
    3. Re:Should be called by aliens · · Score: 1

      I gotta admit, I'm not a big trek fan, but everytime I see that I laugh alittle bit and watch it again.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
  15. Whomever? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 0

    I think you mean 'whoever'.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:Whomever? by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

      Nope, the (implied) subject of the sentence is "you" since it's imperative. Therefore the third person whose death you are assuring gets the 'm' treatment.

    2. Re:Whomever? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Er...no...the rule is 'whoever' for subject and 'whomever' for object. In this case we have "whomever does" so 'whomever' is actually a subject.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  16. Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by Stibanater · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nemesis was a steaming pile of crap. Everything Trek since the death of Rodenberry has been crap (last 2 seasons of Next Generation on). Please Please Please stop flogging this dead horse franchise while I still have respect for the vast canon of work created before Berman was hired to milk Paramount's cash cow to death.

    1. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow are you stupid. DS9 was hands down the best of the new Trek Series. TNG until the Borg was pathetic to say the least and VOY was just as band until they brought the Borg in. DS9 was great from start to finish. Go back to your mockup of the original bridge in your basement and dress up like yeoman and have your Captain Kirk save me fantasies all to yourself please.

    2. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Nemesis was a steaming pile of crap. Everything Trek since the death of Rodenberry has been crap (last 2 seasons of Next Generation on).

      The middle seasons of DS9 were watchable, mainly because it looked and felt like some ideas were being taken and modified from Babylon 5.

      Outside of that, although I question how good Roddenberry's ideas have been since the movie era, I have to agree with your assessment. I think the problem is more one of B+B running out of steam and remaking things in their image, rather than Roddenberry's exit depriving the franchise of its soul. The promise that Voyager offered was pissed away, ironically because the writers weren't willing to take risks that would have royally pissed off the Great Bird of the Galaxy. Hell, the ship was never even upgraded permanently with alien technology, and the damned thing looked like brand spanking new right up to the final episode. Come on, killing a popular character can be done--ask JMS about the whole Kosh thing. /end incoherent rant

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    3. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      The middle seasons of DS9 were watchable

      I don't really think DS9 counts. I mean, how can you even call it Star Trek when they just sat around a space station with an onslaught of vagrant aliens?

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    4. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      you have got to be kidding me. how can you call TNG a trek when their travels amounted to taking a trip around the block?

      get over your self.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    5. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do know that Berman was involved in the franchise right from the start of TNG, don't you?

    6. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by julesh · · Score: 1

      Hell, [Voyager] was never even upgraded permanently with alien technology, and the damned thing looked like brand spanking new right up to the final episode.

      You're forgetting The Year of Hell.

      (...)

    7. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by Starsmore · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that Year of Hell reset itself, erasing that entire year from the timeline of Voyager, therefore it didn't ever happen.

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    8. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      It was humor, stupid.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    9. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      you messed up the order of what you said.

      you mean to say :

      it was stupid humor.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    10. Re:Trekkers say: Stop the Star Trek sequels NOW! by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      OH MY GOD, did I insult your precious Star Trek? Did you sit there stewing in it for the full 8 days, or did you just get back from a convention all pumped up and ready to reply?

      Set phasers to warp factor dork and full speed ahead, Admiral Fucktard!

      Engage!

      <3

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  17. Just have one thing to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!

  18. continuity? Who needs continuity? by cybpunks3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They will just do what they normally do, ignore continuity.

    You can bet the style of the ships and interiors won't even be remotely close to The Cage either.

    With movies like Sky Captain coming out with intentional retro looks, I think it would be a bold move on their part to replicate the 60s feel, but with modern FX behind it. They should have done that with Enterprise but now they've pretty much blazed a revisionist trail despite the DS9 Tribbles flashback episode.

  19. Romulan faces by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?

    They'll probably just "forget" that ever was mentioned, like they "forgot" Spock saying that WWIII took place in 1997, during TOS episode with the first appearance of KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!

    --
    sudo eat my shorts
    1. Re:Romulan faces by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some clarification on the historical documents you refer to:

      a) there has been discovered a historical error of 4 yrs in the records, WWIII in fact began on 2001

      b) over the years the dialect changes of BASIC has caused some confusion. Recent discoveries have also shed light that the war did not start "after Khan" but rather in "Afghanistan"

      Just as our historical documents (textbooks, films, etc) are full of errors so are the ones of the 23rd and 24th centuries...

    2. Re:Romulan faces by CSIP · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They'll probably just "forget" that ever was mentioned, like they "forgot" Spock saying that WWIII took place in 1997, during TOS episode with the first appearance of KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!

      well you have to forgive them for that one, place any story in the future, and sooner or later we'll actually reach that date.

      --
      "Nyquil - The stuffy, sneezy, why-the-hell-is-the-room-spinning medicine."
    3. Re:Romulan faces by aiabx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe that's what we would call 2007, after the 22nd century calendar reform. Or maybe (and this is a really frightening prospect) Spock was wrong. I never saw the episode where he won Space Jeopardy 26 nights in a row, so maybe his knowledge of history is imperfect.
      Or maybe B & B will put even less thought into the matter than I did.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    4. Re:Romulan faces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWIII was originally scheduled to take place in 1997, but after Sarah Conner and that robot blew up Cyberdyne, the whole plan got messed up.

  20. I'd rather they not even try by 77Punker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They should have let Trek die the graceful death it deserved instead of mutilating it into "Enterprise". I don't think there's any hope for this movie, connected to Enterprise or not.

    1. Re:I'd rather they not even try by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The worst thing about Enterprise is that it has a theme song. Let me say that again: IT HAS A BLOODY THEME SONG. WITH VOCALS. THAT FARKING SUCKS! Star Trek has always had one basic piece of theme music, which got modified for the various series. then Enterprise comes along, and scraps that, along with everything else which is good and holy in existence.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    2. Re:I'd rather they not even try by duffel · · Score: 1

      Have you actually ever listened to the lyrics? They are very appropriate, and deal with breaking free of constraints, reaching for the stars, that sort of thing.

      I can sortof see your disappointment... You were expecting another star trek series, in star trek style and all that, but Enterprise is not Star Trek. Star Trek deals with the exploration of the galaxy by a well-established, powerful alliance. Gene Roddenberries vision of a ideal future is already in full swing. In contrast, Enterprise deals with the problems that the first human interstellar explorers might deal with. Things go wrong, supplies are a problem, they have to work things out as they go.

      The entire thing has a significantly different mood than any star trek story, and the song reflects this quite well.

      Also, I don't think that there is a basic star trek music. Elements of the theme music of TNG/DS9/Voyager are similar, and they're done in a similar style, but they are different. TOS on the other hand has a different style (if I remember correctly - it's been ages), and since it takes place in another time, that's fair enough.

  21. How will they make it fit? by exley · · Score: 1

    They won't - Berman doesn't give a damn about silly things like "continuity." I wish they'd just let Trek die, at least for awhile.

  22. My guess? by SeanTobin · · Score: 1
    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?
    My guess? Knowing what creative wonder Berman and pals are capable of, I bet it will end up being cheap face masks.
    --
    Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
  23. West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by spoonyfork · · Score: 5, Funny
    West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar"

    JANICE
    I'm not obsessed, you know.

    JOSH
    I'm sorry?

    JANICE
    I'm not obsessed. I'm just a fan, and I care.

    JOSH
    What's your name again?

    JANICE
    Janice.

    JOSH
    I'm a fan. I'm a sports fan, I'm a music fan and I'm a Star Trek fan. All of them. But here's what I don't do. Tell me if any of this sounds familiar: "Let's list our ten favorite episodes. Let's list our least favorite episodes. Let's list our favorite galaxies. Let's make a chart to see how often our favorite galaxies appear in our favorite episodes. What Romulan would you most like to see coupled with a Cardassian and why? Let's spend a weekend talking about Romulans falling in love with Cardassians and then let's do it again." That's not being a fan. That's having a fetish. And I don't have a problem with that, except you can't bring your hobbies in to work, okay?

    JANICE
    Got it.
    --
    Speak truth to power.
    1. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by KingAdrock · · Score: 4, Funny


      JOSH
      Except on Star Trek holidays.
    2. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is this rerun was on Bravo last night...

    3. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      JANICE
      There's no such thing as a Star Trek holiday.
      --
      Speak truth to power.
    4. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by KingAdrock · · Score: 1

      JOSH
      Well, work hard around here. We'll make one.
    5. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by irving47 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funnier is that for a supposed fan, Josh is an idiot as always when he forgets that only 2 episodes in all of Star Trek take place or involve another galaxy.
      Where no Man has gone before (TOS) and Where no One has gone before (TNG)

      Now if you'll excuse me, I have some Bajoran feet to admire.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    6. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by kabocox · · Score: 1

      That's not being a fan. That's having a fetish. And I don't have a problem with that, except you can't bring your hobbies in to work, okay?

      Does that mean we can't wear the Vulcan ears at work any more?

    7. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by Zaranne · · Score: 1

      I can't bring my hobbies into work?!? Well, damn...there goes everything on my desk... *grumbles*

      --
      So when is the Hawkeye movie coming out?
    8. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by afish40 · · Score: 1

      Two episodes of Voyager took place in the Q Continuum, and there was a two-parter involving Species 8472's Fluidic Space. And what about the Mirror Universe episodes of TOS and DS9?

      Okay, these aren't technically other galaxies. Sue me.

      --
      Thanks a million. Push Start to replay.
    9. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I thought of the fluidic space, but I was thinking of it as a freaky parallel universe or other dimension. Yaay, semantics! :)

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    10. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by afish40 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's probably one of a near-infinite number of "layers" of space defined in Star Trek, along with the Quantum Slipstream and Subspace.

      --
      Thanks a million. Push Start to replay.
    11. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by MoriarGryphon · · Score: 1

      "...our favorite galaxies appear in our favorite episodes."

      I think he's counting the number of times they appear outside the windows of the ship, or in the background of the views from outside the ships. ;>

    12. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Where No Man Has Gone Before(TOS) doesn't involve another galaxy. It involves the edge of *our* galaxy, but they don't leave it. They try, but fail, leading to the events of the rest of the epiosde.

      On the other hand, By Any Other Name(TOS) does involve aliens from Andromeda. Catspaw(TOS) involves aliens who may or may not have been from another galaxy, and Is There In Truth No Beauty?(TOS) also involves leaving our galaxy.

      OMG! According to Josh, I've gove overboard!!!!

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    13. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by julesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now that's irony. A West Wing geek quoting West Wing making fun of Star Trek geeks. So, what are your favourite 10 West Wing episodes? ;)

    14. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Looks like YOU should be the one looking at Bajoran foot videos.
      I hear those Dabo girls have some HOT sandals.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    15. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they did leave our galaxy. Geordi states after the first jump that they had left our galaxy skipped over the next one and were in Galaxy M-3. The second jump took them to what Picard said was the OuterRim but the Traveler said No, not exactly.

    16. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      I was talking about the second TOS pilot. What part of Where No *MAN* Has Gone Before *(TOS)*" did you not understand?

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    17. Re:West Wing episode 4.10 "Arctic Radar" by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'll look at any vid that involves Chase Masterson!

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  24. The Real Question by mwheeler01 · · Score: 1

    The real question is, will anyone actually go and see this movie? As we all know, it's the even numbered trek movies that don't suck (for the most part). I challenge you to name one good odd numbered trek movie.

    --
    Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
    1. Re:The Real Question by Outatime · · Score: 1

      Generations (#7) wasn't half bad, especially compared to Insurrection and Nemesis.

    2. Re:The Real Question by KingEomer · · Score: 1

      The Motion Picture? Viger(or however it is spelled) ruled!

    3. Re:The Real Question by Rethcir · · Score: 1
      Search for Spock was pretty good. Although I wouldn't say it was the best I still think it was a fun movie, despite all the deus ex machina it had. Hell, Cosmo Kramer even ranks it above Wrath of Khan!

      Your point is well taken though.. The Star Trek franchise is the Montreal Expos of sci-fi right now - it needs a bold new direction, and all we can do is wait for the decisions of the powers that be.

      On a side note, I think the fact that none of the original casts is theoretically participating could be a Good Thing. This way they don't have to cater to a massive ensemble cast, confusing newcomers and shafting hard-working actors and actresses by giving them only bit parts.

    4. Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A movie worse than Nemesis. It's just too horrible to imagine.

    5. Re:The Real Question by PeterChenoweth · · Score: 1

      V'Ger aka Voyager Six (or was it Seven....)

    6. Re:The Real Question by KingEomer · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I always thought that it was Voyager II. Hadn't it just been sent out around the time the movie was made?

  25. The Simpsons' answer by gspr · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Ah yeah well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it."
    -"But in episode AG4..."
    "WIZARD!"

  26. We Can See 'Em, They Can't by reallocate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because the audience can see the Romulans doesn't mean the Earthlings will.

    Perhaps they'll tell the story from the Romulan point of view. Now, that would be a change.

    More realistically, fighting an enemy you can't see is a pretty good dramatic device.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:We Can See 'Em, They Can't by zipwow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Perhaps they'll tell the story from the Romulan point of view. Now, that would be a change.

      Holy Cow, that's the best idea I've heard in a long time. Throw in the fact that ToS started a legacy of social commentary, and you could have a hell of a film.

      Maybe the Romulans can have a council, a republic of sorts. (I think they already do in some episodes). Then a controversial leader is elected by a narrow margin. Throw in more controversy by the deciding votes being cast in a quadrant overseen by the leader's blood relative.

      Then, have the leader coerce the intelligence division of the council into drumming up false evidence against the Federation, showing them to either have or be developing the banned, dangerous, tetrion weaponry. This (if it existed) would be a threat to the entire galaxy, whether used agains the Romulans or not.

      Do all this in the first 15 minutes of the film, and pick up when the council uncovers the plot. The rest of the film can be about how the Romulans are committed to a war it no longer believes is justified, and how they deal with that.

      I'd watch that, just to see the ending.

      -Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    2. Re:We Can See 'Em, They Can't by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      Somehow that sounds familiar...
      wait! I remember now!... Nope, lost it.

      All kidding aside, compare the Xindi in Enterprise to both terrorism and the United States.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    3. Re:We Can See 'Em, They Can't by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Nah, too unrealistic! Stuff like that would never happen.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:We Can See 'Em, They Can't by ajs · · Score: 1

      Holy Cow, that's the best idea I've heard in a long time.

      Sad, isn't it? It's not that it's a particularly great idea... I mean I could come up with a dozen off the top of my head that would be just as interesting (in fact, one of the most engaging parts of ST:TMP and STIII:TSFS was the fact that a fraction of the movie was from the perspective of the Klingons).

      The problem is that Star Trek's current executive mindset is "milk the cow", not "tell the story".

      You could tell the story of Federation food inspectors and still come up with a really engaging movie... the problem is that that wouldn't be a franchise film. It would be hard to justify actions figures... the Burger King tie in would be rather unpleasant... there's no series in it... the characters would not fit the archetypes... the demographics are all wrong... etc, etc.

      Star Trek stopped being about the story a long time ago.

      On another point:

      Making a Star Trek movie about current events is a mistake. Look at the original series. The topics were all about the nature of humanity and the nobility (as the Great Bird saw it) of our spirit. Even the famous "interracial kiss" wasn't the focus of the episode at all. If you turn Star Trek into a soap box, it loses the power of the pulpit (which is EXACTLY how G.R. used it).

      If you want to use Star Trek to comment on the war in Iraq using Romulans, I think you would be better off by exploring the larger issues of sovreignty and control. Turn the Romulan War around. Show us the debate in the Romulan Senate. Show us the fear that the Federation instills in them.

      The Federation is growing at an unprecidented rate. The Romulans would, of course, assume that there's coercien and duplicity involved, but spies are bringing back terrifying news: these humans are consensus builders without peer! The Romulans have no fear of a conquering army because they know that no conquerer could hold the Empire for long, but this... this cabal of cooperative worlds... they could tear down the Empire for good.

      Tell the story of what control means to the Federation and to the Romulans. You don't have to make the metaphor paper-thin, just tell the story and let people think about it. Plant the seed....

    5. Re:We Can See 'Em, They Can't by Mac+Scientist · · Score: 1

      What if humans just fail to recognize the enemy. The story line could use the "absentee landlord" device, e.g., the Dominion in Deep Space Nine. The Romulans use mercenary troops in land battles. They are only commanders or highest ranking officers of ships-of-the-line. They consider themselves superior to humans so they delegate all intership comm to the more subservient species. And on the offchance that a human briefly glimpses a Romulan on a busy planet's street or in the middle of a pitched battle, how would they know?

      As for tapping into intraship comm to sneek a peek, i.e. TOS, they didn't have fiber optics in the 60's for the writers to realize that there are ways to keep video private. It would be stupid to write in a similar video tap with today's, or rather, 100 years' plus of technology.

      This also presumes the Romulans will look like they did in the previous shows. Maybe they had they same change in appearance that the Klingons had to explain away in DSN; "We don't talk about it."

    6. Re:We Can See 'Em, They Can't by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Insofar as I am still following Enterprise, I'm nursing a theory. In one of the episodes aired to date (1st season most likely) we have seen a Romulan. Posing as a Vulcan, but a Romulan nonetheless. I'm not quite sure why, maybe an ambassador not acting quite logical.

      TNG did this with a diplomatic mission being the cover for a mole's return.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    7. Re:We Can See 'Em, They Can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Federation is run by a homicidal maniac dictator who occasionally destroys the stars (and hence all life) in systems that he finds displeasing.

      Oh, and the Ferengi trade extensively with both sides. They try to convince the the Romulans not to go to war with the Federation. After all, the Federation isn't _that_ bad. They say that they'll be very pissed off with the Romulans if this happens. They publicly make statements supporting both sides.

      Whatever... this is stupid.

  27. If "Enterprise" has proved anything... by mark-t · · Score: 1
    ... it's that they don't care about continuity with the original series.

    They'll mess it up. Have faith.

    1. Re:If "Enterprise" has proved anything... by numbski · · Score: 1, Troll

      Erm, I've watched all of 75 minutes total of Enterprise, and from what I've seen online, it's not supposed to be contiguous.

      The timeline deviates early in the series (as in the NX-01 was supposed to be destroyed in it's first encounter with the Klingons), and everything from that point forward is an alternate timeline, right down to the Borg, which is the 'fault' of the First Contact movie.

      I'll accept the storyline, and try to keep an open mind when I sit down to watch it, but that still doesn't mean it will be good. :\

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    2. Re:If "Enterprise" has proved anything... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Heck- I'd say the timeline diverts within the first five seconds of Enterprise- with the Suliban chasing a Klingon through an Iowa cornfield.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:If "Enterprise" has proved anything... by irving47 · · Score: 1

      We may very well have one hell of a "Magic Reset Button" in store for us.

      I think his name will be Daniels.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
  28. Easy.... by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?"

    This is easy. Don't show their faces.

  29. It won't, of course. by foxtrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rick Berman obviously never saw any classic Trek, so anything that happened there never really happened in the Bermanverse. :)

    Slightly more seriously, I'm glad to see uncharted ground. With the removal of Brannon Braga as "show runner" on Enterprise (replaced with Manny Coto), it may well step up a notch. If he brings in someone else to handle the Romulan movie, not an unreasonable thing to do for a completely new aspect of Trek, it may be done well. (Is it possible that this was the treatment Joe Straczynski and... uh, whassisface from Dark Skies? turned in?)

    After all, remember, Berman was in charge even through the hey-day of TNG and early DS9. Berman's problem may not be that he doesn't know decent science fiction from a hole in the ground; it may be that he can't seem to hire people who know decent science fiction from a hole in the ground...

    -JDF

    1. Re:It won't, of course. by julesh · · Score: 1

      Berman's problem is that some time between the start of TNG and the end of Voyager he got the idea that he was a better writer than all the great people who used to write Trek. Like D C Fontana. She was _good_.

      Thinking about it, the little information we have about this _does_ sound like JMS's style, so this could be what he was talking about.

  30. Who cares about "classic" trek? by JesusPGT · · Score: 1

    I don't particularly like the original Star Trek, so quite frankly I could care less whether they stick to canon. I know some hardcore trekkies will prolly be up in arms about this, but they're a shitty audience to begin with. Hardcore fans(Whiners) are the worst people to market to, since it tends to reduce the real entertainment value of something, just because an earlier (and more than likely shitty) episode of some show or other said one thing or another.

    The fact that cinema and literature are fields where histories can not only be created, but altered, is what makes them so appealing and ENTERTAINING.

    Be thankful that it's not a Voyager movie, at the very least.

    1. Re: Who cares about "classic" trek? by Neil+Blender · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't particularly like the original Star Trek

      Let me guess....you use emacs, right?

    2. Re: Who cares about "classic" trek? by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 5, Funny
      >>I don't particularly like the original Star Trek
      >Let me guess....you use emacs, right?

      And there, at first unnoticed in a somewhat offtopic thread on /., it happened. The combination of two flamebaits, the Star-Trek-TOS-vs.-later-series and vi-vs.-emacs debates. Little did the original posters know about what they unleashed, a critical flame-mass triggering the worlds first thermonuclear flamewar. Centuries did it take for historians to recover the way of events from mostly degraded hard disks. Up to now it is heavily debated in the scientific community, whether "frist ps0t!" had anything to do with this, and what kind of deities the mighty "vi" and the world-shattering "emacs" represented...

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    3. Re: Who cares about "classic" trek? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Although historians are uncertain of the origin of the comment, the sentence "Who shot first?" is found interspersed among many of the data fragments found.

      It's speculated that the entity referred to by "frist ps0t!" may have been involved.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    4. Re: Who cares about "classic" trek? by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      "Wait a second... Look Here! Perhaps if we could assemble the portions of several posts found on diffferent hard drives we might be able to locate a pattern that could lead us to...."

      "What does this mean here where it says: goatse... Good Lord"

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  31. Braga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Braga is even worse!

    Here's what I think of him.

  32. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "They will just do what they normally do, ignore continuity."

    The whole point of the series is that the timeline was changed, thus altering the continuity. Most episodes make a reference to this, but there are still some thick people out there that keep missing that. One of ST's most popular movies touched this off, yet a gaggle of people keep missing it and whining about continuity.

    I don't really care if people like Enterprise or not. But to keep running around in circles with a less-than-legitimate complaint is getting rather nauseating. Complain about the show being boring, or that the theme song irritates your stomach, but for the love of you know who, stop complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  33. Note to all fan-driven industries! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    Note to all fan-driven industries and franchises: "Secrets of the mysterious past," as a plot device, is getting pretty tired -- e.g. Data, Wolverine, Van Helsing (do we care?), pretty much any "prequel," etc.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Note to all fan-driven industries! by The+boojum · · Score: 1

      Hey! I still have to find out how Bilbo got that ring! (j/k)

  34. balance of terror continuity... by wwest4 · · Score: 1

    If the last episode of Enterprise is any clue, it could be that Remans are used as front-line troops. Remans are different enough to technically be a different species. Does anyone know if Trek has pinned down the Remans' status as a species?

    1. Re:balance of terror continuity... by freqres · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean the Reimans? You know, the evil clan of calculus weilding mathmongers that torture young humans with mind numbing lectures. Oops, sorry, freshman 8am calc lecture flashback, though I still can't understand how one can have flashbacks of situations slept thru.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    2. Re:balance of terror continuity... by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Enterprise and Nemesis have zero connection at all in any way to the real history of the Romulan Empire. Romulus and Remus were inhabited by expatriated Vulcans. The only real difference between the planets is that Remus, or ch'Havran in the Rihannsu language, became predominantly agricultural while Romulus (ch'Rihan) become more industrial.

      I'm not a Romulan, but I've played one online for almost a decade. ;-D

    3. Re:balance of terror continuity... by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

      what episode was that in? reading it in a novel, or a throwaway line in a random episode doesn't make it any more or less 'canon' than Enterprise/Nemesis

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    4. Re:balance of terror continuity... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      explain to me how Nemesis messed up the timeline since it was the last ST movie and took place at the farthest point in the future of the entire universe.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    5. Re:balance of terror continuity... by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Actually, I consider Diane Duane's novels to be more canonical than Nemesis and anything else to come - she actually maintained continuity with the Romulans in the show when its creator was still alive, rather than taking a massive dump on continuity like the current team has been doing.

      Nemesis wasn't that bad of a movie, compared to some others. And you can even pass off the Reman thing as a development in the 100 years leading up to that movie. And Enterprise is a great sci-fi show - it just doesn't belong in the Trek timeline. If the same team made the same show and removed all Trek references except for 'warp drive', fans would respond more favorably to it.

    6. Re:balance of terror continuity... by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      Yay for the Rihannsu Stelam Shiar and the Eisn.

      Maybe they can do a theatrical version of the razing of Nelvana III.

      If you don't get this, don't mind. It's kind of an injoke flamebait. :)

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    7. Re:balance of terror continuity... by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Calling it the "Rihannsu Stelam Shiar" indicates to me you play on one of the MUSHes far less in tune with canonical sources than I care for. That's fine - they have many more players and more activity as a result. But they pay as much attention to Diane Duane's vision of Romulans as Enterprise pays to Gene Roddenberry's vision of Vulcans.

    8. Re:balance of terror continuity... by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      Among the Stars

      I play on Among the Stars, as a member of Federation (a Starfleet officer) actually, and I can never keep it straight. As far as I know, some stuff from Diane Duane's vision, but largely operate based on their own buildup of the Rihannsu.

      I was just subtly baiting to see if I found someone else from that game wandering /.

      *proudly polishes his geek badge, too*

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    9. Re:balance of terror continuity... by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I played ATS as a Romulan for a number of years, mostly in the Tal'shiar. I figured you were talking ATS, but I believe SNW (Strange New Worlds), where I played but briefly, had even worse misconceptions.

      The problem in a Romulan theme anywhere is that there is so little canonical material that you have to do some extrapolation. Some places extrapolate differently than others, much like Enterprise has extrapolated in the direction it has.

      My preferred approach is the miminalist one: if there's not a canon source for something, avoid it as best you can. ATS is very maximalist with its Romulan extrapolations, and its corresponding disagreeability is the main reason I left.

      PS: Since you're a MUSHer, feel free to check out Yesterday's Voyage at nveid.com:1701. It's not IC yet, but we're building. I'm writing the space engine for it, and as a geek you'd surely like some of the features I make available in it (like programming your own torpedoes with a dialect of Lisp). It's set in the timeframe of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701C, including the vast political instability of the Federation at the time, as alluded to by the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise".

      Stop by and create a character and say 'hi', on a channel or on our 'cnet' message boards. Who knows, you may be the first captain of the Stargazer or some such. :)

    10. Re:balance of terror continuity... by almightyjustin · · Score: 1

      Well that's only the "real" history if you accept the non-canon Rihannsu stuff. I don't think they do more than mention Remus on the show.

      --

      Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.

  35. Odd numbers by nattt · · Score: 4, Informative

    XI - that would make it another odd numbered star trek movie. I hold no hope for it....

    --
    -- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
    1. Re:Odd numbers by Hank+Reardon · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought that number 10 made the modulus operator unreliable, though...

      Too bad, really, because

      ViewMovie( ($starTrekMovieNumber % 2) ? "dvd" : "theater" );
      worked so well...
      --
      There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
    2. Re:Odd numbers by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, ye olde KHAAAAAN! equation.

    3. Re:Odd numbers by dR.fuZZo · · Score: 2, Informative

      XI - that would make it another odd numbered star trek movie. I hold no hope for it....

      If the last movie was supposed to be a good one, then I really hold no hope for XI.

      --
      -- dR.fuZZo
    4. Re:Odd numbers by Trixter · · Score: 1

      What, like X was good? I consider the last Trek movie to be the 2nd worst, next to V. What a rediculous, inconsistent, unexplainable, slap in the face to the characters that inhabited the Enterprise.

      Yeah, like they'd just FIND a mysterious fourth prototype of Data lying around on a planet. Whatever.

    5. Re:Odd numbers by Satertek · · Score: 0

      I think that Data was put there to lure the Enterprise into picking him up so he could later betray them. To me, the ARGO makes much less sense. Why are they using a wheeled dune buggy in the 24th century?

    6. Re:Odd numbers by egg_green · · Score: 1

      I've had to revise the odd/even rule to account for this latest descrepancy. Here's my theory:
      If the SUM of the the digits in any given movie's title is odd, the film will be bad; if they're even, it will be good.

      For example:
      Star Trek 1 - Bad
      Star Trek 6 - Good
      Star Trek 10 (1+0=1) - Bad
      Star Trek 11 (1+1=2) - Good

      The same system could work for Roman numerals:
      I (1 digit) - Bad
      III (3 digits) - Bad
      IV (2 digits) - Good
      X (1 digit) - Bad
      XI (2 digits) - Good

      Any thoughts?

    7. Re:Odd numbers by Zepalesque · · Score: 1

      Normally I'd agree with you, but that trend was pretty much destroyed with the last movie.

      The clone of picard had to be bald?
      They had to kill Data?
      They had to come up with a simpleton replacement for data (named B4 nonetheless?)

      There were so many things they could have done with the Romulan/Federation conflict in that film.

      Bah.

    8. Re:Odd numbers by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1
      What, like X was good? I consider the last Trek movie to be the 2nd worst, next to V

      Hey, this just gave me an idea- maybe we have been extrapolating from too limited a sample? Perhaps the rule is that trek movies are good when their numbers are divisible by 2 unless they are also divisible by 5. Unfortunately we will have to wait until Star Trek XX: Oh the Humanity to test this out.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  36. Give Straczynski a chance!! by October_30th · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Straczynski of the B5-fame has expressed his interest in getting involved with Star Trek.

    Why don't they just give B&B something else to do and give JMS free hands like Warner Bros did with B5.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Give Straczynski a chance!! by Jardine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Straczynski of the B5-fame has expressed his interest in getting involved with Star Trek.

      Why don't they just give B&B something else to do and give JMS free hands like Warner Bros did with B5.


      Because then we wouldn't get something that sucks. And who wants something that doesn't suck?

    2. Re:Give Straczynski a chance!! by October_30th · · Score: 1
      Because then we wouldn't get something that sucks.

      I admit that a series/movie written and produced by JMS might suck franchise-wise and lack in general mass appeal, but the guy knows how to write.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:Give Straczynski a chance!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got to be kidding. B5 is just as lame as DS9 and Voyager; taken together all three represent all that is wrong with popular sci-fi these days.

    4. Re:Give Straczynski a chance!! by Jardine · · Score: 1

      I admit that a series/movie written and produced by JMS might suck franchise-wise and lack in general mass appeal, but the guy knows how to write.

      I think you misunderstood what I said.

      Because then we wouldn't get something that sucks.

      Meaning that if JMS wrote and produced it, it wouldn't suck. This is in direct contrast to whatever B&B come up with. Because whatever B&B come up with, it'll probably suck.

    5. Re:Give Straczynski a chance!! by October_30th · · Score: 1
      What I liked in B5 was the true plot continuity, byzantine politics (5th season was crap because the emphasis shifted to action), harsh conditions and complex motives for both humans and aliens.

      I never saw those in TOS, ST:TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise. There was some promise in Space: Above and Beyond, but it degenerated soon into a war fest.

      The only thing that's common to B5 and Star Trek is virulently bad acting (with some rare exceptions).

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    6. Re:Give Straczynski a chance!! by October_30th · · Score: 1
      No, I understood you perfectly well.

      I still think Star Trek by JMS would suck franchise-wise (like B5) and lack in general mass appeal (like B5), but nevertheless it would rock (like B5).

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    7. Re:Give Straczynski a chance!! by Student_Tech · · Score: 1

      B5 also had some just plain intersting episodes. An example is the episode where you just followed the janitors arround.

      Definitly agreeing with the plot continuity in B5. If it was damaged/destroyed in one episode, it usually wasn't repaired/replaced by the time the next episode. None of this blow up a chunk of the ship in a fight, next episode act like nothing happened. That and the story build up. It is fun watching the first season and seeing the foreshadowing.

    8. Re:Give Straczynski a chance!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw that..

      Give director Scotty Fox a chance with his fantastic movie "Sex Trek: The Final Penetration".

      You'll find no villians more nefarious than the Dingons, no woman hotter than Lt. Uwhore...

  37. When the Romulans are on screen by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?"

    The audience will wear blindfolds. Problem solved. Seriously how many people knew this utterly useless fact of fictional trivia? More importantly who cares. Movie makers are allowed some artistic license, especially when the whole damn thing is made up anyway.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:When the Romulans are on screen by Blob+Pet · · Score: 1

      Artistic license blows CHUNKS when used by Berman and Company...There are certain things in the history of Trek that make it what it is. There are certain details people don't want changed. It's like if they to casually decide to bring back Uncle Ben in the next Spiderman 3...totally ignoring the fact that he's very much dead.

      --
      "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
    2. Re:When the Romulans are on screen by Procrastin8er · · Score: 1

      I care. One of the things I, personally, like about Sci-Fi is when a writer creates a world/universe and then makes sure the story stays within those bounds. For me, a story/movie loses credibility when inconsistencies, no matter how small, start popping up. In this case I consider artistic license a lazy way out. Just my 2 cents.

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    3. Re:When the Romulans are on screen by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Quite a few people who watched TOS, actually, and not just geeks -- my dad knows it, and he's only seen a few TNG eps but has caught most of TOS over the years. It was a pretty significant moment in that episode when they first saw the Romulan commander, and everyone tried not to look at Spock, then the commander, then Spock, then the commander, and on and on for ten minutes, which would have made for pretty bad TV.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:When the Romulans are on screen by Gaijin42 · · Score: 1

      you mean like how they made spiderman shoot webbing from his wrists without machines, even though the comics clearly show him needing machines! (Except when he was in the alien suit)

      Each iteration of a franchise gets to change the rules a bit. I only get mad when they change the rules within thier own kingdom.

    5. Re:When the Romulans are on screen by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      Seriously how many people knew this utterly useless fact of fictional trivia?
      Gee, I don't know, what kind of people watch Star Trek?
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  38. So how will they keep consistent? by Iscariot_ · · Score: 1

    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror

    They won't.

  39. Curse you AC. by numbski · · Score: 1

    Your sig has scarred my fragile little mind. Someway, somehow, I will find your IP, hunt you down and harm you, I swear.

    Okay, not really.

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

  40. Same ole same ole by chowdmouse · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?

    Same way they "explained" the physical differences between the classic and new Klingons. By simply blowing it off. Nobody gives a damn about minor (YMMV) inconsistencies.

    1. Re:Same ole same ole by ashkendo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually this was explained. The TOS Kingons were Kingon/Human hybrids that were created to help the klingons better understand the humans so as to conquer them. During the TOS series the Federation only had contact with these hybrids. The Hybrids were treated as secondary citizens in Klingon culture, and finally deemed unnecessary.

      This comes from the novels.

      --
      "Don't hate me because I'm right...Hate me because I'm an MCSE."
    2. Re:Same ole same ole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Actually this was explained. The TOS Kingons were Kingon/Human hybrids that were created to help the klingons better understand the humans so as to conquer them. During the TOS series the Federation only had contact with these hybrids. The Hybrids were treated as secondary citizens in Klingon culture, and finally deemed unnecessary.
      Yuck! That's a terrible explanation. It reminds me of Fundamentalist attempts to explain away the fossil record. Not only is it contorted, but it mean that every Klingon on The Original Series was a loser. Including Kor:

      Kor

      And how do they explain him showing up as a non-hybrid on DS 9.

    3. Re:Same ole same ole by afish40 · · Score: 1

      Hulk smash non-canonical sources!

      --
      Thanks a million. Push Start to replay.
    4. Re:Same ole same ole by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple. Makeup and prosthetics

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    5. Re:Same ole same ole by Lonnold · · Score: 1

      In other words its total hogwash, especially when onscreen events clearly contradict it. We have seen Klingon characters from TOS (without ridges) appear later on DS9 and Vger, with ridges!! So much for them being hybrids.

      My theory is that the Klingons had an allergic reaction to tribbles, which left them ridgeless and which is why they hated tribbles so. Eventually they wiped out tribbles and their scientists found a way to reverse the effects.

    6. Re:Same ole same ole by ashkendo · · Score: 1

      Wow. Didn't know that. I didn't watch DS9 often. The hybrid idea was used in the novels and also the old role-playing game from FASA.

      Ok, how about this: After years of defeat from the dreaded Federation, the scientist of the Klingon Empire came up with a method to trigger "spontaneous evolution" among the citizens of the Empire to make everyone meaner, larger, uglier, stronger...and now with ridges!

      It worked for Lay's potato chips.

      --
      "Don't hate me because I'm right...Hate me because I'm an MCSE."
  41. Enterprise dead? by wwest4 · · Score: 1

    The article hints about the shelving of a Romulan War plot in Enterprise - it could that this sudden movie move is due to the impending demise of the series - maybe season 4 has been dumped in favor fast-forwarding to some pre-planned final season arc.

  42. Film the movie like Das Boot by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In the original theatrical release of Das Boot, you never saw outside the craft. You lived the clasterphobic terror of WWII submarine warfare.

    (Of course the director's cut went off and added a whole bunch of cheasy plastic model in a green tank of water shots. Bastards.)

    Frankly, you don't really need to see the face of your enemy in a space battle. They are a blinking set of lights a few kilometers away. It's just a question of turning that blinking set of lights into a fireball before they turn you into one.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    1. Re:Film the movie like Das Boot by IronChef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Frankly, you don't really need to see the face of your enemy in a space battle. They are a blinking set of lights a few kilometers away.

      I wish. In Trek, the ships pretty much fly up each others' noses before they shoot.

    2. Re:Film the movie like Das Boot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But if you listen to the dialog, they're still tens of thousands of kilometers away.

      Either the visual effects guys are metric-challenged, or the kilometer gets a whole lot shorter in the future. :)

    3. Re:Film the movie like Das Boot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captain: Hail them! Ops officer: no response Captain: Open a channel! Ops officer: Channel open! Captain: Quite why we bothered to hail you if we could just talk straight to you I have no idea. I also have no idea why I'm talking to you now, when you're probably about to... Bang. (All your base are belong to Romulan)

    4. Re:Film the movie like Das Boot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you think about it, every 2 shiplengths the enemy vessel is distant, is around 1.2ks. So when you see a Klingon vessel about 10 shiplengths away, that's roughly 6ks... so they're not actually that close!

    5. Re:Film the movie like Das Boot by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Considering they are lobbing weapons back and forth with multi-megaton yields, do you really want to be 6k away?

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  43. Re:They killed off Data!? by CommanderData · · Score: 4, Funny

    Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated...

    --
    Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
  44. There's no inconsistancy by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    Noone will see the Romulans (or any other characters) in this film either.

    They might as well release it straight to Beta for all the interest in Star Trek these days.

    Sheesh. Time to move on to some other crappy sci-fi drek.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  45. Let me be the second (or third) to say by Matey-O · · Score: 1
    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?"
    Poorly!

    --
    "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
  46. Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Shoot Rick Berman in the face with a nuke cannon.
    2. Bring back Gates McFadden. Irish people rock.
    3. Bring back Patrick Stewart. Bald english people rock.
    4. Bring back Jeri Ryan. Walking plot-elements rock, occasionally.
    5. Bring back Leonard Nimoy. It's only logical.
    6. Bring back whoever the hell played Kira in DS9. We need aggresive people who dont mind kicking ass.
    7. Bring back whoever played Worf. Same thing as Kira.
    8. Elimate time travel. Blame Q. Then elimate Q as well, blame time travel.
    9. Make the Borg kick ass again.
    10. More action. If I wanted advice on parenting, decisions, whatever, I'd visit my mother. Stop talking and kill those idiots.
    11. Bring Garibaldi and Marcus Cole from B5 into the series. They are awesome. Ivanova would be nice too, but she and Kira would likely kill eachother within five minutes.
    12. Leave the script to Mel Brooks.
    1. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by shadwwulf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bring back whoever the hell played Kira in DS9. We need aggresive people who dont mind kicking ass.

      Nana Visitor is the actress that played Kira on DS9. I agree that her personality would help drive plotlines on future Star Trek offering.

    2. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by samhalliday · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gates McFadden, irish? news to me... i thought she was from scottish heritage. but hey... bring her back; she does rock!

    3. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Funny

      11) Bring Garibaldi and Marcus Cole from B5 into the series. They are awesome. Ivanova would be nice too, but she and Kira would likely kill eachother within five minutes.

      [[[Easily resolved! Bring in Ivanova...having Kira and Ivanova fall in love. Fans finally get what they want! And neither one kills each other. Countless men die at their hands and at their feet.]]]

    4. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by BRSloth · · Score: 1

      I keep saying this, but, once more:

      "We need now a 'Star Trek: Galaxy Quest'".

      Yeah, Mel Brooks would be a good writer for it.

    5. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by TheAngryMob · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bring back Jeri Ryan. Walking plot-elements rock, occasionally.

      Actually, they bounce. Mmmmm bouncy...

      --

      Don't just game, Dungeoneer
    6. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Gates McFadden, irish? news to me... i thought she was from scottish heritage.

      If she were Scots, her name would more than likely be Gates MacFadden, no?

    7. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by gargan · · Score: 1

      Now number 11 is a good idea. Garibaldi and Marcus were always my favorite characters. Oh yeah, and screw Kira, just get Claudia Christian!

      --
      Emory: Uh..we're still..beta testing that.
      Oglethorpe: What you're testing is me and my patience!
    8. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      4. Bring back Jeri Ryan. Walking plot-elements rock, occasionally.

      Bring back Jeri Ryan. Bring Jeri Ryan to a swingers club and ask her to perform sexual acts in public. Drop out of Senate Race. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    9. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      And bring back the lone captain's chair, in front of the big screen TV, yeoman-bringing-drinks and/or clipboard, ask-a-question-get-an-answer type of Captain that we are used to from TOS.
      None of this couch-and-decision-by-committee PC stuff from TNG.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    10. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by DrewBenstein · · Score: 1

      Woooh boy is she SCHWEET or what??

      I have dreams about her and T'pau, uh...

      Nevermind.

    11. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by pclminion · · Score: 1
      I agree with all your suggestions except #10.

      It's the one thing that has ALWAYS made Star Trek stand out. It actually attempts to tackle modern social issues. The reality is, Trek is actually a modern soap opera cleverly disguised as futuristic sci fi.

      Things have been pretty corny, and often just downright stupid, the last 8 years or so, but Trek has always been fundamentally about human relationships and difficulties, not science fiction.

    12. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So as not to Karma whore, I'll post anonymously.

      Kira Nerys was played by Nana Visitor (official website).

      Worf was played by Michael Dorn.

      Q was played by John de Lancie.

      All of the Borg were played by Bill Gates.

      Michael Garibaldi was played by Jerry Doyle (official website) (and check this out!).

      Marcus Cole was played by Jason Carter (official website).

      Susan Ivanova was played by Claudia Christian (official website (beware the BLINK tag!)).

    13. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by samhalliday · · Score: 1
      If she were Scots, her name would more than likely be Gates MacFadden, no?
      i don't think so... that sounds like one of those old myths. (scroll to "What do most clan-names begin with Mac?")

      but, lets face it, regardless she is from the USA, and she has an english accent. and shes hot.

    14. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by Eosha · · Score: 1

      ...and the slashfic types soil themselves in glee...

      --
      I have a girlfriend whose name doesn't end in .JPG
    15. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1
      The reality is, Trek is actually a modern soap opera cleverly disguised as futuristic sci fi.

      Yes, that half-black-half-white guy hating the half-white-half-black guy episode was a very clever metaphor on race relations.

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    16. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Yes, that half-black-half-white guy hating the half-white-half-black guy episode was a very clever metaphor on race relations.

      Oddly, I interpret that episode as being more about sexual orientation than race, for a number of different reasons, but I can certainly see how it could be taken in either way.

      That's one of my favorite episodes, BTW.

    17. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by abb3w · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and screw Kira

      (Sigh.) Far too many fans would be far too delighted to do so... despite her being married (again) and in her late 40s.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    18. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by penpendisarapen · · Score: 1
      Leave the script to Mel Brooks.

      Oh I can see it now. Fart jokes around the anti-matter chamber.

      It's Twue! It's Twue!

    19. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      I especially like the part about bringing back Marcus. Perhaps a mishap that Q caused whilst playing with time travel makes Marcus Star Fleet fleet commander. Except JMS writes it. And Marcus speeks Minbari most of the time, mostly kicking people's asses with his Minbari fighting pike. All the existing Starfleet personell are like- how'd this ol' Anla'shok duder get here? BUT WHO CARES! It'd still be better than Enterprise.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    20. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I dunno ... I think she's just ... weird.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    21. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Ouch! What a sleezeball that guy is. Wish I still had the article, the asswhipe had a great quote, something along the lines of: "I think I was a great husband. Most women wish they would be as lucky as she to have a husband who, in 7 years of marriage, did little wrong. And the wrong he did was just to just make her uncomfortable by propositioning her a few times in innappropriate places for sex she didn't want to have." HA!

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    22. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      A couple issues about this post:

      The reality is, Trek is actually a modern soap opera cleverly disguised as futuristic sci fi.

      What regular modern soap operas deal with similar issues? While the philosophy of Rodenberry as spout'd by TOS can be at times deep and interesting and have bearing on how I live my life, the kind of crap most modern soap operas deal with aren't any of those things. I guess I've not run into the problem of "my sister is dating my former girlfriend's now-gay uncle, who wants to have my sister's baby in his artificial womb." Maybe other folks do, but not me.

      Things have been pretty corny, and often just downright stupid, the last 8 years or so, but Trek has always been fundamentally about human relationships and difficulties, not science fiction.

      If that isn't science fiction, then you're reading/watching the wrong stuff. Most good sci-fi is about humans and humanity, what we do in extreme situations in especial. Oftentimes, a lot of these extreme situations are most easily explored within a science fiction setting. Sure, there is a lot of crappy sci fi that may just be about ships and lasers, but pfft. Who needs that kind of stuff.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    23. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      13. Wil Wheaton
      14. Jeri Ryan in Hot Grits

    24. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by beforewisdom · · Score: 2, Interesting
      1. Shoot Rick Berman in the face with a nuke cannon.
      2. Bring back Gates McFadden. Irish people rock.
      3. Bring back Patrick Stewart. Bald english people rock.
      4. Bring back Jeri Ryan. Walking plot-elements rock, occasionally.
      5. Bring back Leonard Nimoy. It's only logical. 6. Bring back whoever the hell played Kira in DS9. We need aggresive people who dont mind kicking ass.
      7. Bring back whoever played Worf. Same thing as Kira.
      8. Elimate time travel. Blame Q. Then elimate Q as well, blame time travel.
      9. Make the Borg kick ass again.
      10. More action. If I wanted advice on parenting, decisions, whatever, I'd visit my mother. Stop talking and kill those idiots.
      11. Bring Garibaldi and Marcus Cole from B5 into the series. They are awesome. Ivanova would be nice too, but she and Kira would likely kill eachother within five minutes.
      12. Leave the script to Mel Brooks.
      Draft #2

      1. Fallout is bad. Murder is unethical. Whip Berman in public in Beverly Hills as an example to other producers. Don't stop until his back is raw. Then fire him. Then make him knock on the door of every true sci-fi fan in Norther America and beg for their forgiveness.

      2. Leave Gates McFaden at home. She was a boring, her character was boring.

      3. Bring back Patric Stewart, but lets be honest and make him a British Starship Captain. Do the usual contrived plot to undo the thing stupid thing of his character french when belize fries are more french then he will ever be.

      4. Jeri Ryan....approved.

      5. Leanord Nimoy....approved

      6. Agreed. Bring back Kira, but the evil one from the alternate universe. Looked good in spandex and had a lot more personality.

      7. Michael Dorn .....approved.

      8. Losing time travel as a plot element....approved.

      9. Borg.....approved.

      10. More action.......approved.

      11. I like pizza, I like ice cream, but not together. Leave B-5 & Mel Brooks out.

      12. Forever ban the use of the holodeck as a story line.

      13. Forever ban the use of "Earth like" planets as a story line.

      14. Forget dream sequences too.

      15. All new alien races/cultures must have more creativity used in forming them beyond putting some silly putty on an actors nose or forehead.

      16. No proselytizing. It is didactic and dull. Stop trying to teach morals through Star Trek. Declare a 5 year moratorium on mentioning the prime directive. Let the characters be human, the way DS-9 & Enterprise were when they first started.

    25. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by Zonekeeper · · Score: 0

      4B. Bring back Jeri Ryan. Naked.

      (This negates the need for the other 11 points.)

    26. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Problems:

      Marcus Cole would win. He cheats. Then it would just be him and Garibaldi trading one-liners.

      Plus, my bets on Ivanova.

      Mel Brooks hasn't had anything truly great since Blazing Saddles, or maybe Young Frankenstein.

    27. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Ivanova isn't likely to fall for another female, the last mindfuck broke her heart. Maybe for Marcus Cole, but he died saving her. Spinsterhood is a 3 edged sword.

    28. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      British Starship Captain?

      What's that? Great Britain fields an unimpressive space navy in the 24th century, with ships undergunned ships incapable of projecting any significant military power much past protecting their asses?

    29. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Well, the writers have gone on the record as saying it was about race relations.

    30. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by baldcamel · · Score: 1

      Bring back Jeri Ryan. Walking plot-elements rock, occasionally.

      rock she may, but apparently she does not swing.

    31. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by ultranova · · Score: 1
      Great Britain fields an unimpressive space navy in the 24th century, with ships undergunned ships incapable of projecting any significant military power much past protecting their asses?

      What's the point in maintaining military power beyond protecting your ass ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      The claim is that british aircraft carriers don't have enough firepower, enough jets in the air, to do more than protect the ship they launch from. No protecting convoy ships, coastline, or even launching attacks against someone else. Or so I've read.

    33. Re:Improving Star Trek, the idiot's guide: by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1
      Yeah, well, tell that to the Argentinians. Granted, not one of the world's great naval powers, but the small British carriers were vital in maintaining a semblance of local air superiority during the Falklands war. (That's not to say they had enough, and they did lose some ships to air attack IIRC. But they would have lost a lot more without their Sea Harriers ...) And the Argentine carrier stayed well clear of the Falklands, though perhaps more for fear of the British submarines than the carriers. It's true that British carriers are currently designed for air defence and not offence (although it's an exaggeration to say they can only defend the carrier itself, that would be kind of pointless ...)

      On the other hand, somebody at the Ministry of Defence obviously agrees that they lack offensive punch, because the three current 20000 tonne carriers are to be replaced by two 50000 tonne carriers, with an air wing of 40 or 50 (including Joint Strike Fighters). See here. Still not exactly the Nimitz, but a big improvement over current capabilities.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  47. Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like Trek as much as the next person, but I've had enough. Let it go already. Let's quit supporting the corporate IP revenant that Trek has become, and make room in the sci-fi genre for something new, and perhaps even better.

  48. *NERD ALERT* by jay-be-em · · Score: 0, Redundant

    nt

    --
    "Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
    1. Re:*NERD ALERT* by reverius · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're on Slashdot. The Nerd Alert is unnecessary.

      Did you think this was "News for Normal People, Stuff that Isn't Geeky"?

  49. Down the tubes by mzkhadir · · Score: 1

    This series is going down the tubes just like the Star Wars Movies.

  50. We could always argue about by Eezy+Bordone · · Score: 3, Funny

    How the first Romulan we saw was Spock's daddy.

    --

    -EB

    Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?

    1. Re:We could always argue about by chowdmouse · · Score: 1

      Er...actors get different parts occasionally?

    2. Re:We could always argue about by Blob+Pet · · Score: 1

      or how Lt.Cmdr.Ann Mulhall,Thalassa, and Dr. Miranda Jones from TOS and Dr. Kate Pulaski from TNG are the same woman.

      --
      "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
    3. Re:We could always argue about by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Or if we're on women- Nurse Chapel and Luwaxanna Troi. Of course, that can be explained because she was the wife of the series creator....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:We could always argue about by deke_kun · · Score: 1

      How about Tim Russ' (Tuvok) very non-vulcan appearance in Star Trek Generations as a tactical officer? Had the ear putty off that day I guess...

    5. Re:We could always argue about by Satertek · · Score: 0

      How Robert Duncan McNeil got to be Tom Paris after being in that TNG episode with that fighter squad incident...

    6. Re:We could always argue about by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the voice of the Enterprise computer.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    7. Re:We could always argue about by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Not only was he Sarek and the Romulan commander, he was also the Klingon captain in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, being the only actor in Star Trek history to play a Vulcan, a Romulan, and a Klingon.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    8. Re:We could always argue about by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      That's the only bit of continuity rewriting (that I can think of off the top of my head) that Voyager did.

      Voyager did an episode entitled "Flashbacks", I don't remember the total thrust of it, but it involves Tuvok flashing back to past experiences for some reason... one of which being his earlier experiences in Starfleet, with Sulu.

      That's a long way of saying 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.. I mean.. the Vulcan with no pointy ears!'

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
  51. Before (B4) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    So they killed Data, but didn't he upload himself to 'Before' first? Data may be dead, but Brent Spiner'll be back as a dumber version of the same....

  52. After Nemesis... by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    After Nemesis I won't go see a trek movie in the theaters until I see a good review. It just won't be worth the trip. I might rent it when it comes out of DVD, even if it's panned, but it won't get my box office buck.

    1. Re:After Nemesis... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      I made that decision a couple of movies ago.

      I also won't be seeing another over-hyped piece of crap labelled, "Episode III".

  53. Different crew, non-affiliated with any TV series by dolphin558 · · Score: 0

    With the timeline as it is no ST character will be alive during the film. However, I suggest taking it further. Why not INTRODUCE a totally new crew for ST 12. I am not impressed with the Voyager and DS9 crews and the stellar Enterprise crew will be a tough sell.

  54. re: rerman, future, past, and stealing ideas by ed.han · · Score: 1

    that is gonna be a fantastic film, IMHO.

    if the film is set pre-OS, just WTF will be in it? is this another TNG project, or will it be DS9? i kinda doubt the latter, given that B&B appear to hate DS9. please, please let it not be a VOY movie...

    ed

  55. Re:They killed off Data!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not Data. You're either Lore or B4 in disguise.

  56. Star Trek books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there a Classic-Trek novel that featured Kirk's father as the (temp) First Officer, and a Captain April??

    The Enterprise was just leaving the construction dock (without a full crew, or weapons-load), and recieved an SOS... of course they answered...

    They accidently ended up in Romulan space, and bluffed their way out, claiming a cloaked UFP fleet?? (which prompted the Romulans to develop the cloaking device??)

    1. Re:Star Trek books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Final frontier.

    2. Re:Star Trek books by AceMarkE · · Score: 1

      Yep, there is. A bit of searching says that it's "Final Frontier", by Diane Carey. It's a good book, although it doesn't mesh with the other 412 versions of the early history of Starfleet that we've gotten from the novels and the series itself (like that really means anything these days). Still, definitely worth a read, as is the semi-sequel, "Best Destiny".

      Mark Erikson

  57. ST movie not tied to a serries? by Lifix · · Score: 1

    With enterprise spiraling down the toilet for the first time in a long time, there might not be a new season of a Star Trek series comming out. Naturally, B&B are scared, so..... they create a new movie to inspire a series. This is all just one big ploy to get a new star trek series back on the air.

    However the movie will be terrible: you can't tell a story w/out developing the characters, and B&B aren't good enough to develop characters, and have a plot at the same time. Toodles...

    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
  58. Re:SAAB by MachDelta · · Score: 3, Informative

    We DID eventually get to see what the Chigs looked like in S:AAB though. I think it was the last two episodes (23: "And if they lay us down to rest..." and 24: "...Tell our moms we done our best") where they landed on the Chig moon and ran around in the swamp chasing the nursery-chig. Kinda reminded me of a predator, but without the dreads or funky jaw. Deep eye sockets, low snout, kind of a droopy mouth. They had gill-like things too (I think you got to see that in one of the very first episodes when they capture a chig). And of course, like all good Chigs they made them incessant clicking noises non-stop.

    Course, then the heroes screwwed things up by warning the nursery-chig of the attack... the diplo chig goes suicide bomber, and all hell breaks loose while the 58th are out exchanging prisoners. I wont ruin the ending... but damn. What a way to end a show. It's almost been a decade and I still miss it (luckilly I have all 24 eps on CD).
    In the immortal words of Wang: "HU-RAH! GET SOME!!" ;)

  59. Re:Okay, so what if you're a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    we're talking about text that has survived AT LEAST two language translations
    Much of the old testament was written in Hebrew, and there are ancient Hebrew texts that we use today (the Dead Sea Scrolls being one source of them) from which we obtain our current translations. I'm not saying that these ancient texts we have are the originals (they almost certainly are not), but they are most certainly in the same language.

    So what are you talking about "two language translations" for?

  60. Re:Okay, so what if you're a troll. by numbski · · Score: 1

    I don't count acient hebrew as hebrew. I probably should, but I don't. The whole lack of vowels thing for starters. :P

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

  61. Dear God by BradT48 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NO!! Berman must die a horibly painful and strung out death!

  62. Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by MsGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful
    These are the same guys who are PROUD of the fact that they never watched the original series.

    Now I know why I absolutely loathe Rick Berman and what he has done to Star Trek. TOS is the root from which the entire Star Trek Universe sprang. Cheesy or not, it is the model for everything that came before it.

    Someone yank the ST franchise from Berman's grubbies and put it on hiatus for a while. Voyager and Enterprise suck runny eggs. It's time to put it to bed. Maybe give it to Stracynski (sp?) after a few fallow years.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    1. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by MondoMor · · Score: 0, Funny
      Cheesy or not, it is the model for everything that came before it.


      Hey, now YOU'RE mucking with the timeline. Berman's Disease is spreading! Lock up your cats!
    2. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by mygodman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would like to agree, Rick Berman has got to go. They got lucky with TNG, somewhat, but completly destroyed Voyager, DS9, and now Enterprise with unimaginative story lines and a reliance on tight-costumed bimbos

    3. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Now I know why I absolutely loathe Rick Berman and what he has done to Star Trek. TOS is the root from which the entire Star Trek Universe sprang. Cheesy or not, it is the model for everything that came before it.

      Not so. At the most, they're one iternation of the genesis of 'Trek.

      Far more of Trek's root (and a much truer form) can be found in the movies and the TNG series.

    4. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      and now Enterprise with unimaginative story lines and a reliance on tight-costumed bimbos
      Hey! bash the story lines all you want, but leave the tight-costumed bimbos alone!
    5. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They got lucky with TNG, somewhat, but completly destroyed Voyager, DS9, and now Enterprise with unimaginative story lines and a reliance on tight-costumed bimbos

      Which is completely different from TOS, which... relied on... unimaginative story lines... tight-costumed bimbos... and... William Shatner!

    6. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by mforbes · · Score: 1

      At least Enterprise & Voyager have eye candy... anyone remember 38 of double-D? :)

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    7. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by Toddlerbob · · Score: 3, Interesting
      On June 17 of this year, JMS (Joe Straczynski) the author of Babylon 5, posted the following on the newsgroup rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated:

      Amusingly enough, on the Trek front, Bryce Zabel (the creator of Dark Skies) and I got together and wrote a treatment earlier this year that specified how to save ST and develop a series that would restore the series in a big way. I actually think it could be a hell of a show. Whether that ever goes anywhere with Paramount, who knows?

      I, for one, would love to see him take over Trek and make it an interesting show again. He also mentioned that he was offered a job as executive producer on Enterprise, but turned it down, I believe it was because he didn't want to exec. for a show that's really not his, creatively. However, my memory is fuzzy on that point.

    8. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I don't know about unimaginative ... like any series the average episode is, well, average but some TOS episodes were written by the likes of Harry Harrison and D.C. Fontana and certainly were imaginative. Remember that TOS came out forty years ago and the fact the those plotlines have been redone ad-nauseam by every third-rate scriptwriting hack since doesn't detract from the quality of the originals.

      Have to agree with you about Bill and the bimbos, though. However, to be fair one has to realize that Jeffrey Hunter (the Captain from the first series pilot, The Cage) was Roddenberry's first choice. The reason that Shatner (described as an "all around utility man" in the Making of Star Trek) got the job was because when Roddenberry finally got approval to begin production, Hunter was under contract to make the war movie The Green Berets and was unavailable. At least, that's one reason I've heard: there are several competing versions of that story. Certainly, we would have had a very different show. Hard to say whether it would have had the same cultural impact: if nothing else Shatner's brand of overacting did seem to work well in TOS.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Somehow I prefer the eyecandy on DS9. Terry Farrel, Nicole DeBoer, and holy shit that Chase Masterson.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1

      You forgot Nana Visitor.

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    11. Re:Kill Berman. Then put the franchise in stasis. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No I didn't.

      Well, she was alright in that one episode she sang Fever.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  63. Every Time by Apreche · · Score: 0, Troll

    I do this for every Star Trek related story. I have tons of Karma from all my other posts because I say insightful things about the issues of today. But every time Star Trek comes up I have to post this and every time I get modded down. It's worth it though.

    STAR TREK SUCKS. Take a random episode of Star Trek and compare it with a random episode of any afternoon soap opera. It's the same damn show. Putting people in a different setting in space uniforms does not a sci-fi show make. I can't respect any Star Trek one bit. Why the hell do all you people like it so much?

    You may now proceed with the down-modding.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  64. Seeing Romulans by Gudlyf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the movie Enemy Mine -- as strange as it was -- I think humans never saw the Drac before, only their spacecraft as they attacked. Could they use the same reasoning?

    --
    Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    1. Re:Seeing Romulans by geek · · Score: 1

      If they had never seen the drac before than how was there a drac slave camp and slave traders? Those were humans enslaving dracs and making them work the mines.

    2. Re:Seeing Romulans by Gudlyf · · Score: 1

      Er...you're right. My bad.I guess I did try to erase that movie from my memory afterall. Just not all of it.

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    3. Re:Seeing Romulans by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      In the movie Enemy Mine -- as strange as it was -- I think humans never saw the Drac before, only their spacecraft as they attacked. Could they use the same reasoning?

      It's possible that most people never saw or met a Drac, esp those in fighters blasting at other fighters. There is the legend of the Hartlepool Monkey where a monkey dressed in a navel uniform was washed ashore after a shipwreck and the people never seeing a frenchman before hung it for being a spy. The legend isn't very believable in the fact that any coastal town that did any sorta trading would likely have been in contact with people from France, but on the other hand unless they announced them selves as being French who's to know who where they came from. So who knows.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    4. Re:Seeing Romulans by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Several years after he had been stranded?

      Or maybe, illegal slave traders on the fringe have alot less contact with mainstream humanity, keeping in mind the vast distances involved. On earth, every few weeks or months, in interstellar space every few years or decades?

  65. Star Trek by Depris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I haven't gone to the theaters to see an ST flick since first contact and I doubt I will anytime soon. At best I rent it or watch it when it comes on TV and only if their isn't a better alternative. The plots are ridiculous and it's painfully obvious that they are going to make as many movies as they can to drain out the franchise until people finally stop going to see this junk. Star Trek should definitely take at least a 5-10 year break from television/movies and come back as a revival just like TNG. Their was a reason TNG was the number one rated drama on television... you'd think paramount would want to bring back the golden years but the bottom line as has been stated before is BERMAN needs to be removed.

    --
    I'll make you a deal. You pray to God for help and I'll stop the moment he shows up.
  66. Re:SAAB by AKAImBatman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, I saw the episodes. I STILL want to know what happens next. With half the team dead, the ladies crash landed, and an Armada on the Chig doorstep, you can't get the suspense any higher. Of course, Fox cancelled it before we found out what happened next.

    *sigh*

  67. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Tassach · · Score: 1

    stop complaining about a problem that doesn't exist OK, let's talk about problems that DO exist. Enterprise sucks. Not because it disregards the continuity of the ST universe, but because it is badly written. The plots are boring and formulaic, even by ST standards. The characters have all the personality of cardboard cutouts. The acting is wooden. It's just bad TV.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  68. You should know the answer... by widderslainte · · Score: 1
    "So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?"

    Wookies don't come from Endor.

  69. will wheaton by frankmu · · Score: 1

    i'd like to see him in this movie. that would be awesome.

    i think he needs his own slashdot icon too.

    --
    Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
  70. Petition for Star Trek Topic on Slashdot by doconnor · · Score: 1

    For too long Star Trek, the most important series in Geek history, has had second class status to Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings and even The Matrix. Those series has their own topics. Star Trek deserves better. Join the others who have signed the petition to give Star Trek a topic on Slashdot.

  71. Even Numbered Movies...A New Rule by JohnPerkins · · Score: 1

    How about this: Even numbered movies are better than odd, accept when it ends in 0, then look at the next digit. Nemesis (movie 10) would count as 1, and therefore suck. Movie 20 would count as 2, and therefore not suck.

  72. Re:Different crew, non-affiliated with any TV seri by bmiller949 · · Score: 1

    Maybe infant James T Kirk could soil his diaper while sitting on the lap of the Captain of this new vessel

    --
    <sig>no sig</sig>
  73. Humans will get to see Romulans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Star Trek TOS got it wrong. They had the official story. In reality, humans will see Romulans a couple of times during the war. The Vulcans will engineer a cover-up, destroying records and doctoring memories with mind-melds.

    1. Re:Humans will get to see Romulans by Tatarize · · Score: 2, Funny

      "... Any time you notice something like that it's Wizards."

      "Um... but..."

      "WIZARDS!"

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    2. Re:Humans will get to see Romulans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fnord!

    3. Re:Humans will get to see Romulans by CanadianCrackPot · · Score: 1

      How Enterprise established that only a minority of Vulcans can perform mind-melds at that time, and on top of that they are persecuted as dissedents (this from the people that believe in the IDIC). So who would mind meld?

      Plus Archer already encountered Romulans without seeing their faces.

      --
      Good programmers drink beer to relieve job stress.
      Great programmers drink hard liquor and work best hungover.
  74. Where's my DS9? by Dark-Helmet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Alright, so it's offtopic and I'm sure there's probally already a hundred posts about it below my threshold, but what about DS9? I'm not much one for prequels or even the TNG timeline. TNG was really "white bread" with it being extremely predictable episodes with flat (but sometimes lovable) characters resolving the given situation inside the episode to make for good syndication material. Oh, and throw in some Borg/combat oriented episodes towards for the season premiers and finales to try to hook people in and resolve it like any other syndicated episode afterwards.

    Anyway, enough of my dorky rant, here's what they should be doing:

    1.) Screw alternate time lines and particles and such. Don't even mention the possibility of it. Sure, it'd kinda annoy Star Trek dorks like me who have kept up with multiple series and like to compare them (god knows what Voyager did, haven't seen much of it myself) but if you just plug your ears and say lalala then it'll be okay. I promise!

    2.) Go back to DS9 era and explore what happened there. All three major powers (fed, klingons, romulans) of the Alpha quadrant are recovering from a long and costly war from a powerful adversary that was basically the anti-federation from the Gama quadrant. I'd love to see how the Dominion would deal with the aftermath considering it comprised of a variety of genetically engineered races to fulfill specific jobs. Now that their founder "gods" have been defeated, will that shake the Dominion to the core? If so, what happens?

    Hell, Sisko is still living in the Wormhole and with the Prophets, can we give him a resolution? I'm sure he'd come back and be part of the main story.

    3.) Don't involve Berman/Braga in the creative aspect. They're okay producers just bring back the DS9 writing team and people like Ira Steven Behr.

    4.) No fucking cameos. I'm sick of TNG cameos and the feeling that it needs to be done to somehow validate the series. Take a goddamn risk every once in a while. DS9 did it and it was succesful in a lot of regards. It didn't get the same ratings as TNG, but considering it was overlapping with Voyager and TNG towards the beggining its no suprise. I'd love to see a relaunch of this series after Enterprise is put to rest.

    1. Re:Where's my DS9? by muataz · · Score: 1

      I agree, there should be a DS9 moving, it's about time. Since we are moving away from TNG then should go towards DS9

  75. seeing Romulans in the movie... by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

    The Feds saw Klingons and knew what they looked like in classic S.T. In the movies they looked quite different. When Mr. Worf participated in the reprise of "Trouble With Tribbles," he merely commented that Klingons do not speak of those things. Glaring discontinuity is nothing new in the star trek universe.

  76. Mourning for Star Trek by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    I've given up on Trek. Berman has totally and completely ruined it. Sometimes I think he's made it his life's mission to totally fuck up Star Trek to an unrepairable state. He's made the past series meaningless, rewriting things as they go along. He either doesn't know, or likely doesn't care that the fans want someone that respects the Star Trek universe, and wants continuity. He seems almost to DESPISE the notion of continuity. I dread the notion that this asshat is going to monkey with ST's past, yet again, almost assuredly with no regard to details of past episodes. Maybe Paramount really hates Trek, and is fervently trying to kill it off. The last couple of movies and series sure point to this.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  77. The StarTrek theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1: Create a classic origional show
    Step 2: Create spin-off shows with varying degrees of lameness
    Step 3: Profit!
    Step 4: Create movies with increasing lameness
    Step 5: Marvel as the number of fans dwindles
    Step 6: Beat the dead horse some more

    1. Re:The StarTrek theory... by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      Step 7: Sell Star Trek-branded glue!

      It can be used to keep Roddenbury's coffin together, from all the spinning he's doing in his grave.

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    2. Re:The StarTrek theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would be funny except that his ashes are up in the vacuum of space! (spinning in his orbit? ;-))

  78. How about a Trilogy by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Here's a thought, make it the Star Trek: The Romulan Wars : A Trilogy. Ditch the preexisting numbering system. These would legitimately be episodes I-III anyway. Star Trek II - IV were essentially a trilogy revolving around Spock's death and resurrection.

    Episode I: the first meetings and skirmishes, forces set in motion, characters introduced, we briefly see a young Kirk set on a trajectory to join Star Fleet. Earth (Federation?) scientists given a mandate to create technologies that will be needed in what is seen as the looming battle to come (ala the Manhattan Project, with many of the same moral dilemmas)

    Episode II: the Romulans posed to take over Earth, only support from Vulcans and other reluctant allies averts disaster.

    Episode III: a valiant counterstrike that forces the Romulans to withdraw with plot twists leading the power balance between Romulans, Federation and Klingons in TOS.

    Do it like LOTR and have the 3 episodes come out 1 a year as a planned, and make sure the fans know its all one story to be released as such, not a GEE-If-we-make-money-we'll-think-about-another-mov ie-in-3-years.

    Don't obsess on continuity, just make it a good story that half way sets up the Star Trek universe we know.

    1. Re:How about a Trilogy by Araxen · · Score: 1

      But to do this you have to have competent writers. The current writers can't even do 1 more right let alone a triology of them.

      A big problem with the current Star Trek movies are the writers. Once they ditch them the series will improve immensely.

    2. Re:How about a Trilogy by julesh · · Score: 1

      A big problem with the current Star Trek movies are the writers.

      Which ST movies had good writers? OK, the first was written by Alan Dean Foster, who has also written some good stuff. But I reckon he probably thought he was writing a TV episode, and the directors decided to pad it out to feature length...

    3. Re:How about a Trilogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big problem with the current Star Trek movies are the writers.

      More like the writers, the directors and actors.

      Yes, that means Jonathan Frakes specifically.

    4. Re:How about a Trilogy by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      He WAS writing a TV episode. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was adapted from the pilot episode of Star Trek: Phase II, a second Star Trek series featuring the original cast (sans Nimoy) that never got off the ground.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    5. Re:How about a Trilogy by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      I suggest you read Star Trek: Movie Memories, which explains that, more-or-less, that is what happened.

  79. my take by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How would they make the movie so that nobody saw the face of a Romulan throughout the war? Simple:

    - the Romulans don't have a video-based comm.
    - the Romulan warriors have decorative/concealing battle armor for their heads
    - have a mystique throughout the film that paints the Romulans as a powerful, mysterious race, somewhat along the lines of what was done with the Borg, thus increasing the level of suspense.

    All this would be feasable, as we don't know much about pre-Enterprise romulans.

    Oh, and as far as timeline continuity is concerned: there was a physicist (I don't remember wich one) that said that the time-space continuity is more like a deck of stacked cards than a linear stream. If you were to move a card in that deck to a place lower in the deck, it would no longer be the same deck, and would change the position of each of the other cards after it.

    If that were the case, you could say that the altering of the time-space continuum by reptilians in Enterprise is a direct result of the war with the transdimensional creatures in the future, as they then went back and had those races (can't think of what they called themselves) conspire against Earth. Likewise, that would potentially alter any interactions with the Romulans.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:my take by GlamdringLFO · · Score: 1

      Or the Romulans have an advanced new video codec that is incompatible with whatever the Federation (or whoever) are using. And, since it's proprietary, they can't just compile it themselves.

      --
      Skal! AMS
    2. Re:my take by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      Ok, and then we'll have to have a new TOS, because its history has been completely changed, right?

      Tell that to Berman so he'll make a mess of TOS too. He'll make an 'imaginative remake' of it ala Galactica.

    3. Re:my take by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily, but it would be possible.

      The thing is, it would be a linear progression from a single point - TOS's timeline. From that point forward, the history can be changed by altering the past. If there were another TOS, it wouldn't be the same timeline - it would be yet another level of chronological divergence.

      I'm not sure if that makes sense or not, but it works in my brain.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  80. Yes, although... by cuzality · · Score: 1

    ..."Believing oneself to be perfect is often the sign of a delusional mind."

  81. God here! by CdnZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    He will suffer...he will be forced to watch his own Star Trek episodes/movies for all eternity!

  82. Gack. by solios · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Great. Balance of Terror is, in my opinion, one of the best episodes of TOS, and ranks up there amongst the best in the series- namely for the reaction of Spock to the sight of a Romulan, and especially for the reaction of the entire crew to Spcok after the sighting. That episode dealt strongly with racism, and was damned entertaining.

    So now Berman's gonna take a shit all over one of the few uncorrupted Trek elements, and do it with a no-name crew?

    Why exactly does this guy still have his job, again?

    1. Re:Gack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why exactly does this guy still have his job, again?"

      Perhaps because he gets under all of your skins?

      Maybe the executive management doesn't like Star Trek geeks.

  83. who could possibly care? by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

    got to be about the worst. Puh-lease let this finally die. At least have the respect for the rest of us to post this on your ST sites & not here.

  84. 6. Genetic engineering. by argent · · Score: 1

    Like Klingons, Romulans used to look just like humans. The same terrible genetic plague released by renegade Vulcan scientists that made the Klingons grow brow ridges turned the Romulans into pseudo-Vulcans. All the stuff about the Romulans being an offshoot of the Vulcan is just part of the cover-up.

  85. Shatner, baby! by GPLDAN · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who wants to see Shatner play the evil Romulan? Huh? Raise your hands!

    1. Re:Shatner, baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      While we're at it, how about Ricardo Montalban?

  86. Red shirts by amightywind · · Score: 3, Funny

    in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?

    This is easily explained. All of the witnesses of who saw the Romulans were wearing read shirts.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Red shirts by FortranDragon · · Score: 1

      This is easily explained. All of the witnesses of who saw the Romulans were wearing read shirts.

      What did it say on the the shirts, 'Kill me now, I'm an expendable plot device"? ;-)

      --
      "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
  87. Let Pixar do it by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 4, Funny
    XI - that would make it another odd numbered star trek movie. I hold no hope for it....
    What they should do is just stick with X. I propose the following naming scheme for the next few Star Trek sequels:
    • Star Trek X: Leopard
    • Star Trek X: Puma
    • Star Trek X: Jaguar
    • Star Trek X: Panther
    • Star Trek X: Tiger
    The trick is to not vary the modulus of the version number but to vary the fur color instead.
    1. Re:Let Pixar do it by afish40 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that first one be "Star Trek X: Cheetah"? Inside jokes are only funny when you do them right.

      --
      Thanks a million. Push Start to replay.
    2. Re:Let Pixar do it by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Hey, tanks for the idea.

    3. Re:Let Pixar do it by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 1
      Shouldn't that first one be "Star Trek X: Cheetah"? Inside jokes are only funny when you do them right.
      Oh, I think it's funny both ways. People will identify with the most recent ones, and it doesn't matter so much what the first few were. For example, I could have put "Star Trek X: afish40" as the first one and nobody would have noticed because it still would have been a list of big pussies. Anyway, I got the list from The Mac Mind, which said it was "Leopard" (although a bit more Googling shows that "Cheetah" is probably correct - damn Mac Mind!).
    4. Re:Let Pixar do it by studog-slashdot · · Score: 2, Funny
      The trick is to not vary the modulus of the version number but to vary the fur color instead.

      I think you mean "rotate the fur-colour harmonics".

      ...Stu

    5. Re:Let Pixar do it by afish40 · · Score: 1

      For example, I could have put "Star Trek X: afish40" as the first one and nobody would have noticed because it still would have been a list of big pussies.

      I see your point, but that really was a low blow. I guess I meant to say the joke isn't funny to someone who knows better. No big deal though, as we've now effectively driven it into the ground to the point of absolute unfunny.

      --
      Thanks a million. Push Start to replay.
  88. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oddly enough- I can say the same thing about the first three seasons of TOS- which is probably why there WERE only three seasons of TOS.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  89. Come on folks... by Orne · · Score: 1

    It's allowed to suck, it's an odd-numbered release...

    1. Re:Come on folks... by Satertek · · Score: 0

      The pattern was already upset by Nemesis... The rules have changed. Anything could happen.

  90. Easy by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Just like the way they explained how Klingons looked differently than the old series...

    They ignore it.

  91. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, some of us are stuck asking "What's the fucking point?"

    I mean, step back. They're calling it a Star Trek series, but pretending like they can just play the same stupid Voyager games (time travel, particle of the week/recalibration of the whatchamacallit, over-reliance on the lead female role).

    Time Travel is thought of as the worst plot device you can play with. At least, that's how I see it. I know there are more than a few people around here will agree with me.

    And now, they're using Time Travel as their excuse to do whatever the hell they want, instead of trying to build on (or even acknowledge) the wonderful work that Gene did.

  92. Culture Clubbed to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your sig has scarred my fragile little mind.
    (Your Sig: ) Karma: Chameleon (Mostly due to the fact that you come and go.)

    Huh?! It doesn't even begin to compare with your sig. People have gone through therapy to forget that foul piece of anodyne 80s synth-reggae-pop foulness.

    My God, I want to tie you up, force your ears open with matches and play Spandau Ballet's "True" non-stop until you crack- just to see how you like it.

    1. Re:Culture Clubbed to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (I am the original AC)

      I'd just like to make clear that while I am the original AC, I am not the AC above.

    2. Re:Culture Clubbed to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just like to make clear that while I am the original AC, I am not the AC above.

      Oh yeah. Hadn't thought of that- sorry.

      (Imagine that large group of alien-toys in Toy Story 2. Two or more of them are having a discussion; after a while you lose track of who said what, or which one is which.... I can't even remember which Anonymous Coward I am now.. Oh yeah; the one that posted the grandparent to this post!)

    3. Re:Culture Clubbed to death by julesh · · Score: 1

      This, people, is why I browse with sigs turned off.

    4. Re:Culture Clubbed to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just like to make clear that while I am the original AC, I am not the AC above.

      How do we know you're not lying? How does everyone else know that I'm not the original AC?

      I can say that "I'm the original AC, and I like wearing frilly leather panties on the outside of my bermuda shorts", and it's hard to prove otherwise.

      Maybe we're the same person, and I'm an AC with a split personality. Maybe not. Maybe I'm the Culture-Club hating AC. Maybe not.

    5. Re:Culture Clubbed to death by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

      Will the real AC please stand up?

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
  93. Timeline already broken! by bjoeg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In ST:Generations movie, the original series crew learned that Kirk was killed, when Enterprise was caught in the Nexus (actually Kirk got caught in Nexus and died several decades later). However in ST:TNG S06-E130 Enterprise with Picard finds Chief Engineer Mongmery Scott caught in a transporter beam, lost for 75 years. In the episode Scotty asks what happened to Kirk and the crew.......erhm but dear Scotty, in the movie filmed years later than the series you witnessed Kirk's death. You see my point?

    1. Re:Timeline already broken! by Hallow · · Score: 1

      Maybe he suffered from some kind of memory loss from being in a buffer for 75 years.

      It's rather ironic that it almost has a basis in fact - the actor who played Scotty, James Doohan, has Alzheimers. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5380169

    2. Re:Timeline already broken! by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      Here is a pretty good explanation.

    3. Re:Timeline already broken! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's why, when he was asked if he murdered those girls (who were actually killed by Red Jack), he said, "I don't remember!"

  94. (takes a breath) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BERRRRRRMANNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

  95. Continuity Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the T'Pal on Enterprise supposed to be the same T'Pal from TOS episode Amok Time?

  96. finaly by maxdamage · · Score: 1

    I was getting sick of the borg

  97. keep the b5 guy away from our trek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    are you insane?! we'd end up with an endless series of cryptic, completely incomprehensible episodes.

    no thanks.

    1. Re:keep the b5 guy away from our trek! by julesh · · Score: 1

      I can think of two conclusions from your comment:

      * You've watched a few later episodes of B5 without bothering to watch the early ones, and ended up wondering what on Earth was going on. Clue: B5 was a continuing story -- you need to at least watch most of it in order to understand.

      * You're incredibly dense.

      B5 was a well written, well plotted series, that makes total sense, and is actually reasonably easy to understand. I've never met anyone who had any trouble with it before.

      OK, the props were cardboard, the effects poor (I think it was the first mainstream production to use all computer special effects, and it shows) & it had horrendous acting, particularly in the first series, but I don't think we can really blame JMS for that. He had to work with what he could raise for it.

    2. Re:keep the b5 guy away from our trek! by gordgekko · · Score: 1

      > OK, the props were cardboard, the effects poor (I think it was the first mainstream production to use all computer special effects, and it shows) & it had horrendous acting, particularly in the first series, but I don't think we can really blame JMS for that. He had to work with what he could raise for it

      So what you're telling me B5 (which I did occasionally watch) was essentially like a high school production of a Shakespeare play. Sure, the writing was fantastic but it was unwatchable otherwise.

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    3. Re:keep the b5 guy away from our trek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, stop there. It looks like you watched the series occasionally and then you failed to understand it continously, if you think it is like a high school production of a Shakespeare play. Tell me a series where the plot continously evolves and you need to see the fifth season to understand what you have seen in the third season. The only true complain about the B5 could be, it was once a week series so you had to wait one week to see what would be happining the next.

    4. Re:keep the b5 guy away from our trek! by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      An example of how convoluted (but well thought out) the plot of B5 is. Babylon 5 is the fifth, and only surviving space station like it. For years, literally, he doesn't even hint at why this is so, another dumb thing that will never be explained, maybe just for the title (Can't very well call it Babylon 1 or just plain Babylon) ?

      Hell no, completely integral to the story. The demons that were fought long ago (and are fought again in the show) were winning. They had destroyed the major staging point of their opponents, a loss that late in the war meant certain doom. But these aliens were more technologically advanced than us by perhaps millions of years. So, a little temporal trickery, and they steal Babylon 4 (which disappeared mysteriously about 3 years before the show begins).

      Ok, so where did the first 3 go? Well, the evil aliens got to see Babylon 4 10,000 years ago. And they still have ambitions... so when they notice these lookalike space stations being built, they sabotage them.

      Help me out guys, but none of this is learned until what, end of season 2, beginning of season 3? That's right, JMS kept this secret for about 35-40 more episodes than B&B could think of doing. Better yet, where they'd be forced to spell it all out for their drooling audience, I had to finally piece it all together myself after watching the entire series nearly twice.

      Does anyone honestly believe B&B could have used the life-saving machine (whatever it was called) only twice in 5 years, or that they would set it up 3 years in advance? C'mon, every other episode, 20 minutes before the end of the show. Sure, Ivanova would also have been saved, but they would have had 2 or 3 people present, so she could "safely" be saved. Remember, they can only kill off characters if a contract expires and the actor refuses to re-sign.

      If you want the new Star Trek to be like the cream of the TOS crop, then you *need* JMS. There may be no one else capable of rescuing it.

    5. Re:keep the b5 guy away from our trek! by gordgekko · · Score: 1

      Yes, but my point is, based on the chap I was replying to, that the acting was horrible, the sets were laughable and the special effects were atrocious, but the writing was fine. I mean seriously, that's a lot to put up with for an interesting story. Bad actors can bury even the best script, and the actors on B5 were bad.

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
  98. Not more prequels! by CrayHill · · Score: 1

    Must everything be placed in the "past"? Doesn't anybody have enough creativity to extend these series into the "future"?!?!?!?

  99. Well that's a nifty realization. by raehl · · Score: 1

    considering the last movie (they killed off Data, the bastards)

    That I was not aware of this makes me refreshingly aware that I must have saved myself $9 over the past year or two...

  100. Joss Whedon is not perfect by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    Have you seen a little movie called Alien Resurrection? Talk about killing a franchise even more than it already was dead.

    1. Re:Joss Whedon is not perfect by xenophrak · · Score: 1


      Yeah, what about Titan A.E.

      Talk about stories that sucked.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, life is not a bitch. It is far far worse.
    2. Re:Joss Whedon is not perfect by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Have you seen a little series of movies known as Generations, First Contact, and Nemesis? They could have been so much more, but instead they were just people scampering around in their pajamas and using light-beam weapons. Whoopie.

    3. Re:Joss Whedon is not perfect by ajs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Alien Resurrection 1) wasn't really Joss' story as written (though MORE of it was his than X-Men, from which they kept only 2 lines and the actress butchered 1 of them... the other was one of the best lines in the movie) and 2) was a fairly decent story that I think was somewhat poorly directed (if I had READ that story, I think I would have liked it a lot more than I did) and 3) mostly failed in the box-office because Cameron had done such a good job of transforming the series into a testosterone-fest that anything less was going to be a dissapointment.

      As director of the Firefly movie, we're more likely to get a solid Joss story told and translated well onto the screen. Perhaps that will suck, but I doubt it.

      That said, no Joss is not perfect. Fan-boys (and girls) who say he is are... well, fan-boys, so what can you expect (by fan-boy I mean the gushing, "my hero can do no wrong" sorts of fans, not the run-of-the-mill enthusiast ... judge for yourself where I belong in that spectrum).

      On the other hand, his work is often far more compelling than 90% of what we see on television (so much so that after swearing off the entire vampire genre and with a title that made me groan, B:TVS pulled me in and made me enough a fan to buy and watch the seasons that I had missed).

      If you want to know Joss' highs and lows look at the first two seasons of Buffy and then look a the last season (7). There it is in a nutshell, and while I found the seventh season to be far below the level of what he did in the first two, I'd still rank it well above most of what's on TV.

      As for movies... the bar is higher. Science Fiction has seen some real winners (Forbidden Planet, 2001, Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, Empire, The Matrix)... and living up to that standard is a lot harder than living up to the standard of American TV (which has a few major winners like Twilight Zone, Star Trek: TOS and Babylon 5 and a handfull of fast-from-the-gate shows that couldn't hold it together or got cancelled like Andromeda, Firefly, Jerrimiah).

      In the end, I'll go see the Firefly movie and just try to enjoy it and judge it on its own merits. We shall see....

    4. Re:Joss Whedon is not perfect by robkore · · Score: 1

      Have you seen a little movie called Alien Resurrection? Talk about killing a franchise even more than it already was dead.

      Ha, yeah, and nobody knows it more than Joss himself. Here's a quote from an episode of Angel that gave me quite a laugh:

      "I mean, Roger's always had a thing for those disgusting Alien movies... all that slime and teeth... ugh! He just can't get enough of them! Except for that last one they made, I think he dozed off."

  101. Mod parent up? by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 1

    Mod parent either +1 Funny, or -1 Crap, I just realized I'm a walking Nerd Alert... make it go away!

  102. JMS and Star Trek by d-e-w · · Score: 1

    *blinks*

    Hmmm . . . but it has been reported that JMS is working on the treatment for the next Star Trek movie. Does this mean that JMS is working on the treatment for the Romulan War??

    JMS is a canon whore in his own universes . . .

  103. what about picard? by darthcamaro · · Score: 1

    so Nemesis was the last TNG movie? that's a shame...I think it all went downhill after , All Goods Things Must Come to An End, anyway..

  104. In point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The original Star Trek episode "Balance of Terror" was actually inspired by the submarine movie "Run Silent, Run Deep", playing off the dramatic effect you describe.

  105. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering we are humans, maybe they took those movie anti-piracy measures to a dangerous higher level... (8-[)

    Me, I'm gonna wait for the DVD and even then watch it on a mirror, just as a precaution...

  106. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    Ummm... those were done in the 1960's, the formulas hadn't been well established at that point.

  107. well, duh!! by spazoid12 · · Score: 1

    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?"

    That was the Romulan's "baroque" period. They all went around holding masks up to their faces on little sticks.

  108. Jesus Slashdorks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Don't you people have lives? Haven't you ever been with a woman?

    - William Shatner

  109. That was resolved right after TOS... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    IFAIR, in the cartoon series that continued the story line, where they discovered teh Romulians were not human cross breeds as originally though.

    I am a trained engineer and am appalled by the science in ST. Not the made up part, but the bending of known rules. Now, if only they'd fix the science in ST XI, I mean, they even have shadows in space when a shuttle passes between the Eterprise and a sun. Everyone nows neither light nor sound propogate invacuum.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:That was resolved right after TOS... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Light propogates. Sound does not.

      Sound requires some form of vibrational medium to travel. Air or water, for example. In space, sound cannot travel since there's no medium to travel through. It's always bothered me that the ships in most SciFi make whooshing noises.

      Light only requires "not stuff in the way". Since there's nothing in the vacuum that gets in the way, light can travel perfectly. (c is the speed of light in a vacuum!) There would be a shadow produced, but it would be an incredibly stark shadow.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:That was resolved right after TOS... by foo12 · · Score: 1

      Everyone nows neither light nor sound propogate invacuum.

      Would you like to explain that bit about light in a vacuum? I can see the sun...

    3. Re:That was resolved right after TOS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant the ether...

    4. Re:That was resolved right after TOS... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "if only they'd fix the science in ST XI, I mean, they even have shadows in space when a shuttle passes between the Eterprise and a sun."

      what the hell are you saying?

      That shuttles don't cast shadows?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  110. Continuity is Overrated by Goldenhawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's burn some karma here.

    Okay, I've read all the rants on either side of this issue, and the conclusion I've reached is this.

    Continuity is highly overrated.

    So, I'll admit I'm not a fanboy. I *am* a fan, however, and while continuity is important to me, it's not gospel, and I don't really get the urge to throw myself over the nearest cliff when it gets disrupted.

    Instead, the way I see it, Star Trek in its whole has provided a generalized SciFi framework, into which different authors, directors, writers, artists, etc. can provide a story. Look at the general spread between TOS, TNG, DS9, STV and STE. Aside from the "boldly go" kind of essense, there's a HUGE diversity there. And frankly, as long as any one story is enjoyable, I don't really mind if there's some non-canonical bits therein. I *do* mind if they overuse the particle-of-the-week, just like I thought the midichlorian was a hideously stupid plot trick in Star Wars Ep1. But for run-of-the-mill stories, I'm more interested in how they handle the character development, coupled with the staple of SciFi - which is, in my opinion, how humans handle advanced technology and its effects (including the effect of encountering other species). All the rest is just details. Cool technology, maybe, but still just details.

    So as far as I'm concerned, the "Star Trek" name provides a rather broad, rather permissive framework - with NAME RECOGNITION. And the best thing about it: that name recognition provides a budget for reasonably cool SciFi movies and television. Maybe not the BEST, but at least reasonably entertaining, and definitely more quantity than we'd get otherwise. And it spurs all kinds of spinoffs and competitors (B5, Andromeda, etc.) which are even better.

    So, I'm all for chilling out the holy wars and just enjoying whatever is enjoyable, as it gets released.

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

    1. Re:Continuity is Overrated by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      You know, I agree with your thesis. The point of shows like this is entertainment and the opportunity to take a more intellectual approach to exploring important topics of the day, not the maintenance and reinforcement of doctrinal purity and orthodoxy of a series of fictional works.

      And unlike SW, ST is not a big serialized story. The phrase "framework" is appropriate and helpful.

      That said, a reasonable effort should be made to respect continuity. All I ask is that, while I watch the movie, there are not a bunch of times when my head jerks up and I want to say, "What? That's not right!" For example, if they insert Kirk as a young middie on a ship not previously mentioned in the ST "canon", it doesn't seem like it should be a big deal. But if they make that character into something that everybody knows he was not (like half-Ferengi or shy around women), that would be distracting to many of us.

    2. Re:Continuity is Overrated by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      "just like I thought the midichlorian was a hideously stupid plot trick in Star Wars Ep1."

      I had high hopes for that. If manipulating the force was based on a genetic advantage and had little or no connection to philosophical training, then the black and white ethos of the Star Wars Ep. 4 through 6 was all a Jedi con game. The whole star wars series would have been resolved in a Dune like struggle by various factions to out devious each other and the winner would rewrite history as needed. Star Wars would have become a powerful and mature commentary on our willinglness to follow charismatic but irrational and uncareing leaders like sheep and joined 1984 and Blade Runner as cautionary tales.
      Of course, episode 3 would have a box office gross of $ 27.00, but Roger Ebert would have given it a thumb's up.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  111. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough- I can say the same thing about the first three seasons of TOS- which is probably why there WERE only three seasons of TOS

    Since most shows last one season or less, three seasons of ST:TOS is quite a success, and considering it was made in the the era of Gunsmoke & Bonanza where lines like "Ya called me yella, them's fightin words" and "Mary Lou, you're almost as pretty as ma horse" and similar phrases were popular on TV back then, those three years seems like even more of a success and made TOS stand out above the rest.

  112. Very simple ... by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    Any Romulans seen will be intelligence agents that are posing as Vulcans. The Federation will assume they were physically altered for their work.

    Well it could be ... _grin_

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  113. This being Star Trek... by ScottGant · · Score: 4, Funny

    They use boilerplate story programs:

    "The Crew of the _______(insert catchy ship name here) finds out that the _________(1.transporter 2.holodeck 3.matter-antimatter thingy 4.dylithim crystals) has/have gone haywire and they only have 5 seconds to respond or be destroyed.

    During the crisis, they find the only way to save themselves is to _______(1. go back in time 2. somehow create a time-warp to go back in time 3. Accidentally go back in time 4. Have Q come to the rescue and send them back in time.)

    There is a middle part of the story that we'll just make up as we go until then end where right at the last moment, when things seem that the ship is in certain doom and with the added pressure of the entire known universe in jepardy, they simply reverse the _________(put techno speak thingy there) with the ________(place another techno speak thingy here) and in theory it should put everything right, but only after the huge time counter on the bridge counts down to 1 second left.

    Last line of course is _______(put in old literary sea-faring reference here)."

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
    1. Re:This being Star Trek... by Fizzog · · Score: 1

      Oh damn! Now you've spoiled the ending for me!

    2. Re:This being Star Trek... by MadChicken · · Score: 1

      I think you can safely replace one of the "techno speak thingies" with the main deflector dish.

      Do they have more than one deflector dish? Do they TYPICALLY use it for deflecting anything, or do they only jury-rig it to deflect things?

      We need someone to dig out the technical specs like they did in Galaxy Quest.

      --
      SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
    3. Re:This being Star Trek... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you can safely replace one of the "techno speak thingies" with the main deflector dish.

      Yes, although I've noticed that a "verteron pulse" is frequently used as a catch-all solution to thorny problems. Alien parasites infesting your ship's gel-paks? No problem ... just emit a verteron pulse and they'll disintegrate on-the-spot. I admit, however, that generally it is the deflector dish that is used to generate this pulse. Not that I have any idea what a verteron is, mind you (presumably it is some heretofore-discovered subatomic particle.)

      The deflector dish is used when traveling at high sublight velocities to deflect anything that might otherwise impact the ship (micrometeoroids and the like.) At least that's how it was described in the original "The Making of Star Trek" book that I read back in 1971 or thereabouts. Essentially it's a reverse tractor beam (commonly referred to as a "pressor" in sci-fi parlance.) The dish can also be used to make a really powerful one-shot weapon which we almost got to see in action in the ST:TNG Borg cliffhanger "Best of Both Worlds."

      In a later episode, if I recall correctly, another starship did use their dish in that manner and wasted a Borg cube. Kind of cool, but it only works once and then your dish is scrap.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:This being Star Trek... by leon.gandalf · · Score: 2, Funny

      So Voltaire's song 'USS Making Shit Up' is right on the mark then... :)

    5. Re:This being Star Trek... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      Wrath of Khan:

      they simply reverse the _other ship's shields_ with the _other ship's root password_

      It doesn't always have to be the deflector dish...

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    6. Re:This being Star Trek... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2, Funny


      Maybe someday they'll mount more than one dish on a ship... perhaps a whole kitchen cabinet full.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    7. Re:This being Star Trek... by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      Which is also only five digits, so we could have guessed it in about .0004 seconds anyway. :)

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    8. Re:This being Star Trek... by CanadianCrackPot · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that it can also be made into a phaser. Now that would be a sweet upgrade to a Galaxy class starship one bigass phaser cannon.

      --
      Good programmers drink beer to relieve job stress.
      Great programmers drink hard liquor and work best hungover.
    9. Re:This being Star Trek... by TrikerII · · Score: 1

      Actually, there was no episode (that I can remember) that used the deflector dish to destroy the borg ship. However, in the book Vendetta (which takes from the planet destroyer episode "Doomsday Weapon"), another ship uses it deflector dish and does damage the Borg vessel (although I don't remember if it destroys it or not). It's an older ST:TNG book, but a great story! I think it would have been a great ST:First Contact replacement. -Just my 2cents..

      --
      Life is to be experienced, not frowned upon. -Uknown
    10. Re:This being Star Trek... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0

      Haven't you noticed? Roddenberry mounted plenty of extra dishes all over the ship. I mean, what with Nichelle Nichols on the bridge and Majel Barrett down in Sickbay I'd say there was no shortage of dishes on Star Trek. And the later series continued this fine tradition of placing spare components in key positions with Marina Syrtis, Jeri Ryan, Terry Farrell and the like.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:This being Star Trek... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Maybe I was thinking of that. I just remember that somewhere another ship used the idea and it worked.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    12. Re:This being Star Trek... by KnarfO · · Score: 1

      Hey, do you write for "5 Minute Trek?"

      --


      "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    13. Re:This being Star Trek... by Skadet · · Score: 1

      Although it's late to reply, I've got to correct you....

      The the TNG season 3 cliffhanger, The Best of Both Worlds they attemped to use the dish in that manner and failed for reasons you'd have to see the episode to understand. So go see it! :)

  114. Hey editors guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nobody (who matters) fucking cares about startrek.

  115. "By any Other Name!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You call yourself a Star Trek fan??? "By Any Other Name" definitely involved another galaxy (and is the one TOS episode where the Enterprise actually leaves the galaxy!). And, in "The Doomsday Machine", the course of that planet-eating robot was from another galaxy.

    Yes, Star Trek is a fetish for me. And, by the way, the Enterprise could not go around Uranus looking for Klingons because the Klingons got nowhere near the solar system until they were at peace with the Federation.

    1. Re:"By any Other Name!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh God, do I have too?

      because the Klingons got nowhere near the solar system until they were at peace with the Federation.

      ... except for the Klingon that crash landed on Earth at the beginning of the "Enterprise" series.

  116. Screwed up continuity by BigBadBus · · Score: 1
    The leader for this article worries about the lack of continuity with "classic" ST; but in ST:TNG, no human had ever seen a Ferengi before, so how does that tie in with Enterprise?

    1. Re:Screwed up continuity by Warlock7 · · Score: 1

      Because, with Berman at the helm, they're just going to flash back through time and say that Enterprise didn't happen.

      No human was supposed to have seen a Klingon in STTNG form before the "Trouble with Tribbles" either. They re-established this in DS9.

      Rick Berman is wrecking the whole ST universe.

  117. Whaaaa??? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Das Starship?

    Nope. People will avoid it in droves. And it's pointless anyway. Berman, genital wart on the penis of humanity that he is, doesn't give a shit about continuity. He'll show the Romulans anyway.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Whaaaa??? by Tragek · · Score: 1

      Is berman the one responsible for the piece (of what have you) known as Star Trek Enterprise? With it's incredible lack of contituity?

    2. Re:Whaaaa??? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      He is indeed. He's largely responsible for the dreck the whole franchise has become.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    3. Re:Whaaaa??? by Tragek · · Score: 1

      Ouch.. amazing one man can reap so much damage to such a strong series.

  118. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    True enough- but by today's standards, definately tree-like acting ability seemed to be a standard for hiring actors for TOS and Enterprise- less so for TNG & DS9, but let's not even talk about Voyager.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  119. Just no temporal crap.... Please by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I hope they dont destroy this like they did ' enterprise'.

    'Enterprise' had a lot of potential, but was ruined by the terrible writing.. and this hangup with time-travel sheesh..

    The writers need to get over it.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Just no temporal crap.... Please by Warlock7 · · Score: 1

      Time travel is Berman's lame answer to everything. Let's not forget how Voyager ended. No temproal issues created there... |:-P Rick Berman is terrible.

  120. Hell Yeah by Atroxodisse · · Score: 1

    Joss Whedon is the bomb. Firefly is my new favorite TV series. You must own the DVDs. Buy buy buy!

    --
    Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
    1. Re:Hell Yeah by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      I dunno about you, but it's hard for me to have something so incomplete by my favorite TV series. It's like having the first 10 pages of a book being your favorite novel, which is kind of silly, even if those 10 pages are pretty good. Firefly is great, don't get me wrong, and I really wish it was still on- but only having a half a season of episodes, I find a hard time getting too attached to it.

      It was shaping up to be quite good for a first-season of a sci-fi show, though.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    2. Re:Hell Yeah by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree ... I really like the series: it was a lot easier to care about the characters and what happens to them than in any of the recent Trek series. Production values were top-of-the-line. But there were so many entertaining subplots that went completely unresolved that I was very disappointed when it got pulled. Pissed off, actually. I want to know who the Preacher really is (why did he get immediate medical treatment when the Feds boarded Firefly and scanned his I.D. card), what was done to the Doctor's sister and what is she becoming, and just who the hell are those weird dudes with the green glowing killrods ... honestly that show could have been a money maker. Somebody somewhere just didn't want that to happen. Probably Whedon didn't sleep with the right people.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Hell Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking Whedon fanboys are almost as prolific and irritating as Gentoo zealots. Shut the fuck up, go away and find yourself something resembling a life. You sad pathetic loser.

    4. Re:Hell Yeah by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      I am totally with you there. There was a lot of JMS-ish setup for future threads, future details about the universe, etc. Nothing but unresolved. *sigh*

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    5. Re:Hell Yeah by Atroxodisse · · Score: 1

      FOX yanked it, I don't know why, but they then replaced it with possibly the worst show that has ever been on television, Fastlane. What they were thinking I don't know. If you buy the DVD there are a few more episodes that never aired plus the 2 hour pilot. Plus there is commentary which is really funny.

      --
      Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
    6. Re:Hell Yeah by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I bought the boxed set. Took a couple days off from work that week, and watched them all in a row, straight through. I guess that makes me a fan. At least I could watch them in the proper order ... never understood why Fox aired them in the wrong sequence. Sure seemed like someone was trying to sabotage it. If so it didn't work: the show turned out to be successful in spite of very obvious efforts to wreck it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  121. Give it a rest. by caldroun · · Score: 1

    They need to either give Star Trek something fresh (and I mean something better than interesting), or put it on a shelf for a while. I think that they need some new hands on this franchise. I mean Nemisis was crap. Why was that dude pissed at Picard? Because he got a bum deal in life. Hell, Picard had nothing to do with that. Look at Kahn. He had a reason to be pissed as Kirk. I think B & B need to let someone else drive if they are going forward on a new Trek.

    --
    "If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
    1. Re:Give it a rest. by Hassman · · Score: 1

      Nemisis rocked.

      At any rate, he wasn't so pissed off at Picard, as he needed Picard to live. If I had to kill someone else to live (granted some terms and conditions apply), I'd sure as hell try...

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
  122. Is Rick Moranis Availible? by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 1
    3: Big helmets!

    About time they start ripping off quality sci-fi!

  123. It isn't the 60s anymore ... by minairia · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Although I am very much a StarTrek fan, I have never understood why it is so important that every movie, episode and series mesh so well with all the others.

    We fans have to realize that when the writers generated the orginal stories back in the 1960s, they had to take into mind the current politics in the US, what advertisers wanted, what the network wanted, what budget they had, last seasons ratings, etc.

    Every subsequent installment of StarTrek has to deal with this. For example, some fans complain about the Klingon's faces changing. Back in the 60s, it was either impossible or would have cost way too much to have full face costumes that wouldn't face looked fake or stupid. Or what about that really stupid episode where Kirk and et. al. find some planet full of American Indians who worship the US flag or something? I think we'd all agree that one ought to be dropped out of the story arc.

    Another thing is StarFleet itself. The 60s show had a mostly all white, crew-cut, "Right Stuff", NASA with bigger ships ethic. Women went around in mini-skirts bringing coffee. No problem with the miniskirts for me ... However, a show or movie with that kind of environment just wouldn't make it in these PC times. Half of the potential audience would be offended by it and advertisers would definitely keep well away.

    I'm not sure why people hate Enterprise so much. To me, it seems reasonably "realistic" as to how things would be on a small ship like that in close quarters months at a time. People argue, have fights, boink a lot, things don't work right, things stink, people make bad decisions, etc. It isn't a perfect show, of course, because, again, it has to conform to ratings, what is "PC" at the time, etc. (There's still the problem of how everyone in the entire universe happens to speak perfect English all the time ... but all SF shows have that problem, especially StarGate. But that's a different rant ... and an unavoidable problem without out making actors playing aliens have to emit nonsense phrases with sub-titles, which would be like watching some obscure East European art film or something.)

    I view StarTrek as less of set series of stories than a generally close, but not always connected series of tales. In the future, with better, cheaper effects it might be possible to take the old StarTrek episodes, run them though a PC and make them look like they have whatever the latest in effects can do and maybe even adjust the plots to create a more unified set of stories.

    1. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you are a jackass.

      You're right about one thing though, it's not the sixties anymore, so lay off the reefer.

    2. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by azuretek · · Score: 1

      "There's still the problem of how everyone in the entire universe happens to speak perfect English all the time ... but all SF shows have that problem, especially StarGate"

      maybe you didn't realise that all the places they visit are already connected, the languages they speak are english or latin base (latin type/old stuff). It makes sense that mostly everyone should speak english, but there are those that dont speak english and there are indeed other languages spoken.

      anyway, I agree language is a big issue they gota deal with and making everyone speak the same language works.

      oh yea, also I hate enterprise because it's a horrible show. The acting is horrible, and it has too much drama (human drama, not space fight type drama)

    3. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with the "Great Klingon Makeover", but I would like an "explaination" for it. Especially after that ROTFL comment Worf made in DS9's "Trouble with Tribbles" crossover. "We don't discuss it".

      As for everyone speaking English, isn't that what Universal Translators are for?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      (There's still the problem of how everyone in the entire universe happens to speak perfect English all the time ... but all SF shows have that problem, especially StarGate.

      Apparently you didn't watch closely enough. They did justify it (although not well) in that they all carry pocket translators. There was the episode where the Captain's unit malfunctioned and you heard an alien female speaking gibberish. So at least they paid lip service to the problem but didn't really solve it in a satisfactory way.

      Even Doctor Who's authors rationalized it: the Time Lords have a natural knack for languages, and being partially telepathic the Doctor can allow anyone with him to benefit from the ability (as Tom Baker put it, "A Time Lord gift that I allow you to share.") Presumably that applied to the television audience as well, although it never was explained why every alien race the Doctor encountered happened to speak with an English accent.

      Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy used a more organic approach: the tiny little "Babelfish" that one would stick in one's ear and which would provide real-time translations. Kind of icky but once they got past all the main characters having Babelfish in their heads the plot issues went away.

      But yeah, Stargate has a problem with that. Obviously we have no equipment capable of providing instantaneous real-time translations of an arbitrary, unknown alien language. However, they should have early on in the series had SG-1 find a piece of Ancient technology that embeds an langauge processor in everyone's brain so that they can understand everyone they meet. Of course, they wouldn't really need Daniel Jackson so much then, would they.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another thing is StarFleet itself. The 60s show had a mostly all white, crew-cut, "Right Stuff", NASA with bigger ships ethic. Women went around in mini-skirts bringing coffee.

      TOS was one of the first TV shows with a multiracial cast playing international characters. One of the more important characters, Uhura, was a black woman, while Sulu was Asian. Martin Luther King himself told Nichelle Nichols, the actress who played Uhura, how important her presence on the show was to the civil rights movement. For its day, TOS was pioneering. And Roddenberry's original idea (which was rejected by NBC) was to have the First Officer be an emotionless woman played by Majel Barrett. This character was later merged into Spock.

      and an unavoidable problem without out making actors playing aliens have to emit nonsense phrases with sub-titles

      That's what the Klingons in Star Trek do. Except they went an invented an actual Klingon language later on. It was just the first movie where they used made-up phrases.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      Don't forget Farscape, and the translator microbes hanging out around your brainstem, partying hard and translating alien speech for you!

      There's an episode where Crichton gets tested by the wormhole aliens, with a mockup of Earth. John and the rest are speaking the same tongue... switch to a shot outside the cage, and everyone is speaking their own language, and Crichton looking like a looney, responding.

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    7. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right ... how could I forget Farscape. And that was a funny scene, but then again Crichton pretty much always looked like a looney. But at least they went the extra mile to show that all aliens don't speak English.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by flynns · · Score: 1

      ...you got something against obscure Eastern European art films? HUH? DO YA?!

      Cause if you do, I'll have to [comment truncated]

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    9. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      It makes sense that mostly everyone should speak english

      Err, no.

      For starters the gate on earth was burried for a few thousand years. They didn't even have ye olde english, much less middle english. Secondly, the cultures they meet run from indian to mongolian to aztec to bablonian, to whatever. None of whom would be speaking any sort of english or even latin derivative.

      Magically having pretty much everyone speak the same language certianly makes it easier to write stories, but it *is* a huge logical hole. The few times SG1 or Trek do deal with language issues it generally makes things worse by shining a spotlight on the fact that they are botching the language thing. How about in Enterprise when you see the Xindi council? Everyone speaks english except the aquatics and insectoids. Erk? And when they deal with the 'universal translator' same problem. You can hide unnoticed amongst an alien language, but the moment the translator fails suddenly they can see your are lips moving wrong? Erk?

      It's one of those areas where suspention of disbelief works better when you just sweep the whole damn problem under the rug. Dealing with it badly is worse than simply ignoring it.

      I must admit one beautiful case of Trek dealing with a problem. The TOS Klingons look like humans, yet TNG klingons are typical aliens. They asked Warf about it and Warf said they don't like to talk about it. It was hysterical, and it was played beautifully in-character for Warf. There was a problem and they cleanly swept it under the rug without making an even bigger mess of the problem.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting comments since the original series was praised for giving important ship roles to women and minorities.

      While it is true there are some problems making the all the series work with the original (TOS), there are problems with ignoring it completely as well. Enterprise seems to ignore continuity with all the other series. Alot of times that is minor, but other times it doesn't make sense. Would be if on the Lord of the Rings, a bunch of F15s showed up to help in the final battle. Just wouldn't make sense.

      Enterprise's problems are, among others, too much reliance on time travel (a problem first introduced in Voyager by Bergman and company) and ignoring everything that should come later.

      Some wonderful stories about how the Federation could have been done with crew conflicts and without ignoring the future of the ST universe, but it appears Bergman could not care less about any of that stuff.

    11. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      Stargate SG-1 also made a small joke out of the whole thing. In the first non-pilot episode they meet a bunch of people and Daniel Jackson has to figure out what they're speaking and translate, but obviously this couldn't work every episode, so in the next episode after that they meet some people who just speak English with an unusual accent, and they all say "You speak English?!" and shrug ... and that was the last time it was ever mentioned.

      As you say, it's all about suspension of disbelief. For these sci-fi stories to work, there must be an underlying "science" which we just accept without explanation. An example from Star Trek is the transporter technology. From this one unexplained technology which we must accept, a framework of other technologies can be built such as replicators and holodecks. What separates a good sci-fi (not hard Science Fiction, mind) show from a bad sci-fi show, in my opinion, is the ability to be creative within the confines of the basic premises of science we are introduced to, rather than just making up random gibberish as a get-out for a storyline which had no ending. The bad Trek episodes for me are the ones where they essentially punch a big "FIXME" button and the story ends.

      The "universal translator" technology is another one of these, and by having it not work as we expect in some cases they destroy its role as a fundamental idea. It's even worse in Enterprise as they try to essentially "invent" it as part of the show, when there really is no explanation for how it can work.

    12. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by Bendebecker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or what about that really stupid episode where Kirk and et. al. find some planet full of American Indians who worship the US flag or something? I think we'd all agree that one ought to be dropped out of the story arc.

      I don't. The episode you are speaking of is The Omega Glory and is not about indians whorshipping a flag. In the story, one of the federation's captains had beamed down to a planet where the people live hundreds of years. Those who beamed back had died along with carrying the infection with them to the rest of the crew who also died. The Enterpirse arrives and Kirk beams down to investigate before he is made aware of this though. The orginal people it turned out had been like 20th century Earth but had wiped themselves out with a nuclear war. In the end he finds the natives long life was natural and hence the search for the fountain of youth was useless. The show was meant to show three things. The first was the communists in the end would be destroyed completely. The second was that the ideals of liberty and justice would never die, not even after a nuclear war, they were eternal values. The third was that the search for eternal youth to escape the inevitability of death was ultimately always futile.

      If your analysis is the closest you have payed attention to the series then no wonder you don't seem to like it. Maybe if we include a super shallow plot and pad it with special effects, like the current Enterprise series, it might hold your attention long enough for you to like it. The series of those times wasn't the piece of shit dramas people watch now where we are stuck with flat storylines that are just about characters, instead each episode had its points. It was very much like Gunsmoke and the Twilight Zone. Ultimately, it wasn't the characters that were important, it was the stories. This is the main reason why Enterprise is so bad. The series is just about the characters, not the stories.

      We fans have to realize that when the writers generated the orginal stories back in the 1960s, they had to take into mind the current politics in the US, what advertisers wanted, what the network wanted, what budget they had, last seasons ratings, etc.

      When the orginal series writers generated stories, it was to show us something. I haven't seen squat from Enterprise. A lot of the orginal series were timeless tales that are still relevant. That is what you need to realize. Its liek the Twilight Zone. Just because its fifty years old doesn't mean it doesn't have lessons to teach us and things to say that are relevant. Just because Shakespeare wrote in the 1600's, doesn't make his work less relevant. It wasn't the characters that made Star Trek good. It wasn't the special effects. It wasn't the acting. It was the stories. They had a point and what's more they were well written. Enterprise isn't. And until they realize this, there show will go nowhere with the real fans of Star Trek. If you want to watch characters instead of stories go watch a soap opera, leave Star Trek as it was.

      But even in B&B's lame attempts at subsituting characters and soap operas for real stories, they have failed. This continuity garbage is crap to cover up the fact they didn't do their homework.

      In the future, with better, cheaper effects it might be possible to take the old StarTrek episodes, run them though a PC and make them look like they have whatever the latest in effects can do and maybe even adjust the plots to create a more unified set of stories.

      The ultimate proof that you don't understand Star Trek at all. But look on the upside, maybe Berman and Bragga will now hire you to write for them.

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    13. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Hardly a solution, unless this pocket translator has a brain interface that forces the captain to speak the alien language. Which is a whole new set of problems. For instance, the order of grammar can be starkly different, or the lack of substitutes for earth specific phenomena. That very episode, the captain talks about his dog... but is it for certain this civilization ever domesticated animals at all? By no means a requirement, I'd think. What did he really say to her, if that was the case, did it force his tongue to talk about some hobby of his. Any extended conversation could become convoluted quite quickly.

      Or idea/concept ordering. He wants to talk about something right now, but their brains revolve around extended context... people just don't blurt things out (unless they are madmen).

      Language doesn't have to be such a problem, B5 did it well enough.

    14. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by dafoomie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you watched one entire episode from the original series?

      We fans have to realize that when the writers generated the orginal stories back in the 1960s, they had to take into mind the current politics in the US, what advertisers wanted, what the network wanted, what budget they had, last seasons ratings, etc

      The writers wanted to be controversial, to have stories that tied into the issues of the day, and to be exciting and entertaining. The network worried about that other stuff.

      Or what about that really stupid episode where Kirk and et. al. find some planet full of American Indians who worship the US flag or something? I think we'd all agree that one ought to be dropped out of the story arc.

      That was a really good episode, if you'd sit down and watch it. Sure, having the American flag appear somewhere else seems a little far-fetched, but put that aside and watch the rest of it. Another poster had a pretty good synopsis of it.

      Another thing is StarFleet itself. The 60s show had a mostly all white, crew-cut, "Right Stuff", NASA with bigger ships ethic.

      Lets see... A black woman (Uhura), an Asian (Sulu), a Russian (Chekov), a fat scottish guy (Scotty), an Alien (Spock). Kirk and McCoy were the only two white American males of the main characters. In the pilot, the first officer was a woman. But the network demanded that it be changed. Having a black woman and a Russian were highly controversial, and Star Trek had the first interracial kiss on TV. Half of the potential audience at the time was offended by these things, thats part of what made the show great. I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong on that point.

    15. Re:It isn't the 60s anymore ... by mikeswi · · Score: 1

      I believe he meant the episode where they find a planet populated with Native Americans who were transplanted by an alien race during our 19th or 20th century.

  124. sneaky by a1englishman · · Score: 1

    Maybe the Romulans are increadibly sneakie.

    Camera pans accross the bridge of the Romulan ship: There's nothing but shrubberies sitting in planters. Each time we return to the image of the bridge, the planters are in different spots.

    Ah, but we know where the Romulans are hiding: One planter blows up, killing the first Romulan. Then another, and another, and soon the Federation has thwarted their evil nemisis.

    Appologies to Monty Python.

  125. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the first interesting/funny post I have seen in this whole discussion.

  126. What is this continuity thing you speak of? by person-0.9a · · Score: 3, Funny

    > So how will they make this fit with the Classic
    > Trek episode Balance of Terror,...

    The answer is: "It won't fit."

    We're talking about Berman and Braga, who appear to believe that:

    a) classic episodes are best ignored,
    b) continuity is an annoyance,
    c) suspension of disbelief is the responsibility of the viewer, not the creative staff.

    1. Re:What is this continuity thing you speak of? by xTown · · Score: 1

      That's not funny; it's true. Berman hates Star Trek, and has made no secret of it.

    2. Re:What is this continuity thing you speak of? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Why would continuity be jeopardized? The episode said that all communications took place over subspace radio, vox only. Fine. Doesn't mean the audience can't see them.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:What is this continuity thing you speak of? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Its true.

      I find myself less and less willing to watch after the few times time lines have been broken in Enterprise, where the crew should have no longer had any knowlege of the other time line.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  127. The title is perfect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..for the usual porn spoof:

    Boob Trek XI: Romulan Whores

  128. Berman's anti-gay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if we'll see a homosexual character in this Star Trek movie. There's a whole bunch of articles written about the issue of homosexuality being totally absent from the ideal future that is Star Trek, and the implications Berman makes when he says so. (Rodenberry said something along the lines of how he really wanted a gay ST character at some point, so I assume he isn't to blame for the total absence of anything non-heterosexual in the recent ST movies.) More information is available here.

  129. My boyfriend's a pilot by sjohnson · · Score: 1

    I don't know why people have so much trouble with inconsistencies in their huge fictional universes. I mean, look at Robotech. Half of the episodes of Robotech weren't even from the same series. Actually, they didn't even take place on the same planet. And RoboTech is, umm, a great, uhh, dynamo of science fiction. So there you go.

    Anyway. Romulans. Feh.

    --
    "Only great masters of style can succeed in being obtuse. " --Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:My boyfriend's a pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Why can't we all just sit back and bask in the glory of a new st movie, I know I will.

    2. Re:My boyfriend's a pilot by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Robotech, taken by itself, is a wonderful merging of three completely separate series. Yes, there were problems, but it was a good effort. Yes, they could have left Macross as was and it would have done much better, but they needed a larger episode count.

      And the novels, which were free to diverge from the animations ever so slightly, are a fine set of fiction. Makes more sense than the series itself.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  130. Balanace of Terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, one of my favorite episodes. Nice contrasts between the interrupted wedding and the cost of war to prevent war. I give it two thumbs up and recommended it to all.

    Yes I saw it as a kid in the 60's and the special effects are not great compared to today, but it still works if you give it a chance.

  131. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

    "but for the love of you know who, stop complaining..."

    You love Valdemort?

  132. Re:A liberal hatchet-job by modecx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Out of context? Clearly, those words are very contextful.

    Why should he be given a chance to investigate and prepare answers? So he can come up with a bunch of horse-hockey, and avoid the question like he always does?

    Face it... He was caught with his hand down America's pants--fondling our naughty bits and all. Why should we give him the chance to say "Oh, sorry! My bad! I thought those were MY pants. And besides, I only accidentally brushed up against your package. I wouldn't know, for example, if you have an 12" penis, and balls the size of water chestnuts--for example that is, purely hypothetical. What's that? You want to smell my finger? Why, gosh-darnit? What? You say because you think I was toying with your anus? Oh, you're sure of it, are you? Well... Too bad. It's my finger. I'm the only one that can sniff it! Nahhnahhnah!" *runs away to daddy (Dick Cheny)*

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  133. Their computers better suck! by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 1

    If they really want to stay true to the series, then seeing as all the classic episodes had giant, clinking, flashy computers with absolutely no graphical interface and a button for every task to perform, and this film will be set before then, their computers are really going to have to be a hunk of junk.

    Something along the lines of this for example.

  134. Re:SAAB by Fiveeight · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think they'd all have made it. I mean, they spent half the episodes being "dead" or getting rescued at the last minute. I expect episode 2x01 would have featured Wang drifting around in a mysteriously acquired spacesuit, and I can't see Vansen or Damphousse dying in a crash.

  135. Re:SAAB by Fiveeight · · Score: 1

    Is there a decent quality version of "Tell Our Moms We Done Our Best" around? Mine came from a torrent, and for some reason #24 is a quarter the res of the (pretty good quality) others.

  136. the rules no longer apply by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

    After the travesty that was Nemesis (yet another insipid movie centered almost entirely on Picard, and then they have the gall to kill off Data?), I think one can safely say that the rules no longer apply.

    Yeah, Insurrection may have sucked (and First Contact kicked ass), but Generations was an order of magnitude better than Nemesis. At this point, the odd=sucks, even=kicks ass rule applies only to the 6 original movies.

  137. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Fizzog · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that the success of the series was dependent on the viewers liking it, and consequently it having good ratings.

    We are talking about 60's Americans. ie. your parents.

    All of you out there take a good look at your parents. Then you might understand why it got cancelled after only 3 seasons...

  138. What about "Star Trek XII: So Very Tired"? by gphinch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sulu: Captain, the Klingons are decloaking

    Kirk: (smacks forhead) Again with the Klingons? Full power Mr. Scott!

    Scotty: (feebly attempts to reach the controls but his belly prevents him) I just can't do it captain, I cannot reach the buttons!

    --
    in bed.
    1. Re:What about "Star Trek XII: So Very Tired"? by rpbailey1642 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Scotty would not remember how to work the controls, anyways. Tasteless, I know.

  139. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by julesh · · Score: 1

    Time Travel is thought of as the worst plot device you can play with.

    No, time travel is a _brilliant_ plot device. But, like distilled essence of scotch-bonnet chillies, it must be used with extreme caution. Star trek has neglected this, with results sometimes amusing (the fourth movie, for example, or the DS9 episode set during The Trouble With Tribbles) but more frequently dire (too numerous to list).

  140. Nice, but one addendum/suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On #10 - I agree with it in that the bullshit soap opera stuff needs to go (or at least be *seriously* toned down). But then again, some of the TNG episodes were wonderfully substantive in ways that did not require action. You know, they actually asked interesting questions, they were almost legitimately philosophical, that sort of thing. It'd be nice to bring that back too. Of course have action as well, but nothing but action would be just as boring as no action.

  141. Re:SAAB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're really worried about it, buy the DVDs. "HOO-RAH!"

  142. I am not a human by WilyKit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because no human in the Star Trek world saw the face of a Romulan during the whole length of the war, does not mean that we in the audience can't see the face of a Romulan during the whole length of the movie. I think they call that "Dramatic Irony".

  143. They won't by xihr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That's easy -- they won't try to make it consistent. This is Star Trek remember -- why would anyone be under the mistaken impression that they would even make a token attempt at consistency?

  144. Re:SAAB by zors · · Score: 1

    are there any DVDs? I haven't been able to find any.

  145. um... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You're worrying about consistancy from a story that has an intergalactic starship called (United States Ship) Enterprise?

  146. Star Trek not consistent by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    They might not worry about making it fit in with that episode.

    Remember the warp 10 = infinite speed episode (New Star Trek) (the one with Lt. Paris becoming a reptile) and the over warp 10 lets you travel back in time (Old Star Trek) episode where they slingshotted past the Sun?

    Now remember the Old Start Trek episode where the warp engines go runaway and they hit warp 14 and they manage to shut it down before it explodes? And they were merely going really fast and there weren't any temporal effects?

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:Star Trek not consistent by serial_crusher · · Score: 0
      Didn't they always say "Warp factor X" back in the days, now they just say "Warp X." Maybe there's a difference?

      Either way, the Klingons destroyed every shred of continuity. Either that or there's a hell of a story behind it!

  147. Actually.... by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    There really is charged armor now. As Im sure many of you have read about, the DOD as well as the Brits have developed a new type of armor for our tanks that basically acts a huge cap. Once the shell hits the side and goes throught the first part it shorts out the two side and is vaporized. So its really not that far out there when you consider we already use it now.
    Oh, and it does "wear away"

    1. Re:Actually.... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Basically, it's a fancy ablative armor. Like "Reactive Armor" on US tanks. The trick is that you can't just recharge it and say "Hull plating is back up to 75%". That crap just steams my bacon.

    2. Re:Actually.... by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      sure you can. that particuler part will no longer be effective, but you can recharge the overall system. Im just saying its not that far out there. Think about things that we have now. Shape memory alloys. dupont is even making plastics that can repair them selves. We all know that there have been major advances in conductive plastics, so who is to say that using that plus a reactive armor type system would not yield this effect? Once it gets blasted the plastic repairs itself. then the thing recharges. And yes I know that the plastic can only repair itself a few times, but thats not the point now is it?

    3. Re:Actually.... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The armor your refering to isn't electrical, Basically how it works is you put, compression explosives on the outside of the tank. An incoming shell hits the "armor" and explodes. to repair, you hang a new piece of explosive.

      The trick is your explosive is desgined to fire away from your tank, Thus protecting the occupents.

      The counter for this armor, is a two stage shell, that flies off in mid shell flight, but infront of the shell(think lance ) The early small shell sets off the charge early, letting the large shell to punch on through.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the counter-counter is obvious again... But when does the missile and/or tank get too heavy?

    5. Re:Actually.... by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      No that is not what I am refering to. I was watching it on the science channel. Like I said, there are different layers. When the copper from the shell goes through it completes the circuit and vaporizes the copper before it can do anything. I know what you are talking about however and it is not the same thing i am talking about. Ill see if I can find the link and post it for you to read.

    6. Re:Actually.... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      sure you can. that particuler part will no longer be effective, but you can recharge the overall system.

      I looked over some of the links you provided. As I said, it's still ablative armor. The primary difference is that it's designed to make certain anti-tank weapons less effective. You'll note that they didn't discuss other forms of anti-tank weapons such as DU rounds. A DU round would pass through this barrier like a hot knife through butter.

      The batteries can drain and be recharged, but that does not change the effectiveness of the system. It's either providing enough energy or it's not. Thus its usage is somewhat different from the "hull plating" of Enterprise. Even if Enterprise were to use something like this, there terminology should be chaging to match. Instead of "hull plating is down to XYZ%", they should be saying that "Plating has been ablated by X% in Y area. Capacitors/Batteries are at Z% charge."

      Not only would this be more realistic, but it would provide more plot elements for writers to latch onto. Instead they persist in this concept of "invulnerable forcefields" when they're simply not.

    7. Re:Actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was covered here on Slashdot within the past few weeks (maybe as early as May or June 2004).

    8. Re:Actually.... by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      Yes, A DU round would indeed pass right through it. My point is not that we have the exact same thing right now, i am saying that we are at a starting point and if you think about the timeline is is not that insane to think in the future this technology would have advanced much.

  148. Re:SAAB by MachDelta · · Score: 1

    Vansen and Damphousse I can see surviving... but I don't know how Wang could have possibly survived that crash. He was in his flight suit when we last saw him, and he's still at the gun when the fighter crashes into him... he woulda barely had time to cross himself, much less suit up. And from all we know about those flying crates, they've never appeared to be compartmentalized. So having a chig crash into one and rip it in half doesn't seem like anyone inside would have a very good chance of surviving. Even Morgen and Wong said, IIRC, that "Wang is 99.9% dead".

    But hell, could you imagine a SAAB reunion these days? Everyone is a decade older and all grown up. I don't think the cast could possibly have their same youthful innocence as before. They were, what, mid to late 20's in SAAB? And how old is Rodney Rowland now? 40 or something? Kristen looks great for a 36 year old, but would she have the same fire as a 25 year old Shane Vansen? And how would Morgan work out? He always had the boyish charm on the show, but he's an early-30's adult now. And they were the young kids of the show to boot. The old men are pushing 50 (TC/James Morrison) and 60 (Ross/Tucker Smallwood) respectively!

    Perhaps some things are better left dead.
    (Or at least a new spinoff with another squadron and a new cast! Kidding, kidding. ;))

  149. How will they make it fit? by Snaller · · Score: 2, Funny

    Short answer: They won't.

    Its Berman after all.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  150. The answer, my friends, is very simple by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    at that peroid of time, Romulans wore combat armor with helmets that covered their faces. The faceplates were one way mirrors with the mirrors being on the outside. This was done to terrorize the Federation of Planets for fear of not knowing what the enemy looked like. Think of their grunt troops to be more like Storm Troopers or Clone Warriors from Star Wars. ;)

    Hey did I win a No-Prize or what?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:The answer, my friends, is very simple by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      at that peroid of time, Romulans wore combat armor with helmets that covered their faces

      I would believe that for in the TOS history line, most Romulan grunt troops wore helmets because they had a problem with their ears falling off.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  151. in the bilblical sence by Phantom_of_the_Opera · · Score: 2, Funny

    They mean, seen in the biblical sense!

  152. Reality Therapy by General_Tso · · Score: 1

    I thought that was a great idea, too, until you brought in the Star Trek: 911 garbage. That comment was so stupid I'm going to volunteer for the Bush campaign in your name.

  153. A quote from STVI by michaelmalak · · Score: 1
    A quote from STVI seems applicable to the idea of STXI:

    Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing.

  154. Obligatory Galaxy Quest Quote: by b0r0din · · Score: 1

    GWEN: What is this thing? I mean, it serves no useful purpose for there to be a bunch of chompy, crushy things in the middle of a hallway!

    GWEN: We shouldn't have to do this. It makes no logical sense! Why is it here!

    JASON: Because it's on the television show.

    GWEN: Well, forget it! I am not doing it! This episode was badly written. ...
    GWEN: Whoever wrote this episode should die.

  155. Re:SAAB by Fiveeight · · Score: 1

    No legal ones. There are some bootlegs around, but they're supposed to be from VHS tapes, so I don't know what the quality's like.

  156. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole point of the series is that the timeline was changed, thus altering the continuity. Most episodes make a reference to this, but there are still some thick people out there that keep missing that. One of ST's most popular movies touched this off, yet a gaggle of people keep missing it and whining about continuity.

    "See, whenever you notice something wrong like that, we just like to say 'a wizard did it!'"

    Time travel and magic, both best friends to the hack who needs a quick answer to sloppy writing.

  157. Trek sux by wickedsteve · · Score: 1

    I am so tired and bored by trek I am ashamed to admit there was a time I enjoyed it. I could care less about anything Trek since TNG, which was not too bad. But it still can not hold a candle to Babylon 5. It is past time to face the facts, Trek is tired and needs to die before it gets any worse. TOS is dated and silly. TNG is cliche and unrealistic. Everything after would require words to describe that do not belong in civil conversation. There is a lot of SciFi available that is better than Trek. If you need a scifi fix there are shows with stupid muppets that do it better.

    1. Re:Trek sux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need a scifi fix there are shows with stupid muppets that do it better.
      Hey! Don't badmouth MST3K!!

  158. Talking out of my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If humans never saw a Romulan face during the war, then perhaps they spent the whole war mooning the pre-Federation humans. Everytime there is visual communication the Romulan capitan would press the cheeks against the camera and it would drive the human capitan mad.

    I think Jim Carrey should play the leader of the Romulans. He did the Romulan haircut in "Dumb and Dumber" and his ass made cameo appearances in both Ace Ventura pictures.

    1. Re:Talking out of my ... by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      The Romulan War (before B&B get their hands on it) was mostly fought in space, or by starships bombarding colonies from orbit with nukes.

      There was no visual communications then. IIRC, there wasn't even subspace radio (IE: warp-speed communications), or a universal translator.

      So everything was done, effectively, on ham radios. Neither side saw the other.

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
  159. Soon to be followed by by sharkey · · Score: 1

    "Star Trek XII: So Very Tired"

    See the original cast in their latest, greatest adventure yet!

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  160. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Fittysix · · Score: 1

    Personally, i don't see why everyone gets so worried about continuity.
    These guys can't even make an original story with the trek name anymore without someone bitching an complaining about what's wrong with it, and not even bothering with how good/bad the story is.

    If this were some new movie that happened to have the same storyline as this war than people would be complaining that it's too similar.

    --
    *.sig
  161. Re: rerman, future, past, and stealing ideas by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 1
    if the film is set pre-OS, just WTF will be in it?

    There was plenty of software before Open Source. I don't think they'll have a shortage of things to put in it.

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
  162. answer: propaganda by Surt · · Score: 1

    Of course some people actually saw romulans. But the federation buried them in debriefing centers and claimed that no one had ever seen the 'secretive' (and hence evil) romulans as part of their smear campaign against the enemy.

    The romulans were really some nice people before the federation launched their unprovoked attacks and destroyed much of their culture.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  163. Re:SAAB by Fiveeight · · Score: 1

    Hey, the air in SAAB was always wierd. Don't tell me that a series where people can survive on airless rocks wearing flightsuits and O2 helmets, where airlocks cycle instantly without pressure losses in the cabin, where toxic atmospheres don't contaminate the cabin... Don't tell me that series couldn't have Wang getting into the airlock and sealing himself in before the whole thing blew.

  164. Speaking English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not all speaking English... they're all using the "Universal Translator". I'm much more bothered by the Star Trek concept that species that evolved independently on different planets not only want to have sex with each other, but can always interbreed! ICK! I prefer to not date outside my species, thank you very much!

  165. A Fan, but by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    The Star Trek franchise : movies, spinoffs etc has been beaten to death.

    I was, I am, a fan, but I enough is enough.

    Unless the critics **RAVE** about this film I think I will wait for it to come out on DVD.

    Steve

    1. Re:A Fan, but by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      Sequel.. movie.. rave.. agh.. matrix flashback.. noooo...

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    2. Re:A Fan, but by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      The Matrix had two sequels. The first one was mostly alright and would have been redeemed as completely alright if the second sequel wasn't such a bomb.

  166. That's not why it failed by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    3) mostly failed in the box-office because Cameron had done such a good job of transforming the series into a testosterone-fest that anything less was going to be a dissapointment.

    Oh, come now. That's not why Alien Resurrection failed. First off, I'd hardly call Aliens a "testosterone-fest" considering the main character is a woman. Second, Alien Resurrection was a failed premise from the start. Cloning Ripley? Give me a break. Evil scientists, yet again, studying the aliens scientifically, and of course, they break loose. And you have the ragtag "tough" group of random ship crewmates who just happen to be there in order to get lost in a massive ship made up of the same corridors over and over again when the aliens get loose. This is the best premise he could come up with? And, of course, another surprise droid! Hooray.

    Originally, Ripley was supposed to get raped by an alien. Thankfully, they changed that ending, though having the queen give birth to a stupid-looking creature wasn't much better.

    Alien is an almost completely perfect and gorgeous horror sci-fi film. Aliens is an almost completely perfect and gorgeous action sci-fi film. Alien Resurrection is a cash-in crapfest that should never have been kicked around to start with. At least Alien 3, as grimy as it was, didn't try to devolve into camp, and had Fischer gone into it with an actual finish script (they literally didn't have a finished script when filming started), it would have turned out much better. Alien Resurrection's entire premise is a laughable and poorly-done retread, and even Whedon's normally snappy one-liners are pure shit. "I'm the monster's mother." Ripley is turned into a big joke.

    P.S. I should say, I never, ever got the appeal of the Buffy TV show either, but, hey, different strokes.

    1. Re:That's not why it failed by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > I'd hardly call Aliens a "testosterone-fest" considering the
      > main character is a woman.

      Well, you have to admit, she *IS* rather mannish.

      (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

      cya,
      john

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    2. Re:That's not why it failed by ajs · · Score: 1

      I'd hardly call Aliens a "testosterone-fest" considering the main character is a woman

      I think you're mis-understanding what I mean.... The influence that Cameron brought to the film (and I respect him for this) was to move it away from the tension-filled haunted house idea and into more of a military firefight genre. If you replace Ripley with Jack Ryan and the Aliens with Terrorists, you could easily see that movie as a Tom Clancy-based movie set somehwere in Africa.

      The fact that Ripley was a woman has no bearing on how "testosterone laden" the movie is... it was pure Cameron, and Ripley was really not that different from Sarah Connor or even (if you think in terms of the years that are mentioned, but not shown) Rose in Titanic. Cameron loves strong female leads, so he puts them in situations that bring that out... usually involving nuclear weapons in some way ;-)

      I love Aliens AND Alien, but what Aliens did to Alien in terms of setting expectations, did not allow for a sequel of the type that Joss wrote... then again I don't know what that would have been like, since much of the script was tossed and the direction on the film wasn't exactly show-casing the story.

      Second, Alien Resurrection was a failed premise from the start. Cloning Ripley? Give me a break.

      Personally I was pleased with that part. Most of the reason behind it made sense (at least in so far as the first two movies did), and I enjoyed the way she reacted to that information as she learned, little-by-little, what was going on.

      Originally, Ripley was supposed to get raped by an alien.

      That was hardly a new concept... look at the first movie and think about the end (in the restored version) with the captain strapped to the wall begging for Ripley to kill him... I think that's as close as they could come to the idea at the time, and it still had to be cut for the ratings.

      You don't like the movie. That's cool, you're not required to. I thought it was passable, but had serious warts. I'm not willing to ascribe those to Joss Whedon, though, after seeing his work elsewhere where he WASN'T being heavily edited. Buffy and early Angel were well written and while he's no Aaron Sorkin, he's good.

      I should say, I never, ever got the appeal of the Buffy TV show either, but, hey, different strokes.

      Indeed. Though in the case of Buffy, I'd suggest going back and looking at the first two seasons with a mind toward what high school was like... the core idea behind the show was showing you a bunch of scary monsters and showing you high school... and noting that high school was worse. It was a good vehicle for some great dark comedy, IMHO.

      It was also the primary reason that the show started to become less interesting in seasons 6 and 7 (a couple of really good episodes aside); they had left high school, and eventually college, so now it was just about the monsters more than the main characters'. Attempts to develop the characters in the "real world" were just not going to work, and thankfully both SMG and Joss realized that and mutually agreed to end on the 7th season.

  167. P.S. by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit confused how Alien Resurrection wasn't his story considering his own words on the subject, as quoted here: http://visceralflux.net/alien/aprod.html

    Seems pretty proud of his script to me. Again, I don't get the appeal of this guy. Buffy the TV show seemed way too silly and goofy for my tastes.

  168. Enterprise already blew it. by rspress · · Score: 1

    On the Enterprise TV series they have already meet and SAW the romulans after the enterprise was attacked by a cloaked romulan mine.

    Of course this could be from all the other star trek episodes going back to earths past and dicking around with the time line. Even on the enterprise series the vulcans visited earth in the 1960's, they went back to 2003 to stop the zendi bio weapon and on the cliff hanger we have archer in Nazi Germany.

  169. Knocked the props out from under... by devphil · · Score: 1


    ...my suspension of disbelief.

    I loved the episode too, except for that minor bit where the crew is whispering so that the Romulan ship won't hear them. You know, across kilometers of hard vaccuum.

    Then Spock drops a wrench onto the deck of the submarine^Wbridge, and Romulans all over their ship -- in the corridors, etc -- are all turning their heads, like, what's that clanging sound?

    Once I stopped laughing, I also appreciated how the episode took on issues of racism head-on.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    1. Re:Knocked the props out from under... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Didn't Kirk at one point say, "Rig for silent running", or words to that effect? Still, given that most viewers are completely unbothered by whooshing noises when spacecraft fly by it's not surprising that this would be as easily accepted.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Knocked the props out from under... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Then Spock drops a wrench onto the deck of the submarine^Wbridge, and Romulans all over their ship -- in the corridors, etc -- are all turning their heads, like, what's that clanging sound?

      If you'd bothered to watch during that episode, you'd have seen Spock's hand come up from below the bridge communications console and accidentally hit a button, sending a (quickly silenced) comm signal that was detected by the other ship.

      I suspect the "silent running" was both a tribute line and a reference to shutting down unnecessary electronics that would literally broadcast your position to a listening enemy.

    3. Re:Knocked the props out from under... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were they talking in low voices? I don't recall that at all. I do recall them not saying much, but I doubt that's for anything quite so silly as you're suggesting - it's for dramatic impact, and somewhat, for realism. Their lives are hanging in the balance, and there's nothing for them to do but wait. What would you expect disciplined officers to do on their vessel - burst into a song and dance routine? Play twister?

  170. I'm conflicted over this... by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

    It was a mistake going with the prequel-ish theme for Enterprise, but at least this film will document events that we know actually happened, so I have some hope in it :)

    --
    Do you see what I did there?
  171. There IS a pre-quel novel that covers this by LineGrunt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But for the life of me I can't remember the name/author...

    The general premise is that an earlier prototype of the Constitution class is on a maiden voyage (or something) and encounters the Romulans.

    Some of the book IS from the Romulan standpoint. There is a mutiney on the Romulan ship and the Romulan captain (who is the honorable elder statesman-type) defects. The Romulan (evil) second in command presses an attack on the Federation ship.

    The Federation captain learns from the Romulan captain that the Romulans have broken ALL of the Federation codes, so the Federation captain uses a ruse... PRETENDING that the Federation has invented a cloaking device and that there are other cloaked ships waiting for a general attack.

    The visible ship (our heros) has a "cloaking unit that has failed" and radios home in "theoretically unbreakable" code (that they know that the Romulans will intercept) that they (our heros) have compromised the general attack and to call it off.

    The Romulans KNOWING that there are additional Federation ships about (after all it came across in high priority code) break off their attack on our heros.

    So at the end of the book the Federation undergoes a crash program to improve their codes, while the Romulans break their balls trying to discover the "cloaking device" because "obviously the Federation can do it, why can't we..."

    It was a REALLY good read. Too bad I can't remember the title...

    Help? Older slashdotters?

    Line Grunt.

    1. Re:There IS a pre-quel novel that covers this by LineGrunt · · Score: 3, Informative

      There it is "Final Frontier" by Diane Carey.

      Used copy ordered. (Such a geek!)

  172. Take a cue from 24 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could have a really amazing Star Trek series if it followed the model of that show 24. You could have an entire season take up one day and follow a lot of characters with depth. It would also allow for the show to cover a single major event and give a strong story arc besides the usual, "Space... we are on a ship... we have encounters and lots of crazy random crap happens... but we stay the same, on our ship, in space." I thought that the Xindi weapon arc of Enterprise was really the best thing about the show and saved it from me never watching it. With a show in this format the viewer could follow many simultaneous events throughout the "Alpha Quadrant" and it could be really good. Plus the two part finale would be insane. My 2 cents.

  173. Cut to the Chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and just make a movie with the women of Star Trek.
    I doesn't matter who directs, produces, or films it, as long as it gets an R rating, the place will be packed....

  174. Has it ever mattered? by nedron · · Score: 1

    I don't think the producers of the Trek spinoffs have ever cared (probably haven't even seen) about Star Trek. They've changed nearly everything that was ever set up in Star Trek.

    Eg., Next Generation changed the Klingons to honorable warriors and the Romulans to skulking liars.

    Somehow, the Vulcans became nearly human in their capacity for Machiavellian behavior and Zephram Cochran became an alcoholic roustabout.

    It only got worse in subsequent series.

    -David

    --


    * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
  175. They simply do not care, and praise for "Buffy" by Nice2Cats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?

    Let me explain a little fact about the makers of Star Trek here that should be clear by now: They don't give a flying fuck about continuity, what they care about is sales. If they got the idea that the next film would sell better if it suddenly turned out that Troi was somehow Kirk's mother and actually a Klingon, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

    The problem is that the creator of Star Trek, the one person who really, really cared, is dead, and not around to defend his creation from the vultures. Contrast this with "Buffy", where JW made the mistake once of letting other people take control -- the stupid "Buffy" movie that came before the series. He learned from that. This is also why, as sad as it might be for us, it is a Good Thing (TM) that Buffy was brought to a clear, clean, and logical (if badly written) end: Whatever else happens, those original seven seaons are safe.

    And this is the way to look at Star Trek: Remember the original series, remember "Next Generation", remember "DS9" if you liked it, too -- and forget the rest. It never happened, it doesn't exist, don't let their greed spoil your memories. In fact , this is also the only way you can stand "The Matrix": Tell yourself that there was only one film, the first one. That was the whole story, don't accept anything else that came after that. As far as you are concerned, those sequels never existed.

    It's your choice.

    1. Re:They simply do not care, and praise for "Buffy" by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      If they got the idea that the next film would sell better if it suddenly turned out that Troi was somehow Kirk's mother and actually a Klingon, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

      It looks like Berman likes such ideas, after all it's his desire to get William Shatner on Enterprise. This opens up the possiblity James T. Kirk is his own grandpaw.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    2. Re:They simply do not care, and praise for "Buffy" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      the best episodes of ST were written when GR no longer gave a crap about the serious.

      They keep srewing up continuity, they will loose sales.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:They simply do not care, and praise for "Buffy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Tell yourself that there was only one film, the first one. That was the whole story, don't accept anything else that came after that. As far as you are concerned, those sequels never existed.
      Eh. Sounds like doublethink t'me. ;-)
  176. Veger ending by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I didnt make it past the first season before i lost interest.. but im not suprised it had some time travel involved at the end..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  177. Language barrier by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There's still the problem of how everyone in the entire universe happens to speak perfect English all the time ... but all SF shows have that problem
    Not necessarily. Asimov's stories had a galaxy populated by humans who had long emigrated from and forgotten Earth, which is a lot more plausible than parallel evolution of species on different worlds that just so happened to take on 'humanoid' form. In an age of standardised communication it's a lot more likely that languages will hold true to a standard, like the introduction of the printing press in England standardised printed English, and the BBC (more or less) standardised spoken English.

    Cowboy Bebop is a show that has a solar system populated by humans, and it's probably the most believable one I have seen yet. There's a show that recognises that technologies that we have today (like wheels, for example) aren't necessarily going to be obsolete a few hundred years into the future. Again, there are no language problems there, at least none as complex as those that exist today on Earth. In that show, everyone speaks perfect Japanese!

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  178. Time Trek...? by Bat_Masterson · · Score: 1

    Maybe its time to move on to the really next generation of Star Trek -- Time Trek! They've already laid the groundwork for this on Voyager. It would be the way to do an American Dr. Who without really stepping on Dr. Who.

    1. Re:Time Trek...? by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      That'd actually be a neat idea. The continuing adventures of the Federation Timeship Relativity!

      Imagine the guest appearances! Abe Lincoln! Bill Gates! Stephen Hawking (again)! Kathryn Janeway! Jeff Foxworthy!

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
  179. Wait, why not build on the DS9 crew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last few seasons against the Dominion were exceptional -- better than TNG because the human side actually showed unlike TNG when we were holier-than-thou and all other species were inferior in one way or another. DS9 was darker, and that's good. The TNG crew is boring. Data II is a retard, #1 is useless without the captain, and the other crew members basically do nothing but deliver a few stupid lines here and there. Only Picard and Worf are worth watching because they're allowed to have personalities.

  180. Star trek icon by MagicDude · · Score: 1

    Is not a good time to mention yet again how /. could used a dedicated star trek icon? Star Wars has it's own icon, and it has 60% of the movies and 0% of the tv series. Not to mention that slashdot japan has a star trek icon. You know, I'm just sayin...

  181. Your a faggot too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you fucken faggot.
    in the future gayness will be cured.

    1. Re:Your a faggot too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or simply exterminated. Isn't the future great?

  182. Didn't they already mess that up? by almightyjustin · · Score: 1

    Well, I thought they had already blown continuity with "Balance of Terror" when I watched the first episode of Enterprise and saw they had visual ship-to-ship communication. I haven't seen TOS in a while but IIRC the reason they didn't see the Romulans was lack of visual communication technology (which of course seems silly given today's technology). They could try to retcon that as only being on the Romulan end I guess but given their track record with Klingons etc. I doubt they'd bother, and that wouldn't make much sense for a highly intelligent race whose technology is otherwise up-to-date.

    --

    Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.

    1. Re:Didn't they already mess that up? by neglige · · Score: 1

      ...the reason they didn't see the Romulans was lack of visual communication technology (which of course seems silly given today's technology).

      Ummmm, no, I think they were using incompatible video codecs for visual communication, and only the Federation could solve the problem by introducing a single, widely-accepted standard :)

      --
      My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
  183. Teach them Romulans to respect America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuke em!

  184. After the last movie, I can't wait by matdodgson · · Score: 1

    After the last movie, I can't wait to see this one... (NOT!!!!) Star trek movies are now trash and do not even deserve a download.

  185. This is ever-so-slightly off-topic... by OneFootIn · · Score: 1

    But it's bugged me for years. In classic Trek, the Romulan ships had a bird painted on them, hence they were called Birds of Prey. In later non-classic Treks, the Klingon ships were referred to as Birds of Prey -- of course they always looked like birds, but nobody ever called them that! What gives?

    Of course, none of this detracts from the awesomeness of both types of vessels, which made the Enterprise look like the U.S.S. Pussy-Wussy.

    1. Re:This is ever-so-slightly off-topic... by kundor · · Score: 1
      There is a big complex explanation for this, which I've forgotten, but I'll try to get the gist of it.

      In the TOS years, the klingons and romulans were allied, and klingons adopted romulan ships. But then the alliance was broken in bad blood and the two sides stopped liking eachother much. Conservative klingons are still using the same ship design, so they still have the birds of prey, but the liberal Romulans have moved on to bigger and better things, ie the warbirds.

      In reality, it was a mistake.

  186. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >We are talking about 60's Americans. ie. your parents.
    >All of you out there take a good look at your parents.

    I have indeed just taken a good look at my parents. They are still British.

  187. Somehow I doubt this is going to make a difference by Teancum · · Score: 1

    While this is an interesting idea, I have yet to see a single instance of community pressure to get the /. staff to do anything. Their main comment:

    If you don't like it, make your own site and do what you want. This is our site, so buzz off if you don't like it.

    Or something to that effect. I like /., and there are some good community-building features here, but response to the community, particularly in the message forums, is practically nil (or NULL, depending on your language).

    All that happens, at best, when you complain about it is that you lose karma. I got karma to burn, so I don't care. That is why I'm joining you in the complaing, but being very apethetic regaring if it will make any difference.

  188. No problemo! (Romulan for no problem!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We only get to see the back of their heads.

  189. Ways to hide Romulan faces... by IDigUNIX · · Score: 1

    ...ensure that all of the female Romulans have large artificial lactation glands and tight fitting crop-top uniforms. Then all of the overly macho StarFleet captians will never see anything BUT the female Romulan boobies.

    And don't forget to equip the Romulan females with the requisite anti-grav bras so that they can actually stand upright (um...erect?!).

  190. Romulan vs Klingon appearance by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

    who cares if they keep the faces of the romulans hidden from humans.

    Its not like they every truly resolved why Klingons looked so different in Kirk's time compared to later.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  191. Continuity cannot be overrated. by khasim · · Score: 1

    "Instead, the way I see it, Star Trek in its whole has provided a generalized SciFi framework, into which different authors, directors, writers, artists, etc. can provide a story."

    Pretty much. The basics of the mythology are presented and anyone can write any story in that mythology. The problems come when a BAD writer violates the mythology. "Shared world" literary attempts only work when people respect the other writers.

    "Aside from the "boldly go" kind of essense, there's a HUGE diversity there."

    Not that much, actually. They each focus on a small group of individuals that encounter incredibly dangerous (destroy the planet) situations yet they always win and (with one notable exception) none of them every die.

    "And frankly, as long as any one story is enjoyable, I don't really mind if there's some non-canonical bits therein."

    But when those bits become so large that they change the history, then there is a problem.

    "But for run-of-the-mill stories, I'm more interested in how they handle the character development, coupled with the staple of SciFi - which is, in my opinion, how humans handle advanced technology and its effects (including the effect of encountering other species)."

    And THAT is the problem. Without the continuity, there isn't any development. New inventions are featured one week and forgotten the next. Even when they would have changed the entire mythology.

    "So as far as I'm concerned, the "Star Trek" name provides a rather broad, rather permissive framework - with NAME RECOGNITION."

    But what use is that name recognition?

    Other than an easy way to guarantee that you'll pull in X viewers the first weekend because there are a certain number of geeks who will go see ANYTHING with "Star Trek" in the title.

    If it isn't about the mythology (and you say continuity does not matter) then what is it about?

    "And the best thing about it: that name recognition provides a budget for reasonably cool SciFi movies and television."

    Watch FireFly. Far better than anything from the Star Trek franchise in the last 10 years. Yet they managed to do so without any existing mythology or name recognition.

    "Maybe not the BEST, but at least reasonably entertaining, and definitely more quantity than we'd get otherwise."

    Whereas people like me would be willing to take less of the quantity if we could get more of the quality.

    I don't own ANY of the DVD's of ANY of the Star Trek movies, yet I own the FireFly boxed set.

    "And it spurs all kinds of spinoffs and competitors (B5, Andromeda, etc.) which are even better."

    I don't think B5 was a Star Trek spinoff. It had continuity. It had a story arc.

    Andromeda just ended up being stupid.

    Again, look at FireFly. See how good a single season of science fiction can be. Real character development. Not only did you learn more about each character as the season progressed (and not just randomly tacked on items like "best x in the Acadamy" or "master at the x" or "expert in x") and you saw how the events of previous episodes changed them.

  192. THREE WORDS by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

    SEXY ROMULAN BABE

  193. Actually.....ONE MORE THING by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    A simple google search for electric tank armor will show you what I am talking about hero/
    now just so you know I am right and you are not here is a link
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?x ml=%2F news%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml

  194. Slashdot illegally linking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Reading the Terms of Use -- excuse me: The "Contract" -- on the StarTrek.com site, it seems Slashdot's gonna be in mighty big trouble for not following their requirements. Why, it's stealing!

    See how many infringements you can spot: (emphasis added)
    Linking Policy & Linked Web Sites

    9. The content of this Web Site contains intellectual property that is protected from unauthorized use, copying and dissemination by copyright, trademark and other laws. If you link to this Web Site, we require that you follow these guidelines. The link to this Web Site must not damage, dilute or tarnish the goodwill associated with any PDE, Paramount Picture Corporation or related names and/or intellectual property, nor may the link create the false appearance that your web site and/or organization is sponsored, endorsed by, affiliated and/or associated with PDE, Paramount Pictures Corporation or their affiliated companies. You agree that you will not link to the Web Site from any source that is unlawful, abusive, indecent or obscene, that promotes violence or illegal acts, that contains expressions of racism, that is libelous, defamatory, scandalous, or inflammatory or is otherwise inappropriate. If you do link to the Web Site, you may link only to the home page, and not to any other page, directory or subdomain of the Web Site. Under no circumstances may you "frame" this Web Site or alter its intellectual property or content in any way. PDE reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate a link with any Web site that it deems inappropriate or inconsistent with the Web Site and/or these Terms. PDE is not responsible for the content or performance of any portion of the Internet including other Web sites to which this Web Site may be linked or from which this Web Site may be accessed.

    from http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/terms.html
  195. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    No, time travel can be done right, B5 proved that.

    The characters had little or no control of the process, only got to use it once, in the entire series, and its consequences were thought out before the pilot was even filmed.

    What time isn't, it isn't the Tv salt that can be sprinkled on every single meal to add a little zest to otherwise boring porridge. It's chilli pepper tha you only use once every great while, and then only the tiniest pinch. Of course, B&B pour the whole bottle on, and then wonder why it hurts so much sitting on the toilet shitting out another Star Trek series, episode by burning diarhettic episode.

  196. They'd never do it. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, they'd never do it. Just because jms managed to pull a five-year "novel for television" out of his hat on half the budget of TNG (has anyone else managed to make a drama series---not a soap opera---with that level of continuity in any genre?)... just because he consistently wrote critically acclaimed work... you think someone would actually employ him?

    Come on! He enforced a "no cute animals, no robots" rule for B5! How would the small-minded Paramount execs manage to get him to put in big-boobed women in spandex?

    "And I don't go to bed until I've made some very bad decisions."

    Kidding aside, since it'll never, ever get made, I'd like to see his treatment of it. It's easy to backseat-drive ("they should have wrapped up Buffy Season 6 without the dead and evil lesbian cliche!") but more difficult to actually come up with something better. ("Here's a plot outline in which not only do I avoid cliche, but I tell a better story. Ha!")

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  197. We need "+6, Fscking Hilarious" for moderation. by howlingmoki · · Score: 1

    Seriously. 'cuz, y'know .. there are times when simply moderating as "funny" isn't good enough.

  198. Reverse Polarity. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Nah; I think they flipped a coin... heads, particle of the week; tails, reverse the polarity.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  199. A possible answer by ewe2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?

    They wore masks?

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  200. Ah... Firefly.... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    I SOOOO almost want to like Firefly. It had some good concepts, some pretty good acting (except for the part of Mal "I'm so desperately trying to be Harrison Ford, but failing at every opportunity" Reynolds), some excellent writing, and it actually acknowledged that some people might speak something other than English in space. (I particularly liked how they would just swear in french or Mandarin, to get around the prissy fucks at the FCC.)

    My roommates have actually developed a fascination with the show, and have its whole run on a couple of bootleg DVDs. I keep ALMOST getting sucked in. I keep ALMOST wanting to sit down and watch the whole damn thing with them.... ..... EXCEPT for the fact that Joss Whedon feels the need to continually hit us over the head with the fact that his favorite episode of Star Trek was obviously the one where Kirk and company get sent back in time to the gunfight at the OK Corral! I keep ALMOST settling in, and enjoying Firefly as some pretty good SciFi, when Whedon shatters the whole suspension of disbelief thing, and shunts into "cows in space"... over and over and over again! It's enough to make me want to throw rotten produce at the TV!

    Ugh... Forget that damn episode of Star Trek, for fucks sake, and make a SCIENCE FICTION show!

    Oh yeah... one other thing that jolts me right out of SciFi land... the score... and ESPECIALLY that opening theme. They're worse than the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard. They're so horribly, stupendously bad, that even that wretched opening theme to Enterprise is lofty and inspirational by comparison. Here's to hoping that, with a motion picture budget, they can actually afford John Williams, or at least Jerry Goldsmith.

    Glaring errors, to be sure, but as good as Buffy and Angel turned out; it's too bad that Firefly wasn't given some more time to be fixed and hit it's stride.

    cya,
    john

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  201. That was a good movie... by RedK · · Score: 1

    ...when it was called Star Wars

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
  202. Inanimate Blue Rod! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Weren't the glowing bleed-from-your-ears rods blue, not green?

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Inanimate Blue Rod! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, I believe you are right. But I still want to know who those two guys were. Aliens? Some secret Federation agency?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  203. G'Kerry. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    PS Am I the only one who thinks Kerry looks like a Narn?

    OH DEAR GOD GET IT OUT OUT OF MY HEAD AAAAAHHHH

    "G'Kerry once wrote... "

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  204. Sounds worse than.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Harve Benetts idea for a "Starfleet Academy" movie.

  205. Killed off DATA??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Destroying information! Holy shitballs, Batman, that should be a capital crime!

    Don't those idiots know? Information should be FR-E-E-E! ! !

    .
    .
    .
    .

    Is pResident Bush hiding something?
    Look! It's the Fa-a-abulous Outing of Mr. Gee Dubya Bushikins

    (Maybe he was "outed" before: and the event got him removed from the National Guard.
    Could that be why those records had to be "inadvertently" destroyed?)

  206. Set Phasers to 'Discontinuity' by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    So how will they make this fit with the Classic Trek episode Balance of Terror, in which we learned that no human ever saw the face of a Romulan during the Romulan Wars?"

    The same way the rationalized the difference in warp speed between TOS and every series foward-- "It was actually a calculation error made back then. They forgot to carry the '1' and it turns out warp 9 was actually warp seven..." I've come to the sad realization that to expect serious continuity from Trek is an excerise in futility, especially given it's present state of affairs, which amounts to nothing more than swiss cheese.

    That aside, are they seriously that desperate to actually push Rombulan Wars to the big screen? I mean, how good of an idea can it possibly be to totally seperate a movie from it's mythos by introducing a totally unknown plot, crew and ship into a meager two hour time frame???? I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's going to take a better cast, scripting and directing than the franchise has seen in literally a decade.

    On the brighter side, this may just be the shotgun that puts the franchise out of it's misery.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Set Phasers to 'Discontinuity' by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add that this absolutely reeks of some attempt to repair the absolute crash and burn attempt Enterprise made at fleshing out the Star Trek history. it's as iff they reognize the fact that is so sucks as to make a clean break by featuring a movie that has nothing to do with any pre-existing failures...

      --
      You need a FREE iPod Nano
  207. Reference? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Err... reference? If he hates it so much, why does he do so much work on it?

    It's more likely that he's simply inept.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Reference? by xTown · · Score: 1

      Here you go, an article in Salon from a few years ago.

      I suppose it's more accurate to say that he doesn't really care about the history behind whatever it is he's doing with Trek. He's not a Star Trek fan, and while that's not a sin (Nick Meyer didn't know anything about it before he made STII), it is a sin that he doesn't particularly know or care to find out about the history of Trek.

      Of course, he's also inept.

  208. The Third Age of Mankind. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Remember how the first two season openers said "It was the dawn of the Third Age of Mankind...", and nothing was really done with it? Folks kept asking jms (the fact that he posted to the fan newsgroup is an entire new level of cool by itself) what it meant, and he said to wait. Then, nothing for the third year. Then, in 4x08, "Into the Fire", the conclusion of the entire Vorlon/Shadow thing... oh, that's what it meant.

    A strange confluence of factors led to the creation of Babylon 5... a creator devoted enough to write four seasons (12/22, 15/22, 22/22, 22/22, 21/22---it adds up) of the show, a network that left him the hell alone enough for him to do it... well, it doesn't take much, but those things are exceedingly, exceedingly rare---see how often we get both of them together.

    Let's see... the entire EarthForce arc, from 1x22 "Chrysalis" to 4x22 "Endgame"---who else could have pulled that off? Earth the bad guys! No way! They looked like the frickin' UN in the first season! ("Intersections in Real Time" remains one of my favorites, especially because it's a late-in-the-show episode that's self-contained enough to show to people who know nothing about the series. Could you imagine Starfleet doing that?)

    Oh, and, of course, Londo's dream about his death at G'Kar's hands. You see it in the very first episode, 1x01, "Midnight on the Firing Line", but its full meaning isn't revealed until "War Without End, Part II" near the end of S3.

    Not to mention that the Shadows' motives aren't even revealed until 3x22, "Z'Ha'Dum"---after we've all assumed that they're the demons and the Vorlons are the angels; what else could we have seen in 2x22, "The Fall of Night"? But it's not nearly that simple, of course. The Vorlon/Shadow arc remains my favorite component of the storyline.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  209. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

    So, you're paying attention to one movie (Star Trek: First Contact) but ignoring an episode of another series (Star Trek: Voyager, "Relativity"; just to let people who don't realize it, Seven and the future "Federation" state that the Federation (not the Terran Empire or some alternate timeline) came into being because of the Borg; there's also a passing reference to the Borg being present during the time of Cochran's flight in "Year of Hell" (Seven knew that Phoenix was the name of Cochran's ship)). So, the whole basis for Enterprise's "cold war" isn't at all based on a movie, unless you care to only pay attention to some of the "canon" of Star Trek.

    --
    Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  210. I have never seen the face of Saddam H. by chocolatei · · Score: 1

    but I have seen him on a view screen. English is not logical captain.

  211. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    " (Star Trek: Voyager, "Relativity"; just to let people who don't realize it, Seven and the future "Federation" state that the Federation (not the Terran Empire or some alternate timeline) came into being because of the Borg; there's also a passing reference to the Borg being present during the time of Cochran's flight in "Year of Hell" (Seven knew that Phoenix was the name of Cochran's ship)). So, the whole basis for Enterprise's "cold war" isn't at all based on a movie, unless you care to only pay attention to some of the "canon" of Star Trek."

    This is a fair and good point. No, I didn't catch that episode as I didn't watch Voyager a whole lot. I accept what you're saying, though. (In other words, I'm not using the "i never saw it so I'm going to remain ignorant" argument. ;) )

    There's something to consider, though: The NX-01's timeline hasn't been completed yet that we have seen. It seems to me that the changes that have happened in this series would too dramatically alter the time-line that Picard and Co. live in. I would guess that if they reach a point to where they end the Cold War in Enterprise, they'll find some clever way to put time back to where it was, or at least pretty darned close. I do believe there was an episode of Voyager... oh I can't remember the name of it, but I remember that Kurtwood Smith played the antagonist.. anyway he had a time ship that was mucking around, Voyager destroyed it, and time more or less went back to where it was. (Err, was that Year of Hell?) So, according to Star Trek rules about how time works, this could potentially happen. I'd further add that there was an ep of TNG where there were paralell timelines all over the place with slightly different results, such as the Bajorans militarily defeating the Cardassians. Heh.

    Ugh, I've really nerded myself out here. I guess the short version of my point is "It'd be hard to settle this until Enterprise is finaled. Not cancelled, but actually ended like TNG/Voy/DS9."

    I'll say again, though, damned good point.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  212. Could be the best thing to happen to ST in ages... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Just so long as they get a non-staff writer or a trekie for the script.

    Think about it!

    The concept is, "War in Space." --Humans versus the Romulans. That's it!

    No, "And every cast member of the popular television series except Wil has to have at least X minutes of screen time regardless of how irrelevant to the plot it may be."

    If the writer is a good one, if the director is a good one. . , why this could be the best thing since 'Kahn'. --Because we need something. Everything since Kirk left us has been idiotic garbage.

    In general. . . Star Trek movies suck when: Huge ensemble casts are scripted by Ricky-"Let's kill Picard's nephew, blow up those two Klingon sisters, make Data say, "Shit", and then crash the enterprise regardless of how little any of this has to do with anything even remotely story-related, cuz we can and it's cool in a college Jar-Head Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! sort of way,"-THE ASS-HAT Berman.

    Berman is one of the hugest wannabes in show-biz today. He should stay firmly socketed in the producer's chair and stop pretending that he can write.

    So barring his creative involvement, a new Trek film with some new blood and some real talent might just be the best thing to happen to Star Trek movies in over a decade.


    -FL

  213. Star Trek XI? by cfuse · · Score: 1

    Star Trek XI: Bergman gone wild!

    Catch the insane action when our cameras find the hottest trekkie college girls doing things they never taught you in school.

  214. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is "Year of Hell" that the Krenim Imperium Time Ship is going about causing temporal incursions and removing from history rival species. There is some indication in "Relativity" that Braxton's future self, who is the cause of the temporal bomb, has some grudge against Janeway and all the temporal havoc he's had to clean-up because of her. He talks of "Three violations that I had to repair!" which I assume include the "Year of Hell" incident. So, it's possible that the time ship Relativity will fix all of Enterprise in the end, but it seems all a bit crazy, round-about way of telling a story that will never exist.

    --
    Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  215. Yeah, yeah.... by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

    Big deal, so the Enterprise P warps back in time 500 years and lobs the Holy Hand Grenade of Spock into the heart of the Romulan fleet... thus causing them all to have a vision of Tasha Yar as a naked romulan chick and they suddenly find a reason to leave the humans alone and go home.

    As long as Beavis & Butthead... er... Bremen and Braga are in charge, it can't be much better than that! I bet we don't get to see the naked Tasha Yar though...

  216. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    The whole point of the series is that the timeline was changed, thus altering the continuity.
    Enterprise apologists keep making this claim, but has anyone on the creative team ever said that Enterprise is supposed to take place in a different continuity? Seems to me that the whole point is that there's an attempt to alter the timeline (the temporal cold war) which our heroes are engaged in defeating.

    Besides, if the events in First Contact had significantly changed continuity, how did Enterprise E apparently get back to the same future they left?

    I know, I know: "it's just a show, I should really just relax".

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  217. Star Trek XI: Romulan Wars?? by Xeryus · · Score: 1

    They're saying it'll have nothing to do with Enterprise right? Didn't they just credit the creation of the Federation (in part?) to Jonathan Archer Seven years from this past season? B&B really need to have a word with themselves, nevermind previous ST, they can't even keep with current trek which they are still overseeing. Idiots!

  218. "Balance of Terror" may be a ripped-off plot! by w2xo · · Score: 1

    While I was watching this episode in the 60's, I had the feeling of deja-vu. After some pondering, I realized that the plot of "Balance of Terror" is amazingly similar to "The Enemy Below", a book by D.A. Rayner published in 1956. It's about a British destroyer that goes after a German submarine and has the "ghost" in the radar (The Brit captain knew that U-Boats had a radar glitch at 180 deg. so he followed there and the sub captain thought it was probably a glitch instead of a pip). The sub is running full speed for home, same as in Strek. Same stuff happens...the two ships fight a prolonged running battle and damage each other's ships and the Captains develop a respect for each other's professionalism and announce that under other circumstances they could be friends. Deja-VU? Anyone else familiar with this book?

  219. Re:SAAB by Mac_8100_g3 · · Score: 0

    I really wish you Trek geeks would leave those fine Swedish cars out of your weird discussions.

    --
    My peace of mind does not depend on /. karma
  220. Awesome Reference by mfh · · Score: 1

    I normally don't reply to my own threads, but I will break with tradition on this one, because it's especially insightful.

    > Only problem is, they'd just do every R.A. Salvatore book about the drow and Drizzt with the romulans and some new hero character yet to be introduced.

    You are so correct that it's not even funny. I would not want to see this, either. I never liked Drizz't Do'Urden because he was unnatural. He should have been as wicked as the rest of the Drow. A better story would be that of a lone Drow assassin named Drizz't who crept up from the depths to kill ThickSkull and King Azun on a secret mission from Lolth herself. That would have been much more interesting than the story Salvatore tells, IMHO.

    For me, a Romulan series about anything but the sheer evil of the Romulans would be heresy. What I want is the pure exacting nature of Romulan society, in a nutshell Roman society in space, but worse. I would want to see how they operate, in all their evil ways, and how they can remain stable doing so. A series like this, even using a bit of Sopranos humour, would be totally awesome.

    But they'll never do it because they're stupid. That's not a troll, because there's plenty of evidence to support the fact that B&B are stupid. They never even watched TOS! DUH!!

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  221. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    No no, I didn't mean Relativity would fix it, I meant that Enterprise might find an opportunity like that in their own time.

    heh.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  222. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Enterprise apologists keep making this claim, but has anyone on the creative team ever said that Enterprise is supposed to take place in a different continuity?"

    Yes, they have.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  223. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    Enterprise apologists keep making this claim, but has anyone on the creative team ever said that Enterprise is supposed to take place in a different continuity? Yes, they have.

    Details? Quote? Reference?

    If the whole series is eventually going to be undone, like a super-sized version of Voyager's "Year of Hell" travesty, then I'll stop giving a damn now and save myself the trouble of screaming at the TV after the final episode...

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  224. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Details? Quote? Reference?"

    Go use Google. I don't care to do the work of somebody else who will just dismiss me as an "Enterprise Apologist". If you don't like the show right now, nothing I say's going to change your mind. Frankly, I'm just not that passionate about it.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  225. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    Go use Google.

    Google finds this:

    Braga also addressed the fans questions on whether or not Enterprise is a prequel to Kirks era of Star Trek or if it is in fact set in an altogether different universe.

    "Yes, it is definitely a prequel. It's not an alternate timeline, of course not.

    ...

    "In terms of the alternate timeline, I don't understand why people think that.

    Everything I find pointing to the "Enterprise is alternate history" theory is fan speculation. (Though Braga doees mention the First Contact/Borg-meets-Archer change.)

    If you don't like the show right now, nothing I say's going to change your mind.

    Overall, so far I give it a C-, though it's had some very good moments. It's better than Voyager.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  226. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    Maybe it dispells the 'atlernate timeline' theory, but that very same article addresses the changes in the timeline quite clearly. It is a matter of semantics as to whether or not it is an 'atlernative timeline', but it is very much a different series of events. Continuity is far more flexible in this series.

    "Overall, so far I give it a C-, though it's had some very good moments. It's better than Voyager."

    I almost agree. I'd give it better than a C-, but I'd be hesitent to land on a particular grade level because I don't know how much of what I like about it is due to my own interests in the show, or how good at is in a more general sense. I don't think it's as good as DS9, but I wish it could replace Voyager. Heh.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  227. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1

    Who cares?

    Star Trek is already messed up, with official knock-offs such as Voyager and Enterprise, that may be mistaken for real Star Trek. And now they want to make a movie? When will it be released? April 1st?

    They need to go and make a DS-9 movie to end off the story there, and then continue with trek forward. This backwards trek stuff is just that.

  228. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would guess that if they reach a point to where they end the Cold War in Enterprise, they'll find some clever way to put time back to where it was, or at least pretty darned close.

    So what you're telling me is that this is REALLY an extended episode of Quantum Leap, and that as soon as Sam rights what is wrong with the Star Trek universe, he gets to move on?

  229. Re:continuity? Who needs continuity? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "So what you're telling me is that this is REALLY an extended episode of Quantum Leap, and that as soon as Sam rights what is wrong with the Star Trek universe, he gets to move on?"

    I know you're joking, but I think that'd be damn cool. I wish TV series would co-mingle like that.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  230. Re:Gack. The answer..... by fallen1 · · Score: 1
    Why exactly does this guy still have his job, again?

    He sucks.

    You figure out exactly what... ;-)

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~