Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek XI In Two To Three Years.
Tycoon Guy writes "It seems rumors of the franchise's demise were greatly exaggerated. TrekToday reports that according to Trek head honcho Rick Berman, a new film might come sooner than you think: 'If it gets done in two years or three years I think that timeframe for a new, fresh feature with a whole different outlook would be fine.' He's previously said that the film will feature a whole new cast and ship; it's being written by Band of Brothers screenwriter Erik Jendresen."
That has the potential to be very good. The writers would have the freedom to kill off or transform any crew members they wish, not just the ones wearing red shirts. With everyone and everything (including the ship) potentially expendable, it could be a wild ride with lots of plot reversals.
It also has the potential to be very bad. Many viewers don't realise how much the regular Trek actors influence the show by keeping an independent reality check on their characters. Multi-season arcs in TNG were actually actor driven (like Troi quietly disliking Worf for most of the show).
So while it might be a great movie, it might be Trek only in name. We'll have to wait and see. Too bad it will be an odd number movie.
Well, maybe the film will do well if it takes 3 years to get it up on the screen.
The best thing that could happen for the StarTrek franchise, is to starv the world of ST stuff for a while.
Pretty Pictures!
I'm already scraping up $20 for the effort to save this movie.
"Band of Brothers screenwriter Erik Jendresen"
Hrm, perhaps I'll go and see this if I get to watch Picard kill some Nazis while dodging machine gun fire. On a more serious note, exactly which cast/era will the movie feature?
In Soviet Russia, Dead Horse beats you!!
Hmm, they don't seem to like making these in order.
One thing I noticed about the Trek movies is that the ones that really made you feel as if there was this huge universe out there around the characters brought in the most money at the box office. The size of the canvas seemed to be proportional to the size of the returns.
The problem with movies like Insurrection and Nemesis - to name a few - was that in the end it was one ship vs one ship and the whole feeling of this bustling galaxy filled with all sorts of different characters was gone. Sure, the Enterprise alone verses the Scimitar was pretty cool, but the whole movie never developed that sense of grand adventure that The Wrath Of Kahn (which mixed the isolation of the Enterprise in latter parts with a much wider view of things early on), First Contact or The Undiscovered Country had. The scope of the universe seemed to be scaled-down to TNG-episode proportions. Insurrection was arguably the worst at this - the whole thing felt like a 2 part TNG from one of the latter seasons.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I guess the fans are camping in front of the theaters already?
If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
So if they change all the actors, the writers and the style of the show, is it still Star Trek?
Sure, it'll have some of the same races and politics, but these are only ever used as plot devices.
Personally, I'm happy as long as it's well written. If labelling a new show "Star Trek" is what it takes to get it on the TV, then go right ahead. Just make sure it's good enough to stay there.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
or worse yet they bring him back and make it suck more.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Berman announced that he planned to kill any positive effect the fresh blood of new writers might bring to the table by appointing himself executive producer.
where all men have been before (and bought the t-shirt).
Please, Mr. Berman. Please get this one right. I really, really miss loving Star Trek. Star Trek is not not just about emotionless women in tight clothes... it just helps.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
I don't want new characters and a new ship for a MOVIE. That would be okay for a tv show, where we have years to get to know the crew.
Bring back Kirk. Find some way to incorporate him in the story.
Here is a free story to use for the movie. The Borg are attacking, in the most massive invasion ever. Kirk is retired, but is called back to help set a defesne gird. Hey, Kirk will be old enough for the timeline to work. Maybe while kirk was retired he was a police officer, so they can have him in his T.J. Hooker uniform and work Heather Locklear into the storyline. How cool would that be, to have Kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise dressed as TJ Hooker, with Locklear next to him.
Janeway races back from the future, where the Borg came from. Along with Janeway is the defiant, commanded by Picard and Dr. Crusher. This could provide good romance between two very sexy actors. I have had the hots for Dr. Crusher for years.
The excitement would not come from the Borg attack, but watching the crews work together to form a defense.
And I would not mind seeing a couple of birds of prey get in the storyline.
Or, I GOT IT!!! What was the species in A Year of Hell that destroyed the voyager? Maybe they find their way to earth??
The possibilities are endless, but Kirk must be involved. Kirk IS Star Trek. Nobody can take his place.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I think you're one of the few traditionalists left, but I think the time for the traditionalists in Star Trek has left. With Enterprise, we went back to the very beginning of warp travel of us humans, making a story line fully incomplete from that point, to the point of the first Enterprise's mission into deep space.
Personally, I want to know more about where it all began; they have so much technology in the future that, while we have basis for it, it's so far beyond tracing back to something we have now, that we just have to accept it as fact, and move on. Things like the transport system, the Enterprise's energy systems, etc. etc. All we need is a movie in that time period to answer some of those questions, in my opinion.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Will Lucas direct this? [shudder] or worse yet leave it in the hands of some no talent hack like Rick Berman
Oh wait.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
The best Star Trek movies were even numbered.
Star Trek II, was there a better villan than KHANN!!!!
Star Trek III, the search for spock kinda sucked.
Star Trek IV, was okay
The best one was the Undiscovered Country. I liked the interaction of the Klingons. It was one of the best movies, I loved the shakespear quotes. Once again dear friends, into the breach!
And is it just me, or have the Klingons gone from glorious warriors to whimps?? They used to be super strong, with ships designed for WAR. Yet they seem so weak. They are weaker than the Borg by a ton, they are weaker than most Enertrpise ships which are made to explore.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Is this the inevitable link that will cause the Star Wars Universe to meet the Star Trek Universe? Should prove to be some interesting fight scenes...
Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
All we need is a movie in that time period to answer some of those questions, in my opinion.
Umm, why? It's a historical fact that movies which attempt to explain anything to the fanboys just result in sucking. It's a little narrative device called "suspesion of disbelief"--a convincing universe doesn't keep bringing up self-referential explanations about how it all works. That's a warning sign of poor writing when you need to narrate everything to drive the story along. Keep the technical explanations in the after market reference books, as far as I'm concerned.
Incidentally, sometimes I think the tech in Star Trek is a little too conventional, actually. You have space vehicles--that go really fast. Shields--for really tough armor. You have a transportation system--that's instantaneous. You have a kitchen--that's also instantaneous. You've got guns that shoot out lasers (oh, my bad, "phasers"). You've got clip-on cell phone badges, PDAs, computers, and fancy sensors. And you've got really high definition TV.
While some of these technologies may violate the laws of physics, and so be magical and unexplainable, their uses aren't all that mysterious. You aim a gun, pull the trigger, stuff at the other end dies/gets stunned/whatever. You step into a booth and get sent to the next scene, supposedly a zillion miles away. The extent of the mystery is the invention of a zillion particles an episode, which is rather sad.
Ultimately, I find the human elements of Star Trek to be more interesting than the gadgetry, which is just a means to an end, when you get right down to it. When it's used well, it's unobtrusive and we simply accept it as part of the universe. But human beings... well, we've still got some ways to go before we ever figure those suckers out.
One character that is Star Trek, in any time line would be Whoppie. She was on earth at the time of Samuel Clemens, and in the future with Picard. Whatever timeline they pick, I bet they could get her involved. Her species lives for how many years? Over 500??
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
As a fan of Star Trek, I too love the story and the play of the characters, but as a curious mind, I'd like to know more about the History of Star Trek, and how they got that sophisicated technology.
While the purposes of some devices make sense, others seem to make none at all. Why can't someone program a transporter to transport something like a spacecraft, far far away? Why can't someone program a replicator to replicate an entire spacecraft, therefore having infinite war time production capabilities? These technologies don't have any practical limits as defined by the shows and movies as of now, but given a bit more history, we could easily see why.
Besides, there has already been ground laid to see the past. Enterprise (the show) took us back to pre-photon torpedos, and the seemingly magic replicator. All I ask is a story accellerated in this time era, like what they did with The Next Generation.
The beauty of Star Trek is that the explanation of these technologies is implicit; nobody has to sit down and say "this does that". The story guides us to understanding, when someone goes up to something and uses it. The problem is, some of these technologies require a definition that we've missed, it's too far back in the timeline for implicit definition and is quite frankly taken for granted by the characters.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
He's previously said that the film will feature a whole new cast and ship; it's being written by Band of Brothers screenwriter Erik Jendresen."
I can already hear the Redshirts scream: MEDIC!
Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
hearing that James Spader slept with William Shatner, I don't think I can look at Capt. Kirk in quite the same way again.
So what was it that turned you off, was it the idea of spooning Capt, Kirk, or that he smelled like a lamb sausage???
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Maybe during this break, Berman and crew can actually spend time watching other GOOD sci-fi shows like Firefly, Farscape, and Battlestar Galactica. That way there, they'll know what to shoot for.
I *still* think that the only reliable way to get solid (and consistant) sci-fi is to have a dedicated pay channel. Personally, I'd love to see an end to this network exec BS: "Ah! Farscape/Enterprise/Firefly costs WAY more than Fear Factor! No more of THAT!"
Reality T.V. sucks but the reality is that it's cheap eats for the networks. If Berman's going to make something work, he's going to have to find a way to do it cheaper (new characters I hear?), and faster. Not sure what that means, but then again, Star Trek II was done for half of what ST:I was and look how it turned out!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I would be interested in shows where they throw in some physics and chemistry. Real physics and chemistry. What I loved about TNG was it got me very interested in the sciences.
The USA school system just about killed the "what if's" questions I was filled with. TNG filled my imagination. I would not be suprised if many technology advances were made by people who got interested in science because of TOS and TNG.
Maybe the next Star Trek can have a huge lab component, where engineers and scientists are working with improving the Enterprise. I loved how Voyager had so many episodes where the hot Klingon chick was in engineering. If only there was some way they could have had her hook up with scottie over a few bottles of wisky.
Star Trek should spend less time on the bridge, and more time in engineering.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
...scantily clad, hot babes as star fleet officers. The progressive within all the different incarnations of Star Trek so far is obvious - and Berman seems to understand one thing : Sex sells! Will ST:XXV finally claim : "Nude Vulcan babe Mud Wrestling!" ?
It seems rumors of the franchise's demise were greatly exaggerated!
Honestly, I think it's high time that someone made that demise come about, whether by natural causes or not...
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I should be cast in the new movie as a vulcan. But not just a regular, boring vulcan. I'd be the illogical vulcan. Just a crazy, kooky guy who goes against the grain. I'd even question authority, answering to orders like, "Fire when they drop their cloak? Why don't you wake me up when that happens, Gov." For fun, I'd record the embarrassing things officers do in the holodeck and then play them for everyone in the cafeteria. I'm telling you, I could put some life back into "Star Trek". I'd even be willing to learn acting.
Here's my thoughts for the future of star trek:
Needs a bigger budget than TV can provide, so move it to cable, specifically to HBO. Add some adult oriented content, since its now on cable. Sorry 13 year olds, Star Trek is now for adults only. This will allow a wider demographic to like the show (some women will watch it with their men, hopefully).
Make it a fleet of ships, possibly half of them Federation, the other half Klingon. We've had series with single ships, and a series with a space station, but never a series with a fleet of ships on a long multi-year journey thru an uncharted area of space.
Involve the Klingon religion. Kahless (spelling?) and others are given visions in the beginning episodes, but we are not told exactly what they are. The Federation and the Klingons get together and discuss the visions that so many of their people are reporting. They decide to follow the instructions, and gather a fleet and set off on the journey.
The overall plot needs to be kept secret until the last season.
One of the ships should be a civilian fast luxury cruiser, built with a Federation loan in return for Federation use of the ship during times of war. The series should begin at the end of the Dominion war. This ship has better holodecks, and lots of drama episodes can occur on this ship.
The Admiral that was arrested by Picard for developing the Phased cloak is a part of the crew, along with some of his scientists. They are all given visions.
A few drug addicts, and other convicts are also a part of the series since its now on cable and we can have some more adult content, including sex and nudity and graphic violence. In the 24th century poverty and hunger are wiped out, but the war on drugs continues.
Lots of teraforming equipment, anti-matter, and industrial replicators are to be included (per the visions). Along with orbital defences, and some other expenisive stuff. Before the fleet launches, lots of political arguments occur because of the cost. ("were spending all this money after a devastating war, because of visions!?!?")
When they finally arrive at the destination, only half the fleet should be left, since they fought so many battles, etc. We can stretch out the series for years before they arrive.
The destination should be a far corner of the galaxy, accessible by wormhole only. The destination should be a set of (possibly) artificial solar systems, closely tied together, with many habitable planets without intelligent life. Because of the arrangement of the stars (a 3D pentagon? perhaps) it's obvious these sets of solar systems did not form naturally. This is a mystery that is never fully explained. There is lots of ore and natural resources in these systems.
The Federation and Klingons colonize the planets and have lots of kids. They are given new visions, they are to pursue weapons and ship development, and train their children to be warriors. Kahless is to be placed into suspended animation, along with a few others.
In the future, (perhaps the next series) the Klingon empire is overran by a hostile enemy, but the Federation stays neutral, until plans of genocide are learned by the Federation. The enemy starts wiping out the Klingons, the Federation invades. The Federation gets their ass kicked, and is on the brink of loosing.
Then the descendents of the Klingons and Federation folks at the far end of the galaxy (from out first series) appear from a wormhole near Borath, with Kahless as an old man who returns per the predictions of the Klingon religion. The fleet of ships are advanced and include phased cloak technology. They destroy the enemy shipyards which are in Klingon space, and since the enemy fleets are mostly in Federation space kicking the Federation's ass, this fleet inflicts a lot of damage causing the enemy to pull back from the Federation. The Federation regroups, and is supplied with technology from the advanced fleet (new weapons, phased cloak?, whatever).
Enemy reinforcements ar
This franchise must be the most godforsaken around.
Its become a laughing stock for non-Trekkies.
Its become an embarrassment for sci-fi fans.
It has been killed off by the weight of its own past, with its mixture paradoxes, incongruities and plain old shit.
There isn't even a way to do a Battlestar Galactica remake on it as there is simply too much legacy which cannot be ignored without massive suicide (or murder) by the Trekkies (see the "I love Kirk" comments above or the godawful time travel "I love Picardy & Kirk" ideas above).
Stargate 1, Farscape, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Lexx and Babylon 5 - all brought epic scope, interesting characters and a fresh approach to sci-fi.
Star Trek needs to be taken off its self-support, its a cancer on sci-fi.
(I ACKNOWLEDGE ITS PREVIOUS IMPORTANCE, WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL SERIES AND TNG, THE SERIES I HAVE MENTIONED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED)
I haven't been terribly enthused with the franchise under Berman's stewardship and I keep scratching my head wondering "how the heck did this person gain so much influence over things?"
Anyone know?
I was somewhat annoyed that Enterprise was canceled since this season was covering a lot of ground mentioned in TOS. Beside the idiots that schedule it's airplay at the same time as Sci-Fi channel's top rated shows, I think one of the major issues with Star Trek is that they have jumped so much in the past and had so many stories that told about the future of Star Fleet. They writers have backed themselves into corners so to speak with the plots. To few mysteries remain. At this point it's just filling in the gaps.
I'd like to see them come up with a time travel paradox story line that messes things up so bad it can't be undone, effectively rebooting the whole thing. Or a story line that creates a patchwork universe out of different universes. Bring in new unknowns and minimize some of the known elements. One where the Vulcans never took the path of logic or the Romulans never split off from them. The Klingons never freed themselves from their oppression. There are lots of things that could be done but they need to make a major change.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
I'm delighted to learn that the crew of the Enterprise has put together a cricket team.
Now he's planning to give us a *new* crew for the next movie tells me exactly two very important things:
1. Rick Berman does not have a clue about *why* Star Trek is so popular - if he did he would understand that the characters are as important to fans as the storylines and that those characters need to develop within the context of entire TV show seasons, not within a 2-hour movie.
2. Paramount is trying to short-change fans by doing a film using the Star Trek name but using unknown, lower-salaried actors because they're not prepared to pay the salaries Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, etc. would demand.
Star Trek suffered a slow, lingering 7-year death during Voyager (yes, Deep Space 9 was a pretty good series overall although TOS and TNG were much better), Enterprise was IMHO *not* a Star Trek series and so it's time to let the franchise Rest In Peace...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
First, the standard sure winners:
-Resurrect Kirk
-Time/space distortions caused by {going too close to the sun,alien weapon,wormhole}
-The Borg
-Hot semi-naked alien chicks
-Lots of talking
-Guys in rubber monster suits
Then, my recipe for success:
-A wormhole to the Star Wars universe
-Picard vs. Vader!
-A Terminator is loose on the Enterprise. "I need your boots, your clothes und your spaceship".
-Alien vs. Predator vs. The Borg!
-The three-boobied chick from Total Recall ("Captain, I can't reach the fire button")
-Admiral Scotty
-The Borg team up with the Zerg
It can't fail.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I'm still wondering how they'll fit time travel, the holodeck, AND mind control into 140 minutes, and still have time to introduce the characters.
Whatever happened to the proposals to film Ian M Bank's novel 'Use of Weapons'? The Culture universe is much better realized than either Star Trek or Star Wars, has vastly more interesting technology and politics, and isn't limited to the back-yard scope that Star Trek increasingly feels like.
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
This franchise is running way ahead of schedule. According to the Simpsons episode "Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie", it'll be at least 2025 before the release of Star Trek XII: So Very Tired.
Sample dialogue: "Captain's Log, Stardate 6051: Had trouble sleeping last night; my hiatal hernia is acting up. The ship is drafty and damp. I complain, but nobody listens."
Star Trek is a beloved franchise. I love it, and I'm not alone.
I was digging around the IMDB, and comparing what I think to be the best Star Trek movie (Khan), and what I think is the worst Star Trek movie (Nemesis).
Something struck me about the two. Khan was written and directed by individuals with experience in the science fiction genre. Moreover, experience in making more cerebral type sci-fi, as opposed to big explosion aliens with lasers sci-fi.
Nemesis was put together by people who had no experience with sci-fi. Now, this Brand of Brothers guy has proven that he can write at a better then average level, but has zero experience with the science fiction genre. If they are going to continue this "let's not have experienced sci-fi writers and directors", the chances of them putting together a good film is low.
In addition, Star Trek has three television series with characters that have never seen the big screen. Why break with tradition? Why use some completely new cast, then add them to a writer and (probably) a director combination with no real experience in sci-fi?
It's as if they are constructing this movie from the ground up to be bad. There are plenty of decent sci-fi writers out there (heck, just look to some of the better episodes of TNG... I'm sure the writers of those episodes wouldn't mind seeing work). Find a decent director with sci-fi experience (off hand I think somebody like Andrew Niccol could probably do a good job).
Realistically, though, I think that under the direction of Rick Berman, Star Trek isn't going to put out anything that approaches what it had in the past. Berman just doesn't seem to "get it".
The Internet is generally stupid
Let it die already FFS.
The stories have become more and more dull with each passing show/film, a sure sign that the series is at its end. It happens, quit hanging on to it, let it die with some dignity like Seinfeld.
Its time for new worlds to be created that'll bring in the next generation of science fiction fans. Star Trek XI will not bring in new people into the genre. Science fiction will disappear like westerns if the same old shit is repackaged over and over.
KIRK: Captain's Log, Stardate 6051: Had trouble sleeping last night; my hiatal hernia is acting up. The ship is drafty and damp. I complain, but nobody listens.
SULU: Captain, Klingons off the starboard bow.
KIRK: [covering his face in annoyance] Again with the Klingons... Scotty, give me full power.
SCOTTY: It's no use, captain; I canna' reach the control panel!
Star Trek XII: So Very Tired
or whatever number they're at.
"after hearing that James Spader slept with William Shatner, I don't think I can look at Capt. Kirk in quite the same way again"
Actually, that'd be one more reason to put him back in the chair. After all, a man who'd do that, would do anything, right?
I think, therefore I am...I think.
The reason that the latest Star Trek franchises have been unappealing to me is that the episodes have become too much like the other crappy social-dramas on TV, e.g., 90210, Dawson's Creek, OC.
:)
Star Trek was good because it was different. Saying it was "intellectual" might go too far. But it scratched a different itch.
Even if US TV watchers *like* shows like 90210, I'm tempted to think that they must like some variety as well. Even those people who fully enjoy reality TV and American Idol must eventually want to watch something different.
By making Star Trek the same as all the other shows, they eliminate the appeal that would have brought a "cross-over" audience while simultaneously alienating the fans who liked it for what it was in the first place!
If Star Trek comes back, ditch the gratuitous action scenes. Ditch the scantily clad women (7, T'pol). Ditch the cliche of ugly and screeching bad guys who spit venom and have acid for blood (ok, that was Aliens, but the Borg queen was close). Ditch the sexed-up alternative universes. If I want these things, I'll watch Die Hard again or buy the Girls Gone Wild movies. Be different! Or just be sci-fi
First, FTA: A lot of those shows are shot with budgets not much more than half of what ou(r) budgets are
Besides the obvious typo, I highly doubt that ST:E's budget is all that much bigger than any of SciFi's original programming. Example? SG-1. If SG-1 has an operating budget of even half of ST:E's, yet still produces high-quality programming, then the whole budget issue isn't a problem, and pretty much amounts to Berman blowing smoke up our asses.
SG-1 has quite a number of CGI sequences, like ST:E. Beyond the relatively simple animation of the gate itself and a few weapons, there are quite a number of ships (including the complex Goa'uld ships, Asgard cruisers, etc.), the Replicators (simple at first, then growing more complex), and the usual space scenes such as planets, stars, nebulae and more, not to mention the minor alterations to the Canadian landscape for location shots. Now, either Gekko/Double Secret/SciFi have found a way to render these scenes (which look pretty damn good) on the cheap, or Berman is using it as an excuse, one of many.
Second: I think the decline of Star Trek can be directly attributed to Berman himself, who started taking the franchise downhill not long after the death of Gene Roddenberry. Creative control, honestly, should have been given to Majel Barret-Roddenberry. After all, she was married to Gene, and it'd be impossible to think that some of his genius wouldn't have rubbed off on her during thier marriage. Berman was responsible for the lesser series DS9 and VGR, and obviously, those didn't do as well as TOS and TNG did, both in the ratings and creatively.
Third, according to quite a number of folks, Berman's not an easy guy to deal with. Slashdot's own Wil Wheaton can attest to that personally, and does so in his books. Granted, working with someone (relatively) new will bring about changes, but from most accounts, Berman was almost the direct antithesis to Roddenberry.
And no, I'm not trying to kiss Wheaton's ass.
My point is, Berman is giving us every excuse under the sun (some work slightly, others don't hold water) as to why Star Trek is in its waning years, instead of owning up to the fact that he took Roddenberry's vision and drove it into the ground himself. The slow demise of Trek can be traced back to when he took the helm (no pun intended).
I agree that Trek does need a rest. Oversaturation does play a part, but not as great a part as Berman would like us to believe...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Cries out in pain.
DS9 has a great bunch of characters. Bring back Sisko dammit!
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Back when The Search for Spock was just coming out, if you can imagine that.
/// was far the best* of all of them. Star Trek / was to // was great, but the ending was /// at times boring, but the actors got to play the roles as they wanted. /// was more for
////.
Numb: 6
Subj: SEARCH FOR SPOCK
From: St. Paul c64 & IBM
Date: 06-04-84 at 11:38 AM
trekkies, don't waste your money - the search for spock is boring, not really
believable, and by far the worst of the three. the only high point is seeing
christopher lloyd ('jim' from taxi) dressed up in monster makeup and costume,
still talking like a spaced druggie. score now: 1 for 3 on trek dreck -- only
the wrath of kahn was any good!
He doesn't mention Christopher Lloyd's "Back to the Future" role because that movie hadn't even been made yet. It boggles the mind!
Numb: 7
Subj: Pound a tribble in your ass.
From: APPLE AVENGER
Date: 06-04-84 at 06:34 PM
To the above ruggie:
I found that Star Trek
much special effects and no story. Star Trek
stupied (play 'amazing grace' at spocks funeraul was stupied!). I found star
trek
The other 2 movies the directors ran the characters. Star trek
the characters and the people that play them.
The movie gave us a new way to think about star trek. Is it totally over for
the entire crew? Will they get a new enterprise? Will spock fully return to us?
This we will never know or maybe we will soon know because paramount studios is
talking about star trek
-Avenger
Loyal trekkie for life
Long before Berman and Braga got their grubby little hands all over it, Star Trek involved eager anticipation. Anyone remember that? *sigh*
The coolest voice ever.
It's gotten so bad that even Scott Bakula looks embarrassed to be a part of it. Think about that. SCOTT BAKULA is ashamed of it!!
Please, God, just end it. Put it out of its misery before it gets even worse! End the series, the movies, the books, the conventions. Just let it go!
Geez, it's almost as sad a decline as "The Simpsons."
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I think you just described Battlestar Galactica...
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
It seems misguided to recast. There's no reason they couldn't put Odo, Rom, Tom Paris, Seven of Nine, Beta, Ro Laren and Reg Barclay all on the same ship, taking orders from Admiral Janeway and Rear Admiral Sulu back in Sector 0. TNG, DS9 and VOY all left off where the characters would naturally be reassigned. All you really need is a dynamic new captain. These b-listers wouldn't cost much more than unknowns and it would bring fans from all three series in.
Also, the most successful movie plot was the one that built on a TOS episode (Space Seed-->Wrath of Khan). The TNG characters should revisit a TOS planet (like the 20's gangland planet, now up to 1970's technology). There's a reason people like Star Wars III better than I or II: it has comforting ties to the characters and events we grew up on, not just new characters using familiar weapons.
I am sure someone out there has a web site comparing Star Trek to Star Wars. I can't resist, however, arguing about who can kick the most ass.
Basically, I think on hand-to-hand the Star Wars gang is going to pound any Trek denizens to sand. Unless they are fighting Data, or one of the mighty morphing creatures.
On technology, Star Trek beats Star Wars, except strangely, in the technology of making people survive battles. Star Trek seems to have an unscientific aversion to cloning or implants --unless they go horribly wrong.
Star Wars ships seem to go faster, for no other reason than it seems that Lucas is uninterested in the "journey" of space travel. But SW shields seem to be less powerful. ST weapons are many orders of magnitude more powerful.
SW may have the force, but in ST, people accidentally get God-like powers as often as they might get killed. So watch out for an occasionally Hyper Evolved Kirk.
SW doesn't have transporters, but ST doesn't have sound effects in space (you only hear the blasts inside the ships). OK, I basically have no point here other than SW doesn't have transporters.
SW has a lot more cool and funky war machines. Most weapons systems seem kind of useless--in the grand scheme. Other than tie fighters dodging about, big ships seem to just stand broadside of each other and fire. For some reason, computers just can't seem to automatically home into a target (in ether Universe). I'm sure some gamers would argue these points, but they are, of course, playing games. Tactics, or troop strategies seem to be better in SW--because basically, in ST, all you do is go through an excessively large air vent, and nobody has thought to add a motion detector. At least in SW, somebody has to sneak around and disable something--and they never have a man wearing a corset, using a double-handed slam as though that were the coolest fighting technique and advanced civilization can come up with. And for some reason, in ST, only good guys can shoot straight. But ST seems to work better with large strategies, like inventing a new use for the deflector array, while in SW, somebody is just going to have to die--a nod towards realism, I suppose.
In SW, all races are more or less on the same level, with humans somehow being the best model to clone for troops. In ST, even having an extra heavy eyebrow can mean a race has telepathy --so different creatures matter. Even Wookies don't have Borg strength. Generally in SW, it's all about the Force and robots are wimps. In ST, machines are more of a real threat, though they are used much less (perhaps all those "Discarded Doomsday machines that keep killing" issue might have made its point). I only have one comment on this; why has nobody talked about the issue of EMP shielding? Of course, shielding life forms is even tougher. Everyone on a future battlefield will have to, at least where goggles. I mean, flooding the area with blinding laser light is just pretty obvious.
When you add it all up, you realize that both these Sci-Fi epics are pretty weak on anything important to say about technology, fighting or how people will be influenced by said technology. But I still think those walkers are cool looking. So who cares?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"