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.
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.
This is one of the drawbacks of shooting things out of order. Another drawback is that because so much emphasis is placed on the "shot" that the "acting" goes out the window. Directors spend very little time (I am speaking on average here) with the "talent" and leave most actors to their own devices
Bad directors do this, but that has always been the case. 95% of movies, historically, are crap. Same goes for plays, novels, etc.
Even a crappy story can be made better with great acting.
True. But great acting is as rare as great anything else.
Writing is also out the window these days, but I digress...
Great writing is rare. The current state of things is nothing new.
That said, I've seen a lot of crap plays as well. However, I would rather see a questionable play where actors are with me, in the room, baring their hearts to the audience,
Not me. I have been trapped in too many blackbox theatres watching too much shiity writing and acting, and I live in the heart of good off and off-off Broadway. There is an enormous amount of crap out there.
I think that plays build a community because each audience is together for one moment in history that can't be repeated. The drama is both on stage and in the story, and that story is shared with an audience every night.
What good is the community when it supports medicore work? To me, that's just elitism and mastrubtion. There is a reason that theatre attendance has been in decline for the past twenty years; when Broadway discovered with "Nicholas Nickelby" that people were willing to stand in line and pay lots of money for plays, the dynamics changed. The revolutionary spirit of the '60s and '70s disappeared under the weight of commerce. With this, the truly revolutionary writers began to leave theatre, which is why independent film is the cutting edge of communal art these days. Twenty years ago there is a good chance American Beauty would have been a play, but there is precious little room for that kind of work these days.
I love good plays as much as good movies, but they are few and far in between these days. "Angels in America" is the last play I can think of which really amazed me, and that was over twenty years ago. I have no urge to go to regional theatre in Michigan just because it's a play.
With theatre, bring your brain, turn off your cell phone, and unwrap your hard candy before curtain. Be prepared to be transformed.
Maybe. More likely, not.
And, finally: Consistency errors are inexcusible
Oh, bullshit. There are errors in plays all the time. The actors merely cover them up.
Maybe this is silly, but isn't it possible that sometimes the mistakes add to the replay value?
I can only answer from my experience: having a friend who's a director, having been on the sets of two, big Hollywood movies and having had a girlfriend who was an editor;
No. Sometimes small mistakes have to be left in because there isn't enough coverage an a particular shot to find another angle which is usable, but most mistakes are just that: mistakes. A movie like Spiderman is an immense undertaking. At a minimum you're talking several years of effort, over a thousand people employed in various roles, coordinating several units shooting simultaneously and cutting down millions of feet of film into a two hour final project. In an undertaking that large, mistakes are inevitable.
But this would remove the ability of those who wish to make movies but never to feel superior by pointing out the mistakes of others.
A harsh opinion? Perhaps. But sometimes it is the only way I can explain this middle school "neener neener neener" stuff. I would like to see these people work on a major motion picture and see how they feel afterwards.
The mp3 player market is now a commodity market, which means the focus is of user friendliness and style, not features. There is precious little to choose between the various horizontally-opposed players; what sets the iPod apart is its style and its user interface. Your average consumer isn't going to care about the name Commodore. They will want to know whether the thing works and looks better than an iPod.
Doping: unfortunately, so did Tom Simpson... the hard way.
At home I have a quote from an interview with Anquetil, in which he is asked if he ever doped. He says, roughly, "of course I do. It is impossible that any human being race 220 days out of the year with the help of drugs." In the olde days, doping was as widespread, but not as punished. I think thing are actually getting better.
But if Ferrari doesn't win. no one will watch. It is hard to understate how popular Ferrari is and how rabid the tifosi are.
F1 had no trouble with TV audiences in the early and mid-80s when there was enormous competition for the title. In 1985 you had four drivers with legitimate shots at the title, and it was one of the best years in F1 history.
ut I doubt he could ever touch a psychotic like Merckx or Hinault in terms of just being tough on the bike
I think a man who came back from cancer would have no problem in the toughness department.
Armstrong is a better climber than Mercx, who was more like Indurain - keep pace in the mountains and kill 'em in the time trials. Armstrong and Hinault would probably be pretty equally matched in skills and abilities.
Merckx was known for his viciously light bikes; remember drillium?
No, because there's no reason for him to. He already makes multi-millions of dollars a year, has a range of endorsements and loves the series he is in. Why switch to a different series which would require him to relocate, etc., just to drive a different series?
There's also the fact that modern F1 is one of the most boring spectacles I've ever seen.
Armstrong wins because he's a genetic freak. He's got the second highest VO2Max ever recorded (93.5) and generally has lactate levels under load half that of most other riders. No matter what endurance sport he embraced, he'd be ruling it.
You can't compare the late 60s/70s with today's racing, as almost everything is different. Because of training methods and the UCI point system, the general level of competition is much, much higher, and race speeds are reaching unheard of levels.
As for F1: from a former racing nut who still knows more F1 and sports car trivia than anyone should, the sport has been deathly dull for the last few years. Once the drivers go back to actually driving the cars, we may see some racing again. We will also see that Schumacher is overrated without all the tech.
Ever tank in the world has the same "flaw" - in order for the engine to work, air has to get in and exhaust has to get out. This means that the armor around the engine compartment will not be as durable as the armor around the turret and engine compartments.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 1
Your information is out of date. Time Warner made the decision to migrate nearly a year ago. Conde Nast did it earlier this year.
Hmm. My friends who work there have told me different.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 1
Does the Washington Post count as "major?" How about the Wall Street Journal
And I could counter with the New York Times, the New York Post and every Time-Life and Condé Nast magazine. I've got fifteen years in the industry. How about choo?
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 1
Furthermore, I don't know HOW long it's been since QPS was used by "a majority of newspapers." It's been an InDesign world for more than a year now, doubly so since InDesign 3 came out last fall.
Not in my experience. ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.
I still think it's a silly thing to say. Because of the nature of the print and pre-press world, there are an enormous number of things which must be considered to produce an industry leading graphics app - it's more than having cool filters or being able to draw . Calling an app an "Illustrator killer" is, to me, leading with your chin.
It has, as far as I know, no inherent value as a file format.
Um, dude, it is the standard file format for vector graphics in the print publishing world. Saying it has no inherent value is like saying computers don't need solder.
Now I have to sit though more crap about an "Illustrator killer". I have no love lost for Adobe, but this kind of marketing hype ends up making those who sprout it look stupid.
There is a reason Adobe owns the market for graphics applications; despite their best efforts (cf. application bloat and corporate arrogance). Photoshop and Illustrator are still the best combo out there for bitmapped/vector graphics.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks,
Slashdot
Bad directors do this, but that has always been the case. 95% of movies, historically, are crap. Same goes for plays, novels, etc.
True. But great acting is as rare as great anything else.
Great writing is rare. The current state of things is nothing new.
Not me. I have been trapped in too many blackbox theatres watching too much shiity writing and acting, and I live in the heart of good off and off-off Broadway. There is an enormous amount of crap out there.
What good is the community when it supports medicore work? To me, that's just elitism and mastrubtion. There is a reason that theatre attendance has been in decline for the past twenty years; when Broadway discovered with "Nicholas Nickelby" that people were willing to stand in line and pay lots of money for plays, the dynamics changed. The revolutionary spirit of the '60s and '70s disappeared under the weight of commerce. With this, the truly revolutionary writers began to leave theatre, which is why independent film is the cutting edge of communal art these days. Twenty years ago there is a good chance American Beauty would have been a play, but there is precious little room for that kind of work these days.
I love good plays as much as good movies, but they are few and far in between these days. "Angels in America" is the last play I can think of which really amazed me, and that was over twenty years ago. I have no urge to go to regional theatre in Michigan just because it's a play.
Maybe. More likely, not.
And, finally: Consistency errors are inexcusible
Oh, bullshit. There are errors in plays all the time. The actors merely cover them up.
I can only answer from my experience: having a friend who's a director, having been on the sets of two, big Hollywood movies and having had a girlfriend who was an editor;
No. Sometimes small mistakes have to be left in because there isn't enough coverage an a particular shot to find another angle which is usable, but most mistakes are just that: mistakes. A movie like Spiderman is an immense undertaking. At a minimum you're talking several years of effort, over a thousand people employed in various roles, coordinating several units shooting simultaneously and cutting down millions of feet of film into a two hour final project. In an undertaking that large, mistakes are inevitable.
A harsh opinion? Perhaps. But sometimes it is the only way I can explain this middle school "neener neener neener" stuff. I would like to see these people work on a major motion picture and see how they feel afterwards.
The mp3 player market is now a commodity market, which means the focus is of user friendliness and style, not features. There is precious little to choose between the various horizontally-opposed players; what sets the iPod apart is its style and its user interface. Your average consumer isn't going to care about the name Commodore. They will want to know whether the thing works and looks better than an iPod.
The 30 inch display is perfect for non-linear editing. I know a few people who will buy them as soon as they're available.
Type "man ipfw" in the Terminal, or get Brickhouse and use its wizard.
I'm actually doing all my word processing in Textedit now.
At home I have a quote from an interview with Anquetil, in which he is asked if he ever doped. He says, roughly, "of course I do. It is impossible that any human being race 220 days out of the year with the help of drugs." In the olde days, doping was as widespread, but not as punished. I think thing are actually getting better.
Could, and did.
For the record, let's not forget that Merckx failed a drug test, too. And, like I said, it's very difficult to compare riders from different eras.
F1 had no trouble with TV audiences in the early and mid-80s when there was enormous competition for the title. In 1985 you had four drivers with legitimate shots at the title, and it was one of the best years in F1 history.
I think a man who came back from cancer would have no problem in the toughness department.
Armstrong is a better climber than Mercx, who was more like Indurain - keep pace in the mountains and kill 'em in the time trials. Armstrong and Hinault would probably be pretty equally matched in skills and abilities.
Merckx was known for his viciously light bikes; remember drillium?
No, because there's no reason for him to. He already makes multi-millions of dollars a year, has a range of endorsements and loves the series he is in. Why switch to a different series which would require him to relocate, etc., just to drive a different series?
There's also the fact that modern F1 is one of the most boring spectacles I've ever seen.
You can't compare the late 60s/70s with today's racing, as almost everything is different. Because of training methods and the UCI point system, the general level of competition is much, much higher, and race speeds are reaching unheard of levels.
As for F1: from a former racing nut who still knows more F1 and sports car trivia than anyone should, the sport has been deathly dull for the last few years. Once the drivers go back to actually driving the cars, we may see some racing again. We will also see that Schumacher is overrated without all the tech.
Ever tank in the world has the same "flaw" - in order for the engine to work, air has to get in and exhaust has to get out. This means that the armor around the engine compartment will not be as durable as the armor around the turret and engine compartments.
Hmm. My friends who work there have told me different.
Not in my experience. ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.
"Illustrator challenger" maybe.
My statement was specific to calling Inkscape an "Illustrator killer."
My bad.
Um, dude, it is the standard file format for vector graphics in the print publishing world. Saying it has no inherent value is like saying computers don't need solder.
There is a reason Adobe owns the market for graphics applications; despite their best efforts (cf. application bloat and corporate arrogance). Photoshop and Illustrator are still the best combo out there for bitmapped/vector graphics.