[scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating poverty, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we would at someone stepped out of the 12th century. Can't see them however debating the philosophical merits of the prime directive. My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus
[scifinoir2] Re: Admiral Tyler Perry
*groan* that was painful to watch... --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, brotherfromhoward brotherfromhow...@... wrote: Thoughts on Starfleet Academy's newest commander?
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 sincere1...@... wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating poverty, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we would at someone stepped out of the 12th century. Can't see them however debating the philosophical merits of the prime directive. My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Admiral Tyler Perry
He did a great job!!! Still wont watch his show(s) though. On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:25 AM, sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com wrote: *groan* that was painful to watch... --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com, brotherfromhoward brotherfromhow...@... wrote: Thoughts on Starfleet Academy's newest commander? -- clockworkman blog http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com Netflix Friends http://www.netflix.com/BeMyFriend/P5Vr384ukvNnY78xUJOT
Re: [scifinoir2] Poll: X-Men Storm versus?
Well she only has a couple bad guys -Shadow King -Morlocks -Enclosed Spaces -Marvel's Writers On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.comwrote: clockwork, she probably does have several potentials, within X-continuity. I can't think of any because, honestly, I don't really read X-books. I kinda scan them when I'm at my comics store, to keep up with what goes on in them when conversation inevitably works its way that direction. Even so, such as now, my lack of knowledge there glares. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Poll: X-Men Storm versus? Date : Sat, 9 May 2009 05:37:22 -0700 (PDT) From : Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To : truthseeker...@lycos.com, scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Damn a sista cant even have a real supervillian? Talk about your lowered expectations. Sent on the go from my Peek - Martin Baxter wrote: Jeff, I'm liking that thought. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Poll: X-Men Storm versus? Date : Sat, 9 May 2009 06:24:25 -0400 From : Jeff Carter To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I think a deranged Forge who never got over Ororo could come after her and T'Challa. Jeff On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Omari Confer wrote: The Shadow King of course.. On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Said Kakese Dibinga wrote: Okay people, I'm conducting a poll that asks the following question: If Ororo Munroe aka 'Storm' (not played by Halle Berry) was given her own movie, who should the villain be and why? Feel free to include your circle of freinds in this polling. Polling will end on May 15, 2009 and I'll email all of you the results and announce the top choices on my radio station on May 16, 2009 at 530pm PST. My email is s...@bayindogroup.com. Thank you, Said Said Yenga Kakese Dibinga Director General The Bayindo Group SA POB 1782 Los Angeles, CA 90078-1782 c: 1.323.599.6228 em: s...@bayindogroup.comskype: saiddibinga -- cwm blog http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds -- clockworkman blog http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com Netflix Friends http://www.netflix.com/BeMyFriend/P5Vr384ukvNnY78xUJOT
[RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating povert! y, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we would at someone stepped out of the 12th century. Can't see them however debating the philosophical merits of the prime directive. My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
[scifinoir2] Just finished watching Titan A. E. on THRILLER MAX!
As is my wont to do, I watched Titan A.E. (on THRILLER MAX!) with the sound off while I listened to NPR's Sunday Morning on the radio while reading my two sunday newspapaers and surfing the web. The voice-over talent was aces - Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, Janeane Garofalo, Drew Barrymore and Ron Perlman - yet this movie annoyed me mightily when I first saw it. Watching it with the sound off really allows me to appreciate the direction and artwork, which is probably too realistic for its own good, but looks great when you actually pay attention to the detail. oh, snap! The Wrath of Khan is coming on! I gotta go! ~rave! http://twitter.com/ravenadal http://blackplush.blogspot.com
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Well, I caught two of the ads that you mentioned and I did shake my head. I liked it better when we didn't have ads embedded within our movies but those are the times that we live in. ** spoilers *** It disturbed me that it two genocides to reboot this franchise, but I accepted the changes ok. They did a great job of recreating the characters: they gave a shout out to the baby boomers, but also engaged the latest generation. (What letter are we up to? Y?) I watched as Scotty did his shtick about what an engine could do. The baby-boomers roared and their kids whipped their heads around wondering what the fuss was. A friend pointed out that the story was pedestrian. Another man thirsting for vengeance. Another time-travel story. But the character stories outshone the banality of the plot. Your criticisms are certainly valid. However, I'd take the backstory of this Enterprise over the last incarnation. Can we just drop Enterprise, the way Highlanders dropped one of their movies? A co-worker suggested that I see it in IMAX format. That was also great. I'm glad that I made the effort to seek out a theatre with that format. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 sincere1...@... wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four.
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Great commentary! Pleasure to have you back in our universe, Black Galactus(you should have sent your (black) herald to prepare us for your long awaited uncloaking)! ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 sincere1...@... wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating poverty, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we would at someone stepped out of the 12th century. Can't see them however debating the philosophical merits of the prime directive. My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.comwrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating povert! y, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we would at someone stepped out of the 12th century. Can't see them however debating the philosophical merits of the prime directive. My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before
RE: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX!
I just watched it on demand yesterday, and I couldn't agree with you more. Aubrey Leatherwood www.aubreyleatherwood.com FaceBook * MySpace Imperfection A tale of perfect commitment, perfect love... and perfect sex. The People You Know, The Sex They Have ROMANTIC TIMES NOMINEE FOR BEST CONTEMPORARY EROTICA 2008 ISBN: 978-0-9818905-0-0 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com From: ravena...@yahoo.com Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:11:11 + Subject: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! Khan extracting those slugs and those slugs crawling into the ears of Chekov and Captain Terrell (the late, great Paul Winfield)while they are trapped inside their space suits is STILL great and icky stuff! ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ravenadal ravena...@... wrote: As is my wont to do, I watched Titan A.E. (on THRILLER MAX!) with the sound off while I listened to NPR's Sunday Morning on the radio while reading my two sunday newspapaers and surfing the web. The voice-over talent was aces - Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, Janeane Garofalo, Drew Barrymore and Ron Perlman - yet this movie annoyed me mightily when I first saw it. Watching it with the sound off really allows me to appreciate the direction and artwork, which is probably too realistic for its own good, but looks great when you actually pay attention to the detail. oh, snap! The Wrath of Khan is coming on! I gotta go! ~rave! http://twitter.com/ravenadal http://blackplush.blogspot.com _ Hotmail® goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Sin, i see your points and to a point i agree. the new movie does change a couple of class trek eps. AMOK Time and Children of the Gods being the first to that come 2 mind. then it was the ep - which i am sorry i cannot remember the name, but the one when Sarek and Amanda beam onto the enterprise and kirk says to spock Mr. Spock, we will be in orbit a couple of hours. If you want to beam down and see your parents, that will be o.k. then spock looks at kirk and says Ambassordor Sarek and his wife, are my parents. that was kool as hell too! Fate. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 7:55 AM That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1906@ gmail.com To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon-- right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. F! or the first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry' s vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?! ? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating! poverty, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we would at someone stepped out
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376999x1201454299/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=May51009AvgfooterNO62)
Re: [scifinoir2] Just finished watching Titan A. E. on THRILLER MAX!
The voice casting is one of the worst things about Titan AE. It's a great picture, for a mostly American production. On May 10, 2009, at 9:50 AM, ravenadal wrote: As is my wont to do, I watched Titan A.E. (on THRILLER MAX!) with the sound off while I listened to NPR's Sunday Morning on the radio while reading my two sunday newspapaers and surfing the web. The voice-over talent was aces - Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, Janeane Garofalo, Drew Barrymore and Ron Perlman - yet this movie annoyed me mightily when I first saw it. Watching it with the sound off really allows me to appreciate the direction and artwork, which is probably too realistic for its own good, but looks great when you actually pay attention to the detail. oh, snap! The Wrath of Khan is coming on! I gotta go! ~rave! http://twitter.com/ravenadal http://blackplush.blogspot.com
Re: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX!
I sorta liked JJ Abrams' tribute to that scene. On May 10, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Aubrey Leatherwood wrote: I just watched it on demand yesterday, and I couldn't agree with you more. Aubrey Leatherwood www.aubreyleatherwood.com FaceBook * MySpace Imperfection A tale of perfect commitment, perfect love... and perfect sex. The People You Know, The Sex They Have ROMANTIC TIMES NOMINEE FOR BEST CONTEMPORARY EROTICA 2008 ISBN: 978-0-9818905-0-0 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com From: ravena...@yahoo.com Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:11:11 + Subject: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! Khan extracting those slugs and those slugs crawling into the ears of Chekov and Captain Terrell (the late, great Paul Winfield)while they are trapped inside their space suits is STILL great and icky stuff! ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ravenadal ravena...@... wrote: As is my wont to do, I watched Titan A.E. (on THRILLER MAX!) with the sound off while I listened to NPR's Sunday Morning on the radio while reading my two sunday newspapaers and surfing the web. The voice-over talent was aces - Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, Janeane Garofalo, Drew Barrymore and Ron Perlman - yet this movie annoyed me mightily when I first saw it. Watching it with the sound off really allows me to appreciate the direction and artwork, which is probably too realistic for its own good, but looks great when you actually pay attention to the detail. oh, snap! The Wrath of Khan is coming on! I gotta go! ~rave! http://twitter.com/ravenadal http://blackplush.blogspot.com Hotmail® goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Admiral Tyler Perry
actually i enjoyed the cameo from tyler. Fate. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com wrote: From: sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Admiral Tyler Perry To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 4:25 AM *groan* that was painful to watch... --- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, brotherfromhoward brotherfromhoward@ ... wrote: Thoughts on Starfleet Academy's newest commander?
Re: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX!
Daryle, i agree. i think it was done on purpose. only people who have really watched trek understood that scene. my wife grabbed my hand and said immediately Wrath of Khan she loves the classic series - hell half of my dvr space is her recordings of star trek. Fate. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Daryle Lockhart dar...@darylelockhart.com wrote: From: Daryle Lockhart dar...@darylelockhart.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 10:36 AM I sorta liked JJ Abrams' tribute to that scene. On May 10, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Aubrey Leatherwood wrote: I just watched it on demand yesterday, and I couldn't agree with you more. Aubrey Leatherwood www.aubreyleatherwo od.com FaceBook * MySpace Imperfection A tale of perfect commitment, perfect love... and perfect sex. The People You Know, The Sex They Have ROMANTIC TIMES NOMINEE FOR BEST CONTEMPORARY EROTICA 2008 ISBN: 978-0-9818905- 0-0 To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com From: ravena...@yahoo. com Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:11:11 + Subject: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! Khan extracting those slugs and those slugs crawling into the ears of Chekov and Captain Terrell (the late, great Paul Winfield)while they are trapped inside their space suits is STILL great and icky stuff! ~rave! --- in scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, ravenadal ravena...@. .. wrote: As is my wont to do, I watched Titan A.E. (on THRILLER MAX!) with the sound off while I listened to NPR's Sunday Morning on the radio while reading my two sunday newspapaers and surfing the web. The voice-over talent was aces - Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, Janeane Garofalo, Drew Barrymore and Ron Perlman - yet this movie annoyed me mightily when I first saw it. Watching it with the sound off really allows me to appreciate the direction and artwork, which is probably too realistic for its own good, but looks great when you actually pay attention to the detail. oh, snap! The Wrath of Khan is coming on! I gotta go! ~rave! http://twitter. com/ravenadal http://blackplush. blogspot. com Hotmail® goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.
[scifinoir2] Re: Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX!
I had forgotten how reverential (one of the chief faults of Star Trek: the Motion Picture) The Wrath of Khan is - starting with Leonard Nimoy's iconic Rock Rushmore head and moving on to Kirk's first star entrance on the command deck, to the long, loving gaze at the Enterprise leaving star port. All this and a hot Vulcan played by a skinny Kirstie Alley. I am struck by the young, strapping Dr. David Marcus played by Merritt Butrick (the erstwhile Johnny Slash from Square Pegs). The once and future son of Kirk would have made a nice James Tiberius in an 80's reboot of the franchise. Alas, the actor Butrick succumbed to AIDs in 1989. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Aubrey Leatherwood aubrey.leatherw...@... wrote: I just watched it on demand yesterday, and I couldn't agree with you more. Aubrey Leatherwood www.aubreyleatherwood.com FaceBook * MySpace Imperfection A tale of perfect commitment, perfect love... and perfect sex. The People You Know, The Sex They Have ROMANTIC TIMES NOMINEE FOR BEST CONTEMPORARY EROTICA 2008 ISBN: 978-0-9818905-0-0 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com From: ravena...@... Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:11:11 + Subject: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! Khan extracting those slugs and those slugs crawling into the ears of Chekov and Captain Terrell (the late, great Paul Winfield)while they are trapped inside their space suits is STILL great and icky stuff! ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ravenadal ravenadal@ wrote: As is my wont to do, I watched Titan A.E. (on THRILLER MAX!) with the sound off while I listened to NPR's Sunday Morning on the radio while reading my two sunday newspapaers and surfing the web. The voice-over talent was aces - Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, Janeane Garofalo, Drew Barrymore and Ron Perlman - yet this movie annoyed me mightily when I first saw it. Watching it with the sound off really allows me to appreciate the direction and artwork, which is probably too realistic for its own good, but looks great when you actually pay attention to the detail. oh, snap! The Wrath of Khan is coming on! I gotta go! ~rave! http://twitter.com/ravenadal http://blackplush.blogspot.com _ Hotmail® goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
[scifinoir2] Re: Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX!
Now THAT was good stuff! How ironic is it that Nicolas Meyer wrote and directed both one of the best Star Trek movies: The Wrath of Khan and, arguably, one of the worst: The Undiscovered Country, (which had the ignoble distinction of breaking the streak of the even numbered Trek movies being superior to the odd numbered ones). But I forgive him because he also wrote The Voyage Home, still my favorite Trek movie. ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ravenadal ravena...@... wrote: I had forgotten how reverential (one of the chief faults of Star Trek: the Motion Picture) The Wrath of Khan is - starting with Leonard Nimoy's iconic Rock Rushmore head and moving on to Kirk's first star entrance on the command deck, to the long, loving gaze at the Enterprise leaving star port. All this and a hot Vulcan played by a skinny Kirstie Alley. I am struck by the young, strapping Dr. David Marcus played by Merritt Butrick (the erstwhile Johnny Slash from Square Pegs). The once and future son of Kirk would have made a nice James Tiberius in an 80's reboot of the franchise. Alas, the actor Butrick succumbed to AIDs in 1989. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Aubrey Leatherwood aubrey.leatherwood@ wrote: I just watched it on demand yesterday, and I couldn't agree with you more. Aubrey Leatherwood www.aubreyleatherwood.com FaceBook * MySpace Imperfection A tale of perfect commitment, perfect love... and perfect sex. The People You Know, The Sex They Have ROMANTIC TIMES NOMINEE FOR BEST CONTEMPORARY EROTICA 2008 ISBN: 978-0-9818905-0-0 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com From: ravenadal@ Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:11:11 + Subject: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! Khan extracting those slugs and those slugs crawling into the ears of Chekov and Captain Terrell (the late, great Paul Winfield)while they are trapped inside their space suits is STILL great and icky stuff! ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ravenadal ravenadal@ wrote: As is my wont to do, I watched Titan A.E. (on THRILLER MAX!) with the sound off while I listened to NPR's Sunday Morning on the radio while reading my two sunday newspapaers and surfing the web. The voice-over talent was aces - Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, Janeane Garofalo, Drew Barrymore and Ron Perlman - yet this movie annoyed me mightily when I first saw it. Watching it with the sound off really allows me to appreciate the direction and artwork, which is probably too realistic for its own good, but looks great when you actually pay attention to the detail. oh, snap! The Wrath of Khan is coming on! I gotta go! ~rave! http://twitter.com/ravenadal http://blackplush.blogspot.com _ Hotmail® goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, gwashin...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! ( http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376999x1201454299/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=62bcd=May51009AvgfooterNO62)
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon-- right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating povert! y, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
And the canonical differences are the things we were always arguing about ANYWAY, which makes this reset brilliant. A lot of the things we accept as Trek law is stuff that happened under Berman and Braga. Let's not forget, if we follow the actual timeliine of events, time had been changed by the events of First Contact ANYWAY, so things were already different. I have an analysis coming on things that changed that we hadn't considered, and some of it's good, like the idea that Voyager probably won't happen in this timeline, and that no Klingons ever join the Federation. Having a leading science officer from the future with knowledge of their mining accident will DEFINITELY impact how the Klingons get down. But more importantly, it is quite possible that either the Founders or The Borg WIN this time. The small advantages the Federation had were due to the political climate in the galaxy. Change those things (make the Romulans into allies, for example), and everything changes. I believe that this new Trek universe is going to be FANTASTIC for novels. All bets are off! FOR THIS REASON, it's crucial that J J Abrams not direct the next Star Trek movie. He can produce all day, I'm not saying the man shouldn't get paid, but JJ has a habit of derailing something in the middle and having it never recover (or is there someone here who understands what's happening on Lost?) On May 10, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Adrianne Brennan wrote: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, gwashin...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376999x1201454299/aol? redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx? sc=668072hmpgID=62bcd=May51009AvgfooterNO62)
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
IMAX seats, thank you! On May 10, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Justin Mohareb wrote: Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.comwrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles-- even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating povert! y, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they
[scifinoir2] Why a reboot? Kirk's first, best destiny
From The Wrath of Khan [On whether Kirk should assume command from Spock] Spock: If I may be so bold, it was a mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first, best destiny; anything else is a waste of material.
RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
GTw: I think you are dead on regarding the Galactica SyndromeExcept I do not know whether I agree with the case of Battlestar I. Battlestar did not as fair well over 30 years in syndication as Star Trek and its attempts a sequels and movies did not yield much fruit. I suspect it also did not have scores of books, webshows, video games, web sites, discussion groups, etc dedicated to it either.Personally, I loved Battlestar as a kid, but I could not really stomach it is syndication as an adult. At first I hated Star buck and then I loved her. I will always have a problem with how the new incarnation treated Blacks on the show, after the first one broke so much ground with Blacks. Regarding popularity, for cable, Battlestar was a hit with a huge global following., However, there is a new trend in Hollyweird to cancel series and live off the profits of syndication and movies if costs are hi or if filming in Canada, the dollar is low against the Canadian dollar. CBS is doing this with Without a Trace and a another drama. I think ABC did it with a show as well. I still do not get it, they cancel star gate altantis and launch star gate universe. Take down Battlestar, but film another movie and a series. Maybe someone else on the list better understands the machinations of Hollyweird. If Battlestar had ended on a different note, then I think you would be wrong, Battlestar - the second incarnation would have gone down as an imperfect classic. It have legions of dedicated fans around the would. However, why you could be right about the second incarnation of Battlestar, is that a large number of the fans are ambivilant due to have the show resolved itself. In one fell swoop they may have killed the long-term love people had for it. Time will tell. A star trek series, based on this new universe might work, because the guy who is to be in charge, (I can not remember his name) is a great scifi tv producer with a proven track record. Enterprise had a burnt-out Berman at the helm. Enterprise had a lot of scripted scifi competition to compete with, icluding Angel and Dark Angel. These days, the networks are overrun with reality TV and there will likely be very little original scripted scifi on TV. Some of us will boycott. However, if it is done well, others, like me, who are going through scifi withdrawal, will watch and gripe. But I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376999x1201454299/aol?redir=htt p://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=62bcd=May5100 9AvgfooterNO62)
RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
I can adapt. Have nostalgia for those parts of our past , while embracing something ,new and DIFFERENT in the now. However, I empathize with those who cannot. Change is hard. From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Justin Mohareb Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:46 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@gmail.com wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminat ing povert! y, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Don't worry. Abrams won't be directing the sequel. He's already done with it, bored and ready for the next thing that's caught his eye. We just don't know what that is yet. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 12:03:46 -0400 From : Daryle Lockhart dar...@darylelockhart.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com And the canonical differences are the things we were always arguing about ANYWAY, which makes this reset brilliant. A lot of the things we accept as Trek law is stuff that happened under Berman and Braga. Let's not forget, if we follow the actual timeliine of events, time had been changed by the events of First Contact ANYWAY, so things were already different. I have an analysis coming on things that changed that we hadn't considered, and some of it's good, like the idea that Voyager probably won't happen in this timeline, and that no Klingons ever join the Federation. Having a leading science officer from the future with knowledge of their mining accident will DEFINITELY impact how the Klingons get down. But more importantly, it is quite possible that either the Founders or The Borg WIN this time. The small advantages the Federation had were due to the political climate in the galaxy. Change those things (make the Romulans into allies, for example), and everything changes. I believe that this new Trek universe is going to be FANTASTIC for novels. All bets are off! FOR THIS REASON, it's crucial that J J Abrams not direct the next Star Trek movie. He can produce all day, I'm not saying the man shouldn't get paid, but JJ has a habit of derailing something in the middle and having it never recover (or is there someone here who understands what's happening on Lost?) On May 10, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Adrianne Brennan wrote: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! ( http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376999x1201454299/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp;bcd=May51009AvgfooterNO62) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
[RE][scifinoir2] Re: Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX!
KHN! I really want to see that again... ;-D -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 15:35:19 - From : ravenadal ravena...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Now THAT was good stuff! How ironic is it that Nicolas Meyer wrote and directed both one of the best Star Trek movies: The Wrath of Khan and, arguably, one of the worst: The Undiscovered Country, (which had the ignoble distinction of breaking the streak of the even numbered Trek movies being superior to the odd numbered ones). But I forgive him because he also wrote The Voyage Home, still my favorite Trek movie. ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ravenadal wrote: I had forgotten how reverential (one of the chief faults of Star Trek: the Motion Picture) The Wrath of Khan is - starting with Leonard Nimoy's iconic Rock Rushmore head and moving on to Kirk's first star entrance on the command deck, to the long, loving gaze at the Enterprise leaving star port. All this and a hot Vulcan played by a skinny Kirstie Alley. I am struck by the young, strapping Dr. David Marcus played by Merritt Butrick (the erstwhile Johnny Slash from Square Pegs). The once and future son of Kirk would have made a nice James Tiberius in an 80's reboot of the franchise. Alas, the actor Butrick succumbed to AIDs in 1989. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Aubrey Leatherwood wrote: I just watched it on demand yesterday, and I couldn't agree with you more. Aubrey Leatherwood www.aubreyleatherwood.com FaceBook * MySpace Imperfection A tale of perfect commitment, perfect love... and perfect sex. The People You Know, The Sex They Have ROMANTIC TIMES NOMINEE FOR BEST CONTEMPORARY EROTICA 2008 ISBN: 978-0-9818905-0-0 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com From: ravenadal@ Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:11:11 + Subject: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! Khan extracting those slugs and those slugs crawling into the ears of Chekov and Captain Terrell (the late, great Paul Winfield)while they are trapped inside their space suits is STILL great and icky stuff! ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ravenadal wrote: As is my wont to do, I watched Titan A.E. (on THRILLER MAX!) with the sound off while I listened to NPR's Sunday Morning on the radio while reading my two sunday newspapaers and surfing the web. The voice-over talent was aces - Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, Janeane Garofalo, Drew Barrymore and Ron Perlman - yet this movie annoyed me mightily when I first saw it. Watching it with the sound off really allows me to appreciate the direction and artwork, which is probably too realistic for its own good, but looks great when you actually pay attention to the detail. oh, snap! The Wrath of Khan is coming on! I gotta go! ~rave! http://twitter.com/ravenadal http://blackplush.blogspot.com _ Hotmail® goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan adrianne.brennan@ gmail.com To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! ( http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 100126575x122237 6999x1201454299/ aol?redir= http://www. freecreditreport .com/pm/default. aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=62bcd=May51009Avgfoot erNO62) http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=JQdwk8Yntds
[scifinoir2] Saldana's Uhura makes history again
(Now, Saldana is waaay too skinny for my tastes BUT there IS a picture of her wearing a mini-skirt at the movie premiere if you follow the link) ~rave! http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/movies/articles/2009/05/07/20090507saldana0507.html Saldana's Uhura makes history again by Rick Bentley - May. 7, 2009 12:00 AM McClatchy Newspapers LOS ANGELES - The Star Trek character of Nyota Uhura, played by Nichelle Nichols in the original series, holds an important place in history: Her onscreen kiss with Capt. Kirk (William Shatner) was the first interracial smooch on television. Series creator Gene Roddenberry imagined a future where everyone would work together no matter their race, creed or planet of origin. Casting Nichols as the ship's communications officer was a big move - she became one of only a handful of black actors on television in the mid 1960s. Zoe Saldana, who plays Uhura in the new Star Trek feature film, was well aware of all that history when she signed on to the project. But speaking with Nichols helped calm her concerns. There was this overall happiness and excitement that Star Trek' was coming back and that we were stepping into the family. It made it much easier for us to approach this character, not only remembering the fundamental essences of all of them, but also not to be afraid to add any innovation, Saldana says during an interview at the Four Seasons Hotel. There is no character in the new film that gets more innovation than Uhura. She's involved in a storyline that goes into a completely different galaxy (which we won't give away here) as far as the character is concerned. Saldana thought director J.J. Abrams had lost his mind when she first read the script. I dropped it and I grabbed my Blackberry and I kept saying, This man's crazy! J.J.'s out of his mind. I'm not that aware about Star Trek,' but I do know that they never mingled. It's crazy!' And then, once I finished the script, it made so much sense, Saldana says. The 30-year-old Saldana has been a professional actor for a decade. Most of her work has been less special-effects driven, such as 'Drumline, Guess Who and Vantage Point. It took her a little while to adapt to Star Trek's green screen work, the technique used to put everything from spaceships to creatures in a scene after the actors perform. There are perks in things that are technical and kind of a drag sometimes. The perks about green screen is that you get back to remembering what it was like to play with your dolls when you were 5 years old, when your imagination was completely and utterly infinite, Saldana says. Just for the record, the original Star Trek had ended its first run 14 years before Saldana was 5.
[scifinoir2] Karl Urban fleshes out a younger Bones in 'Star Trek'
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/article/92731-karl-urban-fleshes-out-a-younger-bones-in-star-trek/print/ Karl Urban fleshes out a younger Bones in 'Star Trek' by Robert W. Butler For several years now, New Zealand-born Karl Urban has been the guy filmmakers turned to if a character had to ride a horse, chuck a spear or run through the forest primeval in a breechcloth. In the Lord of the Rings trilogy he was Eomer , one of the riders of Rohan. In Pathfinder he played Ghost, a warrior of an Indian tribe battling Viking marauders. But in director J.J. Abrams' new Star Trek, opening Friday, the 36-year-old Urban gets to do something else entirely. He gets to be funny. More than that, he gets to portray a younger version of a character that every student of pop culture knows intimately: Dr. Leonard Bones McCoy, the often-acerbic ship's surgeon on the Enterprise. This was a fantastic opportunity for me, Urban said in a recent phone call from Hollywood. I'm so grateful to J.J. for the opportunity to do a character so fundamentally different from anything I've done in such a long time. You certainly can't call Bones McCoy an action hero. The other thing that makes this so great is that I'm a long-term fan of the TV show. As a kid in New Zealand I would religiously be in front of the set every Saturday morning when `Star Trek' came on. In the new film Urban looks and behaves uncannily like the late DeForest Kelley, who played McCoy on the series and in several big-screen incarnations. J.J. set forth a mandate that it was up to each of us in the cast to decide what aspects of these established characters we wanted to bring to the younger versions of them. I tried to approach that not as an actor but as a fan ... if I wasn't in this movie and was just somebody going to see it, how much continuity would I want with these characters that I grew up knowing and loving? I decided I'd want a lot of continuity. My job was to identify the spirit and essence of what Mr. Kelley had done for 40 years and filter it through myself. The challenge was to not only honor that legacy, but to continue to explore it with a fresh eye. Given the roars of audience approval that greeted Urban's Bone-sian delivery of classic McCoy eruptions at a recent screening of Star Trek (Dammit, I'm a doctor, not a physicist!), it appears that Urban pulled it off. I read one reviewer who put forth the opinion that the most engaging parts of the movie are the character beats between the moments of sci-fi spectacle. Which is fantastic, because that was always the inherent strength of `Star Trek' it was a character-driven show. You might forget about individual stories, but not the characters. They're the glue. You engage with them and care about them. That's why as a kid I was such a fan. I tuned in to see how these e clectic, culturally diverse characters would overcome their individual differences to defeat a common adversary. Making the movie was about as much fun as he's ever had on the job, Urban said. The challenge was to stop laughing before the camera started rolling. We were having such a great time, and that chemistry is evident on screen. And I was giddy through much of the filming. It was surreal to be on the Enterprise's bridge in a Starfleet uniform delivering some of the iconic lines of my childhood. Urban thinks this latest Trek is the closest to Gene Roddenberry's original. If you're a Trekker there's a lot in this for you. Lots of jokes and winks, but done in a respectful way. And if you've never seen an episode, this is a wonderful opportunity to get in on the ground level and enjoy a truly phenomenal film with lots of heart, some tragedy, comedy. It's not a bad showcase for Karl Urban, either. I'm really looking forward to seeing what opportunities come off of this. I hope that in some quarters my performance will bring on paradigm shift in how I'm viewed as an actor. I want to keep working with the caliber of director and actors I did on this show. I guess I've been spoiled.
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Your right to believe and enjoy. Mine not to. Thank you for caring enough to try to steer me your way, but I feel that I've got to make a stand here. To quote Picard in First Contact, This far and no further! -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:00:32 -0700 (PDT) From : Bosco Bosco ironpi...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! ( http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 100126575x122237 6999x1201454299/ aol?redir= http://www.
RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
You guys know my heart skips a beat when you guys call me Exalted List Goddess, so it is particularly touching on mother's day. Thanks. I'm thrilled everyone is returning home today..and even more thrilled that we have some active new blood Thank you for the cool Mother's day wishes -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ravenadal Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:00 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Tracey! I was just thinking to myself: where IS our Exalted List Goddess during all this lively conversation? I hope this Mother's Day finds you in good health and proud of your list children (even the one's too old to still be at home - like me!). ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella tdli...@... wrote: Wow everybody is turning back in to comment on this one. Adrianne, Aubrey, Marian, Galacticus, Justin, etc Did I leave anyone out? It's good to hear from everyone Tracey From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adrianne Brennan Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:16 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads
RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Martin: Why can't you see it absorb it, enjoy it if possible and then come home and complain about the inconsistencies, Like Galactigus did From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bosco Bosco Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:01 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan adrianne.brennan@ gmail.com To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! ( http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 100126575x122237 6999x1201454299/ aol?redir= http://www. freecreditreport .com/pm/default.
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
In a message dated 5/10/09 11:45:06 AM, adrianne.bren...@gmail.com writes: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. At least in the Doctor Who reboots they made a great effort to at least keep with the spirit of the show and it's cannonal history. Even if they did change it. And inspite of those changes it, In short still 'felt' like Doctor Who. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376999x1201454299/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=May51009AvgfooterNO62)
RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Martin, Tracey and Bosco are correct. Just go and see it and enjoy it for what it's worth. my wife and i saw it last night, and we both liked it, and trust me. when i saw she liked a sci-fi movie, that is a feat! Fate. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com wrote: From: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 2:48 PM Martin: Why can’t you see it absorb it, enjoy it if possible and then come home and complain about the inconsistencies, Like Galactigus did From: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:scifinoir2@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Bosco Bosco Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:01 AM To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter truthseeker013@ lycos.com wrote: From: Martin Baxter truthseeker013@ lycos.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan adrianne.brennan@ gmail.com To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
GW, The Galactica Syndrome... I like that! :) I should state, I really *like* what was done with the new Galactica. That was a true rebooting that borrowed elements of the original and came up with something fresh and new. And I might argue that BSG's changes were appreciated by people like me who remember fondly the original, but also love this one. Of course, the new BSG is a re-make---the way the X-Universe is remade every time there's a movie, cartoon, etc. It's easier to accept it, because no matter what happens in the X-men movies, the X-Universe of the comic book world continues to sail along. Unlike re-make movies however, Trek movies and shows and books tend to inter-connect. They don't exist side by side, the way an X-movie may exist alongside (but not within) the dominant X-Universe. This new Trek however isn't actually a re-make, but it doesn't interconnect either--at least with anything past the Enterprise era. It involves an alternate timeline/reality that deviates from the old Trek but not completely divorced from it. Trek has certainly flirted with alternate universes before (Mirror, Mirror), but this is the first one I know of based on an altering of the dominant universe we're used to. Usually when that happens, by the end of the episode everything rights itself (Yesterday's Enterprise). We now have two major Trek universes however. So will this new one spawn new series? Books? Will this universe ever overlap with the other one? Be interesting to watch... Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, gwashin...@... wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@... writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376999x1201454299/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=May51009AvgfooterNO62)
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Daryle, Those are some great points! True indeed, how many times has the timeline been altered already with flagrant offenders like Kirk (old Kirk)? And, one more time, what about those Temporal Authorities that exist in the far future that attempt to assure the timeline remains generally intact? Somehow they have to exist outside of these temporal changes and must be aware. I'm wondering too how many changes Spock's presence will bring. Spock however came from a Federation that obeyed the Prime Directive...somewhat. How much does he interfere in this timeline with his knowledge of the possible future? Does Spock give away future scientific knowledge (like he did with trans-warp teleporting), or keep his mouth/brain shut. So if I get this straight, this timeline does not erase the old one we're used to right? That timeline--that I'm going to call the Trek Universe 1.0--still exists, no? This new timeline is just another reality now, like Worf's bouncing around in Parallels. Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Daryle Lockhart dar...@... wrote: And the canonical differences are the things we were always arguing about ANYWAY, which makes this reset brilliant. A lot of the things we accept as Trek law is stuff that happened under Berman and Braga. Let's not forget, if we follow the actual timeliine of events, time had been changed by the events of First Contact ANYWAY, so things were already different. I have an analysis coming on things that changed that we hadn't considered, and some of it's good, like the idea that Voyager probably won't happen in this timeline, and that no Klingons ever join the Federation. Having a leading science officer from the future with knowledge of their mining accident will DEFINITELY impact how the Klingons get down. But more importantly, it is quite possible that either the Founders or The Borg WIN this time. The small advantages the Federation had were due to the political climate in the galaxy. Change those things (make the Romulans into allies, for example), and everything changes. I believe that this new Trek universe is going to be FANTASTIC for novels. All bets are off! FOR THIS REASON, it's crucial that J J Abrams not direct the next Star Trek movie. He can produce all day, I'm not saying the man shouldn't get paid, but JJ has a habit of derailing something in the middle and having it never recover (or is there someone here who understands what's happening on Lost?) On May 10, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Adrianne Brennan wrote: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, gwashin...@... wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@... writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
ROTFL. Man just the image of Picard in that scene has me laughing. But recall that Picard's Ahab-like obstinance had to be tempered by Alfree Woodard... You broke your little ships. See the movie, please, if only so I can find a like-minded person who likes Trek's vision and principles to gripe and complain with... :) Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: Your right to believe and enjoy. Mine not to. Thank you for caring enough to try to steer me your way, but I feel that I've got to make a stand here. To quote Picard in First Contact, This far and no further! -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:00:32 -0700 (PDT) From : Bosco Bosco ironpi...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the
[RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
I have seen the movie and I loved it. My feelings about this non-issue is the same as yours. I just will not be drawn into a convoluted argument about Trek loyalties. Meta --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Justin Mohareb justinmoha...@... wrote: Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@... wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon-- right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating povert! y,
[RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
I was a near instance Picard fan, mainly because he was the total opposite of Kirk. If Kirk had been killed at anytime during TOS, I'd have leaped for joy.:) I really didn't like him until the movies appeared. Watching the movie today I found myself really liking this Kirk, much to my surprise.:) Quinto was outstanding,IMO. Meta --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella tdli...@... wrote: One more thing, Do any of you remember when people torn down TNG during its premier. How about Picard. He is now among some more beloved than Kirk, yet many were prepared to start a rebellion when the series premiered. I think some of the traditionalists will eventually adapt and learn to separate enjoy and gripe. Griping can be fun From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Justin Mohareb Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:46 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@... wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as
[RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
But this is scifinoir...where we can get into convulted arguments about everything from individuality and consciousness in the Borg to whether Balrogs have wings. That's what makes this little reality Tracey created for us so special--cuz we can't do so in most other places. And fear not, I'm not asking anyone to be divided by loyalties nor am I stewing in prejudice (?) and/or nostalgia. lol Just having a lively discussion... :) Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Meta hett...@... wrote: I have seen the movie and I loved it. My feelings about this non-issue is the same as yours. I just will not be drawn into a convoluted argument about Trek loyalties. Meta --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Justin Mohareb justinmohareb@ wrote: Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.brennan@ wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker013@ wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1906@ To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon-- right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
For me it indeed 'felt' like Trek. I guess its a case of YMMV. Meta --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 sincere1...@... wrote: GW, You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. It was a good movie, I enjoyed much of it, but it didn't *feel* like Trek. And when some people hear my complaints they think I'm trying to be a purist or that I don't like the timeline/alternate reality change. And that's not it at all. I'm not one of those folks who was griping because there was a woman in charge on Voyager or because Picard didn't go around fighting everyone like Kirk did. I like those kinds of changes. I think the timeline/alternate reality thing is bold--even if I'll miss the old guys. No, my issues lay on whether this new Trek will still continue in the vision that (imho) gave the stories such a massive fanbase and following. Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, GWashin891@ wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 11:45:06 AM, adrianne.brennan@ writes: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. At least in the Doctor Who reboots they made a great effort to at least keep with the spirit of the show and it's cannonal history. Even if they did change it. And inspite of those changes it, In short still 'felt' like Doctor Who. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376999x1201454299/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=May51009AvgfooterNO62)
[RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
LOL You're right Tracey. Griping can be fun! When I become an old man, I plan on being a master griper. I'm practicing now! :) One point of contention however, I don't know if this is about being a traditionalist or whether one can adapt--at least not for me. I liked the old Star Trek I watched in syndication as a kid. I was all open eyes for Next Gen, and followed it thru my teenage to early adult years. I signed up for Deep Space Nine and Voyager. I endured Enterprise. I saw every movie. Read some books. I adapted repeatedly. Did I gripe? Oh yeah. Usually I griped at what I thought were wack storylines or bad episodes. With Enterprise I just griped at what I considered bland storytelling, though they began to make up for that with aspects of the Xindi war. So change in the Trek Universe--I think I can adapt to that fine. I can even adapt I think to alternate timelines/realities (Mirror, Mirror/Yesterday's Enterprise/Parallels), which I usually find exciting. My issues with this good movie (because I'm saying off the bat, it's a good movie) are about the deeper principles that lie behind what Trek is, what tied all those previous incarnations (good and/or bad) together. From the product placements to Kirk's almost going through the motions in citing Federation compassion towards the enemy at the end, this just didn't feel like Trek, which I have accepted previously in all its adaptations. It looked like Trek, it had the characters, it had familiar names--but it felt like...something else. Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella tdli...@... wrote: One more thing, Do any of you remember when people torn down TNG during its premier. How about Picard. He is now among some more beloved than Kirk, yet many were prepared to start a rebellion when the series premiered. I think some of the traditionalists will eventually adapt and learn to separate enjoy and gripe. Griping can be fun From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Justin Mohareb Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:46 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@... wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a
[RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
I can only say that I'll consider it, sin. I still feel as though paying to see something I know I won't like is a violation of my ethics. (I know, you ask how I can say with such certainty that I don't like something I've never laid eyes on. My answer is my own Little Voice. It's saved my life, and the lives of three other people. It also tried to save me from making a disastrous bet on the Iggles in SB XV. I trust it.) -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 20:40:41 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com ROTFL. Man just the image of Picard in that scene has me laughing. But recall that Picard's Ahab-like obstinance had to be tempered by Alfree Woodard... You broke your little ships. See the movie, please, if only so I can find a like-minded person who likes Trek's vision and principles to gripe and complain with... :) Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Martin Baxter wrote: Your right to believe and enjoy. Mine not to. Thank you for caring enough to try to steer me your way, but I feel that I've got to make a stand here. To quote Picard in First Contact, This far and no further! -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:00:32 -0700 (PDT) From : Bosco Bosco To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to
[RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
sin, I had a hit off the whisper-stream a few months back, that a crossover with the original Trek timeline was a possible go. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 20:32:20 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Daryle, Those are some great points! True indeed, how many times has the timeline been altered already with flagrant offenders like Kirk (old Kirk)? And, one more time, what about those Temporal Authorities that exist in the far future that attempt to assure the timeline remains generally intact? Somehow they have to exist outside of these temporal changes and must be aware. I'm wondering too how many changes Spock's presence will bring. Spock however came from a Federation that obeyed the Prime Directive...somewhat. How much does he interfere in this timeline with his knowledge of the possible future? Does Spock give away future scientific knowledge (like he did with trans-warp teleporting), or keep his mouth/brain shut. So if I get this straight, this timeline does not erase the old one we're used to right? That timeline--that I'm going to call the Trek Universe 1.0--still exists, no? This new timeline is just another reality now, like Worf's bouncing around in Parallels. Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Daryle Lockhart wrote: And the canonical differences are the things we were always arguing about ANYWAY, which makes this reset brilliant. A lot of the things we accept as Trek law is stuff that happened under Berman and Braga. Let's not forget, if we follow the actual timeliine of events, time had been changed by the events of First Contact ANYWAY, so things were already different. I have an analysis coming on things that changed that we hadn't considered, and some of it's good, like the idea that Voyager probably won't happen in this timeline, and that no Klingons ever join the Federation. Having a leading science officer from the future with knowledge of their mining accident will DEFINITELY impact how the Klingons get down. But more importantly, it is quite possible that either the Founders or The Borg WIN this time. The small advantages the Federation had were due to the political climate in the galaxy. Change those things (make the Romulans into allies, for example), and everything changes. I believe that this new Trek universe is going to be FANTASTIC for novels. All bets are off! FOR THIS REASON, it's crucial that J J Abrams not direct the next Star Trek movie. He can produce all day, I'm not saying the man shouldn't get paid, but JJ has a habit of derailing something in the middle and having it never recover (or is there someone here who understands what's happening on Lost?) On May 10, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Adrianne Brennan wrote: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@... writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful,
RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Fate, I'm on the record. Best I can do is to give it a lot of thought. In recent months, I've resisted seeing a lot of movies I was told I *had* to see, almost all of which turned out to be crap. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 12:18:23 -0700 (PDT) From : Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Martin, Tracey and Bosco are correct. Just go and see it and enjoy it for what it's worth. my wife and i saw it last night, and we both liked it, and trust me. when i saw she liked a sci-fi movie, that is a feat! Fate. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Tracey de Morsella wrote: From: Tracey de Morsella Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 2:48 PM Martin: Why can’t you see it absorb it, enjoy it if possible and then come home and complain about the inconsistencies, Like Galactigus did From: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:scifinoir2@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Bosco Bosco Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:01 AM To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good.
RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Bosco, again, I'm on the record. I feel as though... if I put my money down on something which, in the long run, I feel is going to fail (this movie itself won't -- I'm certain that it'll end up as one of the top-three box-office champs of the year, but Abrams, again, has a track record of quitting on whatever he picks up. The rumor's already out that he won't direct the next one, merely exec-produce it (meaning show up for an hour aday, sign the paychecks and go to whatever his next pet project is), and the next one won't measure up to the standard of this one, IMO risking the possibility that the Trek franchise will, one day, be in the same league as J__l Sr put the Bat franchise into with his misdirected two efforts.) Also, I say again that better options for a continuation were out there, namely DSNine. No one can say that it's out of the consciousness of the fans, because it still airs on Spike every so often late nights. Just taked myself out of it again. NO WAY. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:48:14 -0700 From : Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Martin: Why can't you see it absorb it, enjoy it if possible and then come home and complain about the inconsistencies, Like Galactigus did From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bosco Bosco Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:01 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well
RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Tracey, you should change your post-name to that. Truth in advertising, after all... ;-D -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:45:00 -0700 From : Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com You guys know my heart skips a beat when you guys call me Exalted List Goddess, so it is particularly touching on mother's day. Thanks. I'm thrilled everyone is returning home today..and even more thrilled that we have some active new blood Thank you for the cool Mother's day wishes -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ravenadal Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:00 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Tracey! I was just thinking to myself: where IS our Exalted List Goddess during all this lively conversation? I hope this Mother's Day finds you in good health and proud of your list children (even the one's too old to still be at home - like me!). ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella wrote: Wow everybody is turning back in to comment on this one. Adrianne, Aubrey, Marian, Galacticus, Justin, etc Did I leave anyone out? It's good to hear from everyone Tracey From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adrianne Brennan Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:16 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
That is why I want him to see it. Griping is part of the tradition and fun of the reboot remake experience and I want to see you snark through Star trek like you do so well Martin :) -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sincere1906 Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:41 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* ROTFL. Man just the image of Picard in that scene has me laughing. But recall that Picard's Ahab-like obstinance had to be tempered by Alfree Woodard... You broke your little ships. See the movie, please, if only so I can find a like-minded person who likes Trek's vision and principles to gripe and complain with... :) Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: Your right to believe and enjoy. Mine not to. Thank you for caring enough to try to steer me your way, but I feel that I've got to make a stand here. To quote Picard in First Contact, This far and no further! -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:00:32 -0700 (PDT) From : Bosco Bosco ironpi...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why
RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Me too. I think this type of discourse is part of the fun of the list. -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sincere1906 Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2f009 2:03 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* But this is scifinoir...where we can get into convulted arguments about everything from individuality and consciousness in the Borg to whether Balrogs have wings. That's what makes this little reality Tracey created for us so special--cuz we can't do so in most other places. And fear not, I'm not asking anyone to be divided by loyalties nor am I stewing in prejudice (?) and/or nostalgia. lol Just having a lively discussion... :) Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Meta hett...@... wrote: I have seen the movie and I loved it. My feelings about this non-issue is the same as yours. I just will not be drawn into a convoluted argument about Trek loyalties. Meta --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Justin Mohareb justinmohareb@ wrote: Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.brennan@ wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker013@ wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1906@ To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon-- right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into
RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
I griped all through Voyager and Enterprise, but I still watch them both and on occasion gripe. I griped at first about Battlestar 2 and came to love it and now I'm ambivalent...sigh - you know if they will have me in reruns and Caprica. I have not seen this Trek. Next Friday--- can't wait. However, when I heard about all the changes, I decided to see it as different but similar. I'm sure I will gripe, but I doubt I will do so to the point of rejection.. simply longing.. I think we have to accept that the old trek universe is part of the past far as the new movies are concern and be happy for lots and lots of trek syndication. We Farscape fans should be so lucky -Original Message- I From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sincere1906 Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:16 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* LOL You're right Tracey. Griping can be fun! When I become an old man, I plan on being a master griper. I'm practicing now! :) One point of contention however, I don't know if this is about being a traditionalist or whether one can adapt--at least not for me. I liked the old Star Trek I watched in syndication as a kid. I was all open eyes for Next Gen, and followed it thru my teenage to early adult years. I signed up for Deep Space Nine and Voyager. I endured Enterprise. I saw every movie. Read some books. I adapted repeatedly. Did I gripe? Oh yeah. Usually I griped at what I thought were wack storylines or bad episodes. With Enterprise I just griped at what I considered bland storytelling, though they began to make up for that with aspects of the Xindi war. So change in the Trek Universe--I think I can adapt to that fine. I can even adapt I think to alternate timelines/realities (Mirror, Mirror/Yesterday's Enterprise/Parallels), which I usually find exciting. My issues with this good movie (because I'm saying off the bat, it's a good movie) are about the deeper principles that lie behind what Trek is, what tied all those previous incarnations (good and/or bad) together. From the product placements to Kirk's almost going through the motions in citing Federation compassion towards the enemy at the end, this just didn't feel like Trek, which I have accepted previously in all its adaptations. It looked like Trek, it had the characters, it had familiar names--but it felt like...something else. Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella tdli...@... wrote: One more thing, Do any of you remember when people torn down TNG during its premier. How about Picard. He is now among some more beloved than Kirk, yet many were prepared to start a rebellion when the series premiered. I think some of the traditionalists will eventually adapt and learn to separate enjoy and gripe. Griping can be fun From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Justin Mohareb Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:46 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@... wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's
RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
With Meta in the house if we can get George and Leslie commenting as well as the new family members it will be a true star trek/scifinoir family reunion -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Meta Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:46 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* I have seen the movie and I loved it. My feelings about this non-issue is the same as yours. I just will not be drawn into a convoluted argument about Trek loyalties. Meta --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Justin Mohareb justinmoha...@... wrote: Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@... wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon-- right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures
RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
I was too and my Mom wanted to marry him, but I remember there were many who initially thought the casting was way off base -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Meta Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:57 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* I was a near instance Picard fan, mainly because he was the total opposite of Kirk. If Kirk had been killed at anytime during TOS, I'd have leaped for joy.:) I really didn't like him until the movies appeared. Watching the movie today I found myself really liking this Kirk, much to my surprise.:) Quinto was outstanding,IMO. Meta --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella tdli...@... wrote: One more thing, Do any of you remember when people torn down TNG during its premier. How about Picard. He is now among some more beloved than Kirk, yet many were prepared to start a rebellion when the series premiered. I think some of the traditionalists will eventually adapt and learn to separate enjoy and gripe. Griping can be fun From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Justin Mohareb Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:46 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@... wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the ! first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is
RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
C’mon, not even on DVD, the Internet or cable? From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Martin Baxter Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 3:39 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Fate, I'm on the record. Best I can do is to give it a lot of thought. In recent months, I've resisted seeing a lot of movies I was told I *had* to see, almost all of which turned out to be crap. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 12:18:23 -0700 (PDT) From : Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Martin, Tracey and Bosco are correct. Just go and see it and enjoy it for what it's worth. my wife and i saw it last night, and we both liked it, and trust me. when i saw she liked a sci-fi movie, that is a feat! Fate. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Tracey de Morsella wrote: From: Tracey de Morsella Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 2:48 PM Martin: Why can’t you see it absorb it, enjoy it if possible and then come home and complain about the inconsistencies, Like Galactigus did From: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:scifinoir2@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Bosco Bosco Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:01 AM To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both
RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Don’t kill me if I send you some new trek action figures in the mail for Christmas. I like getting your gander up From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Martin Baxter Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 3:49 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Bosco, again, I'm on the record. I feel as though... if I put my money down on something which, in the long run, I feel is going to fail (this movie itself won't -- I'm certain that it'll end up as one of the top-three box-office champs of the year, but Abrams, again, has a track record of quitting on whatever he picks up. The rumor's already out that he won't direct the next one, merely exec-produce it (meaning show up for an hour aday, sign the paychecks and go to whatever his next pet project is), and the next one won't measure up to the standard of this one, IMO risking the possibility that the Trek franchise will, one day, be in the same league as J__l Sr put the Bat franchise into with his misdirected two efforts.) Also, I say again that better options for a continuation were ou! t there, namely DSNine. No one can say that it's out of the consciousness of the fans, because it still airs on Spike every so often late nights. Just taked myself out of it again. NO WAY. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:48:14 -0700 From : Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Martin: Why can't you see it absorb it, enjoy it if possible and then come home and complain about the inconsistencies, Like Galactigus did From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bosco Bosco Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:01 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Dude This movie is GREAT. Miss it if you must but it's GREAT. Did I mention it's frakin GREAT. I really think you're cheating yourself by taking a stand against without having seen it. Seriously. God that movie was GREAT. Bosco --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:45 PM Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adrianne brennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adrianne brennan.com/ books.html# the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces
RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
You ain’t allowed to leave, so forget that. Keep griping--- many of us empathize From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Martin Baxter Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 3:22 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* sin speaks naught but truth to power. In a couple of other forums I post in, such a discussion, gone to the points we've taken it so far, would've resulted in several users leaving in disgust, after flinging death threats. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [RE][scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 21:03:28 - From : sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com But this is scifinoir...where we can get into convulted arguments about everything from individuality and consciousness in the Borg to whether Balrogs have wings. That's what makes this little reality Tracey created for us so special--cuz we can't do so in most other places. And fear not, I'm not asking anyone to be divided by loyalties nor am I stewing in prejudice (?) and/or nostalgia. lol Just having a lively discussion... :) Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Meta wrote: I have seen the movie and I loved it. My feelings about this non-issue is the same as yours. I just will not be drawn into a convoluted argument about Trek loyalties. Meta --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Justin Mohareb wrote: Yeah, but a lot of people have decided that, sight unseen, they're not going to like this film. I, personally, don't have the time or energy to debate or cajole or even, at this point, care. Let them stew in prejudice and nostalgia. That leaves more seats for the rest of us. Justin On 10-May-09, at 10:15 AM, Adrianne Brennan wrote: And yet, me and many others who ARE Trek fans--heck, been a Trekkie all of my life--*loved* the movie! ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Martin Baxter wrote: That, sir, is a DAMN good point. But then, I return to Abrams' own words. If you're a Star Trek fan, you won't like this movie. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:17 - From : sincere1906 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon-- right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
This from the person who is saying that I should watch series five no matter what. ;) Hey, at least you could watch the movie and figure out what you liked and didn't like then. I sat through that atrocity known as The Doctor's Daughter and being drunk wasn't enough to make it charming. Now I can comment on it and say without reservation that it's the worst episode of the entire new series, and they should be embarrassed that it was allowed to air. I also thought the last special was nearly as bad, but not quite. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.comwrote: Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
With all of the discussion of alternative timestreams here Are people thinking that future movies might try to mingle the two alternative Star Trek histories? I certainly hope not. (Mr. Shatner might yet talk himself into the new Trek!) If this is the new history, I hope they go forward with that. Not try to reach across into the old one. In fact, I wish that Spock Prime had stayed away from the new Spock altogether. That scene was completely unneeded. Some reviewers thought that it felt like Nimoy giving his blessing to the new guy, but storywise I wish it had been dropped. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 sincere1...@... wrote: GW, You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. It was a good movie, I enjoyed much of it, but it didn't *feel* like Trek. And when some people hear my complaints they think I'm trying to be a purist or that I don't like the timeline/alternate reality change. And that's not it at all. I'm not one of those folks who was griping because there was a woman in charge on Voyager or because Picard didn't go around fighting everyone like Kirk did. I like those kinds of changes. I think the timeline/alternate reality thing is bold--even if I'll miss the old guys. No, my issues lay on whether this new Trek will still continue in the vision that (imho) gave the stories such a massive fanbase and following. Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, GWashin891@ wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 11:45:06 AM, adrianne.brennan@ writes: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. At least in the Doctor Who reboots they made a great effort to at least keep with the spirit of the show and it's cannonal history. Even if they did change it. And inspite of those changes it, In short still 'felt' like Doctor Who. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222376999x1201454299/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=May51009AvgfooterNO62)
RE: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Don't forget that she ended up dating Tennant who played her dad. That kinda made it worse for me From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adrianne Brennan Sent: Sunday , May 10, 2009 4:21 PM I sat through that atrocity known as The Doctor's Daughter and being drunk wasn't enough to make it charming. Now I can comment on it and say without reservation that it's the worst episode of the entire new series, and they should be embarrassed that it was allowed to air. I also thought the last special was nearly as bad, but not quite. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@gmail.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie. While fans of pre-new movie ST will eventually ignore it and continue on, asking for more stuff in the pre-new movie ST background. But hey it's only my opinon. -GTW ** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Wasn't Tom Baker briefly married to Lalla Ward (one of the Romanas)? Yeah...1980 to 1982 according to Wiki. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella tdli...@... wrote: Don't forget that she ended up dating Tennant who played her dad. That kinda made it worse for me From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adrianne Brennan Sent: Sunday , May 10, 2009 4:21 PM I sat through that atrocity known as The Doctor's Daughter and being drunk wasn't enough to make it charming. Now I can comment on it and say without reservation that it's the worst episode of the entire new series, and they should be embarrassed that it was allowed to air. I also thought the last special was nearly as bad, but not quite. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@... wrote: Adrianne, I've never thought of Doctor Who as a reboot, merely a restart. The nature of the show itself allows for far more flexibility in storytelling. The same can be said for Trek, but there are established events that formed the show's collective mythos. IMO, those events are being juggled, solely to make money. Yes, it's the Way of All Things. I don't have to accept it. I won't. I'll NEVER see this movie, not on cable, not on free TV, not even if someone were to send it to me, wrapped in C-notes. I'd send it right back. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 11:43:31 -0400 From : Adrianne Brennan adrianne.bren...@... To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@... writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise was not well recieved by the pre-new movie Star Trek community. It broke too much cannon, and many of the stories weren't that good. Which is also why it didn't get that many new fans (IMO if it wasn't for the ST name Enterprise would have been canciled in it's first season). while the new Battlestar Galactica was a somewhat hit. It was not so by many fans of the old series who concider it broke too much cannon (and the fact it's creators also had 'lazy exicution' sydrome judging from it's later episodes) and this IMO the show will probally fade over time. And in my opinion I see the new Star Trek movie and it's alternate timeline will while finding intial popular support will eventually go the way of new BG as it's new fans will stick to this movie.
[scifinoir2] Keith's Take - Star Trek
Someone took my My Take review opening, so I had to change my subject line! :) My quick take: The new Star Trek is a fun movie, full of jokes ( a few too many perhaps), exciting action scenes, and great FX. The cast is good, the updates to the ship not too bad, and the stage is set for future films that should also be fun. JJ Abrams has been respectful to the spirit of Roddenberry's vision, and the human core of the franchise is there, especially for future efforts. Still, changes to Kirk and especially Spock were puzzling and unnecessary, and the change to the Trek timeline is puzzling and frankly needs to be reversed. Overall a fun movie that needs a few tweaks in future efforts. My Full Take: “You will always be a child of two worlds. The decision is yours to decide which is right for you”. This is Sarek’s advice to his half-human, half-Vulcan son, Spock, trying to help him deal with the conflicts of his heritage. Neither half is intrinsically better than the other, Sarek explains, and his son can benefit by taking the best of each. This seems to be the philosophy taken by director J.J. Abrams in his update of the sci-fi classic. Abrams has succeeded in making a fun film that is great on the eyes, and respectful of the human drama at the core of “Star Trek”. But in bringing “Trek” into a new world, Abrams has modified some of the core elements of the old. Like Spock, he has endeavored to combine the best of each; and like Spock, it is up for moviegoers to decide if the result is right for them. Things start off quickly enough, as the USS Kelvin is confronted by the sight of a giant spaceship emerging from a literal hole in space. The commander, a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana) is bent on revenge for a past hurt. Before long, the captain is dead, Kirk’s father is in command, and ultimately sacrifices his life to save his crew--including his pregnant wife. Twenty-five years later, Kirk’s son Jim (Chris Pine) is a young ne’er do well who spends his time flirting and getting into bar fights. That is, until Kirk is approached by Captain Christopher Pike of the newly commissioned starship Enterprise. Pike encourages the young man to make something of himself by joining Starfleet. “I dare you to do better” (than your father), he challenges Kirk. “Enlist in Starfleet”. Kirk takes up the challenge, and thus sets on the path that will lead him to meet Spock and the rest of his future crewmates. Abrams keeps things zipping in “Star Trek” from the first moment. The explosions, phaser battles, and fights—and there are a lot of them--come at warp speed. Indeed, many times the action is a bit too frenetic: space battles move by too quickly to be taken in fully, and Abrams loves to put the camera right in the faces of people during fights. One wishes the camera would pull back every now and then, and that the action scenes were more drawn out rather than a series of quick-cuts. Still, it’s not boring. No expense has been spared in the look of the film: the Enterprise has been updated outside with a sleek new look that’s less angles and more smooth curves. Inside it’s all white and plexiglass surfaces, floating holograms, vivid computer displays, and surprisingly cavernous sections where crewmen do their stuff. One could cynically note a strong “Star Wars” feeling here, but give Abrams credit: he does pay great homage to the old as well. The uniforms (women in skirts! red-shirted security guards!), phasers, and communicators all hail back to the look of the series. Throw in sweeping vistas of Vulcan, beautiful shots of Starfleet Command in San Francisco, and you can see Abrams was really serious about making this movie look “authentic”. Even some of the sounds—the transporter, alerts, some computer noises—are very familiar indeed. Overall, the changes are nothing to complain too much about. It’s a great looking film, but as any fan will tell you, the true center of Star Trek has always been the relationships between its characters. Does Abrams manner to capture that feeling? Well, yes---mostly. At the center of this movie are the struggles Kirk and Spock are undertaking to find their way. Each man has in a way been running from his pain, with Kirk seeking escape in emotional excess. Though in the Academy, Kirk is still hiding behind the character of the irreverent, devil-may-care rogue. He’s still a womanizer, still thumbing his nose at authority. Spock has mostly avoided the issue of just how much of an emotional creature he can—and should—be, by trying to be the cool, consummately logical Vulcan. Some of the best scenes in the movie involve Spock issuing commands with authority, steely logic in control, cutting down smart remarks with dry witticisms. These moments best captures the wry Spock of old, and they’re great. But like Kirk, we see that Spock hasn’t really found himself. Despite his cool exterior, one
[scifinoir2] Re: Keith's Take - Star Trek
oops. guilty as charged. i ain't been back on here enuff to know that was yer thing Keith. apologies. :) good review tho! Sin --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@... wrote: Someone took my My Take review opening, so I had to change my subject line! :) My quick take: The new Star Trek is a fun movie, full of jokes ( a few too many perhaps), exciting action scenes, and great FX. The cast is good, the updates to the ship not too bad, and the stage is set for future films that should also be fun. JJ Abrams has been respectful to the spirit of Roddenberry's vision, and the human core of the franchise is there, especially for future efforts. Still, changes to Kirk and especially Spock were puzzling and unnecessary, and the change to the Trek timeline is puzzling and frankly needs to be reversed. Overall a fun movie that needs a few tweaks in future efforts. My Full Take: âYou will always be a child of two worlds. The decision is yours to decide which is right for youâ. This is Sarekâs advice to his half-human, half-Vulcan son, Spock, trying to help him deal with the conflicts of his heritage. Neither half is intrinsically better than the other, Sarek explains, and his son can benefit by taking the best of each. This seems to be the philosophy taken by director J.J. Abrams in his update of the sci-fi classic. Abrams has succeeded in making a fun film that is great on the eyes, and respectful of the human drama at the core of âStar Trekâ. But in bringing âTrekâ into a new world, Abrams has modified some of the core elements of the old. Like Spock, he has endeavored to combine the best of each; and like Spock, it is up for moviegoers to decide if the result is right for them. Things start off quickly enough, as the USS Kelvin is confronted by the sight of a giant spaceship emerging from a literal hole in space. The commander, a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana) is bent on revenge for a past hurt. Before long, the captain is dead, Kirkâs father is in command, and ultimately sacrifices his life to save his crew--including his pregnant wife. Twenty-five years later, Kirkâs son Jim (Chris Pine) is a young neâer do well who spends his time flirting and getting into bar fights. That is, until Kirk is approached by Captain Christopher Pike of the newly commissioned starship Enterprise. Pike encourages the young man to make something of himself by joining Starfleet. âI dare you to do betterâ (than your father), he challenges Kirk. âEnlist in Starfleetâ. Kirk takes up the challenge, and thus sets on the path that will lead him to meet Spock and the rest of his future crewmates. Abrams keeps things zipping in âStar Trekâ from the first moment. The explosions, phaser battles, and fightsâand there are a lot of them--come at warp speed. Indeed, many times the action is a bit too frenetic: space battles move by too quickly to be taken in fully, and Abrams loves to put the camera right in the faces of people during fights. One wishes the camera would pull back every now and then, and that the action scenes were more drawn out rather than a series of quick-cuts. Still, itâs not boring. No expense has been spared in the look of the film: the Enterprise has been updated outside with a sleek new look thatâs less angles and more smooth curves. Inside itâs all white and plexiglass surfaces, floating holograms, vivid computer displays, and surprisingly cavernous sections where crewmen do their stuff. One could cynically note a strong âStar Warsâ feeling here, but give Abrams credit: he does pay great homage to the old as well. The uniforms (women in skirts! red-shirted security guards!), phasers, and communicators all hail back to the look of the series. Throw in sweeping vistas of Vulcan, beautiful shots of Starfleet Command in San Francisco, and you can see Abrams was really serious about making this movie look âauthenticâ. Even some of the soundsâthe transporter, alerts, some computer noisesâare very familiar indeed. Overall, the changes are nothing to complain too much about. Itâs a great looking film, but as any fan will tell you, the true center of Star Trek has always been the relationships between its characters. Does Abrams manner to capture that feeling? Well, yes---mostly. At the center of this movie are the struggles Kirk and Spock are undertaking to find their way. Each man has in a way been running from his pain, with Kirk seeking escape in emotional excess. Though in the Academy, Kirk is still hiding behind the character of the irreverent, devil-may-care rogue. Heâs still a womanizer, still thumbing his nose at authority. Spock has mostly avoided the issue of just how much of an emotional creature he canâand shouldâbe, by trying to
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Some elegant chess playing there. You are thinking 10 moves ahead! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Daryle Lockhart dar...@... wrote: Yeah see, once Spock spilled the trans-warp equation, I knew he was going to be a problem. He proved to BE said problem by having a conversation with himself. To be specific, everything we know in Star Trek, as of now, did not happen. Because Nero went back in time and destroyed the Kelvin, thus killing George Kirk, James Kirk never served on any other ship but the Enterprise, which means The Cage never happened. As I theorized earlier, if Spock makes the case to the Klingons, then even IF Kirk and Carol Marcus have a son, his Genesis discovery will go off without a hitch, the target moon will become a test ground, life will form on it, and David Marcus wil live a long and happy life. So will Spock, by the way, which would leave everyone on Earth when the probe comes looking for the whales. Which means Transparent aluminum won't be invented in the 20th Century. If all the Vulcans are gone, then Sybok went with 'em. Same goes for Saavik and Tuvok's clan. If David Marcus lives long, Dr. Soong will look like a parlor magician with his robotic theories, never be taken seriously, and no Data/Lor. (by the way, Romulan/Federation Alliance means no more oppressing the Remans, so Nemesis never happens) On May 10, 2009, at 4:32 PM, sincere1906 wrote: Daryle, Those are some great points! True indeed, how many times has the timeline been altered already with flagrant offenders like Kirk (old Kirk)? And, one more time, what about those Temporal Authorities that exist in the far future that attempt to assure the timeline remains generally intact? Somehow they have to exist outside of these temporal changes and must be aware. I'm wondering too how many changes Spock's presence will bring. Spock however came from a Federation that obeyed the Prime Directive...somewhat. How much does he interfere in this timeline with his knowledge of the possible future? Does Spock give away future scientific knowledge (like he did with trans-warp teleporting), or keep his mouth/brain shut. So if I get this straight, this timeline does not erase the old one we're used to right? That timeline--that I'm going to call the Trek Universe 1.0--still exists, no? This new timeline is just another reality now, like Worf's bouncing around in Parallels. Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Daryle Lockhart daryle@ wrote: And the canonical differences are the things we were always arguing about ANYWAY, which makes this reset brilliant. A lot of the things we accept as Trek law is stuff that happened under Berman and Braga. Let's not forget, if we follow the actual timeliine of events, time had been changed by the events of First Contact ANYWAY, so things were already different. I have an analysis coming on things that changed that we hadn't considered, and some of it's good, like the idea that Voyager probably won't happen in this timeline, and that no Klingons ever join the Federation. Having a leading science officer from the future with knowledge of their mining accident will DEFINITELY impact how the Klingons get down. But more importantly, it is quite possible that either the Founders or The Borg WIN this time. The small advantages the Federation had were due to the political climate in the galaxy. Change those things (make the Romulans into allies, for example), and everything changes. I believe that this new Trek universe is going to be FANTASTIC for novels. All bets are off! FOR THIS REASON, it's crucial that J J Abrams not direct the next Star Trek movie. He can produce all day, I'm not saying the man shouldn't get paid, but JJ has a habit of derailing something in the middle and having it never recover (or is there someone here who understands what's happening on Lost?) On May 10, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Adrianne Brennan wrote: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, GWashin891@ wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1906@ writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Keith's Take - Star Trek
Man, I'm just funnin'! thanks, loved your comments too. Trying to catch up to comment on your comments! - Original Message - From: sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 10:04:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Keith's Take - Star Trek oops. guilty as charged. i ain't been back on here enuff to know that was yer thing Keith. apologies. :) good review tho! Sin --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@... wrote: Someone took my My Take review opening, so I had to change my subject line! :) My quick take: The new Star Trek is a fun movie, full of jokes ( a few too many perhaps), exciting action scenes, and great FX. The cast is good, the updates to the ship not too bad, and the stage is set for future films that should also be fun. JJ Abrams has been respectful to the spirit of Roddenberry's vision, and the human core of the franchise is there, especially for future efforts. Still, changes to Kirk and especially Spock were puzzling and unnecessary, and the change to the Trek timeline is puzzling and frankly needs to be reversed. Overall a fun movie that needs a few tweaks in future efforts. My Full Take: “You will always be a child of two worlds. The decision is yours to decide which is right for youâ€�. This is Sarek’s advice to his half-human, half-Vulcan son, Spock, trying to help him deal with the conflicts of his heritage. Neither half is intrinsically better than the other, Sarek explains, and his son can benefit by taking the best of each. This seems to be the philosophy taken by director J.J. Abrams in his update of the sci-fi classic. Abrams has succeeded in making a fun film that is great on the eyes, and respectful of the human drama at the core of “Star Trekâ€�. But in bringing “Trekâ€� into a new world, Abrams has modified some of the core elements of the old. Like Spock, he has endeavored to combine the best of each; and like Spock, it is up for moviegoers to decide if the result is right for them. Things start off quickly enough, as the USS Kelvin is confronted by the sight of a giant spaceship emerging from a literal hole in space. The commander, a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana) is bent on revenge for a past hurt. Before long, the captain is dead, Kirk’s father is in command, and ultimately sacrifices his life to save his crew--including his pregnant wife. Twenty-five years later, Kirk’s son Jim (Chris Pine) is a young ne’er do well who spends his time flirting and getting into bar fights. That is, until Kirk is approached by Captain Christopher Pike of the newly commissioned starship Enterprise. Pike encourages the young man to make something of himself by joining Starfleet. “I dare you to do betterâ€� (than your father), he challenges Kirk. “Enlist in Starfleetâ€�. Kirk takes up the challenge, and thus sets on the path that will lead him to meet Spock and the rest of his future crewmates. Abrams keeps things zipping in “Star Trekâ€� from the first moment. The explosions, phaser battles, and fightsâ€and there are a lot of them--come at warp speed. Indeed, many times the action is a bit too frenetic: space battles move by too quickly to be taken in fully, and Abrams loves to put the camera right in the faces of people during fights. One wishes the camera would pull back every now and then, and that the action scenes were more drawn out rather than a series of quick-cuts. Still, it’s not boring. No expense has been spared in the look of the film: the Enterprise has been updated outside with a sleek new look that’s less angles and more smooth curves. Inside it’s all white and plexiglass surfaces, floating holograms, vivid computer displays, and surprisingly cavernous sections where crewmen do their stuff. One could cynically note a strong “Star Warsâ€� feeling here, but give Abrams credit: he does pay great homage to the old as well. The uniforms (women in skirts! red-shirted security guards!), phasers, and communicators all hail back to the look of the series. Throw in sweeping vistas of Vulcan, beautiful shots of Starfleet Command in San Francisco, and you can see Abrams was really serious about making this movie look “authenticâ€�. Even some of the soundsâ€the transporter, alerts, some computer noisesâ€are very familiar indeed. Overall, the changes are nothing to complain too much about. It’s a great looking film, but as any fan will tell you, the true center of Star Trek has always been the relationships between its characters. Does Abrams manner to capture that feeling? Well, yes---mostly. At the center of this movie are the struggles Kirk and Spock are undertaking to find their way. Each man has in a way been running from his pain,
[scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Damn. You just made some red matter suck my brain into a black hole... those are alot of conundrums unleashed by this timeline/alternate reality change. I hadn't thought of any of those, and now there must be hundreds of others. Alot of Trek geeks are out of a job, and we've entered an ultimate world of fanfiction. Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Daryle Lockhart dar...@... wrote: Yeah see, once Spock spilled the trans-warp equation, I knew he was going to be a problem. He proved to BE said problem by having a conversation with himself. To be specific, everything we know in Star Trek, as of now, did not happen. Because Nero went back in time and destroyed the Kelvin, thus killing George Kirk, James Kirk never served on any other ship but the Enterprise, which means The Cage never happened. As I theorized earlier, if Spock makes the case to the Klingons, then even IF Kirk and Carol Marcus have a son, his Genesis discovery will go off without a hitch, the target moon will become a test ground, life will form on it, and David Marcus wil live a long and happy life. So will Spock, by the way, which would leave everyone on Earth when the probe comes looking for the whales. Which means Transparent aluminum won't be invented in the 20th Century. If all the Vulcans are gone, then Sybok went with 'em. Same goes for Saavik and Tuvok's clan. If David Marcus lives long, Dr. Soong will look like a parlor magician with his robotic theories, never be taken seriously, and no Data/Lor. (by the way, Romulan/Federation Alliance means no more oppressing the Remans, so Nemesis never happens) On May 10, 2009, at 4:32 PM, sincere1906 wrote: Daryle, Those are some great points! True indeed, how many times has the timeline been altered already with flagrant offenders like Kirk (old Kirk)? And, one more time, what about those Temporal Authorities that exist in the far future that attempt to assure the timeline remains generally intact? Somehow they have to exist outside of these temporal changes and must be aware. I'm wondering too how many changes Spock's presence will bring. Spock however came from a Federation that obeyed the Prime Directive...somewhat. How much does he interfere in this timeline with his knowledge of the possible future? Does Spock give away future scientific knowledge (like he did with trans-warp teleporting), or keep his mouth/brain shut. So if I get this straight, this timeline does not erase the old one we're used to right? That timeline--that I'm going to call the Trek Universe 1.0--still exists, no? This new timeline is just another reality now, like Worf's bouncing around in Parallels. Sin/Black Galactus --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Daryle Lockhart daryle@ wrote: And the canonical differences are the things we were always arguing about ANYWAY, which makes this reset brilliant. A lot of the things we accept as Trek law is stuff that happened under Berman and Braga. Let's not forget, if we follow the actual timeliine of events, time had been changed by the events of First Contact ANYWAY, so things were already different. I have an analysis coming on things that changed that we hadn't considered, and some of it's good, like the idea that Voyager probably won't happen in this timeline, and that no Klingons ever join the Federation. Having a leading science officer from the future with knowledge of their mining accident will DEFINITELY impact how the Klingons get down. But more importantly, it is quite possible that either the Founders or The Borg WIN this time. The small advantages the Federation had were due to the political climate in the galaxy. Change those things (make the Romulans into allies, for example), and everything changes. I believe that this new Trek universe is going to be FANTASTIC for novels. All bets are off! FOR THIS REASON, it's crucial that J J Abrams not direct the next Star Trek movie. He can produce all day, I'm not saying the man shouldn't get paid, but JJ has a habit of derailing something in the middle and having it never recover (or is there someone here who understands what's happening on Lost?) On May 10, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Adrianne Brennan wrote: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On
Re: [scifinoir2] Looking back at Star Trek and Leonard Nimoy's views
Yes I remember the episode that you are talking about when Riker fell in love were there was a planet with no gender. Out of all of the Star Trek series the only one that pushed the envelope just a little was DS9. I consider that show the step child of the series due to the fact it was a series that did not follow the line of a perfect future. --Lavender From: Mr. Worf Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:11 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Looking back at Star Trek and Leonard Nimoy's views I think that they were afraid to show any overt situations between to same sex couples but there were subtle things that were mentioned in the show. For example, the episode when Data was kidnapped by a trader (I don't know the name of the episode) the trader alluded that he preferred to have Data in the nude. He also implied that he had performed a 3way with him and the female servant. Another example was a conversation Riker had with Troi. He and the ship was under the influence of a being and went to visit Troi in her quarters. She another officer was leaving when he entered. He mentioned his distaste of her being with other men and women on the ship. There was also the episode where Riker fell in love with a programmer from another planet that was of a race of people that were sexless. DS9 did have a girl/girl kiss between the Trill and another woman. Anyone remember this stuff? I am working from memory on this. On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:42 PM, wlro...@aol.com wrote: I think the one thing that Star Trek lacked were gay characters. I mean it was suggested before a show aired but then when it does, no characters are found. --Lavender From: Tracey de Morsella Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 12:31 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Looking back at Star Trek and Leonard Nimoy's views Looking back at Star Trek and Leonard Nimoy's views By Ruth Rosen - May 7, 2009, 11:59PM As a new Star Trek film enters our cultural landscape once again, I thought it might be interesting to remember what Star Trek meant to some of us, and, to Leonard Nimoy. In 1991, when Gene Roddenberry died and gay and lesbian characters were just about to join the crew of Star Trek in 24th-Century America, I took the opportunity to think about the cultural importance of Star Trek in our society. This article appeared on the op-ed page of the Los Angeles Times, along with a response by Leonard Nimoy, who responded to what I wrote. Enjoy. Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, was a visionary; the Starship-Enterprise that he launched on TV has traveled widely through American culture. Now, it will again challenge viewers to boldly go where they've never gone before. This season, gays and lesbians will appear unobtrusively aboard the Enterprise in the 24th Century. They weren't outed, they won't be outcasts; apparently they'll be neither objects of pity nor draw melodramatic attention. Their sexual orientation will be a matter of indifference to the rest of the crew. I'm not otherwise drawn to science fiction, but Star Trek taught me a great deal about the tangle of contradictions in contemporary America. During its short initial run between 1966 and 1969, a group of my graduate student friends gathered weekly to watch the show as a reprieve from the news of the Vietnam War. We enjoyed seeing the multiracial crew, debated the eternal struggle between Mr. Spock's logic and Dr. McCoy's emotion, and cheered a transnational federation whose prime directive was to never interfere in another society. Yet Star Trek also broadcast the dark side of Cold War liberalism. Capt. Kirk's good intentions smacked of White House rhetoric about saving Vietnam for freedom. Kirk repeatedly found reasons to violate the prime directive. Then we hooted, angry that the federation, too, couldn't resist imposing its values everywhere in the galaxy. Hostilities with the irrational, warlike Klingons seemed as interminable as America's global struggle with communism. The Enterprise stood for democracy, justice and equality, but backed its democratic ideals with weapons of mass destruction. Still, the prime directive expressed a Utopian ideal: the search for a more peaceful and decent world. During Star Trek's last original season, some women noticed Kirk's retrograde attitudes toward women. With the women's movement just revving up, we were saddened to think that society wouldn't have changed by the 23rd Century. But Star Trek did not lag behind for long. One of the last episodes forced Kirk to live within a woman's body and confront the social constraints of being a female in his world. In 1987, many Trekkies greeted the new, syndicated Star Trek: The Next Generation with cool skepticism. But the show had grown up gracefully. Its famous opening line, To boldly go where no man has gone before was now: To boldly go where no
Re: [scifinoir2] Looking back at Star Trek and Leonard Nimoy's views
I remember that one. It was the season that I wish that Tasha would have killed Wesley a little sooner. But I suppose on that planet Star Trek failed the mention that the women weren’t having it!!! --Lavender From: Mr. Worf Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:14 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Looking back at Star Trek and Leonard Nimoy's views I left out a sentence in this paragraph: There was also the episode where Riker fell in love with a programmer from another planet that was of a race of people that were sexless. Some of the people on the ship thought that they were all male, implying that Riker was risking the relationship with that race to have a male/male relationship. One episode did bug me though. Remember the episode with the planet ran by black people? Why did the leader have to fall in love with the white woman??? :) On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Mr. Worf hellomahog...@gmail.com wrote: I think that they were afraid to show any overt situations between to same sex couples but there were subtle things that were mentioned in the show. For example, the episode when Data was kidnapped by a trader (I don't know the name of the episode) the trader alluded that he preferred to have Data in the nude. He also implied that he had performed a 3way with him and the female servant. Another example was a conversation Riker had with Troi. He and the ship was under the influence of a being and went to visit Troi in her quarters. She another officer was leaving when he entered. He mentioned his distaste of her being with other men and women on the ship. There was also the episode where Riker fell in love with a programmer from another planet that was of a race of people that were sexless. DS9 did have a girl/girl kiss between the Trill and another woman. Anyone remember this stuff? I am working from memory on this. On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:42 PM, wlro...@aol.com wrote: I think the one thing that Star Trek lacked were gay characters. I mean it was suggested before a show aired but then when it does, no characters are found. --Lavender From: Tracey de Morsella Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 12:31 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Looking back at Star Trek and Leonard Nimoy's views Looking back at Star Trek and Leonard Nimoy's views By Ruth Rosen - May 7, 2009, 11:59PM As a new Star Trek film enters our cultural landscape once again, I thought it might be interesting to remember what Star Trek meant to some of us, and, to Leonard Nimoy. In 1991, when Gene Roddenberry died and gay and lesbian characters were just about to join the crew of Star Trek in 24th-Century America, I took the opportunity to think about the cultural importance of Star Trek in our society. This article appeared on the op-ed page of the Los Angeles Times, along with a response by Leonard Nimoy, who responded to what I wrote. Enjoy. Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, was a visionary; the Starship-Enterprise that he launched on TV has traveled widely through American culture. Now, it will again challenge viewers to boldly go where they've never gone before. This season, gays and lesbians will appear unobtrusively aboard the Enterprise in the 24th Century. They weren't outed, they won't be outcasts; apparently they'll be neither objects of pity nor draw melodramatic attention. Their sexual orientation will be a matter of indifference to the rest of the crew. I'm not otherwise drawn to science fiction, but Star Trek taught me a great deal about the tangle of contradictions in contemporary America. During its short initial run between 1966 and 1969, a group of my graduate student friends gathered weekly to watch the show as a reprieve from the news of the Vietnam War. We enjoyed seeing the multiracial crew, debated the eternal struggle between Mr. Spock's logic and Dr. McCoy's emotion, and cheered a transnational federation whose prime directive was to never interfere in another society. Yet Star Trek also broadcast the dark side of Cold War liberalism. Capt. Kirk's good intentions smacked of White House rhetoric about saving Vietnam for freedom. Kirk repeatedly found reasons to violate the prime directive. Then we hooted, angry that the federation, too, couldn't resist imposing its values everywhere in the galaxy. Hostilities with the irrational, warlike Klingons seemed as interminable as America's global struggle with communism. The Enterprise stood for democracy, justice and equality, but backed its democratic ideals with weapons of mass destruction. Still, the prime directive expressed a Utopian ideal: the search for a more peaceful and decent world. During Star Trek's last original season, some women noticed Kirk's retrograde attitudes toward women. With the women's movement just revving up, we were saddened to think that
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
I hope to see this tomorrow, which would be today when this email is posted. I too am a core trekkie. I am not saying that I am the one that is dressed in uniform as I am writing this. I have always felt that a movie needs to bring in a new crowd but with doing that not to loose the old one. We are the ones that are buying the product. I find it unlikely that we will see any newbie's at conventions this year based on this movie. I thought that it was cannon that the Vulcan's were a major player in Trek history. If this is not the case then who were? I would love a mention of TPol in this. I mean she might would have been the only person to really do a cross over without a time travel being involved. When I see this, I hope I get the feeling that he has done justice to the series. If not--I am going to Ace Hardware and get a deflector dish. Then I am going to bill a multiplexing beaking to put on top of it to contact the Borg to get rid of JJ Abrams and his crew. Then I going to invite Q over for dinner to try to convince him to fix this whole thing. Any one up for dinner? --Lavender -- From: sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:24 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating poverty, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we would at someone stepped out of the 12th century. Can't see them however debating the philosophical merits of the prime directive. My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see...
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
Maybe they were too busy watching to see if Janeway and Seven was going to break it again. --Lavender -- From: sincere1906 sincere1...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:36 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Okay. Getting real Trek geek here... SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILSRS! Where are the Temporal Authorities? In a Deep Space 9 episode, we got to see guys from the future who monitor time. I figure they must be able to remain unaltered outside the timeline. Shouldn't some alarm (or however they're notified) have gone off somewhere as soon as that giant Romulan ship showed up and started rippling through the time line? Jes thinkin aloud... Sin -- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, sincere1906 sincere1...@... wrote: Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe buzz, but here goes... S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, good. I give it 3 stars out of four. The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is was it good Trek? On this, I'm truly torn. First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this Ultimate Star Trek! There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For the first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but what the frack!?! Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new one--eliminating poverty, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we would at someone stepped out of the 12th century. Can't see them however debating the philosophical merits of the prime directive. My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus Post your SciFiNoir Profile at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYahoo! Groups Links People may lie, but the evidence rarely does.
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX!
As far as Merritt Butrick, the person who played Kirk's son, I wonder what happened to him. --Lavender -- From: ravenadal ravena...@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:08 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! I had forgotten how reverential (one of the chief faults of Star Trek: the Motion Picture) The Wrath of Khan is - starting with Leonard Nimoy's iconic Rock Rushmore head and moving on to Kirk's first star entrance on the command deck, to the long, loving gaze at the Enterprise leaving star port. All this and a hot Vulcan played by a skinny Kirstie Alley. I am struck by the young, strapping Dr. David Marcus played by Merritt Butrick (the erstwhile Johnny Slash from Square Pegs). The once and future son of Kirk would have made a nice James Tiberius in an 80's reboot of the franchise. Alas, the actor Butrick succumbed to AIDs in 1989. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Aubrey Leatherwood aubrey.leatherw...@... wrote: I just watched it on demand yesterday, and I couldn't agree with you more. Aubrey Leatherwood www.aubreyleatherwood.com FaceBook * MySpace Imperfection A tale of perfect commitment, perfect love... and perfect sex. The People You Know, The Sex They Have ROMANTIC TIMES NOMINEE FOR BEST CONTEMPORARY EROTICA 2008 ISBN: 978-0-9818905-0-0 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com From: ravena...@... Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:11:11 + Subject: [scifinoir2] Watching The Wrath of Khan on THRILLER MAX! Khan extracting those slugs and those slugs crawling into the ears of Chekov and Captain Terrell (the late, great Paul Winfield)while they are trapped inside their space suits is STILL great and icky stuff! ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ravenadal ravenadal@ wrote: As is my wont to do, I watched Titan A.E. (on THRILLER MAX!) with the sound off while I listened to NPR's Sunday Morning on the radio while reading my two sunday newspapaers and surfing the web. The voice-over talent was aces - Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, Janeane Garofalo, Drew Barrymore and Ron Perlman - yet this movie annoyed me mightily when I first saw it. Watching it with the sound off really allows me to appreciate the direction and artwork, which is probably too realistic for its own good, but looks great when you actually pay attention to the detail. oh, snap! The Wrath of Khan is coming on! I gotta go! ~rave! http://twitter.com/ravenadal http://blackplush.blogspot.com _ Hotmail® goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009 Post your SciFiNoir Profile at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYahoo! Groups Links People may lie, but the evidence rarely does.
Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS*
I don't know...The Color Purple starting Chris Brown and Rihanna? --Lavender From: Martin Baxter Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:37 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Don't worry. Abrams won't be directing the sequel. He's already done with it, bored and ready for the next thing that's caught his eye. We just don't know what that is yet. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] New Trek- My take *SPOILERS* Date : Sun, 10 May 2009 12:03:46 -0400 From : Daryle Lockhart dar...@darylelockhart.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com And the canonical differences are the things we were always arguing about ANYWAY, which makes this reset brilliant. A lot of the things we accept as Trek law is stuff that happened under Berman and Braga. Let's not forget, if we follow the actual timeliine of events, time had been changed by the events of First Contact ANYWAY, so things were already different. I have an analysis coming on things that changed that we hadn't considered, and some of it's good, like the idea that Voyager probably won't happen in this timeline, and that no Klingons ever join the Federation. Having a leading science officer from the future with knowledge of their mining accident will DEFINITELY impact how the Klingons get down. But more importantly, it is quite possible that either the Founders or The Borg WIN this time. The small advantages the Federation had were due to the political climate in the galaxy. Change those things (make the Romulans into allies, for example), and everything changes. I believe that this new Trek universe is going to be FANTASTIC for novels. All bets are off! FOR THIS REASON, it's crucial that J J Abrams not direct the next Star Trek movie. He can produce all day, I'm not saying the man shouldn't get paid, but JJ has a habit of derailing something in the middle and having it never recover (or is there someone here who understands what's happening on Lost?) On May 10, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Adrianne Brennan wrote: I dunno. I don't see what they're doing as being any different from the reboot of Doctor Who, except with more major canonical differences. ~ Where love and magic meet ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of Blood of the Dark Moon: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/botdm.html Take a bite out of Blood and Mint Chocolates: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/bamc.html Dare to take The Oath in this fantasy series: http:// www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote: In a message dated 5/10/09 4:24:35 AM, sincere1...@gmail.com writes: My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll just have to wait and see... MHO Sin/Black Galactus I was about to stay silent on this but the paragraph above prompted me to put my .02 cents in. What Sin/Black Galactus stated is something I call The Galactica Syndrome. That is you got a show based on a earlier project that while forming it's own audiance base is shunned by most-if not all of the orignials show's base. Shows like this usually don't have that much of a long shelf-life being period 'flashes in the pan. Pre-new movie Star Trek (OST, ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:V) while set either/or different time periods, situtations, characters, etc. could have went this way. Their was something about those shows (and the movies based on them) that fans from other shows could like and this brought in many fans from those shows. Which in turn made the great. However the flipside of this is that it produces 'lazy' exicution, that eventually results in bad products which angers and drives of the fans of those shows. Forcing efforts to bring new life into those shows. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. It depends on how much cannon they 'break' when doing it to make the show new/hip to make it acceptable to both new/old fans. This, IMO is why Enterprise
