Celebrity Cameos: Star Trek vs. Star Wars
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>When Star Trek wants to get celebrity cameos, they get Stephen Hawking.
This refers to the opening portion of Star Trek: The Next Generation,
in which Lt. Cmdr. Data is playing poker on the holodeck with, among
others, an actor playing a holodeck-generated Einstein, and a
holodeck-generated Stephen Hawking played by himself.
Stephen Hawking, the author of "A Brief History of Time", the
discoverer of radiation of energy from black holes through quantum
tunelling, and also noted for his struggle with ALS.
>While Star Wars gets N'Sync.
>That pretty much ends the debate once and for all for me.
That is a new perspective, and I'd say it does make the point very
effectively.
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote in message
news:3c37afd1...@news.powersurfr.com...
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 20:03:25 GMT, Patrick Lee <kestr...@rogers.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >When Star Trek wants to get celebrity cameos, they get Stephen Hawking.
>
> This refers to the opening portion of Star Trek: The Next Generation,
> in which Lt. Cmdr. Data is playing poker on the holodeck with, among
> others, an actor playing a holodeck-generated Einstein, and a
> holodeck-generated Stephen Hawking played by himself.
>
Dr. Who movie.
--
Chuck
"One dance to rule them all
One dance to find them
One dance to bring them all
And in the darkness, bind them.
In the land of Dairy Queen, we treat you right."
Patrick Lee
Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
For another Star Trek vs. Star Wars cameo appearance comparison:
Star Trek enlisted NASA astronaut Dr. Mae Jamison:
http://www.macworld.com/2001/08/buzz/images/maejemison.jpg
Star Wars goes for Sofia Coppola, pretty much a nobody if it wasn't for her
daddy.
Once again, advantage: Star Trek
Dalton
Whoop de doo.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"If there's anything on Usenet that makes us seem normal I want it
captured and shot immediately." ---C.S.Strowbridge
Dalton
His Divine Shadow
"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote in message
news:3c37afd1...@news.powersurfr.com...
Nah, ST is still nothing more than a bad attempt at milking it 'till the
very last drop + no plot to boot.
SW has N'Sync in it, so what, I hear they are going to be there for a very
short time, and perhaps even die, now that is another perspective.
Patrick Lee
<r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
> Whoop de doo.
That's kinda what most people said after watching Phantom Menace. If there
is a such thing as an "anti-orgasm", I think George Lucas invented it.
Dalton
It's also what most people said after ST 5, 7 and 9. Especially 5 and 9.
Patrick Lee
<r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
>> That's kinda what most people said after watching Phantom Menace. If there
>> is a such thing as an "anti-orgasm", I think George Lucas invented it.
>
> It's also what most people said after ST 5, 7 and 9. Especially 5 and 9.
Was that a comeback, or your lame attempt telling us your IQ?
Ted Archbold
Patrick Lee <kestr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:B85D2330.9954%kestr...@rogers.com...
jerk off to is the worst in the history of film, doesn't mean you have to
try to make yourself feel better by making a cheap attempt at a rebuke.
Patrick Lee
Archbold" <tedman...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That's kinda what most people said after watching Phantom Menace. If
> there
>>>> is a such thing as an "anti-orgasm", I think George Lucas invented it.
>>>
>>> It's also what most people said after ST 5, 7 and 9. Especially 5 and 9.
>>
>> Was that a comeback, or your lame attempt telling us your IQ?
>>
> Nice attempt there, you fucking troll. Just cause your favourite series to
> jerk off to is the worst in the history of film, doesn't mean you have to
> try to make yourself feel better by making a cheap attempt at a rebuke.
Wow, so you can talk trash, and you can count. If you had one IQ point more
and a lot less ugly, you'd be a Tickle Me Elmo.
Paradox
Ahh, so THIS is what they call a strawman?
Dalton
No, just a fact to irritate hypersensitive Trekkie reactionaries like
yourself.
Dalton
Hey wow, that was almost a decent flame.
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
worse than Phantom Menace. Shatner's loveletter to himself was an
embarrassment to all that was Trek, from his collection of plot conveniences
to his humiliation of other cast members (having Sulu and Chekhov follow a
Klingon around looking at her ass? He should've been ashamed.). "I feel
your pain," the catch-phrase of Sybok, was no doubt directed towards the
audience who was subjected to this masturbatory fantasy of a film. It is
indefensible.
Ted Archbold
the counting part from? Jeez, pulling things from your arse, typical
trekkie way, do yourself a favour, run away before the big guns arrive.
Matthew Hyde
Chuck, you're the first person who's made me want to see that film!
--
Matt Hyde
MTU Math Sciences
Houghton, MI 49931
Jonathan Boyd
> The give-a-shit meter is reading 0.
Kick it. It should be reading negative.
--
Jonathan Boyd
AIM:BoydClone | MSN:EmperorBoyd
There is no conflict, there is the DTGOD.
There is no copout, there is the storyline.
There is no powergaming, there is the moderator.
- Sir Nitram
Dalton
>
> Dalton wrote:
>
> > The give-a-shit meter is reading 0.
>
> Kick it. It should be reading negative.
Doesn't go down that far, really. It is getting mighty hot though.
Mark
>
> >While Star Wars gets N'Sync.
>
> >That pretty much ends the debate once and for all for me.
>
> That is a new perspective, and I'd say it does make the point very
> effectively.
I think somebody's been smoking the crack in the event horizon.
--
http://dragonweb.dynu.com/spyda
ICQ#: 39921647
Ted Archbold
Mark <sp...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3C37C34A...@paradise.net.nz...
> John Savard wrote:
> >
> > >While Star Wars gets N'Sync.
> >
> > >That pretty much ends the debate once and for all for me.
> >
> > That is a new perspective, and I'd say it does make the point very
> > effectively.
>
> I think somebody's been smoking the crack in the event horizon.
>
Mark
>
> Dalton wrote:
>
> > The give-a-shit meter is reading 0.
>
> Kick it. It should be reading negative.
He's taking shit?
Dalton
Hah, sure :)
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
"Matthew Hyde" <mdo...@mtu.edu> wrote in message
news:3C37BFEC...@mtu.edu...
1) The long lost brother plot. Need I say more?
2) According to this film, Federation ships can travel to the center of the
galaxy in hours, but there are so damn few of them they'll send a broken one
on an important mission instead of one that isn't broken because there are
no other ships available. This is in orbit around Earth, mind you.
3) Chekhov and Sulu are the butt of Shatner's jokes from their first scene
where they fake a blizzard in their comm system to the aforementioned
Klingon ass at the end of the film. I can't fault Koenig for going to
Babylon 5 if my dignity had been stripped like this.
4) Kirk introduces the fart joke!
5) Uhura fan dancing. Dear God make the hurting stop!
6) God does show up, but the hurting continues!
7) Only Kirk has the emotional strength to resist Sybok's powers. It must
be nice to be your own Mary Sue.
8) Scotty knocks himself out by hitting his head on a beam while saying that
he knows the ship like the back of his hand. This typifies humor for ST5.
9) The mysterious jet boots that show up here and then never again. They
also have two settings: Slow and Warp 1.
10) "I feel your pain" is now even funnier post-Clinton.
11) Kirk is the only one to think "Why does God need a starship?" Surely
Spock should've reached that conclusion first, but instead he gives an "Oo,
good one!" eyebrow raise.
12) Omnipotence is proven by knocking Kirk on his ass. Like someone once
told me, "Kirk better shut up before he gets a Celestial Pink Belly."
13) Kirk, Bones, and Spock sing a round of Row, Row, Row Your Boat. That
Leonard "Proud Mary" Nimoy and William "Mr. Tambourine Man" Shatner singing.
I'll leave that to your imagination, or nightmares.
14) "I always knew I'd die alone." So much for Star Trek 7.
Beowulf
> The give-a-shit meter is reading 0.
>
I think you night want to recalibrate it. Mine's reading -10.
--
Beowulf
C.S.Strowbridge
> The give-a-shit meter is reading 0.
But the Damning it With Faint Praise - O - Meter just hit 10.
C.S.Strowbridge
John Savard
<tedman...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>Nice attempt there, you fucking troll. Just cause your favourite series to
>jerk off to is the worst in the history of film, doesn't mean you have to
>try to make yourself feel better by making a cheap attempt at a rebuke.
I don't think even the Enterprise pilot is really useful for *that*
purpose.
You don't think that Stephen Hawking is a person of some significance,
and his choice to appear in a cameo in an episode of Star Trek
reflects on its value? Not that I, personally, haven't also enjoyed
the Star Wars movies, but don't you have to admit, the difference
between Stephen Hawking and N*SYNC is a pretty big one?
John Savard
<denni...@pp.inet.fi> wrote, in part:
>SW has N'Sync in it, so what, I hear they are going to be there for a very
>short time, and perhaps even die, now that is another perspective.
Only their characters will die.
Their musical careers will *not* be ended by the movie.
Dalton
>
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:47:12 -0500, "Ted Archbold"
> <tedman...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>
> >Nice attempt there, you fucking troll. Just cause your favourite series to
> >jerk off to is the worst in the history of film, doesn't mean you have to
> >try to make yourself feel better by making a cheap attempt at a rebuke.
>
> I don't think even the Enterprise pilot is really useful for *that*
> purpose.
>
> You don't think that Stephen Hawking is a person of some significance,
> and his choice to appear in a cameo in an episode of Star Trek
> reflects on its value?
No, since he was only on because he was a fan and jumped at the offer.
This is akin to celebrity endorsement for a soft drink. It doesn't make
the end product any better.
> Not that I, personally, haven't also enjoyed
> the Star Wars movies, but don't you have to admit, the difference
> between Stephen Hawking and N*SYNC is a pretty big one?
Only because you automatically place Stephen Hawking above N*sync. I
would too, but the fact is, ask any average kid who Stephen Hawking is,
and they won't have any clue. Ask about N*sync...well, they've made
millions off of teenie boppers and other airheaded kiddies.
I suppose it's a question of demographics. *sigh* Lucas has lowered his
standards.
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote in message
extended screen time and lines of dialogue, while N*SYNC are just some
glorified extras. What's more, it's much easier to add a small appearance
by someone when you're producing a television program than if you're trying
to put together a major motion picture. Kelsey Grammer should be testimony
to that. "Niles. Niles! I need warp power and you're hitting on Ens.
Daphne again?!" Of course, Empire Strikes Back had John Ratzenberger(sp?),
so I guess we could consider Cheers the true Trek/Wars crossover.
--
Chuck
http://www.sfdebris.com
Patrick Lee
Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
> You don't think that Stephen Hawking is a person of some significance,
> and his choice to appear in a cameo in an episode of Star Trek
> reflects on its value? Not that I, personally, haven't also enjoyed
> the Star Wars movies, but don't you have to admit, the difference
> between Stephen Hawking and N*SYNC is a pretty big one?
As well as the difference between NASA astronaut Dr. Mae Jamison (who also
appeared on Star Trek) and Sofia Coppola (is a famous daddy).
Patrick Lee
Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
> Only their characters will die.
>
> Their musical careers will *not* be ended by the movie.
They have a *musical* career? I'm sorry, but anyone who can't play an
instrument isn't a musician.
Patrick Lee
<r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
> No, since he was only on because he was a fan and jumped at the offer.
>
> This is akin to celebrity endorsement for a soft drink. It doesn't make
> the end product any better.
If that's the case, then one has to wonder why he chose to appear on Star
Trek and not Star Wars. Somehow I doubt N'Sync would get the chance to
appear on Star Trek, unless they were a bunch of whiney Ferengi.
> Only because you automatically place Stephen Hawking above N*sync. I
> would too, but the fact is, ask any average kid who Stephen Hawking is,
> and they won't have any clue. Ask about N*sync...well, they've made
> millions off of teenie boppers and other airheaded kiddies.
You know what's sad? Having lived through the New Kids On The Block thing
as a kid, and just when I thought there couldn't be a "group" less talented
than NKOTB, along comes N'Sync. You wan to know what's even more sad? Ten
years from not a band *even less talented* will be bigger than N'Sync.
> I suppose it's a question of demographics. *sigh* Lucas has lowered his
> standards.
Yup - doh!
Ann Johnson
"Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
news:3C37FB84...@daltonator.net...
>
> I suppose it's a question of demographics. *sigh* Lucas has lowered his
> standards.
And what demographics explains Jar Jar Binks?
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
"Ann Johnson" <johns...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qXTZ7.10348$fe1.4...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
outer branches of philosphy, applying mathematics that operate in eighteen
spatial dimensions, and a midnight offering of virgin's blood just to begin
to probe that inexplicable creature, that foulness, that blight on all that
is good and right. Hold on tightly to your little ones, for Jar Jar has
come to town.
--
Chuck
http://www.sfdebris.com
Patrick Lee
"Chuck, Lord of the Dance" <mode...@sfdebris.com> wrote:
>> And what demographics explains Jar Jar Binks?
>>
> Jar Jar cannot be explained by demographics. It requires advancing into the
> outer branches of philosphy, applying mathematics that operate in eighteen
> spatial dimensions, and a midnight offering of virgin's blood just to begin
> to probe that inexplicable creature, that foulness, that blight on all that
> is good and right. Hold on tightly to your little ones, for Jar Jar has
> come to town.
No kidding - I mean, most Trek fans don't like Neelix from ST:Voyager, but
even those that hated him had to admit that the Talaxian did end up being a
decent character in the final season. But oh boy, we never had anything as
deporable as Jar Jar Binks, who makes the even Ferengi look as smooth as
James Bond.
Paul Hilling
>>SW has N'Sync in it, so what, I hear they are going to be there for a
>>very short time, and perhaps even die, now that is another perspective.
>Only their characters will die. Their musical careers will *not* be ended
>by the movie.
More's the pity.
--
Paul Hilling :- [ROT-13 the reply address]
No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post,
however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe delivery.
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
> On 1/6/02 3:41 AM, in article a1928n$os666$1...@ID-64862.news.dfncis.de,
> "Chuck, Lord of the Dance" <mode...@sfdebris.com> wrote:
>
> >> And what demographics explains Jar Jar Binks?
> >>
> > Jar Jar cannot be explained by demographics. It requires advancing into
the
> > outer branches of philosphy, applying mathematics that operate in
eighteen
> > spatial dimensions, and a midnight offering of virgin's blood just to
begin
> > to probe that inexplicable creature, that foulness, that blight on all
that
> > is good and right. Hold on tightly to your little ones, for Jar Jar has
> > come to town.
>
> No kidding - I mean, most Trek fans don't like Neelix from ST:Voyager, but
> even those that hated him had to admit that the Talaxian did end up being
a
> decent character in the final season.
Caretaker to his cameo in Endgame. I never felt any sympathy for that whiny
little mutant, not even when Q stole his voicebox. He is Trek's Jar Jar
Binks.
Kynes
wrote:
>> The give-a-shit meter is reading 0.
>
>But the Damning it With Faint Praise - O - Meter just hit 10.
You've just been waiting to use that since "Condom on a Coke Can" haven't you?
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster.
I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts
of the Star Wars series."
- net.movies, 6/8/1982
Kynes
>> Whoop de doo.
>
>That's kinda what most people said after watching Phantom Menace. If there
>is a such thing as an "anti-orgasm", I think George Lucas invented it.
I want to make a joke here about me, Marie, massive releases of energy, and my
geekdom. But it's late. You guys, just, sorta fill it in for me, okay? I'm going
back to writing El Boydo.
m5
"Ann Johnson" <johns...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qXTZ7.10348$fe1.4...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Why the very same group that just *loved* the Ewoks.
m5
m5
"Chuck, Lord of the Dance" <mode...@sfdebris.com> wrote in message
news:a193pe$mvgsr$1...@ID-64862.news.dfncis.de...
That actually makes some sense since Voyager was Trek's version of the
Phantom Plot.
m5
Mark
Considering that nsync probably wont have more then two words between
them, it's pretty irrelevant.
Mark
>
> On 1/6/02 2:23 AM, in article 3C37FB84...@daltonator.net, "Dalton"
> <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
>
> > No, since he was only on because he was a fan and jumped at the offer.
> >
> > This is akin to celebrity endorsement for a soft drink. It doesn't make
> > the end product any better.
>
> If that's the case, then one has to wonder why he chose to appear on Star
> Trek and not Star Wars. Somehow I doubt N'Sync would get the chance to
> appear on Star Trek, unless they were a bunch of whiney Ferengi.
Didn't "The Rock" appear in a Voyager episode?
> > Only because you automatically place Stephen Hawking above N*sync. I
> > would too, but the fact is, ask any average kid who Stephen Hawking is,
> > and they won't have any clue. Ask about N*sync...well, they've made
> > millions off of teenie boppers and other airheaded kiddies.
>
> You know what's sad? Having lived through the New Kids On The Block thing
> as a kid, and just when I thought there couldn't be a "group" less talented
> than NKOTB, along comes N'Sync. You wan to know what's even more sad? Ten
> years from not a band *even less talented* will be bigger than N'Sync.
They probably exist now, just haven't become famous yet.
> > I suppose it's a question of demographics. *sigh* Lucas has lowered his
> > standards.
>
> Yup - doh!
Mark
>
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 02:32:14 GMT, "His Divine Shadow"
> <denni...@pp.inet.fi> wrote, in part:
>
> >SW has N'Sync in it, so what, I hear they are going to be there for a very
> >short time, and perhaps even die, now that is another perspective.
>
> Only their characters will die.
>
> Their musical careers will *not* be ended by the movie.
Maybe they'll have an 'accident' on the set. I'm sure if GL and co were
responsible for their deaths that would probably convert even the most
die hard trekkie to the wars side :)
Kynes
>> If that's the case, then one has to wonder why he chose to appear on Star
>> Trek and not Star Wars. Somehow I doubt N'Sync would get the chance to
>> appear on Star Trek, unless they were a bunch of whiney Ferengi.
>
>Didn't "The Rock" appear in a Voyager episode?
Game, set, and match, gentlemen.
Gordon
> On 1/6/02 2:23 AM, in article 3C37FB84...@daltonator.net, "Dalton"
> <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
>
> > No, since he was only on because he was a fan and jumped at the offer.
> >
> > This is akin to celebrity endorsement for a soft drink. It doesn't make
> > the end product any better.
>
> If that's the case, then one has to wonder why he chose to appear on Star
> Trek and not Star Wars.
Because ST was in business and filming at the time, whereas SW would require
another decade to remake "The Hidden Fortress" for the *THIRD* time...
--
Gordon
"I have as much authority as the Pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."
Gordon
> > On 1/5/02 9:35 PM, in article 3C37B7F1...@daltonator.net, "Dalton"
> > <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
> >
> there
> > >> is a such thing as an "anti-orgasm", I think George Lucas invented
it.
> > >
9.
> >
> > Was that a comeback, or your lame attempt telling us your IQ?
> >
> I think you just want to ignore the fact that Star Trek V is infinitely
> worse than Phantom Menace.
Get real. *Manos* was better than Phantom Menace.
Wayne Poe
"Chuck, Lord of the Dance" <mode...@sfdebris.com> wrote
Here's a few more:
15) Allegedly starships can fly to the center of the galaxy in a very short
time, but the Enterprise is still the only ship in range of Nimbus 3!
16) Kirk forgets that he can stun the entire populace of Paradise City from
orbit like he did in "A Piece Of The Action"
17) ST5 proves Federation starships have less security than a 7-11.
18) Scotty forgets that he can set off anestazine (sp?) gas off in the ship,
then pick and choose good guys from bad guys later.
19) Scotty watches the entire fight between his Captain and Sybok from the
shuttlebay,'s observation deck, and never bothers to call security, or grab
a phaser, set it for wide beam stun, and wait at the door to the shuttlebay.
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
"Gordon" <moi...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7wVZ7.2000$N12.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> "Chuck, Lord of the Dance" <mode...@sfdebris.com> wrote in message
> news:a18et5$p1unk$1...@ID-64862.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Patrick Lee" <kestr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:B85D2330.9954%kestr...@rogers.com...
> > > On 1/5/02 9:35 PM, in article 3C37B7F1...@daltonator.net,
"Dalton"
> > > <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> That's kinda what most people said after watching Phantom Menace.
If
> > there
> > > >> is a such thing as an "anti-orgasm", I think George Lucas invented
> it.
> > > >
> > > > It's also what most people said after ST 5, 7 and 9. Especially 5
and
> 9.
> > >
> > > Was that a comeback, or your lame attempt telling us your IQ?
> > >
> > I think you just want to ignore the fact that Star Trek V is infinitely
> > worse than Phantom Menace.
>
> Get real. *Manos* was better than Phantom Menace.
>
Manos; it sets the lowest end of the scale. That's like saying "colder than
absolute zero" or "slower than an object that's stopped." Even Battlefield
Earth was better than Manos.
Gordon
Seen it. Liked it better than Phantom Creeps. Torgo 0wNXX0R JarJar...
Mark
>
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 22:33:47 +1300, Mark <sp...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >> If that's the case, then one has to wonder why he chose to appear on Star
> >> Trek and not Star Wars. Somehow I doubt N'Sync would get the chance to
> >> appear on Star Trek, unless they were a bunch of whiney Ferengi.
> >
> >Didn't "The Rock" appear in a Voyager episode?
>
> Game, set, and match, gentlemen.
Thank you, thank you,
*runs toward a hyrogen and pretends to kick him*
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
of "The Master" any day.
Mark
What's Manos?
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
"Mark" <sp...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3C383476...@paradise.net.nz...
in full keeping with the laws of irony is the worst film ever. The "plot"
is that a couple and their child get lost and stay at a house which is
controlled by some demonic type character. We know he's demonic because
he's called "The Master" and has a black cloak with felt hands glued to it.
Torgo is like a cross between Gandalf and Goat Boy, complete with the
haunting Torgo theme, which consists of four quarter notes on a synthasizer
repeated endlessly. The Master has many wives who wear sheer things and
wrestle with one another in what should be erotic displays but really isn't.
Then there's a bunch of shouting in the darkness and hoy palloy and Torgo
loses his hand and the movie ends with someone else coming. Oh, and about
one third of the film is just people driving, no talking. Manos must be
seen to be understood; well, it must be seen to be put into context.
John Savard
<johns...@worldnet.att.net> wrote, in part:
>And what demographics explains Jar Jar Binks?
George Lucas decided Star Wars is really for the six-year-old kiddies.
From Greedo shooting first in the SE.
It's sad to watch a talented artist destroying his masterpiece and
frittering away his abilities.
John Savard
<tno...@ebpsna.bet.hx> wrote, in part:
>>"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote...
>
>>>SW has N'Sync in it, so what, I hear they are going to be there for a
>>>very short time, and perhaps even die, now that is another perspective.
>>Only their characters will die. Their musical careers will *not* be ended
>>by the movie.
>More's the pity.
Precisely.
(I understood the phrase "now that is another perspective" to have
been intended ironically.)
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>On 1/6/02 2:11 AM, in article 3c37f881...@news.powersurfr.com, "John
>Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
>> Only their characters will die.
>> Their musical careers will *not* be ended by the movie.
>They have a *musical* career? I'm sorry, but anyone who can't play an
>instrument isn't a musician.
Although your point is valid, I referred to their activity as music
because the sounds they produce are recorded on CDs which are sold in
record stores: thus, they are packaged and sold as if they were music,
and, thus, referring to them as such without making a value judgement
simply facilitates effective shorthand communications.
I certainly regret any mistaken impression that I do not disdain
N*SYNC.
Bozo the Evil Klown
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 20:03:25 GMT, Patrick Lee <kestr...@rogers.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >When Star Trek wants to get celebrity cameos, they get Stephen Hawking.
<Referring to TNG "Dscent Part 1">
> Stephen Hawking, the author of "A Brief History of Time", the
> discoverer of radiation of energy from black holes through quantum
> tunelling, and also noted for his struggle with ALS.
>
> >While Star Wars gets N'Sync.
>
> >That pretty much ends the debate once and for all for me.
>
> That is a new perspective, and I'd say it does make the point very
> effectively.
How about this perspective: Wars has No'Sync and Jar-Jar..... Trek has
George Costanza with a vagina on his forehead and Pestley Crusher.....
Man, I picked the wrong millennium to stop sniffing glue!!
Maaike
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 20:03:25 GMT, Patrick Lee <kestr...@rogers.com>
> wrote, in part:
> >While Star Wars gets N'Sync.
>
> >That pretty much ends the debate once and for all for me.
>
> That is a new perspective, and I'd say it does make the point very
> effectively.
I'd wait to see whether N'Sync get blown up before passing judgement.
-Maaike
Maaike
<snip>
> > and his choice to appear in a cameo in an episode of Star Trek
> > reflects on its value?
>
Which, if the latest bits of news I've read are accurate, is the same
reason N*Sync got into SW.
> This is akin to celebrity endorsement for a soft drink. It doesn't make
> the end product any better.
It might if they get blown up... ;-)
People probably won't even be able to see their faces; they're just
extras after all. Just knowing they're in there somewhere is going to
annoy me a bit, but as you say, it's not a big important detail that
could make or break the movie.
> > Not that I, personally, haven't also enjoyed
> > the Star Wars movies, but don't you have to admit, the difference
> > between Stephen Hawking and N*SYNC is a pretty big one?
>
> Only because you automatically place Stephen Hawking above N*sync. I
> would too, but the fact is, ask any average kid who Stephen Hawking is,
> and they won't have any clue. Ask about N*sync...well, they've made
> millions off of teenie boppers and other airheaded kiddies.
Oh, I don't know. Even a teenie booper airhead (I'm using my little
brother as my probably-completely-unrepresentative test sample) would
recognize Stephen Hawking's name, and the fact that he's a genius,
even if they're not completely sure why, or what he's done.
At the worst, they'd probably say something like 'Yeah, he's the dood
who was on the Simpsons once, isn't he? You know, the one with the
kewl chair?' (Actually, N*Sync were also on the show, and they did a
very good job of mocking themselves... What this says about who would
make a good cameo is either very profound or very, very irrelevant.)
-Maaike
Cmdrwilkens
news:kxU4PGHeJS1hNR...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 02:33:17 GMT, Patrick Lee <kestr...@rogers.com>
wrote:
>
> >> Whoop de doo.
> >
> >That's kinda what most people said after watching Phantom Menace. If
there
> >is a such thing as an "anti-orgasm", I think George Lucas invented it.
>
> I want to make a joke here about me, Marie, massive releases of energy,
and my
> geekdom. But it's late. You guys, just, sorta fill it in for me, okay? I'm
going
> back to writing El Boydo.
>
"... and so Ian came home to an empty house where he was again forced to
watch German porn in rder to get any satisfaction. The End."
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R
USMCR
Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the
enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
-Unknown
Dalton
>
> On 1/6/02 2:23 AM, in article 3C37FB84...@daltonator.net, "Dalton"
> <r...@daltonator.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > the end product any better.
>
> Trek and not Star Wars.
Probably because he was a Star Trek fan and there weren't any SW movies
being made at the time.
> Somehow I doubt N'Sync would get the chance to
> appear on Star Trek, unless they were a bunch of whiney Ferengi.
Oh yeah, Star Trek prefers pro wrestlers instead. Muhahaha
> > Only because you automatically place Stephen Hawking above N*sync. I
> > would too, but the fact is, ask any average kid who Stephen Hawking is,
> > and they won't have any clue. Ask about N*sync...well, they've made
> > millions off of teenie boppers and other airheaded kiddies.
>
> You know what's sad? Having lived through the New Kids On The Block thing
> as a kid, and just when I thought there couldn't be a "group" less talented
> than NKOTB, along comes N'Sync. You wan to know what's even more sad? Ten
> years from not a band *even less talented* will be bigger than N'Sync.
Oh please, you're frightening me!
> > I suppose it's a question of demographics. *sigh* Lucas has lowered his
> > standards.
>
> Yup - doh!
:P
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"If there's anything on Usenet that makes us seem normal I want it
captured and shot immediately." ---C.S.Strowbridge
Dalton
>
> "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> news:3C37FB84...@daltonator.net...
>
> >
> > standards.
>
Kids?
Dalton
>
> Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C37FB84...@daltonator.net>...
> > John Savard wrote:
> <snip>
> > > You don't think that Stephen Hawking is a person of some significance,
> > > and his choice to appear in a cameo in an episode of Star Trek
> > > reflects on its value?
> >
> > No, since he was only on because he was a fan and jumped at the offer.
>
> Which, if the latest bits of news I've read are accurate, is the same
> reason N*Sync got into SW.
I think they begged Rick McCallum.
> > This is akin to celebrity endorsement for a soft drink. It doesn't make
> > the end product any better.
>
> It might if they get blown up... ;-)
LOL!
> People probably won't even be able to see their faces; they're just
> extras after all. Just knowing they're in there somewhere is going to
> annoy me a bit, but as you say, it's not a big important detail that
> could make or break the movie.
I do so hope they get vaped.
> > > Not that I, personally, haven't also enjoyed
> > > the Star Wars movies, but don't you have to admit, the difference
> > > between Stephen Hawking and N*SYNC is a pretty big one?
> >
> > Only because you automatically place Stephen Hawking above N*sync. I
> > would too, but the fact is, ask any average kid who Stephen Hawking is,
> > and they won't have any clue. Ask about N*sync...well, they've made
> > millions off of teenie boppers and other airheaded kiddies.
>
> Oh, I don't know. Even a teenie booper airhead (I'm using my little
> brother as my probably-completely-unrepresentative test sample) would
> recognize Stephen Hawking's name, and the fact that he's a genius,
> even if they're not completely sure why, or what he's done.
Yeaaaah, they might, they might.
> At the worst, they'd probably say something like 'Yeah, he's the dood
> who was on the Simpsons once, isn't he? You know, the one with the
> kewl chair?' (Actually, N*Sync were also on the show, and they did a
> very good job of mocking themselves... What this says about who would
> make a good cameo is either very profound or very, very irrelevant.)
LOL
Robert Whelan
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 08:31:18 GMT, "Ann Johnson"
> <johns...@worldnet.att.net> wrote, in part:
>
> >And what demographics explains Jar Jar Binks?
>
> George Lucas decided Star Wars is really for the six-year-old kiddies.
> From Greedo shooting first in the SE.
>
> It's sad to watch a talented artist destroying his masterpiece and
> frittering away his abilities.
Unfortunately, he never was a talented artist. He could produce,
by himself, a near silent film in THX-1138, but he needed massive
help handling actors, writing scripts with actual plots, directing,
and editing, all which were handled by friends and collegues.
John Savard
<mode...@sfdebris.com> wrote, in part:
>Jar Jar cannot be explained by demographics. It requires advancing into the
>outer branches of philosphy, applying mathematics that operate in eighteen
>spatial dimensions,
That's it! We're all living on a gigantic computer, built about ten
million years ago, that has incorporated organic life itself into its
computational matrix, whose purpose is either to explain Jar-Jar
Binks, or to figure out the purpose to life, the Universe, and
everything, or solve some other equally hard question...
or didn't they already write a series of books, make a miniseries that
appeared on PBS, and a BBC radio play, about this?
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "John Savard" wrote:
> >
> > "Ted Archbold" wrote:
> > >Nice attempt there, you fucking troll. Just cause your favourite
> > >series to jerk off to is the worst in the history of film, doesn't
> > >mean you have to try to make yourself feel better by making a cheap
> > >attempt at a rebuke.
> >
> > I don't think even the Enterprise pilot is really useful for *that*
> > purpose.
> >
> > You don't think that Stephen Hawking is a person of some significance,
> > and his choice to appear in a cameo in an episode of Star Trek
> > reflects on its value? Not that I, personally, haven't also enjoyed
> > the Star Wars movies, but don't you have to admit, the difference
> > between Stephen Hawking and N*SYNC is a pretty big one?
>
> There's a major difference between the appearances. Stephen Hawking had
> extended screen time and lines of dialogue, while N*SYNC are just some
> glorified extras. What's more, it's much easier to add a small
> appearance by someone when you're producing a television program than if
> you're trying to put together a major motion picture. Kelsey Grammer
> should be testimony to that. "Niles. Niles! I need warp power and
> you're hitting on Ens. Daphne again?!" Of course, Empire Strikes Back
> had John Ratzenberger(sp?), so I guess we could consider Cheers the true
> Trek/Wars crossover.
Add into the fact there there will be 6 movies verses 600+ episodes and
it's easy to guess who will have the better best cameos.
C.S.Strowbridge
Mark
Cool, I'll make a note to have a look for it next time I'm at the video
store.
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
> >> The give-a-shit meter is reading 0.
> >
> >But the Damning it With Faint Praise - O - Meter just hit 10.
>
> You've just been waiting to use that since "Condom on a Coke Can"
> haven't you?
I'm not answering that.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "Chuck, Lord of the Dance" wrote:
> >
> > > > I think you just want to ignore the fact that Star Trek V is
> > > > infinitely worse than Phantom Menace.
> > >
> > > Get real. *Manos* was better than Phantom Menace.
> >
> > Anyone who says that must not have seen Manos. There is nothing worse
> > than Manos; it sets the lowest end of the scale. That's like saying
> > "colder than absolute zero" or "slower than an object that's stopped."
> > Even Battlefield Earth was better than Manos.
>
> What's Manos?
Manos, the Hands of Fate. Generally considered the worse movie of all
time: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0060666
User rating: 1.5
Compared to STV: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0098382
User rating: 4.6
And TPM: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120915
User rating: 7.0
Granted, compared to Episodes 4 (8.8) 5 (8.6) and 6 (8.0) TPM was a
disappointment to most people. But nothing like Manos, or even STV.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> Manos must be seen to be understood; well, it must be seen to be put
> into context.
There's also a few bits of trivia that need to be added:
http://us.imdb.com/Trivia?0060666
Such as:
1.) The camera they used could only shoot 30 seconds of film at a time.
2.) Three of the 'actors' killed themselves shortly afterwards.
C.S.Strowbridge
Dalton
Hey Wayne, want to break out all those Gene Roddenberry and Harlan
Ellison quotes you got?
Patrick Lee
<sp...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> You know what's sad? Having lived through the New Kids On The Block thing
>> as a kid, and just when I thought there couldn't be a "group" less talented
>> than NKOTB, along comes N'Sync. You wan to know what's even more sad? Ten
>> years from not a band *even less talented* will be bigger than N'Sync.
>
> They probably exist now, just haven't become famous yet.
So would it be ok to rub them out now? Since they're not famous, no one
would care.
Dalton
Ensign Jimmy
>Only their characters will die.
>
>Their musical careers will *not* be ended by the movie.
Damned shame too.
The One, The Only: Retired Red-Shirt Jimmy
Ensign Jimmy
>"I feel
>your pain," the catch-phrase of Sybok, was no doubt directed towards the
>audience who was subjected to this masturbatory fantasy of a film. It is
>indefensible.
Heh heh. Well, at least it was better than Insurrection. Of course, one could
say it's like comparing a pile of dog crap at the park to a mountain of
elephant dung at the zoo . . .
John Savard
in part:
>"If there's anything on Usenet that makes us seem normal I want it
> captured and shot immediately." ---C.S.Strowbridge
Paraphrasing the great Zaphod Beeblebrox.
Dalton
>
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 18:09:23 -0500, Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote,
> in part:
>
> >"If there's anything on Usenet that makes us seem normal I want it
> > captured and shot immediately." ---C.S.Strowbridge
>
> Paraphrasing the great Zaphod Beeblebrox.
...well, that was useless.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"If there's anything on Usenet that makes us seem normal I want it
Robert Whelan
> In article <3c3881c5...@news.powersurfr.com>, John Savard
> <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
>
> > George Lucas decided Star Wars is really for the six-year-old kiddies.
> > From Greedo shooting first in the SE.
>
> Would somebody PLEASE explain to me why the hell it makes any kind of
> difference whatsoever WHO shot first, Greedo or not?
Are you sure you wanted people to know that about you?
Wes Hutchings
You don't seem to have a problem illustrating yourself as a trolling pussy
with the brain of a retarded gnat. Why then should he care what the big deal
is with the Greedo shot?
To answer his question the reason is because some feel that half of a second
suddenly redefines the character of Han throughout three films.
It's an odd assertion. No one remembers Jeffery Dahlmer as a painter of
shitty clowns, they remember him for his years of torturing and murdering
and eating people.
People don't remember Vader for NOT choking Piett, they remember him for
being an evil bad ass in three films.
wes
C.S.Strowbridge
> Seen it. Liked it better than Phantom Creeps. Torgo 0wNXX0R JarJar...
Some guy on alt.fan.starwars actually think Jar Jar was an important
part of TPM. I've taken the liberty to cross-post this thread there so
you two could discuss it.
Here's a brief look at what you're up against:
Me: So you don't like the Jar Jar toys but you think Jar Jar the
character was an important part of TPM story line.
Wes Hutchings of Rio Linda, CA: I thought the toys were ridiculous and I
thought Jar Jar played the role of pain in the ass buffoon to a T.
Me: Funny, I didn't ask if you thought the character was a buffoon. So,
are you going to answer the question or not?
Wes Hutchings of Rio Linda, CA: That was his role, it was his part, as a
tie in to other portions of the story, yes he is an important part of
the story.
---===---
Scary shit, eh?
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "Chuck, Lord of the Dance" wrote:
> > > What's Manos?
> >
> > Manos: The Hands Of Fate is a film made by a Texas fertilizer
> > salesman, and in full keeping with the laws of irony is the worst film
> > ever.
<SNIP!>
> Cool, I'll make a note to have a look for it next time I'm at the video
> store.
Good luck. You'll probably only find the MST3K version. And that's only
if they bothered to get permission to show it.
C.S.Strowbridge
Wes Hutchings
More sad really. Since you feel the need to have someone else fight your
battles.
What is this another attempt by you to just overwhelm me with posts?
Better luck next time dumbass.
wes
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> Dalton wrote:
> >"If there's anything on Usenet that makes us seem normal I want it
> > captured and shot immediately." ---C.S.Strowbridge
>
> Paraphrasing the great Zaphod Beeblebrox.
Yep, if you are going to plagiarize at least steal from a good source.
C.S.Strowbridge
Tucci
>Would somebody PLEASE explain to me why the hell it makes any kind of
>difference whatsoever WHO shot first, Greedo or not?
Certainly...
For Han to shoot first means he's more savvy and sharper than Greedo,
who is so inept at killing that he can point a blaster point-blank at
Han's head and still miss by several inches. For Greedo to get off a
shot first just makes Han look like an idiot, for Greedo is clearly an
unskilled amateur who should never have been able to get a shot off
before Han killed him. Han had ample warning -- Greedo even told him
he was about to kill him -- and he had the advantage since Greedo
didn't know he had his hand on a weapon. For Greedo to shoot first is
an embarrassment for Han.
Chuck, Lord of the Dance
"C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3C390452...@shaw.ca...
"No! We're not passing up on the opportunity to sell this for the mint it's
worth!"
Charlie Maul
80 Knight
JEALOUS!!!
--
Brandon
http://92knight.homestead.com/index2.html
1992 Pontiac Grand Prix LE (Diseased)
1982 Pontiac Trans Am (Sold)
1990 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (Sold)
1991 Pontiac Grand Prix SE [Current]
"Maybe it's not the destination that matters...Maybe it's the journey..."
Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
news:3C37B72E...@daltonator.net...
> The give-a-shit meter is reading 0.
>
> --
> Rob "Roby" Dalton
> http://daltonator.net
>
80 Knight
I LOVE it!!!
--
Brandon
http://92knight.homestead.com/index2.html
1992 Pontiac Grand Prix LE (Diseased)
1982 Pontiac Trans Am (Sold)
1990 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (Sold)
1991 Pontiac Grand Prix SE [Current]
"Maybe it's not the destination that matters...Maybe it's the journey..."
Jonathan Boyd <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B85D7136.1E7FB%jona...@jboyd.co.uk...
> Dalton wrote:
>
> > The give-a-shit meter is reading 0.
>
> Kick it. It should be reading negative.
> --
> Jonathan Boyd
> AIM:BoydClone | MSN:EmperorBoyd
>
> There is no conflict, there is the DTGOD.
> There is no copout, there is the storyline.
> There is no powergaming, there is the moderator.
> - Sir Nitram
>
Dalton
>
> JEALOUS!!!
>
> JEALOUS!!!
Yeah, I'm real jealous of a series that consistently fails to be decent,
scientifically accurate and intelligent, and enlists The Rock as a
"Special Guest Star".
>http://92knight.homestead.com/index2.html
92knight, eh? I remember, we kicked your goofy ass a while back.
>1992 Pontiac Grand Prix LE (Diseased)
>1982 Pontiac Trans Am (Sold)
>1990 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (Sold)
>1991 Pontiac Grand Prix SE [Current]
How pathetic, a car nerd.
Cmdrwilkens
news:Fga_7.7784$h2c....@news2.bloor.is...
> JEALOUS!!!
>
> JEALOUS!!!
Of your complete and utter moronic stupidity? I somehow doubt it.
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R
USMCR
Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the
enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
-Unknown
Dalton
>
> You are JEALOUS too!!!
>
> I LOVE it!!!
You don't have very much to live for, do you? Hmm...
> --
> Brandon
> http://92knight.homestead.com/index2.html
> 1992 Pontiac Grand Prix LE (Diseased)
> 1982 Pontiac Trans Am (Sold)
> 1990 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (Sold)
> 1991 Pontiac Grand Prix SE [Current]
...nope.
Love your website, BTW.
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> C.S.Strowbridge:
>
> > Gordon wrote:
> >> Seen it. Liked it better than Phantom Creeps. Torgo 0wNXX0R JarJar...
> >
> > Some guy on alt.fan.starwars actually think Jar Jar was an important
> > part of TPM. I've taken the liberty to cross-post this thread there so
> > you two could discuss it.
> >
> > Here's a brief look at what you're up against:
> >
> > Me: So you don't like the Jar Jar toys but you think Jar Jar the
> > character was an important part of TPM story line.
> > Wes Hutchings of Rio Linda, CA: I thought the toys were ridiculous and
> > I thought Jar Jar played the role of pain in the ass buffoon to a T.
> > Me: Funny, I didn't ask if you thought the character was a buffoon.
> > So, are you going to answer the question or not?
> > Wes Hutchings of Rio Linda, CA: That was his role, it was his part, as
> > a tie in to other portions of the story, yes he is an important part
> > of the story.
> >
> > ---===---
> >
> > Scary shit, eh?
>
> More sad really. Since you feel the need to have someone else fight your
> battles.
I don't need anyone's help fighting you. I just thought these nice folks
could use a good laugh. You certainly provide them.
> What is this another attempt by you to just overwhelm me with posts?
I don't need to do that. You do that all by yourself.
<SNIP!>
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> >
> > Mark wrote:
> > > Cool, I'll make a note to have a look for it next time I'm at the
> > > video store.
> >
> > Good luck. You'll probably only find the MST3K version. And that's
> > only if they bothered to get permission to show it.
>
> It's available, at least it used to be. It's not as if the owners could
> say "No! We're not passing up on the opportunity to sell this for the
> mint it's worth!"
Good point. Well made.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> 80 Knight wrote:
> >1992 Pontiac Grand Prix LE (Diseased)
> >1982 Pontiac Trans Am (Sold)
> >1990 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (Sold)
> >1991 Pontiac Grand Prix SE [Current]
>
> How pathetic, a car nerd.
And a Pontiac Car Nerd. Why?
C.S.Strowbridge
80 Knight
--
Brandon
http://92knight.homestead.com/index2.html
1992 Pontiac Grand Prix LE (Diseased)
1982 Pontiac Trans Am (Sold)
1990 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (Sold)
1991 Pontiac Grand Prix SE [Current]
"Maybe it's not the destination that matters...Maybe it's the journey..."
C.S.Strowbridge <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3C39EB20...@shaw.ca...
80 Knight
--
Brandon
http://92knight.homestead.com/index2.html
1992 Pontiac Grand Prix LE (Diseased)
1982 Pontiac Trans Am (Sold)
1990 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (Sold)
1991 Pontiac Grand Prix SE [Current]
"Maybe it's not the destination that matters...Maybe it's the journey..."
m5 <m...@ufp.net> wrote in message news:SxUZ7.8970$F01.4...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
>
> "Chuck, Lord of the Dance" <mode...@sfdebris.com> wrote in message
> news:a193pe$mvgsr$1...@ID-64862.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Patrick Lee" <kestr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:B85D7AAB.9A14%kestr...@rogers.com...
> > > On 1/6/02 3:41 AM, in article a1928n$os666$1...@ID-64862.news.dfncis.de,
> > > "Chuck, Lord of the Dance" <mode...@sfdebris.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> And what demographics explains Jar Jar Binks?
> > > >>
> > > > Jar Jar cannot be explained by demographics. It requires advancing
> into
> > the
> > > > outer branches of philosphy, applying mathematics that operate in
> > eighteen
> > > > spatial dimensions, and a midnight offering of virgin's blood just
to
> > begin
> > > > to probe that inexplicable creature, that foulness, that blight on
all
> > that
> > > > is good and right. Hold on tightly to your little ones, for Jar Jar
> has
> > > > come to town.
> > >
> > > No kidding - I mean, most Trek fans don't like Neelix from ST:Voyager,
> but
> > > even those that hated him had to admit that the Talaxian did end up
> being
> > a
> > > decent character in the final season.
> > Sorry to disagree, but Neelix annoyed me from his first appearance in
> > Caretaker to his cameo in Endgame. I never felt any sympathy for that
> whiny
> > little mutant, not even when Q stole his voicebox. He is Trek's Jar Jar
> > Binks.
> >
>
> That actually makes some sense since Voyager was Trek's version of the
> Phantom Plot.
>
>
> m5
>
Rich Clark
RichC
"80 Knight" <80kn...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Nin_7.5318$iM....@news1.bloor.is...
Patrick Lee
<80kn...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Voyager was Trek's second best series.
To quote Commander William T. Riker, "Yes, absolutely, I do indeed concur
wholeheartedly!"