*SPOILER*: The Big E in Trek XI Movie
Steven L.
from "Ocean's 11" to "The X-Files," has been working hard on J.J.
Abrams' latest outing of the USS Enterprise, and while she still remains
as tight-lipped as everyone else, Brown has some stories to tell.
There has been a lot of debate going back and forth on the Internet for
months about what that Enterprise will look like -- with fans getting
their first look at a new "Star Trek XI" teaser trailer next week on
another Abrams film, "Cloverfield." It seems that those who were betting
that the 2008 look of the NCC-1701 will be far different from the 1960s
version should start collecting their winnings now.
"I think a lot of hardcore fans are going to freak out," Brown told SyFy
Portal's Will N. Stape. "As far as I know, only the exterior of the
Enterprise had to stay the same. I don't know if that came from J.J. or
Paramount."
Some of that was to be expected, however, as only so much 1960s
nostalgia would work in today's cinema. But stubbornness should really
be checked at the door Christmas Day when the new Star Trek movie premieres.
"I can't discuss any details, all I can offer is that you lose all your
expectations of what Star Trek should be," Brown said. "If you see this
movie with an open mind and take it at face value, you may have a great
time."
http://www.syfyportal.com/news424604.html
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Kweeg
news:13o9v2p...@corp.supernews.com...
Cue fanboi whining.... Anybody?
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
Benjamin Pavsner
taking place over a century before TOS (and storylines aside), seems to be
more advanced. Of course, this REALLY has to do with the fact the Enterprise
was produced 35 years after TOS and had more with which to work.
GeneK
> Cue fanboi whining.... Anybody?
Actually, I find the "only the exterior of the Enterprise
had to stay the same" part relatively encouraging.
GeneK
Kweeg
news:Pk9hj.573$lU5...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Thanks Gene, you always seem to apply a little logic to things you say and
don't spout off like a foaming fanboi.
'tis very refreshing around here.
Anim8rFSK
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
Yes, although these hints of the 'huge bridge' are kind of odd, unless
they're gonna make decks 1, 2, & 3 the bridge, in which case we're back
to 'forbidden planet' :)
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand. Doesn't work. Yet. :(
Magnus, Robot Fighter
wrote:
Enh....I don't think anyone expected to see Capt. Pike's Enterprise.
Speaking of which I wonder if they'll make Kirk Pike's exec, then off
Pike to get Kirk into the chair midmission.
Steven L.
> The big problen is obvious: the tech from "Star Trek: Enterprise," despite
> taking place over a century before TOS (and storylines aside), seems to be
> more advanced. Of course, this REALLY has to do with the fact the Enterprise
> was produced 35 years after TOS and had more with which to work.
Actually, I think it's more than that, from other spoilers I've heard.
From other spoilers I've heard, Trek XI is going to depict Enterprise
interiors with vast interior spaces, rather than the cramped corridors
and cabins and rooms we've seen in past Trek movies and shows. Perhaps
like ST:TMP but more so.
We'll probably hear from fans complaining that the Captain's cabin is
too big, etc.
Steven L.
> In article <Pk9hj.573$lU5...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
> "GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>
>> "Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote...
>>> Cue fanboi whining.... Anybody?
>> Actually, I find the "only the exterior of the Enterprise
>> had to stay the same" part relatively encouraging.
>>
>> GeneK
>
> Yes, although these hints of the 'huge bridge' are kind of odd, unless
> they're gonna make decks 1, 2, & 3 the bridge, in which case we're back
> to 'forbidden planet' :)
The TOS bridge is already a split-level bridge, with those short steps
that take you from the outer ring (where the Science and Comm Stations
are) down into the center area where the Captain, Helm and Navigation sit.
So I could imagine them just expanding the split-level further, so that
the outer ring is even higher and the center area is even lower. Or
reversing it, so that the outer ring is on deck 2 and the center area is
on deck 1.
GeneK
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote...
> Yes, although these hints of the 'huge bridge' are kind of odd, unless
> they're gonna make decks 1, 2, & 3 the bridge, in which case we're back
> to 'forbidden planet' :)
Bridge size was always a problem in TOS. If you
look at that very first shot of the first pilot, where
the camera swoops down from above, it's evident
that the lighted dome on the saucer is barely large
enough to cover the lower level of the bridge
where the captain, helm and navigator stations are
and the big "pilot bridge" housing is correctly
proportioned for the visual of a 200-ft long ship.
Then they retconned the ship to 5 times the original
concept for the series, and never showed the bridge
from the outside again, but the proportions never
really looked right again unless you imagine spaces
between the decks that are almost as high as the
decks and FJ's wide "service passage with toilet"
encircling the bridge. I think they could easily
double the size of the bridge set and still have it
be credible to the ship's exterior, especially if
they add additional levels to it.
GeneK
GeneK
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:13oabig...@corp.supernews.com...
> Actually, I think it's more than that, from other spoilers I've heard.
>
> From other spoilers I've heard, Trek XI is going to depict Enterprise
> interiors with vast interior spaces, rather than the cramped corridors
> and cabins and rooms we've seen in past Trek movies and shows. Perhaps
> like ST:TMP but more so.
>
> We'll probably hear from fans complaining that the Captain's cabin is
> too big, etc.
Kirk's Enterprise didn't start to look "cramped" *until*
TMP.
The TOS Enterprise sets had pretty wide corrdors (they
had to, to be able to move the enormous camera dollies
of the time through). That wide, curved corridor that all
the other rooms were lined up on looked to be at least
8-10 ft wide. Pike's quarters appeared to be the same
huge, rounded set as the briefing room. And compare
the aircraft hangar sized engineering set to the "tunnel
at the bottom of elevator shaft" set on the E-refit.
It seems to me that just the changes from the first two
pilots to the series can support the idea that the interiors
of starships have gotten some major revisions without
being a very big deal, compared to the huge to-do it
was to perform a major refit to the exterior of the ship
in TMP.
GeneK
(not quite so) Fat Sam
Well, I don't know about you guys, but I find these images very reassuring.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/GCKoerner/newentsaucer/ent_05_04_001.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/GCKoerner/newentsaucer/ent_05_07_004.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/GCKoerner/newentsaucer/ent_05_07_005.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/GCKoerner/newentsaucer/ent_05_07_006.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/GCKoerner/newentsaucer/ent_05_07_007.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/GCKoerner/newentsaucer/ent0003.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/GCKoerner/newentsaucer/ent0005.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/GCKoerner/newentsaucer/ent0006.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/GCKoerner/newentsaucer/battle001_comp_v01_0178.jpg
Yes, it looks a lot more hi-tech and modern than TOS Enterprise, but in a
very sympathetic way.
I imagine if the designer of the original TV Enterprise had modern CGI
technology at his disposal, and the benefit of the past 40 years worth of
sci-fi aesthetics to influence him, he would have come up with something
that looks pretty much like this
GeneK
> Well, I don't know about you guys, but I find these images very reassuring.
Not sure why you would, since they are not the movie ship.
GeneK
Warchild
"Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote:
*Whine*
'I am a Star Trek fan! Star Trek belongs to me! No one is allowed to
alter it in any way, shape or fashion!' William Shatner should play
Kirk at all ages!
*Whine*
GeneK
> Thanks Gene, you always seem to apply a little logic to things you say and
> don't spout off like a foaming fanboi.
That's a relief. I'm way to old to be a good
fanboi, and you just don't want to see what me
when I foam. It's too horrible to contemplate.
GeneK
GeneK
> That's a relief. I'm way to old to be a good
> fanboi, and you just don't want to see what me
> when I foam. It's too horrible to contemplate.
>
> GeneK
Oops. -"what"
Gene
Jaxtraw
I'd just like to see a door to the washroom, and some means of access to the
bridge for when the lifts break down.
Ian
--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in
Ragnar
But the interior can be changed. Bet it looks nothing like what we had
in TOS. Think "Enterprise".
Kweeg
Kweeg
news:bob-59682B.1...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
LOL!
need a bit more foaming though....
Kweeg
news:c3bao3t0cfgnudsfe...@4ax.com...
Hopefully not.
Steven L.
I think you're half right.
The interiors will definitely look more modern. They have to.
But I don't think they will look utilitarian, like in "Enterprise" where
you had track lighting, visible nuts and bolts, etc.
I think the interiors will look vast and spacious, more like ST:TMP but
even more modern.
Brian Thorn
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"I think a lot of hardcore fans are going to freak out," Brown told SyFy
>Portal's Will N. Stape. "As far as I know, only the exterior of the
>Enterprise had to stay the same. I don't know if that came from J.J. or
>Paramount."
>
>Some of that was to be expected, however, as only so much 1960s
>nostalgia would work in today's cinema. But stubbornness should really
>be checked at the door Christmas Day when the new Star Trek movie premieres.
>
>"I can't discuss any details, all I can offer is that you lose all your
>expectations of what Star Trek should be," Brown said. "If you see this
>movie with an open mind and take it at face value, you may have a great
>time."
>
>http://www.syfyportal.com/news424604.html
Well, this is peculiar. I think it would be a little difficult to be
recognizably Star Trek with a, say, radically different bridge. What
would be the point of having Sulu, Chekov and Uhura in the movie if
the bridge is so small that you can't see them, or conversely, if the
bridge is so large they get lost in a crowd or can't be filmed in the
same scene (like those ridiculously large sets on ships in the Star
Wars movies)?
I'm not particularly surprised or horrified to hear they're changing
the Enterprise's innards around... the movies already did that to give
us a much more visually interesting starship. But I think the basic
set designs were very well made for TV/Movie filming... curved
corridors meant smaller sets could be made and still imply a ship much
larger than what you see onscreen at any given moment. The bridge
allowed pie sections to be removed at random so filming could take
place from any angle. I have trouble seeing how Abrams & Co. could
come up with better ideas, or why they'd want to. What, did he say
"Let's not do it Roddenberry's way... I want this movie to cost a lot
more money!"?
I have a feeling these "freak out" changes are being exaggerated quite
a bit.
Surprise, surprise.
Brian
GeneK
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote...
> I have a feeling these "freak out" changes are being exaggerated quite
> a bit.
Maybe not. There are are few people already freaking out
here before they've even seen the film.
Anybody
<j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>
> I'd just like to see a door to the washroom, and some means of access to the
> bridge for when the lifts break down.
Voyager has "Jeffries tubes", one of which leads to the bridge. Then
there's always the transporter. :-)
GeneK
> The interiors will definitely look more modern.
It would probably be more accurate to say that they'll
look more contemporary, as in how contemporary
audiences will expect the future to look. Most new,
"modern" things today don't look terribly futuristic at
all compared to what people thought the future would
be like in the 60's. Or any other time, for that matter.
> But I don't think they will look utilitarian, like in "Enterprise" where
> you had track lighting, visible nuts and bolts, etc.
There's no reason why it should. Except for an
occaisional bit of protruding plumbing, the TOS
Enterprise had clean, smooth paneling on it
interior walls with color on them, which means
that technology has advanced to the point where
ship interiors can have "decor." So it will all
come down to whatever the prevailing thinking
on what represents a desirable look for a crew
environment is at any point in history. Anything
from stainless steel to burled walnut.
GeneK
Kweeg
news:100120081652058328%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
"I'll mention that Voyager has Jeffries tubes which leads to the bridge,
because the relevant to the discussion about the TOS Enterprise"
Anybody the idiot strikes again. If anyone sees some spare clues around try
and get him one, as he wouldn't know what one was if it bit him in the ass.
Jaxtraw
...neither of which were apparently available when Khan shut off the
turbolift and the air conditioning. You'd think they'd keep a phaser or two
on the bridge to cut through the floor in emergencies like that. "Break
glass to access phasers in case of giving obvious psychopath the ship's
schematics and access all areas".
Meg A.
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <Pk9hj.573$lU5...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>> "GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote...
>>>> Cue fanboi whining.... Anybody?
>>> Actually, I find the "only the exterior of the Enterprise
>>> had to stay the same" part relatively encouraging.
>>>
>>> GeneK
>>
>> Yes, although these hints of the 'huge bridge' are kind of odd, unless
>> they're gonna make decks 1, 2, & 3 the bridge, in which case we're back
>> to 'forbidden planet' :)
>
> The TOS bridge is already a split-level bridge, with those short steps
> that take you from the outer ring (where the Science and Comm Stations
> are) down into the center area where the Captain, Helm and Navigation sit.
>
If you look at Mid-Century Mod residential architecture, it really looks
more like a sunken living room.
AFA the huge set that turned into a CGI thingie, that's gotta be engineering
or the shuttle hangar.
Meg A.
Meg A.
Meg A.
> GeneK
>
>
GeneK
"Jaxtraw" <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> turbolift and the air conditioning. You'd think they'd keep a phaser or two
> on the bridge to cut through the floor in emergencies like that. "Break
> glass to access phasers in case of giving obvious psychopath the ship's
> schematics and access all areas".
Security on the TOS Enterprise was always laughable.
If they didn't think to restrict access to the ship's tech
plans, why would they think to plan ahead for the
obvious consequences?
GeneK
ToolPackinMama
> "Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote...
>> Cue fanboi whining.... Anybody?
>
> Actually, I find the "only the exterior of the Enterprise
> had to stay the same" part relatively encouraging.
LOL me too. :) I am thankful that the old girl will at least look the
same on the outside.
ToolPackinMama
> From other spoilers I've heard, Trek XI is going to depict Enterprise
> interiors with vast interior spaces, rather than the cramped corridors
> and cabins and rooms we've seen in past Trek movies and shows.
LOL
I laugh because the original Star Trek was futuristic when it depicted
roomy corridors and luxuriously spacious cabins.
ToolPackinMama
>
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13oabig...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Actually, I think it's more than that, from other spoilers I've heard.
>>
>> From other spoilers I've heard, Trek XI is going to depict Enterprise
>> interiors with vast interior spaces, rather than the cramped corridors
>> and cabins and rooms we've seen in past Trek movies and shows.
>> Perhaps like ST:TMP but more so.
>>
>> We'll probably hear from fans complaining that the Captain's cabin is
>> too big, etc.
>
> Kirk's Enterprise didn't start to look "cramped" *until*
> TMP.
Ya know?
Compared to the submarines etc. of the twentieth century....
To the people of Picard's Enterprise, the TOS-era Enterprise would seem
small and cramped. But to the people of the real-life 1960's, the TOS
Enterprise was a luxury cruiser - and that is how it was meant to seem
to the audience of that day.
Jaxtraw
I have this bad feeling it's going to look like some kind of intergalactic
shopping mall.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
Really?
Bummer.
Looks like somebody spent a lot of time and effort on them. Whoever did them
is a very talented artist.
Steven L.
IIRC, in ST II:TWOK, there was a fire extinguisher on the bridge, on the
rear wall.
Given how Big E instrumentation seems prone to short circuits and
burnouts, that was a good idea. :-)
Steven L.
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>> From other spoilers I've heard, Trek XI is going to depict
>>> Enterprise interiors with vast interior spaces, rather than the
>>> cramped corridors and cabins and rooms we've seen in past Trek
>>> movies and shows.
>> LOL
>>
>> I laugh because the original Star Trek was futuristic when it depicted
>> roomy corridors and luxuriously spacious cabins.
>
> I have this bad feeling it's going to look like some kind of intergalactic
> shopping mall.
Funny you should mention that:
Just this past weekend, I was shopping up at the Pheasant Lane Mall in
NH. It's an indoor mall of two floors. And of course the upper floor
overlooks the lower floor, with escalators and stairways between them.
It did occur to me at that moment, that that sort of visual sweep would
be perfect for a Trek XI starship interior. We had a glimpse of
something like that with the ST:TMP cargo deck.
You could even imagine a similar setup to a mall "Food Court," with the
crew's mess on a lower floor and people walking around above it on the
upper floor.
Kweeg
Still on the whole Kirk's E never seemed to have as many of the exploding /
sparks flying control panels as the rest of "later Starfleet" did.
Kweeg
message news:ipudnYRxJfNliRva...@giganews.com...
That would be Gabriel Koerner. The annoying kid from "Trekkies" and also
built the CG models for BSG.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Gabriel_Koerner
http://www.gabekoerner.com/fx/splash.htm
(not quite so) Fat Sam
> "(not quite so) Fat Sam" <saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:ipudnYRxJfNliRva...@giganews.com...
>> GeneK wrote:
>>> "(not quite so) Fat Sam" <saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk>
>>> wrote...
>>>> Well, I don't know about you guys, but I find these images very
>>>> reassuring.
>>>
>>> Not sure why you would, since they are not the movie ship.
>>
>> Really?
>> Bummer.
>> Looks like somebody spent a lot of time and effort on them. Whoever
>> did them is a very talented artist.
>
> That would be Gabriel Koerner. The annoying kid from "Trekkies" and
> also built the CG models for BSG.
> http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Gabriel_Koerner
> http://www.gabekoerner.com/fx/splash.htm
I'll say this for him.
He's a seriously talented guy.
If the Enetrprise in the new film does end up looking even vaguely similar
to his creation, I'll be happy.
Steven L.
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13ochdh...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Jaxtraw wrote:
>>> Anybody wrote:
>>>> In article <47855ef7$0$13923$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"
>>>> <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'd just like to see a door to the washroom, and some means of
>>>>> access to the bridge for when the lifts break down.
>>>> Voyager has "Jeffries tubes", one of which leads to the bridge. Then
>>>> there's always the transporter. :-)
>>> ...neither of which were apparently available when Khan shut off the
>>> turbolift and the air conditioning. You'd think they'd keep a phaser or
> two
>>> on the bridge to cut through the floor in emergencies like that. "Break
>>> glass to access phasers in case of giving obvious psychopath the ship's
>>> schematics and access all areas".
>> IIRC, in ST II:TWOK, there was a fire extinguisher on the bridge, on the
>> rear wall.
>>
>> Given how Big E instrumentation seems prone to short circuits and
>> burnouts, that was a good idea. :-)
>
> Still on the whole Kirk's E never seemed to have as many of the exploding /
> sparks flying control panels as the rest of "later Starfleet" did.
Spock could have used a fire extinguisher when his underpanel blew out
in "Balance of Terror"
Steven L.
> "(not quite so) Fat Sam" <saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:ipudnYRxJfNliRva...@giganews.com...
>> GeneK wrote:
>>> "(not quite so) Fat Sam" <saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote...
>>>> Well, I don't know about you guys, but I find these images very
>>>> reassuring.
>>> Not sure why you would, since they are not the movie ship.
>> Really?
>> Bummer.
>> Looks like somebody spent a lot of time and effort on them. Whoever did
> them
>> is a very talented artist.
>
> That would be Gabriel Koerner. The annoying kid from "Trekkies" and also
> built the CG models for BSG.
> http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Gabriel_Koerner
> http://www.gabekoerner.com/fx/splash.htm
I'm not thrilled with a few of the design choices he made; the warp
nacelle pylons look clunky, and the Engineering Hull looks like a 1960s
Chevrolet Camaro. All it's missing are the rallye stripes.
But it was imaginative, and gives us an idea of how more surface detail
could be added without wrecking the original Jeffries concept.
Kweeg
Where would the logic be in expending a fire extinguisher when his flame
retardant Vulcan hands could put out the fire with the secret Vulcan "By
Surak that's bloody hot, fire dowsing slap?"
Kweeg
Indeed. I don't care much for his E design either. What's the matter with a
smooth finish? The details are the too small to really get a good look at it
marking on the hull. Some of which were already there, like the "docking
marks" (I'm assuming) on the secondary hull, or being able to see movement
behind some of "windows," sorta like what the ST remastered shots look like.
Steven L.
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13ocr3n...@corp.supernews.com...
>> I'm not thrilled with a few of the design choices he made; the warp
>> nacelle pylons look clunky, and the Engineering Hull looks like a 1960s
>> Chevrolet Camaro. All it's missing are the rallye stripes.
>>
>> But it was imaginative, and gives us an idea of how more surface detail
>> could be added without wrecking the original Jeffries concept.
>
> Indeed. I don't care much for his E design either. What's the matter with a
> smooth finish?
There's a kind of automobile style involving severely split planes, like
the sides of this classic Buick model:
http://www.californiaclassics.nl/images/buick/regal-coupe-1973-01-01.jpg
and
http://www.gatewayclassiccars.com/images/carpics/STL/2173/2173.jpg
That's kind of what Mr. Koerner did with the Big E's Engineering Hull.
Maybe in the 23rd century, the NCC-1701 will be built by General Motors.
GeneK
> There's a kind of automobile style involving severely split planes, like
> the sides of this classic Buick model:
>
> http://www.californiaclassics.nl/images/buick/regal-coupe-1973-01-01.jpg
> and
> http://www.gatewayclassiccars.com/images/carpics/STL/2173/2173.jpg
>
> That's kind of what Mr. Koerner did with the Big E's Engineering Hull.
> Maybe in the 23rd century, the NCC-1701 will be built by General Motors.
Perhaps that explains why his Enterprise actually looks *older*
to me than the original TOS version. I was around when both
those cars were made. However, the car it made me think
about was this one:
http://www.seriouswheels.com/1950-1959/1951-GM-Le-Sabre-Concept-SA-Harley-Earl-1024x768.htm
Maybe it depends on how old you are.
GeneK
Bill Plenge
With good reason, that's not a cyclops headlight on it, it's a prototype for
a deflector dish. It was abandoned when GM couldn't figure out how to send
a tachyon pulse through it. Where is Mr LaForge when we need him?
Al Smith
Too many wires running through the floor. Remember all the trouble
Scotty had cutting open the door to engineering when Ensign What's
His Name locked himself in and started singing "I'll Take You
Home, Cathleen"? The same is probably true of the floors. Can't
just cut a hole for an escape hatch.
-Al-
Jaxtraw
Hmm. If you cut through a wire, it'll just blow a fuse. They have fuses
don't they?
I mean, if they didn't, consoles would explode when damaged. What idiot
would design a starship like that?
GeneK
> I mean, if they didn't, consoles would explode when damaged. What idiot
> would design a starship like that?
Probably the same one who later redesigned the phasers
so they didn't work when the warp drive went out... :)
GeneK
Steven L.
In that case, just use the phaser to cut through the door to the
turbolift shaft, and escape down the shaft. (Didn't they escape down a
turbolift shaft in the ST V movie?)
Snake
news:gm7hj.32832$EA5.9799@pd7urf2no...
> Cue fanboi whining.... Anybody?
Plenty. THIS is why reboots / prequels simply DON'T work. Too much has to
be "recreated" to keep up "with the Jones" - but it's a been there / done
that double-edged sword. You can't recreate the old...while still making
sure the old is worth anything. It simply doesn't work.
Period. End of discussion.
It's not a question of "fanboi" - actually, it is a question of the
"franchise" itself. The old CREATED the franchise. To discount the old is
therefore to discount the credibility of the entire franchise itself. You
CAN'T throw out the foundations that you have spent years building
upon...while at the same time using it as a draw to attract crowds to the
"newest and greatest" that is throwing away the old to actually BE the
"new". It is a paradox. You tear at the fundamentals of the believability
that makes fiction - any piece of fiction - work.
Fiction *functions* by a disbelief of reality, substituting one "reality"
(the everyday) for the created one. Therefore the created reality must
"seem" to function in as plausible a space-time as possible in order to
maintain the mental suspension of the everyday. It does not matter if the
created reality, if it could exist, could not really function because it
defies the very laws of nature (Harry Potter, for example), the created
reality must be consistent with ITSELF and operate in some identifiable
manner of 'internal plausibility'. Once that 'internal plausibility' is
broken ('Batman & Robin', for example, versus the first 'Batman'), it
becomes a laughing stock and is not taken 'seriously' in the minds of the
viewers / readers.
Once the 'plausibility curtain' is torn, in the form of doubting the created
reality, the fiction...falls apart.
ST:E has this 'plausibility curtain' problem. When you first started
watching it, everyone asked themselves "Why does this NX-01 Enterprise look
more advanced than NCC-1701". And it raised doubts in the viewers minds, a
doubt that cause the 'plausibility tear' in the fabric of the illusion of
the fiction...that haunted it until the end of it's run.
We, fans of a particular genre of fiction - Star Trek - call this
"plausibility curtain" by a unified name: CANON. The word, canon, in
actually describes a complex functionality of believability coupled with
historical precedence. Once canon is torn...the entire illusion starts
falling apart.
Al Smith
They went up a shaft of some kind. I don't remember how they got
into it.
-Al-
GeneK
> Once that 'internal plausibility' is
> broken ('Batman & Robin', for example, versus the first 'Batman'), it
> becomes a laughing stock and is not taken 'seriously' in the minds of the
> viewers / readers.
That explains nicely why "Batman and Robin" failed:
because it dissatisfied patrons who had made the first
two or three movies in that run of Batman popular.
But those people were not necessarily the same folks
who made Adam West's "Batman" popular 20 years
earlier, or the original comic and the B&W movie
serials popular in the 30's or 40's. Extending that
logic to Trek XI requires the assumption that it's
going to live or die on the approval of those who
made the original TOS popular (namely, us). I'm
not so sure that assumption is valid.
GeneK
Anybody
<gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
It's not, but the problem is that you split the franchise into "old"
and "new", just as has happened to Battlestar Galactica. (Yes, some
people are fans of both versions.) You end up with a mess where nobody
knows what you mean by "Star Trek", so you have to continually qualify
it and/or rename them, eg. "Classic Battlestar Galactica" (although
forcing the original to change it's name is extremely rude!)
Plus, by re-using the old name you turn away people who never liked the
original "Star Trek" - those people are less likely to watch something
with "Star Trek" in the title, whereas they could well give something
called "Galactic Hike" or whatever a look-see.
You come back to the obvious: if the old franchise no longer makes
money and they want to make a new one, then make a NEW one, complete
with a new name and the ability to do ANYthing they want. Leave the old
franchise to the fans who like it as it is.
The REAL reason they keep doing this idiotic remakes is to keep the
copyright to themselves, otherwise someone like Richard Hatch or David
Hasselhoff might come in an gazump them with a new show that actually
resembles the original as the fans liked it.
Meg A.
Jaxtraw
That's a good exposition of that POV. I'd suggest though that it's also an
argument in favour of choosing either (a) end the franchise forever or (b)
reboot it. And by reboot I mean a complete retool from the ground up,
starting with the basic premise of the series and deliberately abolishing
all the "history"- the canon.
I'm reminded of something Douglas Hofstadter wrote in his "Godel Escher
Bach". He'd written a computer program which took english words and made
amusing sentences out of them. At first he found it entertaining as it
produced these odd, grammatically correct, but meaningless or surreal
statements, and found the printouts amusing (bear in mind this book was
written during a time when computers were still rare research machines and
ELIZA was cutting edge :) But he found that the experience quickly palled,
even though there were millions more statements of equal humour value in the
program. His conclusion, which I agree with, was that we lose interest in
something not when we've seen every permutation, but when we've mapped its
"behavioural space". That is, we build a mental model of what it can do, it
then becomes predictable. It can no longer surprise us. When we've mapped
the behavioural space, we seek something new and refreshing. (Perhaps this
is why we generally don't get bored with other humans, or pets, they always
have the potential to surprise us- even then, we can become bored with other
people if their behavioural space becomes too well mapped "Goddamn it Abner,
you've farted after dinner every darned day of the 50 years we've been
married!").
When we start watching a new TV show, reading a new comic book, a new series
of novels, the behavioural space is a tabula rasa. Gradually, we fill it in
as time goes by- a detail here, a broad stroke there. Eventually, a canon
builds up. What were just stories become part of the contstructed fictional
universe. But we're also mapping its behavioural space. At some point, we
end up with a marvellously detailed *setting* for stories, but we have a
similarly detailed *behavioural space*. We know everything this thing can
do. We get bored. We move onto something else. The mapping of the
behavioural space occurs long before every possible story in the ficitonal
universe can be told. We simply can't be surprised any more.
I think this is the state Trek has reached. THere are still lots of stories
that could be told in this detailed universe, but really most people just
aren't that interested in them any more, because they have such a clear
model of what "Star Trek" is that there's no capacity for much change. The
behavioural space is too well mapped. You just end up with permuations of
the same old same olds- "hey, waht if the Klingons attack the Romulans and
then shields drop to 60% and the transporters malfunction?" kind of plots.
The *conventions* of this universe's storytelling are fixed. We simply know
too much. And I think that's why the franchise has had steadily dropping
viewing figures and interest for so long. It's an inevitable consequence of
the mapping of the behavioural space.
So the only way to revitalise it is to scrub the map. Go back to the basic
premise of the show, but open up every option again. Do a reboot. It won't
please Anybody, but it might please somebody and might be appealing to
almost everybody. Without doing that, the chances of a rebirth of Trek are
nil, because the behavioural space is mapped.
Which is why I was hoping for a real fresh start; a reboot. It may have been
carp, but it may have worked. The more I hear about the kobayashi maru, and
Pike, and Spock's mother and so on, the more gloomy I become. It appears
they're trying to stay in the same behavioural space and, as the saying
goes, familiarity breeds contempt.
GeneK
> Which is why I was hoping for a real fresh start; a reboot. It may have been
> carp, but it may have worked. The more I hear about the kobayashi maru, and
> Pike, and Spock's mother and so on, the more gloomy I become. It appears
> they're trying to stay in the same behavioural space and, as the saying
> goes, familiarity breeds contempt.
Indeed. It's sounding more and more like a fanboi production
with each new tidbit that comes out. Unfortunately, if they
were looking for fanboi acceptance, they're doomed, because
they haven't figured out a way to bring Kelley and Doohan
back from the dead and turn back the clock for the rest of
the cast.
GeneK
Jaxtraw
Quite so.
I have to say here, as the one constantly arguing in favour of reboots and
whatnot that, if I could have anything I want, if some cosmic being gave me
a Star Trek wish, I'd just like more TOS episodes. Really. I prefer TOS to
the TOS movies, to TNG and all else. I'd like my Wish Trek to have modern
SFX, but other than that I just wish I could magic some more 60s episodes
(preferably with Rand not leaving :)
But I can't have that. That was 40 years ago. So when I argue for change,
I'm looking for the best of what can reasonably be had in the real world,
etc.
Magnus, Robot Fighter
wrote:
>"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:13ochdh...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Jaxtraw wrote:
>> > Anybody wrote:
>> >> In article <47855ef7$0$13923$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"
>> >> <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>> >>> I'd just like to see a door to the washroom, and some means of
>> >>> access to the bridge for when the lifts break down.
>> >> Voyager has "Jeffries tubes", one of which leads to the bridge. Then
>> >> there's always the transporter. :-)
>> >
>> > ...neither of which were apparently available when Khan shut off the
>> > turbolift and the air conditioning. You'd think they'd keep a phaser or
>two
>> > on the bridge to cut through the floor in emergencies like that. "Break
>> > glass to access phasers in case of giving obvious psychopath the ship's
>> > schematics and access all areas".
>>
>> IIRC, in ST II:TWOK, there was a fire extinguisher on the bridge, on the
>> rear wall.
>>
>> Given how Big E instrumentation seems prone to short circuits and
>> burnouts, that was a good idea. :-)
>
>Still on the whole Kirk's E never seemed to have as many of the exploding /
>sparks flying control panels as the rest of "later Starfleet" did.
Kirk's Enterprise could cross half the Galaxy in a short period of
time, go to warp 14 without exploding, go back in time, withstand
power bolts the equivalent of 90 photon torpedoes and punch holes in
the Hand of Apollo.
Steven L.
> Kirk's Enterprise could cross half the Galaxy in a short period of
> time, go to warp 14 without exploding, go back in time, withstand
> power bolts the equivalent of 90 photon torpedoes and punch holes in
> the Hand of Apollo.
Yeah, they don't make starships like they used to: Handcrafted and
built with pride at the San Francisco Navy Yards. That's what happens
when you start outsourcing to Tellar.
Wouter Valentijn
A turbolift shaft yes.
They got there through a hatch.
Kirk & McCoy started climbing.
Spock put on his gravity boots.
www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html
liam=mail
A mutant, a Vulcan and a slayer walk into a bar.
The mutant tries to read the bar owner's mind, but fails to do so.
The Vulcan shakes his head when he learns about the bar owner's ethics.
The slayer takes one look at the bar owner and remarks: "Look: Snake vomit!"
Jaxtraw
...then they flew past a whole bunch of decks in no logical order. They went
past one of them twice, and I think the highest number is 73 or something
ridiculous.
Great movie, Star Trek V. Oh yes.
Wouter Valentijn
It had a great deal of err... annoying moments.
But at the same time it did have great character moments as well.
It is certainly not the worst movie of the entire franchise.
Jaxtraw
I think number 4 gets my vote for that. Any Star Trek movie that can't find
a more serious adversary for Kirk and Crew than some guys in a little boat
has seriously lost the plot. That and the plot holes... ohhhhhhh the plot
holes. Couldn't they at least have pretended to think up some justification
for the intergalatic whale monitoring doodah? Is there one for ducks, or
frogs? They weren't seriously suggesting that whales once trekked to the
stars were they? And if the godwhale was knocking out everything it flew
past, what happened to everything it didn't fly past? Wouldn't it have only
knocked out installations in a narrow cylinder? What about the ones on the
other side of Earth from where it came from? Why was Rand in the "federation
council" seats among all those noddy muppet guys? Why is an internal
military disciplinary matter being held there anyway? Why did all the noddy
muppets care whether Kirk got a new starship or keelhauled? Why does the
federation president dress like a pantomime character? Are robes really in
vogue in the future? Who the hell wrote this thing?
I still remember the despair I felt sitting in the cinema watching that
thing. God it was bad.
ToolPackinMama
> I think number 4 gets my vote for that. Any Star Trek movie that can't find
> a more serious adversary for Kirk and Crew than some guys in a little boat
> has seriously lost the plot.
Hmm, Harry Mudd, Cyrano Jones....
Snake
news:4788e6dd$1$85794$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Jaxtraw wrote:
>> Great movie, Star Trek V. Oh yes.
>
> It had a great deal of err... annoying moments.
> But at the same time it did have great character moments as well.
> It is certainly not the worst movie of the entire franchise.
If only the script and / or editing of the final film resulted in a movie as
decent as the book. I must admit it was a letdown in that regard, the
novelization (which came out *before* the movie) was quite decent.
Snake
news:4788672b$0$21101$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Very well explained. IMHO that is why they need to go *forward*, a la TNG,
and not backward - we already have Kirk, Spock et al. mapped in the
behavioral space. TNG was a smashing success - it was able to create a new
behavioral space and was tremendously accepted by the viewers. DS9 and
Voyager extended that space yet played within it, but like you said it
started to become stale - how much can you extend a space yet still have it
interesting?
ST:E was a tremendous problem because they had to maintain the familiar Trek
"feel". yet have a 'retro behavioral space'. That is EXTREMELY difficult
because, to us, the original creation *already* has the slight sheen of
'retro' (it is 40 years old). How do you do "retro-retro" yet look
"fresh"??
This is why prequels, for the most part, simply...don't work. Especially
when your behavioral space has a very extended 40-year history!
Al Smith
>>> >> turbolift shaft, and escape down the shaft. (Didn't they escape
>>> >> down a turbolift shaft in the ST V movie?) --
>>> >> Steven L.
>> >
>> >
>> > They went up a shaft of some kind. I don't remember how they got
>> > into it.
>
> A turbolift shaft yes.
> They got there through a hatch.
> Kirk & McCoy started climbing.
> Spock put on his gravity boots.
Yes, the boots were a nice touch. That's why this scene sticks in
the memory. So they just opened a hatch -- no cutting through the
door? I didn't recall any cutting, either. After that Ensign Riley
episode, cutting through doors or walls seems a bad idea. Scotty
was *really* careful about cutting into engineering to get at Riley.
-Al-
Wouter Valentijn
It was the book that first disappointed me...
BTW, should you be wondering... The snake mentioned in my sig does not refer
to you.
Snake
news:120120081826583594%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
True.
They have plenty of opportunities in Star Trek - the future, beyond TNG.
Instead they wish to rehash the known in order to play off the popularity of
these characters. But it opens a HUGE can of worms, a can these fools in
Hollywood never seem to admit...until it is too late.
Wouter Valentijn
Star Trek The Voyage Home is to date the only Trek I ever saw at the cinema.
I loved it. No. IV was a great conclusion to The Trilogy that started with
II and I think those three films shouldn't be taken out of each other's
context.
Together they rate /just/ above TMP and well above VI, VIII and V. And those
are followed by IX, VII and X.
Wouter Valentijn
I don't think there was any cutting...
Kweeg
news:7O2dnYQR3PiVwxXa...@comcast.com...
> >> in "Balance of Terror"
> >
> > Where would the logic be in expending a fire extinguisher when his flame
> > retardant Vulcan hands could put out the fire with the secret Vulcan "By
> > Surak that's bloody hot, fire dowsing slap?"
>
> LMAO!
... how do ya think did they (or who) put out the campfire in ST5, with out
an fire extinguisher?
Kweeg
news:4788ad18$0$9117$607e...@cv.net...
Oh good Anybody's found a friend. Does the retelling of Shakespeare's
stories bother you too?
Kweeg
pisha. A good story is a good story period.
The problem with Enterprise was they didn't take advantage of all the
elements were there for a sweeping epic of the early days of the Federation,
the new worlds the intrigue, the struggle, the Romulan War etc. They didn't
tell the "good story." Season 4 started and even ol' Braga has been quoted
as saying "what if" and it would have been interesting if season 4 of Ent
was it's first.
GeneK
> Does the retelling of Shakespeare's
> stories bother you too?
I have to admit that with the exception of "West Side Story,"
I've hated every attempt I've seen to move Shakespeare into
a modern setting. But I'm not sure if that's specifically
because of the change in setting.
GeneK
Steven L.
> "Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote...
>> Does the retelling of Shakespeare's
>> stories bother you too?
>
> I have to admit that with the exception of "West Side Story,"
> I've hated every attempt I've seen to move Shakespeare into
> a modern setting.
You didn't like "Forbidden Planet" either?
GeneK
> You didn't like "Forbidden Planet" either?
I like FP, but I'm not sure whether that really qualifies
as "moving" Shakespeare, as it uses even less of "The
Tempest" than "West Side Story" uses of "Romeo and
Juliet." I suppose where I would draw the line is
between adapting the basic elements from the plot
and trying to actually redo the original in a modern
setting. For example, "Romeo+Juliet," where modern
leather-jacket gang members wander the streets of
LA reciting the original Shakespeare lines.
GeneK
Snake
news:LEaij.278$GS1...@newsfe11.phx...
Exactly. To top it all off, according to a famous quotation, Shakespeare
shows there are only 7 types of basic plot lines anyway so EVERY story in
some way or another can be seen through the rose-colored glasses as being
just "Shakespeare remade".
http://blogs.setonhill.edu/EvanReynolds/archives/007099.html
36 to 37 plot structures...it all boils down to 7 "raw" pieces.
http://articles.dhwritings.com/q13.html
http://jeriwesterson.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/seven_basic_plo.html
The 7 basic "pieces" are all simply jumbled, swapped and intermingled to
come up with "new" drama.
GeneK
"Snake" <fluidSPAMst...@optonline.net> wrote...
> Exactly. To top it all off, according to a famous quotation, Shakespeare
> shows there are only 7 types of basic plot lines anyway so EVERY story in
> some way or another can be seen through the rose-colored glasses as being
> just "Shakespeare remade".
I've heard this proposition before. Plus, Shakespeare
wasn't the first playwright in history; because many
of his contemporaries aren't studied today we have no
idea how original *his* plots are.
GeneK
Anybody
news:LEaij.278$GS1...@newsfe11.phx...
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> > You didn't like "Forbidden Planet" either?
>
> I like FP, but I'm not sure whether that really qualifies
> as "moving" Shakespeare, as it uses even less of "The
> Tempest" than "West Side Story" uses of "Romeo and
> Juliet." I suppose where I would draw the line is between adapting the
> basic elements from the plot and trying to actually redo the original in a
> modern setting. For example, "Romeo+Juliet," where modern
> leather-jacket gang members wander the streets of
> LA reciting the original Shakespeare lines.
I believe that has happened, and worse. Here in New Zealand we have
even had Maori-ised versions of Shakespeare's plays. :-\
Despite often being held up as the be-all-and-end-all of litery
achievement, I personally find Shakespeare hidiously boring, mostly
unintelligible and a complete waste of time being studied in schools
today.
redhawk
[...]
>
> I think number 4 gets my vote for that. Any Star Trek movie that can't
> find
> a more serious adversary for Kirk and Crew than some guys in a little boat
> has seriously lost the plot. That and the plot holes... ohhhhhhh the plot
> holes. Couldn't they at least have pretended to think up some
> justification
> for the intergalatic whale monitoring doodah? Is there one for ducks, or
> frogs? They weren't seriously suggesting that whales once trekked to the
> stars were they?
Not at all, it was humans who sent whale songs out into the cosmos on space
probes (which is factual). One of the probes happened to reach the planet
of Intelligent Super Whales, who sent their own vessel to meet their
humpback buddies on Earth.
I suppose the same could happen if we had sent out duck or frog calls to a
planet of intelligent ducks or frogs. But the movie soundtrack would not
have been as good with constant "quacks" or "croaks" instead of melodious
humpback whale songs.
Kweeg
LMFAO!
but Anybody will tell you he knows good writing when he sees it.... probably
too much "soft core porn" and innuendo in it for him.
RobertVA
Of course the fact that a faster that light drive would need to produce
enough energy to make the generators at Hoover Dam look like a hand full
of hearing aid batteries wouldn't have anything to do with it!
Anim8rFSK
"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
I thought the worst film was GENERATIONS until I saw NEMESIS . . .
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand. Doesn't work. Again.
Billing is all wrong. Again.
Avoid at all costs.
Anim8rFSK
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
What about the Gilligan's Island musical?
"Is it to be
Or not to be
This is the question
That I ask of me"
Jaxtraw
That would at least have been funny, as compared to the leaden "humour" we
actually got.
Jaxtraw
> "Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:130120081441081685%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
>> "GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
>> news:LEaij.278$GS1...@newsfe11.phx...
>>> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>>>> You didn't like "Forbidden Planet" either?
>>>
>>> I like FP, but I'm not sure whether that really qualifies
>>> as "moving" Shakespeare, as it uses even less of "The
>>> Tempest" than "West Side Story" uses of "Romeo and
>>> Juliet." I suppose where I would draw the line is between adapting
>>> the basic elements from the plot and trying to actually redo the
>>> original in a modern setting. For example, "Romeo+Juliet," where
>>> modern leather-jacket gang members wander the streets of
>>> LA reciting the original Shakespeare lines.
>>
>> I believe that has happened, and worse. Here in New Zealand we have
>> even had Maori-ised versions of Shakespeare's plays. :-\
>>
>> Despite often being held up as the be-all-and-end-all of litery
>> achievement, I personally find Shakespeare hidiously boring, mostly
>> unintelligible and a complete waste of time being studied in schools
>> today.
>
> LMFAO!
> but Anybody will tell you he knows good writing when he sees it....
> probably too much "soft core porn" and innuendo in it for him.
Indeed. How can some baldy Elizabethan "bard" possibly hold a candle to the
works of the great Glen A. Larson?
Anybody
<j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
Whatever you say. :-\
Jaxtraw
I think maybe the problem is that even the future behavioural space is too
mapped. Another generation on, how different will things be from TNG?
TNG itself was effectively a reboot of TOS. The technology of 80 years on
was only more advanced in terms where the real world had advanced e.g. the
computers. The magic tech- transporters, phasers, shields etc were all no
more advanced than the TOS ones, even if you pretend they're now 100
Terawatt phasers, instead of 100 Gigawatt phasers. It makes no difference,
because phasers are as powerful as the plot requires. Which is also why they
coldn't be realistically downgraded for Enterprise either. A phaser is a
phaser.
So unless the future show is to be as different from TNG as TNG was from TOS
in terms of the whole style- and the difference is enormous in that
instance- then it's probably doomed. It's worth remembering that for the
first seasons of TNG they didn't even effectively acknowledge that there had
been a TOS. No "canon-based" episodes (even if some borrowed script ideas
like The Naked Now).
> ST:E was a tremendous problem because they had to maintain the
> familiar Trek "feel". yet have a 'retro behavioral space'. That is
> EXTREMELY difficult because, to us, the original creation *already*
> has the slight sheen of 'retro' (it is 40 years old). How do you do
> "retro-retro" yet look "fresh"??
Agreed.
> This is why prequels, for the most part, simply...don't work.
> Especially when your behavioral space has a very extended 40-year
> history!
Also agreed, except I'd add that the behavioural space for a prequel is
absolutely mapped. We know what can't happen, because it's "already"
happened. It's entirely an exercise in filling in details, with no room for
the unexpected. If you put a character in peril who's already been seen
years in the future, there is no peril. We know she survived. Etc...
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <4788e6dd$1$85794$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
<snip>
>>> Great movie, Star Trek V. Oh yes.
>>
>> It had a great deal of err... annoying moments.
>> But at the same time it did have great character moments as well.
>> It is certainly not the worst movie of the entire franchise.
>
> I thought the worst film was GENERATIONS until I saw NEMESIS . . .
There's always a bigger fish out there.
Wouter Valentijn
> Snake wrote:
>> "Jaxtraw" <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
>> news:4788672b$0$21101$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> That's a good exposition of that POV. I'd suggest though that it's
<snip>
> So unless the future show is to be as different from TNG as TNG was
> from TOS in terms of the whole style- and the difference is enormous
> in that instance- then it's probably doomed. It's worth remembering
> that for the first seasons of TNG they didn't even effectively
> acknowledge that there had been a TOS. No "canon-based" episodes
> (even if some borrowed script ideas like The Naked Now).
>
Not only borrow, but also a direct link.
When Data researched the history of the infliction, he did come upon the
events in 'The Naked Time'.
Riker had recalled something like that involving a previous Enterprise.
Steven L.
>
> "Jaxtraw" <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:4788ec93$0$21088$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> [...]
>>
>> I think number 4 gets my vote for that. Any Star Trek movie that can't
>> find
>> a more serious adversary for Kirk and Crew than some guys in a little
>> boat
>> has seriously lost the plot. That and the plot holes... ohhhhhhh the plot
>> holes. Couldn't they at least have pretended to think up some
>> justification
>> for the intergalatic whale monitoring doodah? Is there one for ducks, or
>> frogs? They weren't seriously suggesting that whales once trekked to the
>> stars were they?
>
> Not at all, it was humans who sent whale songs out into the cosmos on
> space probes (which is factual). One of the probes happened to reach
> the planet of Intelligent Super Whales, who sent their own vessel to
> meet their humpback buddies on Earth.
>
> I suppose the same could happen if we had sent out duck or frog calls to
> a planet of intelligent ducks or frogs.
That starts to sound like the movie "Howard the Duck." The best part of
that otherwise bad movie was the depiction of the Duck World, including
the museum exhibit on "The Ascent of Duck."
Actually, if evolution on other worlds proceeds similarly to Earth, then
intelligent amphibians (e.g. frogs) or reptiles (e.g. Velociraptors) are
more likely to be the dominant species than ape-like hominids such as
humans. Because those classes of species were around on Earth far
longer than apes. It's only due to a relatively recent cosmic accident
(a comet hitting the Earth 65 million years ago) that the dinosaurs are
gone and we're here instead.
The dinosaur species Troodon, with similar body shape as Velociraptor,
actually had opposable thumbs, so it could have learned to use tools if
given more time to evolve.
Paleontologist Dale Russell believes that if the comet hadn't hit the
Earth, the Troodon would have evolved intelligence, started to use
tools, formed a civilization, and end up looking like this:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sumeranu/reptiles13_06.jpg
That may be what most aliens in the Galaxy really look like.
Steven L.
I agree.
The problem is that, after over 40 years of Star Trek stories dealing
with space travel, space itself is running out of conceptual space. :-)
Going on our past discussion, we could probably make a list of standard
Star Trek story types: First Contact, Getting Around the Prime
Directive, Solving a Scientific/Technical Problem, Alien Invasions,
Alien Politics, etc. And with hundreds of Star Trek episodes, not to
mention countless other SF stories and novels, we've probably explored
all of those, each many times over by now.
And it's not just Star Trek, but SF generally, that is feeling it.
If you look at the winners of the Hugo Award in the last decade or so,
you see a definite trend toward fantasy (e.g. Lord of the Rings, The
Incredibles, magic and mysticism, etc.) rather than the "hard" space
travel SF of the past (2001, Star Trek, etc.). Science fiction writers
in general seem to be moving away from stories involving space ships
traveling to distant places.
Perhaps these days, Western culture is just not as interested in space
travel as we used to be, and creative writers are thinking about other
things.
Wouter Valentijn
Maybe...
Of course that little accident of 65 million years ago wasn't the first.
Before that there were several mass extinctions. There was even one (a giant
volcanic eruption) that wiped out most of life on Earth, and paved the way
for the dinosaur.
Wouter Valentijn
Al Smith
> achievement, I personally find Shakespeare hidiously boring, mostly
> unintelligible and a complete waste of time being studied in schools
> today.
You embarrass yourself by admitting this.
-Al-
Al Smith
"Nemesis" was a pretty good film that just missed on a couple of
points: (1) too much Data, (2) betrayal of Picard's character, by
having him turn chicken at the end. Oh, and the dune buggy
sequence -- not good, not good.
-Al-