Re: STAR TREK THE WRATH OF KHAN: was What Did You Watch? 2013-06-01 (Saturday)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kofccc$9ud$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>
> > What did you watch?
>
>
> STAR TREK 2 THE WRATH OF KHAN: streaming via Netflix, with Saturday
> offering little in the way of worthwhile TV viewing. I still don't
> understand how Chekov and his Captain entered a charted star system and
> failed to count the planets correctly.

Well, Chekov *is* an idiot. Sadly, they could have fixed it (or made it
a lot less egregious) by just having Ceti Alpha 4 explode instead of 6;
at least that way the counting order would shift. Better still would
have just been a dinosaur killer strike though. I could probably
fanwank it to make it Neil DeGrasse Tyson's fault.

> Moreover, I fail to understand why,
> with so many star systems charted, they were searching for an uninhabited
> planet in the first place.

Given that the Genesis device can make it's own star, yeah, I don't know
why they're looking to set it off in a system at all (they clearly don't
need the Goldilocks zone, either).

This does echo our old buddy Graeme Cree's complaint about THE WAY TO
EDEN and the ideas that A) we've mapped the entire galaxy and 2) we've
colonized everything everywhere.

> Still, this is the best of the Star Trek films.

My biggest problem is at the end, while they're trying to get away from
the device before it goes, and we get this exchange:
KIRK: We'll beam aboard and stop it.
DAVID: You can't!
and Kirk takes his simpering idiot son's word for it - the word of a guy
who has just proven he's too stupid to put on a sweater, so he gave up
and tied it around his neck.

Can't stop it? Really?? Beam me over with a phaser rifle and a crowbar
and a baseball bat and we'll see about that. Certainly I'd try that
before I'd mix matter and anti matter with my bare hands. Hey, you've
got working transporters and photon torpedoes? Let's beam one of those
babies on the Reliant bridge and see what happens. Hell, lock on to the
damn thing and "beam it out into open space, Scotty. Widest possible
dispersion."

All this could be fixed by just resurrecting one of Spock's classic
lines: "Transporters will be out for a solar day" or "build up of the
Genesis wave has disrupted the transporters" or something.

I also think it would work a lot better if you swapped Sulu and Chekov.
Sulu had actually met Khan, and you'd actually care if Sulu got tortured
and might die, not giggle. And Sulu doesn't speak like Elmer Fudd. And
Sulu had that interest in botany ...

alt.tv.star-trek.tos and rec.arts.movies.past-films follow ups added

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <kofccc$9ud$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> STAR TREK 2 THE WRATH OF KHAN: streaming via Netflix, with Saturday
>> offering little in the way of worthwhile TV viewing. I still don't
>> understand how Chekov and his Captain entered a charted star system and
>> failed to count the planets correctly.
>
> Well, Chekov *is* an idiot. Sadly, they could have fixed it (or made it
> a lot less egregious) by just having Ceti Alpha 4 explode instead of 6;
> at least that way the counting order would shift. Better still would
> have just been a dinosaur killer strike though. I could probably
> fanwank it to make it Neil DeGrasse Tyson's fault.

A collision between the planet and a space rock would have been much better
than they claim of the nearby planet exploding. This is the kind of simple
stuff that writers should be able to get right.

>> Moreover, I fail to understand why,
>> with so many star systems charted, they were searching for an uninhabited
>> planet in the first place.
>
> Given that the Genesis device can make it's own star, yeah, I don't know
> why they're looking to set it off in a system at all (they clearly don't
> need the Goldilocks zone, either).

Part of the explanation there is that Genesis reconfigures matter of equal
amounts, so it needs an area of space that is filled with something in order
to convert than something into a planet that will support life. Still,
there should be barren planets/moons/etc... all over the place.

That reminds me of one of the other real laughers of dialog in this film:
The 'Phase 2' underground cave system they made...where Federation miners
took 6 months to carve out the tunnel system. Um...couldn't the
transporters be configured to beam out an area of rock and leave behind a
cavern 'instantly'? Yes, I know that they wanted to juxtapose the hard work
of the Federation team's carving devision with the instant glory of the
Genesis device, but still...

>> Still, this is the best of the Star Trek films.
>
> My biggest problem is at the end, while they're trying to get away from
> the device before it goes, and we get this exchange:
> KIRK: We'll beam aboard and stop it.
> DAVID: You can't!
> and Kirk takes his simpering idiot son's word for it - the word of a guy
> who has just proven he's too stupid to put on a sweater, so he gave up
> and tied it around his neck.

The kid was awfully yuppie for a scientist.

> Can't stop it? Really?? Beam me over with a phaser rifle and a crowbar
> and a baseball bat and we'll see about that. Certainly I'd try that
> before I'd mix matter and anti matter with my bare hands. Hey, you've
> got working transporters and photon torpedoes? Let's beam one of those
> babies on the Reliant bridge and see what happens. Hell, lock on to the
> damn thing and "beam it out into open space, Scotty. Widest possible
> dispersion."

Yep. If it can be beamed up, it can be dealt with 'instantly'. In fact,
you don't even need to beam it anywhere. just store it in the transporter
buffer until you later. Of course, that is one of the problems with
creating 'super tech' like the transporter: it makes it much harder to
create legitimate plot problems going forward.

> All this could be fixed by just resurrecting one of Spock's classic
> lines: "Transporters will be out for a solar day" or "build up of the
> Genesis wave has disrupted the transporters" or something.

The Star Trek equivalent of 'the cell phones cannot get a signal here!'

> I also think it would work a lot better if you swapped Sulu and Chekov.
> Sulu had actually met Khan, and you'd actually care if Sulu got tortured
> and might die, not giggle. And Sulu doesn't speak like Elmer Fudd. And
> Sulu had that interest in botany ...

That is funy. Was Chekov really not even in the TV episode? I know that
Chekov and Sulu didn't have that many episodes together, really, in the
series, but I didn't recall that Chekov wasn't even in the original Bottany
Bay episode.

Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him with a
CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.

> alt.tv.star-trek.tos and rec.arts.movies.past-films follow ups added

...as long as it isn't those rec.arts.sf.tv guys.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

On 6/2/2013 10:23 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <kofccc$9ud$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>> STAR TREK 2 THE WRATH OF KHAN: streaming via Netflix, with Saturday
>>> offering little in the way of worthwhile TV viewing. I still don't
>>> understand how Chekov and his Captain entered a charted star system and
>>> failed to count the planets correctly.
>>
>> Well, Chekov *is* an idiot. Sadly, they could have fixed it (or made it
>> a lot less egregious) by just having Ceti Alpha 4 explode instead of 6;
>> at least that way the counting order would shift. Better still would
>> have just been a dinosaur killer strike though. I could probably
>> fanwank it to make it Neil DeGrasse Tyson's fault.
>

I had a similar thought while watching. Maybe he demoted one of the
planets to a plutoid or something.

I'm willing to fankwank that the genesis device couldn't be beamed while
activated. And beaming onto Khan's ship of supermen would probably be
certain death for anyone making the attempt (not that they shouldn't
have tried anyway). Were his shields even down?

Although I agree the lack of transporters in battle is a serious problem
for Star Trek in general. More battles should have gone like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bkw69E_C4g

>
>> All this could be fixed by just resurrecting one of Spock's classic
>> lines: "Transporters will be out for a solar day" or "build up of the
>> Genesis wave has disrupted the transporters" or something.
>
> The Star Trek equivalent of 'the cell phones cannot get a signal here!'
>
>> I also think it would work a lot better if you swapped Sulu and Chekov.
>> Sulu had actually met Khan, and you'd actually care if Sulu got tortured
>> and might die, not giggle. And Sulu doesn't speak like Elmer Fudd. And
>> Sulu had that interest in botany ...
>
> That is funy. Was Chekov really not even in the TV episode?

No, he wasn't. But if I recall correctly, I was at a convention many,
many years ago where he gave an explanation for it. He said his
character was on the ship at the time and Khan needed to use the
restroom but Chekov was taking a long time in there. When Chekov
finally came out Khan said, I'll never forget your face or something
like that.

I know that
> Chekov and Sulu didn't have that many episodes together, really, in the
> series, but I didn't recall that Chekov wasn't even in the original Bottany
> Bay episode.
>
> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him with a
> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
>
>

What?

[Obveeus]

In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to the
engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kofur6$dkp$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <kofccc$9ud$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >> STAR TREK 2 THE WRATH OF KHAN: streaming via Netflix, with Saturday
> >> offering little in the way of worthwhile TV viewing. I still don't
> >> understand how Chekov and his Captain entered a charted star system and
> >> failed to count the planets correctly.
> >
> > Well, Chekov *is* an idiot. Sadly, they could have fixed it (or made it
> > a lot less egregious) by just having Ceti Alpha 4 explode instead of 6;
> > at least that way the counting order would shift. Better still would
> > have just been a dinosaur killer strike though. I could probably
> > fanwank it to make it Neil DeGrasse Tyson's fault.
>
> A collision between the planet and a space rock would have been much better
> than they claim of the nearby planet exploding. This is the kind of simple
> stuff that writers should be able to get right.

Yep. Any level of science advisor should have been blowing an air horn
at 'exploding planet'

>
> >> Moreover, I fail to understand why,
> >> with so many star systems charted, they were searching for an uninhabited
> >> planet in the first place.
> >
> > Given that the Genesis device can make it's own star, yeah, I don't know
> > why they're looking to set it off in a system at all (they clearly don't
> > need the Goldilocks zone, either).
>
> Part of the explanation there is that Genesis reconfigures matter of equal
> amounts, so it needs an area of space that is filled with something in order
> to convert than something into a planet that will support life. Still,
> there should be barren planets/moons/etc... all over the place.

I deliberately skipped over that because I can't recall any reference of
equal mass being required. But a planetary nebula should have enough
crap in it to make a star and a planet. Of course the energy required
...

>
> That reminds me of one of the other real laughers of dialog in this film:
> The 'Phase 2' underground cave system they made...where Federation miners
> took 6 months to carve out the tunnel system. Um...couldn't the
> transporters be configured to beam out an area of rock and leave behind a
> cavern 'instantly'? Yes, I know that they wanted to juxtapose the hard work
> of the Federation team's carving devision with the instant glory of the
> Genesis device, but still...

Yes, apparently the Star Fleet Corp of Engineers are idiots, too. But
mining techniques weren't much better in DEVIL IN THE DARK.

>
> >> Still, this is the best of the Star Trek films.
> >
> > My biggest problem is at the end, while they're trying to get away from
> > the device before it goes, and we get this exchange:
> > KIRK: We'll beam aboard and stop it.
> > DAVID: You can't!
> > and Kirk takes his simpering idiot son's word for it - the word of a guy
> > who has just proven he's too stupid to put on a sweater, so he gave up
> > and tied it around his neck.
>
> The kid was awfully yuppie for a scientist.

Momma's boy

>
> > Can't stop it? Really?? Beam me over with a phaser rifle and a crowbar
> > and a baseball bat and we'll see about that. Certainly I'd try that
> > before I'd mix matter and anti matter with my bare hands. Hey, you've
> > got working transporters and photon torpedoes? Let's beam one of those
> > babies on the Reliant bridge and see what happens. Hell, lock on to the
> > damn thing and "beam it out into open space, Scotty. Widest possible
> > dispersion."
>
> Yep. If it can be beamed up, it can be dealt with 'instantly'. In fact,
> you don't even need to beam it anywhere. just store it in the transporter
> buffer until you later. Of course, that is one of the problems with
> creating 'super tech' like the transporter: it makes it much harder to
> create legitimate plot problems going forward.

Right, which is why you knock 'em out at the first opportunity. They're
like AIRWOLF; you write your script around *why* they can't fix the
problem.

>
> > All this could be fixed by just resurrecting one of Spock's classic
> > lines: "Transporters will be out for a solar day" or "build up of the
> > Genesis wave has disrupted the transporters" or something.
>
> The Star Trek equivalent of 'the cell phones cannot get a signal here!'

heh

>
> > I also think it would work a lot better if you swapped Sulu and Chekov.
> > Sulu had actually met Khan, and you'd actually care if Sulu got tortured
> > and might die, not giggle. And Sulu doesn't speak like Elmer Fudd. And
> > Sulu had that interest in botany ...
>
> That is funy. Was Chekov really not even in the TV episode? I know that
> Chekov and Sulu didn't have that many episodes together, really, in the
> series, but I didn't recall that Chekov wasn't even in the original Bottany
> Bay episode.

Nope. SPACE SEED is season one. Chekov comes aboard season two, in WHO
MOURNS FOR ADONAIS.

>
> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him with a
> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
>
> > alt.tv.star-trek.tos and rec.arts.movies.past-films follow ups added
>
> ...as long as it isn't those rec.arts.sf.tv guys.

rec.arts.sf.tv follow up added

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <kofur6$dkp$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > Given that the Genesis device can make it's own star, yeah, I don't
>> > know
>> > why they're looking to set it off in a system at all (they clearly
>> > don't
>> > need the Goldilocks zone, either).
>>
>> Part of the explanation there is that Genesis reconfigures matter of
>> equal
>> amounts, so it needs an area of space that is filled with something in
>> order
>> to convert than something into a planet that will support life. Still,
>> there should be barren planets/moons/etc... all over the place.
>
> I deliberately skipped over that because I can't recall any reference of
> equal mass being required.

Yep, it was in there.

> But a planetary nebula should have enough
> crap in it to make a star and a planet. Of course the energy required

Agreed on both counts...but they solve the energy requirement with the
'magic' that is the Genesis wave.

>> That reminds me of one of the other real laughers of dialog in this film:
>> The 'Phase 2' underground cave system they made...where Federation miners
>> took 6 months to carve out the tunnel system. Um...couldn't the
>> transporters be configured to beam out an area of rock and leave behind a
>> cavern 'instantly'? Yes, I know that they wanted to juxtapose the hard
>> work
>> of the Federation team's carving devision with the instant glory of the
>> Genesis device, but still...
>
> Yes, apparently the Star Fleet Corp of Engineers are idiots, too. But
> mining techniques weren't much better in DEVIL IN THE DARK.

I really liked the Horta episode. I don't recall if they just explained the
mining operation as being too poor for transporters (which would make no
sense) or if it was some issue of stability/interference that prevented them
from using a transporter as the mining device. Maybe they skipped offering
up any explanation at all.

>> > I also think it would work a lot better if you swapped Sulu and Chekov.
>> > Sulu had actually met Khan, and you'd actually care if Sulu got
>> > tortured
>> > and might die, not giggle. And Sulu doesn't speak like Elmer Fudd.
>> > And
>> > Sulu had that interest in botany ...
>>
>> That is funy. Was Chekov really not even in the TV episode? I know that
>> Chekov and Sulu didn't have that many episodes together, really, in the
>> series, but I didn't recall that Chekov wasn't even in the original
>> Bottany
>> Bay episode.
>
> Nope. SPACE SEED is season one. Chekov comes aboard season two, in WHO
> MOURNS FOR ADONAIS.
>>
>> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him with a
>> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
>>
>> > alt.tv.star-trek.tos and rec.arts.movies.past-films follow ups added
>>
>> ...as long as it isn't those rec.arts.sf.tv guys.
>
> rec.arts.sf.tv follow up added

There goes the neighborhood.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was
an android but apparently he's part biological. Some sort of
explanation would have been nice instead of just tossing the character
in like that.

[David Johnston]

On 6/2/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
> On 6/2/2013 11:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/2013 10:23 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him
>>>> with a
>>>> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
>>>>
>>> What?
>>
>> In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to
>> the
>> engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.
>>
>>
>
>
> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was
> an android but apparently he's part biological.

So was Data. Doesn't make them not androids of course. Any artificial
man-like entity is an android.

[BTR1701]

He was the first Borg drone to make it through Starfleet Academy.

[Wiseguy]

"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in news:kofur6$dkp$1...@dont-email.me:

> Was Chekov really not even in the TV episode? I know
> that Chekov and Sulu didn't have that many episodes together, really,
> in the series, but I didn't recall that Chekov wasn't even in the
> original Bottany Bay episode.
>

"Space Seed" was a first-season episode.
Walter Koenig did not appear until the second season.

However, it would be possible for Chekov to have been on the Enterprise
in some capacity before being promoted to navigator. We just didn't see
him. We didn't see every moment of Khan on the Enterprise, either. They
may have met offscreen. Certainly Chekov (and all of Star Fleet) would
have known about Khan and their sentence on the planet after the
incident. And Khan may have accessed the personnel file on the
Enterprise while researching in the sick bay.

[Wiseguy]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote in
news:anim8rfsk-968F6...@news.easynews.com:

>
> Nope. SPACE SEED is season one. Chekov comes aboard season two, in
> WHO MOURNS FOR ADONAIS.
>>

He was in the first filmed episode of the season "Catspaw."
NBC could have shown them in any order but that fact remains.

[Wiseguy]

"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in news:kog2a6$v1$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, apparently the Star Fleet Corp of Engineers are idiots, too.
>> But mining techniques weren't much better in DEVIL IN THE DARK.
>
> I really liked the Horta episode. I don't recall if they just
> explained the mining operation as being too poor for transporters
> (which would make no sense) or if it was some issue of
> stability/interference that prevented them from using a transporter as
> the mining device. Maybe they skipped offering up any explanation at
> all.
>

There was no explanation because it wasn't written that way. Star Trek
is fiction, you know.

[David Johnston]

Of course they never gave any indication that transporters worked when
used to transport only part of an object anyway.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kog2a6$v1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>

wrote:

> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <kofur6$dkp$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> > Given that the Genesis device can make it's own star, yeah, I don't
> >> > know
> >> > why they're looking to set it off in a system at all (they clearly
> >> > don't
> >> > need the Goldilocks zone, either).
> >>
> >> Part of the explanation there is that Genesis reconfigures matter of
> >> equal
> >> amounts, so it needs an area of space that is filled with something in
> >> order
> >> to convert than something into a planet that will support life. Still,
> >> there should be barren planets/moons/etc... all over the place.
> >
> > I deliberately skipped over that because I can't recall any reference of
> > equal mass being required.
>
> Yep, it was in there.

Yep, you're right:
CAROL (on viewscreen): What exactly is Genesis? Well, put simply,
Genesis is life from lifelessness. It is a process whereby molecular
structure is reorganised at the subatomic level into life-generating
matter of equal mass.

>
> > But a planetary nebula should have enough
> > crap in it to make a star and a planet. Of course the energy required
>
> Agreed on both counts...but they solve the energy requirement with the
> 'magic' that is the Genesis wave.
>
> >> That reminds me of one of the other real laughers of dialog in this film:
> >> The 'Phase 2' underground cave system they made...where Federation miners
> >> took 6 months to carve out the tunnel system. Um...couldn't the
> >> transporters be configured to beam out an area of rock and leave behind a
> >> cavern 'instantly'? Yes, I know that they wanted to juxtapose the hard
> >> work
> >> of the Federation team's carving devision with the instant glory of the
> >> Genesis device, but still...
> >
> > Yes, apparently the Star Fleet Corp of Engineers are idiots, too. But
> > mining techniques weren't much better in DEVIL IN THE DARK.
>
> I really liked the Horta episode. I don't recall if they just explained the
> mining operation as being too poor for transporters (which would make no
> sense) or if it was some issue of stability/interference that prevented them
> from using a transporter as the mining device. Maybe they skipped offering
> up any explanation at all.

I think the deeper tunnels were out of transporter range, but other than
that, I'd say 'no explanation at all'

>
> >> > I also think it would work a lot better if you swapped Sulu and Chekov.
> >> > Sulu had actually met Khan, and you'd actually care if Sulu got
> >> > tortured
> >> > and might die, not giggle. And Sulu doesn't speak like Elmer Fudd.
> >> > And
> >> > Sulu had that interest in botany ...
> >>
> >> That is funy. Was Chekov really not even in the TV episode? I know that
> >> Chekov and Sulu didn't have that many episodes together, really, in the
> >> series, but I didn't recall that Chekov wasn't even in the original
> >> Bottany
> >> Bay episode.
> >
> > Nope. SPACE SEED is season one. Chekov comes aboard season two, in WHO
> > MOURNS FOR ADONAIS.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him with a
> >> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
> >>
> >> > alt.tv.star-trek.tos and rec.arts.movies.past-films follow ups added
> >>
> >> ...as long as it isn't those rec.arts.sf.tv guys.
> >
> > rec.arts.sf.tv follow up added
>
> There goes the neighborhood.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kog1e4$ri0$1...@dont-email.me>,

Everybody on the Reliant but Khan is dead, and the ship herself may as
well be.

[Obveeus]

"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> On 6/2/2013 11:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>> In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to
>> the
>> engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.
>
> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was an
> android but apparently he's part biological.

Wasn't he in the prior film as well?

> Some sort of explanation would have been nice instead of just tossing the
> character in like that.

There were a number of scenes like that. Everyone in the room looks human,
aside from the one green person. Everyone in the room looks human, aside
from the one blue person. Everyone in the room looks human, aside from the
one person with computer implants. I'm sure all those one second of
screentime characters were 'shout out' references for the better versed STAR
TREK fans.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

On 6/2/2013 4:06 PM, Obveeus wrote:
> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/2013 11:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>> In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to
>>> the
>>> engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.
>>
>> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was an
>> android but apparently he's part biological.
>
> Wasn't he in the prior film as well?

Not that I recall.

The actor doesn't have a credit for the first film either.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1395532/

>
>> Some sort of explanation would have been nice instead of just tossing the
>> character in like that.
>
> There were a number of scenes like that. Everyone in the room looks human,
> aside from the one green person. Everyone in the room looks human, aside
> from the one blue person. Everyone in the room looks human, aside from the
> one person with computer implants. I'm sure all those one second of
> screentime characters were 'shout out' references for the better versed STAR
> TREK fans.
>
>

Most of the other characters were from TOS or just a random alien. This
guy stands out because TOS had no cyborgs like that on the Enterprise.
Even in TNG he would have stood out.

[ToolPackinMama]

On 6/2/2013 10:31 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:

> Most of the other characters were from TOS or just a random alien. This
> guy stands out because TOS had no cyborgs like that on the Enterprise.

TOS did have an android on the Enterprise in one episode. He wore a
Starfleet uniform and everything.

http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/imudd.htm

[Arthur Lipscomb]

Not entirely the same thing. Androids were clearly established in TOS,
which made Data's claims of uniqueness a little odd. The character in
the movie is humanoid with cybernetic implants which apparently
(according to online sources) have a direct neural interface with the
Enterprise. He's more Borg than Starfleet and more advance than
anything Starfleet should have had during TOS (or even TNG).

[Wiseguy]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote in
news:anim8rfsk-944E8...@news.easynews.com:

No explanation because there was nothing to explain. Writers hadn't
made up (written) that yet. it's fiction, people.

[Wiseguy]

"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in news:kogisr$sjm$1...@dont-email.me:

The dweebs or the nerds?

[David Johnston]

Just last night I watched a guy who had a prototype direct neural
interface with a robot hand.

[Jim G.]

David Johnston sent the following on 6/2/2013 1:48 PM:

> On 6/2/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>> On 6/2/2013 11:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/2013 10:23 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him
>>>>> with a
>>>>> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
>>>>>
>>>> What?
>>>
>>> In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to
>>> the
>>> engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was
>> an android but apparently he's part biological.
>
> So was Data.

Wait, what? Data was part biological?

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL

[David Johnston]

On 6/3/2013 11:54 AM, Jim G. wrote:
> David Johnston sent the following on 6/2/2013 1:48 PM:
>> On 6/2/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2013 11:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/2013 10:23 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him
>>>>>> with a
>>>>>> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What?
>>>>
>>>> In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to
>>>> the
>>>> engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was
>>> an android but apparently he's part biological.
>>
>> So was Data.
>
> Wait, what? Data was part biological?
>

At times. They went back and forth on the issue.

Consider the Naked Now where polywater screws him up the same way it
does everyone else. "My chemical nutrients are like your blood."

[Michael Black]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Jim G. wrote:

> David Johnston sent the following on 6/2/2013 1:48 PM:
>> On 6/2/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2013 11:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/2013 10:23 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him
>>>>>> with a
>>>>>> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What?
>>>>
>>>> In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to
>>>> the
>>>> engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was
>>> an android but apparently he's part biological.
>>
>> So was Data.
>
> Wait, what? Data was part biological?
>

I seem to recall there is a branch of "artificial men" that are like
biological rather than mechanical.

It's not cloning, but something else. It's about how they are made, so
peel off the layers from Questor and you're likely to find something that
to a large extent (well except for the nuclear power supply) looks like a
body.

I can't remember where I picked this up. But it's like instead of a motor
for an elbow joint to move, artificial muscles are created.

Michael

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> David Johnston sent the following on 6/2/2013 1:48 PM:
>> On 6/2/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was
>>> an android but apparently he's part biological.
>>
>> So was Data.
>
> Wait, what? Data was part biological?

Sure...he was always covered in cat hair.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <koilo9$1cm$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> David Johnston sent the following on 6/2/2013 1:48 PM:
> > On 6/2/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
> >> On 6/2/2013 11:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> >>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/2/2013 10:23 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> >>>>> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him
> >>>>> with a
> >>>>> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
> >>>>>
> >>>> What?
> >>>
> >>> In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to
> >>> the
> >>> engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was
> >> an android but apparently he's part biological.
> >
> > So was Data.
>
> Wait, what? Data was part biological?

Nope.

[William December Starr]

In article <anim8rfsk-13AA2...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:

> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Moreover, I fail to understand why, with so many star systems
>> charted, they were searching for an uninhabited planet in the
>> first place.

It didn't just have to be uninhabited, it had to be utterly
lifeless. (For reasons of Federation ethics, apparently.)

> Given that the Genesis device can make it's own star, yeah, I
> don't know why they're looking to set it off in a system at all
> (they clearly don't need the Goldilocks zone, either).

Incremental testing: first you try creating just a life-bearing
planet, then you try creating a life-bearing planet _and_ a star for
it to orbit.

-- wds

[anim8rFSK]

In article <koj9rn$hta$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-13AA2...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>
> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Moreover, I fail to understand why, with so many star systems
> >> charted, they were searching for an uninhabited planet in the
> >> first place.
>
> It didn't just have to be uninhabited, it had to be utterly
> lifeless. (For reasons of Federation ethics, apparently.)

They played it more like it was Carol Marcus just being a bitch.

>
> > Given that the Genesis device can make it's own star, yeah, I
> > don't know why they're looking to set it off in a system at all
> > (they clearly don't need the Goldilocks zone, either).
>
> Incremental testing: first you try creating just a life-bearing
> planet, then you try creating a life-bearing planet _and_ a star for
> it to orbit.

Except the stolen unit was preset to make the latter.

--
Dano's just a troll.

[JRStern]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 14:23:10 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>>> That reminds me of one of the other real laughers of dialog in this film:
>>> The 'Phase 2' underground cave system they made...where Federation miners
>>> took 6 months to carve out the tunnel system. Um...couldn't the
>>> transporters be configured to beam out an area of rock and leave behind a
>>> cavern 'instantly'? Yes, I know that they wanted to juxtapose the hard
>>> work
>>> of the Federation team's carving devision with the instant glory of the
>>> Genesis device, but still...
>>
>> Yes, apparently the Star Fleet Corp of Engineers are idiots, too. But
>> mining techniques weren't much better in DEVIL IN THE DARK.
>
>I really liked the Horta episode. I don't recall if they just explained the
>mining operation as being too poor for transporters (which would make no
>sense) or if it was some issue of stability/interference that prevented them
>from using a transporter as the mining device. Maybe they skipped offering
>up any explanation at all.

How about transporters are a very expensive way to move around a
couple of hundred pounds, a bunch of poor miners moving thousands of
tons couldn't begin to use them.

J.

[David Johnston]

>>>> That reminds me of one of the other real laughers of dialog in this film:
>>>> The 'Phase 2' underground cave system they made...where Federation miners
>>>> took 6 months to carve out the tunnel system. Um...couldn't the
>>>> transporters be configured to beam out an area of rock and leave behind a
>>>> cavern 'instantly'?

Probably not. If transporters could do that, they'd have all kinds of
offensive uses that were never shown.

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

Lewis wrote:
> In message <koh98v$g4h$2...@dont-email.me>

> Different History. Different developments.

Lewis, I was going to give a similar response to Arthur, up thread,
along the lines of "Different Timeline, so who knows what is
possible!!", but as this is only a shout time (months/years??) after the
re-boot, is it really likely that there would be a Borg in Starfleet??

Daniel

[anim8rFSK]

In article <rKnrt.68025$cD1....@newsfe29.iad>,

The history of the universe and basic physics were already completely
different in the first movie when Nero first appeared.

[David Johnston]

Perhaps you should ask whether it's really likely that there would be a
Binar in Starfleet.

However it's not really more advanced than TOS was. Actually it's
considerably cruder than the "sensor web" that let Miranda operate as
though she could see in "Is There In Truth No Beauty".

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Miranda_Jones

[Jim G.]

David Johnston sent the following on 6/3/2013 1:27 PM:

Yeeeah ... that's not gonna work, though. Not the same thing at all.
Synthetic oil in a car could also be compared to certain human
counterparts, but it would still be synthetic oil.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 6/3/2013 3:23 PM:

Thank you. I was thinking that I'd been messing something very basic for
a very long time.

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:18:53 -0500, "Jim G."
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>anim8rFSK sent the following on 6/3/2013 3:23 PM:
>> In article <koilo9$1cm$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston sent the following on 6/2/2013 1:48 PM:
>>>> On 6/2/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>>>> On 6/2/2013 11:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/2/2013 10:23 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him
>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was
>>>>> an android but apparently he's part biological.
>>>>
>>>> So was Data.
>>>
>>> Wait, what? Data was part biological?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Thank you. I was thinking that I'd been messing something very basic for
>a very long time.

Your boxers?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kol7ro$l95$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> anim8rFSK sent the following on 6/3/2013 3:23 PM:
> > In article <koilo9$1cm$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> David Johnston sent the following on 6/2/2013 1:48 PM:
> >>> On 6/2/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
> >>>> On 6/2/2013 11:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> >>>>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 6/2/2013 10:23 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, if you don't like Chekov, you could always replace him
> >>>>>>> with a
> >>>>>>> CULT leader like they did in the latest STAR TREK INTo DARKNESS film.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> What?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the new film, Chekov gets 'demoted' to red shirt status and sent to
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> engine room. His replacement is the CULT police captain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh her, I noticed her too. Did you catch the cyborg. I thought he was
> >>>> an android but apparently he's part biological.
> >>>
> >>> So was Data.
> >>
> >> Wait, what? Data was part biological?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Thank you. I was thinking that I'd been messing something very basic for
> a very long time.

You can power him off and dissemble him and leave him in a box or buried
somewhere. Hell, you can take off his head and bury it for 400 years in
an infinite loop. There's nothing biological going on there - he's a
robot, period.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <h1bsq8d3sv454n557...@4ax.com>,

Mason's a lawyer, so he'll be brief.

[Obveeus]

Whereas it sounds like Jim's on a long time streak.

[Dimensional Traveler]

What expense is there in using a transporter? It needs power but
they've matter-antimatter power so that's not really an issue.


--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

[David Johnston]

Antimatter is a really compact way to store a lot of energy but they
never indicated that it's just lying around like coal.

[JRStern]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:18:39 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjo...@block.com> wrote:

>>> How about transporters are a very expensive way to move around a
>>> couple of hundred pounds, a bunch of poor miners moving thousands of
>>> tons couldn't begin to use them.
>>>
>> What expense is there in using a transporter? It needs power but
>> they've matter-antimatter power so that's not really an issue.
>
>Antimatter is a really compact way to store a lot of energy but they
>never indicated that it's just lying around like coal.

Transporter might cost a lot to build and we know they're finicky and
can fail, maybe the parts have to be replaced after an hour and
sometimes fail even earlier.

Why else have these little personal-size transporter pads. Maybe a
bigger pad tends to implode or split your personality or something.

J.

[Halmyre]

On Jun 4, 5:06 pm, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <rKnrt.68025$cD1.21...@newsfe29.iad>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
> > Lewis wrote:

> > > In message <koh98v$g4...@dont-email.me>

> > >    Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> > >> On 6/2/2013 10:03 PM, ToolPackinMama wrote:
> > >>> On 6/2/2013 10:31 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>
> > >>>> Most of the other characters were from TOS or just a random alien.  This
> > >>>> guy stands out because TOS had no cyborgs like that on the Enterprise.
>
> > >>> TOS did have an android on the Enterprise in one episode.  He wore a
> > >>> Starfleet uniform and everything.
>
> > >>>http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/imudd.htm
>
> > >> Not entirely the same thing.  Androids were clearly established in TOS,
> > >> which made Data's claims of uniqueness a little odd.  The character in
> > >> the movie is humanoid with cybernetic implants which apparently
> > >> (according to online sources) have a direct neural interface with the
> > >> Enterprise.  He's more Borg than Starfleet and more advance than
> > >> anything Starfleet should have had during TOS (or even TNG).
>
> > > Different History. Different developments.
>
> > Lewis, I was going to give a similar response to Arthur, up thread,
> > along the lines of "Different Timeline, so who knows what is
> > possible!!", but as this is only a shout time (months/years??) after the
> > re-boot, is it really likely that there would be a Borg in Starfleet??
>
> > Daniel
>
> The history of the universe and basic physics were already completely
> different in the first movie when Nero first appeared.

But the laws of physics are...erm, unchangeable...

--
Halmyre

[Obveeus]

"JRStern" <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:18:39 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>
>>>> How about transporters are a very expensive way to move around a
>>>> couple of hundred pounds, a bunch of poor miners moving thousands of
>>>> tons couldn't begin to use them.
>>>>
>>> What expense is there in using a transporter? It needs power but
>>> they've matter-antimatter power so that's not really an issue.
>>
>>Antimatter is a really compact way to store a lot of energy but they
>>never indicated that it's just lying around like coal.
>
> Transporter might cost a lot to build and we know they're finicky and
> can fail, maybe the parts have to be replaced after an hour and
> sometimes fail even earlier.

That would explain why the transporters only work when needed for the plot
and are non-operational when needed for the plot. Basically, the
'transporter' was a stupid idea that was put into the show because it was an
easy 'special effect' that would make the show look sci-fi. In reality, it
wasn't any more modern sci-fi looking than I dream of Jeanie, even with the
added light/particle effect added in. So, they added in this cool sci-fi
element and then constantly had to write the plots around the fact that such
a device would solve 90% of their plots instantly if used. How many times
could people have simply been beemed to safety if those transporters weren't
constantly unable to lock on?

> Why else have these little personal-size transporter pads. Maybe a
> bigger pad tends to implode or split your personality or something.

Notice that, despite the individual pads, they transported larger objects as
needed for the plot as well. Heck, in the whale film they transported a
cubic area of water and whales with no trouble at all...and with one of
those cheap foreign transporters If they can do that, then why would it be
more difficult to have transported out sections of mining tunnel?

[MITO MINISTER]

On Jun 5, 8:14 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

Because of, uh, plot considerations? Just sayin'.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kon69a$kac$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Dirt should be easier than whales, since you don't care what it looks
like on the receiving end. And even if there's some reason not to use
transporters, "It took the Starfleet Corps of Engineers ten months in
space suits to tunnel out all this" is just silly.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<79c00261-5fa7-440a...@q9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

You'd think, but Orci doesn't. You *have* to build warp engines in a
gravity well now.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <51aebac6$0$52738$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Oh, it still could be very expensive. Maybe the Illudium Q-36 Explosive
Space Modulator wears out every 78 transports and costs 300 quatloos to
replace. That gives you a cost of almost 4 quatloos per transport,
before shipping and installation fees.

[Obveeus]

One would think. After all, you wouldn't want the whale turning out like
Kirk's ex-wife in STAR TREK: TMP.

> And even if there's some reason not to use
> transporters, "It took the Starfleet Corps of Engineers ten months in
> space suits to tunnel out all this" is just silly.

Yep.

[David Johnston]

I dunno about that. The way warp drive works changed between TOS and
TNG. And that wasn't even supposed to be a parallel universe.

[David Johnston]

Because sections of mining tunnel aren't discrete objects and the
transporter would have to carve them free of the associated rock?
Because the kind of things that they'd be mining for in the first place
are the kind of things that can screw up transporters, devices which are
particularly inclined to go awry? Remember in TOS it took nothing more
than a little magnetised mineral residue on someone boot and soon an
Evil Captain Kirk is raping Yeoman Rand.

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

Yeap, the timeline is the same until Nero appears out of nowhere and
destroys Kirk's Dad's ship!

Then, sometime later, Kirk goes to StarFleet, studies, goes off and
beats Nero and is promoted Captain and given command of USS Enterprise.

Then (12th Movie), sometime later, other missions occur and there are
Borg in Starfleet.

So is Kirk supposed to be 25/30/35 y.o. in the current movie?? So, from
a point of time when there were no Borg known to Starfleet at all, to
maybe 25/30/35 years late, Borg are part of Starfleet!

Just doesn't seem likely!!

(But, then again, in ST:Voyager, it only took mere hours to put a former
Borg Drone into the "upper echelon" of the ships crew!!)

(And NO, anim8erFSK, this Dano's *NOT* a troll!!)

Daniel

[David Johnston]

And why would you assume that's a Borg and not a Binar or just a human
with an implant?

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on 6/4/2013 1:04 PM:

So what's your point? Is there some sort of law against wanting to
postpone Laundry Day for as long as possible?

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 6/4/2013 2:17 PM:

I'm sorry, but the judges are going to have to disqualify you. In a
lawyer pun thread of this sort, "full of s4" must be included in the
first entry.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on 6/4/2013 2:32 PM:

I've really hit the skids lately. And you people are just mocking me
over it.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 6/4/2013 2:17 PM:

So you're saying that DJ is wrong?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <avIrt.19977$uT3....@newsfe20.iad>,

No it's not. Look at Dad's ship. It's *vastly* advanced of ships of
the TOS era, which would be almost 40 years later. And McCoy should
already be like 10 years old, but his birth got delayed - before Nero
showed up.

>
> Then, sometime later, Kirk goes to StarFleet, studies, goes off and
> beats Nero and is promoted Captain and given command of USS Enterprise.
>
> Then (12th Movie), sometime later, other missions occur and there are
> Borg in Starfleet.
>
> So is Kirk supposed to be 25/30/35 y.o. in the current movie?? So, from
> a point of time when there were no Borg known to Starfleet at all, to
> maybe 25/30/35 years late, Borg are part of Starfleet!
>
> Just doesn't seem likely!!
>
> (But, then again, in ST:Voyager, it only took mere hours to put a former
> Borg Drone into the "upper echelon" of the ships crew!!)
>
> (And NO, anim8erFSK, this Dano's *NOT* a troll!!)
>
> Daniel

hee hee

[anim8rFSK]

In article <konqfa$6cm$2...@dont-email.me>,

It's a movie quote. Popeye.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <konqfe$6cm$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Almost as wrong as Clodreamer"

[William December Starr]

In article <anim8rfsk-48FF0...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:

> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> Incremental testing: first you try creating just a life-bearing
>> planet, then you try creating a life-bearing planet _and_ a star
>> for it to orbit.
>
> Except the stolen unit was preset to make the latter.

Was it, or was it just preprogrammed to "If you're on a planet,
remake the planet. If you're in a big pile of disorganized matter,
and there's enough of it to make a star and a planet, make a star
and a planet."?

(Or, could Khan have reprogrammed it? Probably not.)

-- wds

[anim8rFSK]

In article <koocct$cq2$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-48FF0...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>
> > wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >
> >> Incremental testing: first you try creating just a life-bearing
> >> planet, then you try creating a life-bearing planet _and_ a star
> >> for it to orbit.
> >
> > Except the stolen unit was preset to make the latter.
>
> Was it, or was it just preprogrammed to "If you're on a planet,
> remake the planet. If you're in a big pile of disorganized matter,
> and there's enough of it to make a star and a planet, make a star
> and a planet."?

Fair point, but what does it do if you've just got, say, Yonada, or the
asteroid headed at Mirimani?

>
> (Or, could Khan have reprogrammed it? Probably not.)

Yeah, he didn't have access to Carol, who programmed it in the first
film, or David, who programmed it in the retcon.

[David Johnston]

On 6/5/2013 5:36 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <koocct$cq2$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-48FF0...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>>
>>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Incremental testing: first you try creating just a life-bearing
>>>> planet, then you try creating a life-bearing planet _and_ a star
>>>> for it to orbit.
>>>
>>> Except the stolen unit was preset to make the latter.
>>
>> Was it, or was it just preprogrammed to "If you're on a planet,
>> remake the planet. If you're in a big pile of disorganized matter,
>> and there's enough of it to make a star and a planet, make a star
>> and a planet."?
>
> Fair point, but what does it do if you've just got, say, Yonada, or the
> asteroid headed at Mirimani?

Actually we saw that. It redecorated the interior of some big cave in
its first test. Then everything died.

[JRStern]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 07:14:04 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>> Why else have these little personal-size transporter pads. Maybe a
>> bigger pad tends to implode or split your personality or something.
>
>Notice that, despite the individual pads, they transported larger objects as
>needed for the plot as well. Heck, in the whale film they transported a
>cubic area of water and whales with no trouble at all...and with one of
>those cheap foreign transporters If they can do that, then why would it be
>more difficult to have transported out sections of mining tunnel?

Again, for a one-time event, mebbe.

Also that was a somewhat later version of the transporter, fwiw, and
maybe with no safety margins, not that they'd want to deliver a
mashed-up whale under the circumstances but you gotta take risks.

So it's not *always* just a deus ex machina, ... but almost.

J.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Of course you're right. I must have been thinking of TNG transporters
from that no money Federation.

[Dimensional Traveler]

In some counties, yes.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <51b0061a$0$52751$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

And that gold pressed latinum that couldn't be replicated, but could be
transported ...

[Wiseguy]

Halmyre <flashgord...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:79c00261-5fa7-440a...@q9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:

Ive heard of er, uh, eh, ew and oh but I've never heard a person say
"erm."

[Wiseguy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:konjlt$u78$1...@dont-email.me:

They took place several decades apart. Can't there be any advancements
in what is a FICTIONAL universe?

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

Sorry! I was only repeating what Arthur Lipscomb mentioned up-thread!
Why don't you go ask him what he was talking about??

Daniel

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

Yes, the look of the StarShips have changed significantly *in our time
stream*. If Gene Roddenberry had been alive and imagining Star Trek now,
TOS-now might look significantly different from TOS-1960's!! Maybe even
something like the TOS-now!!

From http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk
Quote
"He was born on March 22nd, 2233 (Stardate 1277.1), in Iowa on Earth,
the son of George and Winona Kirk. His mother and father were serving on
board the USS Kelvin under the command of Captain Richard Robau while
Winona was pregnant with him."
End Quote

And, near the bottom of that website.....
Quote
Roberto Orci, co-writer of Star Trek, has said that in an early draft of
that film, dialogue confirmed that in the prime reality, Kirk was born
in Iowa and not aboard the USS Kelvin: "If not for the attack from the
Narada, the Kelvin would've reached earth and Kirk would've been born in
Iowa. The attack made Winona Kirk go into labor early." [7] The dialogue
in question was likely Prime Spock's line in which he tells the
alternate James T. Kirk that he was born on a farm in Iowa, to which
Kirk corrects him, stating he (the alternate Kirk) was born on a
starship. This line appears in the novelization of the film, which used
an early draft of the screenplay as a basis.
End Quote

So, if the Writers can actually explain how/when TOS-1960's and TOS-now
diverged, who are we to argue?? Although in the 2009 version, because of
the attack Winona Kirk did go into labor early, so James T Kirk was
probably born some hours/days/weeks early, not Years let alone decades!!

But, of course, we will!!

Daniel

[anim8rFSK]

In article <Xv0st.31655$I_4....@newsfe14.iad>,

Not in Kirk's early life they didn't.

If Gene Roddenberry had been alive and imagining Star Trek now,
> TOS-now might look significantly different from TOS-1960's!!

So what?

> Maybe even
> something like the TOS-now!!
>
> From http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk
> Quote
> "He was born on March 22nd, 2233 (Stardate 1277.1), in Iowa on Earth,

Non canon retcons, resulting from Data getting the Earth date wrong in
"The Neutral Zone"

> the son of George and Winona Kirk. His mother and father were serving on
> board the USS Kelvin under the command of Captain Richard Robau while
> Winona was pregnant with him."
> End Quote
>
> And, near the bottom of that website.....
> Quote
> Roberto Orci, co-writer of Star Trek,

talentless hack, liar and deeply stupid jerk

> has said that in an early draft of
> that film, dialogue confirmed that in the prime reality, Kirk was born
> in Iowa and not aboard the USS Kelvin:

Why does he get to confirm squat?

> "If not for the attack from the
> Narada, the Kelvin would've reached earth and Kirk would've been born in
> Iowa. The attack made Winona Kirk go into labor early." [7] The dialogue
> in question was likely Prime Spock's line in which he tells the
> alternate James T. Kirk that he was born on a farm in Iowa, to which
> Kirk corrects him, stating he (the alternate Kirk) was born on a
> starship. This line appears in the novelization of the film, which used
> an early draft of the screenplay as a basis.
> End Quote
>
> So, if the Writers can actually explain how/when TOS-1960's and TOS-now
> diverged,

But they didn't. The Crap Trek universe is *already totally different*
when Nero first appears.

> who are we to argue??

Quote the real James T. Kirk: "Who do I have to be?"

> Although in the 2009 version, because of
> the attack Winona Kirk did go into labor early, so James T Kirk was
> probably born some hours/days/weeks early, not Years let alone decades!!
>
> But, of course, we will!!
>
> Daniel

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> "Dani...@teranews.com" <dx...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the look of the StarShips have changed significantly *in our time
>> stream*.
>
> Not in Kirk's early life they didn't.

Right...the ships all stayed the same, it was just the Klingons that changed
looks significantly during Kirk's lifetime.

[David Johnston]

I don't consider changing how speed is measured to a asymptotic scale to
be an advancement.

[David Johnston]

That Federation pretends not to have money, but that doesn't mean
everything is really free for the asking there. Note that Vash was
unable to get off world without scamming a Ferengi, Beverly asks that a
purchase be put on her account, Wesley has a ration of transporter
credits restricting how frequently he can travel and Bashir's loser
parents have spent their lives vainly struggling to be able to do the
things they would like to.

[Wiseguy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in news:koqdop$hrh$2@dont-
email.me:

You wrote: "The way warp drive works" not "changing how speed is
measured to a asymptotic scale."

[David Johnston]

Yes, the speed of warp drive.

[Wiseguy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in news:koqn7g$9o0$1@dont-
email.me:

Changing the way warp drive works is not just changing speed.
If all you meant was speed you should have said so in the first place.

At any rate, an increase is speed can still be considered an
advancement.

[Wiseguy]

ToolPackinMama <philn...@comcast.net> wrote in news:koh7ra$c45$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 6/2/2013 10:31 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>
>> Most of the other characters were from TOS or just a random alien. This
>> guy stands out because TOS had no cyborgs like that on the Enterprise.
>
> TOS did have an android on the Enterprise in one episode. He wore a
> Starfleet uniform and everything.
>

And he was gay, too, right?

[David Johnston]

No. Not changing speed. Changing how speed is measured. Early on in
TNG Roddenberry declared that Warp 10 would be the absolute speed limit
for warp drive in a vain attempt to fend off unlimited escalation of how
fast ships could go. He did this even though the Kelvans in TOS had
already made ships go at Warp Factor 11.

Now the writers evaded the spirit of Roddenberry's decree while
conforming to the letter merely by declaring that Warp 10 is infinite
velocity and you become one with the speed force if you reach it. Then
you turn into a newt because witchcraft.

But what that means is that since Kelvans were going at warp factor 11
in TOS, and warp factor 10 is infinite velocity in TNG, warp factors in
the two series would be measuring two different things, like miles per
hour and knots, and calling them the same thing. So it's not just
faster. It's in a different way with different fundamental principles.

[Wiseguy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in news:koqph0$nlm$1@dont-
email.me:

The Kelvans used their own knowledge/technology to achieve Warp 11.

Anyway, it's all fiction. There will always be inconsistencies in
filmed fiction. Sometimes in the same episode.

[David Johnston]

Yes, that was more or less my original point, that there were
inconsistencies between the series that were every bit as great as the
ones between the reboot and earlier Star Trek series.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 6/5/2013 2:56 PM:

There's no need to be mean about it.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL

[William December Starr]

In article <koqph0$nlm$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> said:

> No. Not changing speed. Changing how speed is measured. Early
> on in TNG Roddenberry declared that Warp 10 would be the absolute
> speed limit for warp drive in a vain attempt to fend off unlimited
> escalation of how fast ships could go. He did this even though
> the Kelvans in TOS had already made ships go at Warp Factor 11.

The Spinal Tap references just write themselves, don't they?

-- wds

[David Johnston]

On 6/8/2013 3:10 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <anim8rfsk-676D9...@news.easynews.com>

> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article <avIrt.19977$uT3....@newsfe20.iad>,
>> "Dani...@teranews.com" <dx...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>
>>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article <rKnrt.68025$cD1....@newsfe29.iad>,

>>>> "Dani...@teranews.com" <dx...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lewis wrote:

>>>>>> In message <koh98v$g4h$2...@dont-email.me>

>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/2/2013 10:03 PM, ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2013 10:31 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most of the other characters were from TOS or just a random alien.
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> guy stands out because TOS had no cyborgs like that on the Enterprise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TOS did have an android on the Enterprise in one episode. He wore a
>>>>>>>> Starfleet uniform and everything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/imudd.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not entirely the same thing. Androids were clearly established in TOS,
>>>>>>> which made Data's claims of uniqueness a little odd. The character in
>>>>>>> the movie is humanoid with cybernetic implants which apparently
>>>>>>> (according to online sources) have a direct neural interface with the
>>>>>>> Enterprise. He's more Borg than Starfleet and more advance than
>>>>>>> anything Starfleet should have had during TOS (or even TNG).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Different History. Different developments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lewis, I was going to give a similar response to Arthur, up thread,
>>>>> along the lines of "Different Timeline, so who knows what is
>>>>> possible!!", but as this is only a shout time (months/years??) after the
>>>>> re-boot, is it really likely that there would be a Borg in Starfleet??
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> The history of the universe and basic physics were already completely
>>>> different in the first movie when Nero first appeared.
>>>

>>> Yeap, the timeline is the same until Nero appears out of nowhere and
>>> destroys Kirk's Dad's ship!
>
>> No it's not. Look at Dad's ship. It's *vastly* advanced of ships of
>> the TOS era, which would be almost 40 years later. And McCoy should
>> already be like 10 years old, but his birth got delayed
>

> What? Where'd you get that?
>
>
>

For the first he's pretending that that you can determine how
sophisticated the technology is from the sophistication of the props.
For the second, he apparently had decided that McCoy is the same age as
Kirk in NuTrek. I have no idea why.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <kovnhd$6a1$2...@dont-email.me>, David Johnston

<Da...@block.net> wrote:

> For the first he's pretending that that you can determine how
> sophisticated the technology is from the sophistication of the props.
> For the second, he apparently had decided that McCoy is the same age as
> Kirk in NuTrek. I have no idea why.

Kirk is 17 or 18 when he enters the Academy. McCoy has already been
married at least once and may even have gotten his medical degree. I
don't know how that equates to "McCoy is the same age as Kirk."

[David Johnston]

As I said, I have no idea why.

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

Lewis wrote:
> In message <kovnhd$6a1$2...@dont-email.me>

> I guess he didn't watch the movie?

Sorry, Lewis, I've lost track of the threading here! Are you saying that
I didn't watch the movie, or that David didn't or that anim8rFSK didn't??

I don't know if I should be defending myself or if you and David are
supporting me, or ......??

Daniel

[Arthur Lipscomb]

It's helps to have seen the movie in order to have a common point of
reference...

The character is science officer 0718.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Science_Officer_0718

I didn't say he *was* a Borg, I said he was *more* Borg than Starfleet
meaning when you see him and his cybernetic implants in the movie it's
closer to what you would expect from the Borg than from Starfleet. He
even has a designation instead of a name. But no, he's not a Borg drone
nor is he a Binar. If anything, he's more Borg than Binar. ;-)

[Obveeus]

"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> It's helps to have seen the movie in order to have a common point of
> reference...
>
> The character is science officer 0718.
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Science_Officer_0718
>
> I didn't say he *was* a Borg, I said he was *more* Borg than Starfleet
> meaning when you see him and his cybernetic implants in the movie it's
> closer to what you would expect from the Borg than from Starfleet. He
> even has a designation instead of a name. But no, he's not a Borg drone
> nor is he a Binar. If anything, he's more Borg than Binar. ;-)

You do remember what Geordi looked like after he took off his hairclip,
right?

[~consul]

'tis on this 6/6/2013 12:40 PM, wrote David Johnston thus to say:
> On 6/5/2013 11:35 PM, Wiseguy wrote:
>> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in

I was wondering what was meant up there, but if that was it, isn't like changing the temperature scales? First it was -32F, then it was 0C, now it's 273K.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[David Johnston]

On 6/16/2013 6:24 PM, ~consul wrote:
> 'tis on this 6/6/2013 12:40 PM, wrote David Johnston thus to say:
>> On 6/5/2013 11:35 PM, Wiseguy wrote:
>>> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
>>>> On 6/5/2013 12:41 AM, Halmyre wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:06 pm, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> The history of the universe and basic physics were already
>>>>>> completely different in the first movie when Nero first appeared.
>>>>> But the laws of physics are...erm, unchangeable...
>>>> I dunno about that. The way warp drive works changed between TOS and
>>>> TNG. And that wasn't even supposed to be a parallel universe.
>>> They took place several decades apart. Can't there be any advancements
>>> in what is a FICTIONAL universe?
>> I don't consider changing how speed is measured to a asymptotic scale
>> to be an advancement.
>
> I was wondering what was meant up there, but if that was it, isn't like
> changing the temperature scales? First it was -32F, then it was 0C, now
> it's 273K.

It's more like changing from miles per hour to knots. It isn't just the
size of warp factors that changed, it's what they are measuring.

[William December Starr]

In article <kplknc$7pc$1...@dont-email.me>,

~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> said:

> 'tis on this 6/6/2013 12:40 PM, wrote David Johnston thus to say:
>
>> I don't consider changing how speed is measured to a asymptotic
>> scale to be an advancement.
>
> I was wondering what was meant up there, but if that was it, isn't
> like changing the temperature scales? First it was -32F, then it
> was 0C, now it's 273K.

And then, of course, Picard & Co. discovered a planet with "Surface
temperature, minus 291 degrees Celsius".

-- wds

[thinbluemime]

Either Star Trek was ahead of it's time
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/04/science-gets-colder-than-absolute-zero/

Or Roddenberry knew that JJ Abrams' grandfather was named 'Kelvin'
http://the-odi.blogspot.com/2008/10/abrams-explains-use-of-kelvin-in-his.html

[Halmyre]

On Jun 6, 6:22 am, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Halmyre <flashgordonreced...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:79c00261-5fa7-440a...@q9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 5:06 pm, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:

> >> In article <rKnrt.68025$cD1.21...@newsfe29.iad>,

>
> >>  "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
> >> > Lewis wrote:

> >> > > In message <koh98v$g4...@dont-email.me>

> >> The history of the universe and basic physics were already completely
> >> different in the first movie when Nero first appeared.
>
> > But the laws of physics are...erm, unchangeable...
>

> > --
> > Halmyre
>
> Ive heard of er, uh, eh, ew and oh but I've never heard a person say
> "erm."

Would "um" be acceptable?

--
Halmyre