FORWARD the future!

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 8:34:59 AM4/21/06

to

Word has recently been released that Star Trek will be revived focused on
the early days of Kirk and Spock. This complements reports that the Star
Wars television series will be set between the prequel trilogy and the
original trilogy.

Why are the two SF heavyweight franchises in the US, Star Wars and Star
Trek, so afraid to go FORWARD? Why the frell do the media versions keep
looking backwards, either in time or in the case of Trek, from the final
frontier travelling BACK to Earth? The literary versions have shown there is
plenty of material to explore going FORWARD. Why won't the "official" tv and
movie media versions pick up the baton and run with?

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. I think you can guess which direction I think they should run.

trike

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 9:17:59 AM4/21/06

to

I have a solution for Trek that runs both forward and back, cleans up
all of the continuity errors and features the cast from all of the
series except Enterprise. It would be hugely epic yet emotionally
touching, and completely doable on a fairly modest budget.

I'm keeping it under my hat, though, unless the powers that be at
Paramount want to fly me out to the west coast and pitch it to them.
And even though you aren't supposed to say things like, "My mom really
likes my ideas!" everyone I've told the story to -- even non-Trek fans
-- have said, "Wow, that's amazing."

Doug

r.r...@thevine.net

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 10:42:22 AM4/21/06

to

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:34:59 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Word has recently been released that Star Trek will be revived focused on
>the early days of Kirk and Spock. This complements reports that the Star
>Wars television series will be set between the prequel trilogy and the
>original trilogy.
>
>Why are the two SF heavyweight franchises in the US, Star Wars and Star
>Trek, so afraid to go FORWARD? Why the frell do the media versions keep
>looking backwards, either in time or in the case of Trek, from the final
>frontier travelling BACK to Earth? The literary versions have shown there is
>plenty of material to explore going FORWARD. Why won't the "official" tv and
>movie media versions pick up the baton and run with?
>

Partly because you are talking about TV and movies, and the studios
know that there is a market for certain characters. I'm sure that
someone has been doing polls and concluded that many people want to
know about Kirk's and Spock's early days (as opposed, say, to Sulu's),
and fewer want to learn about a brand new cast of characters. And if
you are making a TV series, you want to go with what you think will
make money and do well in syndication, rather than something cutting
edge and new that runs a higher probability of tanking in the first
season.

Rebecca

Stephen Dedalus

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 12:26:46 PM4/21/06

to

Ken from Chicago wrote:

> Word has recently been released that Star Trek will be revived focused on
> the early days of Kirk and Spock. This complements reports that the Star
> Wars television series will be set between the prequel trilogy and the
> original trilogy.
>
> Why are the two SF heavyweight franchises in the US, Star Wars and Star
> Trek, so afraid to go FORWARD?

Originality is neccessary for going forward.

> Why the frell do the media versions keep
> looking backwards, either in time or in the case of Trek, from the final
> frontier travelling BACK to Earth?

Because unoriginality is safer in terms of revenue, and because Star
Trek and Star Wars are both totally stale, and have had the last drops
of genuine interesting story wrung from them many, many years ago.

IMNSHO, gritty realism is the way forward, a la Battlestar Galactica.

ST and SW have turned into schmaltzy, unrealistic, humorless,
un-inspiring money-making machines.

They should be left alone for several decades, and then maybe
resurrected with half decent film scripts (if such a thing is still
possible).

> The literary versions have shown there is
> plenty of material to explore going FORWARD. Why won't the "official" tv and
> movie media versions pick up the baton and run with?

Are the literary versions actually any good? I'd rather read the entire
Wheel of Time twice than read one of those, but I speak from ignorance.

Gary Thompson

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 1:58:35 PM4/21/06

to

Ken from Chicago wrote:
> Word has recently been released that Star Trek will be revived focused on
> the early days of Kirk and Spock. This complements reports that the Star
> Wars television series will be set between the prequel trilogy and the
> original trilogy.
>
> Why are the two SF heavyweight franchises in the US, Star Wars and Star
> Trek, so afraid to go FORWARD? Why the frell do the media versions keep
> looking backwards, either in time or in the case of Trek, from the final
> frontier travelling BACK to Earth? The literary versions have shown there is
> plenty of material to explore going FORWARD. Why won't the "official" tv and
> movie media versions pick up the baton and run with?
>

Ah, but writers and producers have discovered that prequels are much
easier. They let you keep the happy ending of the original, the plot
hooks are already there waiting for you, there's less of a chance of
fanboys claiming you've ruined the series, and most importantly,
audiences /love/ to see you establishing the characters and situations
from the original. It makes them feel so *smart*.

Bateau

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 2:43:52 PM4/21/06

to

I thought it sucked.

Paul Howard

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 4:14:30 PM4/21/06

to

"Stephen Dedalus" <Fourcade...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145636806.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

They varied. Some were good reads in and of themselves (ie they would work
without the Star Trek Name), but others were junk.

--
*
Paul Howard
*
New e-mail: drakbibliophile at yahoo.com
*
Drak Bibliophile (Bane Of Book Rustlers), Yahoo Id DrakBibliophile
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! (That's why there are still Dragons Around)
[Polite Dragon Smile]
*

ewo...@aol.com

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 4:27:55 PM4/21/06

to

I find all prequels anticlimactic, even when they're done as well as
possible. I will definitely pass on the "Kirk gets his first hickie"
show.

lal_truckee

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 8:23:41 PM4/21/06

to

trike wrote:
>
>
> I have a solution for Trek that runs both forward and back, cleans up
> all of the continuity errors and features the cast from all of the
> series except Enterprise. It would be hugely epic yet emotionally
> touching, and completely doable on a fairly modest budget.
>
> I'm keeping it under my hat, though, unless the powers that be at
> Paramount want to fly me out to the west coast and pitch it to them.
> And even though you aren't supposed to say things like, "My mom really
> likes my ideas!" everyone I've told the story to -- even non-Trek fans
> -- have said, "Wow, that's amazing."

Wow, that's amazing.

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 8:32:41 PM4/21/06

to

"Stephen Dedalus" <Fourcade...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145636806.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

Peter David is my favorite writer and while I have some ... quibbles ...
about the lead character in STAR TREK: NEW FRONTIER: AFTER THE FALL, but
otherwise writes awesome work up to and including his STAR TREK: NEW
FRONTIER which seamlessly melds the best of TOS and TNG and takes them both
to the next level in actually having characters make major decisions and
their are CONSEQUENCES to their actions. His IMZADI is the definitive
background / future of Riker & Troi at a time when it was iffy in TNG. Plus
his THE SIEGE, the first original DS9 novel not only followed the writer's
bible closer than the tv show (e.g., Odo changed *shape* but not mass,
resulting in a scene where an alien was bit by a 200-pound "rat") and had a
fantastic shapechanger vs shapechanger duel. In general, David is considered
one of the best, if not the best, of the Trek novelists.

Keith R.A. DeCandido (nicknamed by CINESCAPE magazine, "The Second Coming of
Peter David") also writes good well-reviewed Trek fiction. He also
co-created and edits the series STAR TREK: S.C.E. (STARFLEET CORPS OF
ENGINEERS), which I think could have and should have been adapted for tv as
a meld between Trek and CSI.

Timothy Zahn is one of the most popular and well-reviewed Star Wars
novelists, and aside from an annoying tendency to conclude novels a wee bit
abruptly, it's earned from his HEIRS OF THE EMPIRE trilogy which relaunched
the Star Wars novels set *after* RETURN OF THE JEDI (unlike the legendary
and infamous SPLINTER IN THE MIND'S EYE) and his HAND OF THRAWN duology.

Michael Stackpole and Aaron Allston's STAR WARS: X-WING SQUADRON and STAR
WARS: WRAITH SQUADRON novels broke mold that had developed around the Star
Wars novels in the 1990s (i.e., ragtag survivors of the Empire whip out a
leftover superweapon from the Empire to threaten the fledgling New Republic
and Our Heroes seek to take it and the Imperials out) with a series that
spotlighted none of Our Heroes from the original Star Wars trilogy, except a
very minor supporting character, X-Wing pilot, Wedge Antilles, the X-Wing
pilot whose ship was damaged but survived the battle with the Death Star.
They were fresh inventive stories and not a jedi among them--kinda.

The New Jedi Order novels pick up about 20-25 years after ROTJ and feature
the 3 kids of Han and Leia and the new jedi Luke has trained and a Republic
that has become complacent and corroded from politics when they are invaded
by Yuuzhan Vong, aliens from ANOTHER GALAXY who hate technology and use
living bio-technology--and where a living being would register in the Force
to a jedi, the Vong are totally blank.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. For all of the problems with BABYLON 5: CRUSADE, at least to CONTINUED
the story FORWARD. The same went with BABYLON 5: LEGEND OF THE RANGERS and
even the proposed movie, MEMORIES OF SHADOWS, would have continued the story
forward.

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 8:35:13 PM4/21/06

to

"Gary Thompson" <quu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145642315.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

But prequels are ham-strung by knowing who will survive or not. Sequels are
freed of such strictures and avoids contradicting previously established
history (well, not as much).

-- Ken from Chicago

trike

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 9:15:39 PM4/21/06

to

That's 12. See that, Paramount? Groundswell!

Doug

Jon Schild

unread,

Apr 22, 2006, 11:04:20 AM4/22/06

to

That just shows the stupidity of the typical TV and movie studio
executive. The science fiction movies/series that are recognized as the
great ones were never safe, not defined by a focus group, had plots not
approved by a nationwide survey....

atomic....@mac.com

unread,

Apr 22, 2006, 10:42:18 AM4/22/06

to

There is the distinct and exciting possibility that this is a complete
reboot, not a prequel.

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 22, 2006, 11:07:19 PM4/22/06

to

"Jon Schild" <j...@aros.net> wrote in message
news:3K6dnTf8SsB...@aros.net...

Ask Ron Moore about the result of surveys about his plans for BATTLESTAR
GALACTICA--before it aired.

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 22, 2006, 11:15:16 PM4/22/06

to

<atomic....@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1145716938....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> There is the distinct and exciting possibility that this is a complete
> reboot, not a prequel.

Ah, a "re-imagining". I like the idea posted a year ago:

STAR TREK: NEXT

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/dd8b20df8194d692?hl=en&

Where the humanoid "aliens" are really modified humans who have emigrated
from Earth and developed their own cultures and aliens are really ... alien.

-- Ken from Chicago

trike

unread,

Apr 22, 2006, 11:19:44 PM4/22/06

to

Isn't there something in the Trek lore about the galaxy being seeded by
someone? (Which is why all aliens are humanoid.) Or did I make that
up?

Doug

unread,

Apr 23, 2006, 7:35:21 PM4/23/06

to

Well, there's a self-writing story right there. This is why people who
do a follow-on from a series of any kind should pay attention to what's
gone before.

Doug

Chris Schumacher

unread,

Apr 23, 2006, 10:55:23 PM4/23/06

to

Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote in
news:pstn42968b81l968r...@4ax.com:

> Season 6, 'The Chase'.
>
> Jerry Brown

Written by some guy called Ron Moore. Wonder whatever became of him...

-==Kensu==-

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 5:09:04 AM4/24/06

to

"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1145835321.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

But shirley ANTONIA is the love of Kirk's life?

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 5:09:49 AM4/24/06

to

"Chris Schumacher" <ken...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97AEDF002335...@207.115.17.102...

The Progenitors are simply "re-imagined" Preservers.

-- Ken from Chicago

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 10:44:26 AM4/24/06

to

in article ToadnW-Qf-w...@comcast.com, Ken from Chicago at
kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 4/24/06 2:09 AM:

I
hate
brannon
braga

Mark Blunden

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 11:51:26 AM4/24/06

to

I've just had an idea for a Trek story. It would involve an ancient race of
time-travelers who traverse the Trekverse quietly cleaning up its myriad
continuity errors. They could be called the ProJanitors.

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 7:44:24 PM4/24/06

to

"Karl M. Syring" <syr...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1145897459.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Too bad the Eschaton isn't around to retcon casuality errors.

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 7:45:02 PM4/24/06

to

"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e2j347$a6$1...@panix1.panix.com...

"42".

-- Ken from Chicago

Jack Bohn

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 8:13:20 PM4/24/06

to

William December Starr wrote:

...and on the bloody morning after...
one tin soldier rides away.

--
-Jack

Michael Alan Chary

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 11:08:26 PM4/24/06

to

In article <e2j347$a6$1...@panix1.panix.com>,

If he were here, I would kill him myself.
--
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 25, 2006, 6:16:55 AM4/25/06

to

"Michael Alan Chary" <mch...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e2k3ra$r72$1...@reader1.panix.com...

"What is ... 6 x 7?"

-- Ken from Chicago

William George Ferguson

unread,

Apr 25, 2006, 2:41:17 PM4/25/06

to

Actually, "What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9"

Base13. Don't talk to me about base13.

--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)

Mike Van Pelt

unread,

Apr 25, 2006, 6:51:28 PM4/25/06

to

In article <e2j347$a6$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:

Pretty much... except the message was more like "We made sure
this message could only be decoded by all of you cooperating,
and we're so happy that you have achieved perfect peace and
harmony to see this message of contgratulations on your
Political Correctness."

... when they were actually in a Mexican Standoff over the
message, and had fought, cheated, and scorched whole
biosystems in order to try to wrest access to the "secret"
from the others.

I think I recall it was the Klingon contingent that stalked
off in disgust.

I give them a few points for amusing cynical irony. It's
such a rare thing in Trek.

--
Tagon: "Where's your sense of adventure?" | Mike Van Pelt
Kevyn: "It died under mysterious circumstances. | mvp at calweb.com
My sense of self-preservation found the body, | KE6BVH
but assures me it has an airtight alibi." (schlockmercenary.com)

Sea Wasp

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 10:40:49 AM4/30/06

to

trike wrote:

> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>>Word has recently been released that Star Trek will be revived focused on
>>the early days of Kirk and Spock. This complements reports that the Star
>>Wars television series will be set between the prequel trilogy and the
>>original trilogy.
>>
>>Why are the two SF heavyweight franchises in the US, Star Wars and Star
>>Trek, so afraid to go FORWARD?

1) Star Wars was -- unfortunately -- ALWAYS intended to go backwards.
Lucas intended to do the prequels, then the sequels. Once he decided,
in this last series, that the SW movies were really about Little
Orphan Anakin, he dropped the idea of making the sequels. But he was
always intending to go back.

2) Star Trek: Well, the best stuff of the series WAS the original, so
going back to their roots at least makes some sense.

>
>
> I have a solution for Trek that runs both forward and back, cleans up
> all of the continuity errors and features the cast from all of the
> series except Enterprise. It would be hugely epic yet emotionally
> touching, and completely doable on a fairly modest budget.
>
> I'm keeping it under my hat, though, unless the powers that be at
> Paramount want to fly me out to the west coast and pitch it to them.
> And even though you aren't supposed to say things like, "My mom really
> likes my ideas!" everyone I've told the story to -- even non-Trek fans
> -- have said, "Wow, that's amazing."

Is it the one where Treknology is actually magic, so engineers are
really wizards, which is why you can't mass produce what Scotty rigs up?

Or the one where ST:TNG is just a series of propaganda films for a
Federation gone imperial? (Blake's Seven being the propaganda from the
rebellion side)?

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

Sea Wasp

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 10:42:20 AM4/30/06

to

Ken from Chicago wrote:

> Ask Ron Moore about the result of surveys about his plans for BATTLESTAR
> GALACTICA--before it aired.

I haven't seen the surveys, but at a guess I would expect the
reactions ranged from "DOOOOMED! DOOOOOOOMED!" to "Kill him before he
attempts this!"

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 10:50:12 PM4/30/06

to

"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
news:4454CCCC...@obvioussgeinc.com...

Try both.

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 11:05:31 PM4/30/06

to

"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message

news:4454CC71...@obvioussgeinc.com...

> trike wrote:
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>>Word has recently been released that Star Trek will be revived focused on
>>>the early days of Kirk and Spock. This complements reports that the Star
>>>Wars television series will be set between the prequel trilogy and the
>>>original trilogy.
>>>
>>>Why are the two SF heavyweight franchises in the US, Star Wars and Star
>>>Trek, so afraid to go FORWARD?
>
> 1) Star Wars was -- unfortunately -- ALWAYS intended to go backwards.
> Lucas intended to do the prequels, then the sequels. Once he decided, in
> this last series, that the SW movies were really about Little Orphan
> Anakin, he dropped the idea of making the sequels. But he was always
> intending to go back.

Sad, since the novels show there was plenty left after ROTJ--even
discounting the superweapon rut the Expanded Universe novels got into--but
overcame with I,JEDI, X-WING SQUADRON, WRAITH SQUADRON and of course the NEW
JEDI ORDER series.

> 2) Star Trek: Well, the best stuff of the series WAS the original, so
> going back to their roots at least makes some sense.

Wrong. TOS was very good, tho I, and many others, would argue that DS9 was
the best of the televised Treks.

>> I have a solution for Trek that runs both forward and back, cleans up
>> all of the continuity errors and features the cast from all of the
>> series except Enterprise. It would be hugely epic yet emotionally
>> touching, and completely doable on a fairly modest budget.
>>
>> I'm keeping it under my hat, though, unless the powers that be at
>> Paramount want to fly me out to the west coast and pitch it to them.
>> And even though you aren't supposed to say things like, "My mom really
>> likes my ideas!" everyone I've told the story to -- even non-Trek fans
>> -- have said, "Wow, that's amazing."
>
> Is it the one where Treknology is actually magic, so engineers are really
> wizards, which is why you can't mass produce what Scotty rigs up?
>
> Or the one where ST:TNG is just a series of propaganda films for a
> Federation gone imperial? (Blake's Seven being the propaganda from the
> rebellion side)?

STAR TREK: HIDDEN FRONTIER--Spinning off from ST: INSURRECTION, it focuses
on a Starfleet starbase and the squadron of starships--yes, plural--assigned
to the "Briar Patch", the nebula shown in the movie with the Fountain of
Youth planet.

STAR TREK: NEW FRONTIER--Adapted from the best-selling Peter David novel
series set in Thollian space (the one with the space-web spinners) after the
fall of the Thallonian Empire. (Imagine UN peacekeepers assigned to prevent
anarchy breaking out in the former Soviet Union Eastern European countries).

STAR TREK: S.C.E. (STARFLEET CORPS OF ENGINEERS)--Think CSI meet Star Trek.

-- Ken from Chicago

bm2...@eve.albany.edu

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 11:06:14 PM4/30/06

to

Hmm - better not let the non-humanoid and non-elder-race-descended
species (Gorn, Tholians, Horta, etc.) known about this. Makes it look
like their humanoid neighbors are the beneficiaries of an inconceivably
vast act of preemptive genocide against non-humanoids.

Bruce

Michael Bowker

unread,

May 1, 2006, 2:41:06 AM5/1/06

to

Ken from Chicago wrote:
> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
> news:4454CC71...@obvioussgeinc.com...
>
>>trike wrote:
>>
>>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Word has recently been released that Star Trek will be revived focused on
>>>>the early days of Kirk and Spock. This complements reports that the Star
>>>>Wars television series will be set between the prequel trilogy and the
>>>>original trilogy.
>>>>
>>>>Why are the two SF heavyweight franchises in the US, Star Wars and Star
>>>>Trek, so afraid to go FORWARD?
>>
>>1) Star Wars was -- unfortunately -- ALWAYS intended to go backwards.
>>Lucas intended to do the prequels, then the sequels. Once he decided, in
>>this last series, that the SW movies were really about Little Orphan
>>Anakin, he dropped the idea of making the sequels. But he was always
>>intending to go back.
>
>
> Sad, since the novels show there was plenty left after ROTJ--even
> discounting the superweapon rut the Expanded Universe novels got into--but
> overcame with I,JEDI, X-WING SQUADRON, WRAITH SQUADRON and of course the NEW
> JEDI ORDER series.
>
>
>>2) Star Trek: Well, the best stuff of the series WAS the original, so
>>going back to their roots at least makes some sense.
>
>
> Wrong. TOS was very good, tho I, and many others, would argue that DS9 was
> the best of the televised Treks.

Not wrong! YMMV, but many would and do suggest that TOS was the best.
I'm not saying DS9 is bad. Just nothing beats TOS (Although some
Stargate gives it a run). But you're welcome to your opinion, but that
doesn't make the first guy wrong (just that he/she/it has better tast
than you :) ).

Sea Wasp

unread,

May 1, 2006, 8:42:52 AM5/1/06

to

Ken from Chicago wrote:
> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
> news:4454CC71...@obvioussgeinc.com...
>
>>trike wrote:
>>
>>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Word has recently been released that Star Trek will be revived focused on
>>>>the early days of Kirk and Spock. This complements reports that the Star
>>>>Wars television series will be set between the prequel trilogy and the
>>>>original trilogy.
>>>>
>>>>Why are the two SF heavyweight franchises in the US, Star Wars and Star
>>>>Trek, so afraid to go FORWARD?
>>>
>>1) Star Wars was -- unfortunately -- ALWAYS intended to go backwards.
>>Lucas intended to do the prequels, then the sequels. Once he decided, in
>>this last series, that the SW movies were really about Little Orphan
>>Anakin, he dropped the idea of making the sequels. But he was always
>>intending to go back.
>
>
> Sad, since the novels show there was plenty left after ROTJ--even
> discounting the superweapon rut the Expanded Universe novels got into--but
> overcame with I,JEDI, X-WING SQUADRON, WRAITH SQUADRON and of course the NEW
> JEDI ORDER series.

Sad, yes, but in this case it was known pretty much since ESB that
this was the course he'd take. And against which I complained since
that time, too. I didn't CARE about the prequels even if they'd
actually been done well; we already knew what happened.

>
>
>>2) Star Trek: Well, the best stuff of the series WAS the original, so
>>going back to their roots at least makes some sense.
>
>
> Wrong. TOS was very good, tho I, and many others, would argue that DS9 was
> the best of the televised Treks.

You may argue it. You will be wrong. In case you doubt that, note
that I've told you you're wrong. QED. :)

Sean O'Hara

unread,

May 1, 2006, 10:39:49 AM5/1/06

to

In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Sea Wasp declared:

>
> 1) Star Wars was -- unfortunately -- ALWAYS intended to go
> backwards. Lucas intended to do the prequels, then the sequels.

So Lucas claims now. The annotated screenplays, which include
summaries of earlier drafts, show that Lucas is completely full of it.

--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Leela: It's not his fault that he's an unstoppable killing machine.
Is it snuggums?
-Futurama

Michael Grosberg

unread,

May 1, 2006, 3:03:17 PM5/1/06

to

Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2006 20:19:44 -0700, trike wrote:
>

> > Isn't there something in the Trek lore about the galaxy being seeded by
> > someone? (Which is why all aliens are humanoid.) Or did I make that
> > up?
>

> There was a TNG episode (2-parter?) where several of the "big" races
> discover an alien race "seeded" all of their planets with DNA, hiding
> a secret message that is decoded when they combine them.

In Rodenberry's original Trek pitch, the rationale for multiple
humanoid races was quite different. the idea was that on earth-like
worlds, humanoid creatures are bound to evolve due to parallel
evolution. Even if said worlds are only a small minority of all worlds
with life in the galaxy, the total number of worlds is so huge that
there "must" be plenty of humanoid races around the galaxy. Since
Enterprise's mission tell them to only seek M class planets, which
means planets that resemble earth to a great degree, this is all they
encounter.

So, in the original Trekverse, there might be thousands of non-humanoid
species hanging around in their high-G / desert / frozen / ammonia-rich
planets, which the crew of the Enterprise duly ignores in order to
proceed to the next western-themed world.

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 1, 2006, 7:41:57 PM5/1/06

to

"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message

news:4456024C...@obvioussgeinc.com...

Well, at the very least DS9 tied TOS, took the torch from it and expanded on
it in a way TNG could only dream.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. And then came VOY which fumbled it and ENT which quenched the flame
into ash and embers.

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 1, 2006, 7:43:48 PM5/1/06

to

"Michael Grosberg" <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146510197.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That ... actually makes sense.

Kinda like the Stargates go to worlds with humanoids or suitable for
Earthlike humanoids because the gatebuilders were Earth humanoids.

-- Ken from Chicago

Sea Wasp

unread,

May 1, 2006, 9:12:06 PM5/1/06

to

Ken from Chicago wrote:

>
> Well, at the very least DS9 tied TOS, took the torch from it and expanded on
> it in a way TNG could only dream.

I will agree that DS9 was the best of the later Treks. I do not agree
it was even vaguely on a level with the original, which -- as the
original, doing things that more than once nearly got it cancelled --
simply did more, proportionately, than the others did or, perhaps,
COULD. I mean, really, could ANYTHING have led to the cancellation of
TNG in its heyday? Short of Jean-Luc doing a striptease on broadcast
TV? (and I'm not even sure of that)

DS9 managed to be better mainly by having a clearly different basic
premise. I felt, however, B5 did that "basic premise" far better --
and I have always been deeply suspicious of the fact that DS9 appeared
shortly after Strazynski pitched B5 to them, and had it rejected.

>
> P.S. And then came VOY which fumbled it and ENT which quenched the flame
> into ash and embers.

You think Improvise was WORSE than V'Ger? I thought Voyager was about
as painfully bad as anything I've watched. In fact, I think it was
never made, any more than Highlander 2 or Star Trek 5. While
Enterprise was bad in a number of ways, it certainly didn't descend to
those depths.

Taki Kogoma

unread,

May 1, 2006, 9:28:21 PM5/1/06

to

On Tue, 02 May 2006 01:12:06 GMT, Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com>
allegedly declared to rec.arts.sf.written...

>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> P.S. And then came VOY which fumbled it and ENT which quenched the flame
>> into ash and embers.
>
> You think Improvise was WORSE than V'Ger? I thought Voyager was about
>as painfully bad as anything I've watched. In fact, I think it was
>never made, any more than Highlander 2 or Star Trek 5. While
>Enterprise was bad in a number of ways, it certainly didn't descend to
>those depths.

As much as it may shock the Wasp, I agree with this. Ent merely
provoked the 8 Deadly Words from me shortly after the start of season 3.

Voyager generated several "Just how stupid do these bozos think I am?"
reactions before the 2nd season wound up.

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.

Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz

unread,

May 1, 2006, 10:06:35 PM5/1/06

to

On Mon, 01 May 2006 10:39:49 -0400, Sean O'Hara wrote:

> In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Sea Wasp declared:
>>
>> 1) Star Wars was -- unfortunately -- ALWAYS intended to go
>> backwards. Lucas intended to do the prequels, then the sequels.
>
> So Lucas claims now. The annotated screenplays, which include
> summaries of earlier drafts, show that Lucas is completely full of it.

I've always thought that this idea that Lucas always intended a 9-part
story was bunk. Even the paternal relationship of Vader to Luke was
an obvious retcon to me. Not that it was bad... just that you have to
be a real fanboy to buy the "grand arc" idea. Frankly, I doubt Lucas
knew what he was going to put into Episode III until he started
writing it. Episodes I and II were total throwaways as far as the
overall story goes.

--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.

Sea Wasp

unread,

May 2, 2006, 12:19:30 AM5/2/06

to

Lance Corporal \"Hammer\" Schultz wrote:

> On Mon, 01 May 2006 10:39:49 -0400, Sean O'Hara wrote:
>
>
>>In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Sea Wasp declared:
>>
>>> 1) Star Wars was -- unfortunately -- ALWAYS intended to go
>>>backwards. Lucas intended to do the prequels, then the sequels.
>>
>>So Lucas claims now. The annotated screenplays, which include
>>summaries of earlier drafts, show that Lucas is completely full of it.
>
>
> I've always thought that this idea that Lucas always intended a 9-part
> story was bunk.

That depends on what your definition of "always" is.

It is well-known that the original "Star Wars" was vastly different
from the movie released in '77. You can find the original script
treatment on a number of sites. In that original are pieces which
eventually got used in places ranging from the original Star Wars to
Splinter of the Mind's Eye to the Prequels.

So clearly "always" in terms of "ever since he first had the idea of
the movie" is bunk.

However, he was consistent about having a large story arc in mind
from about late Star Wars -- early ESB era. Though number of movies
varied.

Sea Wasp

unread,

May 2, 2006, 12:22:42 AM5/2/06

to

Taki Kogoma wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 01:12:06 GMT, Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com>
> allegedly declared to rec.arts.sf.written...
>
>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>>P.S. And then came VOY which fumbled it and ENT which quenched the flame
>>>into ash and embers.
>>
>> You think Improvise was WORSE than V'Ger? I thought Voyager was about
>>as painfully bad as anything I've watched. In fact, I think it was
>>never made, any more than Highlander 2 or Star Trek 5. While
>>Enterprise was bad in a number of ways, it certainly didn't descend to
>>those depths.
>
>
> As much as it may shock the Wasp, I agree with this.

Why would it shock me that people agree about something so obviously
true? :)

> Ent merely
> provoked the 8 Deadly Words from me shortly after the start of season 3.
>
> Voyager generated several "Just how stupid do these bozos think I am?"
> reactions before the 2nd season wound up.

You waited that long? For me, the pilot episodes pretty much
encapsulated each series for me. And Voyager's pilot featured "we must
make Federationers dumber than posts so that they will not immediately
go home. No, we of the Federation have never heard of either remote
detonation or time bombs." Beside that, the sins of the other series
were relatively minor. (only relatively. The Klingon homeworld being,
apparently, just outside our Oort cloud was pretty painful in the
Voyager premiere.)

Michael Bowker

unread,

May 2, 2006, 3:01:17 AM5/2/06

to

Can't agree. Tos, a gap then DS9, then a gap TNG, then a big gap, then
you have Voyager, then another really big gap and Enterprise.

Tos is much better than other Star Treks. DS9 is really great only if
you compare it to non TOS treks. Again I'm not saying it's bad (DS9)
just that it's not in the same league as TOS.

unread,

May 2, 2006, 6:18:27 AM5/2/06

to

"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:C07C678E.7A75E%ANIM...@cox.net...

> in article Gs2dnfvm9oN...@comcast.com, Ken from Chicago at
> kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 5/1/06 4:41 PM:

<snip>

>> Well, at the very least DS9 tied TOS, took the torch from it and expanded
>> on
>> it in a way TNG could only dream.
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>
>> P.S. And then came VOY which fumbled it and ENT which quenched the flame
>> into ash and embers.
>>
>>
> Pretty close, although I'd say VOY quenched the flame into ash and embers
> and then Enterprise stood there and pissed on the embers making sure they
> were stone cold.
>

Leave to an animator to paint so vivid a picture. Thank you for sharing.

-- Ken from Chicago (once again, grateful for his rare ability to SUPPRESS
visualization)

Sean O'Hara

unread,

May 2, 2006, 11:20:36 AM5/2/06

to

In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Sea Wasp declared:
>

> You think Improvise was WORSE than V'Ger? I thought Voyager was
> about as painfully bad as anything I've watched.

V'ger was at least entertainingly bad, whereas Enterprise was boring
and forgettable -- to the point that I often couldn't remember what
episodes were about by the time the end credits finished.

Plus V'ger's cast had a much wider distribution of talent. On
Enterprise everyone was about equal in quality, from Archer to
Hoshi. V'ger had some horrible actors (the Wooden Indian, Kim), but
it also had Jeri Ryan and Robert Picardo, who could carry even the
worst written episodes.

--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com

Fat Union Worker: Wise guy, huh? If I wasn't so lazy, I'd punch you
in the stomach.
Fry: But you *are* lazy, right?
Fat Union Worker: Ah, don't get me started.
-Futurama

Justin Bacon

unread,

May 2, 2006, 12:07:19 PM5/2/06

to

Stephen Dedalus wrote:
> > The literary versions have shown there is
> > plenty of material to explore going FORWARD. Why won't the "official" tv and
> > movie media versions pick up the baton and run with?
>
> Are the literary versions actually any good? I'd rather read the entire
> Wheel of Time twice than read one of those, but I speak from ignorance.

I'd say the general offering of tie-in fiction is about the same as
fiction in general: 90% of it is complete junk. But that means,
conversely, that 10% of it is actually worth consideration.

The trick is distinguishing between the two. And, unfortunately, this
is generally more difficult with tie-in fiction than other fiction.

--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Taki Kogoma

unread,

May 2, 2006, 12:11:07 PM5/2/06

to

On Tue, 02 May 2006 04:22:42 GMT, Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com>

allegedly declared to rec.arts.sf.written...
>Taki Kogoma wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 May 2006 01:12:06 GMT, Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com>
>> allegedly declared to rec.arts.sf.written...
>>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>>P.S. And then came VOY which fumbled it and ENT which quenched the flame
>>>>into ash and embers.
>>>
>>> You think Improvise was WORSE than V'Ger? I thought Voyager was about
>>>as painfully bad as anything I've watched. In fact, I think it was
>>>never made, any more than Highlander 2 or Star Trek 5. While
>>>Enterprise was bad in a number of ways, it certainly didn't descend to
>>>those depths.
>>
>> As much as it may shock the Wasp, I agree with this.
>
> Why would it shock me that people agree about something so obviously
>true? :)
>
>> Ent merely
>> provoked the 8 Deadly Words from me shortly after the start of season 3.
>>
>> Voyager generated several "Just how stupid do these bozos think I am?"
>> reactions before the 2nd season wound up.
>
> You waited that long? For me, the pilot episodes pretty much
>encapsulated each series for me. And Voyager's pilot featured "we must
>make Federationers dumber than posts so that they will not immediately
>go home.

I am generally a patient soul, and I had TNG's first two seasons in
mind. (I was ready to classify DS9's amazingly good first season and
solid 2nd season as a statistical anomaly.) There were one or two
moderatly watchable shows in Voyager's first season which held out
some hope for improvement.

Enterprise was sufficiently intriguing (more tantalizing "This could
be good if they worked at it") to keep me for two seasons, but I
eventually decided that I'd rather be watching West Wing (which was,
at the time, opposite Enterprise) and I didn't think time-shift
taping or a DVR was worth the effort/expense. (My even more patient
friends have told me that some of Enterprise's final season -- The
Mirror Universe episodes -- is actually pretty good; I suppose I
might netflix that to see...)

>No, we of the Federation have never heard of either remote
>detonation or time bombs." Beside that, the sins of the other series
>were relatively minor. (only relatively. The Klingon homeworld being,
>apparently, just outside our Oort cloud was pretty painful in the
>Voyager premiere.)

unread,

May 5, 2006, 12:53:53 AM5/5/06

to

Only practitioners of Kali For Nah.

> ** And who actually thinks that breast implants are attractive?

A fair number of women who get them.
>

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

May 5, 2006, 3:11:27 AM5/5/06

to

in article e3egkd$ful$1...@panix1.panix.com, William December Starr at
wds...@panix.com wrote on 5/4/06 8:26 PM:

> In article <1146777163.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> * Since when do Vulcans have breast implants? **
>
> Storage sacs for emergency water supply. It's a desert
> planet, remember?

"Hot as Vulcan; now I know what that phrase means"

tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us

unread,

May 5, 2006, 3:27:19 AM5/5/06

to

trike wrote on Fri, Apr 21 2006 6:17 am:

> I have a solution for Trek that runs both forward and back, cleans up
> all of the continuity errors and features the cast from all of the
> series except Enterprise. It would be hugely epic yet emotionally
> touching, and completely doable on a fairly modest budget.

> I'm keeping it under my hat, though, unless the powers that be at
> Paramount want to fly me out to the west coast and pitch it to them.
> And even though you aren't supposed to say things like, "My mom really
> likes my ideas!" everyone I've told the story to -- even non-Trek fans
> -- have said, "Wow, that's amazing."
I hereby suggest that you show your ideas to an agent, who could then
represent you to Paramount and help you pitch your ideas to Paramount.

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 5, 2006, 9:52:13 AM5/5/06

to

"Middlebrow" <u...@nothanks.pal> wrote in message
news:UsqdnVN1Do-...@comcast.com...

Except for spelling.

-- Ken from Chicago (who despises spelling bees because they celebrate
massive inconsistancies in spelling when they should be causes for shame)

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 5, 2006, 9:52:51 AM5/5/06

to

<tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1146814039.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Could it be any worse than NEMESIS?

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 5, 2006, 10:02:02 AM5/5/06

to

"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146777163.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

So it was NOT a long road?
Gettin' from show to <Click!>?
It's NOT a long time.
Before it made you sick.

And you could see bad dreams come true at last
It could make you cry.
But they're not gonna hold you no more
No they're not gonna hold you down

Cause you've control from the start
You're clicking where your remote will take you
You've control of tv
You could watch anything

You've got strength of good taste
And no one's gonna bend or waste it
You can see ... any show
Cause you've got
You've got
You've got
You've got control
Control from the staaaaart.

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 5, 2006, 10:04:01 AM5/5/06

to

"Norville" <no-...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:no-spam-0405...@66-52-186-235.oak.dial.sonic.net...

I liked the song--for the first season. But it grating toward the end of
it--kinda like the theme song for FRIENDS was too up--I thought they should
have gone with new opening for Season 2.

And new visuals.

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 5, 2006, 10:05:11 AM5/5/06

to

"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:C08048AF.7AF58%ANIM...@cox.net...

That's why they EXPAND when they're cold!

-- Ken from Chicago

David McMillan

unread,

May 4, 2006, 1:54:16 PM5/4/06

to

Sea Wasp wrote:

> You think Improvise was WORSE than V'Ger? I thought Voyager was
> about as painfully bad as anything I've watched. In fact, I think it was
> never made, any more than Highlander 2 or Star Trek 5. While Enterprise
> was bad in a number of ways, it certainly didn't descend to those depths.

Well, except for that final episode. Oh, but that was *BAD*.

Sea Wasp

unread,

May 6, 2006, 1:40:52 PM5/6/06

to

I can't say; I don't subject myself to torment deliberately just so
that I can speak with authority on how painful it is. I watched a few
eps of Improvise. I saw the premiere of V'ger and that was enough
(though I was exposed through accident to a few more).

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 6, 2006, 1:43:57 PM5/6/06

to

"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message

news:445CDFA3...@obvioussgeinc.com...

> David McMillan wrote:
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>>> You think Improvise was WORSE than V'Ger? I thought Voyager was
>>> about as painfully bad as anything I've watched. In fact, I think it was
>>> never made, any more than Highlander 2 or Star Trek 5. While Enterprise
>>> was bad in a number of ways, it certainly didn't descend to those
>>> depths.
>>
>>
>> Well, except for that final episode. Oh, but that was *BAD*.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I can't say; I don't subject myself to torment deliberately just so that I
> can speak with authority on how painful it is. I watched a few

Ask Anim8fsk.

> eps of Improvise. I saw the premiere of V'ger and that was enough (though
> I was exposed through accident to a few more).
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;; Live Journal:
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
>

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Nah, he won't like it. He hates everything.

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,

May 6, 2006, 5:52:49 PM5/6/06

to

On Sat, 06 May 2006 17:40:52 GMT, Sea Wasp
<seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:

> I saw the premiere of V'ger and that was enough
>(though I was exposed through accident to a few more).

The pilot was stupendously bad, but there were some halfway decent
episodes along the way, especially after they added Jeri Ryan -- and
not because of her obvious eye appeal, but because she could actually
_act_, and every so often they gave her a chance to prove it.

--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 6, 2006, 6:53:55 PM5/6/06

to

"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:ei6q52hscggddtqag...@news.rcn.com...

Agreed.

I suspect VOY was simply a bigger letdown after DS9 and TNG than ENT was
relative to ENT.

-- Ken from Chicago

Steven

unread,

May 9, 2006, 1:29:50 AM5/9/06

to

No. THEY have control of the vertical...and the horizontal.

Desi Arnaz had control of the theme song and he stole the idea from
TELSTAR by the Tornadoes.

Ken from Chicago

unread,

May 9, 2006, 5:26:23 AM5/9/06

to

"Steven" <thisjukebo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147152590....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Psst, two controls, channel and power.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. "The power is yours!"--CAPTAIN PLANET & THE PLANETEERS.