Enterprise finale - this SUCKED
hondain...@yahoo.com
they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
.....
This wasn't an Enterprise episode.
It was a Next Generation episode.
This wasn't a view of actual events.
It was a melodrama written by a holodeck hack.
This wasn't a proper wrap-up to a show.
It was a run-of-the-mill "gimmick of the week".
The finale SUCKED.
No wonder the Enterprise actors felt insulted.
And who do we think for this?
- Brannan Braga -
The Master of Suckitude & Lousy "gimmick" Ideas
troy
POST-SCRIPT: The last 30 seconds were good..... if only the whole
episode had reached that level of poignancy..... rather than being a
throw-away gimmick of mediocrity.
redhawk
<hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116073327.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
And the "Native American" aliens with black-and-white faces at the
conference were pretty cool...vaguely reptilian, but with the long braided
hair. In the very last episode of Trek, they finally got Chakotay right.
Justin Thyme
> POST-SCRIPT: The last 30 seconds were good.....
No, they were not. They didn't even show the fucking speech! Probably
because B&B couldn't write one to save their sorry hides.
Smak!
The best part of this episode was the ending showing all the different
Enterprises one after another.. This episode was totally lame.
Outt..
Jeff.
hondain...@yahoo.com
"The last 30 seconds" refers to the 3 Enterprises & the Kirk, Archer,
Picard speechover. That part was good. Nice closure. Don't you
agree?
But I agree, the previous 41 minutes & 30 seconds, including skipping
the speech, sucked.
Troy
kathryn
One word
Messy.
Anybody
hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
> they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
It's not the end of "Star Trek" ... it's only the end of that pitiful
rubbish called "Enterprise", and hopefully finally the end of the
Beavis & Butthead twins that have been flushing the franchise further
and further down the toilet.
> This wasn't a view of actual events.
> It was a melodrama written by a holodeck hack.
Beavis & Butthead are not even good enough to be called "hacks".
> This wasn't a proper wrap-up to a show.
> It was a run-of-the-mill "gimmick of the week".
>
> And who do we think for this?
> - Brannan Braga -
> The Master of Suckitude & Lousy "gimmick" Ideas
We knew that out YEARS and YEARS and YEARS ago, but the idiots in
charge at Paramount were too scared to get rid of Beavis & Butthead.
:-(
Eric Newman
>18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
>they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
>
>
>.....
>
>
>This wasn't an Enterprise episode.
>It was a Next Generation episode.
>
>
>This wasn't a view of actual events.
>It was a melodrama written by a holodeck hack.
I'm not saying I liked the show, but the events Riker and Troi
witnessed actually happened -- it was a holodeck re-creation of actual
events.
Toad
>On 14 May 2005 05:22:07 -0700, hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
>>they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
>>
>>
>>.....
>>
>>
>>This wasn't an Enterprise episode.
>>It was a Next Generation episode.
>>
>>
>>This wasn't a view of actual events.
>>It was a melodrama written by a holodeck hack.
>
>I'm not saying I liked the show, but the events Riker and Troi
>witnessed actually happened -- it was a holodeck re-creation of actual
>events.
>
Ok, so who overheard Tripp's last words before blowing himself up?
David Johnston
wrote:
>On 14 May 2005 05:22:07 -0700, hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
>>they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
>>
>>
>>.....
>>
>>
>>This wasn't an Enterprise episode.
>>It was a Next Generation episode.
>>
>>
>>This wasn't a view of actual events.
>>It was a melodrama written by a holodeck hack.
>
>I'm not saying I liked the show, but the events Riker and Troi
>witnessed actually happened -- it was a holodeck re-creation of actual
>events.
Which means of course that parts of it didn't happen. After all, a
perfect holodeck recreation of events is impossible unless people
accurately recorded everything that happened.
William December Starr
Toad <Rib...@toadstoolie.org> said:
>> I'm not saying I liked the show, but the events Riker and Troi
>> witnessed actually happened -- it was a holodeck re-creation of
>> actual events. [Eric Newman]
>
> Ok, so who overheard Tripp's last words before blowing himself up?
A holodeck re-creation with lots of inter- and extrapolation. Not
to mention some plain old Making Shit Up.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
First-2-Die
news:bdvc81969a5c22n70...@4ax.com...
You mean "Berman in HELL!"? Yeah, I caught that.
Red Shirt
Shaun
>delivered with Archer's trademark pacing around. >Someone give that
man
>some Valium.
I am so glad to hear someone else say this! I finally started warming
to ENT this past season, but one of the (many) reasons I quit watching
early on was that I couldn't stand to watch Bakula's constant squinting
and pacing. Three seasons later, he was still doing it.
The best line of last night's sorry finale was T'Pol grabbed Archer and
said "Stand still!" My wife and I actually applauded this line. I
only wish someone had said it to him four years sooner.
Peace,
Shaun
hondain...@yahoo.com
Anybody wrote:
> In article <1116073327.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > 18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
> > they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
>
> It's not the end of "Star Trek" ... it's only the end of that pitiful
> rubbish called "Enterprise",
Riiiight. You're in denial. It will probably be 5 years before we see
Trek on TV again. This is the end of era (1987-2005).
> > And who do we think for this?
> > - Brannan Braga -
> > The Master of Suckitude & Lousy "gimmick" Ideas
>
> We knew that out YEARS and YEARS and YEARS ago, but the idiots in
> charge at Paramount were too scared to get rid of Beavis & Butthead
If Berman has simply *fired* Braga 5 years ago, and handed the reins to
Coto or some other skilled show-runner, I bet Trek would still be on
television.
Troy
hondain...@yahoo.com
Eric Newman wrote:
> On 14 May 2005 05:22:07 -0700, hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >This wasn't an Enterprise episode.
> >It was a Next Generation episode.
> >
> >
> >This wasn't a view of actual events.
> >It was a melodrama written by a holodeck hack.
>
> I'm not saying I liked the show, but the events Riker and Troi
> witnessed actually happened -- it was a holodeck re-creation of
actual
> events.
You mean the way Hollywood tells the "actual events" of Spartacus or
the Trojan War or JFK's Assassination or Apollo 13?
Riiiight.
The most you can say is that it was "based upon history", but the
dialogue & actions were not real. They were the imagination of a
holodeck writer. We weren't witnessing actual events.
Troy
Al Smith
>>>It was a melodrama written by a holodeck hack.
>
>
> I'm not saying I liked the show, but the events Riker and Troi
> witnessed actually happened -- it was a holodeck re-creation of actual
> events.
Ha! You mean like "Shindler's List"? Or "Titanic"? Or "Birth of a
Nation"? Or "One Million BC"?
ANIM8Rfsk
Rib...@toadstoolie.org wrote on 5/14/05 3:38 PM:
Or any part of the private conversations. Or sucked N'Pol's entire
personality into a digital clone so you could coax opinions out of her.
David Johnston
>
>Anybody wrote:
>> In article <1116073327.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > 18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
>> > they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
>>
>> It's not the end of "Star Trek" ... it's only the end of that pitiful
>> rubbish called "Enterprise",
>
>
>
>Riiiight. You're in denial. It will probably be 5 years before we see
>Trek on TV again.
I'm betting 20.
Anybody
<sky....@moonbase.alpha> wrote:
> In article <1116117046.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Anybody wrote:
>
> > > It's not the end of "Star Trek" ... it's only the end of that pitiful
> > > rubbish called "Enterprise",
> >
> > Riiiight. You're in denial. It will probably be 5 years before we see
> > Trek on TV again. This is the end of era (1987-2005).
>
> "End of era" = "End of Star Trek"?
>
> Someone needs a reality check here.
Yep. It may be five years before there's another Star Trek TV show or
movie (maybe more, maybe less), but the fact that a new one does appear
obviously means Star Trek is not dead ... last I heard they were still
working on the next movie, hopefully with ZERO "help" from Beavis &
Butthead.
Anybody
Both Beavis & Butthead should never have been hired in the first place,
let alone left in charge of Star Trek. Neither have got enough talent
to be even the office coffee boy.
David Johnston
<n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <150520051352457049%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
><any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>
>> > "End of era" = "End of Star Trek"?
>> >
>> > Someone needs a reality check here.
>>
>> Yep. It may be five years before there's another Star Trek TV show or
>> movie (maybe more, maybe less), but the fact that a new one does appear
>> obviously means Star Trek is not dead ... last I heard they were still
>> working on the next movie, hopefully with ZERO "help" from Beavis &
>> Butthead.
>
>What next movie? We haven't heard anything specific. Just rumors and
>second-hand chit chat. Nothing has been announced, therefore there IS
>nothing until we hear differently.
Given how well the last movie did, it is improbable that there will be
another in this generation.
Dave Roy
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>Yep. It may be five years before there's another Star Trek TV show or
>movie (maybe more, maybe less), but the fact that a new one does appear
>obviously means Star Trek is not dead ... last I heard they were still
>working on the next movie, hopefully with ZERO "help" from Beavis &
>Butthead.
Of course, the only person who's talking about this supposed movie
*is* Berman, so even if it happens, your wish won't come true.
Dave
Dave Roy
wrote:
>>I'm not saying I liked the show, but the events Riker and Troi
>>witnessed actually happened -- it was a holodeck re-creation of actual
>>events.
>>
>Ok, so who overheard Tripp's last words before blowing himself up?
It was one of those dramatizations put out for the "Holodeck Movie of
the Week."
Dave
David B
Coto has mentioned the possible movie. So did the guy who was hired to write
the screenplay.
Anybody
<hi...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Last I heard his movie idea had been unwanted by the Paramount people
and had gone back (to someone else?) for re-working.
Toad
wrote:
You might be surprised.
There is considerable buzz of a TOS movie of one of the books.
Not only that the talk is about a SERIES of them.
Anybody
<inv...@address.com> wrote:
> >>Given how well the last movie did, it is improbable that there will be
> >>>another in this generation.
> >
> > You might be surprised.
> > There is considerable buzz of a TOS movie of one of the books.
> > Not only that the talk is about a SERIES of them.
>
> Trek movies of the week might not be a bad format for a new
> incarnation of Trek. Based on the books. There's a rich fund of
> material available in the books, and some of it must be halfway
> decent.
Only if they are NOT re-casting established characters. So that really
only leaves the 'New Frontier' series.
Ian J. Ball
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
I'll split the difference and say 10-15 years.
--
"Read less. More TV." - Dr. Greg House, "House"
http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
Dave Roy
wrote:
>Dave Roy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 13:52:45 +1200, Anybody
>> <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yep. It may be five years before there's another Star Trek TV show or
>> >movie (maybe more, maybe less), but the fact that a new one does appear
>> >obviously means Star Trek is not dead ... last I heard they were still
>> >working on the next movie, hopefully with ZERO "help" from Beavis &
>> >Butthead.
>>
>> Of course, the only person who's talking about this supposed movie
>> *is* Berman, so even if it happens, your wish won't come true.
>Coto has mentioned the possible movie. So did the guy who was hired to write
>the screenplay.
Ok, then amend that to "the main person talking about this supposed
movie."
Dave
Al Smith
>>>another in this generation.
>
>
> You might be surprised.
> There is considerable buzz of a TOS movie of one of the books.
> Not only that the talk is about a SERIES of them.
Trek movies of the week might not be a bad format for a new
David Johnston
wrote:
>>Given how well the last movie did, it is improbable that there will be
>>another in this generation.
>
>You might be surprised.
>There is considerable buzz of a TOS movie of one of the books.
>Not only that the talk is about a SERIES of them.
Yeah. Sure. Fan speculation taking on a life of it's own. But
actually making movies is a money issue. And putting money into
another Star Trek show just isn't going to look like a good bet to a
studio exec.
DrJohn
desperation on Paramonts part will spark a new show.History repeats
itself,STTMP was timed in response to Star Wars.But, bring in Bevis and
Butthead(which I consider an insult to Mike Judges creations....lets
face it berman and Bragda gotta go!) I'm betting Paromont is
scrambleing to get a new Trek out! Hopefully JMS.Maybe Coto....Either
way,I'm betting Star Trek will run against Star wars.Just hope neither
sucks!Star wars has some good writers..Kevin Smith,Timothy
Zahn...............I still think Excelsior would be good......in the
end it's up to Paramont.
In the end it's gonna come down to 1
,real writers ,strong cast and B&B gone. My opinon ..your milage may
vary.
DrJohn.
Toad
wrote:
>On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:12:13 -0700, Toad <Rib...@toadstoolie.org>
How many Trek movies lost money?
If the right director comes along so will the cash.
There is a ton of interest in TOS with a new no name cast.
From people with a ton of money.
But first the stench of Enterprise has to fade a bit.
David Johnston
wrote:
>>
>How many Trek movies lost money?
>If the right director comes along so will the cash.
>There is a ton of interest in TOS with a new no name cast.
>From people with a ton of money.
Which people? And how do you know?
Shaun
>There is considerable buzz of a TOS movie of one of the books.
>Not only that the talk is about a SERIES of them.
And where is this "considerable" buzz coming from? While I've heard a
few rumblings of another movie I wouldn't exactly I've seen or heard
about a groundswell of interest in this. Sliding TV ratings, poor
movie box office, and critical pans of recent years would hardly seem
to make it a great time to make more Trek. Why can't people just give
it a rest for a while? There's over 700 hours out there to enjoy,
depending on what you like.
Also, what TOS books are you referring to, and who's supposed to appear
in these movies based on them? All the TOS actors are pretty long in
the tooth and one of them is dead. If they're talking about some early
Academy days movie or something else that will require recasting the
roles, I think that would be a huge mistake. TOS is still too strong a
presence in pop culture and in most fans' minds that a new cast of
people playing Kirk, Spock, Bones, etc. would likely be met with great
derision. I know I'd have a tough time accepting it. I know
characters like James Bond, Batman and Superman get reimagined over
time with new actors, and now there's the new Galactica series too, but
I think the TOS characters are so identified with the actors who played
them that any attempt to make "new" TOS with different actors would be
a huge mistake.
It's something that might be viable in another 20 years, after most of
the actors will be departed, and there probably will be new generations
of people who don't know anything about TOS, but I think it's much too
early to try that now.
Peace,
Shaun
Shaun
>desperation on Paramonts part will spark a new show.History repeats
>itself,STTMP was timed in response to Star Wars.
"Right place, wrong time" Dr. John... The big difference here is that
SW broke new ground in sci-fi and opened the floodgates for renewed
interest in the genre and in Trek itself (which had a great deal of
influence on SW, even though most SW fans won't admit to that). Also,
there hadn't been any new Trek (save for a few books and the animated
series) in almost a decade. The series thrived in reruns, however, and
people hungry for new adventures. Today? We've had a glut of Trek
over the past 18 years: four TV series, several movies and a ton of
books. I think the well ran dry in terms of fresh and original ideas
quite some time ago (YMMV, but I'd say DS9 was the last worthwhile
Trek) and that seems to be popular consensus right now.
As for Star Wars, again this isn't 1977. We've got the baggage of the
last two crappy SW movies weighing that franchise down. In spite of
the fan backlash over those two flicks, Ep. III will still be hugely
popular but it hardly guarantees that a live action SW series will be
successful. If anything, there are fans out there worrying that weekly
SW on TV might dilute that franchise further, some even saying they
don't want to see it "turn into Star Trek." It'll probably start out
to big ratings (assuming it ever even gets made), but if it's not any
good the ratings will drop in a hurry (just like they did for ENT or
the original Battlestar Galactica) and the show will die.
Even if a SW TV series were to succeed, that wouldn't necessarily
benefit yet another Trek show. remember all those sci-fi series that
came along after TNG's success? Space Rangers, Firefly, Space: Above
and Beyond, Time Trax, Earth 2, SeaQuest, and B5? All of them crashed
and burned pretty quickly, save for B5 and even that show never really
came out from under Trek's shadow. Never enjoyed the same kind of
ratings TNG or DS9 did. There were lots of X-Files knock-offs after
that show took off as well, none of them lasted. I just think Trek
needs a good long break. I mean, I'd love it if they made a DS9 movie
or a DS9 mini-series or series of TV movies, I'm just not going to hold
my breath for it.
Peace,
Shaun
Toad
> I know
>characters like James Bond
BINGO!
The risk in making a single TOS movie with an all new cast is minimal.
It would not lose money.
There is a huge surplus of high tech talent sitting around from StarWars and
LOTRs who would love a shot at TOS. Cost's would be down.
But if it's done right the potential is enormous.
Expect the buzz to go public after the Christmas movies this year.
Shaun
I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure only Nemesis lost money.
Even ST V is said to have actually turned a profit for Paramount in
spite of that movie's box office take being a lot lower than any of the
other TOS movies. Nemesis, however, probably cost a lot more to make
and (I believe) made less even if you don't adjust for inflation.
Perhaps someone can confirm or refute that? Anyhow, if the most recent
entry is the only one to lose money, I'd say it's safe bet that there's
not terribly high interest in another Trek film at this time.
>If the right director comes along so will the cash
Who's the "right director"? I haven't seen Spielberg or Peter Jackson
express an interest in helming a Trek feature. I'm sure both of those
guys (esp. Spielberg) have watched their share of Trek over the years,
but that doesn't mean they're going to be looking to make a Trek movie.
I just think there's too much baggage attached to working on Star Trek
these days. I'd love to see Nimoy take another crack at a Trek movie,
regardless of which characters were in it, but I think the current Trek
regime pissed him off a while back when they wouldn't listen to his
script changes/suggestions over Generations, which is why he bailed out
of that project.
>There is a ton of interest in TOS with a new no name cast.
Not from this TOS fan there isn't... Show me this "ton of interest."
Unless you, personally, weigh 2000 pounds I doubt it exists.
>From people with a ton of money.
Name 'em. I'm honestly curious. I suppose Bill Gates or Paul Allen
could bankroll a Trek movie, but it wouldn't be a terribly good
business move at this point. If one of those guys wanted to foot the
bill for more trek they should've gone to Paramount and offered to pay
for fifth season of ENT, which was just starting to get pretty good.
Pay for season five on the condition that B&B get tossed out the door,
that is.
Peace,
Shaun
Shaun
>>characters like James Bond
>BINGO!
>The risk in making a single TOS movie with an all new cast is minimal.
>It would not lose money.
Nice, Toad... Take a portion of my quote OUT OF CONTEXT and use it to
try to argue the exact opposite of what I was saying. Karl Rove would
be proud...
Anyhow, as I said earlier the TOS characters are so identified with the
people played those parts, and are so beloved, that I don't think
fandom will accept new actors playing those parts.
>The risk in making a single TOS movie with an all new cast is minimal.
>It would not lose money.
I'm just about through with this silly argument. Any major feature
film with decent sfx is going to cost money, and the interest in
anything Star Trek simply isn't there at this point as even too many of
the diehards aren't terribly interested in seeing new trek for a good
long while. Now add the insult of new actors playing beloved
characters that still fresh in people's minds? It could end up sinking
Paramount Pictures. Besides, even the most popular Trek movies (ST IV
and First Contact) never came close to making the kind of money a
franchise like Star Wars generated. None of the Trek movies show up in
the top films of all time. The appeal is limited, and the appeal in
what you're suggesting is even less.
>There is a huge surplus of high tech talent sitting around from
StarWars and
>LOTRs who would love a shot at TOS. Cost's would be down.
"Cost's"? No, how do you figure costs would be down? The top sfx
people working for ILM or Weta are probably not hurting for work these
days, even if SW and LotR are over with. There will continue to be
new projects for those folks, and they ain't gonna be cheap.
>Expect the buzz to go public after the Christmas movies this year.
Riiight... Hey, I'm not opposed to seeing a really imaginative, high
quality Trek project. I just don't think Paramount's capable of making
one right now and I don't think your idea is a good one at all. No
offense.
Peace,
Shaun
hondain...@yahoo.com
> <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this*
> > is how they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
>
>
>
>
pitiful
> > > rubbish called "Enterprise",
> >
> >
> >
see
>
>
>
here.
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Don't put words into my mouth, I did not say,
jackass.
I said: "25 seasons of modern era star trek... goodbye". I said it was
the end of an ERA, not star trek.
troy
hondain...@yahoo.com
Anybody wrote:
> hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > 18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
> > they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
>
>
>
> It's not the end of "Star Trek" ... it's only the end of that pitiful
> rubbish called "Enterprise",
No. This wasn't just the end of one show. It was the end of an era
(1987-2005) started by Gene Roddenberry.
The next time Trek appears (say 2010), it will be a different era, with
new people running the show.
Troy
Paul Vader
>There is considerable buzz of a TOS movie of one of the books.
>Not only that the talk is about a SERIES of them.
You're simply making this up. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
hondain...@yahoo.com
Anybody wrote:
> Yep. It may be five years before there's another Star Trek TV show or
> movie (maybe more, maybe less), but the fact that a new one does
appear
> obviously means Star Trek is not dead ...
Once again, I DID NOT SAY STAR TREK WAS DEAD.
I said it was the end of an era (1987-2005).
When a new Star Trek appears, it will be a *different* era, with
different people running the show.
Troy
hondain...@yahoo.com
Oh people, people. Just because they TALK about a movie, doesn't mean
anything.
JMS talked about a Babylon 5 movie, even had a script & money...
...but now it's dead.
There's a long way to go from *talking* to actually *doing* a movie.
What was JMS said? 1000s of movie scripts.... only 1 actually gets
made.
troy
Toad
>Anyhow, as I said earlier the TOS characters are so identified with the
>people played those parts, and are so beloved
So is Sean Connery.
I humbly suggest more movie watching people loved SC in the role of Bond then
loved Shat in the role of Kirk.
Toad
>Toad <Rib...@toadstoolie.org> writes:
>>There is considerable buzz of a TOS movie of one of the books.
>>Not only that the talk is about a SERIES of them.
>
>You're simply making this up. *
That's what everyone said when I told you dumbasses Spiner was coming to
Enterprise. Long before anyone else. I even told you the role he would
play...more or less. The script offered Spiner originally was considerably
different then the one we saw.
I could care less what you believe.
At this moment to quote someone in the business "Trek is like Elvis" huge
potential controlled by greedy people willing to drag it through the mud for a
dollar.
No one is going to openly express an interest at this time. It would just light
up the greed.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On 15 May 2005 09:03:46 -0700, "Shaun" <sknav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I know
>>characters like James Bond
>
>BINGO!
>
>The risk in making a single TOS movie with an all new cast is minimal.
>It would not lose money.
Trust me. It would.
David Johnston
>>You might be surprised.
>>There is considerable buzz of a TOS movie of one of the books.
>>Not only that the talk is about a SERIES of them.
>
>And where is this "considerable" buzz coming from? While I've heard a
>few rumblings of another movie I wouldn't exactly I've seen or heard
>about a groundswell of interest in this. Sliding TV ratings, poor
>movie box office, and critical pans of recent years would hardly seem
>to make it a great time to make more Trek. Why can't people just give
>it a rest for a while? There's over 700 hours out there to enjoy,
>depending on what you like.
>
>Also, what TOS books are you referring to, and who's supposed to appear
>in these movies based on them?
They're talking about the Peter David books, which, frankly I don't
think are PAD's best work.
ANIM8Rfsk
any...@anywhere-anytime.com wrote on 5/14/05 10:45 PM:
Those are all characters that would have to be recast too. Think anybody
can replace Ashley Judd?
ANIM8Rfsk
drjo...@aol.com wrote on 5/15/05 3:36 AM:
> And I say with the announcement of a live star wars TV show,sheer
> desperation on Paramonts part will spark a new show.History repeats
> itself,STTMP was timed in response to Star Wars.
Not at all. They were already working on a new version of TOS when SW came
out. Paramount, in their infinite wisdom, said "Well, all the sci fi movie
tickets that will ever be sold have just been sold and nobody will ever want
to see another sci fi movie" and it took them a while to realize how
incredibly stupid that stance was.
Anybody
hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Anybody wrote:
> > hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > 18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
> > > they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
> >
> >
> >
> > It's not the end of "Star Trek" ... it's only the end of that pitiful
> > rubbish called "Enterprise",
>
> No. This wasn't just the end of one show. It was the end of an era
> (1987-2005) started by Gene Roddenberry.
This wasn't an era started by Gene Roddenberry. This was the third era
- an era (spelt "error") flushed down the toilet by Beavis & Butthead
after Gene "handed over" control to the two biggest morons in Trek
History.
> The next time Trek appears (say 2010), it will be a different era, with
> new people running the show.
*IF* this third era is over (and so far the two fools are still in
charge), then we can thank God, Bhudda and every other deity under the
sun.
ANIM8Rfsk
Rib...@toadstoolie.org wrote on 5/15/05 9:32 AM:
I don't think they'll do it with B&B, and it'll take longer than that to get
rid of them.
ANIM8Rfsk
sknav...@aol.com wrote on 5/15/05 9:33 AM:
>> How many Trek movies lost money?
>
> I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure only Nemesis lost money.
> Even ST V is said to have actually turned a profit for Paramount in
> spite of that movie's box office take being a lot lower than any of the
> other TOS movies. Nemesis, however, probably cost a lot more to make
> and (I believe) made less even if you don't
Nemesis cost $60m + $33m marketing, grossed $43,254,409 domestic. Even if
you toss in the worldwide total gross of $24,058,417 it still lost a ton of
money.
Interestingly it made half it's money opening weekend. People wanted to see
a Trek movie, but word of mouth killed it.
Insurrection cost $58m + $27m marketing, and only grossed $70m domestic.
$112 total worldwide (includes the $70m domestid) may have pushed it in the
black.
boxofficemojo.com doesn't have full figures for the earlier Trek films.
Toad
>in article 1116174795.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, Shaun at
>sknav...@aol.com wrote on 5/15/05 9:33 AM:
>
>>> How many Trek movies lost money?
>>
>> I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure only Nemesis lost money.
>> Even ST V is said to have actually turned a profit for Paramount in
>> spite of that movie's box office take being a lot lower than any of the
>> other TOS movies. Nemesis, however, probably cost a lot more to make
>> and (I believe) made less even if you don't
>
>Nemesis cost $60m + $33m marketing, grossed $43,254,409 domestic. Even if
>you toss in the worldwide total gross of $24,058,417 it still lost a ton of
>money.
Where are the figures for DVD sales and rentals?
David Johnston
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>In article <1116177484.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Anybody wrote:
>> > hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > 18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
>> > > they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It's not the end of "Star Trek" ... it's only the end of that pitiful
>> > rubbish called "Enterprise",
>>
>> No. This wasn't just the end of one show. It was the end of an era
>> (1987-2005) started by Gene Roddenberry.
>
>This wasn't an era started by Gene Roddenberry. This was the third era
>- an era (spelt "error") flushed down the toilet by Beavis & Butthead
>after Gene "handed over" control to the two biggest morons in Trek
>History.
The problem with that dividing line is that the show improved when
Roddenberry relinquished control.
Paul Vader
>That's what everyone said when I told you dumbasses Spiner was coming to
>Enterprise. Long before anyone else. I even told you the role he would
Who's this "I" you speak of? The first post to usenet by someone with your
login was more than 2 MONTHS after the Brent Spiner episode aired.
Provide proof of this prediction, or get lost. *
Toad
>Toad <Rib...@toadstoolie.org> writes:
>>That's what everyone said when I told you dumbasses Spiner was coming to
>>Enterprise. Long before anyone else. I even told you the role he would
>
>Who's this "I" you speak of? The first post to usenet by someone with your
>login was more than 2 MONTHS after the Brent Spiner episode aired.
>
>Provide proof of this prediction, or get lost. *
Try Stardork
Kweeg
news:160520050834050815%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <1116177484.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Anybody wrote:
> > > hondain...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > 18 years... 25 seasons of modern-era star trek... and *this* is how
> > > > they choose to say goodbye?!?!?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's not the end of "Star Trek" ... it's only the end of that pitiful
> > > rubbish called "Enterprise",
> >
> > No. This wasn't just the end of one show. It was the end of an era
> > (1987-2005) started by Gene Roddenberry.
>
> This wasn't an era started by Gene Roddenberry. This was the third era
> - an era (spelt "error") flushed down the toilet by Beavis & Butthead
> after Gene "handed over" control to the two biggest morons in Trek
> History.
You'll get no argument from me about who the two biggest morons in Trek
history are, but before playing the same broken record you always do, (I'm
surprised you didn't mention "Hollyweird") at least get your facts straight.
Gene "handed over" control when he sold the series to Paramount, they own it
they make the decisions. Paramount hired Gene to produce Star Trek phase 2
which became TMP. Gene was also executive producer of TNG along with the
other guy Paramount hired Rick Berman. Paramount (NOT Gene) made final the
decision on who would take over during Gene's poor health.
--
Qa'pla
Kweeg
ANIM8Rfsk
Rib...@toadstoolie.org wrote on 5/15/05 2:23 PM:
Don't have those. But it can't possibly be enough to break even. Don't
forget the theaters got a cut of that gross. And there's another round of
marketing costs associated with the additional worldwide money.
Anybody
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
Possibly, but it went downhill fast.
David Johnston
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>> The problem with that dividing line is that the show improved when
>> Roddenberry relinquished control.
>
>Possibly, but it went downhill fast.
But TNG never got worse than those first couple of seasons when
Roddenberry had the free hand he'd always wanted. Nor did DS9
JD
The Movie. It left a bad taste in many people's mouth. There was no real
drama or action worth speaking of. WoK stepped it up a notch but then the
series fell into a very inconsistant cycle which forever damaged the ST
universe from having any lasting credibility. And if you want to keep
making films, whether they have old, new or unknown actors, you need that
credibility. While Bakula's acting was just as over top as Shatner's ever
was at least the Ent series was a little more tense and dark than most of
the other ones.
But still, I've never been so disappointed with a ST series finale as I was
watching a clearly overweight Troi and a badly wrinkled Ryker interact
based on an almost forgetable NTG episode that had little or nothing to do
with the Ent plot, as far as I could see.
JD
Smak!
> One of the main reason Trek films never made alot of money was due to ST
> The Movie. It left a bad taste in many people's mouth. There was no real
> drama or action worth speaking of. WoK stepped it up a notch but then the
> series fell into a very inconsistant cycle which forever damaged the ST
> universe from having any lasting credibility.
I always thought they needed to add characters to the mix of the
original crew early on.. Adding Savik and Kirk's son was a good start,
but then they killed David off, changed Savik's and kinda lost it. Maybe
if they would have done this there would be Captain Sulu movies now. I
think that could have been better than any of the Next Gen movies.
Outt..
Jeff.
Paul Vader
>>Who's this "I" you speak of? The first post to usenet by someone with your
>>login was more than 2 MONTHS after the Brent Spiner episode aired.
>>
>>Provide proof of this prediction, or get lost. *
>
>Try Stardork
Is that who you are? No wonder I never heard of this prediction. Yeesh.
Also, either you've deleted all your posts from google, or you
x-no-archive. In either case, all I can see are responses to stardork's
posts, and the ones I read aren't phrased as a prediction, they're ravings
about how neat the idea would be. That CERTAINLY didn't turn out to be
true. The superkids storyline was the worst part of the last season. *
Toad
>Is that who you are? No wonder I never heard of this prediction. Yeesh.
>
>Also, either you've deleted all your posts from google, or you
>x-no-archive. In either case, all I can see are responses to stardork's
>posts, and the ones I read aren't phrased as a prediction, they're ravings
>about how neat the idea would be.
At that time the treatment had just been presented to Spiner's agent. More than
one treatment in fact.
The original story line was considerably different and much darker than what
actually made it to the screen.
Soong was supposed to become a nasty reoccurring villain on Enterprise.
JD
dad is bad enough without David (Greatest American Hero) competing for the
salon chair. And just think if Kirsty had been available for SfS. She may have
done a few more cameos after that. I think Uhura plumped up enough on her own
to keep inertial dampers busy, another "Fat actress" would have torpedoed the
series even quicker. And the fact that Takei refers to his character as
"Captain" and not just Sulu so his desperation to be bigger than he really is.
JD
Shaun
I was
>watching a clearly overweight Troi and a badly wrinkled Ryker interact
>based on an almost forgetable NTG episode that had little or nothing
to do
>with the Ent plot, as far as I could see.
Marina looked "overweight" to you? Can't say I noticed that. I
thought she looked perfectly fine. Frakes clearly looked bloated,
however, and while he's still a good looking guy he also hasn't aged
well. I thought he looked bad in Nemesis as well, but then nothing
looked good in that turkey of a film. For me, since DS9 ended it's
been pretty much one sad chapter after another as far as Trek is
concerned. And even DS9's final season was something of a
disappointment, IMO. I think ENT was just starting to turn it around
this past season, and I was starting to become interested again. Too
bad it had to end now, and even more unfortunate is the insulting way
this latest series ended.
My wife told me that she read a rumor about a new series in a few years
based on Section 31. While S31 intrigued me on DS9 (and on ENT), I
would just prefer that Paramount, and fandom in general, would just
learn to let go for a good long while.
Peace,
Shaun
Shaun
>Roddenberry had the free hand he'd always wanted. Nor did DS9
Roddenberry was never involved with DS9. It was in the planning
stages, and the basic premise was developed shortly before his death.
Berman and Piller reportedly went to Gene for his blessing (he gave it)
before going forward, but he never had any hand in the show's creation.
TNG did indeed improve over time, but the first year or two were
basically a shakedown cruise. The second season was disrupted when
McFadden was dropped and Muldaur was brought it, but even then things
began to improve. By the third season the show really hit its stride.
I don't know if Berman can be credited as much as the actors finally
began feeling comfortable in their roles, and a very talented writing
staff (people like Ron Moore, Michael Piller, etc.) began to emerge.
Back to DS9, they managed to inherit the good writers and VOY somehow
ended up with mostly the bottom feeders (Braga, for one). I felt like
DS9 really hit the ground running and had a superior first season to
any of the modern Treks. A few clunkers, but it was early on, and by
the end of that first season (which was really only a half-season) I
feel like they'd begun to eclipse TNG in terms of quality. Stuff like
"Duet" and "In the Hands of the Prophets" were exceptionally good! I
definitely enjoyed DS9's second season to TNG's seventh (and last)
season. Probably because the writers had already begun jumping ship
and spending more time on DS9 than TNG.
Peace,
Shaun
David Johnston
>>But TNG never got worse than those first couple of seasons when
>>Roddenberry had the free hand he'd always wanted. Nor did DS9
>
>Roddenberry was never involved with DS9.
I never suggested he was.
Shaun
Fair enough, but you can see how this statement might suggest that you
did:
>>But TNG never got worse than those first couple of seasons when
>>Roddenberry had the free hand he'd always wanted. Nor did DS9.
To me it sounded like you said that DS9 also "never got worse than
those first couple of season when Roddenberry..." yaddah, yaddah. Even
though he died more than a year before DS9's debut I could see how some
might've thought he had some involvement in the show's genesis. As I
mentioend earlier Gene was at least aware of the concept and that
another show was being planned.
Peace,
Shaun
Shaun
the
>>people played those parts, and are so beloved
>So is Sean Connery.
>I humbly suggest more movie watching people loved SC in the role of
Bond then
>loved Shat in the role of Kirk.
Based on what evidence? Have you conducted a scientifc poll? This is
merely idle speculation on your part, and it's irrelevant to what we're
discussing.
Sean Connery is probably considered by many to the best Bond. I would
call him the best Bond too. Then again, I haven't seen a Bond film in
at least 20 years. Mostly because I outgrew them and didn't care
anymore, partly because I had no interest in seeing Timothy Dalton (or
later Pierce Brosnan) in the part. Connery was "The Guy," and while
Roger Moore was passable in the role and had a good sense of humor
while doing it, I never enjoyed him as much as I did Connery. For me,
back when I was into that stuff, Connery was James Bond and no one else
was going to take his place.
Anyhow, I think comparing Bond to Trek is like apples and oranges. Or
martinis (shaken, not stirred) and Tribbles. Bond films revolve around
one character. If you get a handsome British actor who can reasonably
pull off action scenes you can probably cast him as Bond. It's a lot
different to try to recast an entire emsemble to portray a group of
beloved characters and expect this new group to have the same kind of
chemistry that the original crew had. Fans and media alike will pick
any new cast apart and they will inevitably fall short of the
originals. It's a no-win situation.
I mean, does anyone honestly expect this summer's remake of The
Honeymooners to match the comic genius of Gleason and Carney? It might
not matter to younger movie goers who have never seen the original, and
it might not matter to the urban audience the movie is trying to court.
But that's probably OK for a light comedy that's going for mass
appeal. Now take a remake of Star Trek. Who's it going to appeal to
mostly? That's right... STAR TREK fans. Or perhaps sci-fi fans in
general. That's a fairly narrow audience, but a very picky and
demanding audience with fond memories of the original actors. Taking a
new group and expecting them to win over the fans is just ludicrous.
Keep in mind that in the 40 years since Trek was created each of those
TOS characters have been played *one* person and one person only. Each
of the actors is the face of those characters. Over the years I think
each of them has become almost indistinguishable from their characters.
When you think of Connery you might think of Bond, but you might just
as easily think of Indy Jones' dad, or Highlander, or The Untouchables
or Robin Hood or any of a number films Connery's been in. But really,
when you think of Shatner you think of Kirk. Same goes for Nimoy/Spock
or any of the others. Even now, when Shatner's been nominated for (and
even *won*) Emmys and made a lucrative career as a pitchman, he's known
for being Captain Kirk.
Another reason it's probably easier to accept recasting of Bond is that
the Bond character was never a terribly well-rounded character. He's
more of an archetype, or even a stereotype. What makes Bond films work
are a compelling villain, the gadgets, the action, maybe (*maybe*) a
little poltical intrigue, and (of course) the sexy women. No one goes
to a James Bond movies for deep character insights. The one time a
Bond film tried to break the mold and give the character some depth and
introspection ("On Her Majesty's Secret Service") the movie bombed and
audiences rejected George Lazenby (a non-Brit who replaced Connery).
Contrast this with Trek. Trek usually has it's fair share of action,
sfx, socio-political commentary, it's the characters that have always
made Star Trek what it is. The better the characters, the better the
shows. You can't just replace pop culture icons like the TOS cast and
expect it to succeed. They *made* those characters come alive and they
will not be soon forgotten. Alright, I'm done with this topic. I just
hope Paramount isn't stupid enough to actually try this. Nah, they're
not... Are they?
Peace,
Shaun
First-2-Die
> Keep in mind that in the 40 years since Trek was created each of those
> TOS characters have been played *one* person and one person only.
Technically, Kirk has been played by two actors - Shatner, of course, and
the actress that played the part of Janice Lester in the very last TOS
episode.
But I'm with you in spirit.
> or Robin Hood or any of a number films Connery's been in. But really,
> when you think of Shatner you think of Kirk.
I dunno, I'm really starting to see him more as Denny Crane and the voice of
Priceline.com
> Same goes for Nimoy/Spock
You got me there - Nimoy=Spock.
Red Shirt
Toad
>Sean Connery is probably considered by many to the best Bond. I would
>call him the best Bond too. Then again, I haven't seen a Bond film in
>at least 20 years.
No need to read further.
You just admitted you pull your opinions out of your ass.
ANIM8Rfsk
sknav...@aol.com wrote on 5/17/05 9:26 PM:
> Contrast this with Trek. Trek usually has it's fair share of action,
> sfx, socio-political commentary, it's the characters that have always
> made Star Trek what it is. The better the characters, the better the
> shows. You can't just replace pop culture icons like the TOS cast and
> expect it to succeed. They *made* those characters come alive and they
> will not be soon forgotten. Alright, I'm done with this topic. I just
> hope Paramount isn't stupid enough to actually try this. Nah, they're
> not... Are they?
Sure they are. They've been trying it for 30 years. One of Roddenberry's
big fights on ST-TMP was that Paramount wanted to recast with 'movie actors'
Shaun
>You just admitted you pull your opinions out of your ass.
Toad, I've tried to debate and reason with you in an adult manner, but
since you can't even be bothered to read what I have to say, or respond
in a thoughtful discourse all I can say is GO FUCK YOURSELF. No one
here seems to like your idea, so who's the one pulling idea and
opinions out of his ass? Since you couldn't even address my thoughts in
a reasonable way I can only guess that you don't have the intelligence
to repsond. So what if I haven't seen a Bond film in 20 years? I grew
up... That's obviously more than you can say! Harping on this one
statement of mine like little child says a lot about you, and it says
*nothing* about the discussion I was trying to have with you. You
really aren't worth the time I've spent on this thread.
Shaun
Toad
>>No need to read further.
>>You just admitted you pull your opinions out of your ass.
>
>Toad, I've tried to debate and reason with you in an adult manner
That was your second mistake.:)
enova...@aol.com
ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
> in article 1116153379.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, DrJohn at
> drjo...@aol.com wrote on 5/15/05 3:36 AM:
>
> > And I say with the announcement of a live star wars TV show,sheer
> > desperation on Paramonts part will spark a new show.History repeats
> > itself,STTMP was timed in response to Star Wars.
>
> Not at all. They were already working on a new version of TOS when SW came
> out. Paramount, in their infinite wisdom, said "Well, all the sci fi movie
> tickets that will ever be sold have just been sold and nobody will ever want
> to see another sci fi movie" and it took them a while to realize how
> incredibly stupid that stance was.
>
Well technically, back in '76 they were working on a Star Trek film for
the theaters. They didnt have Nimoy so they had another actor as Xon (I
think) to be the new "Spock". His deal was the opposite of Spock. He
was a full Vulcan who wanted to learn to become more human while
serving on a ship full of humans. Then they decided that a feature film
would be a bad idea, since Sci-Fi was mostly dead, so they turned the
film into a pilot for "Star Trek II". Then after Star Wars was a huge
success, Paramount did a 180 and decided that sci-fi could do well in
the box office, so they turned "Trek II" BACK into a film again: STTMP.
Michael
thought Enterprise showed some promise at the beginning. The first
episode wasn't great, but I thought there was something to build on.
Jordan
- Jordan
Mike Dicenso
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Jordan wrote:
> I agree... would it have killed them to have written the speech?
Oddly enough, the speech they should've had in TATLV, was done at the end
of "Terra Prime".... Go figure. :/
-Mike
James Gassaway
news:1117580552.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I agree... would it have killed them to have written the speech?
>
I suspect that the answer is "yes".
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
"Now, quack, damn you!"
Multiversal Mercenaries
You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
ANIM8Rfsk
dtr...@sonic.net wrote on 5/31/05 10:47 PM:
> "Jordan" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1117580552.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I agree... would it have killed them to have written the speech?
>>
>
> I suspect that the answer is "yes".
Then you're saying we wish they had written the speech?
William December Starr
"Jordan" <lu...@earthlink.net> said:
> I agree... would it have killed them to have written the speech?
It probably would have killed us to listen to it.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
ANIM8Rfsk
wds...@panix.com wrote on 6/1/05 12:45 AM:
> In article <1117580552.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jordan" <lu...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> I agree... would it have killed them to have written the speech?
>
> It probably would have killed us to listen to it.
but they'd have died first, and the satisfaction would have brought us back.
James Gassaway
news:BEC2A867.35B88%ANIM...@cox.net...
I assume you are just being a smartass (like me), but for those who don't
get it. The answer is "Yes, writing that speech _would_ have killed the
writers." Now, whether or not I wish they had attempted it is a whole
'nother discussion.
:P
ANIM8Rfsk
dtr...@sonic.net wrote on 6/1/05 11:18 AM:
> "ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:BEC2A867.35B88%ANIM...@cox.net...
>> in article UZbne.2704$W51....@typhoon.sonic.net, James Gassaway at
>> dtr...@sonic.net wrote on 5/31/05 10:47 PM:
>>
>>> "Jordan" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1117580552.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I agree... would it have killed them to have written the speech?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect that the answer is "yes".
>>
>> Then you're saying we wish they had written the speech?
>>
>
> I assume you are just being a smartass (like me), but for those who don't
> get it. The answer is "Yes, writing that speech _would_ have killed the
> writers." Now, whether or not I wish they had attempted it is a whole
> 'nother discussion.
>
> :P
But the beauty of it is, since Kal-El Fan insists ENTERPRISE is 'temporally
mobile' then writing the script will kill B&B at all points in space and
time simultaneously. We'd be spared Enterprise, Voyager, Generations, and
the upcoming Threshold!
Andrea B. Novin
written.....poorly made and had poor characters......I caught maybe a
dozen shows over the series run, mostly Andorian shows. I was not sad to
see Trck go away. B&B killed that golden goose with a battleaxe.
CJW
ANIM8Rfsk
prof...@comcast.net wrote on 6/1/05 2:27 PM:
> NO I saw the pilot....it sucked....it sucked badly...it was poorly
> written.....poorly made and had poor characters......
Wow. You liked 'Broken Bow' a LOT better than I did.
Joe62
>> It probably would have killed us to listen to it.
>
>but they'd have died first, and the satisfaction would have brought us back.
LOL!
Joe