What Really Killed Spider-Man 4? Avatar!
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman, Dr.
Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3. So
how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly enough,
insiders say it was Avatar.
Director Sam Raimi isn't commenting on exactly why he pulled out of
Spider-Man 4; Columbia execs are mum, too. But production insiders
tell Vulture that after seeing James Cameron's fully immersive film,
Raimi wanted all sorts of envelope-pushing CGI (though not 3-D, which
the studio was considering). Such effects would take more money and,
just as crucially, more time. But the studio, whose corporate parent
Sony must answer to Wall Street, had set a strict May 6, 2011 release
date, and missing that date would mean depriving Sony of a billion
dollars in revenue. “Every movie is a power struggle,” explains one
producer on the Sony lot familiar with the fracas. “But the tipping
point was that Sam wanted to do certain things that would push the
envelope in terms of [special effects] ‘toys’ and other visual
stimulation, and Sony didn’t feel that was essential to the
franchise.”
The studio is obviously upset about losing such a huge tent pole, and
yet script issues with Raimi had them nervous about the project
anyway. After three different writers, the Spider-Man 4 script was
still a schizophrenic mess, and according to a knowledgeable
production insider, the Spider-Man story line championed by Raimi
“threatened to torpedo the whole franchise.”
Condensed, it went something like this: Peter Parker gets over MJ,
finds a new girl, falls in love. But: Peter also discovers her father
is actually the Vulture, a naughty green guy with wings to be played
by John Malkovich. Peter is torn between the love of his new lady and
taking down the Vulture. Being a Spandex tight-ass, he decides to take
down the Vulture, and kills him. This patricide goes down poorly with
Peter’s new fiancée, and she rejects him. Despondent, Peter decides to
abandon his superpowers, and Movie No. 4 ends with Peter Parker
throwing away his Spider-Man mask, and audiences wondering if they are
watching Superman II.
Sony’s execs didn’t much care for this dour story line, and its
consumer-products division especially detested the villain who, let’s
face it, is pushing 60. (But hey, John Malkovich, from one Vulture to
another, we think you look great! Really!) Columbia’s toy partner,
Hasbro, also worried that suggesting its main character was packing it
in might hurt future toy sales. And these days, toys are a key revenue
stream, and demand far more forethought than that given to the scripts
of $200 million movies. "This is piecemeal, old-school Hollywood
mentality," says Jeff Gomez, President and CEO of Starlight Runner
Entertainment, which advises studios on how to define their
franchises' universes and mythologies for maximum toysploitation.
(Past clients: Pirates of the Carribean, Transformers: Revenge of the
Fallen, and — wait for it — Avatar!) "Spider-Man belongs to a
millennial generation that demands continuity, and that requires long-
term and careful design. None of that has existed for Spider-Man since
the second movie."
Columbia was about to bring in — yet again — screenwriter Alvin
Sargent (who wrote 2 and 3 and is also the husband of former Spider-
Man producer Laura Ziskin) to fix things, but by that time it was too
late: Raimi had become convinced that even if the script were perfect,
he still couldn't hit Sony’s immovable date, and he was out.
Now the studio is scrambling to find something to play in the summer
of next year, but it also may be relieved to be rid of such a
creatively muddled financial burden. Director Raimi and star Tobey
Maguire were being paid a fifth of the film’s gross, and neither
seemed to have a clue as to what story, exactly, they were telling.
The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her pool
of assistants: “Somebody get me that kid from Twilight on the phone!"
“Which one?”
“Any of ‘em!”
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/01/avatar_killed_spiderman_4_sam.html
Joe Ramirez
<classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"This is piecemeal, old-school Hollywood
> mentality," says Jeff Gomez, President and CEO of Starlight Runner
> Entertainment, which advises studios on how to define their
> franchises' universes and mythologies for maximum toysploitation.
> (Past clients: Pirates of the Carribean, Transformers: Revenge of the
> Fallen, and — wait for it — Avatar!) "Spider-Man belongs to a
> millennial generation that demands continuity, and that requires long-
> term and careful design. None of that has existed for Spider-Man since
> the second movie."
This is actually an excellent point, and suggests that there may not
have been any satisfactory solution to the Spider-Man problem. The
momentum behind the storyline vagaries of "Spider-Man 3" may have
become irresistible to the original creative team, meaning that for
the fourth film, the studio and the fans had to choose between a
meretricious "reboot" and an unpredictable, decadent extension of the
arc in place.
Is there any significant genre film franchise that hasn't "gone
walkabout" after it reached middle age? Both Superman and the first
Batman franchise were somewhat cringe-inducing in their third
installments and then downright risible in their fourths. The first
Star Trek movie run was always hit or miss, but was embarrassingly
wide of the target with episode five. James Bond more or less retained
its dignity until it reached its second decade, but then Cole
"Anything Goes" Porter took over the screenwriting. Even the most
thoroughly mapped-out film series of recent vintage, Harry Potter, has
shown the strain of sticking to the straight and narrow, as
inexplicable, apparently whimsical "adjustments" to the story have
increasingly cropped up in the last couple of movies. Maybe "Spider-
Man 4" was just doomed by franchise entropy.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Back when I was really into the new Battlestar Galactica, I would
listen to all the podcasts by Ron Moore, and picked up some of the
ideas of the way a TV series is run. That is to say that a "show
runner" (also the head writer in this case) maps out the series
arc, writes key episodes and hires the directors. Now granted
plenty of them drop the ball, but doesn't this kind of make sense
for movies? Instead it always seems like you hear of the directors
as the key people, and their "vision" for a particular series entry
may not further the series of movies as a whole...
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
nick
> On Jan 15, 11:40 pm, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
>
> <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"This is piecemeal, old-school Hollywood
> > mentality," says Jeff Gomez, President and CEO of Starlight Runner
> > Entertainment, which advises studios on how to define their
> > franchises' universes and mythologies for maximum toysploitation.
> > (Past clients: Pirates of the Carribean, Transformers: Revenge of the
> > Fallen, and — wait for it — Avatar!) "Spider-Man belongs to a
> > millennial generation that demands continuity, and that requires long-
> > term and careful design. None of that has existed for Spider-Man since
> > the second movie."
>
> This is actually an excellent point, and suggests that there may not
> have been any satisfactory solution to the Spider-Man problem. The
> momentum behind the storyline vagaries of "Spider-Man 3" may have
> become irresistible to the original creative team, meaning that for
> the fourth film, the studio and the fans had to choose between a
> meretricious "reboot" and an unpredictable, decadent extension of the
> arc in place.
>
*rebooting* Spidey back to high school sounds like a move in the right
direction but does that mean we're going to have to suffer yet another
run through of Spider-Man's origin?
rochrist
....
> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her pool
> of assistants: �Somebody get me that kid from Twilight on the phone!"
>
> �Which one?�
>
> �Any of �em!�
>
Put pants on that hedgehog!!!!
Joe Ramirez
Probably. Much of the emotional resonance from a story about a young
superhero comes from the impact on him of the initial change in his
life. One good thing about the Star Trek reboot is that the origin
story had never really been depicted before in canonical detail.
Joe Ramirez
> In article <8907c5dc-d47f-4699-aed8-e5b632420...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Well, they've adopted that approach for the Tolkien films. Peter
Jackson isn't directing the two "Hobbit" movies, but by remaining as
screenwriter and producer, he's clearly asserting a lot of creative
control over the overall project. Of course, it's easier to do this
when the story is adapted from another source.
Ian J. Ball
<2b341ec4-f138-45e7...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Joe Ramirez <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
"Canonical detail"?! You mean the "canon" where they blow up Vulcan
before the first series was even set?!
Yeah, "canonical", right... ;p
--
"There's no business, like Cho business."
- Patrick Jane, "The Mentalist", 02/11/09
Joe Ramirez
> In article
> <2b341ec4-f138-45e7-9b6b-860b80f19...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 7:55 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ditching that terrible sounding Spider-Man 4 plot Raimi cooked up and
> > > *rebooting* Spidey back to high school sounds like a move in the right
> > > direction but does that mean we're going to have to suffer yet another
> > > run through of Spider-Man's origin?
>
> > Probably. Much of the emotional resonance from a story about a young
> > superhero comes from the impact on him of the initial change in his
> > life. One good thing about the Star Trek reboot is that the origin
> > story had never really been depicted before in canonical detail.
>
> "Canonical detail"?! You mean the "canon" where they blow up Vulcan
> before the first series was even set?!
No, I meant that although there are allusions here and there to events
that took place before the Enterprise's first five-year mission, the
"origins" of Kirk & Co. were not fully dramatized by the original
series; hence, no one watching "Star Trek" (2009) could complain about
having to sit through an origin story all over again. Of course, they
could still complain about the origin story's being different from
what it would have been in the canon, as you have just done.
Invid Fan
<t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
> Back when I was really into the new Battlestar Galactica, I would
> listen to all the podcasts by Ron Moore, and picked up some of the
> ideas of the way a TV series is run. That is to say that a "show
> runner" (also the head writer in this case) maps out the series
> arc, writes key episodes and hires the directors. Now granted
> plenty of them drop the ball, but doesn't this kind of make sense
> for movies? Instead it always seems like you hear of the directors
> as the key people, and their "vision" for a particular series entry
> may not further the series of movies as a whole...
>
Given the "movie runner" would just be in charge of one movie every two
years or so, and all the changes to the market and studio bosses that
can happen over that time, how would this be different then the current
job of Producer? Just have him go into movie 1 knowing that if it does
well he'll also be doing movies 2 through the first bomb.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
gerry
> In article <7rdc5jFc8...@mid.individual.net>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Sony is just following the current Hollywood model, where cost cutting
is the norm. Julia Roberts wants too much salary, hire Sandra
Bullock. Mickey Rourke wants to be in Iron Man 2, tell his agent the
salary is $400,000. The cast of X-Men too costly, ditch them and just
hire Hugh Jackman to play one of the X-Men, Wolverine. Save more
money by filming scenes in the woodlands of Canada, saving on set
costs. Or look at the Twilight movies, starring former nobodies in a
low budget picture and making a fortune.
Sony's real brainstorm was to call its new Spider-Man policy a
"reboot." First you boot off the creative staff of the movie to save
money, then you call this policy a "reboot." Before, Hollywood said a
movie that was dropped from production and then picked up was in
turnaround. Sony should just cancel Spider-Man and move on, the
franchise has outlasted its welcome. Three Spider-Man movies were too
much already. Goodbye, Peter Parker.
Dimensional Traveler
> One good thing about the Star Trek reboot is that the origin
> story had never really been depicted before in canonical detail.
And still hasn't.
--
"The Internet lied again!"
Joe Ramirez
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > One good thing about the Star Trek reboot is that the origin
> > story had never really been depicted before in canonical detail.
>
> And still hasn't.
True -- which I suppose means the way is clear for the re-reboot. :)
Mark Nobles
> Three Spider-Man movies were too
> much already. Goodbye, Peter Parker.
Are you out of your Vulcan mind? Spider-man has been around for 50
years. How can that rich a mythology possibly be exhausted in three
movies? Or even 30 movies? And you know, even if it were, how about
reaching into the bag of classic movie tricks and pull out a
"Spider-man vs. The Twilight Kid" (What new powers would a vampire gain
from drinking Spidey's blood?) or "Spider-man on the Day of the Dead"
or "Spider-man at Hogwarts" or a historical motif, "Spider-man vs
Godzilla". (The stomping and spitting fire in New York Godzilla, not
the Godzilla with the fairy twins.) Or "Spider-man and Godzilla Save
the World" with the other Godzilla.
It's not Spidey that's run out of steam, it's producers who spend years
and a quarter billion dollars on state-of-the-art effects and toy deals
with McDonald's and Target, but then try to fit that into a $400
script.
Jim Gysin
Dimensional Traveler sent the following on 1/16/2010 2:00 PM:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> One good thing about the Star Trek reboot is that the origin
>> story had never really been depicted before in canonical detail.
>
> And still hasn't.
Huh? The alternate timeline was introduced prior to JTK's birth, so why
wouldn't the young Kirk and company that we saw growing up be the canon
Kirk and company?
And yeah, I finally coughed up a dollar to Redbox and rented the thing.
And while there are boatloads of weaknesses in it, I can honestly say
that I thought that they got the gist of the connections between the
principals really, really well. And as is often the case, having seen
it, I really think that the promo trailers did it a disservice.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
> In article
> <2b341ec4-f138-45e7-9b6b-860b80f19...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Jan 16, 7:55 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ditching that terrible sounding Spider-Man 4 plot Raimi cooked up and
> > > *rebooting* Spidey back to high school sounds like a move in the right
> > > direction but does that mean we're going to have to suffer yet another
> > > run through of Spider-Man's origin?
>
> > Probably. Much of the emotional resonance from a story about a young
> > superhero comes from the impact on him of the initial change in his
> > life. One good thing about the Star Trek reboot is that the origin
> > story had never really been depicted before in canonical detail.
>
> "Canonical detail"?! You mean the "canon" where they blow up Vulcan
> before the first series was even set?!
>
> Yeah, "canonical", right... ;p
It needed to be done.
Rich
news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>
> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman, Dr.
> Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3. So
> how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly enough,
> insiders say it was Avatar.
>
> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her pool
> of assistants: �Somebody get me that kid from Twilight on the phone!"
You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It worked for
Batman, in spades.
Dimensional Traveler
I vote for an unboot.
Dimensional Traveler
Joe Ramirez
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 3:00 pm, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >>> One good thing about the Star Trek reboot is that the origin
> >>> story had never really been depicted before in canonical detail.
> >> And still hasn't.
>
> > True -- which I suppose means the way is clear for the re-reboot. :)
>
> I vote for an unboot.
"He knows not what he says; and vain is it
That we present us to him."
"Very bootless."
jojo
> On Jan 15, 11:40 pm, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
>
> thoroughly mapped-out film series of recent vintage, Harry Potter, has
> shown the strain of sticking to the straight and narrow, as
> inexplicable, apparently whimsical "adjustments" to the story have
> increasingly cropped up in the last couple of movies. Maybe "Spider-
> Man 4" was just doomed by franchise entropy.
Indeed the last 2 Harry Potter movies have been problematics but they
are still far better than the first two horrible movies.
trotsky
> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>>
>> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman, Dr.
>> Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3. So
>> how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly enough,
>> insiders say it was Avatar.
>>
>
>> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
>> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her pool
> You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It worked for
> Batman, in spades.
Yeah, start calling him "The Dark Spider"--that's the ticket!
nick
> >news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>
> >> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman, Dr.
> >> Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3. So
> >> how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly enough,
> >> insiders say it was Avatar.
>
> >> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
> >> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her pool
>
> > You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It worked for
> > Batman, in spades.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm fed up with DARK superhero movies. Those early Spider-Man comic
books weren't particularly dark or morbid. I say go in the opposite
direction. Call the next one High School Spider-Man and get the
Disney Channel kids on board.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well I, for one, would definitely watch a big screen "Kim Possible" movie...
Dimensional Traveler
> On Jan 17, 1:05 am, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Jan 16, 3:00 pm, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>> One good thing about the Star Trek reboot is that the origin
>>>>> story had never really been depicted before in canonical detail.
>>>> And still hasn't.
>>> True -- which I suppose means the way is clear for the re-reboot. :)
>> I vote for an unboot.
>
> "He knows not what he says; and vain is it
> That we present us to him."
>
> "Very bootless."
So how does my desire to give 'Star Trek (2009)' the Big Boot figure in?
trotsky
> On Jan 17, 9:30 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>>>> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>>>> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman, Dr.
>>>> Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3. So
>>>> how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly enough,
>>>> insiders say it was Avatar.
>>>> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
>>>> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her pool
>>> You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It worked for
>>> Batman, in spades.
>> Yeah, start calling him "The Dark Spider"--that's the ticket!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm fed up with DARK superhero movies. Those early Spider-Man comic
> books weren't particularly dark or morbid. I say go in the opposite
> direction. Call the next one High School Spider-Man and get the
> Disney Channel kids on board.
Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all white.
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>Huh? The alternate timeline was introduced prior to JTK's birth, so why
>wouldn't the young Kirk and company that we saw growing up be the canon
>Kirk and company?
You have that backwards. The timeline changed before (or as) Kirk was
born, so we see a different Kirk in this movie than the one who
existed in the Original Series. This Kirk grew up without a father,
for example, and evidently grew up in a world where Starfleet built a
much larger USS Enterprise in a field in Iowa instead of in San
Francisco.
Spock should be the same Spock until his first years in Starfleet, but
the Kirk he meets is not the same as the original Kirk.
>And yeah, I finally coughed up a dollar to Redbox and rented the thing.
> And while there are boatloads of weaknesses in it, I can honestly say
>that I thought that they got the gist of the connections between the
>principals really, really well. And as is often the case, having seen
>it, I really think that the promo trailers did it a disservice.
It was a good movie, I'm just not sure it was good Star Trek. Killing
off Amanda and blowing up Vulcan? Cadets being promoted to Captain
before they've even graduated from the Academy? That's not the Star
Trek I know. But I don't think anyone at Paramount really cares...
they just want to sell more tickets. To me, its a little like someone
remaking The Wizard of Oz but having Glinda get killed off by the
Wicked Witch of the West and having Dorothy get home because the
Wizard just makes it happen.
Brian
Jim Gysin
Ted Nolan <tednolan> sent the following on 1/17/2010 1:45 PM:
> In article <0f29bec5-76dd-4ba3...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> nick <nickmacp...@AOL.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 9:30 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>>>>> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman, Dr.
>>>>> Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3. So
>>>>> how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly enough,
>>>>> insiders say it was Avatar.
>>>>> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
>>>>> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her pool
>>>> You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It worked for
>>>> Batman, in spades.
>>> Yeah, start calling him "The Dark Spider"--that's the ticket!- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> I'm fed up with DARK superhero movies. Those early Spider-Man comic
>> books weren't particularly dark or morbid. I say go in the opposite
>> direction. Call the next one High School Spider-Man and get the
>> Disney Channel kids on board.
>
> Well I, for one, would definitely watch a big screen "Kim Possible" movie...
That's a sitch I could appreciate!
Rich
news:7rh7m3...@mid.individual.net:
Why not just make a 90 minute long E-surance Ad? Same thing.
Rich
news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com:
> nick wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 9:30 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.co
>>>> m:
>>>>> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>>>>> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman,
>>>>> Dr. Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man
>>>>> 3. So how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly
>>>>> enough, insiders say it was Avatar.
>>>>> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper.
>>>>> You can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at
>>>>> her pool of assistants: �Somebody get me that kid from Twilight on
>>>>> the phone!"
>>>> You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It
>>>> worked for Batman, in spades.
>>> Yeah, start calling him "The Dark Spider"--that's the ticket!- Hide
>>> quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I'm fed up with DARK superhero movies. Those early Spider-Man comic
>> books weren't particularly dark or morbid. I say go in the opposite
>> direction. Call the next one High School Spider-Man and get the
>> Disney Channel kids on board.
>
>
> Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all
> white.
>
Sorry, Eddie Murphy tried to change that...It didn't work.
Dragon Lady
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pr2dnXSeIM5fE8_W...@giganews.com...
Maybe for you. I have yet to watch anything after the first movie.
Dragon Lady
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com...
> nick wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 9:30 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>>>>> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman, Dr.
>>>>> Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3. So
>>>>> how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly enough,
>>>>> insiders say it was Avatar.
>>>>> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
>>>>> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her pool
>>>> You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It worked
>>>> for
>>>> Batman, in spades.
>>> Yeah, start calling him "The Dark Spider"--that's the ticket!- Hide
>>> quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I'm fed up with DARK superhero movies. Those early Spider-Man comic
>> books weren't particularly dark or morbid. I say go in the opposite
>> direction. Call the next one High School Spider-Man and get the
>> Disney Channel kids on board.
>
>
> Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all white.
That's because they're referring to a mood, not skin color. :P
Are there any non-white superheroes? I can't remember any from my comic
book days.
Dimensional Traveler
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com...
>> nick wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 9:30 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>>>>>> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman, Dr.
>>>>>> Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3. So
>>>>>> how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly enough,
>>>>>> insiders say it was Avatar.
>>>>>> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
>>>>>> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her pool
>>>>> You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It worked
>>>>> for
>>>>> Batman, in spades.
>>>> Yeah, start calling him "The Dark Spider"--that's the ticket!- Hide
>>>> quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I'm fed up with DARK superhero movies. Those early Spider-Man comic
>>> books weren't particularly dark or morbid. I say go in the opposite
>>> direction. Call the next one High School Spider-Man and get the
>>> Disney Channel kids on board.
>>
>> Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all white.
>
> That's because they're referring to a mood, not skin color. :P
>
> Are there any non-white superheroes? I can't remember any from my comic
> book days.
>
decades since I read super-hero comics.)
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
The original item is not responsible for whatever rip-offs do..
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Sure. Obviously most have been created post 1964.
Black Lightning
Doctor Light (V2)
Green Lantern
Steel
Luke Cage
Storm
Vibe
Jubilee
Mr. Terrific
Icon
Static Shock
Xombi
There's a number of others that I'm drawing a blank on and that's
not to mention aliens or animated clay (like Wonder Woman).
Dragon Lady
"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b53a2d3$0$1616$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Dragon Lady wrote:
>> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com...
>>> nick wrote:
>>>> On Jan 17, 9:30 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>>> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>>>>>>> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman,
>>>>>>> Dr.
>>>>>>> Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3. So
>>>>>>> how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly enough,
>>>>>>> insiders say it was Avatar.
>>>>>>> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper. You
>>>>>>> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her
>>>>>>> pool
>>>>>> You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It
>>>>>> worked for
>>>>>> Batman, in spades.
>>>>> Yeah, start calling him "The Dark Spider"--that's the ticket!- Hide
>>>>> quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> I'm fed up with DARK superhero movies. Those early Spider-Man comic
>>>> books weren't particularly dark or morbid. I say go in the opposite
>>>> direction. Call the next one High School Spider-Man and get the
>>>> Disney Channel kids on board.
>>>
>>> Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all white.
>>
>> That's because they're referring to a mood, not skin color. :P
>>
>> Are there any non-white superheroes? I can't remember any from my comic
>> book days.
> I seem to recall seeing several but I can't recall names. (Been a few
> decades since I read super-hero comics.)
Me too. I know there were alien superheros in the Legion of Superheros
comics, but I can't remember any non-white earth humans.
Jim Gysin
Brian Thorn sent the following on 1/17/2010 3:15 PM:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:01:12 -0600, Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Huh? The alternate timeline was introduced prior to JTK's birth, so why
>> wouldn't the young Kirk and company that we saw growing up be the canon
>> Kirk and company?
>
> You have that backwards. The timeline changed before (or as) Kirk was
> born,
Presumably the timeline changed when Nero created the black hole, which
clearly occurred before Kirk's birth. Nero's confrontation with Kirk's
father, George, took place *as* Kirk was being born, but I wouldn't
think that that should be the relevant factor.
so we see a different Kirk in this movie than the one who
> existed in the Original Series. This Kirk grew up without a father,
> for example, and evidently grew up in a world where Starfleet built a
> much larger USS Enterprise in a field in Iowa instead of in San
> Francisco.
>
> Spock should be the same Spock until his first years in Starfleet, but
> the Kirk he meets is not the same as the original Kirk.
Yes, assuming that he was already alive at the time of Nero's appearance
(and his role at Star Fleet suggests that he has been around much longer
than Cadet Kirk, which would mean that he was born before Kirk), then I
would agree that Spock now has two timelines.
>> And yeah, I finally coughed up a dollar to Redbox and rented the thing.
>> And while there are boatloads of weaknesses in it, I can honestly say
>> that I thought that they got the gist of the connections between the
>> principals really, really well. And as is often the case, having seen
>> it, I really think that the promo trailers did it a disservice.
>
> It was a good movie, I'm just not sure it was good Star Trek. Killing
> off Amanda and blowing up Vulcan? Cadets being promoted to Captain
> before they've even graduated from the Academy? That's not the Star
> Trek I know.
Agreed. I couldn't help but think that the chain of command on that new
"flagship" was beyond lame if Pike felt justified in making such a
radical promotion of Kirk. It just didn't make an ounce of sense, and
apparently no one on the entire ship had an issue with it.
Of course, Spock in the role of the naughty professor didn't make an
ounce of sense, either. Nor did putting the "flagship" in the hands of
a 17-year-old named Chekov. Etc., etc.
> But I don't think anyone at Paramount really cares...
Not about Trek, at least.
> they just want to sell more tickets.
Bingo.
> To me, its a little like someone
> remaking The Wizard of Oz but having Glinda get killed off by the
> Wicked Witch of the West and having Dorothy get home because the
> Wizard just makes it happen.
It's a clever way to avoid endless headaches from the pedants, though.
(And I count myself as one of the pedants.) A new timeline means that
you can just tell the loud complainers to STFU if and when they start
getting indignant about anything from *after* the black hole.
However, that doesn't address the fact that, prior to the black hole,
Kirk and McCoy knew each other well in Abrams' world, whereas in TOS,
McCoy clearly had no idea of how Kirk had behaved as a cadet. And yet,
the black hole occurred before Kirk's birth, so he shouldn't have two
academy timelines. And that's just once example. So I'll keep bitching
about *some* of the discontinuities. :)
As for time travel, the problem I always have with it is that it
*instantly* creates an endless loop of "do-over" possibilities that make
it impossible to take any threat or challenge to the characters
seriously. At the very least, assuming that they want any dramatic
situation whose resolution isn't immediately obvious from a "do-over"
standpoint, they should at least write their time travel stories in such
a way that it's clear that it's a once-only proposition. Tell us, for
example, that time traveling is something that a ship or a person or
whatever can only do once, or some such thing. There are plenty of
reasons that could be given for such a rule, and it removes the whole,
"Well, let's just time travel again and try this one more time" solution
to everything.
Anim8rFSK
Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:01:12 -0600, Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Huh? The alternate timeline was introduced prior to JTK's birth, so why
> >wouldn't the young Kirk and company that we saw growing up be the canon
> >Kirk and company?
>
> You have that backwards. The timeline changed before (or as) Kirk was
> born, so we see a different Kirk in this movie than the one who
> existed in the Original Series. This Kirk grew up without a father,
> for example, and evidently grew up in a world where Starfleet built a
> much larger USS Enterprise in a field in Iowa instead of in San
> Francisco.
In orbit OVER San Francisco.
>
> Spock should be the same Spock until his first years in Starfleet, but
> the Kirk he meets is not the same as the original Kirk.
Hmm. Why is Spock the same? Shirley whatever shenangins Nero pulled
could have affected Vulcan, and Amanda.
>
> >And yeah, I finally coughed up a dollar to Redbox and rented the thing.
> > And while there are boatloads of weaknesses in it, I can honestly say
> >that I thought that they got the gist of the connections between the
> >principals really, really well. And as is often the case, having seen
> >it, I really think that the promo trailers did it a disservice.
>
> It was a good movie, I'm just not sure it was good Star Trek. Killing
> off Amanda and blowing up Vulcan? Cadets being promoted to Captain
> before they've even graduated from the Academy? That's not the Star
> Trek I know. But I don't think anyone at Paramount really cares...
> they just want to sell more tickets. To me, its a little like someone
> remaking The Wizard of Oz but having Glinda get killed off by the
> Wicked Witch of the West and having Dorothy get home because the
> Wizard just makes it happen.
>
> Brian
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a way to go-go"
Obveeus
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Agreed. I couldn't help but think that the chain of command on that new
> "flagship" was beyond lame if Pike felt justified in making such a radical
> promotion of Kirk. It just didn't make an ounce of sense, and apparently
> no one on the entire ship had an issue with it.
>
> Of course, Spock in the role of the naughty professor didn't make an ounce
> of sense, either. Nor did putting the "flagship" in the hands of a
> 17-year-old named Chekov. Etc., etc.
The reboot was just trying to remain true to the absurdity of the 'kids'
running the Enterprise in the original version. Jean-Luke Piccard made
sense as the Captain of the lead ship in Star Fleet, but the other
Enterprise commanders have all been 'eye candy', not believable commanders.
Anim8rFSK
Anim8rFSK
"Dragon Lady" <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
I'm hard pressed to remember much in the way of Earth humans at all,
beyond the obvious Colossal Boy. I think both Invisible Kids are from
Earth? One White, one Black.
Obveeus
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>> Well I, for one, would definitely watch a big screen "Kim Possible"
>> movie...
>>
>>
>> Ted
>
> Live or animated?
Hopefully animated. Otherwise, it could end up like Aeon Flux.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <ssu6l5lvd7op8adpk...@4ax.com>,
> Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:01:12 -0600, Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Huh? The alternate timeline was introduced prior to JTK's birth, so why
>> >wouldn't the young Kirk and company that we saw growing up be the canon
>> >Kirk and company?
>>
>> You have that backwards. The timeline changed before (or as) Kirk was
>> born, so we see a different Kirk in this movie than the one who
>> existed in the Original Series. This Kirk grew up without a father,
>> for example, and evidently grew up in a world where Starfleet built a
>> much larger USS Enterprise in a field in Iowa instead of in San
>> Francisco.
>
>In orbit OVER San Francisco.
>>
>> Spock should be the same Spock until his first years in Starfleet, but
>> the Kirk he meets is not the same as the original Kirk.
>
>Hmm. Why is Spock the same? Shirley whatever shenangins Nero pulled
>could have affected Vulcan, and Amanda.
>>
Spock is not the same. His father took his side on the event which
had alienated them from each other in the original timeline. That seems
to have made him more comfortable with his human half to the point of being
able to deal with a girlfriend..
Why that happened doesn't seem to be directly Nero related unless you want
to say that his father could have gone either way on the Starfleet question
and Nero affected things enough on the quantum level that the coin came
down on the "support my son" side.
Ted
Professor Bubba
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> I'm hard pressed to remember much in the way of Earth humans at all,
> beyond the obvious Colossal Boy. I think both Invisible Kids are from
> Earth? One White, one Black.
Bouncing Boy was from Earth.
Dan Lanciani
| It's a clever way to avoid endless headaches from the pedants, though.
| (And I count myself as one of the pedants.) A new timeline means that
| you can just tell the loud complainers to STFU if and when they start
| getting indignant about anything from *after* the black hole.
I don't know if this buys them all that much. Yes, they can have people
do (have done) different things, but a new time line in and of itself
doesn't change the nature of the Star Trek universe. Thus they are stuck
with all the technocruft of the franchise. They can say that nobody
discovered x this time around or nobody figured out y, but that will get
tedious. Similarly for discovering things that were unknown in the future
of the original time line.
Of course, there are also important things that must still be around
(for example, the Guardian as many of us pointed out) and the elder
Spock knows about them. So they need to get rid of him ASAP or explain
why he never mentions such things. (Or did they already do this? I
haven't seen the movie.)
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
So far he hasn't seemed to have any qualms about revealing stuff -- in fact
one of the movie's jokes was his giving Kirk the impression that it would
be bad if Spock Prime met New Spock, when in fact that wasn't the case.
I got the impression that he was going off to a colony started by the
surviving Vulcans. While it would certainly be helpful if he filled them
in on the Borg etc, he didn't seem to feel any particular need to re-establish
the "correct" timeline. Of course TOS was a bit schizo on time travel with
the Mirror Universe vs having to "fix" things.
Hieronymus S. Freely
> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>>> Well I, for one, would definitely watch a big screen "Kim Possible"
>>> movie...
> Hopefully animated. Otherwise, it could end up like Aeon Flux.
You mean, with Charlize Theron strutting about and doing acrobatics in a
skintight latex catsuit?
Sign me up!
Jack Bohn
>In article <hj07gg$1kjd$1...@news.telesweet.net>,
>Dragon Lady <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
>>
>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>>news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com...
>>>
>>> Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all white.
>>
>>That's because they're referring to a mood, not skin color. :P
>>
>>Are there any non-white superheroes? I can't remember any from my comic
>>book days.
>>
>>
>
>Sure. Obviously most have been created post 1964.
>
> Black Lightning
> Doctor Light (V2)
> Green Lantern
> Steel
> Luke Cage
> Storm
> Vibe
> Jubilee
> Mr. Terrific
> Icon
> Static Shock
> Xombi
>
>
>There's a number of others that I'm drawing a blank on and that's
>not to mention aliens or animated clay (like Wonder Woman).
Storm and Blade have made it into high-profile movies, Cyborg, as
part of Teen Titans has had about a five-year animated series
recently...
--
-Jack
trotsky
> trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in
> news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com:
>
>> nick wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 9:30 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.co
>>>>> m:
>>>>>> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>>>>>> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman,
>>>>>> Dr. Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man
>>>>>> 3. So how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly
>>>>>> enough, insiders say it was Avatar.
>>>>>> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper.
>>>>>> You can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at
>>>>>> the phone!"
>>>>> You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It
>>>>> worked for Batman, in spades.
>>>> Yeah, start calling him "The Dark Spider"--that's the ticket!- Hide
>>>> quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I'm fed up with DARK superhero movies. Those early Spider-Man comic
>>> books weren't particularly dark or morbid. I say go in the opposite
>>> direction. Call the next one High School Spider-Man and get the
>>> Disney Channel kids on board.
>>
>> Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all
>> white.
>>
>
> Sorry, Eddie Murphy tried to change that...It didn't work.
Rich, do you know anything about anything?
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>> You have that backwards. The timeline changed before (or as) Kirk was
>> born, so we see a different Kirk in this movie than the one who
>> existed in the Original Series. This Kirk grew up without a father,
>> for example, and evidently grew up in a world where Starfleet built a
>> much larger USS Enterprise in a field in Iowa instead of in San
>> Francisco.
>
>In orbit OVER San Francisco.
Nothing canonical stating that. The plaque on the bridge in TOS simply
reads "San Francisco, Calif."
>> Spock should be the same Spock until his first years in Starfleet, but
>> the Kirk he meets is not the same as the original Kirk.
>
>Hmm. Why is Spock the same? Shirley whatever shenangins Nero pulled
>could have affected Vulcan, and Amanda.
Could have, but there is nothing on screen to support that conclusion.
The Spock we see in the early scenes of the movie seems to be the same
one we see in TOS... fighting bullies as Amanda mentions in "Journey
to Babel", choosing Starfleet over the Vulcan Science Academy. But
Kirk is decidely different, stealing and destroying his late father's
car to get back at his abusive stepfather, failing to enlist in
Starfleet until being persuaded to do so by Captain Pike.
Brian
Brian Thorn
<tednolan>) wrote:
>Spock is not the same. His father took his side on the event which
>had alienated them from each other in the original timeline.
In what scene did that happen? We saw Spock refuse admission to the
Vulcan Science Academy, and that was it. No more Spock/Sarek
interaction until after Amanda died.
Brian
Brian Thorn
>The reboot was just trying to remain true to the absurdity of the 'kids'
>running the Enterprise in the original version. Jean-Luke Piccard made
>sense as the Captain of the lead ship in Star Fleet, but the other
>Enterprise commanders have all been 'eye candy', not believable commanders.
What in the world are you talking about?
Captains...
William Shatner: 35 in 1966
Patrick Stewart: 47 in 1987
Avery Brooks: 45 in 1993
Kate Mulgrew: 40 in 1995
Scott Bakuka: 47 in 2001
Chris Pine: 29 in 2009
First Officers...
Leonard Nimoy: 35 in 1966
Jonathan Frakes: 35 in 1987
Nana Visitor: 36 in 1993
Robert Beltran: 42 in 1995
Jolene Blalock: 26 in 2001
Zachary Quinto: 32 in 2009
Kirk was said to be the youngest Captain in Starfleet. 35 is
acceptable for a fast-burner, but 29 is pushing things. Janeway at
Mulgrew's 40 is the next youngest, but 40 (19 years out of the
Academy) is not unusual for command.
Nimoy, Blalock and Quinto played Vulcans who are shown to be much
longer-lived than humans, so their relatively youthful appearance is
acceptable.
I don't see any other "kids" in command.
Brian
Bill Anderson
>> You have that backwards. The timeline changed before (or as) Kirk was
>> born, so we see a different Kirk in this movie than the one who
>> existed in the Original Series. This Kirk grew up without a father,
>> for example, and evidently grew up in a world where Starfleet built a
>> much larger USS Enterprise in a field in Iowa instead of in San
>> Francisco.
>
> In orbit OVER San Francisco.
Viewed technically and strictly speaking and FWIW and point of order Mr.
Chairman, you can't be in orbit OVER San Francisco. You can be in low
earth orbit and pass over San Francisco occasionally. You can be in
geostationary orbit over the equator and remain constantly in view of
San Francisco, at least when the fog lifts, which is pretty seldom, come
to think of it, so you really ought to build the thing over Albuquerque.
But in order to remain directly over San Francisco while above the
atmosphere you'll need some technology that hasn't been invented yet,
and even though it's true you'll be in space, you won't be "in orbit."
Well, OK, yes, you'll still be in orbit around the sun and around the
center of the galaxy and who knows what else, but you won't be in orbit
around the earth.
That's the end of today's lesson, class. Please read chapter 12 for
tomorrow; there may be a pop quiz.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Hmm. I'm pretty sure the way I recall that scene, Spock had already
been accepted by Star Fleet where he had applied as a backup (the
way you might apply to MIT when you have already been accepted at
the state engineering school). The Science Adademy accepted him,
but dissed his mom in the process, so he dropped his Science Academy
application and went with Star Fleet. And I'm pretty sure Sarek
was there at the Science Academy meeting and was supportive of Spock
(after all, his wife had just been dissed). Am I mis-remembering
that?
Anim8rFSK
Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
If you're gonna hit me with canon about the Navy yard in orbit, I'm
hitting you right back with "we don't know ANYTHING about Kirk's youth
other than that he played pranks like dipping little girls pigtails in
inkwells. The first we know of him was that he was serious to the point
of being grim at the Academy. We do know that he can't drive though.
Brian Thorn
<tednolan>) wrote:
>Hmm. I'm pretty sure the way I recall that scene, Spock had already
>been accepted by Star Fleet where he had applied as a backup (the
>way you might apply to MIT when you have already been accepted at
>the state engineering school). The Science Adademy accepted him,
>but dissed his mom in the process, so he dropped his Science Academy
>application and went with Star Fleet. And I'm pretty sure Sarek
>was there at the Science Academy meeting and was supportive of Spock
>(after all, his wife had just been dissed). Am I mis-remembering
>that?
Yes, if you are getting Sarek's blessing out of that scene. There is
nothing in it which suggests the Sarek/Spock disagreement won't
happen, although it is evidently defused with the death of Amanda
later.
Brian
Arthur Lipscomb
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:hj0995$jj0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Brian Thorn sent the following on 1/17/2010 3:15 PM:
>
> It's a clever way to avoid endless headaches from the pedants, though.
> (And I count myself as one of the pedants.) A new timeline means that you
> can just tell the loud complainers to STFU if and when they start getting
> indignant about anything from *after* the black hole.
>
> However, that doesn't address the fact that, prior to the black hole, Kirk
> and McCoy knew each other well in Abrams' world, whereas in TOS, McCoy
> clearly had no idea of how Kirk had behaved as a cadet.
snip
I don't recall if McCoy (or Kirk) ever said they didn't know each other at
the academy but it was McCoy who first mentioned Kirk beat the Kobayashi
Maru test in Star Trek 2. Even if they didn't meet until after the academy
that scene does indicate McCoy was aware of Kirk's academy behavior. Was
there something during the TOS that contradicts that scene from WOK?
Anim8rFSK
Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are of course correct sir. TOS has always used the word 'orbit' in
a way we 20th Century Earthers don't. For instance, "standard orbit" is
within transporter range over a target. Transporter range is two thirds
the distance to geostationary orbit. Clearly the Enterprise is flying,
under power, which makes sense since they almost immediately 'spiral in'
at the first sign of trouble. Unless transporter range was increased
vastly between the series and movies, we have the same problem with the
office complex and space dock in ST-TMP, which is in orbit over San
Francisco, and Kirk beams up to the office, and expects to be able to
beam between San Francisco and Enterprise. I submit that they're still
hovering under power in the movies; look at Star Trek 3 - the INSTANT
the enterprise blows off it's logo, it hurtles into the atmosphere and
burns up.
I seem to vaguely recall that TNG increased transporter range so they
might actually be using the term orbit in some way that makes sense to
us.
Anim8rFSK
Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
Pretty sure Sun Boy was?
Of course, who knows if planets of origin held true through all the
reboots.
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>> >In orbit OVER San Francisco.
>>
>> Nothing canonical stating that. The plaque on the bridge in TOS simply
>> reads "San Francisco, Calif."
>If you're gonna hit me with canon about the Navy yard in orbit,
As others have explained, there is no such thing as "in orbit over San
Francisco." If you want to argue that 23rd Century technology can
magically hold a spacedock always over San Francisco, fine, but that
same technology should be able to lift a Starship off from San
Francisco without much trouble. So call it a draw, science-wise, which
leaves us with the canon of the dedication plaque: California, not
orbit.
>I'm
>hitting you right back with "we don't know ANYTHING about Kirk's youth
>other than that he played pranks like dipping little girls pigtails in
>inkwells. The first we know of him was that he was serious to the point
>of being grim at the Academy. We do know that he can't drive though.
Hmm. I don't see where you're disagreeing with me that this Kirk is
different. This Kirk drives well and is anything but grim at the
Academy.
Spock is another story. He may be different, but from the movie, I
just don't see any evidence of that (until the death of Amanda.) Even
Spock's interest in Uhura is not unprecedented (see Leila Colomi.)
Brian
Jerry Brown
<btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:23:01 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>> You have that backwards. The timeline changed before (or as) Kirk was
>>> born, so we see a different Kirk in this movie than the one who
>>> existed in the Original Series. This Kirk grew up without a father,
>>> for example, and evidently grew up in a world where Starfleet built a
>>> much larger USS Enterprise in a field in Iowa instead of in San
>>> Francisco.
>>
>>In orbit OVER San Francisco.
>
>Nothing canonical stating that. The plaque on the bridge in TOS simply
>reads "San Francisco, Calif."
Maybe that's where the plaque was made.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Obveeus
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:10:52 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>The reboot was just trying to remain true to the absurdity of the 'kids'
>>running the Enterprise in the original version. Jean-Luke Piccard made
>>sense as the Captain of the lead ship in Star Fleet, but the other
>>Enterprise commanders have all been 'eye candy', not believable
>>commanders.
>
> What in the world are you talking about?
> Kirk was said to be the youngest Captain in Starfleet. 35 is
> acceptable for a fast-burner,
No, it isn't. The very first incarnation (ignoring the scrapped pilot) of
this show had Kirk commanding the enterprise at an unbelievably young age.
The movie simply held true to the silliness of the original. Meanwhile,
your use of the actor's age is somewhat misguided anyway since the point is
that Piccard 'looked the part' (agewise) while Shatner did not...regardless
of their actual biological age.
> but 29 is pushing things. Janeway at
> Mulgrew's 40 is the next youngest, but 40 (19 years out of the
> Academy) is not unusual for command.
I very clearly directed the comments at Enterprise, the lead ship in
Starfleet. Of course it is reasonable for people in their 40s to have
reached command level on 'lesser' ships and outposts.
Professor Bubba
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <170120102336416545%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>,
> Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <ANIM8Rfsk-6104F...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm hard pressed to remember much in the way of Earth humans at all,
> > > beyond the obvious Colossal Boy. I think both Invisible Kids are from
> > > Earth? One White, one Black.
> >
> >
> > Bouncing Boy was from Earth.
>
> Pretty sure Sun Boy was?
Yes, he was.
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>> Viewed technically and strictly speaking and FWIW and point of order Mr.
>> Chairman, you can't be in orbit OVER San Francisco.
>You are of course correct sir. TOS has always used the word 'orbit' in
>a way we 20th Century Earthers don't. For instance, "standard orbit" is
>within transporter range over a target.
Did they ever say that? Standard orbit just seems to be a throwaway
line, irrespective of transporter range. The Enterprise was never seen
in stationary orbit, but Kirk & Co. never seem to have to wait for the
Enterprise to orbit back around the planet to be in range to beam up,
for example. I always figured standard orbit was probably something
like equatorial orbit at 200% the planet's diameter, which gets Kirk
away from having to know a planet's size and say "500 mile circular
orbit, Mr. Sulu" and that transporter range was so great that it
usually wasn't a factor in determining orbits.
>Transporter range is two thirds
>the distance to geostationary orbit.
That one is doubtful, as geostationary orbit varies from planet to
planet. It would be lower for Bajor (26 hour days) than Earth, for
example, but transporter range is likely a function of power and
resolution, not planet size or revolution rate. And the visuals (not a
particularly reliable clue, but still) universally show the Enterprise
much, much closer to a planet (including Earth) than 14,000 miles.
>Clearly the Enterprise is flying,
>under power, which makes sense since they almost immediately 'spiral in'
>at the first sign of trouble.
Just once. Psi 2000 had goofy shifting gravity that required the
Enterprise to continually counteract it. The Enterprise in "The Apple"
was being dragged down by some sort of energy beam emitted by Vaal.
"Court Martial" is the only time we had "engines off, spiral in
immediately" syndrome.
>Unless transporter range was increased
>vastly between the series and movies, we have the same problem with the
>office complex and space dock in ST-TMP, which is in orbit over San
>Francisco,
It's in orbit. There is no indication of where. The Earth below is
nondescript throughout ST:TMP. The only time we get a fix on where the
Enterprise is in orbit is in First Contact, through Cochrane's
telescope.
Brian
Brian Thorn
>> Kirk was said to be the youngest Captain in Starfleet. 35 is
>> acceptable for a fast-burner,
>
>No, it isn't. The very first incarnation (ignoring the scrapped pilot) of
>this show had Kirk commanding the enterprise at an unbelievably young age.
Major disconnect here, Obveeus. He was simply said to be the youngest
captain in Starfleet. How does that translate into "unbelievably young
age", especially when portrayed by a 35 year old actor? Remember,
Roddenberry was trying to get Jack Lord (in his 40s) or Lloyd Bridges
(in his 50s) before he settled on Shatner. Kirk replaced Pike, played
by Jeffrey Hunter (43 or so.) Doesn't sound to me like Roddenberry
wanted the C/O to be a kid.
>I very clearly directed the comments at Enterprise, the lead ship in
>Starfleet. Of course it is reasonable for people in their 40s to have
>reached command level on 'lesser' ships and outposts.
So we have Pike, Kirk, Decker, Spock, Picard, Harriman, and Archer.
You call any of those actors kids? The youngest was Stephen Collins at
32. Even Alan Ruck was 38, for heaven's sake. Granted, actors often
play younger characters (and Ruck looked much younger), but if the
producers were going for kids they surely could have found younger
than Collins or Ruck. I wouldn't call anyone out of college a kid,
nevermind someone in their 30s.
The only kid in and 'adult' role in Star Trek was probably Anton
Yeltzin as the new Chekov (18 playing 17 in ST 2009.)
Brian
Harold Groot
<tednolan>) wrote:
There was also the TNG "all possible decisions get made both ways,
with new universes splitting off all the time." You CAN'T "fix"
things in that one since both decisions always get made. All you can
do is choose which version of the multiverse "you" want to live in,
with an "alternate-you" living the "other-decision universe". Spock
might well see no reason to try to fix things since it always happens
ALL ways.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <hj2j9b$bnb$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
> "Brian Thorn" <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:10:52 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The reboot was just trying to remain true to the absurdity of the 'kids'
>>> running the Enterprise in the original version. Jean-Luke Piccard made
>>> sense as the Captain of the lead ship in Star Fleet, but the other
>>> Enterprise commanders have all been 'eye candy', not believable
>>> commanders.
>>
>> What in the world are you talking about?
>
>> Kirk was said to be the youngest Captain in Starfleet. 35 is
>> acceptable for a fast-burner,
>
> No, it isn't. The very first incarnation (ignoring the scrapped pilot) of
> this show had Kirk commanding the enterprise at an unbelievably young age.
You might, just might, want to look up the careers of, oh, Thomas Cochrane,
John Jervis, and Horatio Nelson. Hint: one of them had command of his first
ship by the age of 20 and another was commanding a line of battle ship by 30.
Nor were they the youngest full captains (and admirals!) of their time, just
the most famous. And should they be dismissed as being a product of a distant
time, how about Paul Tibbets, a full Colonel at the age of 29?
> The movie simply held true to the silliness of the original. Meanwhile,
> your use of the actor's age is somewhat misguided anyway since the point is
> that Piccard 'looked the part' (agewise) while Shatner did not...regardless
> of their actual biological age.
>
>> but 29 is pushing things. Janeway at
>> Mulgrew's 40 is the next youngest, but 40 (19 years out of the
>> Academy) is not unusual for command.
>
> I very clearly directed the comments at Enterprise, the lead ship in
> Starfleet. Of course it is reasonable for people in their 40s to have
> reached command level on 'lesser' ships and outposts.
>
At 29, Tibbets was commanding officer of the 509th Bomb Group, and lead pilot
and commander for the first atomic bombing sortie! There's a lot wrong with
_Star Trek (2009)_, but the supposed age of Kirk ain't one! Time and time and
time again there have been men as young or younger running major warships
and/or battlegroups.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Obveeus
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:kal9l5hpi67navo54...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:19:38 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Kirk was said to be the youngest Captain in Starfleet. 35 is
>>> acceptable for a fast-burner,
>>
>>No, it isn't. The very first incarnation (ignoring the scrapped pilot) of
>>this show had Kirk commanding the enterprise at an unbelievably young age.
>
> Major disconnect here, Obveeus. He was simply said to be the youngest
> captain in Starfleet. How does that translate into "unbelievably young
> age", especially when portrayed by a 35 year old actor? Remember,
> Roddenberry was trying to get Jack Lord (in his 40s) or Lloyd Bridges
> (in his 50s) before he settled on Shatner. Kirk replaced Pike, played
> by Jeffrey Hunter (43 or so.) Doesn't sound to me like Roddenberry
> wanted the C/O to be a kid.
So then, Roddenberry agreed that Shatner was too young for the role to be
realistic.
>>I very clearly directed the comments at Enterprise, the lead ship in
>>Starfleet. Of course it is reasonable for people in their 40s to have
>>reached command level on 'lesser' ships and outposts.
> The only kid in and 'adult' role in Star Trek was probably Anton
> Yeltzin as the new Chekov (18 playing 17 in ST 2009.)
You seem entirely caught up in the use of the word 'kid' and are missing the
point. The point was that Shatner was TOO YOUNG to make a realistic head of
command for the lead ship in the fleet. The current reboot didn't do
anything different in that unbelievably than was done in the original
series. Bashing the reboot on the point is silly when the original
committed the crime in the first place. As I said, the reboot is only
staying true to the unbelieveableness of the original.
Obveeus
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:19:38 -0500, Obveeus wrote
>> No, it isn't. The very first incarnation (ignoring the scrapped pilot)
>> of
>> this show had Kirk commanding the enterprise at an unbelievably young
>> age.
>
> You might, just might, want to look up the careers of, oh, Thomas
> Cochrane,
> John Jervis, and Horatio Nelson. Hint: one of them had command of his
> first
> ship by the age of 20 and another was commanding a line of battle ship by
> 30.
> Nor were they the youngest full captains (and admirals!) of their time,
> just
> the most famous. And should they be dismissed as being a product of a
> distant
> time, how about Paul Tibbets, a full Colonel at the age of 29?
None of that is relevant to being the captain on the lead ship of the entire
fleet.
>> The movie simply held true to the silliness of the original. Meanwhile,
>> your use of the actor's age is somewhat misguided anyway since the point
>> is
>> that Piccard 'looked the part' (agewise) while Shatner did
>> not...regardless
>> of their actual biological age.
>>
>>> but 29 is pushing things. Janeway at
>>> Mulgrew's 40 is the next youngest, but 40 (19 years out of the
>>> Academy) is not unusual for command.
>>
>> I very clearly directed the comments at Enterprise, the lead ship in
>> Starfleet. Of course it is reasonable for people in their 40s to have
>> reached command level on 'lesser' ships and outposts.
> There's a lot wrong with _Star Trek (2009)_,
Sure...and there was just as much wrong with the original.
Brian Thorn
>So then, Roddenberry agreed that Shatner was too young for the role to be
>realistic.
Or you're completely misunderstanding what age Roddenberry wanted Kirk
to be. NBC didn't force Shatner on Roddenberry, so my money is on
Roddenberry was satified Shatner was close to the desired age.
>You seem entirely caught up in the use of the word 'kid' and are missing the
>point. The point was that Shatner was TOO YOUNG to make a realistic head of
>command for the lead ship in the fleet.
I disagree, or Roddenberry would not have hired him.
>The current reboot didn't do
>anything different in that unbelievably than was done in the original
>series. Bashing the reboot on the point is silly when the original
>committed the crime in the first place. As I said, the reboot is only
>staying true to the unbelieveableness of the original.
I disagree. No matter what age we think Kirk is supposed to be, in TOS
he had served on the Republic and the Farragut prior to taking command
of the Enterprise. Kirk in ST 2009 takes command of the Enterprise
before officially having graduated from Starfleet Academy or serving
on any other starship.
Brian
Brian Thorn
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>At 29, Tibbets was commanding officer of the 509th Bomb Group, and lead pilot
>and commander for the first atomic bombing sortie! There's a lot wrong with
>_Star Trek (2009)_, but the supposed age of Kirk ain't one! Time and time and
>time again there have been men as young or younger running major warships
>and/or battlegroups.
It isn't Kirk's age that is a problem (Pine is 29, Kirk is 23 or so)
but the experience. In TOS, Kirk had served on the USS Republic
("Court Martial") and the USS Farragut ("Obsession") prior to getting
his own command. In ST 2009, Kirk gets command before even graduating
from the Academy.
Brian
Jim Gysin
Brian Thorn sent the following on 1/18/2010 11:28 AM:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:10:52 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The reboot was just trying to remain true to the absurdity of the 'kids'
>> running the Enterprise in the original version. Jean-Luke Piccard made
>> sense as the Captain of the lead ship in Star Fleet, but the other
>> Enterprise commanders have all been 'eye candy', not believable commanders.
>
> What in the world are you talking about?
>
> Captains...
> William Shatner: 35 in 1966
> Patrick Stewart: 47 in 1987
> Avery Brooks: 45 in 1993
> Kate Mulgrew: 40 in 1995
> Scott Bakuka: 47 in 2001
> Chris Pine: 29 in 2009
>
> First Officers...
> Leonard Nimoy: 35 in 1966
> Jonathan Frakes: 35 in 1987
> Nana Visitor: 36 in 1993
> Robert Beltran: 42 in 1995
> Jolene Blalock: 26 in 2001
> Zachary Quinto: 32 in 2009
>
> Kirk was said to be the youngest Captain in Starfleet. 35 is
> acceptable for a fast-burner, but 29 is pushing things.
What about 25? Depending on how long Spock Prime was hanging out in the
Wampa's cave on Hoth, JJ's Kirk could have been as young as 25. We know
that Nero waited 25 years for Spock to make it through the black hole,
and we know that Kirk was born right after Nero's appearance. So Kirk
would have been 25 when Spock Prime showed up, and if Spock Prime had
just arrived and was only in that cave for a matter of days or weeks or
months...
Was any mention ever made of how long Spock Prime had been hanging
around in "our" time before Kirk crossed paths with him?
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Jim Gysin
Arthur Lipscomb sent the following on 1/18/2010 1:40 PM:
In one TOS episode, McCoy asked Kirk what he, Kirk, was like in his
academy days, and Kirk said that he was "grim." So JJ got both the
history of the two wrong as well as Kirk's personality as a student.
'Cuz the JJ Kirk I saw was hardly "grim."
Having said that, I did love the way Chris Pine played Kirk when he
cheated the Kobayashi Maru test. Classic, and the apple was a nice
touch. The same goes for the moment when Spock, sounding like a parent
speaking to a child, told Kirk (who was not yet in command) to get out
of the command chair on the Big E.
Again, there were some good moments, but there were a lot of frustrating
things that could have been easily avoided, too.
TBerk
> Are there any non-white superheroes? I can't remember any from my comic
> book days.
Are you serious?
- T'Challa, kink of Wakanda aka Black Panther
- Falcon
- Iron Fist
- Luke Cage, hero for hire
- Storm and a whole host of other X-Men and offshoots of same, (you
know, the one they had in the movies?)
That's just off the top of my head and doesn't include any DC universe
folk, or those who took over a given superhero persona, thereby
changing the given ethnicity.
If I take a little more time recalling and/or looking up I could
likely come up with a whole bunch more.
berk
Hieronymus S. Freely
> In ST 2009, Kirk gets command before even graduating
> from the Academy.
It's a battlefield promotion after half the fleet got wiped out. That
kind of thing's been known to happen in real life.
Hieronymus S. Freely
> Depending on how long Spock Prime was hanging out in the
> Wampa's cave on Hoth
Error: wrong universe.
You're thinking of Star Wars.
Hieronymus S. Freely
> In one TOS episode, McCoy asked Kirk what he, Kirk, was like in his
> academy days, and Kirk said that he was "grim." So JJ got both the
> history of the two wrong as well as Kirk's personality as a student.
> 'Cuz the JJ Kirk I saw was hardly "grim."
Nero altered the timeline. These differences are directly attributable
to those alterations.
The changes in Kirk's personality are the most obviously so, but
consider also that the circumstances of his recruitment into Starfleet
changed. In the original timeline he would not have bumped into McCoy on
that particular shuttle. Apparently, instead he first met him some years
later.
Michael Bowker
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:19:38 -0500, Obveeus wrote
>>> No, it isn't. The very first incarnation (ignoring the scrapped pilot)
>>> of
>>> this show had Kirk commanding the enterprise at an unbelievably young
>>> age.
>> You might, just might, want to look up the careers of, oh, Thomas
>> Cochrane,
>> John Jervis, and Horatio Nelson. Hint: one of them had command of his
>> first
>> ship by the age of 20 and another was commanding a line of battle ship by
>> 30.
>> Nor were they the youngest full captains (and admirals!) of their time,
>> just
>> the most famous. And should they be dismissed as being a product of a
>> distant
>> time, how about Paul Tibbets, a full Colonel at the age of 29?
>
> None of that is relevant to being the captain on the lead ship of the entire
> fleet.
What's this lead ship of a fleet thing? Kirk was a Starship commander,
one of only twelve people. There wasn't any fleet command by the
Enterprise. In fact the only time the Enterprise was part of a fleet it
was commanded by Sulu. Weseley and Decker were Commodore's which
clearly outrank Kirk. In TOS there was no indication of any special
position of the Enterprise above being a Starship.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <hj2o2c$bie$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:19:38 -0500, Obveeus wrote
>>> No, it isn't. The very first incarnation (ignoring the scrapped pilot)
>>> of
>>> this show had Kirk commanding the enterprise at an unbelievably young
>>> age.
>>
>> You might, just might, want to look up the careers of, oh, Thomas
>> Cochrane,
>> John Jervis, and Horatio Nelson. Hint: one of them had command of his
>> first
>> ship by the age of 20 and another was commanding a line of battle ship by
>> 30.
>> Nor were they the youngest full captains (and admirals!) of their time,
>> just
>> the most famous. And should they be dismissed as being a product of a
>> distant
>> time, how about Paul Tibbets, a full Colonel at the age of 29?
>
> None of that is relevant to being the captain on the lead ship of the entire
> fleet.
You haven't even _looked_ at Cochrane's career, have you?
>
> >> The movie simply held true to the silliness of the original. Meanwhile,
>>> your use of the actor's age is somewhat misguided anyway since the point
>>> is
>>> that Piccard 'looked the part' (agewise) while Shatner did
>>> not...regardless
>>> of their actual biological age.
>>>
>>>> but 29 is pushing things. Janeway at
>>>> Mulgrew's 40 is the next youngest, but 40 (19 years out of the
>>>> Academy) is not unusual for command.
>>>
>>> I very clearly directed the comments at Enterprise, the lead ship in
>>> Starfleet. Of course it is reasonable for people in their 40s to have
>>> reached command level on 'lesser' ships and outposts.
>
>> There's a lot wrong with _Star Trek (2009)_,
>
> Sure...and there was just as much wrong with the original.
And the putative age of Kirk ain't one of the things wrong.
Anim8rFSK
Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:42:08 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Viewed technically and strictly speaking and FWIW and point of order Mr.
> >> Chairman, you can't be in orbit OVER San Francisco.
>
> >You are of course correct sir. TOS has always used the word 'orbit' in
> >a way we 20th Century Earthers don't. For instance, "standard orbit" is
> >within transporter range over a target.
>
> Did they ever say that? Standard orbit just seems to be a throwaway
> line, irrespective of transporter range. The Enterprise was never seen
> in stationary orbit, but Kirk & Co. never seem to have to wait for the
> Enterprise to orbit back around the planet to be in range to beam up,
The ISS Enterprise however did have targets move out of phaser lock.
> for example. I always figured standard orbit was probably something
> like equatorial orbit at 200% the planet's diameter, which gets Kirk
> away from having to know a planet's size and say "500 mile circular
> orbit, Mr. Sulu" and that transporter range was so great that it
> usually wasn't a factor in determining orbits.
>
> >Transporter range is two thirds
> >the distance to geostationary orbit.
>
> That one is doubtful, as geostationary orbit varies from planet to
I should have said "Earth" there; you are of course correct. Max trans
range for the TOS E is 16,000 miles.
> planet. It would be lower for Bajor (26 hour days) than Earth, for
> example, but transporter range is likely a function of power and
> resolution, not planet size or revolution rate. And the visuals (not a
> particularly reliable clue, but still) universally show the Enterprise
> much, much closer to a planet (including Earth) than 14,000 miles.
>
> >Clearly the Enterprise is flying,
> >under power, which makes sense since they almost immediately 'spiral in'
> >at the first sign of trouble.
>
> Just once. Psi 2000 had goofy shifting gravity that required the
> Enterprise to continually counteract it. The Enterprise in "The Apple"
> was being dragged down by some sort of energy beam emitted by Vaal.
> "Court Martial" is the only time we had "engines off, spiral in
> immediately" syndrome.
>
> >Unless transporter range was increased
> >vastly between the series and movies, we have the same problem with the
> >office complex and space dock in ST-TMP, which is in orbit over San
> >Francisco,
>
> It's in orbit. There is no indication of where. The Earth below is
I think that's from the novel. If it's not over San Francisco, then it
only gets worse that Kirk can transport there from San Francisco. :)
> nondescript throughout ST:TMP. The only time we get a fix on where the
> Enterprise is in orbit is in First Contact, through Cochrane's
> telescope.
>
> Brian
--
Anim8rFSK
J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:41:15 -0500, Obveeus wrote
> (in article <hj2o2c$bie$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
> >
> > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:19:38 -0500, Obveeus wrote
> >>> No, it isn't. The very first incarnation (ignoring the scrapped pilot)
> >>> of
> >>> this show had Kirk commanding the enterprise at an unbelievably young
> >>> age.
> >>
> >> You might, just might, want to look up the careers of, oh, Thomas
> >> Cochrane,
> >> John Jervis, and Horatio Nelson. Hint: one of them had command of his
> >> first
> >> ship by the age of 20 and another was commanding a line of battle ship by
> >> 30.
> >> Nor were they the youngest full captains (and admirals!) of their time,
> >> just
> >> the most famous. And should they be dismissed as being a product of a
> >> distant
> >> time, how about Paul Tibbets, a full Colonel at the age of 29?
> >
> > None of that is relevant to being the captain on the lead ship of the
> > entire
> > fleet.
>
> You haven't even _looked_ at Cochrane's career, have you?
He lived on Alpha Centari and discovered the space warp.
Joe Pfeiffer
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:41:15 -0500, Obveeus wrote
> (in article <hj2o2c$bie$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>>
>> None of that is relevant to being the captain on the lead ship of the entire
>> fleet.
>
> You haven't even _looked_ at Cochrane's career, have you?
Maybe he hasn't but I have -- and the age at which one became a post
captain in 1800 (or thereabouts) seems pretty irrelevant to the age at
which one would become a naval captain today, which in turn seems quite
a stretch in guessing when one might become a starship captain in the
23rd century.
All the same, becoming a captain at 35 seems iffy but not impossible,
especially when a point was made about how extraordinary Kirk was to
have achieved it.
And whatever a reasonable age might be, the jump in ranks the new movie
had for just about everyone concerned was ridiculous. I thoroughly
enjoyed the movie, I just wish it had a plot that made even a tiny
amount of sense....
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Dimensional Traveler
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:19:38 -0500, Obveeus wrote
>>> No, it isn't. The very first incarnation (ignoring the scrapped pilot)
>>> of
>>> this show had Kirk commanding the enterprise at an unbelievably young
>>> age.
>> You might, just might, want to look up the careers of, oh, Thomas
>> Cochrane,
>> John Jervis, and Horatio Nelson. Hint: one of them had command of his
>> first
>> ship by the age of 20 and another was commanding a line of battle ship by
>> 30.
>> Nor were they the youngest full captains (and admirals!) of their time,
>> just
>> the most famous. And should they be dismissed as being a product of a
>> distant
>> time, how about Paul Tibbets, a full Colonel at the age of 29?
>
> None of that is relevant to being the captain on the lead ship of the entire
> fleet.
>
--
"The Internet lied again!"
Brian Thorn
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> None of that is relevant to being the captain on the lead ship of the entire
>> fleet.
>>
>Who says Enterprise was the titular flagship in Kirk's time?
In TOS, that was never stated. In ST2009, Pike said it was.
Brian
Professor Bubba
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> I think that's from the novel. If it's not over San Francisco, then it
> only gets worse that Kirk can transport there from San Francisco. :)
A system of lower-orbit relay satellites would take care of the
distance problem. In fact, I'd expect people to be able to transport
from Earth to the Moon using relays.
The real problem would be in rationing transporter time. The
frequencies around Earth would be jammed around the clock with priority
traffic.
Dragon Lady
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-6104F...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
> In article <hj08pe$1m00$1...@news.telesweet.net>,
> "Dragon Lady" <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
>
>> "Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b53a2d3$0$1616$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> > Dragon Lady wrote:
>> >> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com...
>> >>> nick wrote:
>> >>>> On Jan 17, 9:30 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> Rich wrote:
>> >>>>>> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>> news:6ecfa9f8-7fa6-4472...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>>> By: Claude Brodesser-Akner
>> >>>>>>> The Green Goblin couldn't kill Spider-Man. Nor could the Sandman,
>> >>>>>>> Dr.
>> >>>>>>> Octopus, or even that anticlimactic black goo from Spider-Man 3.
>> >>>>>>> So
>> >>>>>>> how was Tobey Maguire's webslinger finally squashed? Oddly
>> >>>>>>> enough,
>> >>>>>>> insiders say it was Avatar.
>> >>>>>>> The planned reboot with younger talent will be far, far cheaper.
>> >>>>>>> You
>> >>>>>>> can almost imagine Columbia chairman Amy Pascal screaming at her
>> >>>>>>> pool
>> >>>>>>> of assistants: "Somebody get me that kid from Twilight on the
>> >>>>>>> phone!"
>> >>>>>> You want to "re-boot"Spiderman? Make it LESS PG and DARKER. It
>> >>>>>> worked for
>> >>>>>> Batman, in spades.
>> >>>>> Yeah, start calling him "The Dark Spider"--that's the ticket!- Hide
>> >>>>> quoted text -
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> >>>> I'm fed up with DARK superhero movies. Those early Spider-Man comic
>> >>>> books weren't particularly dark or morbid. I say go in the opposite
>> >>>> direction. Call the next one High School Spider-Man and get the
>> >>>> Disney Channel kids on board.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all
>> >>> white.
>> >>
>> >> That's because they're referring to a mood, not skin color. :P
>> >>
>> >> Are there any non-white superheroes? I can't remember any from my
>> >> comic
>> >> book days.
>> > decades since I read super-hero comics.)
>>
>> Me too. I know there were alien superheros in the Legion of Superheros
>> comics, but I can't remember any non-white earth humans.
>
> I'm hard pressed to remember much in the way of Earth humans at all,
> beyond the obvious Colossal Boy. I think both Invisible Kids are from
> Earth? One White, one Black.
Er...I only remember one Invisible Kid, and he was white. It's been so long
since I read those comics, I can't even remember half the characters, and
the ones I do remember were all aliens.
Dragon Lady
"TBerk" <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c21d53d5-94cb-432f...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, you're getting past my time now. I never read X-Men comics, so I only
know those characters from the movies - and I tend to forget they came from
comics. :P I've heard of Iron Fist and Luke Cage - and that's about it -
don't know anything about them. And I've never even heard of T'challa and
Falcon until now.
berk
Dragon Lady
"Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:e3r9l51k3d7gkkosk...@4ax.com...
> Ted Nolan wrote:
>
>>In article <hj07gg$1kjd$1...@news.telesweet.net>,
>>Dragon Lady <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's because they're referring to a mood, not skin color. :P
>>>
>>>book days.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Black Lightning
>> Doctor Light (V2)
>> Green Lantern
The Green Lantern I knew was white. Although come to think of it, there
were other Green Lanterns - and some of them weren't. Of course, they also
weren't from Earth, IIRC.
>> Steel
>> Luke Cage
>> Storm
>> Vibe
>> Jubilee
>> Mr. Terrific
>> Icon
>> Static Shock
>> Xombi
>>
>>
>>There's a number of others that I'm drawing a blank on and that's
>>not to mention aliens or animated clay (like Wonder Woman).
Huh? Wonder Woman was an Amazon in my day. Earth human, white woman, came
from a secret island, had a magic lasso and an invisible plane.
>
> Storm and Blade have made it into high-profile movies, Cyborg, as
> part of Teen Titans has had about a five-year animated series
> recently...
>
> --
> -Jack
>
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Dragon Lady <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
>
>"Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
>news:e3r9l51k3d7gkkosk...@4ax.com...
>> Ted Nolan wrote:
>>
>>>In article <hj07gg$1kjd$1...@news.telesweet.net>,
>>>Dragon Lady <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all white.
>>>>
>>>>That's because they're referring to a mood, not skin color. :P
>>>>
>>>>Are there any non-white superheroes? I can't remember any from my comic
>>>>book days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sure. Obviously most have been created post 1964.
>>>
>>> Black Lightning
>>> Doctor Light (V2)
>>> Green Lantern
>
>The Green Lantern I knew was white. Although come to think of it, there
>were other Green Lanterns - and some of them weren't. Of course, they also
>weren't from Earth, IIRC.
Both the original 1940s GL (Alan Scott) and the 1960s revival (Hal Jordan)
are white, but at various times while Hal was off being crazy or dead, John
Stewart (who is black) has been the primary Green Lantern of Earth's space
sector. (There are other GLs of other sectors as well).
>>>
>>>There's a number of others that I'm drawing a blank on and that's
>>>not to mention aliens or animated clay (like Wonder Woman).
>
>Huh? Wonder Woman was an Amazon in my day. Earth human, white woman, came
>from a secret island, had a magic lasso and an invisible plane.
>
Nope. The Amazons are mostly white Mediterranean (Greek-ish) types, but
while WW *looks* that way, she was a clay "baby" brought to life by
the Greek gods when the Amazon queen wanted a child (no men on the island,
so no babies by the normal method..). At least once she's been killed
and broken down to the original clay. (She got better..).
And of course the big guy, Superman, gets counted as white usually, but
isn't even human..
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Dragon Lady
"Ted Nolan <tednolan>" <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in message
news:7rl1jc...@mid.individual.net...
The 1960s version would probably be the one I remember.
You know, I vaugely remember that. Very vaugely, as in I probably read one
comic that had him in it. :P >
>>>>
>>>>There's a number of others that I'm drawing a blank on and that's
>>>>not to mention aliens or animated clay (like Wonder Woman).
>>
>>Huh? Wonder Woman was an Amazon in my day. Earth human, white woman,
>>came
>>from a secret island, had a magic lasso and an invisible plane.
>>
>
> Nope. The Amazons are mostly white Mediterranean (Greek-ish) types, but
> while WW *looks* that way, she was a clay "baby" brought to life by
> the Greek gods when the Amazon queen wanted a child (no men on the island,
> so no babies by the normal method..). At least once she's been killed
> and broken down to the original clay. (She got better..).
She may have been Mediterranean, but she was certainly drawn as a white
woman. I'd completely forgotten that was how they got their "babies",
though. It's probably been something like 40 years since I read those
stories.
>
> And of course the big guy, Superman, gets counted as white usually, but
> isn't even human..
Heh. If the aliens aren't drawn as whites, they are usually green.
Dimensional Traveler
wasn't the Enterprise just commissioned in ST2009? (Not that it really
matters, I've got enough other issues with *ahem* the movie.)
Jack Bohn
>As others have explained, there is no such thing as "in orbit over San
>Francisco." If you want to argue that 23rd Century technology can
>magically hold a spacedock always over San Francisco, fine, but that
>same technology should be able to lift a Starship off from San
>Francisco without much trouble. So call it a draw, science-wise, which
There is the proposed statite, which could hover over any point
on Earth, so it's not too far into magic. (It has its own
problems in that the current proposal relies on solar sails, so
to be able to fight the gravity of Earth we'd have to place it
far out where the gravity is weaker -- even farther than
geosynchronous.)
--
-Jack
Obveeus
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> In one TOS episode, McCoy asked Kirk what he, Kirk, was like in his
> academy days, and Kirk said that he was "grim." So JJ got both the
> history of the two wrong as well as Kirk's personality as a student.
> 'Cuz the JJ Kirk I saw was hardly "grim."
The term 'series reboot' makes your use of the word 'wrong' above somewhat
illogical.
Anim8rFSK
"Dragon Lady" <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
There's a replacement. He was black, from New Orleans I think.
Anim8rFSK
"Dragon Lady" <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
T'Challa shouldn't be past your time; he's the original Black Panther
from Fantastic Four, and he predates the organization of the same name.
Anim8rFSK
"Dragon Lady" <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
> "Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:e3r9l51k3d7gkkosk...@4ax.com...
> > Ted Nolan wrote:
> >
> >>In article <hj07gg$1kjd$1...@news.telesweet.net>,
> >>Dragon Lady <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:5IKdnQqtuPJB587W...@mchsi.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> Ironically, they call the tone "dark" but the characters are all white.
> >>>
> >>>That's because they're referring to a mood, not skin color. :P
> >>>
> >>>Are there any non-white superheroes? I can't remember any from my comic
> >>>book days.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Sure. Obviously most have been created post 1964.
> >>
> >> Black Lightning
> >> Doctor Light (V2)
> >> Green Lantern
>
> The Green Lantern I knew was white. Although come to think of it, there
> were other Green Lanterns - and some of them weren't. Of course, they also
> weren't from Earth, IIRC.
There are several Earth GLs now. One, John Stewart, is black.
>
> >> Steel
> >> Luke Cage
> >> Storm
> >> Vibe
> >> Jubilee
> >> Mr. Terrific
> >> Icon
> >> Static Shock
> >> Xombi
> >>
> >>
> >>There's a number of others that I'm drawing a blank on and that's
> >>not to mention aliens or animated clay (like Wonder Woman).
>
> Huh? Wonder Woman was an Amazon in my day. Earth human, white woman, came
> from a secret island, had a magic lasso and an invisible plane.
She was never human. She's a magical construct, made of clay, given
life by the Gods, 'cause, you know, all women on Paradise Island. Makes
it hard to procreate.
>
> >
> > Storm and Blade have made it into high-profile movies, Cyborg, as
> > part of Teen Titans has had about a five-year animated series
> > recently...
> >
> > --
> > -Jack
> >
--
Anim8rFSK
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> And of course the big guy, Superman, gets counted as white usually, but
> isn't even human..
I dunno. If he can impregnate Lois, how much more 'human' does he have
to be?
Anim8rFSK
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
It wasn't, in Kirk's time or anyone else's time, unless it had an
Admiral aboard.
Anim8rFSK
Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Well, then, Orci is even more stupid than I thought.
Anim8rFSK
Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
They actually said something about transporter rations on Earth on Deep
Space Nine, but it was for Academy cadets, so I was never sure if it
applied globally or not. But they've got flying transports and travel
tubes on the Golden Gate bridge, so there must be some limitation, be it
cost or frequency allocation or whatever.