Star Trek: A Dying Vision
UD11...@ndsuvm1.bitnet
I have just browsed through the Star Trek net and once again felt a pang
of sadness.
There is a serious problem here, folks. If a few simple things are not
done, Star Trek will die.
The problem is simple: No one seems to want to take anything seriously.
Yes, I know, Star Trek is light entertainment (and yes, btw, I do have a life,)
but it could be (and was) more than that. Nowhere is the problem to which I
refer more evident than in the simple area of continuity.
If I remeber correctly, roughly 6 years ago, some of the better Star Trek
novelists came together in an attempt to organize the ST history. Yes, even
then, there was quite a bit of "this happened, this did not..." but at least
they took a stand. Also, at that time FASA HAD THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO ST
and what was printed was APPROVED BY RODENBERRY. All in all, there was an a
strong attempt by those involved to clean up the mythos and provide those who
would come later with a sense of history, so that Star Trek was inherintly
consistent.
Sadly, this is no longer the case.
It seems that, once Rodenberry found himself embroiled with the new series,
he reallized that he might actually have to work to ensure internal
consistency. So, what did the Great Bird of the Galaxy do? Immediately
proclaimed only what was on film as being canon, thus saving his neck.
Okay, so that was a pisser. At least he took a logical stand.
Well, that changed all too soon. Suddenly, talk that major characters
would die in the next ST film brought on the following paramount comment:
Nothing is canon. Add to that all of the internal inconsistencies with
the new series (all of which could be avoided if someone simply took a
stand) and you get the feeling that the show is slowly rotting from the
inside out, consumed by opportunism and greed, with more than a little
laziness thrown in.
The reason I am writing this is that I just got done reading messages
arguing that a) the character seen in the ST:TNG pilot was NOT Dr. Mccoy
(c'mon! Who the hell was he then? Don't give me that "just because his
name wasn't said..." garbage. Use your heads, guys. It was Mccoy. Period)
and b) why aren't starships named after old series characters, to which
Michael Rawdon replied (essentially) 'well, they really did not do anything
That important'(paraphrasing, admittadly, but that was the thrust.)
Then what was the point of designating Enterprise NCC-1701-D? C'mon!
The fact that people spend an enormous amount of nettime arguing these
points is sad. Not because they do (and Michael: I admire the fact that
you stick to your guns...at least SOMEONE does...) but necause ol' swivel
hips Rodenberry can't be bothered to be consistent with his own damned
series.
I could also start complaining that Mr. Rodenberry's heavy-handed
management is killing the show (yep...the man can't be bothered with
internal consistency but he CAN be bothered when an interesting character
development idea comes along...) or how his utopian universe has extended
from "silly" to "absurd" (an exploration vessel that is stuck on patrol...
children on a vessel without gaurdians...a non-combatant field-commisioned
with only OJT and the limited training facilities of a starship for back
ground...) but I have wasted a lot of netspace already. Suffice it to
say that something needs to be done...and soon. The show demands--and
deserves--it.
Thank you for your time.
Tony Bruno ud118950@ndsuvm1 "C'mon, Mav, do some of that
University of North Dakota pilot sh*t..."
(701)-772-2599 --Goose, _Top Gun_
Michael Rawdon
> There is a serious problem here, folks. If a few simple things are not
>done, Star Trek will die.
> The problem is simple: No one seems to want to take anything seriously.
>Yes, I know, Star Trek is light entertainment (and yes, btw, I do have a life,)
>but it could be (and was) more than that. Nowhere is the problem to which I
>refer more evident than in the simple area of continuity.
My first thought upon reading this is that continuity is certainly very,
very far down the list of concerns at DC Comics, and yet they're doing
fantastically well in the comic book market right now. Likewise, TNG is
doing extremely well in the syndicated TV market, and there do seem to be
plans to make a Star Trek VI movie. I don't think Star trek is going away
any time in the near future.
> If I remeber correctly, roughly 6 years ago, some of the better Star Trek
>novelists came together in an attempt to organize the ST history. Yes, even
>then, there was quite a bit of "this happened, this did not..." but at least
>they took a stand. Also, at that time FASA HAD THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO ST
I'm sure this news would come as quite a surprise to both Task Force Games
(more precisely, the Amarillo Design Board) and DC Comics, both of whom
were publishing Star Trek related materials at the time.
>and what was printed was APPROVED BY RODENBERRY.
As you are no doubt aware, I feel that Roddenberry is not qualified to
control Star Trek's creative direction, nor do I think he has been
since at least before ST:TMP, from what I've seen of his 'handiwork'.
> All in all, there was an a
>strong attempt by those involved to clean up the mythos and provide those who
>would come later with a sense of history, so that Star Trek was inherintly
>consistent.
> Sadly, this is no longer the case.
True.
> It seems that, once Rodenberry found himself embroiled with the new series,
>he reallized that he might actually have to work to ensure internal
>consistency. So, what did the Great Bird of the Galaxy do? Immediately
>proclaimed only what was on film as being canon, thus saving his neck.
> Okay, so that was a pisser. At least he took a logical stand.
Well, it's certainly a stand I agree with.
> Well, that changed all too soon. Suddenly, talk that major characters
>would die in the next ST film brought on the following paramount comment:
>Nothing is canon.
Really? When did they say this? From some comments Peter David made a few
months ago, this certainly does not seem to be the case anymore.
> Add to that all of the internal inconsistencies with
>the new series (all of which could be avoided if someone simply took a
>stand) and you get the feeling that the show is slowly rotting from the
>inside out, consumed by opportunism and greed, with more than a little
>laziness thrown in.
Actually, I rather feel that the quality of TNG has risen sharply in
recent months (directly proportional to the oil prices, you might say :-).
Yes, internal consistency and cause-and-effect is negligible in Star Trek
nowadays, but I don't watch Trek anymore expecting it to have continuity
and rationality. That's clearly beyond either the desires or the ability
of the creators of TNG.
> The reason I am writing this is that I just got done reading messages
>arguing that a) the character seen in the ST:TNG pilot was NOT Dr. Mccoy
>(c'mon! Who the hell was he then? Don't give me that "just because his
>name wasn't said..." garbage. Use your heads, guys. It was Mccoy. Period)
>and b) why aren't starships named after old series characters, to which
>Michael Rawdon replied (essentially) 'well, they really did not do anything
>That important'(paraphrasing, admittadly, but that was the thrust.)
>Then what was the point of designating Enterprise NCC-1701-D? C'mon!
That is NOT what I said, or even "the thrust" of what I said. I said
(citing events in "The Naked Now" for support) that Kirk and company are
not famous in the 24th century, for whatever reason.
I can come up with several good reasons for designating the new Enterprise
NCC-1701-D. I can point to the events surrounding the NCC-1701-C, or I
can come up with any number of imaginary reasons (for example: they named it
for Chris Pike's ship - wouldn't that be a delicious irony?).
I would also point out that the Enterprise is not the ONLY Starfleet vessel
which continues the name and number of older vessels. At least two others
(the Hood and the Yamato) do as well. There is also a Constellation class
starship. I'd further mention that the TOS Enterprise was not the first
ship to bear that name in the Trek universe, as Star Trek IV pointed out.
> The fact that people spend an enormous amount of nettime arguing these
>points is sad. Not because they do (and Michael: I admire the fact that
>you stick to your guns...at least SOMEONE does...) but necause ol' swivel
>hips Rodenberry can't be bothered to be consistent with his own damned
>series.
Actually, I think it's more Paramount's series than Roddenberry's, but I
would rather like to see him jettisoned for good.
> I could also start complaining that Mr. Rodenberry's heavy-handed
>management is killing the show (yep...the man can't be bothered with
>internal consistency but he CAN be bothered when an interesting character
>development idea comes along...) or how his utopian universe has extended
>from "silly" to "absurd" (an exploration vessel that is stuck on patrol...
>children on a vessel without gaurdians...a non-combatant field-commisioned
>with only OJT and the limited training facilities of a starship for back
>ground...) but I have wasted a lot of netspace already. Suffice it to
>say that something needs to be done...and soon. The show demands--and
>deserves--it.
Again, I don't think the show is in any danger of dying, and, truth to tell,
if it did, I wouldn't especially care. TNG has yet to win my heart in the
way that TOS, TAS and the movies did, but regardless of what happens to
TNG, the fantastic body of film work that has already been created under
the "Star Trek" banner will remain, and I can enjoy much of THAT for
decades to come (even after ghod knows how many dozens of viewings, Star Trek
II and "The Doomsday Machine" still manage to move me like no TNG episode
has ever come close to doing).
The long and the short of it is: What's been done is done. If TNG suddenly
decides to make a concerted effort to "win me over" so to speak, that's fine.
I'm not holding my breath, however, and I don't have enough of a stake in
the state of Star Trek in the 1990s to really give a damn where it goes
from here.
--
Michael Rawdon
Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu | Knowledge may be power, but
Usenet: rex!rawdon.uucp | withholding knowledge can be a
Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM | dangerous thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions mine, typos and grammar errors someone else's.
Kenneth Holden Chang
> There is a serious problem here, folks. If a few simple things are not
>done, Star Trek will die.
that the present season is the best one so far.
> If I remeber correctly, roughly 6 years ago, some of the better Star Trek
>novelists came together in an attempt to organize the ST history. Yes, even
>then, there was quite a bit of "this happened, this did not..." but at least
>they took a stand. Also, at that time FASA HAD THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO ST
>and what was printed was APPROVED BY RODENBERRY. All in all, there was an a
>strong attempt by those involved to clean up the mythos and provide those who
>would come later with a sense of history, so that Star Trek was inherintly
>consistent.
>
> Sadly, this is no longer the case.
>
> It seems that, once Rodenberry found himself embroiled with the new series,
>he realized that he might actually have to work to ensure internal
>consistency. So, what did the Great Bird of the Galaxy do? Immediately
>proclaimed only what was on film as being canon, thus saving his neck.
David Gerrold, who was a consultant the first season of TNG, put it quite
simply: "Frankly, none of us have read all of the books." (From 1987 Boskone)
It strikes me as a reasonable policy too: Would you require all the writers
to read all of the novels before writing scripts? Just hire a continuity
editor? I think the results would be stories by committee as they tried to
reconcile everything with everything and I don't think it's worth the effort
The books can only restrict ideas. You can't use the background/events
from the books in the series because most viewers haven't read the books.
>
> Well, that changed all too soon. Suddenly, talk that major characters
>would die in the next ST film brought on the following paramount comment:
>Nothing is canon.
Did anyone actually say *nothing* is canon?
>Add to that all of the internal inconsistencies with
>the new series (all of which could be avoided if someone simply took a
>stand) and you get the feeling that the show is slowly rotting from the
>inside out, consumed by opportunism and greed, with more than a little
>laziness thrown in.
If it were *that* bad, no one would watch it. It's much better than it was
three years ago. And to me, it seems fairly obvious that they're trying to
do the best job they can and not, as you imply, there just to cash in the
Star Trek mystique.
> The reason I am writing this is that I just got done reading messages
>arguing that a) the character seen in the ST:TNG pilot was NOT Dr. Mccoy
>(c'mon! Who the hell was he then? Don't give me that "just because his
>name wasn't said..." garbage. Use your heads, guys. It was Mccoy. Period)
It was obviously meant to be McCoy though it was never stated explicitly.
The question is: what if Nicholas Meyer had this killer story idea for
Star Trek VI that required the death of McCoy? Would you a) revise the
story so that McCoy lives but probably diminish the story's impact, b)
ditch the story or c) live with a minor discontinuity?
>and b) why aren't starships named after old series characters, to which
>Michael Rawdon replied (essentially) 'well, they really did not do anything
>That important'(paraphrasing, admittadly, but that was the thrust.)
>Then what was the point of designating Enterprise NCC-1701-D? C'mon!
Naming a ship after one of the old characters would be a throwaway detail
in "tribute" to the old series. The problem is that it would probably be more
jarring and distracting than throwaway as many viewers would probably start
thinking, "Well, that means Kirk (or whomever) is dead now, I wonder how he
died, when he died and doesn't he deserve something bigger than that
dinky little scout ship, etc." And in process of thinking all this, the
viewer would miss what's actually going on in the episode.
>
> The fact that people spend an enormous amount of nettime arguing these
>points is sad. Not because they do (and Michael: I admire the fact that
>you stick to your guns...at least SOMEONE does...) but necause ol' swivel
>hips Rodenberry can't be bothered to be consistent with his own damned
>series.
Oh hell, you try maintaining continuity in your own science fiction series.
The problem with keeping it all straight is that (by necessity) they're
making it up as they go along. Exactly what are the capabilities of a
transporter? It can reverse genetic damage in Dr. Pulaski but apparently
not remove an explosive implant in Ishara Yar. What is the social structure
of the Borg? The writers don't know either, and the details will emerge as
they work on new stories. They don't work out all the details before writing
a story because they don't have the time. And it would also be very limiting.
The downside is that sometimes it doesn't all make perfect sense.
Sometimes they do a downright bad job. But it's not trivial.
>
> I could also start complaining that Mr. Rodenberry's heavy-handed
>management is killing the show (yep...the man can't be bothered with
>internal consistency but he CAN be bothered when an interesting character
>development idea comes along...) or how his utopian universe has extended
>from "silly" to "absurd" (an exploration vessel that is stuck on patrol...
>children on a vessel without gaurdians...a non-combatant field-commisioned
>with only OJT and the limited training facilities of a starship for back
>ground...) but I have wasted a lot of netspace already. Suffice it to
>say that something needs to be done...and soon. The show demands--and
>deserves--it.
>
What do you want to do? Impeach Roddenberry? I agree with a couple common
criticisms of TNG: 1) putting families on board was a stupid idea, but at
this point, it's too late to retcon it, and 2) they don't do enough exploring.
In other respects, I find TNG much more realistic than its predecessor.
First, the endings are no longer always so neat. A grandiose speech no longer
is sufficient to solve a thorny political problem. One reason I liked "Legacy"
more than most people on the net is because the ending is fairly tragic for
Ishara. She has clearly made the wrong choice, is returning to hellhole of
a world and forsaken what she admits to the "closest thing to friendship
I have ever known." (or something to that effect). If it had been a TOS
episode, Kirk would have just romanced her, talked her out of blowing up
the fusion generator and then she goes to the academy.
Anyway, the criticism "something needs to be done ...and soon" sounds like
that of Congress. Everyone "knows" they're all rascals, that any lame-brain
idiot could do a better job, but no one really knows of a much better way
to do things.
TNG could always do better, but I don't think it needs a complete overhaul
(when in itself would entail massive continuity breaks). They're working to
improve the writing and acting and I think they have this year.
--
*****************************************************************************
Kenneth Chang * khcg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Center for Complex Systems Research * or
University of Illinois * k...@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu
*****************************************************************************
UD11...@ndsuvm1.bitnet
With regards to your comments:
A. If any lame-brain idiot can point out the problem, then how is it
professional writers 1. miss the problem and 2. fail to do something about
it? I agree that in some ways the series has improved since last season,
but that does not mean I do not want it to be better.
As a corrallary to this, with regards to your McCoy comment: If
Nicholas Meyer can not be bothered to write a script that remains
consistent even with what is on film, then that in itself makes my point
more than pages of my--or any body else's--ranting.
B. I am not asking that the writers "read all the books..." (or any of them
for that matter.) All I ask is that the series remain consistent with
itself. As a simple solution, a continuity editor would not be a bad
idea. Just someone would keep storylines and timelines consistent.
C. I noticed that my previous posting may have left the wring impression.
I really enjoy ST:TNG. However, this does not blind me to it's short-
comings. Admittadly, it is infintely better than most of the "It does not
have to be good, it just has to be tuesday..." garbage that smothers
the airwaves, but it still could be improved. Unfortunately, it seems
that anytime Mr. Roddenberry is challenged over any point about the
show, he reivents the wheel to suit the purpose. I hardly call that
professional and that is the basis of my complaint with the show.
D. I agree with the assesment that any ships encountered with TOS
character names would be a distraction. I do not, however, readily
agree with the explenations that NCC-1701-D was named as a tribute to
the "C" model, as has been suggested. As I recall, David Gerrold
stated that NCC-1701-D was in direct tribute to "A" model and thus
Jim Kirk's Enterprise.
E. A quick closing statement. The reason I wrote the first message was
that it seemed to me that ST is riddled with a hardening of the
arteries. I would hate that to be so. I thing TNG is an exellent show
that is just on the brink of being something extraordinary. I agree
that it is in some ways more realistic (all you have to do is watch 10
minutes of Kirk followed by 10 minutes of Picard to determine that,)
but it could still be improved. The kind of complacency exhibited by
the writers in general and the production staff as a whole is inherintly
dangerous, and should be addressed.
And of course, I close with an old bit of family wisdom.
All of what is written, of course, is an opinion, and as my father used
to say:
"Opinions are like *ssholes; everybody has them and they all stink."
thank you for your time.
Michael Rawdon
>In article <90313.1850...@NDSUVM1.BITNET> <UD11...@NDSUVM1.BITNET> writes:
>David Gerrold, who was a consultant the first season of TNG, put it quite
>simply: "Frankly, none of us have read all of the books." (From 1987 Boskone)
>It strikes me as a reasonable policy too: Would you require all the writers
>to read all of the novels before writing scripts?
I personally think there are a few such books which should be tossed
into the transporter and beamed on wide dispersal. _Enterprise_ comes to
mind.
> Just hire a continuity
>editor? I think the results would be stories by committee as they tried to
>reconcile everything with everything and I don't think it's worth the effort
>The books can only restrict ideas. You can't use the background/events
>from the books in the series because most viewers haven't read the books.
Nor do some want to.
>>Add to that all of the internal inconsistencies with
>>the new series (all of which could be avoided if someone simply took a
>>stand) and you get the feeling that the show is slowly rotting from the
>>inside out, consumed by opportunism and greed, with more than a little
>>laziness thrown in.
>If it were *that* bad, no one would watch it. It's much better than it was
>three years ago. And to me, it seems fairly obvious that they're trying to
>do the best job they can and not, as you imply, there just to cash in the
>Star Trek mystique.
I disagree. I think that at least 75% of the drive behind the production
of TNG has to do with cashing in. TNG is truly a show of the '80s: it's
there to make money and little else, for the most part.
>> I could also start complaining that Mr. Rodenberry's heavy-handed
>>management is killing the show (yep...the man can't be bothered with
>>internal consistency but he CAN be bothered when an interesting character
>>development idea comes along...) or how his utopian universe has extended
>>from "silly" to "absurd" (an exploration vessel that is stuck on patrol...
>>children on a vessel without gaurdians...a non-combatant field-commisioned
>>with only OJT and the limited training facilities of a starship for back
>>ground...) but I have wasted a lot of netspace already. Suffice it to
>>say that something needs to be done...and soon. The show demands--and
>>deserves--it.
>What do you want to do? Impeach Roddenberry?
No, prevent him from having any input into the series.
> I agree with a couple common
>criticisms of TNG: 1) putting families on board was a stupid idea, but at
>this point, it's too late to retcon it, and 2) they don't do enough exploring.
Actually, I wouldn't care if they don't do any exploring, as long as the
stories are good.
>In other respects, I find TNG much more realistic than its predecessor.
Realism != good television, remember.
>First, the endings are no longer always so neat. A grandiose speech no longer
>is sufficient to solve a thorny political problem. One reason I liked "Legacy"
>more than most people on the net is because the ending is fairly tragic for
>Ishara. She has clearly made the wrong choice, is returning to hellhole of
>a world and forsaken what she admits to the "closest thing to friendship
>I have ever known." (or something to that effect). If it had been a TOS
>episode, Kirk would have just romanced her, talked her out of blowing up
>the fusion generator and then she goes to the academy.
Ah, we obviously have someone with a very shaky grasp of TOS here, who
prefers to look at the show with a slanted view. You might consider
watching "A Taste of Armageddon" (for starters) to see how wrong you are.
"City On The Edge Of Forever" might be another good one. Neither of
those had especially neat endings.
If elements in "Legacy" had had any semblance of verisimilitude whatsoever,
then the episode might have been a good one. As it was, it was below
average.
>Anyway, the criticism "something needs to be done ...and soon" sounds like
>that of Congress. Everyone "knows" they're all rascals, that any lame-brain
>idiot could do a better job, but no one really knows of a much better way
>to do things.
Hey, if Paramount would care to give me creative control over TNG, I'll
be more than happy to do something.
>TNG could always do better, but I don't think it needs a complete overhaul
>(when in itself would entail massive continuity breaks). They're working to
>improve the writing and acting and I think they have this year.
This is true, but I think they could still do better.
Kenneth Holden Chang
> What do you want to do? Impeach Roddenberry?
to which Michael Rawdon replied
>No, prevent him from having any input into the series.
to which I ask: Didn't have input in TOS (he did create it)
and the movies and why was his involvement good then and not now?
>
>Ah, we obviously have someone with a very shaky grasp of TOS here, who
>prefers to look at the show with a slanted view. You might consider
>watching "A Taste of Armageddon" (for starters) to see how wrong you are.
>"City On The Edge Of Forever" might be another good one. Neither of
>those had especially neat endings.
>
Unfortunately, I don't have a good grasp of TOS episode titles, so I don't
remember which one "A Taste of Armageddon" is. I agree that "City on the
Edge of Forever" doesn't have a happy ending, but it does have closure (no
loose ends and no connections with other episodes). It is also one of the
best TOS episodes. However, I also remember the one where Kirk starts reading
the Declaration of Independence (?!!) and all the listeners are appropriately
awed. I was of course making a sweeping generalization, and here's another one:
in TOS, there was never an intractable problem; Kirk was always able to talk,
fight, romance his way out of trouble and the resolution was always the Best
of All Possible Worlds. That's why I love The Wrath of Khan, where Kirk screws
up, deals with the guilt therefrom and has some real honest-to-goodness doubts
about himself, and why STV was so disappointing; all the character development
has vaporized and we're back to the infallible Kirk. (Well, there were other
problems, too.)
Atsushi Kanamori
>In previous article I wrote:
>> What do you want to do? Impeach Roddenberry?
>
>to which Michael Rawdon replied
>>No, prevent him from having any input into the series.
>
>to which I ask: Didn't have input in TOS (he did create it)
>and the movies and why was his involvement good then and not now?
TOS: Yes, with stinkbombs like RETURN OF THE ARCHONS and SAVAGE CURTAIN.
Movies: Only movie he had any significant input on was STAR TREK: THE
MOTIONLESS PICTURE.
Case closed.
: : . . : :
: : : :.:: : :.. .:
::::::::::.: :::::::
------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From Yesterday's Enterprise To Reunion ("Warriors do not
ask so many questions." - Worf)
Yiannis Papelis
> With regards to your comments:
>
> A. If any lame-brain idiot can point out the problem, then how is it
> professional writers 1. miss the problem and 2. fail to do something about
> it? I agree that in some ways the series has improved since last season,
> but that does not mean I do not want it to be better.
For whatever my opinion is worth, I have to agree here.
One of the reasons I love star trek is because it (tries) to maintain
consistency within it, something very hard on a sci-fi series where
things like traveling at warp 9, or 'beaming' people all over is
a 'reality'. At the same time, there is a certain ST mentality that
has propagated up to today in the series. It is that history,
that ST mentality that is maintained through-out the years
that makes trek what it is - a great sci-fi series. Of course, on a
series that has gone on for so long and has spawned 5 (6 soon ? :-) movies
and tens of novels, it is very hard (impossible ?) to avoid a 'mistake'
here and there. After all finding all these 'mistakes' is half the fun of
watching the show (and discussing it on the net the next day(s)).
However big blunders are very hard to shallow.
> B. I am not asking that the writers "read all the books..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I disagree here, (maybe I agree too much), you SHOULD be asking that the
writers read all the books, see all the movies, watch old episods and
know ST history. These guys are paid to do this, it is their job.
I'm a grad student and each time I write a paper or research report I have
to read thousands of pages of things that have happened before relevant
to my current work, try to gain from them and EXTEND them.
With consistency being such a big issue in ST, it is part of the
writers' job to assure
that the series remain consistent with itself.
> All I ask is that the series remain consistent with itself.
(identation is intentional :-)
--
Yiannis E. Papelis -------- Electrical & Computer Engineering
yia...@eng.uiowa.edu -------- University of Iowa
Kenneth Holden Chang
bad influence on Star Trek when in fact he created it.
In article <1990Nov12....@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kana...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>
>TOS: Yes, with stinkbombs like RETURN OF THE ARCHONS and SAVAGE CURTAIN.
>Movies: Only movie he had any significant input on was STAR TREK: THE
> MOTIONLESS PICTURE.
>
>Case closed.
>
Was Roddenbury on vacation when they did "Trouble with Tribbles," "City
on the Edge of Forever," and the other TOS episodes you love? I would think
he would have had considerable influence over everything during the TOS
years, too.
Ryan D Mathews
Here's my two cents:
I don't believe that continuity is currently a "problem". Yes there
are inconsistencies (and they drive me up the wall), but so far I
haven't seen any real large ones, i.e. ones that can't be explained
away without too much frantic hand-waving.
Indeed I have to say that the opposite is the problem. Ask Peter
David, who has to submit every script for the ST comic book to the
Paramount continuity police and has had more than one good story-line
nixed because the powers that be decided certain characters and races
"didn't exist".
I can't believe that McCoy will die in the next movie. I hope that
Paramount has more class than that. I will be severely disappointed in
them if they expect us to believe that McCoy was never on the "D" even
after we all saw him there. However the first poster on the subject
did not mention Bones death, so I hope it was a mistake.
But hey guys, if we don't want McCoy to die, he doesn't have to! Think
about it, folks. Why did Paramount drop the "academy script"? Because
irate fans deluged them with letters, that's why! We can do the same
thing to save McCoy's life.
No?
---------- Ryan Mathews
--
Internet : mat...@cs.buffalo.edu
Bitnet : mathews@sunybcs
UUCP :{apple,cornell,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,talcott,ucbvax,uunet}!
cs.buffalo.edu!mathews
EAO...@psuvm.psu.edu
What academy script?
Atsushi Kanamori
>I posted a question asking why some people think why Roddenbury is such a
>bad influence on Star Trek when in fact he created it.
>
>In article <1990Nov12....@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kana...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>
>>TOS: Yes, with stinkbombs like RETURN OF THE ARCHONS and SAVAGE CURTAIN.
>>Movies: Only movie he had any significant input on was STAR TREK: THE
>> MOTIONLESS PICTURE.
>>
>>Case closed.
>>
>Was Roddenbury on vacation when they did "Trouble with Tribbles," "City
>on the Edge of Forever," and the other TOS episodes you love? I would think
>he would have had considerable influence over everything during the TOS
>years, too.
>--
Probably :-)
True - he got Star Trek off the ground but comparing his output with the
the output of the other writers on the show leads me to believe that he
ran out of creative gas sometime around the second season of TOS. Take
a look at NG: most people think that the quality of the show is distinctly
proportional the season number: while Gene's involvement has been
distinctly inversely proportional to said season number.
Roddenberry's writing LACKS the good characterization that made the Big
Three so important to the original series's popularity - and often shows
a bothersome preoccupation with sex. The Trek novels that bear his
recommendation on the back cover are among the most putrid of the series.
The one Trek novel that he wrote (ST:TMP) is a sorry piece of writing -
even considering the material he had to work with.
Michael Rawdon
>In previous article I wrote:
>> What do you want to do? Impeach Roddenberry?
>to which Michael Rawdon replied
>>No, prevent him from having any input into the series.
>to which I ask: Didn't have input in TOS (he did create it)
>and the movies and why was his involvement good then and not now?
Yes, he was involved. As for why his involvement was good then and not
now, I really have no idea. You may as well ask me why Isaac Asimov's
early work was good and most of his current writing sucks (IMHO, of course),
or why John Byrne used to turn out high quality comic book material, and
just can't any more. I really don't know. Maybe they just get complacent
and are unwilling to try anything substantially new.
>>Ah, we obviously have someone with a very shaky grasp of TOS here, who
>>prefers to look at the show with a slanted view. You might consider
>>watching "A Taste of Armageddon" (for starters) to see how wrong you are.
>>"City On The Edge Of Forever" might be another good one. Neither of
>>those had especially neat endings.
>Unfortunately, I don't have a good grasp of TOS episode titles, so I don't
>remember which one "A Taste of Armageddon" is.
The one with the two planets fighting a war by computer.
> I agree that "City on the
>Edge of Forever" doesn't have a happy ending, but it does have closure (no
>loose ends and no connections with other episodes). It is also one of the
>best TOS episodes.
It's not so much that it doesn't have a happy ending, but that the ending
is bittersweet. Kirk has to make a trade-off, to decide what's REALLY
important, not just to him, but to other people as well.
> However, I also remember the one where Kirk starts reading
>the Declaration of Independence (?!!) and all the listeners are appropriately
>awed.
"The Omega Glory" was a vaguely interesting little morality play, but the
final product didn't really fit into the scheme of Star Trek as it had
evolved at that time (it was based on a Roddenberry script which was one of
the three original proposals for TOS-Kirk pilot episodes, and thus was
rather outdated).
> I was of course making a sweeping generalization, and here's another one:
>in TOS, there was never an intractable problem; Kirk was always able to talk,
>fight, romance his way out of trouble and the resolution was always the Best
>of All Possible Worlds.
I fail to see how Matt Decker's or Gary Mitchell's deaths were part of "The
Best Of All Possible Worlds". The ending of "The Menagerie" was also rather
bittersweet (largely because the premise was bittersweet; there was NO WAY
Pike was going to be magically cured and return to human society, so he
had to settle for second-best). I can even pick out some less successful
episodes, such as "The Way To Eden" (the "space hippy" episode) which
weren't all sweetness and light.
Basically, you're right: you're making a sweeping generalization which
is, essentially, wrong.
> That's why I love The Wrath of Khan, where Kirk screws
>up, deals with the guilt therefrom and has some real honest-to-goodness doubts
>about himself, and why STV was so disappointing; all the character development
>has vaporized and we're back to the infallible Kirk. (Well, there were other
>problems, too.)
I certainly agree with Trek II, which is easily the most complex and
thematically successful Star Trek story to date (indeed, for me it
succeeds on all levels like no other science fiction film work has).
I haven't seen Star trek V (and it's a quite deliberate decision on my
part, I assure you :-)
Michael Rawdon
>I posted a question asking why some people think why Roddenbury is such a
>bad influence on Star Trek when in fact he created it.
>In article <1990Nov12....@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kana...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>TOS: Yes, with stinkbombs like RETURN OF THE ARCHONS and SAVAGE CURTAIN.
>>Movies: Only movie he had any significant input on was STAR TREK: THE
>> MOTIONLESS PICTURE.
>Was Roddenbury on vacation when they did "Trouble with Tribbles," "City
>on the Edge of Forever," and the other TOS episodes you love? I would think
>he would have had considerable influence over everything during the TOS
>years, too.
Actually, I think his influence during the second season (which included
both of the episodes you mention, as well as "Amok Time" and some
other notables, if I recall correctly) was fairly minimial. One of his
bargaining chips to get TOS back on the air for the third season was
that he'd take a more direct hand in the show if NBC would give the show
a good time slot. They didn't and he didn't (and look what happened).
Michael Rawdon
>Roddenberry's writing LACKS the good characterization that made the Big
>Three so important to the original series's popularity - and often shows
>a bothersome preoccupation with sex. The Trek novels that bear his
>recommendation on the back cover are among the most putrid of the series.
>The one Trek novel that he wrote (ST:TMP) is a sorry piece of writing -
>even considering the material he had to work with.
Actually, didn't Roddenberry write "The Cage"? That's always been one of
my favorite episodes precisely because the characterization of Chris
Pike is so strong. "The Menagerie" was pretty good, too, and I think
he did that one.
Out of curiosity, did Roddenberry really write the TMP novel, or did he
write it the same way George Lucas wrote the Star Wars novel (i.e., have
Alan Dean Foster ghost-write it)?
Atsushi Kanamori
>In <1990Nov12.1...@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kana...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>Roddenberry's writing LACKS the good characterization that made the Big
>>Three so important to the original series's popularity - and often shows
>>a bothersome preoccupation with sex. The Trek novels that bear his
>>recommendation on the back cover are among the most putrid of the series.
>>The one Trek novel that he wrote (ST:TMP) is a sorry piece of writing -
>>even considering the material he had to work with.
>
>Actually, didn't Roddenberry write "The Cage"? That's always been one of
>my favorite episodes precisely because the characterization of Chris
>Pike is so strong. "The Menagerie" was pretty good, too, and I think
>he did that one.
Sure, he produced some good ones when he really tried - my point was that
lately, he hasn't (produced good stuff, that is.) The CAGE was all right,
I thought. Haven't seen MENAGERIE so I can't comment on that.
>Out of curiosity, did Roddenberry really write the TMP novel, or did he
>write it the same way George Lucas wrote the Star Wars novel (i.e., have
>Alan Dean Foster ghost-write it)?
His name's on the cover and it contains an intro purportedly written
by Roddenberry. While this is no proof that there isn't a spectre
lurking behind the scenes, in the lack of notice to the contrary, I opt
to believe that Roddenberry did write the novel.
Michael Rawdon
>In article <49...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1990Nov12.1...@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kana...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>>Roddenberry's writing LACKS the good characterization that made the Big
>>>Three so important to the original series's popularity - and often shows
>>>a bothersome preoccupation with sex.
>>Actually, didn't Roddenberry write "The Cage"? That's always been one of
>>my favorite episodes precisely because the characterization of Chris
>>Pike is so strong. "The Menagerie" was pretty good, too, and I think
>>he did that one.
>Sure, he produced some good ones when he really tried - my point was that
>lately, he hasn't (produced good stuff, that is.) The CAGE was all right,
>I thought. Haven't seen MENAGERIE so I can't comment on that.
Yes, but your statement was a broad generalization which bore little
resemblance to your point.
Games Group 4
In article <1990Nov11....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> khcg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes:
>In previous article I wrote:
>> What do you want to do? Impeach Roddenberry?
>
>to which Michael Rawdon replied
>>No, prevent him from having any input into the series.
>
>to which I ask: Didn't have input in TOS (he did create it)
>and the movies and why was his involvement good then and not now?
I hate to burst your bubble, but Roddenberry's writing skills aren't very
impressive. He wrote "The Omega Glory" for TOS (Kirk mumbles the Pledge
of alliegence), and the Novelization for ST:TMP. He also worked on ST-V:TFF
with Shatner. (At least he made it better than Shatner's original concept.)
P.S. I've got a new account.
--
-----
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk, net.terrorist (reformed) at ggroup4.unm.edu
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma)
"If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the
Games Group 4
In article <1990Nov12....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> khcg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes:
>I posted a question asking why some people think why Roddenbury is such a
>bad influence on Star Trek when in fact he created it.
>
>In article <1990Nov12....@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kana...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>
>>TOS: Yes, with stinkbombs like RETURN OF THE ARCHONS and SAVAGE CURTAIN.
>>Movies: Only movie he had any significant input on was STAR TREK: THE
>> MOTIONLESS PICTURE.
>>
>>Case closed.
>>
>Was Roddenbury on vacation when they did "Trouble with Tribbles," "City
>on the Edge of Forever," and the other TOS episodes you love? I would think
>he would have had considerable influence over everything during the TOS
>years, too.
Note quite. He had the help of Gene L. Coon (especially with "Tribbles").
As far as I'm concerned, Roddenberry should stick with selling the concept
to the networks (or whoever) and leave the writing to those with the talent
to do so. The instances where he took an active hand in writing an episode
resulted in mediocre material at best.
> Kenneth Chang * khcg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk, net.terrorist (reformed) at ggroup4.unm.edu
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma)
"If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the
universe." --Bev Crusher [ Wish I'd said that ]
Captain David Lee
I whole heartily agree that consistency is being rooted out of Star Trek.
David Gerrold's book, THE WORLD OF STAR TREK wrote in one chapter, that science
fiction fans want believablity. And I firmly believe that believability
consists of many things, especially CONSISTENCY- which is the most vital
characteristic.
If I was an executive working at Paramount and I wanted Star Trek to
survive, I would set up a committee to straigten all this out. What is canon
and not, and so forth.
I'm also sick and tired of new security procedures, new codes, new
ship procedures in every other episode. Why can't we have 1 set of security
procedures, etc. (Ex. In one episode, the computer just recognizes the voice
of the user and then he/she has clearance, then in another episode, he/she
has to say a code as well.)
The fans want consistency !!! So shape up Paramount, you just can't put
anything on TV and expect us to like it.....
Kenneth L Love
>
>My first thought upon reading this is that continuity is certainly very,
>very far down the list of concerns at DC Comics, and yet they're doing
>fantastically well in the comic book market right now. Likewise, TNG is
>doing extremely well in the syndicated TV market, and there do seem to be
>plans to make a Star Trek VI movie. I don't think Star trek is going away
>any time in the near future.
>
I remember reading somewhere that the Next Generation comics were supposed
to be checked for continuity and also Paramount approved. However, I have
yet to figure out how the annual (with Q and Picard) meshes with "Family".
They make no mention of another brother in either story and the names are
not the same. Any ideas?
inTHANKSvance,
Kenneth Love
PS: Did anybody else think that fake Enterprise story's ending was kinda
lame? Yet another energy creature not recognizing that matter could
be alive...
PSS: Please e-mail your responses as I have only a sporadic reading of this
group and would probably (more like undoubtibly) miss replies.
Christopher M. Dicely
>In <90313.1850...@NDSUVM1.BITNET> UD11...@NDSUVM1.BITNET writes:
>> There is a serious problem here, folks. If a few simple things are not
>>done, Star Trek will die.
>> If I remeber correctly, roughly 6 years ago, some of the better Star Trek
>>novelists came together in an attempt to organize the ST history. Yes, even
>>then, there was quite a bit of "this happened, this did not..." but at least
>>they took a stand. Also, at that time FASA HAD THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO ST
>I'm sure this news would come as quite a surprise to both Task Force Games
>(more precisely, the Amarillo Design Board) and DC Comics, both of whom
>were publishing Star Trek related materials at the time.
More precisely, New World Computing (if they got the news now) who owns TFG...
ADB is no longer involved (I believe), and its Bureau, not Board, as I recall,
But anyway, I think he meant that what FASA made, and only what FASA made, was
"canon", until Rodenberry changed his mind. Pocket Books was also publishing
Star Trek related material, and, in fact, Paramount Pictures was making Star
Trek movies (and they actually hold a lot of the rights...)
>> All in all, there was an a
>>strong attempt by those involved to clean up the mythos and provide those who
>>would come later with a sense of history, so that Star Trek was inherintly
>>consistent.
>> Sadly, this is no longer the case.
>True.
True.
>> It seems that, once Rodenberry found himself embroiled with the new series,
>>he reallized that he might actually have to work to ensure internal
>>consistency. So, what did the Great Bird of the Galaxy do? Immediately
>>proclaimed only what was on film as being canon, thus saving his neck.
>> Okay, so that was a pisser. At least he took a logical stand.
>Well, it's certainly a stand I agree with.
Perhaps you do, but taking an inconsistent stand on consitency doesn't make
much sense to me.
Personally, I think that FASA and the novelists who worked to give us a
framework should be applauded, even though they are non-canon... Despite the
inconsistencies that exist, I see more FASA-novel consistency, at least
attempts, than internal series consistency...
-Chris Dicely
Christopher M. Dicely
>I posted a question asking why some people think why Roddenbury is such a
>bad influence on Star Trek when in fact he created it.
>In article <1990Nov12....@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kana...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>
>>TOS: Yes, with stinkbombs like RETURN OF THE ARCHONS and SAVAGE CURTAIN.
>>Movies: Only movie he had any significant input on was STAR TREK: THE
>> MOTIONLESS PICTURE.
>>
>>Case closed.
>>
>Was Roddenbury on vacation when they did "Trouble with Tribbles," "City
>on the Edge of Forever," and the other TOS episodes you love? I would think
>he would have had considerable influence over everything during the TOS
>years, too.
And furthermore, blaming the dullness of TMP on Rodenberry might be hasty,
since there were lots of other people involved in TMP who mysteriously have
not been involve with any of the other movies...S
-Chris Dicely
Michael Rawdon
I strongly disagree. Many viewers have not read many of the books, nor do
they plan to, nor have they enjoyed the books they HAVE read. My firm
opinion on this subject is that the books should conform to the film
continuity (actually, the books can do anything they want), but that the
film material need only remain internally consistent.
The purpose of continuity is basically to make sure that the audience
doesn't feel cheated by the sudden appearance of a hitherto unknown fact
(i.e., deus ex machina) or feel cheated by the overlooking of a previously-
revealed fact (i.e., a form of idiot plot). Since, I suspect, the vast
majority of viewers of the film material do not read the books, there's
no real reason to remain consistent with them.
There's also, of course, the problem that much of the non-film material
conflicts not only with the film material, but with other non-film
material (e.g., Star Fleet Battles vs. FASA; I much prefer Star Fleet
Battles' ideas, but many don't). Throwing all the non-film material into
the stew and demanding that the film material remain consistent with it is
IMHO a recipe for disaster.
Gabriel Velasco
>I whole heartily agree that consistency is being rooted out of Star Trek.
>David Gerrold's book, THE WORLD OF STAR TREK wrote in one chapter, that science
>fiction fans want believablity.
>The fans want consistency !!! So shape up Paramount, you just can't put
>anything on TV and expect us to like it.....
Paramount is targeting more than just science fiction fans. They are
trying to appeal to a broader range of people. That is why they
emphesize the characters and their interaction more than the special
effects and the technological jargon. I can imagine how boring some of
the shows would be if they were written in terms of some of the
discussions that I have read on r.a.s.. We (people with net access)
have a stilted view of the universe. We are all interested in
technology and computers and space and science etc.. My wife enjoys
the show very much and she could care less about whether warp 10 is the
fastest that the ship can go or why they can't just replicate another
Tasha Yar or what happened to NCC-1701B.
I think it's true that the best movies (and tv shows) that I have seen
pay great attention to continuity and scientific accuracy. I think
that ST:TNG makes that effort, but I think that it is of lower priority
than an interesting story that has something to say about contemporary
issues. In that sense, I think that the vision has become even more
focused. The creators of TNG realized that it was not the special
effects or the techno talk that made TOS a classic. It was the
characters and the fact that they could put contemporary issues within
a new framework so that we could look at them from a different
perspective.
Sometimes you just have to watch the show and enjoy it for what it is.
It's fun to talk about it and to try to justify some of the
inconsistencies, but there are bound to be some that are
irreconcilable. These guys have better things to do than sit around
and read r.a.s. to make sure that they don't break any rules or
contradict something they said 20 shows ago.
It's easy for us to say, "If I were in charge, this is what I would
do." But, in reality, it's not that easy to produce one high quality,
high budget show per week. My guess is that if they lost the
viewership of everyone that posts (perhaps even reads) r.a.s. they
would still be in a very good position.
--
________________________________________________
<>___, / / | ... and he called out and said, "Gabriel, give |
/___/ __ / _ __ ' _ / | this man an understanding of the vision." |
/\__/\(_/\/__)\/ (_/_(/_/|_ |_______________________________________Dan_8:16_|
Ryan D Mathews
In article <1990Nov12....@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>, kll...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Kenneth L Love) writes:
>
> I remember reading somewhere that the Next Generation comics were supposed
> to be checked for continuity and also Paramount approved. However, I have
> yet to figure out how the annual (with Q and Picard) meshes with "Family".
> They make no mention of another brother in either story and the names are
> not the same. Any ideas?
Sure. All DC comics are in complete continuity until they are overridden by
something else. The DC annual came first. I have to agree that Paramount
shouldn't have to struggle to make their plotlines fit those of a comic book;
it should be the other way around. DC will have to come up with some explanation
of how the annual fits in.
> PS: Did anybody else think that fake Enterprise story's ending was kinda
> lame?
Wouldn't know. I quit reading the comic after becoming fed up with the artwork
as well as the book's insistence on a two-part story format.
Timothy W. Lynch
>I quit after realizing that the comic's standards for the story and artwork
>were just as rock-bottom low as the DC TNG limited series. :-P
Ooh, now THAT'S hitting below the belt.
The TNG series has been really dull, yes. Yes, I quit buying it about six
months ago. Yes, Pablo Marcos still can't draw the TNG characters.
But Michael Jan Friedman at his WORST is still marginally better than anything
I've ever seen Mike Carlin "write". :-)
Tim Lynch
Games Group 4/Gym Quirk
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>I'm sure this news would come as quite a surprise to both Task Force Games
>>(more precisely, the Amarillo Design Board) and DC Comics, both of whom
>>were publishing Star Trek related materials at the time.
>
>More precisely, New World Computing (if they got the news now) who owns TFG...
>ADB is no longer involved (I believe), and its Bureau, not Board, as I recall,
>But anyway, I think he meant that what FASA made, and only what FASA made, was
>"canon", until Rodenberry changed his mind. Pocket Books was also publishing
>Star Trek related material, and, in fact, Paramount Pictures was making Star
>Trek movies (and they actually hold a lot of the rights...)
ADB has always controlled SFB. The 'connection' bewtreen SFB and Star Trek
is entirely based on Franz Joseph's _Starfleet Technical Manual_. When
FASA pur out its RPG, Paramount decided that it was more canon than SFB (Which
is why there are no SFB SSDs for the 'new' _Enterprise_, _Reliant_, or
Klingon/Romulan Bird of Prey.
BTW, New World Computing sold TFG to Ray Olsen (A retired member of the
SFB Joint cheifs of staff). The new TFG is now threatening to publish
the "Doomsday" edition of the SFB rules; theoretically, no more errata.
I have, however seen errata for the "Doomsday" eddition on rec.games.board.
Oh, well...
>Personally, I think that FASA and the novelists who worked to give us a
>framework should be applauded, even though they are non-canon... Despite the
>inconsistencies that exist, I see more FASA-novel consistency, at least
>attempts, than internal series consistency...
Not quite true. I have had a minor nightmare trying to reconcile FASA's
Rom'Linz with Diane Duane's Rihan. I personally prefer the later.
>-Chris Dicely
Aaron
>
>Michael Rawson writes:
>True, but not interesting (the novels and FASA, I mean). They're not
>interesting.
>
Whhhhoooooaaaa, now! Wait a sec! You're saying that *NONE* of the novels
and *NONE* of the FASA materiel is *AT ALL* interesting?!? Including such
neato (IMHO of course, dammit! 8-) novels as _My Enemy, My Ally_ and choice,
groundbreaking materiel as FASA Ship Recognition Guides? Or what? This
seems awfully sweeping of you, Michael; and while I know you're a bugger for
*canonocity*, I sure didn't think it would include saying something like "All
this is not interesting!"
Success to you, and mnhei'sahe!
Stanley of Essex (NCC-1727)
______________________________________________________________________________
-"Rove your assigned airspace, find the enemy, and shoot him down. Everything
else is rubbish." -Baron Manfred von Richtoffen
-"Use your tractors, dammit!" -sign over doors to training simulator at
StarFleet Academy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**NOTICE**- I claim everything not completely flaming,
and I believe in heat sinks, anyway!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rawdon
>I just *GOTTA* get my $0.02 in on this one!
>>Michael Rawson writes:
Hey! Another mis-spelling of my name! :-)
>>True, but not interesting (the novels and FASA, I mean). They're not
>>interesting.
>Whhhhoooooaaaa, now! Wait a sec! You're saying that *NONE* of the novels
>and *NONE* of the FASA materiel is *AT ALL* interesting?!? Including such
>neato (IMHO of course, dammit! 8-) novels as _My Enemy, My Ally_ and choice,
>groundbreaking materiel as FASA Ship Recognition Guides? Or what? This
>seems awfully sweeping of you, Michael; and while I know you're a bugger for
>*canonocity*, I sure didn't think it would include saying something like "All
>this is not interesting!"
Okay, you're right.
I *can* say that the vast, overwhelming majority of FASA material holds
no interest for me at all. Certainly nothing of the material I've seen
(which includes the basic game, a few scenarios, and the back covers of many
others) pique my interest at all. (I will admit I got a chuckle out of the
basic premise of "A Doomsday Like Any Other", though :-)
I may be a bit colored by my opinion that we don't really NEED another
SF RPG system when there's one as great as the late, lamented SPACE OPERA
out there. However, I don't like FASA's continuity either. The
"Enterprise Class" and the "Triangle" always struck me as being extremely
lame concepts.
The novels I have somewhat less of a working knowledge of, but I generally
figure that if I dislike novels that are generally held as some of the
better ones (e.g. _Yesterday's_Son_ - a truly lame piece of fanfic - and
_The_Wounded_Sky_, which was pretty dull), I won't like most of the rest.
Strangely enough, the one novel that I've had some interest in reading -
the one where Kirk is thrown into the future of the Klingon Empire - has
suddenly dropped off my list of "books to read" when someone on the net
(in a discussion about "Future Imperfect") said the whole scenario was
a hoax. *Sigh*
At any rate, you're right in that I shouldn't have made such a generalization,
but even so, I find it hard to get excited about anything taken from FASA
or the novels. (The only non-film Trek work I've really enjoyed was
writer Mike W. Barr's run on the first DC comic series, but even that I
prefer to separate from the film work.) (Um, okay, I enjoy Star Fleet
Battles too, even the timeline, but I enjoy it more as a wargame than as
Star Trek.)
Aaron
all Klingon Space' Quirk?) writes:
>Not quite true. I have had a minor nightmare trying to reconcile FASA's
>Rom'Linz with Diane Duane's Rihan. I personally prefer the later.
>
FASA has been trying to remain somewhat reconciled to the novel line, but
they ran into a problem with the Romulans in that, while they were compiling
data for their sourcebooks on that race, there was *nothing* out on the
Roms in the novels. _The Romulan Way_ had not been written by Diane Duane
yet, and I'm not sure that _My Enemy, My Ally_ had not been either. So,
FASA was left without, and did what they could. (Again, I'm just not sure)
Hope this helps somewhat.
Aaron
>Michael *RawDon* writes:
>>I write:
>
>Okay, you're right.
>
>I *can* say that the vast, overwhelming majority of FASA material holds
>no interest for me at all. Certainly nothing of the material I've seen
>(which includes the basic game, a few scenarios, and the back covers of many
>others) pique my interest at all. (I will admit I got a chuckle out of the
>I may be a bit colored by my opinion that we don't really NEED another
>SF RPG system when there's one as great as the late, lamented SPACE OPERA
>out there. However, I don't like FASA's continuity either. The
>"Enterprise Class" and the "Triangle" always struck me as being extremely
>lame concepts.
>
If it's Star Trek, then this is the one. I know nothing of SPACE OPERA,
though I *have* heard good things . . . Anyway, there are some really good
ideas within the game itself. Since I've only lately had the chance to pick
it up and look at it, I only *just* found that out. For instance is the
little scenario you mentioned, among others. And the "Triangle" . . .
Have you really looked into that? I thought the concept fairly interesting,
kind of like FASA's answer to the WYN Starcluster in SFB, only a tad less
organized (discounting, of course, the Imperial Klingon States) and a tad
more chaotic . . .
>
>The novels I have somewhat less of a working knowledge of, but I generally
>figure that if I dislike novels that are generally held as some of the
>better ones (e.g. _Yesterday's_Son_ - a truly lame piece of fanfic - and
>_The_Wounded_Sky_, which was pretty dull), I won't like most of the rest.
>Strangely enough, the one novel that I've had some interest in reading -
>the one where Kirk is thrown into the future of the Klingon Empire - has
>suddenly dropped off my list of "books to read" when someone on the net
>(in a discussion about "Future Imperfect") said the whole scenario was
>a hoax. *Sigh*
>
like _Wounded Sky_, problems with physics notwithstanding (BTW, Bova's
Recourse is an interesting, if somewhat *drastic* maneuver!)) are _My
Enemy, My Ally_, _The Romulan Way_ (which was co-authored with her husband),
and _Spock's World_. I find her characterizations incredible, from the
tentacular Sulamids to Ensign Nheraht, a *HORTA* of all things! Anyway,
that would also miss out on such books as _The Final Reflection_, which
possibly many, and certainly I, consider as pretty much definitive of the
Klingon race and way of life. All I'm saying is "Don't be put off but a
few lousy novels, though there are a few out there." If you don't like
one, nobody says you gotta read it again! 8-)
>
>At any rate, you're right in that I shouldn't have made such a generalization,
>but even so, I find it hard to get excited about anything taken from FASA
>or the novels. (The only non-film Trek work I've really enjoyed was
>writer Mike W. Barr's run on the first DC comic series, but even that I
>prefer to separate from the film work.) (Um, okay, I enjoy Star Fleet
>Battles too, even the timeline, but I enjoy it more as a wargame than as
>Star Trek.)
>
so sad just to limit oneself more or less to only one facet of a given subject.
There is *so much* out there just in the reading, and so much possibility for
more . . . A lot of that possibility comes from those who read the novels
and catch the itch to write themselves. You for instance. Well, here's
some encouragement. Go and try with that Tholian idea of your; not necessarily
as a teleplay, but as a novel, which IMHO would have a much better chance of
succeeding. And think about who else has been writing even as you, both those
that *have* published, and those that have not . . . *That*'s the leavening
I use when I think about what I read and what I see . . .
<climbs off of pulpit, ducking thrown abjects, getting ready to request more
heat sinks> 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
Your turn! 8-)
cfo...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
> Personally, I think that FASA and the novelists who worked to give us a
> framework should be applauded, even though they are non-canon... Despite the
> inconsistencies that exist, I see more FASA-novel consistency, at least
> attempts, than internal series consistency...
How many people know out here that FASA has been renogiating its licensing
agreement with Paramount for months now, and has been in large-scale danger of
losing the license altogether? And that it has _completed_ products sitting on
the shelf (1701-D blueprints and a sourcebook for _all_ the movies) that it
can't release until it settles things with Paramount?
The plans and sourcebook were completed this past _June_. And Richard Arnold
is somehow embroiled in the whole mess.
How many people want FASA to remain in operation on the Star Trek game?
Including me, that is.
Chris
()
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Foster cfo...@eagle.wesleyan.edu or cfo...@wesleyan.bitnet
Excerpted from FASA's latest, banned edition of the _Star_Fleet_
_Intelligence_Manual_, "Common Codewords" section--
"CONDITION TURQUOISE: Declared when the interior of a Federation
starship has been violently redecorated."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fredrik Bengtsson
>In article <1990Nov12.2...@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, dic...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Christopher M. Dicely) writes:
>> Personally, I think that FASA and the novelists who worked to give us a
>> framework should be applauded, even though they are non-canon... Despite the
>> inconsistencies that exist, I see more FASA-novel consistency, at least
>> attempts, than internal series consistency...
>
>How many people know out here that FASA has been renogiating its licensing
>agreement with Paramount for months now, and has been in large-scale danger of
>losing the license altogether? And that it has _completed_ products sitting on
>the shelf (1701-D blueprints and a sourcebook for _all_ the movies) that it
>can't release until it settles things with Paramount?
>
>The plans and sourcebook were completed this past _June_. And Richard Arnold
>is somehow embroiled in the whole mess.
>
>How many people want FASA to remain in operation on the Star Trek game?
>
>Including me, that is.
>
>Chris
>()
I certainly do!!
--
-------------------- Fred the mad computerbiologist --------------------
<> Fredrik Bengtson Tel(home): int+46 46 11 29 86
<> University of Lund, Internet : d8...@efd.lth.se
<> Lund Institute of Technology UUCP:{uunet,mcsun}!sunic!efd.lth.se!d89fb
<> SWEDEN
Chris Wayne
>> Personally, I think that FASA and the novelists who worked to give us a
>> framework should be applauded, even though they are non-canon... Despite the
>> inconsistencies that exist, I see more FASA-novel consistency, at least
>> attempts, than internal series consistency...
>
>How many people know out here that FASA has been renogiating its licensing
>agreement with Paramount for months now, and has been in large-scale danger of
>losing the license altogether? And that it has _completed_ products sitting on
>the shelf (1701-D blueprints and a sourcebook for _all_ the movies) that it
>can't release until it settles things with Paramount?
Yes, this is *OLD* news.
>The plans and sourcebook were completed this past _June_. And Richard Arnold
>is somehow embroiled in the whole mess.
>
>How many people want FASA to remain in operation on the Star Trek game?
Not unless they pull their heads out of their asses and try to incorporate
existing material and really devote themselves into producing quality work.
--
Chris Wayne @ UNM | "THE CAST AND CREW OF STAR TREK WISH TO DEDICATE
cwa...@hydra.unm.edu | THIS FILM TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE SPACESHIP
--------aka--------------+ CHALLENGER. THEIR COURAGEOUS SPIRIT SHALL LIVE
Don Quixote of RAS \ ON TO THE 23RD CENTURY AND BEYOND."
Atsushi Kanamori
>figure that if I dislike novels that are generally held as some of the
>better ones (e.g. _Yesterday's_Son_ - a truly lame piece of fanfic - and
>_The_Wounded_Sky_, which was pretty dull), I won't like most of the rest.
Just out of curiousity, how many novels *have* you read? Firstly,
the fact that the majority of r.a.s. thinks a novel is good/bad
doesn't mean you'll think its good/bad. A recent survey showed
that the majority of r.a.s.ers prefers NG to TOS - a stand
which neither you nor I find agreeable. Secondly, the recent general survey
by Hack-man ranked "Sky" in 19th place and "Yesterday's Son" in 45th place.
So "Yesterday" just barely ranks as "better" and "Sky" isn't so hot either.
Having read all the Pocket TOS novels myself, I can say that my success
ratio with them is better than my success ratio for NG episodes and
probably not much lower than my ratio for TOS episodes.
Games Group 4/Gym Quirk
>no interest for me at all. Certainly nothing of the material I've seen
>(which includes the basic game, a few scenarios, and the back covers of many
>others) pique my interest at all. (I will admit I got a chuckle out of the
>basic premise of "A Doomsday Like Any Other", though :-)
I had an interesting time running that particular adventure. NEVER
let the most laid-back player be the captain.
>I may be a bit colored by my opinion that we don't really NEED another
>SF RPG system when there's one as great as the late, lamented SPACE OPERA
>out there. However, I don't like FASA's continuity either. The
>"Enterprise Class" and the "Triangle" always struck me as being extremely
>lame concepts.
I dunno. Though FASA flies in the face of the _Starfleet Technical
Manual_ as far as the way the galaxy is set up, the political
situation in the Triangle makes for some very interesting
possibilities for role-playing.
As for the class names, could it be that we are more fond of SFB's
ships (which, due to copyright problems, don't even include the new
ships in the movies)?
At the risk of starting yet another flame war, the less said about
SPACE OPERA, the better. (Hey Michael, maybe we should shift this
discussion to rec.games.frp. ;-) )
>The novels I have somewhat less of a working knowledge of, but I generally
>figure that if I dislike novels that are generally held as some of the
>better ones (e.g. _Yesterday's_Son_ - a truly lame piece of fanfic - and
>_The_Wounded_Sky_, which was pretty dull), I won't like most of the rest.
_The Wounded Sky_ has grown into one of my second-string favorites,
mostly because of the characterization of the principles, the new
characters (who reapear from time to time in Duane's other books) and
Sulu's "Get it right this time!" scene. I agree that _Yesterday's
Son_ was weak, but the sequel, _Time for Yesterday_ is on my top-ten
list.
My question to you is have you read the top five (posted to r.a.st a
few years back)? As I rermember, the list goes something like:
_My Enemy, My Ally_ (Diane Duane)
_The Final RReflection_ (John M. Ford)
_Uhura's Song_ (???)
_How Much for Just the Planet?_ (John M. Ford)
_Strangers From the Sky_ (???)
>Strangely enough, the one novel that I've had some interest in reading -
>the one where Kirk is thrown into the future of the Klingon Empire - has
>suddenly dropped off my list of "books to read" when someone on the net
>(in a discussion about "Future Imperfect") said the whole scenario was
>a hoax. *Sigh*
You diddn't miss anything. _Time Trap_ was a real bummer. I will
agree that the majority of the ST Novels are mediocre, but then, the
same can be said of anything published.
>At any rate, you're right in that I shouldn't have made such a generalization,
>but even so, I find it hard to get excited about anything taken from FASA
>or the novels. (The only non-film Trek work I've really enjoyed was
>writer Mike W. Barr's run on the first DC comic series, but even that I
>prefer to separate from the film work.) (Um, okay, I enjoy Star Fleet
>Battles too, even the timeline, but I enjoy it more as a wargame than as
>Star Trek.)
I respect you for your stand on this, but I think you're missing out
on a lot of interesting ideas by rejecting whole categories of ST out
of hand. I personally prefer Ford's Klingons to what has be portrayed
on the screen, and Duane's Rihansu (romulans to you philistines) are
possibly the best characterized non-human race I have ever read.
> Michael Rawdon
Tom Hall
>Hey, if Paramount would care to give me creative control over TNG, I'll
>be more than happy to do something.
Ah, but would we be assured of any better product than we're now
getting? :-)
UD11...@ndsuvm1.bitnet
Do I want FASA to keep it's Star Trel lisence?
CERTAINLY I DO!
I would love to have an address to write at paramount that would put a little
fan pressure on this issue. FASA has done an exellent job with the constraints
it has, and I do not want to see their ST universe vanish.
Does anyone have an address I can write?
Tony Bruno ud118950@ndsuvm1 "C'mon, Mav, do some of that
University of North Dakota pilot sh*t..."
(701)-772-2599 --Goose, _Top Gun_