Star Trek 2008
Anim8rFSK
Darmok
wrote:
>http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/series/MOV/011/poster1/800x1035.jp
>g
Unfortunately, this movie is 2 years too late ... THIS YEAR is the
40th anniversary of the original show, and that's when a movie would
have been right and proper, after Beavis and Butt-Head killed off
Enterprise, which could have had an anniversary special show, much
like DS9's "Trials and Tribble-lations" was a 30th anniversary show.
CaptainPike
"Darmok" <coonca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5l6c2drs9cbder9i...@4ax.com...
I stopped paying attention after the 25th.
Kweeg
ahh.... but as the answer to everything, 42 hold much more promise.....
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
The Duct Tape Avenger
> Unfortunately, this movie is 2 years too late ... THIS YEAR is the
> 40th anniversary of the original show, and that's when a movie would
> have been right and proper, after Beavis and Butt-Head killed off
> Enterprise, which could have had an anniversary special show, much
> like DS9's "Trials and Tribble-lations" was a 30th anniversary show.
I say it's eight years too early, if anything. As much as I might like
to see a revival of Trek, the only way it's going to be any good is to
leave it alone for a good long time, and then let a totally new team
start fresh, IF and WHEN there is sufficient demand. Much like TNG did
in the 80's.
What we've had lately (and will continue to have, it seems) I call
"Zombie Trek" - the reanimation of its still warm corpse.
--
The Duct Tape Avenger
There are some things Man was not meant to know.
For everything else, there's Wikipedia.
Anim8rFSK
The Duct Tape Avenger <sp...@holyducttape.com> wrote:
> Darmok wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this movie is 2 years too late ... THIS YEAR is the
> > 40th anniversary of the original show, and that's when a movie would
> > have been right and proper, after Beavis and Butt-Head killed off
> > Enterprise, which could have had an anniversary special show, much
> > like DS9's "Trials and Tribble-lations" was a 30th anniversary show.
>
> I say it's eight years too early, if anything. As much as I might like
> to see a revival of Trek, the only way it's going to be any good is to
> leave it alone for a good long time, and then let a totally new team
> start fresh, IF and WHEN there is sufficient demand. Much like TNG did
> in the 80's.
>
> What we've had lately (and will continue to have, it seems) I call
> "Zombie Trek" - the reanimation of its still warm corpse.
Yes, but that's because Berman and Braga were in there. If Paramount
cleans house, it might work. Trek doesn't need time, it needs talent.
Michael Bowker
...and a return to story telling. Good stories, a modicum of continuity
(or at least not violating known facts), and interesting people, places,
and things, and Star Trek will be fine.
Anybody
<mi...@blueneptune.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but that's because Berman and Braga were in there. If Paramount
> > cleans house, it might work. Trek doesn't need time, it needs talent.
>
> ...and a return to story telling. Good stories, a modicum of continuity
> (or at least not violating known facts), and interesting people, places,
> and things, and Star Trek will be fine.
Holyyweird doesn't give a damn about "known fact" or fans. They're
simply interested in stuffing their own bank accounts. Just look at all
the revolting "remake" / "reimaginging" movies they're producing that
bare little resemblance to the original they're SUPPOSEDLY based on,
and are often created by morons claiming to be actual fans of that
original. :-(
Alison Hopkins
"Michael Bowker" <mi...@blueneptune.com> wrote in message
news:12c7kqn...@corp.supernews.com...
Bring back Ron Moore. Simple as that.
Ali
Michael Bowker
Yes and that's why they usually don't make money. :) The jury is still
out on Abrams, we shall see.
Michael Bowker
He's busy and doesn't have time. I'm willing to give Abrams a chance.
We'll see how he does.
Alison Hopkins
Which is a shame for us, but cool for him. Thoroughly nice man.
>I'm willing to give Abrams a chance. We'll see how he does.
Yup. Me too, the man has a decent pedigree.
Ali
whodunit
> http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/series/MOV/011/poster1/800x1035.jp
> g
So, Patrick Star is starring in it?
http://www.ezthemes.com/previews/p/patrickstar.jpg
I'm ready!!! :-)
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-A109E...@news.west.cox.net...
In a shocking turn of events ... I agree totally with Anim.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4iia1oF...@individual.net...
It's not JJ's fault that Cruise's "eccentric" rep for the past year dragged
down MI3's box office.
-- Ken from Chicago
Wayland
wrote:
I'm not totally sure. I think it would have to be an excellent
product for to be successful coming out this soon. By giving it time,
it allows some of the wounds from VOY and ENT to heal. Time would
allow some of those fans to be hungry for it again. Whereas, doing is
so soon, unless it is an excellent product a lot of disillusioned
folks are just going to write it off as more of the Star Drek they've
been bombarded with in the past few years. ~shrugs~
Wayland
Anim8rFSK
Anim8rFSK
Wayland <termina...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's already scheduled for 2008. By that time Enterprise will be 3
years dead, and Voyager 7(of9).
Wouter Valentijn
And as someone else has mentioned. It will be *42* years since Star Trek
first aired.
*42* *years* *!!!*
It could mean *the* answer!
;-)
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
Kweeg
news:44c4de52$0$31656$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >>> Yes, but that's because Berman and Braga were in there. If
> >>> Paramount cleans house, it might work. Trek doesn't need time, it
> >>> needs talent.
> >>
> >> I'm not totally sure. I think it would have to be an excellent
> >> product for to be successful coming out this soon. By giving it
> >> time, it allows some of the wounds from VOY and ENT to heal. Time
> >> would allow some of those fans to be hungry for it again. Whereas,
> >> doing is so soon, unless it is an excellent product a lot of
> >> disillusioned folks are just going to write it off as more of the
> >> Star Drek they've been bombarded with in the past few years.
> >> ~shrugs~
> >>
> >
> > years dead, and Voyager 7(of9).
>
> And as someone else has mentioned. It will be *42* years since Star Trek
> first aired.
> *42* *years* *!!!*
> It could mean *the* answer!
> ;-)
I'm glad someone got that....
Marcovaldo
news:xf6xg.225826$Mn5.187963@pd7tw3no...
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> news:44c4de52$0$31656$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> ;-)
>
> I'm glad someone got that....
Well, it's not like it would take a supercomputer to figure it out.
Bill Steele
The Duct Tape Avenger <sp...@holyducttape.com> wrote:
> Darmok wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this movie is 2 years too late ... THIS YEAR is the
> > 40th anniversary of the original show, and that's when a movie would
> > have been right and proper, after Beavis and Butt-Head killed off
> > Enterprise, which could have had an anniversary special show, much
> > like DS9's "Trials and Tribble-lations" was a 30th anniversary show.
>
> I say it's eight years too early, if anything. As much as I might like
> to see a revival of Trek, the only way it's going to be any good is to
> leave it alone for a good long time, and then let a totally new team
> start fresh, IF and WHEN there is sufficient demand. Much like TNG did
> in the 80's.
If they wait that long, all the actors will have aged too much.
Androids, especially. They have to continue long enough for a transition
to whoever comes next.
We had a thread recently about characters played by multiple actors:
Superman, Sherlock Holmes. Would anybody buy any of the established
Trek characters played by a new actor?
The Duct Tape Avenger
> In article <OOOwg.69405$R26....@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
> The Duct Tape Avenger <sp...@holyducttape.com> wrote:
>
>> I say it's eight years too early, if anything. As much as I might like
>> to see a revival of Trek, the only way it's going to be any good is to
>> leave it alone for a good long time, and then let a totally new team
>> start fresh, IF and WHEN there is sufficient demand. Much like TNG did
>> in the 80's.
>
> If they wait that long, all the actors will have aged too much.
> Androids, especially. They have to continue long enough for a transition
> to whoever comes next.
Who says they have to use the same characters? We've seen the 23rd
century, and the 24th (which is long ago played out, IMHO). I'd like to
know what happens in the 25th.
Wouter Valentijn
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> news:44c4de52$0$31656$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>> Yes, but that's because Berman and Braga were in there. If
>>>>> Paramount cleans house, it might work. Trek doesn't need time, it
>>>>> needs talent.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not totally sure. I think it would have to be an excellent
>>>> product for to be successful coming out this soon. By giving it
>>>> time, it allows some of the wounds from VOY and ENT to heal. Time
>>>> would allow some of those fans to be hungry for it again. Whereas,
>>>> doing is so soon, unless it is an excellent product a lot of
>>>> disillusioned folks are just going to write it off as more of the
>>>> Star Drek they've been bombarded with in the past few years.
>>>> ~shrugs~
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's already scheduled for 2008. By that time Enterprise will be 3
>>> years dead, and Voyager 7(of9).
>>
>> And as someone else has mentioned. It will be *42* years since Star
>> Trek first aired.
>> *42* *years* *!!!*
>> It could mean *the* answer!
>> ;-)
>
> I'm glad someone got that....
That was a good call you made Kweeg.
Anybody
Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
Nope ... at least not at the same character age that the previous actor
played. It is possible to have a different actor playing the same
character at a significantly different age, for example Star Wars' Obi
Wan Kenobi.
Wouter Valentijn
Otoh, there's also Anakin Skywalker....
Anim8rFSK
That's the whole point of the Abrams movie; Kirk & Spock played by new
actors.
Their ONE hope is to have the Shat and Nimoy should a framing device and
do it as a reminisence. Think 'Old Conan' the Barbarian.
Otherwise they may as well pack it in now.
Mies
news:250720060902588688%any...@anywhere-anytime.com:
You use the phrase "significantly different age". There is a minimum 20 to
30 year timeline in Star Wars from Ep 4 and Ep 1. So on that note I agree
with you.
Kirk was in his early 30s in TOS. What they are proposing is only 10 years
prior to TOS. And 10 years for a Vulcan is not long considering they age
into their 100s on a regular basis. On top of that, Kirk has not been
portrayed by anyone other than Shatner in 40 years. This is not James Bond
where it gets recycled and/or refreshed every so often.
I don't remember (or even if it is "Star Trek fact"), but didn't Spock meet
Kirk when Kirk took command of the Enterprise after Pike?
Wouter Valentijn
It is unknown when they first met.
Chronologically the first scene in canon is the two of them playing chess
waiting for Kelso to report in WNMHGB.
Some form of friendship is clearly already there.
Wouter Valentijn
Hmm... I think Shatner and Nimoy should /not/ appear.
Without them it can stand on its own.
If it succeeds it will be under its own power.
If it does not succeed it can never reflect on Shatner and Nimoy.
trike
CGI cures all. Even raises the dead. Imagine how good CG will be 10
years from now.
Doug
Anim8rFSK
Mies <fok...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's not Star Trek fact. We don't know how or when Kirk and Spock met.
Anim8rFSK
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Not all that great.
Captain Infinity
>We had a thread recently about characters played by multiple actors:
>Superman, Sherlock Holmes. Would anybody buy any of the established
>Trek characters played by a new actor?
The only other person who could play James T. Kirk is Sandra Smith.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0809869/
**
Captain Infinity
Kweeg
news:5b7xg.459205$Fs1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Indeed, you now how long it took last time....
Kweeg
> >>> It's already scheduled for 2008. By that time Enterprise will be 3
> >>> years dead, and Voyager 7(of9).
> >>
> >> And as someone else has mentioned. It will be *42* years since Star
> >> Trek first aired.
> >> *42* *years* *!!!*
> >> It could mean *the* answer!
> >> ;-)
> >
> > I'm glad someone got that....
>
> That was a good call you made Kweeg.
It's good to know that *some* people can keep up.
{{;-/>
Wayland
wrote:
>"Marcovaldo" <Marco...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:5b7xg.459205$Fs1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:xf6xg.225826$Mn5.187963@pd7tw3no...
>> > "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
>> > news:44c4de52$0$31656$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> >> It could mean *the* answer!
>> >> ;-)
>> >
>> > I'm glad someone got that....
>>
>> Well, it's not like it would take a supercomputer to figure it out.
>
>
>Indeed, you now how long it took last time....
Well, it took Deep Thought 7.5 million years to come up with 42 the
first time.
Wayland
...so this was figured out in a blink of an eye, comparatively.
Kweeg
Wayland
So they should have Kirk's persona resurface in her and have the next
movie with the new Kirk trying regain his old life in a woman's body?
Wayland
...if so, Star Trek would finally end on a derivative of it's
original ending.
Anybody
Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
There was nothing wrong with the original Original Trilogy Anakin
Skywalker (the brief times you actually see him) ... swapping the final
scene to use Hayden instead was a silly idea though. :-(
Captain Infinity
>>The only other person who could play James T. Kirk is Sandra Smith.
>>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0809869/
>
>So they should have Kirk's persona resurface in her and have the next
>movie with the new Kirk trying regain his old life in a woman's body?
No no no. That's been done. They should just have Smith play Kirk
straight, and no one else should act as if anything unusual was
happening.
Also, Bones should be played by Gary Coleman, and Spock should be played
by Carrot Top.
I smell a smash hit, people.
**
Captain Infinity
video...@yahoo.com
Mies wrote:
>
> Kirk was in his early 30s in TOS. What they are proposing is only 10 years
> prior to TOS. And 10 years for a Vulcan is not long considering they age
.
Try 200s. We already saw Spock when he was approximately 10 years
younger. He was serving on the Enterprise under Captain Pike as seen
in "The Cage".
.
Wouter Valentijn
I'll never forgive Lucas for that.
And for Greedo shooting first.
Wouter Valentijn
He was second officer in those days wasn't he?
trike
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Bill Steele wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > If they wait that long, all the actors will have aged too much.
> > > Androids, especially. They have to continue long enough for a transition
> > > to whoever comes next.
> >
> > years from now.
> >
> > Doug
>
> Not all that great.
Off-the-cuff replies aside, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
CGI -- including rendered people in full daylight -- will be virtually
indistinguishable from film.
Pixar is already there for landscape and objects. It's impossible to
distinguish between their rendered tropical scenes and the real deal.
A decade of improvements to hardware and software is going to result in
some truly astonishing work.
One of the give-aways that something is CGI is the hyperkinetic
camerawork. If they keep the POV similar to what is physically
possible, constraining the virtual camera to real-world rules, then
it's going to be extremely difficult to tell real from animated. When
they lock down the camera now it's hard to tell, even when rendering
people. Although they're limited to crowd shots in terms of complete
believability (or long shots in the best cases), I think that it'll be
sooner rather than later that we'll have full-screen close-ups where we
won't be able to definitively say, "That's CGI." In that case, the
only give-away will be that we're looking at Marilyn Monroe or James
Doohan, when we know that'll be impossible. But on the face of it, we
wouldn't be able to tell.
Doug
Wouter Valentijn
Which, on a side note, could bring manipulation of real life news to a whole
new level of scariness.
I hope that's still a good twenty or thirty years away. At least!
Mirror Spock
Facts never stopped Paramount before. Zefram Cochrane was supposed to
be from Alpha Centauri, but it didn't stop Paramount from putting him
on Earth in First Contact.
* Robinson (who liked the movie despite that little problem)
Anim8rFSK
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Bill Steele wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If they wait that long, all the actors will have aged too much.
> > > > Androids, especially. They have to continue long enough for a transition
> > > > to whoever comes next.
> > >
> > > CGI cures all. Even raises the dead. Imagine how good CG will be 10
> > > years from now.
> > >
> > > Doug
> >
> > Not all that great.
>
> Off-the-cuff replies aside, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
> CGI -- including rendered people in full daylight -- will be virtually
> indistinguishable from film.
perhaps for you. Certainly not for people in the industry.
>
> Pixar is already there for landscape and objects. It's impossible to
> distinguish between their rendered tropical scenes and the real deal.
> A decade of improvements to hardware and software is going to result in
> some truly astonishing work.
The work is already backsliding. The talented production companies and
software companies are closing or cutting back, because we've reached a
'good enough, now just make it cheaper' phase.
>
> One of the give-aways that something is CGI is the hyperkinetic
> camerawork. If they keep the POV similar to what is physically
> possible, constraining the virtual camera to real-world rules, then
> it's going to be extremely difficult to tell real from animated.
No, the hyperkinetic camerawork is there to hide the flaws. BSG looks
terrible. The camerawork barely saves it.
PV
>Off-the-cuff replies aside, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
>CGI -- including rendered people in full daylight -- will be virtually
>indistinguishable from film.
In 10 years? Dream on.
>Pixar is already there for landscape and objects. It's impossible to
No they're not.
>distinguish between their rendered tropical scenes and the real deal.
>A decade of improvements to hardware and software is going to result in
>some truly astonishing work.
Not really, no. CGI is great at what it does, but it will be still making
people squirm when something 'real' is depicted 10 years from now. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>No, the hyperkinetic camerawork is there to hide the flaws. BSG looks
>terrible. The camerawork barely saves it.
A trick used in effects for as long as there's been effects. The monster in
the corner is badly lit because if it wasn't, you'd start laughing. *
trike
I have a story idea that will fix all (all!) of the continuity errors
in every single Trek TV show and movie once and for all.
They won't ask me to do it for them, though. Daft punters.
Doug
Anim8rFSK
pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
> "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >Off-the-cuff replies aside, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
> >CGI -- including rendered people in full daylight -- will be virtually
> >indistinguishable from film.
>
> In 10 years? Dream on.
>
> >Pixar is already there for landscape and objects. It's impossible to
>
> No they're not.
>
> >distinguish between their rendered tropical scenes and the real deal.
> >A decade of improvements to hardware and software is going to result in
> >some truly astonishing work.
>
> Not really, no. CGI is great at what it does, but it will be still making
> people squirm when something 'real' is depicted 10 years from now. *
It's like Ray Harryhausen Dynamation. I LOVE Ray, but when you look at
that stuff now, you think "how did I EVER find that convincing as a kid"
-- in 10 years we'll look back on today's CGI the same way. Hell, that
horrible Gorn in Enterprise looked worse than anything Ray ever did.
Anim8rFSK
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
DC Comics calls it "Hypertime"
Steven L.
> Alison Hopkins wrote:
>
>> "Michael Bowker" <mi...@blueneptune.com> wrote in message
>> news:12c7kqn...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <OOOwg.69405$R26....@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
>>>> The Duct Tape Avenger <sp...@holyducttape.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Darmok wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, this movie is 2 years too late ... THIS YEAR is the
>>>>>> 40th anniversary of the original show, and that's when a movie would
>>>>>> have been right and proper, after Beavis and Butt-Head killed off
>>>>>> Enterprise, which could have had an anniversary special show, much
>>>>>> like DS9's "Trials and Tribble-lations" was a 30th anniversary show.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say it's eight years too early, if anything. As much as I might
>>>>> like to see a revival of Trek, the only way it's going to be any
>>>>> good is to leave it alone for a good long time, and then let a
>>>>> totally new team start fresh, IF and WHEN there is sufficient
>>>>> demand. Much like TNG did in the 80's.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Zombie Trek" - the reanimation of its still warm corpse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but that's because Berman and Braga were in there. If
>>>> Paramount cleans house, it might work. Trek doesn't need time, it
>>>> needs talent.
>>>
>>> ...and a return to story telling. Good stories, a modicum of
>>> continuity (or at least not violating known facts), and interesting
>>> people, places, and things, and Star Trek will be fine.
>>
>>
>> Bring back Ron Moore. Simple as that.
>>
>> Ali
>>
> He's busy and doesn't have time. I'm willing to give Abrams a chance.
> We'll see how he does.
I've been thinking about that. Now Abrams is best known, of course, for
"Lost," which became a big hit even though straight sci-fi (Surface,
Threshold, Invasion) flopped.
"Lost" has a dark, mysterious, nonlinear plot with lots of mysteries and
puzzles that grab the audience episode to episode. And also given the
popularity of the book "Da Vinci Code," maybe that's where the American
audience is at these days.
Which episode of TOS best resembles "Lost"? "The Menagerie." Just like
Lost, it had a nonlinear plot with flashbacks. It starts after Pike is
already an invalid. Then over two episodes, we gradually learn the
mystery of what happened to Pike and why Starfleet forbade any further
contact with Talos IV. Very different plot structure than other TOS
episodes.
Maybe that would be the way for a new Star Trek: Dark, mysterious,
nonlinear plots where we viewers have to try to figure out what's really
going on. There's plenty of opportunity to rip off "Lost" and "Da Vinci
Code" by voyaging to planets with mysterious ancient ruins and so on.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
>
> Their ONE hope is to have the Shat and Nimoy should a framing device and
> do it as a reminisence. Think 'Old Conan' the Barbarian.
That's so cliche by now. Think "Saving Private Ryan," "Little Big Man,"
on and on and on.
Anim8rFSK
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> >
> > Their ONE hope is to have the Shat and Nimoy should a framing device and
> > do it as a reminisence. Think 'Old Conan' the Barbarian.
>
> That's so cliche by now. Think "Saving Private Ryan," "Little Big Man,"
> on and on and on.
It's still the only way I'd care about a new Kirk.
Mies
$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
> video...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Mies wrote:
>>>
>>> Kirk was in his early 30s in TOS. What they are proposing is only
>>> 10 years prior to TOS. And 10 years for a Vulcan is not long
>>> considering they age into their 100s on a regular basis. .......
>>
>> .
>>
>> Try 200s. We already saw Spock when he was approximately 10 years
>> younger. He was serving on the Enterprise under Captain Pike as seen
>> in "The Cage".
>>
>> .
>
> He was second officer in those days wasn't he?
>
>
I think he was just the Science Officer, "Number One" (Nurse Chapel) was
second in command.
So if Spock was on the Enterprise 10 years prior to TOS and we assume Kirk
was in the Academy, how could they have met?
A brief encounter in a large crowded room, their eyes met and it was Best
Buds at First Sight.
There you go Paramount, title for the new movie, Star Trek: First Sight.
David Johnston
>"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in news:44c60261$0$31656
>$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
>
>> video...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Mies wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kirk was in his early 30s in TOS. What they are proposing is only
>>>> 10 years prior to TOS. And 10 years for a Vulcan is not long
>>>> considering they age into their 100s on a regular basis. .......
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> Try 200s. We already saw Spock when he was approximately 10 years
>>> younger. He was serving on the Enterprise under Captain Pike as seen
>>> in "The Cage".
>>>
>>> .
>>
>> He was second officer in those days wasn't he?
>>
>>
>
>I think he was just the Science Officer, "Number One" (Nurse Chapel) was
>second in command.
Which would make her first officer. Hence the name. The second
officer is third in command.
Anim8rFSK
Mies <fok...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, let's do the math right. The events of THE CAGE are 13 years
before the events of THE MENAGERIE. A year later, in THE DEADLY YEARS,
Kirk says he's 34. So he was 33 at the time of THE MENAGERIE, and 20 at
the time of THE CAGE. If you go into the academy at 18, that still
gives them a year or two before Spock is on the Enterprise (assuming THE
CAGE is at the start of Spock's service, which is a good assumption,
since he served with Pike 11 years, 4 months, 5 days).
Anybody
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
We've been through all this before when the idea was first rumoured.
According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the timeline is:
2230 Spock is born on Vulcan
2233 James T. Kirk is born in Iowa on Earth
2249 Spock enters Starfleet Academy
2250 Kirk enrolls in Starfleet Academy
2252 Spock, a cadet at Starfleet Academy, begins serving
aboard the Enterprise under Captain Pike
2253 Spock graduates from Starfleet Academy
2254 Kirk graduates from Starfleet Academy
2264 James T. Kirk begins historic five-year mission in
command of the Starship Enterprise
So they were both at Starfleet Academy at the same time ... whether
they actually met would depend on things like how classwork and
"practical out-in-space" training is divided up - Kirk may have been in
space when Spock was in calss, and vice-versa.
David Johnston
That would mean that Spock had an explosive early career that dead
ended.
Ken from Chicago
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:uPzxg.5211$157...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
However movies differ from tv. SF dominates the list of top selling movies,
no matter what the list (top 10, top 20, top 50, top 100, sf dominates the
list).
Then again sf movies tend to play as action movies with niftier fx.
> "Lost" has a dark, mysterious, nonlinear plot with lots of mysteries and
> puzzles that grab the audience episode to episode. And also given the
> popularity of the book "Da Vinci Code," maybe that's where the American
> audience is at these days.
>
> Which episode of TOS best resembles "Lost"? "The Menagerie." Just like
> Lost, it had a nonlinear plot with flashbacks. It starts after Pike is
> already an invalid. Then over two episodes, we gradually learn the
> mystery of what happened to Pike and why Starfleet forbade any further
> contact with Talos IV. Very different plot structure than other TOS
> episodes.
>
> Maybe that would be the way for a new Star Trek: Dark, mysterious,
> nonlinear plots where we viewers have to try to figure out what's really
> going on. There's plenty of opportunity to rip off "Lost" and "Da Vinci
> Code" by voyaging to planets with mysterious ancient ruins and so on.
>
>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
You misspelled DS9 (or B5).
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:44:55 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <OOOwg.69405$R26....@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
>> The Duct Tape Avenger <sp...@holyducttape.com> wrote:
>>> What we've had lately (and will continue to have, it seems) I call
>>> "Zombie Trek" - the reanimation of its still warm corpse.
>>
>>Yes, but that's because Berman and Braga were in there. If Paramount
>>cleans house, it might work. Trek doesn't need time, it needs talent.
>
> product for to be successful coming out this soon. By giving it time,
> it allows some of the wounds from VOY and ENT to heal. Time would
> allow some of those fans to be hungry for it again. Whereas, doing is
No, "hungry" fans would be more accepting of crap the way a famished person
crawling out of the desert would drink just about any liquid placed before
them.
> so soon, unless it is an excellent product a lot of disillusioned
Don't fans DESERVE an excellent product? Don't you?
> folks are just going to write it off as more of the Star Drek they've
> been bombarded with in the past few years. ~shrugs~
>
> Wayland
If it's drek it should be written off. If not then it deserves a time in the
sun.
Besides, there's something you're overlooking:
INCREASED COMPETITON.
There's only going to be MORE entertainment choices in the future, not less.
-- Ken from Chicago
Wouter Valentijn
Exactly.
Ken from Chicago
"Bill Steele" <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ws21-23A918.1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <OOOwg.69405$R26....@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
> The Duct Tape Avenger <sp...@holyducttape.com> wrote:
>
>> > Unfortunately, this movie is 2 years too late ... THIS YEAR is the
>> > 40th anniversary of the original show, and that's when a movie would
>> > have been right and proper, after Beavis and Butt-Head killed off
>> > Enterprise, which could have had an anniversary special show, much
>> > like DS9's "Trials and Tribble-lations" was a 30th anniversary show.
>>
>> I say it's eight years too early, if anything. As much as I might like
>> to see a revival of Trek, the only way it's going to be any good is to
>> leave it alone for a good long time, and then let a totally new team
>> start fresh, IF and WHEN there is sufficient demand. Much like TNG did
>> in the 80's.
>
> Androids, especially. They have to continue long enough for a transition
> to whoever comes next.
>
> Superman, Sherlock Holmes. Would anybody buy any of the established
> Trek characters played by a new actor?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=npftM4liUpE&search=trek%20new%20voyages%20trailer
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0vhLyGHA2BY&search=new%20Voyages%20trailer
Yes.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"The Duct Tape Avenger" <sp...@holyducttape.com> wrote in message
news:deaxg.25617$so3....@southeast.rr.com...
> Bill Steele wrote:
>> In article <OOOwg.69405$R26....@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
>> The Duct Tape Avenger <sp...@holyducttape.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I say it's eight years too early, if anything. As much as I might like
>>> to see a revival of Trek, the only way it's going to be any good is to
>>> leave it alone for a good long time, and then let a totally new team
>>> start fresh, IF and WHEN there is sufficient demand. Much like TNG did
>>> in the 80's.
>>
>> If they wait that long, all the actors will have aged too much. Androids,
>> especially. They have to continue long enough for a transition to whoever
>> comes next.
>
> century, and the 24th (which is long ago played out, IMHO). I'd like to
> know what happens in the 25th.
GMTA
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.movies/msg/649d342677d38660?hl=en&
> --
> The Duct Tape Avenger
>
> There are some things Man was not meant to know.
> For everything else, there's Wikipedia.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "FORWARD the future!"
Ken from Chicago
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153828615.5...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Psst, I've been down this road. Anim's a professional animator, thus his
view of animation differs from us mere mortals like a chef judging food, a
tailor judging clothes, a model judging how they look, a writing judging
writing, a magician judging magic acts, an astronomer observing the night
sky. It's not his fault his view is skewed from the norm. It's an
occupational hazard.
His view of "photorealistic" simply is different from ours.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
news:44c609af$0$31644$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Series: TALES FROM THE CRYPT
Episode: "You, Murderer"
Aired: 1995
Starred: Humphrey Bogart
Born: 1899
DIED: 1957
Series: THE SOPRANOS
Episode: "Proshai, Livushka"
Aired: 2001
Co-starred: Nancy Marchand
Born: 1928
DIED: 2000
And then there's this that shocked the public (for good and bad):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X5zbEsQYMb0&search=reeves%20walking%20commercial
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "The Future is now."
Ken from Chicago
"PV" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:12ccf2c...@news.supernews.com...
It's a common deal in fiction where the build up to the threat is worse than
the threat itself.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "Better than the deed, better than the memory, the
anticipation."--Albert Brooks, 'Jacques', THE SIMPSONS, "Life In The Fast
Lane".
video...@yahoo.com
>
> >>No, the hyperkinetic camerawork is there to hide the flaws. BSG looks
> >>terrible. The camerawork barely saves it.
> >
> > A trick used in effects for as long as there's been effects. The monster
> > in the corner is badly lit because if it wasn't, you'd start laughing.
>
> the threat itself.
.
I'm curious why ye think BSG has poor computer graphics? It looks
realistic to me.
.
Wouter Valentijn
If you compare it to early Babylon 5 or Space Above And Beyond....
Those FX screamed computer generated.
Wouter Valentijn
Ah... Spoiled through his own profession.
Wouter Valentijn
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> news:44c609af$0$31644$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> trike wrote:
>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bill Steele wrote:
>>>>>>
<snip>
>> Which, on a side note, could bring manipulation of real life news to
>> a whole new level of scariness.
>> I hope that's still a good twenty or thirty years away. At least!
> Series: TALES FROM THE CRYPT
> Episode: "You, Murderer"
> Aired: 1995
> Starred: Humphrey Bogart
> Born: 1899
> DIED: 1957
>
> Series: THE SOPRANOS
> Episode: "Proshai, Livushka"
> Aired: 2001
> Co-starred: Nancy Marchand
> Born: 1928
> DIED: 2000
>
> And then there's this that shocked the public (for good and bad):
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=X5zbEsQYMb0&search=reeves%20walking%20commercial
>
Well, yeah....
Plus Forest Gump and 'Trials and Tribble-ations'.
I see you point.
Ken from Chicago
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154086182.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
I think they look great. Anim's the pro so his vision is different from us
mortals.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
True, but at the time they were considered quite realistic.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
That's the sacrifice animators make to bring use visual candy goodness.
Po' brave animators.
-- Ken from Chicago
video...@yahoo.com
> "Wouter Valentijn"
>
> > If you compare it to early Babylon 5 or Space Above And Beyond....
> > Those FX screamed computer generated.
>
> True, but at the time they were considered quite realistic.
.
I don't think anyone ever though B5 was realistic. I always thought,
"videogame" or "computer demo" when I saw the show.
But I thought it was neat they were using Commodore=Amigas for their
graphics (since I had one sitting on my desk).
.
Anim8rFSK
"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:13:57 GMT, Mies <fok...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in news:44c60261$0$31656
> >> $e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
> >>
> >>> video...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> Mies wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kirk was in his early 30s in TOS. What they are proposing is only
> >>>>> 10 years prior to TOS. And 10 years for a Vulcan is not long
> >>>>> considering they age into their 100s on a regular basis. .......
> >>>>
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>> Try 200s. We already saw Spock when he was approximately 10 years
> >>>> younger. He was serving on the Enterprise under Captain Pike as
> >>>> seen in "The Cage".
> >>>>
> >>>> .
> >>>
> >>> He was second officer in those days wasn't he?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think he was just the Science Officer, "Number One" (Nurse Chapel)
> >> was second in command.
> >
> > Which would make her first officer. Hence the name. The second
> > officer is third in command.
>
> Exactly.
Unless her being "the ships most experienced officer" makes her Number
One, and they have to all reshuffle names every time they gain or lose a
crewman. :-D
video...@yahoo.com
Mies wrote:
> "Wouter Valentijn"
> >>
> >> We already saw Spock when he was approximately 10 years younger.
> >> He was serving on the Enterprise under Captain Pike as seen
> >> in "The Cage".
> >>
> >> .
> >
> > He was second officer in those days wasn't he?
> >
> was second in command.
> So if Spock was on the Enterprise 10 years prior to TOS and we assume Kirk
> was in the Academy, how could they have met?
.
According to the (non-canon) novel "Enterprise" Spock met Kirk when
Captain Pike retired and Kirk replaced him. That makes perfect sense.
(By the way, this is a good novel; worth reading).
And although it's not totally clear, it appears Spock was indeed
Captain Pike's 2nd officer (like Data on TNG).
.
video...@yahoo.com
David Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:54:06 +1200, Anybody
> >
> > aboard the Enterprise under Captain Pike
> >
> > 2253 Spock graduates from Starfleet Academy
> >
> > 2254 Kirk graduates from Starfleet Academy
> >
> > 2264 James T. Kirk begins historic five-year mission in
> > command of the Starship Enterprise
>
> ended.
.
Yeah. It doesn't make any sense that Spock would be the 3rd-highest
officer on board Enterprise, if he has not even graduated yet!
.
Anim8rFSK
Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
Of course, none of those dates are from the show, or were mentioned on
air, or are canon.
>
> 2230 Spock is born on Vulcan
>
> 2233 James T. Kirk is born in Iowa on Earth
>
> 2249 Spock enters Starfleet Academy
>
> 2250 Kirk enrolls in Starfleet Academy
>
> 2252 Spock, a cadet at Starfleet Academy, begins serving
> aboard the Enterprise under Captain Pike
>
> 2253 Spock graduates from Starfleet Academy
>
> 2254 Kirk graduates from Starfleet Academy
>
> 2264 James T. Kirk begins historic five-year mission in
> command of the Starship Enterprise
>
>
> So they were both at Starfleet Academy at the same time ...
or not
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <44c9dec1$0$4523$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> He was second officer in those days wasn't he?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think he was just the Science Officer, "Number One" (Nurse
>>>> Chapel) was second in command.
>>>
>>> Which would make her first officer. Hence the name. The second
>>> officer is third in command.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Unless her being "the ships most experienced officer" makes her Number
> One, and they have to all reshuffle names every time they gain or
> lose a crewman. :-D
Then her name would be safe until someone more experienced came aboard, or
she became so lazy others would surpass her in her experience.
Hmm.. ;-) Yesterday she's Number One but next week she could be Number
Four after a short vacation.
She meets the captain on deck three a week later and he says: "Hello number
Five. You're still alive? Sorry, couldn't exist punning."
She answers: "SIR! I've been only away for a week! I'm still at least Number
Four!"
GeneK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Psst, I've been down this road. Anim's a professional animator, thus his
> view of animation differs from us mere mortals like a chef judging food, a
> tailor judging clothes, a model judging how they look, a writing judging
> writing, a magician judging magic acts, an astronomer observing the night
> sky. It's not his fault his view is skewed from the norm. It's an
> occupational hazard.
I'm not a professional animator (I used to do some stillframe CGI, maybe
that's close enough for this thread), but the CGI of shows like B5 never
looked particularly photorealistic to me. However, I never got the
impression that the animators were going for a "fool the eye" effect.
In the early days of Video Toaster/Lightwave/3ds it was actually possible
to squint a bit and make a pretty good guess which rendering program had
been used to generate the images (it's harder now, or maybe it's just that
I'm not doing the work on a regular basis anymore).
I think it's going to be a long, long time (if ever) before we get to CGI
people that can fool the human eye closeup. There are some techniques
using computers that work, such compositing footage of actors into
scenes they were never in, and some that may become passable in the
foreseeable future in some applications, such as mapping real photo
images of people onto other actors or taking footage of an actor and
making the lips synch to different dialog, but a fully CGI human that is
indistinuishable to a real human viewer in full motion, talking, interacting
with live actors? I don't think I'm likely to live long enough to see it.
GeneK
David Johnston
<gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>images of people onto other actors or taking footage of an actor and
>making the lips synch to different dialog, but a fully CGI human that is
>indistinuishable to a real human viewer in full motion, talking, interacting
>with live actors? I don't think I'm likely to live long enough to see it.
Well, my stepfather had to watch Final Fantasy for a few minutes
before he was sure it was a cartoon. But his vision wasn't very good.
Wayland
wrote:
>Well, let's do the math right. The events of THE CAGE are 13 years
>before the events of THE MENAGERIE. A year later, in THE DEADLY YEARS,
>Kirk says he's 34. So he was 33 at the time of THE MENAGERIE, and 20 at
>the time of THE CAGE. If you go into the academy at 18, that still
>gives them a year or two before Spock is on the Enterprise (assuming THE
>CAGE is at the start of Spock's service, which is a good assumption,
>since he served with Pike 11 years, 4 months, 5 days).
You know, I wonder if we're giving this more thought than the writing
team is. As much as they have shown an apparent disregard for
continuity in the past, if they need Kirk and Spock to be in Starfleet
Academy at the same time, it will happen.
Wayland
...Damn the fabric of the universe full speed ahead!
Wayland
wrote:
>That would mean that Spock had an explosive early career that dead
>ended.
This happened to all crew members of the Enterprise. Somehow after
the first movie, all except for Sulu ended up in the positions the
never end. I mean, how the hell was Uhura content to be a
communications officer for like 30 years?
Wayland
...it goes on and on my friend.
Wouter Valentijn
Jim Kirk.
GeneK
"Wayland" <termina...@gmail.com> wrote...
> You know, I wonder if we're giving this more thought than the writing
> team is. As much as they have shown an apparent disregard for
> continuity in the past, if they need Kirk and Spock to be in Starfleet
> Academy at the same time, it will happen.
The most recent writers, probably. The original ones, maybe
not. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out the reason they
gave Vulcans a long lifespan back in the TOS days was because
they thought that someday they might need to say something
to resolve the 13 year period Spock served aboard the Enterprise
between the first pilot with Pike and the series with Kirk vs the
fact that Shatner and Nimoy were the same age.
GeneK
Anim8rFSK
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
Where did they give Vulcans long life spans, anyway? Journey to Babel?
That's D.C. Fontana, isn't it?
Likely they did it so they could cast Mark Lenard as Sarek, but still,
it's a nice theory. :)
Anim8rFSK
David Johnston <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
Yeah, I heard a LOT of people saying you couldn't tell FF from reality.
To me, it didn't look any more real that stop motion Barbie dolls.
Anim8rFSK
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > Psst, I've been down this road. Anim's a professional animator, thus his
> > view of animation differs from us mere mortals like a chef judging food, a
> > tailor judging clothes, a model judging how they look, a writing judging
> > writing, a magician judging magic acts, an astronomer observing the night
> > sky. It's not his fault his view is skewed from the norm. It's an
> > occupational hazard.
>
> I'm not a professional animator (I used to do some stillframe CGI, maybe
> that's close enough for this thread), but the CGI of shows like B5 never
> looked particularly photorealistic to me. However, I never got the
> impression that the animators were going for a "fool the eye" effect.
> In the early days of Video Toaster/Lightwave/3ds it was actually possible
> to squint a bit and make a pretty good guess which rendering program had
> been used to generate the images (it's harder now, or maybe it's just that
> I'm not doing the work on a regular basis anymore).
Actually one of my problems with BSG is how clearly Lightwave it is.
I congratulated Zoic on how much better Serenity looked. Said it was
the best LW I'd ever seen. Turned out they had done the good stuff in
Maya. Sheesh. :\
GeneK
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-65C9C...@news.west.cox.net...
> I congratulated Zoic on how much better Serenity looked. Said it was
> the best LW I'd ever seen. Turned out they had done the good stuff in
> Maya. Sheesh. :\
Maya is the one renderer that I consistently fail to pick out.
In the hands of certain people who use it far better than I can,
some of its still image renders have fooled me into thinking
I was looking at an actual photo.
GeneK
Anim8rFSK
Wayland <termina...@gmail.com> wrote:
They all ended up Captains though. :)
But, seriously, what's the career path for a communications officer?
She can become Captain of Communications, but she's hardly in line to
run the ship. It was idiotic beyond belief in TNG when they decided
both Crusher and Troi should get turns running the ship. They're in
totally unrelated disciplines! And Crusher isn't even a compentent
doctor. Of course, Troi ran the ship into a planet, first time out.
Anim8rFSK
Wayland <termina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, let's do the math right. The events of THE CAGE are 13 years
> >before the events of THE MENAGERIE. A year later, in THE DEADLY YEARS,
> >Kirk says he's 34. So he was 33 at the time of THE MENAGERIE, and 20 at
> >the time of THE CAGE. If you go into the academy at 18, that still
> >gives them a year or two before Spock is on the Enterprise (assuming THE
> >CAGE is at the start of Spock's service, which is a good assumption,
> >since he served with Pike 11 years, 4 months, 5 days).
>
> You know, I wonder if we're giving this more thought than the writing
> team is.
Oh, I can absolutely guarantee it. But if they're smart, they're
watching us.
GeneK
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote...
> They all ended up Captains though. :)
>
> But, seriously, what's the career path for a communications officer?
> She can become Captain of Communications, but she's hardly in line to
> run the ship. It was idiotic beyond belief in TNG when they decided
> both Crusher and Troi should get turns running the ship. They're in
> totally unrelated disciplines! And Crusher isn't even a compentent
> doctor. Of course, Troi ran the ship into a planet, first time out.
Captain is a rank, not an assignment. Grace Murray Hopper
rose to the rank of admiral and never commanded a vessel.
The TNG silliness was more of the same nonsensical lack
of understanding of the way things worked in a military
setting and the devalued view of military skills that pervades
newtrek. Anybody could command a starship, who needs
years of training, just take a test. If there were still match-
books in the 24th century there probably would have been
one with a picture of a starship and the logo "You can learn
to command!"
GeneK
Michael Bowker
Ok this is funny, because it's true. On the other side you have Space
Above and Below (or whatever it was called) that got command staff ok,
but totally messed up the rest of the military concepts and setups.
Anybody
"video...@yahoo.com" <video...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:54:06 +1200, Anybody
> > >
> > > 2252 Spock, a cadet at Starfleet Academy, begins serving
> > > aboard the Enterprise under Captain Pike
> > >
> > > 2253 Spock graduates from Starfleet Academy
> > >
> > > 2254 Kirk graduates from Starfleet Academy
> > >
> > > 2264 James T. Kirk begins historic five-year mission in
> > > command of the Starship Enterprise
> >
> > That would mean that Spock had an explosive early career that dead
> > ended.
>
> Yeah. It doesn't make any sense that Spock would be the 3rd-highest
> officer on board Enterprise, if he has not even graduated yet!
Actually, it does make sense since Spock appears to be in his final (or
second-to-last) year at Starfleet Academy and was in Command / Officer
training rather than the "grunt worker" training.
In the army / navy / airforce, Officer training does put them in
semi-resonsible positions towards the end of their training, as well as
being part of a "final test".
The amount of responsibility will depend on how well their "grades" and
comments from the teachers were.
Wayland
wrote:
>Well, let's do the math right. The events of THE CAGE are 13 years
>before the events of THE MENAGERIE. A year later, in THE DEADLY YEARS,
>Kirk says he's 34. So he was 33 at the time of THE MENAGERIE, and 20 at
>the time of THE CAGE. If you go into the academy at 18, that still
>gives them a year or two before Spock is on the Enterprise (assuming THE
>CAGE is at the start of Spock's service, which is a good assumption,
>since he served with Pike 11 years, 4 months, 5 days).
You know, I wonder if we're giving this more thought than the writing
team is. As much as they have shown an apparent disregard for
Wayland
wrote:
>That would mean that Spock had an explosive early career that dead
>ended.
This happened to all crew members of the Enterprise. Somehow after
Ken from Chicago
<video...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154091291.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
A1000 for moi.
That's how I first heard about it that they were using Amigas to do the fx
for a tv show, how a demo reel showed a shot outside a space station and
then it zooms in closer and closer revealing more details until it went THRU
a window into a partyroom onboard.
-- Ken from Chicago (who never got to see the footage, but it led from
American PeopleLink to GEnie to SFRT to TWCNBN)