|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Alice Krige says Star Trek has amazing afterlife.
| Re: OT NOT Star Trek [message #247034 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 22:50 |
|
"Led4Aces" <Led4acs [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144053359.473064.81190 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> And you might want to learn the difference between opinion and fact.
So, THAT'S the problem!
You are stating only opinions instead of facts.
Now I get it.
Maybe you should clarify them that way instead of
making everyone think you actually know something.
|
|
|
| Re: OT NOT Star Trek [message #247081 ] |
Fr, 14 April 2006 09:44 |
|
> And you might want to learn the difference between opinion and fact.
<From: VernonT
So, THAT'S the problem!
You are stating only opinions instead of facts.
Now I get it. Maybe you should clarify them that way instead of
making everyone think you actually know something. >>>>>>>
Since YOU don't know the difference between opinion and fact I'll throw
you a learning curve and 'clarify' things for you. I wasn't aware you
rode the short bus, but thanks for clearing things up.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #247119 ] |
Mo, 17 April 2006 16:56 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:4iir225ujt43cv9v8ul6m7p9c7ln0ouscl [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 00:40:58 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
> <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> trolled and spun:
>
> >John H. Schneider II wrote:
> >>
> >> The facts are that WMD's have been discovered.
> >>
> >
> >No, that's simply a false statement.
>
> It's a factual statement. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it
> doesn't make it false.
It is a statement...that is a fact, but it is a false statement, in that it
is wrong.
>
> > No WMDs have been discovered. They
> >would have been announced if they had been; they haven't been.
>
> It was announced.
When? Where?
>
> > If you want
> >people to believe that statement please state what WMDs were discovered,
and
> >where.
>
> Given that you won't believe anything that doesn't fit your
> ideology, why should I post a link to you?
I entirely agree with the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime. I wanted
it toppled regardless of the presence or otherwise of WMD. I could not care
about WMD or not. If you can post a link that proves that there were WMD,
then I can easily believe it, thought it would not change my mind on the
rightness of the invasion. What is stopping you presenting your links,
assuming you even have them?
>
> >
> > According to recon
> >> photos and documents still being gone through, most of the WMD's were
> >> shipped out of the country in the run-up to the war.
> >
> >The best you have there is a hopeful theory and, based on the past
> >performance of the US spooks interpreting Iraqi satellite photos
(mistaking
> >fire trucks for "mobile weapons laboratories" etc) it's unlikely. It sure
as
> >hell doesn't even closely approach any kind of truth.
>
> More unreliable spin by you. You tell me, why is a convoy of 60
> semi's leaving an Iraqi WMD storage site heading to Syria just prior
> to the war?
Your evidence for this assertion?
Which Iraqi WMD storage site are you referring to?
You believe that they were just trying to get the empty
> trailers to safety?
>
> >
> >Give it up. There weren't any WMDs. Chimpy and Blair hoped to find some
to
> >justify their war and lost the gamble.
>
> Chimpy? Why are you involving Al Gore in this conversation?
>
> Fact is that there were WMD's,
Evidence?
even though your myopia prevents you
> from acknowledging it.
I am not myopic! I personally do not care whether there were WMD or not!
YOU are making a big fuss about them being there, so where is your evidence?
>
> And no, I'm not going to give up posting facts. Unlike you I think
> it's better to have removed a terrorist supporter and dictator than to
> blindly sit there and hope nothing ever happens.
True, but you seem determined to tell us that WMD did exist! What is your
proof?
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #247120 ] |
Mo, 17 April 2006 22:57 |
|
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:56:46 +0100, "John Porcella"
<bronson69 [at] btinternet.com> took his time in trolling:
>
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:4iir225ujt43cv9v8ul6m7p9c7ln0ouscl [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 00:40:58 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
>> <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> trolled and spun:
>>
>> >John H. Schneider II wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The facts are that WMD's have been discovered.
>> >>
>> >
>> >No, that's simply a false statement.
>>
>> It's a factual statement. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it
>> doesn't make it false.
>
>It is a statement...that is a fact, but it is a false statement, in that it
>is wrong.
It is a factual statement. WMD's have been discovered.
Now, if you want to talk WMD stockpiles, that's a different issue.
>
>>
>> > No WMDs have been discovered. They
>> >would have been announced if they had been; they haven't been.
>>
>> It was announced.
>
>When? Where?
On legitimate news sources that don't agree with your ideology.
>
>>
>> > If you want
>> >people to believe that statement please state what WMDs were discovered,
>and
>> >where.
>>
>> Given that you won't believe anything that doesn't fit your
>> ideology, why should I post a link to you?
>
>I entirely agree with the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime. I wanted
>it toppled regardless of the presence or otherwise of WMD. I could not care
>about WMD or not. If you can post a link that proves that there were WMD,
>then I can easily believe it, thought it would not change my mind on the
>rightness of the invasion. What is stopping you presenting your links,
>assuming you even have them?
Why are you trolling me over WMD's if you agree that removing Saddam
was a good thing?
As for giving you links, I'm not going to play the little game that
you want to play. Someone like you will never believe any link I post.
>
>>
>> >
>> > According to recon
>> >> photos and documents still being gone through, most of the WMD's were
>> >> shipped out of the country in the run-up to the war.
>> >
>> >The best you have there is a hopeful theory and, based on the past
>> >performance of the US spooks interpreting Iraqi satellite photos
>(mistaking
>> >fire trucks for "mobile weapons laboratories" etc) it's unlikely. It sure
>as
>> >hell doesn't even closely approach any kind of truth.
>>
>> More unreliable spin by you. You tell me, why is a convoy of 60
>> semi's leaving an Iraqi WMD storage site heading to Syria just prior
>> to the war?
>
>Your evidence for this assertion?
Not an assertion. A fact.
>
>Which Iraqi WMD storage site are you referring to?
One of the ones discovered to be empty AFTER the trucks left.
>
> You believe that they were just trying to get the empty
>> trailers to safety?
>>
>> >
>> >Give it up. There weren't any WMDs. Chimpy and Blair hoped to find some
>to
>> >justify their war and lost the gamble.
>>
>> Chimpy? Why are you involving Al Gore in this conversation?
>>
>> Fact is that there were WMD's,
>
>Evidence?
Repeatedly presented by legitimate news sources. Repeatedly ignored
by trolls like you.
>
>
> even though your myopia prevents you
>> from acknowledging it.
>
>I am not myopic!
Then why do you keep trolling over the WMD issue?
> I personally do not care whether there were WMD or not!
>YOU are making a big fuss about them being there, so where is your evidence?
I'm not making a big fuss over anything - you're the one who keeps
bringing up the subject. YOU are the one who keeps making demands on
WMD's.
>
>>
>> And no, I'm not going to give up posting facts. Unlike you I think
>> it's better to have removed a terrorist supporter and dictator than to
>> blindly sit there and hope nothing ever happens.
>
>True, but you seem determined to tell us that WMD did exist! What is your
>proof?
Ok, just so I'm clear on your position: Saddam has NEVER used WMD's.
NOBODY gassed the Kurds.
At least now we know where you're coming from.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #248900 ] |
Do, 20 April 2006 06:18 |
|
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:57:46 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:56:46 +0100, "John Porcella"
><bronson69 [at] btinternet.com> took his time in trolling:
>
>>
>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>news:4iir225ujt43cv9v8ul6m7p9c7ln0ouscl [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 00:40:58 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
>>> <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> trolled and spun:
>>>
>>> >John H. Schneider II wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> The facts are that WMD's have been discovered.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >No, that's simply a false statement.
>>>
>>> It's a factual statement. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it
>>> doesn't make it false.
>>
>>It is a statement...that is a fact, but it is a false statement, in that it
>>is wrong.
>
> It is a factual statement. WMD's have been discovered.
>
> Now, if you want to talk WMD stockpiles, that's a different issue.
Every sovereign nation has the right to own and use nuclear weapons,
just like the USA. Fuck what the USA thinks, wants or cries about.
Fuck the USA.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #248910 ] |
Do, 20 April 2006 17:04 |
|
In article <oq2e421hofji8nbk8qatdkmv6bu626qlpp [at] 4ax.com>, rocketman [at] shatner.nul
says...
[snip]
>Every sovereign nation has the right to own and use nuclear weapons,
>just like the USA. Fuck what the USA thinks, wants or cries about.
>Fuck the USA.
If you're from the USA, you are a fool. The nuclear powers may not have any
right or moral imperative to restrict access to their club, but they would be
fools not to do so. No one in his right mind wants to see that kind of power
unleashed in anger again, and the fewer people who have the keys to the cabinet
the better ..
--
__
This space left blank
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #248914 ] |
Do, 20 April 2006 18:57 |
|
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:18:55 -0500, rocketman [at] shatner.nul wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:57:46 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:56:46 +0100, "John Porcella"
>><bronson69 [at] btinternet.com> took his time in trolling:
>>
>>>
>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>>news:4iir225ujt43cv9v8ul6m7p9c7ln0ouscl [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 00:40:58 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
>>>> <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> trolled and spun:
>>>>
>>>> >John H. Schneider II wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The facts are that WMD's have been discovered.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >No, that's simply a false statement.
>>>>
>>>> It's a factual statement. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it
>>>> doesn't make it false.
>>>
>>>It is a statement...that is a fact, but it is a false statement, in that it
>>>is wrong.
>>
>> It is a factual statement. WMD's have been discovered.
>>
>> Now, if you want to talk WMD stockpiles, that's a different issue.
>
>Every sovereign nation has the right to own and use nuclear weapons,
>just like the USA. Fuck what the USA thinks, wants or cries about.
>Fuck the USA.
not if if they sign a treaty saying different
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #248942 ] |
Sa, 22 April 2006 03:55 |
|
In article <e287um019l4 [at] drn.newsguy.com>, George Peatty <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote:
>In article <oq2e421hofji8nbk8qatdkmv6bu626qlpp [at] 4ax.com>, rocketman [at] shatner.nul
>says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>Every sovereign nation has the right to own and use nuclear weapons,
>>just like the USA. Fuck what the USA thinks, wants or cries about.
>>Fuck the USA.
>
>
>If you're from the USA, you are a fool. The nuclear powers may not have any
>right or moral imperative to restrict access to their club, but they would be
>fools not to do so. No one in his right mind wants to see that kind of power
>unleashed in anger again, and the fewer people who have the keys to the cabinet
>the better ..
>
>
Especially in the hands of some nutfucked country like Iran!
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #248946 ] |
Sa, 22 April 2006 07:30 |
|
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:57:47 -0400, kb9rqz [at] markmorgan.net wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:18:55 -0500, rocketman [at] shatner.nul wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:57:46 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:56:46 +0100, "John Porcella"
>>><bronson69 [at] btinternet.com> took his time in trolling:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>>>news:4iir225ujt43cv9v8ul6m7p9c7ln0ouscl [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 00:40:58 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
>>>>> <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> trolled and spun:
>>>>>
>>>>> >John H. Schneider II wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The facts are that WMD's have been discovered.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >No, that's simply a false statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a factual statement. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it
>>>>> doesn't make it false.
>>>>
>>>>It is a statement...that is a fact, but it is a false statement, in that it
>>>>is wrong.
>>>
>>> It is a factual statement. WMD's have been discovered.
>>>
>>> Now, if you want to talk WMD stockpiles, that's a different issue.
>>
>>Every sovereign nation has the right to own and use nuclear weapons,
>>just like the USA. Fuck what the USA thinks, wants or cries about.
>>Fuck the USA.
>not if if they sign a treaty saying different
You mean like a treaty against torture and unilaterally starting war?
Bush wiped down with the Constitution, wiped up with the flag, then
polished with that treaty.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #296492 ] |
Mo, 10 Juli 2006 19:20 |
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040305070708080906030202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on it?
The name of that episode was called "Relics".
Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went on.
OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was
looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film
clip because to re-create the original
Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
OK, got that so far?
Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,
an EXACT copy of the original.
NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation for
just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
the air???
Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so
they can put them into storage to be used once again
on another spin off. Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the
Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between
Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
Watch think??
/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
>On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>>
>>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>>
>>What do you all think?
>>
>>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>>
>>
>
>There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
>be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
>fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
>the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
>
>
--------------040305070708080906030202
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on
it?<br>
The name of that episode was called "Relics".<br>
Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went
on.<br>
OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was
looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty. <br>
That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.<br>
Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film
clip because to re-create the original<br>
Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.<br>
OK, got that so far? <br>
Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.<br>
One of the last few episodes, the one with the "<br>
evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,
an EXACT copy of the original.<br>
NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation for
just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off <br>
the air???<br>
Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so
they can put them into storage to be used once again <br>
on another spin off. Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the
Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise <br>
was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between
Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.<br>
Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!<br>
Watch think??<br>
<br>
<br>
/ Wally Brunner / wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid746q121nr7pg5pqq676ac1banje03ovd6s [at] 4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com">"allemannster [at] gmail.com"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com"><allemannster [at] gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href=" http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l"> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l</a>
Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
What do you all think?
I sincerely hope Trek returns!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------040305070708080906030202--
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #296493 ] |
Mo, 10 Juli 2006 20:34 |
|
In article <44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com>, JJ <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:
> OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on it?
> The name of that episode was called "Relics".
> Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went on.
> OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was
> looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
> That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
> Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film
> clip because to re-create the original
> Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
> OK, got that so far?
> Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
> One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
> evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,
> an EXACT copy of the original.
Well, close. Hardly exact.
> NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation for
> just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
> the air???
yes. It was a major set piece for TWO episodes, as opposed to a
throwaway scene in one episode (Relics).
> Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so
> they can put them into storage to be used once again
> on another spin off.
Nah. Paramount routinely destroys and recreates this stuff. They
didn't even keep the movie Kirk bridge between (most of) the films,
which is why it kept changing.
Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the
> Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
> was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between
> Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
No, there weren't. We know Mirror Kirk assassinated Pike to get the
ship, and we know how long Spock served with Pike. There just isn't any
large gap of time between the Pike years and the Kirk years. At best,
the ship went in for a refit (the non Mirror Kirk only met Pike when
Pike was promoted to fleet Captain).
As for '20 years' -- the events of The Cage took place 13 years before
the events of 'The Menagerie.' That 20 year line is just silly; even if
it was right, and it's likely the ship is older than that, it had been
completely refit in the first movie! Anyway, adding up the years Pike
had it and Kirk had it come to easily 20 years total. Again, no gap
inbetween.
> Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
If we do, it won't be because they kept a set around.
> Watch think??
Nice try, but nopw. Sorry. :-)
>
>
> / Wally Brunner / wrote:
>
> >On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
> ><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
> >>
> >>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
> >>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
> >>
> >>What do you all think?
> >>
> >>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
> >be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
> >fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
> >the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
> >
> >
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #296505 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 03:02 |
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050208010005090104040801
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Incorrect, a small piece of the original bridge set survived and was used
in that shot. Nothing new was built (as far as I know :-P ).
Also, I don't think the chair was from a fan, but I might be wrong here.
I know the center console (astrogater) where sulu and check-ov was fan built
form a guy in Vegas if I remember correctly. The top part of that console
was not so hot.
Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
Gotta boogie now, reply later to the rest. ;-)
Anim8rFSK wrote:
>In article <44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com>, JJ <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on it?
>>The name of that episode was called "Relics".
>>Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went on.
>>OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was
>>looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
>>
>>
>
>Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
>shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
>the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
>
>
>
>>That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
>>Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film
>>clip because to re-create the original
>>Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
>>OK, got that so far?
>>Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
>>One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
>>evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,
>>an EXACT copy of the original.
>>
>>
>
>Well, close. Hardly exact.
>
>
>
>>NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation for
>>just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
>>the air???
>>
>>
>
>yes. It was a major set piece for TWO episodes, as opposed to a
>throwaway scene in one episode (Relics).
>
>
>
>>Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so
>>they can put them into storage to be used once again
>>on another spin off.
>>
>>
>
>Nah. Paramount routinely destroys and recreates this stuff. They
>didn't even keep the movie Kirk bridge between (most of) the films,
>which is why it kept changing.
>
> Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the
>
>
>>Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
>>was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between
>>Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
>>
>>
>
>No, there weren't. We know Mirror Kirk assassinated Pike to get the
>ship, and we know how long Spock served with Pike. There just isn't any
>large gap of time between the Pike years and the Kirk years. At best,
>the ship went in for a refit (the non Mirror Kirk only met Pike when
>Pike was promoted to fleet Captain).
>
>As for '20 years' -- the events of The Cage took place 13 years before
>the events of 'The Menagerie.' That 20 year line is just silly; even if
>it was right, and it's likely the ship is older than that, it had been
>completely refit in the first movie! Anyway, adding up the years Pike
>had it and Kirk had it come to easily 20 years total. Again, no gap
>inbetween.
>
>
>
>>Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
>>
>>
>
>If we do, it won't be because they kept a set around.
>
>
>
>>Watch think??
>>
>>
>
>Nice try, but nopw. Sorry. :-)
>
>
>>/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
>>><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>>>>
>>>>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>>>>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>>>>
>>>>What do you all think?
>>>>
>>>>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
>>>be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
>>>fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
>>>the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
--------------050208010005090104040801
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<pre wrap="">Incorrect, a small piece of the original bridge set survived and was used
in that shot. Nothing new was built (as far as I know <span
class="moz-smiley-s4"><span> :-P </span></span>).
Also, I don't think the chair was from a fan, but I might be wrong here.
I know the center console (astrogater) where sulu and check-ov was fan built
form a guy in Vegas if I remember correctly. The top part of that console
was not so hot.
<i>Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.</i></pre>
Gotta boogie now, reply later to the rest. <span
class="moz-smiley-s3"><span> ;-) </span></span><br>
<br>
<br>
Anim8rFSK wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="midANIM8Rfsk-B77DD0.11345110072006 [at] news.west.cox.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com"><44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com></a>, JJ <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com"><jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on it?
The name of that episode was called "Relics".
Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went on.
OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was
looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film
clip because to re-create the original
Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
OK, got that so far?
Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,
an EXACT copy of the original.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Well, close. Hardly exact.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation for
just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
the air???
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
yes. It was a major set piece for TWO episodes, as opposed to a
throwaway scene in one episode (Relics).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so
they can put them into storage to be used once again
on another spin off.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Nah. Paramount routinely destroys and recreates this stuff. They
didn't even keep the movie Kirk bridge between (most of) the films,
which is why it kept changing.
Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between
Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
No, there weren't. We know Mirror Kirk assassinated Pike to get the
ship, and we know how long Spock served with Pike. There just isn't any
large gap of time between the Pike years and the Kirk years. At best,
the ship went in for a refit (the non Mirror Kirk only met Pike when
Pike was promoted to fleet Captain).
As for '20 years' -- the events of The Cage took place 13 years before
the events of 'The Menagerie.' That 20 year line is just silly; even if
it was right, and it's likely the ship is older than that, it had been
completely refit in the first movie! Anyway, adding up the years Pike
had it and Kirk had it come to easily 20 years total. Again, no gap
inbetween.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If we do, it won't be because they kept a set around.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Watch think??
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Nice try, but nopw. Sorry. :-)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com">"allemannster [at] gmail.com"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com"><allemannster [at] gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href=" http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l"> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l</a>
Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
What do you all think?
I sincerely hope Trek returns!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------050208010005090104040801--
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #296506 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 03:13 |
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C6A592.AF681500
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What episode(s) of Enterprise showed the original set ?
"JJ" <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com...
OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on =
it?
The name of that episode was called "Relics".
Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went =
on.
OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was =
looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.=20
That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old =
film clip because to re-create the original
Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
OK, got that so far? =20
Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real =
set, an EXACT copy of the original.
NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation =
for just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off=20
the air???
Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so =
they can put them into storage to be used once again=20
on another spin off. Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the =
Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise=20
was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between =
Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
Watch think??
/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
<allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
What do you all think?
I sincerely hope Trek returns!
=20
There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
=20
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C6A592.AF681500
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What episode(s) of Enterprise showed =
the original=20
set ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"JJ" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com">jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com">news:44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.=
com</A>...</DIV>OK,=20
here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty =
on=20
it?<BR>The name of that episode was called "Relics".<BR>Remember the =
holo-deck=20
program of the original bridge that Scotty went on.<BR>OK, that bridge =
set was=20
not a set, it was the old film clip that was looped together of the =
Enterprise=20
when the bridge was empty. <BR>That episode was the one with the =
spores on=20
Omacron Settie 3.<BR>Now back to "Relics", It was decided =
at that=20
time to use the old film clip because to re-create the =
original<BR>Bridge set=20
was deemed MUCH to expensive.<BR>OK, got that so far? =
<BR>Now we=20
jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.<BR>One of the last few =
episodes, the=20
one with the "<BR>evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that =
bridge set=20
was a real set, an EXACT copy of the original.<BR>NOW, would =
they spend=20
all that money in this beautiful re-creation for just 2 episodes of a =
show=20
that was about to go off <BR>the air???<BR>Answer, THey built the =
exact bridge=20
set and the other sets exactly so they can put them into storage to be =
used=20
once again <BR>on another spin off. Remember, Kirk was the last =
Captain=20
of the Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the =
Enterprise=20
<BR>was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains =
between=20
Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.<BR>Logically, I bet we meet one of them =
pretty=20
soon!!<BR>Watch think??<BR><BR><BR>/ Wally Brunner / wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid746q121nr7pg5pqq676ac1banje03ovd6s [at] 4ax.com =
type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, <A =
class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com">"allemannster [at] gmail.com"</A>
<A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com"><allemannster [at] gmail.com></A>=
wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D""><A =
class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext =
href=3D" http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l">ht=
tp://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.html</A>
Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
What do you all think?
I sincerely hope Trek returns!
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->
There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C6A592.AF681500--
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #296507 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 03:17 |
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C6A593.3BBF5BD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Also, I read that the original transporter is now the ceiling of the TNG =
transporter.
"JJ" <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:jSXsg.503$W%2.171 [at] fe09.lga...
Incorrect, a small piece of the original bridge set survived and was =
used=20
in that shot. Nothing new was built (as far as I know :-P ).=20
Also, I don't think the chair was from a fan, but I might be wrong here.
I know the center console (astrogater) where sulu and check-ov was fan =
built
form a guy in Vegas if I remember correctly. The top part of that =
console=20
was not so hot.
Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer=20
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see=20
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is =
wrong.Gotta boogie now, reply later to the rest. ;-)=20
Anim8rFSK wrote:
In article <44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com>, JJ <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com>=20
wrote:
OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on =
it?
The name of that episode was called "Relics".
Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went =
on.
OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was=20
looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
=20
Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer=20
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see=20
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film=20
clip because to re-create the original
Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
OK, got that so far? =20
Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,=20
an EXACT copy of the original.
=20
Well, close. Hardly exact.
NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation =
for=20
just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
the air???
=20
yes. It was a major set piece for TWO episodes, as opposed to a=20
throwaway scene in one episode (Relics).
Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so=20
they can put them into storage to be used once again
on another spin off.=20
=20
Nah. Paramount routinely destroys and recreates this stuff. They=20
didn't even keep the movie Kirk bridge between (most of) the films,=20
which is why it kept changing.
Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the=20
Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between=20
Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
=20
No, there weren't. We know Mirror Kirk assassinated Pike to get the=20
ship, and we know how long Spock served with Pike. There just isn't any =
large gap of time between the Pike years and the Kirk years. At best,=20
the ship went in for a refit (the non Mirror Kirk only met Pike when=20
Pike was promoted to fleet Captain).
As for '20 years' -- the events of The Cage took place 13 years before=20
the events of 'The Menagerie.' That 20 year line is just silly; even if =
it was right, and it's likely the ship is older than that, it had been=20
completely refit in the first movie! Anyway, adding up the years Pike=20
had it and Kirk had it come to easily 20 years total. Again, no gap=20
inbetween.
Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
=20
If we do, it won't be because they kept a set around.
Watch think??
=20
Nice try, but nopw. Sorry. :-)
/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
<allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
=20
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
What do you all think?
I sincerely hope Trek returns!
=20
There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply =
cannot
be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
=20
=20
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C6A593.3BBF5BD0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Also, I read that the original =
transporter is now=20
the ceiling of the TNG transporter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"JJ" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com">jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:jSXsg.503$W%2.171 [at] fe09.lga">news:jSXsg.503$W%2.171 [at] fe09.lga<=
/A>...</DIV><PRE wrap=3D"">Incorrect, a small piece of the original =
bridge set survived and was used=20
in that shot. Nothing new was built (as far as I know <SPAN =
class=3Dmoz-smiley-s4><SPAN> :-P </SPAN></SPAN>).=20
Also, I don't think the chair was from a fan, but I might be wrong here.
I know the center console (astrogater) where sulu and check-ov was fan =
built
form a guy in Vegas if I remember correctly. The top part of that =
console=20
was not so hot.
<I>Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer=20
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see=20
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is =
wrong.</I></PRE>Gotta=20
boogie now, reply later to the rest. <SPAN=20
class=3Dmoz-smiley-s3><SPAN>;-) </SPAN></SPAN><BR><BR><BR>Anim8rFSK =
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE =
cite=3DmidANIM8Rfsk-B77DD0.11345110072006 [at] news.west.cox.net=20
type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">In article <A =
class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com"><44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail=
..com></A>, JJ <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com"><jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com></=
A>=20
wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">OK, here is the deal. =
Remember when the next generation had Scotty on it?
The name of that episode was called "Relics".
Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went =
on.
OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was=20
looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->
Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer=20
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see=20
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">That episode was the one =
with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film=20
clip because to re-create the original
Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
OK, got that so far? =20
Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,=20
an EXACT copy of the original.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->
Well, close. Hardly exact.
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">NOW, would they spend all =
that money in this beautiful re-creation for=20
just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
the air???
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->
yes. It was a major set piece for TWO episodes, as opposed to a=20
throwaway scene in one episode (Relics).
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">Answer, THey built the =
exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so=20
they can put them into storage to be used once again
on another spin off.=20
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->
Nah. Paramount routinely destroys and recreates this stuff. They=20
didn't even keep the movie Kirk bridge between (most of) the films,=20
which is why it kept changing.
Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the=20
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">Enterprise before he blew =
it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between=20
Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->
No, there weren't. We know Mirror Kirk assassinated Pike to get the=20
ship, and we know how long Spock served with Pike. There just isn't any =
large gap of time between the Pike years and the Kirk years. At best,=20
the ship went in for a refit (the non Mirror Kirk only met Pike when=20
Pike was promoted to fleet Captain).
As for '20 years' -- the events of The Cage took place 13 years before=20
the events of 'The Menagerie.' That 20 year line is just silly; even if =
it was right, and it's likely the ship is older than that, it had been=20
completely refit in the first movie! Anyway, adding up the years Pike=20
had it and Kirk had it come to easily 20 years total. Again, no gap=20
inbetween.
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">Logically, I bet we meet =
one of them pretty soon!!
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->
If we do, it won't be because they kept a set around.
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">Watch think??
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->
Nice try, but nopw. Sorry. :-)
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 =
-0800, <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com">"allemannster [at] gmail.com"</A>
<A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com"><allemannster [at] gmail.com></A>=
wrote:
=20
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D""><A =
class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext =
href=3D" http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l">ht=
tp://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.html</A>
Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
What do you all think?
I sincerely hope Trek returns!
=20
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D"">There will never be another =
Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
=20
=
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE ></BODY></HT=
ML>
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C6A593.3BBF5BD0--
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #296513 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 08:29 |
|
In article <jSXsg.503$W%2.171 [at] fe09.lga>, JJ <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Incorrect, a small piece of the original bridge set survived and was used
> in that shot. Nothing new was built (as far as I know :-P ).
Okay, maybe they didn't build it, but the turbo lift and engineering
section are really there, as is the helm.
> Also, I don't think the chair was from a fan, but I might be wrong here.
> I know the center console (astrogater) where sulu and check-ov was fan built
> form a guy in Vegas if I remember correctly. The top part of that console
> was not so hot.
That could well be.
>
> Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
> shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
> the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
>
> Gotta boogie now, reply later to the rest. ;-)
>
>
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> >In article <44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com>, JJ <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on it?
> >>The name of that episode was called "Relics".
> >>Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went on.
> >>OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was
> >>looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
> >shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
> >the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >>That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
> >>Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film
> >>clip because to re-create the original
> >>Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
> >>OK, got that so far?
> >>Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
> >>One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
> >>evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,
> >>an EXACT copy of the original.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, close. Hardly exact.
> >
> >
> >
> >>NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation for
> >>just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
> >>the air???
> >>
> >>
> >
> >yes. It was a major set piece for TWO episodes, as opposed to a
> >throwaway scene in one episode (Relics).
> >
> >
> >
> >>Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so
> >>they can put them into storage to be used once again
> >>on another spin off.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Nah. Paramount routinely destroys and recreates this stuff. They
> >didn't even keep the movie Kirk bridge between (most of) the films,
> >which is why it kept changing.
> >
> > Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the
> >
> >
> >>Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
> >>was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between
> >>Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >No, there weren't. We know Mirror Kirk assassinated Pike to get the
> >ship, and we know how long Spock served with Pike. There just isn't any
> >large gap of time between the Pike years and the Kirk years. At best,
> >the ship went in for a refit (the non Mirror Kirk only met Pike when
> >Pike was promoted to fleet Captain).
> >
> >As for '20 years' -- the events of The Cage took place 13 years before
> >the events of 'The Menagerie.' That 20 year line is just silly; even if
> >it was right, and it's likely the ship is older than that, it had been
> >completely refit in the first movie! Anyway, adding up the years Pike
> >had it and Kirk had it come to easily 20 years total. Again, no gap
> >inbetween.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If we do, it won't be because they kept a set around.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Watch think??
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Nice try, but nopw. Sorry. :-)
> >
> >
> >>/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
> >>><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
> >>>>
> >>>>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
> >>>>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
> >>>>
> >>>>What do you all think?
> >>>>
> >>>>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
> >>>be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
> >>>fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
> >>>the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #296514 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 08:33 |
|
In article <m1Ysg.3211$tE5.807 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"PW" <pwaNO [at] SPAMbigpond.net.au> wrote:
> What episode(s) of Enterprise showed the original set ?
They had the DEFIANT in the Mirror universe sent back in time in 2 of
the very last ENTERPRISE episodes. They weren't the original set, but a
so so recreation. Still way better than the set designs for ENTERPRISE.
:-)
Except for the new areas they designed, which looked like ass.
Season 4, Episode 18: In a Mirror, Darkly: Part 1
22 April 2005
Season 4, Episode 19: In a Mirror, Darkly: Part 2
29 April 2005
>
>
>
> "JJ" <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com...
> OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on it?
> The name of that episode was called "Relics".
> Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went on.
> OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was looped
> together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
> That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
> Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film
> clip because to re-create the original
> Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
> OK, got that so far?
> Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
> One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
> evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set, an
> EXACT copy of the original.
> NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation for
> just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
> the air???
> Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so they
> can put them into storage to be used once again
> on another spin off. Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the Enterprise
> before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
> was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between Captain
> Pike and Captain Kirk.
> Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
> Watch think??
>
>
> / Wally Brunner / wrote:
>
> On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
> <allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>
> Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
> Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>
> What do you all think?
>
> I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>
> There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
> be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
> fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
> the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #299186 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 17:11 |
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070708030700050406090102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
That is correct!! TOS circular platforms where they stood is (was) on the
ceiling of the TNG transporter! :-)
PW wrote:
>
>
> Also, I read that the original transporter is now the ceiling of the
> TNG transporter.
>
>
>
>
>
> "JJ" <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com <mailto:jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com>>
> wrote in message news:jSXsg.503$W%2.171 [at] fe09.lga...
>
>Incorrect, a small piece of the original bridge set survived and was used
>in that shot. Nothing new was built (as far as I know :-P ).
>Also, I don't think the chair was from a fan, but I might be wrong here.
>I know the center console (astrogater) where sulu and check-ov was fan built
>form a guy in Vegas if I remember correctly. The top part of that console
>was not so hot.
>
>Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
>shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
>the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
>
> Gotta boogie now, reply later to the rest. ;-)
>
>
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
>>In article <44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com>, JJ <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on it?
>>>The name of that episode was called "Relics".
>>>Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went on.
>>>OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was
>>>looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
>>shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
>>the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>>That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
>>>Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film
>>>clip because to re-create the original
>>>Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
>>>OK, got that so far?
>>>Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
>>>One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
>>>evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,
>>>an EXACT copy of the original.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, close. Hardly exact.
>>
>>
>>
>>>NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation for
>>>just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
>>>the air???
>>>
>>>
>>
>>yes. It was a major set piece for TWO episodes, as opposed to a
>>throwaway scene in one episode (Relics).
>>
>>
>>
>>>Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so
>>>they can put them into storage to be used once again
>>>on another spin off.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Nah. Paramount routinely destroys and recreates this stuff. They
>>didn't even keep the movie Kirk bridge between (most of) the films,
>>which is why it kept changing.
>>
>> Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the
>>
>>
>>>Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
>>>was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between
>>>Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, there weren't. We know Mirror Kirk assassinated Pike to get the
>>ship, and we know how long Spock served with Pike. There just isn't any
>>large gap of time between the Pike years and the Kirk years. At best,
>>the ship went in for a refit (the non Mirror Kirk only met Pike when
>>Pike was promoted to fleet Captain).
>>
>>As for '20 years' -- the events of The Cage took place 13 years before
>>the events of 'The Menagerie.' That 20 year line is just silly; even if
>>it was right, and it's likely the ship is older than that, it had been
>>completely refit in the first movie! Anyway, adding up the years Pike
>>had it and Kirk had it come to easily 20 years total. Again, no gap
>>inbetween.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If we do, it won't be because they kept a set around.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Watch think??
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Nice try, but nopw. Sorry. :-)
>>
>>
>>>/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
>>>><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>>>>>
>>>>>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>>>>>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you all think?
>>>>>
>>>>>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
>>>>be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
>>>>fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
>>>>the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
--------------070708030700050406090102
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
That is correct!! TOS circular platforms where they stood is (was) on
the <br>
ceiling of the TNG transporter!<span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span><br>
<br>
<br>
PW wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid25Ysg.3214$tE5.2278 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au"
type="cite">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Also, I read that the original
transporter is now the ceiling of the TNG transporter.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div>"JJ" <<a href="mailto:jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com">jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com</a>>
wrote in message <a href="news:jSXsg.503$W%2.171 [at] fe09.lga">news:jSXsg.503$W%2.171 [at] fe09.lga</a>...</div>
<pre wrap="">Incorrect, a small piece of the original bridge set survived and was used
in that shot. Nothing new was built (as far as I know <span
class="moz-smiley-s4"><span> :-P </span></span>).
Also, I don't think the chair was from a fan, but I might be wrong here.
I know the center console (astrogater) where sulu and check-ov was fan built
form a guy in Vegas if I remember correctly. The top part of that console
was not so hot.
<i>Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.</i></pre>
Gotta boogie now, reply later to the rest. <span
class="moz-smiley-s3"><span>;-) </span></span><br>
<br>
<br>
Anim8rFSK wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="midANIM8Rfsk-B77DD0.11345110072006 [at] news.west.cox.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com"><44B28C6B.7040405 [at] hotmail.com></a>, JJ <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com"><jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">OK, here is the deal. Remember when the next generation had Scotty on it?
The name of that episode was called "Relics".
Remember the holo-deck program of the original bridge that Scotty went on.
OK, that bridge set was not a set, it was the old film clip that was
looped together of the Enterprise when the bridge was empty.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Incorrect. Part of it was built, and a clip was used for the longer
shot. IIRC they borrowed the Captain's chair from a fan. You can see
the lighting in the turbo lift area on the part they built is wrong.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That episode was the one with the spores on Omacron Settie 3.
Now back to "Relics", It was decided at that time to use the old film
clip because to re-create the original
Bridge set was deemed MUCH to expensive.
OK, got that so far?
Now we jump to "Enterprise" with Scott Backula.
One of the last few episodes, the one with the "
evil empire, with the USS Defiant. NOW that bridge set was a real set,
an EXACT copy of the original.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Well, close. Hardly exact.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">NOW, would they spend all that money in this beautiful re-creation for
just 2 episodes of a show that was about to go off
the air???
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
yes. It was a major set piece for TWO episodes, as opposed to a
throwaway scene in one episode (Relics).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Answer, THey built the exact bridge set and the other sets exactly so
they can put them into storage to be used once again
on another spin off.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Nah. Paramount routinely destroys and recreates this stuff. They
didn't even keep the movie Kirk bridge between (most of) the films,
which is why it kept changing.
Remember, Kirk was the last Captain of the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Enterprise before he blew it up. And at that time, the Enterprise
was already 20 years old. There WERE a few other Captains between
Captain Pike and Captain Kirk.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
No, there weren't. We know Mirror Kirk assassinated Pike to get the
ship, and we know how long Spock served with Pike. There just isn't any
large gap of time between the Pike years and the Kirk years. At best,
the ship went in for a refit (the non Mirror Kirk only met Pike when
Pike was promoted to fleet Captain).
As for '20 years' -- the events of The Cage took place 13 years before
the events of 'The Menagerie.' That 20 year line is just silly; even if
it was right, and it's likely the ship is older than that, it had been
completely refit in the first movie! Anyway, adding up the years Pike
had it and Kirk had it come to easily 20 years total. Again, no gap
inbetween.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Logically, I bet we meet one of them pretty soon!!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If we do, it won't be because they kept a set around.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Watch think??
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Nice try, but nopw. Sorry. :-)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com">"allemannster [at] gmail.com"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:allemannster [at] gmail.com"><allemannster [at] gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href=" http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l"> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l</a>
Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
What do you all think?
I sincerely hope Trek returns!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------070708030700050406090102--
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #299189 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 20:36 |
|
"JJ" <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IB7ug.3838$F_6.1904 [at] fe12.lga...
>That is correct!! TOS circular platforms where they stood is (was) on
> >the
>ceiling of the TNG transporter! :-)
So how come they don't materialize upside down?
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #301015 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 04:33 |
|
Marcovaldo wrote:
> "JJ" <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IB7ug.3838$F_6.1904 [at] fe12.lga...
>
>>That is correct!! TOS circular platforms where they stood is (was) on
>>
>>>the
>>
>>ceiling of the TNG transporter! :-)
>
>
>
> So how come they don't materialize upside down?
>
>
Maybe the do, in space all things are relative, and with artificial
gravity up and down are whatever you want them to be <G>
Jeff DeWitt
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #301017 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 16:07 |
|
In article <RLXug.10648$4c7.6212 [at] tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt [at] nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Marcovaldo wrote:
> > "JJ" <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:IB7ug.3838$F_6.1904 [at] fe12.lga...
> >
> >>That is correct!! TOS circular platforms where they stood is (was) on
> >>
> >>>the
> >>
> >>ceiling of the TNG transporter! :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > So how come they don't materialize upside down?
> >
> >
>
> Maybe the do, in space all things are relative, and with artificial
> gravity up and down are whatever you want them to be <G>
>
> Jeff DeWitt
Actually, they aren't. Remember on that really stupid (like that narrows
it down) TNG, where they were being attacked by giant space leeches or
something, and they realized the way to get the giant space leesches to
leave them alone was to TURN THE SHIP OVER ON IT'S BELLY, because giant
space leecheds know up from down in space, and know which side of the
Enterprise D is top and bottom, so just rolling over the ship to show
they were submissive saved the day?
Hey, Picard's French; surrender is hard-wired into his DNA.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space, NEW SHOW?? READ......... [message #301021 ] |
Mi, 19 Juli 2006 03:11 |
|
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <RLXug.10648$4c7.6212 [at] tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt [at] nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Marcovaldo wrote:
>>
>>>"JJ" <jamesevns75 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:IB7ug.3838$F_6.1904 [at] fe12.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>That is correct!! TOS circular platforms where they stood is (was) on
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>ceiling of the TNG transporter! :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So how come they don't materialize upside down?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Maybe the do, in space all things are relative, and with artificial
>>gravity up and down are whatever you want them to be <G>
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>
>
> Actually, they aren't. Remember on that really stupid (like that narrows
> it down) TNG, where they were being attacked by giant space leeches or
> something, and they realized the way to get the giant space leesches to
> leave them alone was to TURN THE SHIP OVER ON IT'S BELLY, because giant
> space leecheds know up from down in space, and know which side of the
> Enterprise D is top and bottom, so just rolling over the ship to show
> they were submissive saved the day?
>
> Hey, Picard's French; surrender is hard-wired into his DNA.
Ahh, good point!
Jeff DeWitt
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Di Feb 7 11:03:55 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08595 Sekunden |
