|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Article about "Starfleet Academy"
| Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242228] |
Mo, 20 März 2006 23:39 |
|
The "Starfleeet Academy" movie has often been mooted
but thankfully never made. An interesting article has
been posted about it on Ain't it Cool News.
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=227891
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242237 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 14:30 |
|
Link does not work.
Starshadow
PS --I found it on:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22789
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242240 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 19:15 |
|
Starshadow wrote:
> Link does not work.
>
> Starshadow
>
> PS --I found it on:
>
> http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22789
Thanks for the correction.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242242 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 21:27 |
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
news:IoXTf.76$TF.155 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> Starshadow wrote:
> > Link does not work.
> >
> > Starshadow
> >
> > PS --I found it on:
> >
> > http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22789
>
> Thanks for the correction.
Interesting article. Trek seems to borrow allot of ideas from itself and if
they're not used they seem to be recycled into the next "incarnation."
(Phase 2 / TMP / TNG)
Makes me wonder if any of the suits actually *watched* Voyager (or Nemisis)
before alowing the double Bs to create yet another Trek show. Too bad Coto
(and or Bennet) was not one of the creators of ENT, we'd probably still be
watching it, but TV execs know what's best and won't be told by mere fans.
Seriously though, it makes one wonder how someone (or a company) can screw
up so bad as to kill a franchise that *already* has "millions" of people
built in as an audience.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242243 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 00:45 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> "Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
> news:IoXTf.76$TF.155 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
>> Starshadow wrote:
>>> Link does not work.
>>>
>>> Starshadow
>>>
>>> PS --I found it on:
>>>
>>> http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22789
>> Thanks for the correction.
>
> Interesting article. Trek seems to borrow allot of ideas from itself and if
> they're not used they seem to be recycled into the next "incarnation."
> (Phase 2 / TMP / TNG)
> Makes me wonder if any of the suits actually *watched* Voyager (or Nemisis)
> before alowing the double Bs to create yet another Trek show. Too bad Coto
> (and or Bennet) was not one of the creators of ENT, we'd probably still be
> watching it, but TV execs know what's best and won't be told by mere fans.
> Seriously though, it makes one wonder how someone (or a company) can screw
> up so bad as to kill a franchise that *already* has "millions" of people
> built in as an audience.
I get the strong impression that the average suit wouldn't
know a good story if it bit them on the ass, and has an
unshakeable belief that the viewing public wouldn't either.
Hollywood does seem to have a strong belief that only the
most basic elements of a story are in any way responsible
for it's success. "Hey, Alien was really popular! It had
dark hallways and an alien monster... let's make a whole
bunch more movies with dark corridors and alien monsters,
they'll be popular too!" - no real understanding of *why*
Alien or Trek or anything else is popular.
And sadly, I often get the impression that the suits are
correct.
The whole Starfleet Academy thing unnerves me a bit. The
idea seems to come up every single time there is word of
a new series or movie - *somebody* out there thinks it
would be a really great idea. I have this horrible feeling
that some day, some time, it will be done. And it will
be awful.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242244 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 14:49 |
|
Likely. And there are some real continuity problems such as the ones
the present owners of the franchise stuck Enterprise with. Spock could
not have been the first Vulcan in StarFleet. We already know from TOS
there was a whole Starship, Constitution class full of Vulcans,
destroyed in the giant paramecium episode.
Spock and Kirk meeting ahead of time? McCoy too? Just doesn't seem
likely. The crew is obviously still settling in with the synergy they
will soon exhibit in the first few episodes filmed. I watched the
series from the beginning on NBC. (in 1966)
Prequels often suck because the people doing them forget the vision
that made the original work.
And much as I love Trek, I do fanfic because the owners of the
franchise have forgotten it was its innovation in thought and its
willingness to go beyond what was acceptable for its time which made it
work as much as the chemistry between the actors.
And I'm very much afraid that they won't really succeed with other
actors playing the parts until my generation is dead and gone, even
though I concede the necessity. Poor ol Shatner and Nimoy are old men
now, and can't reprise the parts, even were they to desire to.
Thank goodness for well-written fanfic. In fanfic we can make them any
age we wish to.
There's room for a lot of storytelling in the Trekverse that doesn't
involve the original crew and ship. Too bad no one owning the franchise
has Clue One on how to tell the stories.
--
Starshadow
www.starshadow.net
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242245 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 18:58 |
|
"Starshadow" <starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote in message
news:1143035374.534639.15670 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Likely. And there are some real continuity problems such as the ones
> the present owners of the franchise stuck Enterprise with.
No not really any real continuity problems, just problems for some people
because something conflicted with Fan-on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_c ontinuity_problems
> Spock could
> not have been the first Vulcan in StarFleet. We already know from TOS
> there was a whole Starship, Constitution class full of Vulcans,
> destroyed in the giant paramecium episode.
Was it stated anywhere that Intrepid was a Constitution class ship, or that
it was a Starfleet ship and not a Vulcan or Federation ship?
> Spock and Kirk meeting ahead of time? McCoy too? Just doesn't seem
> likely.
Concur, but it *is* possible.
<snip>
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"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!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242246 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 19:28 |
|
Starshadow wrote:
> Likely. And there are some real continuity problems such as the ones
> the present owners of the franchise stuck Enterprise with.
It's not the "screw continuity!" attitude that really
bugs me - though that attitude would be the death of
any prequel (Enterprise is proof enough of that), a
movie could probably get away with it.
It's more the whole concept. Look at TOS - the whole
concept of the show was that the ship wants to explore.
So any time they encounter something new, they have
fulfilled their mission. Even if the Enterprise or crew
is threatened, even if people make mistakes, it's all
in service of a greater good, a successful mission.
Then look at Voyager. The whole premise is that the ship
wants to get home. So every episode it doesn't get home,
the ship has failed its mission. And that's every
episode bar one. So the premise makes the crew out to be
a bunch of failures, and their mistakes make them look
stupid. Voyager was set up to fail before the first line
of the first episode was written.
Now think of cadets. What are Cadets for? They are
glorified schoolchildren. They are NOT there to go out and
save the day - that's what the *real* officers and crew
are there for. So any time you have a bunch of cadets
going out and saving the day, you're making the Voyager
mistake all over again.
They could *maybe* get away with this, for a single
movie. For a Starfleet Academy series it would be a
disaster.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242247 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 19:47 |
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
news:RGgUf.83$TF.490 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
<snip - the truth about Voyager>
> Now think of cadets. What are Cadets for? They are
> glorified schoolchildren. They are NOT there to go out and
> save the day - that's what the *real* officers and crew
> are there for. So any time you have a bunch of cadets
> going out and saving the day, you're making the Voyager
> mistake all over again.
>
> They could *maybe* get away with this, for a single
> movie. For a Starfleet Academy series it would be a
> disaster.
Concur on that one! It reminded me of the idea re-tooled (and my pet peeve)
of the TNG ep "Lower Decks" that was about junior officers and not actually
about lower deckers. (enlisted personnel)
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242248 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 21:20 |
|
Graham Kennedy wrote:
> Kweeg wrote:
>> "Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
>> news:IoXTf.76$TF.155 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
>>> Starshadow wrote:
>>>> Link does not work.
>>>>
>>>> Starshadow
>>>>
>>>> PS --I found it on:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22789
>>> Thanks for the correction.
>>
>> Interesting article. Trek seems to borrow allot of ideas from itself
>> and if they're not used they seem to be recycled into the next
>> "incarnation." (Phase 2 / TMP / TNG)
>> Makes me wonder if any of the suits actually *watched* Voyager (or
>> Nemisis) before alowing the double Bs to create yet another Trek
>> show. Too bad Coto (and or Bennet) was not one of the creators of
>> ENT, we'd probably still be watching it, but TV execs know what's
>> best and won't be told by mere fans. Seriously though, it makes one
>> wonder how someone (or a company) can screw up so bad as to kill a
>> franchise that *already* has "millions" of people built in as an
>> audience.
>
> I get the strong impression that the average suit wouldn't
> know a good story if it bit them on the ass, and has an
> unshakeable belief that the viewing public wouldn't either.
>
> Hollywood does seem to have a strong belief that only the
> most basic elements of a story are in any way responsible
> for it's success. "Hey, Alien was really popular! It had
> dark hallways and an alien monster... let's make a whole
> bunch more movies with dark corridors and alien monsters,
> they'll be popular too!" - no real understanding of *why*
> Alien or Trek or anything else is popular.
>
> And sadly, I often get the impression that the suits are
> correct.
>
> The whole Starfleet Academy thing unnerves me a bit. The
> idea seems to come up every single time there is word of
> a new series or movie - *somebody* out there thinks it
> would be a really great idea. I have this horrible feeling
> that some day, some time, it will be done. And it will
> be awful.
I've always hated the whole Starfleet Academy idea, but... I have to admit,
by the end of reading that article I found I wanted to see this movie :) Of
course, the writer of the article was clearly boosting it as a good thing,
so that biased me. But it did indeed seem more like a Trek story than much
of the drab wallpaper that has been presented to us of late. Mind you, the
biggest enjoyment of Trek I've had in a very long time was Enterprise's In A
Mirror Darkly. Not only was it a joy to see TOS era ships etc, and a good
story, it was one of the rare times I really cared about the Enterprise
characters- the one time they weren't themselves :)
Ian
--
www.jaxtrawstudios.com
science-fiction comics with shagging in
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242249 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 23:32 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:4421b075$0$674$fa0fcedb [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> Graham Kennedy wrote:
> > Kweeg wrote:
> >> "Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
> >> news:IoXTf.76$TF.155 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> >>> Starshadow wrote:
> >>>> Link does not work.
> >>>>
> >>>> Starshadow
> >>>>
> >>>> PS --I found it on:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22789
> >>> Thanks for the correction.
> >>
> >> Interesting article. Trek seems to borrow allot of ideas from itself
> >> and if they're not used they seem to be recycled into the next
> >> "incarnation." (Phase 2 / TMP / TNG)
> >> Makes me wonder if any of the suits actually *watched* Voyager (or
> >> Nemisis) before alowing the double Bs to create yet another Trek
> >> show. Too bad Coto (and or Bennet) was not one of the creators of
> >> ENT, we'd probably still be watching it, but TV execs know what's
> >> best and won't be told by mere fans. Seriously though, it makes one
> >> wonder how someone (or a company) can screw up so bad as to kill a
> >> franchise that *already* has "millions" of people built in as an
> >> audience.
> >
> > I get the strong impression that the average suit wouldn't
> > know a good story if it bit them on the ass, and has an
> > unshakeable belief that the viewing public wouldn't either.
> >
> > Hollywood does seem to have a strong belief that only the
> > most basic elements of a story are in any way responsible
> > for it's success. "Hey, Alien was really popular! It had
> > dark hallways and an alien monster... let's make a whole
> > bunch more movies with dark corridors and alien monsters,
> > they'll be popular too!" - no real understanding of *why*
> > Alien or Trek or anything else is popular.
> >
> > And sadly, I often get the impression that the suits are
> > correct.
> >
> > The whole Starfleet Academy thing unnerves me a bit. The
> > idea seems to come up every single time there is word of
> > a new series or movie - *somebody* out there thinks it
> > would be a really great idea. I have this horrible feeling
> > that some day, some time, it will be done. And it will
> > be awful.
>
>
> I've always hated the whole Starfleet Academy idea, but... I have to
admit,
> by the end of reading that article I found I wanted to see this movie :)
Of
> course, the writer of the article was clearly boosting it as a good thing,
> so that biased me. But it did indeed seem more like a Trek story than much
> of the drab wallpaper that has been presented to us of late. Mind you, the
> biggest enjoyment of Trek I've had in a very long time was Enterprise's In
A
> Mirror Darkly. Not only was it a joy to see TOS era ships etc, and a good
> story, it was one of the rare times I really cared about the Enterprise
> characters- the one time they weren't themselves :)
Exactly. That episode totally captured the feel of TOS missing in every
later Trek.
As I posted elsewhere; James Crawly, from New Voyages, also said in an
interview that TPTB never recaptured the feeling of TOS in any of the
reincarnations which is one of the main reasons he wanted to do the "show"
to begin with.
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/800/download.php ("Behind the Scenes" by
Ralph Miller)
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"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!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242250 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 23:50 |
|
Jaxtraw wrote:
> Graham Kennedy wrote:
>> Kweeg wrote:
>>> "Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
>>> news:IoXTf.76$TF.155 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
>>>> Starshadow wrote:
>>>>> Link does not work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Starshadow
>>>>>
>>>>> PS --I found it on:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22789
>>>> Thanks for the correction.
>>> Interesting article. Trek seems to borrow allot of ideas from itself
>>> and if they're not used they seem to be recycled into the next
>>> "incarnation." (Phase 2 / TMP / TNG)
>>> Makes me wonder if any of the suits actually *watched* Voyager (or
>>> Nemisis) before alowing the double Bs to create yet another Trek
>>> show. Too bad Coto (and or Bennet) was not one of the creators of
>>> ENT, we'd probably still be watching it, but TV execs know what's
>>> best and won't be told by mere fans. Seriously though, it makes one
>>> wonder how someone (or a company) can screw up so bad as to kill a
>>> franchise that *already* has "millions" of people built in as an
>>> audience.
>> I get the strong impression that the average suit wouldn't
>> know a good story if it bit them on the ass, and has an
>> unshakeable belief that the viewing public wouldn't either.
>>
>> Hollywood does seem to have a strong belief that only the
>> most basic elements of a story are in any way responsible
>> for it's success. "Hey, Alien was really popular! It had
>> dark hallways and an alien monster... let's make a whole
>> bunch more movies with dark corridors and alien monsters,
>> they'll be popular too!" - no real understanding of *why*
>> Alien or Trek or anything else is popular.
>>
>> And sadly, I often get the impression that the suits are
>> correct.
>>
>> The whole Starfleet Academy thing unnerves me a bit. The
>> idea seems to come up every single time there is word of
>> a new series or movie - *somebody* out there thinks it
>> would be a really great idea. I have this horrible feeling
>> that some day, some time, it will be done. And it will
>> be awful.
>
>
> I've always hated the whole Starfleet Academy idea, but... I have to admit,
> by the end of reading that article I found I wanted to see this movie :) Of
> course, the writer of the article was clearly boosting it as a good thing,
> so that biased me. But it did indeed seem more like a Trek story than much
> of the drab wallpaper that has been presented to us of late.
I can't say it appealed to me. Kirk steals a ship from
a museum and flies it off? That there breaches any sensible
credibility barrier. Can you imagine a fully functional
vehicle of any kind being left in a museum for years on
end? Let alone a Starship! And can you imagine any cadet
who did such a thing getting anything but his discharge
papers?
> Mind you, the
> biggest enjoyment of Trek I've had in a very long time was Enterprise's In A
> Mirror Darkly. Not only was it a joy to see TOS era ships etc, and a good
> story, it was one of the rare times I really cared about the Enterprise
> characters- the one time they weren't themselves :)
Yeah, it was a definite high point of recent Trek.
I wouldn't like to see a whole series set in the
MU, and an MU movie could be confusing as hell for folks
who weren't clued up on what it was all about, but if
ENT had carried on I would have loved to see them do
a regular episode a year there. I wanna see what
Empress Sato did next!
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242251 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 00:28 |
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
news:MvkUf.86$TF.520 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
<snip>
> Yeah, it was a definite high point of recent Trek.
> I wouldn't like to see a whole series set in the
> MU, and an MU movie could be confusing as hell for folks
> who weren't clued up on what it was all about, but if
> ENT had carried on I would have loved to see them do
> a regular episode a year there. I wanna see what
> Empress Sato did next!
Now that would be fun! And high on the cool factor too.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242256 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 18:47 |
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
news:RGgUf.83$TF.490 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> It's not the "screw continuity!" attitude that really
> bugs me - though that attitude would be the death of
> any prequel (Enterprise is proof enough of that), a
> movie could probably get away with it.
>
> It's more the whole concept. Look at TOS - the whole
> concept of the show was that the ship wants to explore.
> So any time they encounter something new, they have
> fulfilled their mission. Even if the Enterprise or crew
> is threatened, even if people make mistakes, it's all
> in service of a greater good, a successful mission.
>
> Then look at Voyager. The whole premise is that the ship
> wants to get home. So every episode it doesn't get home,
> the ship has failed its mission. And that's every
> episode bar one. So the premise makes the crew out to be
> a bunch of failures, and their mistakes make them look
> stupid. Voyager was set up to fail before the first line
> of the first episode was written.
>
> Now think of cadets. What are Cadets for? They are
> glorified schoolchildren. They are NOT there to go out and
> save the day - that's what the *real* officers and crew
> are there for. So any time you have a bunch of cadets
> going out and saving the day, you're making the Voyager
> mistake all over again.
>
> They could *maybe* get away with this, for a single
> movie. For a Starfleet Academy series it would be a
> disaster.
A nicely well written commentary. But let's not forget the worldly irony of
the situation - losers making a film about losers. Oooh, Bob, we've got a
winner!! ^_^
I am sure they will make this, somehow, somewhat. A book, a movie, an
episode someday somewhere. The dead horse isn't truly beaten until the
carcass is in the glue bottle.
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242257 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 19:09 |
|
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ufgUf.174304$B94.141563 [at] pd7tw3no...
> "Starshadow" <starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote in message
> news:1143035374.534639.15670 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Likely. And there are some real continuity problems such as the ones
>> the present owners of the franchise stuck Enterprise with.
>
> No not really any real continuity problems, just problems for some people
> because something conflicted with Fan-on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_c ontinuity_problems
I know - but it's a Wiki article. Wiki articles have about as much of a
guarantee to be correct as a promise that the Earth will stop rotating in
the next 0.0145702 seconds.
"If you take an apple, call it an uteruber and then place it on screen, is
it really an apple?"
"If you take shields, call it "hull plating" then reference it with "hull
plating at *** percent", and it does exactly the same thing as shields - is
it still shields?"
Uhhhh, YES.
Fool.
The problem with Starfleet Academy, Voyager, Enterforaprize ;-) and other
modern ST abortions is that they - the PTB, the writers, the directors,
almost everyone involved with ST at the Paramount level, it seems - are very
concerned about /making/ Star Trek.
Instead of worrying about making *GOOD* Star Trek.
They come up with ideas to create more media in the Star Trek pattern rather
than be concerned with making high quality media first, fitting the Star
Trek pattern second.
When they figure that out /then/ Star Trek will make a comeback. In the
meantime...
please *don't* keep trying, guys (talking to Paramount). Your ideas of the
last decade pretty much suck wind. Death via heart attack is much less
painful for us, the viewers, to watch than 10 years worth of consistent
torture, only to be ended with a slow poisoning.
Trek's been vivisected right now, and until the cretins at the lab are
thrown out I, personally, would like to see it mourned rather than skinned,
gutted then propped up on a stick to look all nicey-nicey for the tourists.
Star Trek as Disney animatronic.
Yuck.
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242259 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 19:19 |
|
Snake wrote:
> "Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
> news:RGgUf.83$TF.490 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
>> It's not the "screw continuity!" attitude that really
>> bugs me - though that attitude would be the death of
>> any prequel (Enterprise is proof enough of that), a
>> movie could probably get away with it.
>>
>> It's more the whole concept. Look at TOS - the whole
>> concept of the show was that the ship wants to explore.
>> So any time they encounter something new, they have
>> fulfilled their mission. Even if the Enterprise or crew
>> is threatened, even if people make mistakes, it's all
>> in service of a greater good, a successful mission.
>>
>> Then look at Voyager. The whole premise is that the ship
>> wants to get home. So every episode it doesn't get home,
>> the ship has failed its mission. And that's every
>> episode bar one. So the premise makes the crew out to be
>> a bunch of failures, and their mistakes make them look
>> stupid. Voyager was set up to fail before the first line
>> of the first episode was written.
>>
>> Now think of cadets. What are Cadets for? They are
>> glorified schoolchildren. They are NOT there to go out and
>> save the day - that's what the *real* officers and crew
>> are there for. So any time you have a bunch of cadets
>> going out and saving the day, you're making the Voyager
>> mistake all over again.
>>
>> They could *maybe* get away with this, for a single
>> movie. For a Starfleet Academy series it would be a
>> disaster.
>
> A nicely well written commentary. But let's not forget the worldly irony of
> the situation - losers making a film about losers. Oooh, Bob, we've got a
> winner!! ^_^
>
> I am sure they will make this, somehow, somewhat. A book, a movie, an
> episode someday somewhere. The dead horse isn't truly beaten until the
> carcass is in the glue bottle.
Yeah, it comes up so often that I have a sinking feeling
it will get made somewhere along the line. What's worrying
is that when it tanks, it really could be the end of Trek
forever. I'd far rather they give it a few years and
then do something a little fresher, more original - and
have people in charge who actually *care* about the
material!
Dream scenario - wait for the new Battlestar Galactica
series to finish and offer Moore a truckload of money
to do a Trek series, no rules, no interference, just
make it the best he can *his* way.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242260 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 20:00 |
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
news:AKWUf.88$TF.500 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> Dream scenario - wait for the new Battlestar Galactica
> series to finish and offer Moore a truckload of money
> to do a Trek series, no rules, no interference, just
> make it the best he can *his* way.
You are in Great Britain so I assume you haven't seen the season finale of
BSG for this series (season).
It Jumped the Shark. It also jumped Free Willy (II) and would have also
Jumped Michael Jackson, if only anyone could find him nowadays...
o_O
I suxxxxxxed. [spoiler alert]
Why not tank a show by making the plots pointless (more sex, please!) and
landing the Armada on a planet...you know, the *same* thing that tanked the
original show over 20 years ago!!
Yes! Yes!!! We can do it all ova again! Nobody will remember the original
series! We're free! Free to wreak havoc!
Mwahahaha!!
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242261 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 20:06 |
|
Snake wrote:
> "Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
> news:AKWUf.88$TF.500 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
>> Dream scenario - wait for the new Battlestar Galactica
>> series to finish and offer Moore a truckload of money
>> to do a Trek series, no rules, no interference, just
>> make it the best he can *his* way.
>
> You are in Great Britain so I assume you haven't seen the season finale of
> BSG for this series (season).
>
> It Jumped the Shark. It also jumped Free Willy (II) and would have also
> Jumped Michael Jackson, if only anyone could find him nowadays...
You assume incorrectly, for in this digital age
anybody can watch pretty much anything whenever
they like.
And no, no sharks were jumped. Instead, a truly
superb ending occurred.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242262 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 20:23 |
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
news:yqXUf.89$TF.352 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> You assume incorrectly, for in this digital age
> anybody can watch pretty much anything whenever
> they like.
>
> And no, no sharks were jumped. Instead, a truly
> superb ending occurred.
:-) We'll have to see how it goes.
A tent city 1 year later...while the spaceships were nicely parked in the
background.
At least they looked nicely waxed.
The major character motivator for the President was shown...and he couldn't
keep the thing down ^_^
The population is now under Cylon control...
but they'll certainly get off the planet.
You know, the planet. The one with the spaceships, nicely parked, also
under Cylon control...
with no apparent farmable land...
with a unsupportable tent city already having huge health issues...
where the Galatica left orbit with the rest of (what is left) of a
completely overwhelmed, massively understaffed battle group...
where, when the Fleet returns, will have to battle land forces as well as
space forces, yet a lot of their equipment is still on the planet, (now) in
the hands of the Cylons, who will certainly greet them openly when they
return yet these Cylon mechanical minds won't do anything to the equipment,
just in case the humans need all of it...
while, on Little Spaceship on the Prarie, Adama sits in a room with "18th
Century" wood furniture and smokes filter tobacco cigarettes, all from a
society halfway across the galaxy...
....while the President keeps his peter wet.
Yup. Didn't jump the shark at all ^_^
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242263 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 21:55 |
|
Snake wrote:
> "Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
> news:yqXUf.89$TF.352 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
>> You assume incorrectly, for in this digital age
>> anybody can watch pretty much anything whenever
>> they like.
>>
>> And no, no sharks were jumped. Instead, a truly
>> superb ending occurred.
>
> :-) We'll have to see how it goes.
>
> A tent city 1 year later...while the spaceships were nicely parked in the
> background.
>
> At least they looked nicely waxed.
>
> The major character motivator for the President was shown...and he couldn't
> keep the thing down ^_^
>
> The population is now under Cylon control...
>
> but they'll certainly get off the planet.
>
> You know, the planet. The one with the spaceships, nicely parked, also
> under Cylon control...
>
> with no apparent farmable land...
>
> with a unsupportable tent city already having huge health issues...
> where the Galatica left orbit with the rest of (what is left) of a
> completely overwhelmed, massively understaffed battle group...
>
> where, when the Fleet returns, will have to battle land forces as well as
> space forces, yet a lot of their equipment is still on the planet, (now) in
> the hands of the Cylons, who will certainly greet them openly when they
> return yet these Cylon mechanical minds won't do anything to the equipment,
> just in case the humans need all of it...
>
> while, on Little Spaceship on the Prarie, Adama sits in a room with "18th
> Century" wood furniture and smokes filter tobacco cigarettes, all from a
> society halfway across the galaxy...
>
> ...while the President keeps his peter wet.
>
> Yup. Didn't jump the shark at all ^_^
Wow, cleanish spaceships and a lack of visible farming
land. How could I have thought this was good?
Frankly, if you list as major complaints about this
episode the fact that Baltar is a suddenly a self
involved moron, I gotta say you can't have been paying
a lot of attention so far. The man has been like that
from day one. The tent city is *supposed* to be a
miserable, unsupportable shanty town. That's the
whole point - Baltar is a fricken idiot, whose thoughts
rarely extend past the end of his penis. He's wrecking
the joint, everybody knows it, hence the dissention we
see.
Also, it sounds to me like you are judging this as bad
based largely on your own assumptions as to how it will be
resolved - with some daredevil mission to rescue the
colonists. Just a thought, but maybe you should wait
and see?
Personally, I suspect there's going to be something
of a Cylon civil war revealed and Galactica and the
folks will end up as players or pawns in it. I suspect
there won't be any great battle to free the colonists
as you seem to assume. But then Moore is a much better
writer than I am, so who knows? The point is that I'm
gagging to find out, and that's a state that precious
few shows manage to get me into these days.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242270 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 03:26 |
|
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:UBWUf.13$ZJ.9 [at] trndny04...
> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:ufgUf.174304$B94.141563 [at] pd7tw3no...
> > "Starshadow" <starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote in message
> > news:1143035374.534639.15670 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> Likely. And there are some real continuity problems such as the ones
> >> the present owners of the franchise stuck Enterprise with.
> >
> > No not really any real continuity problems, just problems for some
people
> > because something conflicted with Fan-on
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_c ontinuity_problems
>
> I know - but it's a Wiki article. Wiki articles have about as much of a
> guarantee to be correct as a promise that the Earth will stop rotating in
> the next 0.0145702 seconds.
>
> "If you take an apple, call it an uteruber and then place it on screen, is
> it really an apple?"
>
> "If you take shields, call it "hull plating" then reference it with "hull
> plating at *** percent", and it does exactly the same thing as shields -
is
> it still shields?"
>
> Uhhhh, YES.
>
> Fool.
Did you actually *read* the article? It makes since to me even if it *is* a
wiki article. While I was not a big fan of ENT, I'm just tired of all those
people that bemoan the so-called continuity errors of ENT when 99% of the
time they are wrong and the only continuity error was *their* interpretation
of ST FAN-on and not established ST canon.
> The problem with Starfleet Academy, Voyager, Enterforaprize ;-) and other
> modern ST abortions is that they - the PTB, the writers, the directors,
> almost everyone involved with ST at the Paramount level, it seems - are
very
> concerned about /making/ Star Trek.
>
> Instead of worrying about making *GOOD* Star Trek.
>
> They come up with ideas to create more media in the Star Trek pattern
rather
> than be concerned with making high quality media first, fitting the Star
> Trek pattern second.
>
> When they figure that out /then/ Star Trek will make a comeback. In the
> meantime...
>
> please *don't* keep trying, guys (talking to Paramount). Your ideas of
the
> last decade pretty much suck wind. Death via heart attack is much less
> painful for us, the viewers, to watch than 10 years worth of consistent
> torture, only to be ended with a slow poisoning.
>
> Trek's been vivisected right now, and until the cretins at the lab are
> thrown out I, personally, would like to see it mourned rather than
skinned,
> gutted then propped up on a stick to look all nicey-nicey for the
tourists.
> Star Trek as Disney animatronic.
Indeed.
Season 4 of ENT (minus the first ep, the transporter ep and that horrendous
finale) did prove that it *was* possible to make some decent trek with the
right person at the helm (Coto) IMO it was the best trek since DS9's last
few seasons.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"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!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242271 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 03:38 |
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
news:R0ZUf.90$TF.520 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> Snake wrote:
> > "Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
> > news:yqXUf.89$TF.352 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> >> You assume incorrectly, for in this digital age
> >> anybody can watch pretty much anything whenever
> >> they like.
> >>
> >> And no, no sharks were jumped. Instead, a truly
> >> superb ending occurred.
> >
> > :-) We'll have to see how it goes.
> >
> > A tent city 1 year later...while the spaceships were nicely parked in
the
> > background.
> >
> > At least they looked nicely waxed.
> >
> > The major character motivator for the President was shown...and he
couldn't
> > keep the thing down ^_^
> >
> > The population is now under Cylon control...
> >
> > but they'll certainly get off the planet.
> >
> > You know, the planet. The one with the spaceships, nicely parked, also
> > under Cylon control...
> >
> > with no apparent farmable land...
> >
> > with a unsupportable tent city already having huge health issues...
>
>
> > where the Galatica left orbit with the rest of (what is left) of a
> > completely overwhelmed, massively understaffed battle group...
> >
> > where, when the Fleet returns, will have to battle land forces as well
as
> > space forces, yet a lot of their equipment is still on the planet, (now)
in
> > the hands of the Cylons, who will certainly greet them openly when they
> > return yet these Cylon mechanical minds won't do anything to the
equipment,
> > just in case the humans need all of it...
> >
> > while, on Little Spaceship on the Prarie, Adama sits in a room with
"18th
> > Century" wood furniture and smokes filter tobacco cigarettes, all from a
> > society halfway across the galaxy...
> >
> > ...while the President keeps his peter wet.
> >
> > Yup. Didn't jump the shark at all ^_^
>
> Wow, cleanish spaceships and a lack of visible farming
> land. How could I have thought this was good?
>
> Frankly, if you list as major complaints about this
> episode the fact that Baltar is a suddenly a self
> involved moron, I gotta say you can't have been paying
> a lot of attention so far. The man has been like that
> from day one. The tent city is *supposed* to be a
> miserable, unsupportable shanty town. That's the
> whole point - Baltar is a fricken idiot, whose thoughts
> rarely extend past the end of his penis. He's wrecking
> the joint, everybody knows it, hence the dissention we
> see.
>
> Also, it sounds to me like you are judging this as bad
> based largely on your own assumptions as to how it will be
> resolved - with some daredevil mission to rescue the
> colonists. Just a thought, but maybe you should wait
> and see?
>
> Personally, I suspect there's going to be something
> of a Cylon civil war revealed and Galactica and the
> folks will end up as players or pawns in it. I suspect
> there won't be any great battle to free the colonists
> as you seem to assume. But then Moore is a much better
> writer than I am, so who knows? The point is that I'm
> gagging to find out, and that's a state that precious
> few shows manage to get me into these days.
Concur! And October *is* too far away, damnit! I'm trying to get friends and
acquaintances in the film biz in Vancouver to either get a job on the BSG
production or get me one!
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"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!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242274 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 19:49 |
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham [at] ditl.org> wrote in message
news:R0ZUf.90$TF.520 [at] news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> Wow, cleanish spaceships and a lack of visible farming
> land. How could I have thought this was good?
:-) My point is the typical plot line developments, especially regarding
modern Sci-Fi.
When in doubt of believability:
- 1 year on a planet and no permanent housing started to properly shelter
the population, even though they fully have the tech to do so
- 1 year on a planet and no sustainable land development started for
foodstuffs, even though they fully have the tech to do so
- If the 2 above clauses seem difficult to accomplish, to do shortage of
supplies, the parked spaceships should instantly be used to protect and
nurture the population by scrapping the spaceships for materials - NOT sit
relatively unused yet still intact in the background while the population
generally suffers. At least ENT got that issue correct in the time line
stories.
- A President who seems somewhat selfish and ineffectual, yet still in
office or unchallenged even though this is supposed to be a democracy and
therefore continuous incompetence would be very questionably tolerated (see:
impeachment ^_^)
- Earth-like accoutrements like "18th-century" look wood furnishings in a
battle-line starship where these furnishings would be constantly thrown
about while under fire, Commander smokes filter cigarettes in a society
created 1/2 a galaxy away
- etc.
When in doubt of believability add SEX. And all of a sudden...somehow it's
believable o_O Yeah, it's just me but I'm *tired* of mediocre writing
supposedly "saved" by adding sexual innuendoes and connotations. A good,
significant drama of the plot line is the President's constant peter-dipping
and the usage and abusive (Cylon) influences he comes under due to that
fact.
In other word...SEX.
***snore***
Get rid of the overt sexual connotations that drive far too much of the
character developments and what are you left with...???
The plots are mediocre and being propped up with sex. Too many
believability gaps pasted together with interpersonal sexual drama. But
this is my major complaint with a lot of television nowadays - medium
quality, just made "loud" and "flashy". Why they hell haven't they
dismantled the ships to protect a population that is quite obviously
suffering, as the tremendous medical conditions show - they keep ALL the
ships intact yet by Adama's reckoning they have permanently settled on the
planet (until the Cylons came), never to return to space? Even telling his
second-in-command to go planetside and mourning the loss of the battle
fleet? Let the humans suffer but keep the nice ships in one piece??
OK...
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #242372 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 19:42 |
|
Cool :)
Thanks for the link, mate!
It's the sadest thing really, but ever since the end of TOS with the
exception of some ST movies like numbers: II, IV and especially number
VI there hasn't been any good Star Trek for decades.
TNG wasn't bad but... there was definitely something missing. Worst of
all is how Paramount, who abandoned Star Trek after its third year,
mistreated good hardworking actors, never gave a damn about the fans
still made loads of money of this show and its characters. That's
Hollywood. Commercial, braindead imbeciles making big money.
I intensely dislike the way Ms Nichols has been treated by NBC during
the shooting of the Original series. Did any of these jackasses ever
apologize to this lady? I don't think so.
I really tried hard to get to like the Enterprise series. Some of the
characters were interesting and I liked the idea but... It stinks, man!
Every single episode was dull, solely actionbased not the slightest bit
of morale in it. That was not Star Trek.
Sorry, I know I'm whining but this simply frustrates me. To see how
commercialized and empty Star Trek has become over the years.
~Perry
Graham Kennedy schrieb:
> The "Starfleeet Academy" movie has often been mooted
> but thankfully never made. An interesting article has
> been posted about it on Ain't it Cool News.
>
> http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=227891
>
> --
> Graham Kennedy
>
> Creator and Author,
> Daystrom Institute Technical Library
> http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243249 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 17:22 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> "Snake"
> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
> in message news:UBWUf.13$ZJ.9 [at] trndny04...
>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ufgUf.174304$B94.141563 [at] pd7tw3no...
>>> "Starshadow" <starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1143035374.534639.15670 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Likely. And there are some real continuity problems such as the
>>>> ones the present owners of the franchise stuck Enterprise with.
>>>
>>> No not really any real continuity problems, just problems for some
>>> people because something conflicted with Fan-on
>>>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_c ontinuity_problems
>>
>> I know - but it's a Wiki article. Wiki articles have about as much
>> of a guarantee to be correct as a promise that the Earth will stop
>> rotating in the next 0.0145702 seconds.
>>
>> "If you take an apple, call it an uteruber and then place it on
>> screen, is it really an apple?"
>>
>> "If you take shields, call it "hull plating" then reference it with
>> "hull plating at *** percent", and it does exactly the same thing as
>> shields - is it still shields?"
>>
>> Uhhhh, YES.
>>
>> Fool.
>
> Did you actually *read* the article? It makes since to me even if it
> *is* a wiki article. While I was not a big fan of ENT, I'm just tired
> of all those people that bemoan the so-called continuity errors of
> ENT when 99% of the time they are wrong and the only continuity error
> was *their* interpretation of ST FAN-on and not established ST canon.
Bollocks to the fanon argument wth all due respect :)
Ent violated canon from day one by its very nature. TPTB couldn't bear to
write a series without TNG era technology and characters (species) so they
just trod all over canon in spirit, even if one can come up with implausible
explanations that make most of it fit. Balance Of Terror *clearly* is
written with the intention that the cloaking device is a remarkable,
surprising new technology, as is the Romulan weapon. The war was fought
without ship/ship visuals, and with atomic weapons. It's *clear* that the
Romulan war was fought with ships far more primitive than the NX-01, which
is in a practical sense every bit as powerful as the NCC-1701, even with
attempts to show otherwise (e.g. Mirror Darkly). "Hull plating" is just
shields, "phase pistols" are phasers, the Romulans have holocloaks for god's
sake. The Borg? Ferengi? Are TOS and TNG's record keeping computers so
inadequate that nobody could connect the Borg the NX-01 encountered with the
ones Picard encountered? Bah.
Point is, you can just about implausibly squeeze Enterprise's experiences
into canon, but only by the letter and not the spirit.
Also, it's occurred to me that if they did do the Academy movie, they could
at least clear up the Janice Lester thing, by including her as an apparently
sane loony, who fails all command aptitude testing, and constructs a
justification based on sexism within her mind...
Ian
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243251 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 18:05 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:442d4807$0$5003$db0fefd9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> Bollocks to the fanon argument wth all due respect :)
>
> Ent violated canon from day one by its very nature. TPTB couldn't bear to
> write a series without TNG era technology and characters (species) so they
> just trod all over canon in spirit, even if one can come up with
> implausible
> explanations that make most of it fit. Balance Of Terror *clearly* is
> written with the intention that the cloaking device is a remarkable,
> surprising new technology, as is the Romulan weapon. The war was fought
> without ship/ship visuals, and with atomic weapons. It's *clear* that the
> Romulan war was fought with ships far more primitive than the NX-01, which
> is in a practical sense every bit as powerful as the NCC-1701, even with
> attempts to show otherwise (e.g. Mirror Darkly). "Hull plating" is just
> shields, "phase pistols" are phasers, the Romulans have holocloaks for
> god's
> sake. The Borg? Ferengi? Are TOS and TNG's record keeping computers so
> inadequate that nobody could connect the Borg the NX-01 encountered with
> the
> ones Picard encountered? Bah.
>
> Point is, you can just about implausibly squeeze Enterprise's experiences
> into canon, but only by the letter and not the spirit.
>
> Also, it's occurred to me that if they did do the Academy movie, they
> could
> at least clear up the Janice Lester thing, by including her as an
> apparently
> sane loony, who fails all command aptitude testing, and constructs a
> justification based on sexism within her mind...
We won't even go into ENT "United" - nothing like a ship being
psi-controlled from halfway across the galaxy plus adaptive holocloaking
O.O Yeah, suuuuure, that's canon all right! Fits right in with "Balance of
Terror" canon quite easily o_O
"United" is also believable (NOT!) considering Riker & Data's first
conversation during Riker's first major holodeck experience in "Encounter at
Farpoint" (if this /wasn't/ Riker's first major experience, why would he
need explanations of operation from Data?)
The technologies used by the Romulans in "United" were the greatest stretch
of canon I have personally ever seen in all my ST years. They were at the
level of TNG, actually maybe even further, yet we are to believe that they
not only existed and implemented in Archer's time but somehow such major
basis of technologies wouldn't have been available to the Romulans during
conflicts against the Federation in later years? All of a sudden in Kirk's
and Picard's time this level of advanced technological development would
have disappeared?
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243254 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 20:09 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:442d4807$0$5003$db0fefd9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> Kweeg wrote:
> > "Snake"
> > <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
> > in message news:UBWUf.13$ZJ.9 [at] trndny04...
> >> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:ufgUf.174304$B94.141563 [at] pd7tw3no...
> >>> "Starshadow" <starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:1143035374.534639.15670 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Likely. And there are some real continuity problems such as the
> >>>> ones the present owners of the franchise stuck Enterprise with.
> >>>
> >>> No not really any real continuity problems, just problems for some
> >>> people because something conflicted with Fan-on
> >>>
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_c ontinuity_problems
> >>
> >> I know - but it's a Wiki article. Wiki articles have about as much
> >> of a guarantee to be correct as a promise that the Earth will stop
> >> rotating in the next 0.0145702 seconds.
> >>
> >> "If you take an apple, call it an uteruber and then place it on
> >> screen, is it really an apple?"
> >>
> >> "If you take shields, call it "hull plating" then reference it with
> >> "hull plating at *** percent", and it does exactly the same thing as
> >> shields - is it still shields?"
> >>
> >> Uhhhh, YES.
> >>
> >> Fool.
> >
> > Did you actually *read* the article? It makes since to me even if it
> > *is* a wiki article. While I was not a big fan of ENT, I'm just tired
> > of all those people that bemoan the so-called continuity errors of
> > ENT when 99% of the time they are wrong and the only continuity error
> > was *their* interpretation of ST FAN-on and not established ST canon.
>
> Bollocks to the fanon argument wth all due respect :)
>
> Ent violated canon from day one by its very nature. TPTB couldn't bear to
> write a series without TNG era technology and characters (species) so they
> just trod all over canon in spirit, even if one can come up with
implausible
> explanations that make most of it fit. Balance Of Terror *clearly* is
> written with the intention that the cloaking device is a remarkable,
> surprising new technology, as is the Romulan weapon. The war was fought
> without ship/ship visuals, and with atomic weapons. It's *clear* that the
> Romulan war was fought with ships far more primitive than the NX-01, which
> is in a practical sense every bit as powerful as the NCC-1701, even with
> attempts to show otherwise (e.g. Mirror Darkly). "Hull plating" is just
> shields, "phase pistols" are phasers, the Romulans have holocloaks for
god's
> sake. The Borg? Ferengi? Are TOS and TNG's record keeping computers so
> inadequate that nobody could connect the Borg the NX-01 encountered with
the
> ones Picard encountered? Bah.
>
> Point is, you can just about implausibly squeeze Enterprise's experiences
> into canon, but only by the letter and not the spirit.
>
> Also, it's occurred to me that if they did do the Academy movie, they
could
> at least clear up the Janice Lester thing, by including her as an
apparently
> sane loony, who fails all command aptitude testing, and constructs a
> justification based on sexism within her mind...
And with all due respect, you said "Bollocks to the fanon argument" yet all
your points you raise are exactly that, fanon. {{;-/>
ALL ST episodes contradicted others, especially in TOS, and now everyone
want to hang on every word that came out of TOS. TOS' Enterprise's
controlling authority was United Earth Space Probe Agency then switched to
Starfleet, the builders plate on the bridge said Enterprise is a "Starship
Class" but now is referred to as a Constitution Class, So Enterprise was not
the class ship yet Enterprise has UESPA's logo as their distinct ship's
badge. (the "arrowhead") The ship's phasers looked allot like photon
torpedoes in Balance of Terror, hand phasers had different colour beams
depending on the episode, Spock refers to his people as Vucaninans not
Vulcans. the list goes on. As you mentioned earlier, women (at the time)
could not be in command of a starship, this canon established fact gets
easily over looked and fanwanked away. (BTW I tend to agree with that
fanwank) You hit the nail on the head when you said, "....squeeze
Enterprise's experiences into canon, but only by the letter and not the
spirit." Canon *is* by the letter, fanon is by the spirit.
If you haven't already read that article.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"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!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243255 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 20:28 |
|
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:XqcXf.3$g81.0 [at] trndny09...
> "Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:442d4807$0$5003$db0fefd9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> > Bollocks to the fanon argument wth all due respect :)
> >
> > Ent violated canon from day one by its very nature. TPTB couldn't bear
to
> > write a series without TNG era technology and characters (species) so
they
> > just trod all over canon in spirit, even if one can come up with
> > implausible
> > explanations that make most of it fit. Balance Of Terror *clearly* is
> > written with the intention that the cloaking device is a remarkable,
> > surprising new technology, as is the Romulan weapon. The war was fought
> > without ship/ship visuals, and with atomic weapons. It's *clear* that
the
> > Romulan war was fought with ships far more primitive than the NX-01,
which
> > is in a practical sense every bit as powerful as the NCC-1701, even with
> > attempts to show otherwise (e.g. Mirror Darkly). "Hull plating" is just
> > shields, "phase pistols" are phasers, the Romulans have holocloaks for
> > god's
> > sake. The Borg? Ferengi? Are TOS and TNG's record keeping computers so
> > inadequate that nobody could connect the Borg the NX-01 encountered with
> > the
> > ones Picard encountered? Bah.
> >
> > Point is, you can just about implausibly squeeze Enterprise's
experiences
> > into canon, but only by the letter and not the spirit.
> >
> > Also, it's occurred to me that if they did do the Academy movie, they
> > could
> > at least clear up the Janice Lester thing, by including her as an
> > apparently
> > sane loony, who fails all command aptitude testing, and constructs a
> > justification based on sexism within her mind...
>
> We won't even go into ENT "United" - nothing like a ship being
> psi-controlled from halfway across the galaxy plus adaptive holocloaking
> O.O Yeah, suuuuure, that's canon all right! Fits right in with "Balance
of
> Terror" canon quite easily o_O
>
> "United" is also believable (NOT!) considering Riker & Data's first
> conversation during Riker's first major holodeck experience in "Encounter
at
> Farpoint" (if this /wasn't/ Riker's first major experience, why would he
> need explanations of operation from Data?)
>
> The technologies used by the Romulans in "United" were the greatest
stretch
> of canon I have personally ever seen in all my ST years. They were at the
> level of TNG, actually maybe even further, yet we are to believe that they
> not only existed and implemented in Archer's time but somehow such major
> basis of technologies wouldn't have been available to the Romulans during
> conflicts against the Federation in later years? All of a sudden in
Kirk's
> and Picard's time this level of advanced technological development would
> have disappeared?
What disappeared? NX-Ent found away to spot ships with "adaptive
holocloaking" just as Kirk did with the cloaking devise in BoT yet in later
TOS eps the ship are surprise by cloaked Romulan ships to the point
Starfleet eventually sends Kirk out to steal one. Why would they do that if
they already could track cloaked ships as established in BoT? And even after
Kirk stole the thing 80 years later Picard's Ent was continually surprised
by cloaked Romulan ships. Let's not forget in BoT, a supposed sublight ship
("No question. Their power is simple impulse") the Warbird was still able to
move great distances in a very short time, so much for the argument of it
not having an FTL ability. Phasers in that ep looked allot like photon
torpedoes and need a whole crew to fire them, in your words, "Yeah,
suuuuure, that's canon all right!"
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"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!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243256 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 20:37 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> "Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:442d4807$0$5003$db0fefd9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
>> Kweeg wrote:
>>> "Snake"
>>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
>>> in message news:UBWUf.13$ZJ.9 [at] trndny04...
>>>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:ufgUf.174304$B94.141563 [at] pd7tw3no...
>>>>> "Starshadow" <starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1143035374.534639.15670 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Likely. And there are some real continuity problems such as the
>>>>>> ones the present owners of the franchise stuck Enterprise with.
>>>>>
>>>>> No not really any real continuity problems, just problems for some
>>>>> people because something conflicted with Fan-on
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_c ontinuity_problems
>>>>
>>>> I know - but it's a Wiki article. Wiki articles have about as much
>>>> of a guarantee to be correct as a promise that the Earth will stop
>>>> rotating in the next 0.0145702 seconds.
>>>>
>>>> "If you take an apple, call it an uteruber and then place it on
>>>> screen, is it really an apple?"
>>>>
>>>> "If you take shields, call it "hull plating" then reference it with
>>>> "hull plating at *** percent", and it does exactly the same thing
>>>> as shields - is it still shields?"
>>>>
>>>> Uhhhh, YES.
>>>>
>>>> Fool.
>>>
>>> Did you actually *read* the article? It makes since to me even if it
>>> *is* a wiki article. While I was not a big fan of ENT, I'm just
>>> tired of all those people that bemoan the so-called continuity
>>> errors of ENT when 99% of the time they are wrong and the only
>>> continuity error was *their* interpretation of ST FAN-on and not
>>> established ST canon.
>>
>> Bollocks to the fanon argument wth all due respect :)
>>
>> Ent violated canon from day one by its very nature. TPTB couldn't
>> bear to write a series without TNG era technology and characters
>> (species) so they just trod all over canon in spirit, even if one
>> can come up with implausible explanations that make most of it fit.
>> Balance Of Terror *clearly* is written with the intention that the
>> cloaking device is a remarkable, surprising new technology, as is
>> the Romulan weapon. The war was fought without ship/ship visuals,
>> and with atomic weapons. It's *clear* that the Romulan war was
>> fought with ships far more primitive than the NX-01, which is in a
>> practical sense every bit as powerful as the NCC-1701, even with
>> attempts to show otherwise (e.g. Mirror Darkly). "Hull plating" is
>> just shields, "phase pistols" are phasers, the Romulans have
>> holocloaks for god's sake. The Borg? Ferengi? Are TOS and TNG's
>> record keeping computers so inadequate that nobody could connect the
>> Borg the NX-01 encountered with the ones Picard encountered? Bah.
>>
>> Point is, you can just about implausibly squeeze Enterprise's
>> experiences into canon, but only by the letter and not the spirit.
>>
>> Also, it's occurred to me that if they did do the Academy movie,
>> they could at least clear up the Janice Lester thing, by including
>> her as an apparently sane loony, who fails all command aptitude
>> testing, and constructs a justification based on sexism within her
>> mind...
>
>
> And with all due respect, you said "Bollocks to the fanon argument"
> yet all your points you raise are exactly that, fanon. {{;-/>
>
> ALL ST episodes contradicted others, especially in TOS, and now
> everyone want to hang on every word that came out of TOS. TOS'
> Enterprise's controlling authority was United Earth Space Probe
> Agency then switched to Starfleet, the builders plate on the bridge
> said Enterprise is a "Starship Class" but now is referred to as a
> Constitution Class, So Enterprise was not the class ship yet
> Enterprise has UESPA's logo as their distinct ship's badge. (the
> "arrowhead") The ship's phasers looked allot like photon torpedoes in
> Balance of Terror, hand phasers had different colour beams depending
> on the episode, Spock refers to his people as Vucaninans not Vulcans.
> the list goes on. As you mentioned earlier, women (at the time) could
> not be in command of a starship, this canon established fact gets
> easily over looked and fanwanked away. (BTW I tend to agree with that
> fanwank) You hit the nail on the head when you said, "....squeeze
> Enterprise's experiences into canon, but only by the letter and not
> the spirit." Canon *is* by the letter, fanon is by the spirit.
> If you haven't already read that article.
In what way is the *scripted* unawareness by the Enterprise command staff of
cloaking devices "fanon"? In what way is the *scripted* astonishment at the
new Romulan weapon "fanon"? In what way is the *scripted* clear statement
that the war was fought using primitive ships without visuals "fanon"? In
what way is the *scripted* clear statement that the war was fought with
atomic weapons "fanon"; this one particularly unavoidable as it's a major
plot point (the Romulans still have "old style atomic weapons" on board
their ship and use one against the Enterprise).
There's a distinction I think between those things I outlined above and
inconsistencies which we are all aware of, that occur because of errors by
writers and effects teams and because the creators were changing their minds
as they went. The phasers that act like torpedoes are a glaring mistake to
us today but back then the writer needed a torpedo/depth charge like weapon
so just rewrote the phasers. Likewise the UESPA/Starfleet change. We can
leave such things alone because they're clearly production issues on a new
TV series which nobody expected to be the birth of a massive franchise,
which would spawn legions of Trekkies who'd argue about it 40 years later.
As to whether women could command a starship, that's debatable. Lester's
comment could mean other things.
The torpedo-phasers weren't incorporated into the series "history" which we
dignify with the term canon, by general agreement. But the Earth/Romulan war
*was* absorbed into canon and as such is a major plot issue which later
writers should have respected.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; if TPTB didn't want to work
within the obvious constrictions of a "historical" setting, they shouldn't
have decided on a prequel. Because they did, it jarred incongruously with
all the other series. It was like a series set on the high seas in the 18th
century, with nuclear powered aircraft carriers and guided missiles because
the writers didn't think sailing ships and cannons exciting enough.
Also, how could Enterprise be the class ship? Classes are named after the
first such ship built; presumably there was one called the Constitution.
Ian
--
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243260 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 23:27 |
|
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:0xeXf.209557$B94.60398 [at] pd7tw3no...
> What disappeared? NX-Ent found away to spot ships with "adaptive
> holocloaking" just as Kirk did with the cloaking devise in BoT yet in
> later
> TOS eps the ship are surprise by cloaked Romulan ships to the point
> Starfleet eventually sends Kirk out to steal one. Why would they do that
> if
> they already could track cloaked ships as established in BoT? And even
> after
> Kirk stole the thing 80 years later Picard's Ent was continually surprised
> by cloaked Romulan ships. Let's not forget in BoT, a supposed sublight
> ship
> ("No question. Their power is simple impulse") the Warbird was still able
> to
> move great distances in a very short time, so much for the argument of it
> not having an FTL ability. Phasers in that ep looked allot like photon
> torpedoes and need a whole crew to fire them, in your words, "Yeah,
> suuuuure, that's canon all right!"
Yes, you can change interpretations either way - towards old or towards
new - to make just about anything fit :) But what about the psi-control?
They can't (seem) even do that in the 23rd Century according to McCoy's rant
regarding little brain knowledge. The Romulan probe was far too advanced -
again, yes you can say "this can be"...but common sense and logic should be
able to reduce obscure possibilities.
If the PTB can use "loopholes" of logic to claim whatever they like to fit
into canon there will be no canon. Why? Because not every second of a
fictional universe can end up on film. Therefore nothing can be proven
beyond deniability because everything can be possible "between the frames" -
as the old clause goes it is far harder to prove a theory than to disprove a
theory. It is far harder to make a theory law than it is to disprove.
Once you start playing fast and loose with interpretations, looking for any
and all loopholes to attend, the entire fictional universe collapses and you
end up with...disbelief, the ending of the suspension of belief that makes
sci-fi possible. And then where does your fictional work end up?
Irrelevance.
That should sound vaguely familiar to us ST fans :P
It is possible through just about any flights of imagination that we can
believe ENT technology to fit into the canon timeline. There are easily
enough interpretive loopholes to make just about anything they wish to
create fit.
The question is - regarding ALL canon:...
Is it believable?
We have a "universal" answer - no. The producers would like to say "Yes,
everything we do is believable to fit within canon" but the consumers - what
we call "fans" :) - have voted. "No, just because you /think/ you want
everything to be believable does not mean we actually believe it"
That's the problem with "believability". You first have to...believe it :)
A Romulan probe performing acrobatic moves, while being psi-controlled from
half a sector away and under holographic cloak, just isn't believable for
Archer's time from what we have seen in Kirk's and Picard's time. You can't
make a pattern of operation of a universe then suspend common sense just
because you wish it. Archer's time was supposed to be "crude" - yet here is
technology that easily challenges Kirk and certainly could challenge Picard,
as well.
THAT'S unbelievability.
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243263 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 02:16 |
|
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:c9hXf.31$4G4.13 [at] trndny06...
> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:0xeXf.209557$B94.60398 [at] pd7tw3no...
> > What disappeared? NX-Ent found away to spot ships with "adaptive
> > holocloaking" just as Kirk did with the cloaking devise in BoT yet in
> > later
> > TOS eps the ship are surprise by cloaked Romulan ships to the point
> > Starfleet eventually sends Kirk out to steal one. Why would they do that
> > if
> > they already could track cloaked ships as established in BoT? And even
> > after
> > Kirk stole the thing 80 years later Picard's Ent was continually
surprised
> > by cloaked Romulan ships. Let's not forget in BoT, a supposed sublight
> > ship
> > ("No question. Their power is simple impulse") the Warbird was still
able
> > to
> > move great distances in a very short time, so much for the argument of
it
> > not having an FTL ability. Phasers in that ep looked allot like photon
> > torpedoes and need a whole crew to fire them, in your words, "Yeah,
> > suuuuure, that's canon all right!"
>
> Yes, you can change interpretations either way - towards old or towards
> new - to make just about anything fit :) But what about the psi-control?
> They can't (seem) even do that in the 23rd Century according to McCoy's
rant
> regarding little brain knowledge. The Romulan probe was far too
advanced -
> again, yes you can say "this can be"...but common sense and logic should
be
> able to reduce obscure possibilities.
>
> If the PTB can use "loopholes" of logic to claim whatever they like to fit
> into canon there will be no canon. Why? Because not every second of a
> fictional universe can end up on film. Therefore nothing can be proven
> beyond deniability because everything can be possible "between the
frames" -
> as the old clause goes it is far harder to prove a theory than to disprove
a
> theory. It is far harder to make a theory law than it is to disprove.
>
> Once you start playing fast and loose with interpretations, looking for
any
> and all loopholes to attend, the entire fictional universe collapses and
you
> end up with...disbelief, the ending of the suspension of belief that makes
> sci-fi possible. And then where does your fictional work end up?
>
> Irrelevance.
>
> That should sound vaguely familiar to us ST fans :P
>
> It is possible through just about any flights of imagination that we can
> believe ENT technology to fit into the canon timeline. There are easily
> enough interpretive loopholes to make just about anything they wish to
> create fit.
>
> The question is - regarding ALL canon:...
>
> Is it believable?
>
> We have a "universal" answer - no. The producers would like to say "Yes,
> everything we do is believable to fit within canon" but the consumers -
what
> we call "fans" :) - have voted. "No, just because you /think/ you want
> everything to be believable does not mean we actually believe it"
>
> That's the problem with "believability". You first have to...believe it
:)
> A Romulan probe performing acrobatic moves, while being psi-controlled
from
> half a sector away and under holographic cloak, just isn't believable for
> Archer's time from what we have seen in Kirk's and Picard's time. You
can't
> make a pattern of operation of a universe then suspend common sense just
> because you wish it. Archer's time was supposed to be "crude" - yet here
is
> technology that easily challenges Kirk and certainly could challenge
Picard,
> as well.
>
> THAT'S unbelievability.
I'm not going to argue the point. You have made up your mind that Enterprise
violates canon. Nothing I say and no amount of logic will convince you
otherwise. While I'm no big fan of the first 3 seasons, season 4 was
excellent and was shaping up to be a true prequel the best Trek since DS9
and, for that matter, defiantly better than any of Voyager's offerings.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"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!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243266 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 02:46 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:442d75b8$0$5004$db0fefd9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
<snip for brevity>
> In what way is the *scripted* unawareness by the Enterprise command staff
of
> cloaking devices "fanon"?
Your interpretation, it could also mean it's the first time a *true*
clocking devise was seen that was *totally* invisible and initially
untrackable.
> In what way is the *scripted* astonishment at the
> new Romulan weapon "fanon"? In what way is the *scripted* clear statement
> that the war was fought using primitive ships without visuals "fanon"? In
> what way is the *scripted* clear statement that the war was fought with
> atomic weapons "fanon"; this one particularly unavoidable as it's a major
> plot point (the Romulans still have "old style atomic weapons" on board
> their ship and use one against the Enterprise).
None of that is in question. It is the first time we see plasma torpedoes.
Who's to say the Romulan war was *not* fought using primitive ships and
atomic weapons, it hasn't appeared on screen so it's not canon. Remember NX
Enterprise and her sister ships where at the leading edge of technology at
the time (about 10 years before the war and the subsequent founding of the
Federation) there is probably allot of more "primitive" ships about than
"new" Ent class that did most of the fighting. Everyone remembers the
Spitfires from the Battle of Britain or the battleships from the Battle of
the Atlantic, but it was the lower tech Hurricanes and lowly corvettes that
did most of the fighting.
> There's a distinction I think between those things I outlined above and
> inconsistencies which we are all aware of, that occur because of errors by
> writers and effects teams and because the creators were changing their
minds
> as they went. The phasers that act like torpedoes are a glaring mistake
to
> us today but back then the writer needed a torpedo/depth charge like
weapon
> so just rewrote the phasers. Likewise the UESPA/Starfleet change. We can
> leave such things alone because they're clearly production issues on a new
> TV series which nobody expected to be the birth of a massive franchise,
> which would spawn legions of Trekkies who'd argue about it 40 years later.
Sure, but then again we can't just trot them out to prove some point on how
Enterprise contradicted said canon either.
> As to whether women could command a starship, that's debatable. Lester's
> comment could mean other things.
Indeed, but that would be speculative.
> The torpedo-phasers weren't incorporated into the series "history" which
we
> dignify with the term canon, by general agreement. But the Earth/Romulan
war
> *was* absorbed into canon and as such is a major plot issue which later
> writers should have respected.
>
> I've said this before and I'll say it again; if TPTB didn't want to work
> within the obvious constrictions of a "historical" setting, they shouldn't
> have decided on a prequel. Because they did, it jarred incongruously with
> all the other series. It was like a series set on the high seas in the
18th
> century, with nuclear powered aircraft carriers and guided missiles
because
> the writers didn't think sailing ships and cannons exciting enough.
>
> Also, how could Enterprise be the class ship? Classes are named after the
> first such ship built; presumably there was one called the Constitution.
I didn't say the Enterprise (1701) was the class ship rather pointing out
that the class name adopted after was "Constitution" when the builders plate
on the bridge "Starship Class." I also find it odd that Enterprise (not
being the class ship) had UESPA's arrowhead logo as their distinct ship's
badge. (TOS' ships all had different shaped badges) In "Court Marshal," one
could also fanwank the guys in the bar with arrowhead (Enterprise) insignia
on their uniforms giving Kirk a bad time, must have been from UESPA as they
certainly wouldn't talk to there own Captain like they did. This would go
along way in explaining why Starfleet eventually adopted the UESPA /
Enterprise arrowhead for all ships and personnel.
As I said to "Snake," I'm not going to argue the point. You have made up
your mind that Enterprise violates canon. While I'm no big fan of the first
3 seasons, season 4 was excellent and was shaping up to be a true prequel
and the best Trek since DS9, for that matter defiantly better than any of
Voyager's offerings too.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"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!"
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243294 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 01:45 |
|
>
> Then look at Voyager. The whole premise is that the ship
> wants to get home. So every episode it doesn't get home,
> the ship has failed its mission. And that's every
> episode bar one. So the premise makes the crew out to be
> a bunch of failures, and their mistakes make them look
> stupid. Voyager was set up to fail before the first line
> of the first episode was written.
>
I'm not a fan or follower of Voyager but wouldn't getting even one
step closer to home each episode be consiter at least on the road to
success? Failure would be the loss of the ship and crew. Other Star
Trek shows were episodic successes while Voyager was epic lasting the
entire series.
>
> They could *maybe* get away with this, for a single
> movie. For a Starfleet Academy series it would be a
> disaster.
>
I worry the only reason the PTB would make Starfleet Academy is
because Smallville does well. I fear and dread a teen-angsty Star Trek
series!
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #243299 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 02:50 |
|
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:45:39 GMT, "Skytech" <skytech [at] ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Then look at Voyager. The whole premise is that the ship
>> wants to get home. So every episode it doesn't get home,
>> the ship has failed its mission. And that's every
>> episode bar one. So the premise makes the crew out to be
>> a bunch of failures, and their mistakes make them look
>> stupid. Voyager was set up to fail before the first line
>> of the first episode was written.
>>
>
>I'm not a fan or follower of Voyager but wouldn't getting even one
>step closer to home each episode be consiter at least on the road to
>success? Failure would be the loss of the ship and crew. Other Star
>Trek shows were episodic successes while Voyager was epic lasting the
>entire series.
>
>>
>> They could *maybe* get away with this, for a single
>> movie. For a Starfleet Academy series it would be a
>> disaster.
>>
>
>I worry the only reason the PTB would make Starfleet Academy is
>because Smallville does well. I fear and dread a teen-angsty Star Trek
>series!
OMG NO!!!! An entire series of Wesley Crushers!!!!
That would be a true sign that the end is near!
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Article about "Starfleet Academy" [message #247121 ] |
Di, 18 April 2006 00:01 |
|
Skytech wrote:
>>
>> Then look at Voyager. The whole premise is that the ship
>> wants to get home. So every episode it doesn't get home,
>> the ship has failed its mission. And that's every
>> episode bar one. So the premise makes the crew out to be
>> a bunch of failures, and their mistakes make them look
>> stupid. Voyager was set up to fail before the first line
>> of the first episode was written.
>>
>
> I'm not a fan or follower of Voyager but wouldn't getting even one step
> closer to home each episode be consiter at least on the road to success?
To an extent, and it was a good thing that they did
indeed adopt this tactic after a while - the ship
would get boosts of 10,000 light years here or 15,000
there.
> Failure would be the loss of the ship and crew. Other Star Trek shows
> were episodic successes while Voyager was epic lasting the entire series.
>
>>
>> They could *maybe* get away with this, for a single
>> movie. For a Starfleet Academy series it would be a
>> disaster.
>>
>
> I worry the only reason the PTB would make Starfleet Academy is because
> Smallville does well. I fear and dread a teen-angsty Star Trek series!
I suspect you are right. There are any number of teeny
dramas in the US it seems, but that I know of nobody
has yet done a sci-fi one. Perhaps they think there
is a niche to be filled there. Plus, it may be seen
as something that would appeal to the stereotypical
teenage geek that some think makes up Trek's audience.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Di Mai 22 08:07:39 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08616 Sekunden |
