|
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 » OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek
| OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78359] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 00:34 |
|
Any fans of "Lost" here?
If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
technology.
For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
to a soft landing.
The island itself is huge--hundreds of square miles. Yet it has
remained totally undiscovered for thousands of years; even today's photo
reconnaissance satellites haven't detected it. So this means it's
shielded by some kind of cloaking device, yes?
Anyone else reach the same conclusions?
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78361 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 01:40 |
|
in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>
> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
> technology.
I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the end it
will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts like
this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving them
answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting for
something mind-blowing.
This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The Matrix
sequels were going to add up to something.
> For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
> of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>
> The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
> section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
> with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
> of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
> the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
> The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
> itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
> to a soft landing.
It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of the
wreck literally. Unless something crashes on take-off or landing there's
almost never survivors or recognizable parts left.
> The island itself is huge--hundreds of square miles. Yet it has
> remained totally undiscovered for thousands of years; even today's photo
> reconnaissance satellites haven't detected it. So this means it's
> shielded by some kind of cloaking device, yes?
When did they say it was hundreds of square miles? Or undiscovered?
> Anyone else reach the same conclusions?
Not me.
There are things that are so stupid they beg belief on "Lost". Like the
polar bears. They all survived the crash, but no one seems to think maybe
the polar bears were part of their cargo and got to the island just like
they did. They are simply FREAKING OUT about them. No one seems interested
in finding the manifest to be sure. Maybe there was a whole zoo full of shit
in the cargo hold.
Whatever happens next season I expect that it'll be a severe sophomore slump
as they can't come up with good explanations for the shit they set up in
season one.
It should at least be entertaining enough though to watch and laugh at how
the wheels come off the thing.
--
Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an equal and opposite
criticism.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78362 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 01:47 |
|
Elvis Gump wrote:
> in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
> at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
>
>
>>Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>
>>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>technology.
>
>
> I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the end it
> will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts like
> this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving them
> answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting for
> something mind-blowing.
>
> This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The Matrix
> sequels were going to add up to something.
>
>
>>For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
>>of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>>
>>The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
>>section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
>>with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
>>of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
>>the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
>>The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
>>itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
>>to a soft landing.
>
>
> It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of the
> wreck literally.
There was a scene in which Sayid said to Kate that they shouldn't have
survived a crash like this one.
>>The island itself is huge--hundreds of square miles. Yet it has
>>remained totally undiscovered for thousands of years; even today's photo
>>reconnaissance satellites haven't detected it. So this means it's
>>shielded by some kind of cloaking device, yes?
>
>
> When did they say it was hundreds of square miles? Or undiscovered?
In the Finale, the castaways on the raft got a good look at the island
from a vantage point out in the ocean and saw how huge it is.
Yet this huge, lush island is largely uninhabited. Given the pressures
of population migration, oil exploration, tourism, etc., that's
logically impossible.
> There are things that are so stupid they beg belief on "Lost". Like the
> polar bears. They all survived the crash, but no one seems to think maybe
> the polar bears were part of their cargo and got to the island just like
> they did.
Danielle mentioned the polar bears, so she knew they were there before
the plane crash.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78364 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 02:06 |
|
Steven L. wrote:
> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>
> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
> technology.
>
> For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
> of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>
> The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
> section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
> with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
> of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
> the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
> The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
> itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
> to a soft landing.
>
> The island itself is huge--hundreds of square miles. Yet it has
> remained totally undiscovered for thousands of years; even today's photo
> reconnaissance satellites haven't detected it. So this means it's
> shielded by some kind of cloaking device, yes?
>
> Anyone else reach the same conclusions?
>
>
Nah. In the Trek world it would be a big ol' holodeck program.
That port Locke found is the way back into the starship. ;-)
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78366 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 02:16 |
|
in article rEYAe.4239$BK1.367 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L. at
sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 6:47 PM:
> Elvis Gump wrote:
>
>> in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
>> at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
>>> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>
>>> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>> technology.
>> I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the end it
>> will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts like
>> this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving them
>> answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting for
>> something mind-blowing.
>>
>> This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The Matrix
>> sequels were going to add up to something.
>>> For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
>>> of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>>>
>>> The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
>>> section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
>>> with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
>>> of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
>>> the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
>>> The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
>>> itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
>>> to a soft landing.
>> It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of the
>> wreck literally.
> There was a scene in which Sayid said to Kate that they shouldn't have
> survived a crash like this one.
Duh. Maybe the whole thing is really a dream some autistic TV
writer/producer is having?
>>> The island itself is huge--hundreds of square miles. Yet it has
>>> remained totally undiscovered for thousands of years; even today's photo
>>> reconnaissance satellites haven't detected it. So this means it's
>>> shielded by some kind of cloaking device, yes?
>> When did they say it was hundreds of square miles? Or undiscovered?
> In the Finale, the castaways on the raft got a good look at the island
> from a vantage point out in the ocean and saw how huge it is.
You do know that is one of the Hawaiian islands you were seeing right?
> Yet this huge, lush island is largely uninhabited. Given the pressures
> of population migration, oil exploration, tourism, etc., that's
> logically impossible.
Er, no, it just makes this a second rate Twilight Zone rip-off that will
fall apart in the end. The actors are fun, the story looks like it MIGHT go
somewhere, but it won't.
This will peter out and people will be pissed with the explanations they get
in the end.
I'm betting they're gonna play the alien card or maybe they're all part of
some CIA plot and Kate is really Sydney from "ALIAS" and they've been
fucking with her REM sleep all this time...
Okay, I'm being a smart ass, but you just wait. The 'explanation' for the
weirdness on "Lost" in the end is going to suck ass. I GUARANTEE it.
>> There are things that are so stupid they beg belief on "Lost". Like the
>> polar bears. They all survived the crash, but no one seems to think maybe
>> the polar bears were part of their cargo and got to the island just like
>> they did.
> Danielle mentioned the polar bears, so she knew they were there before
> the plane crash.
The crazy French chick? Phft, that's the kind of thing they'll make a false
clue out of if they get stuck writing the deus ex machina of the week. She's
crazy!
If they stick with that as an explanation then it's stupid because I don't
think polar bears could even stay alive in such a tropical climate for long,
though maybe they could adapt. Someone that knows more about polar bears
than me might know and I would think it would depend on them having a pretty
good supply of meat, perhaps the boars on the island are enough If they've
been there long I'd think they'd be in piss poor shape physically.
The fact they seem surprised to find other planes crashed or boats there
annoyed me to no end. None of the characters even put together the slightest
theories on the strange stuff like the hatch to the underground thing they
found. What WOULD it be on this island for? Perhaps an abandoned MILITARY
thing? Clearly someone has been on the island before them, perhaps a LOT of
somebodies. Hell for all they know they are on the far side of an inhabited
island.
By the end of the season most of the characters strike me as so annoying or
stupid I was starting to root for characters to get killed.
--
"Aloha means hello and good-by. They say that in Hawaii. Which proves if you
spend enough time out in the sun you don't know whether you're coming or
going."
-- George Carlin
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78379 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 04:48 |
|
in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 3:34 PM:
> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>
> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
> technology.
>
> For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
> of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>
> The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner,
Do they ever actually say that? The wreckage is an L1011
> disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
> section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
> with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
> of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
> the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
Um - none in the front section. Only the pilot survived.
The tail section vanished. The middle of the plane is where our group of
passengers were - remember they landed with the wings? The front landed in
the jungle.
> The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
> itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
> to a soft landing.
We don't know the tail section made it. We're assuming it did just 'cause
we saw that girl in the last flashback, but we never saw her actually
sitting in the tail.
>
> The island itself is huge--hundreds of square miles.
How do we know that? Clearly it's not any bigger than Oahu. :-)
Yet it has
> remained totally undiscovered for thousands of years;
Well, except for all the people crawling all over it and under it and
driving boats around it and research teams that found it and planes full of
smugglers that crashed on it and big ships full of dynamite washed ashore on
it.
even today's photo
> reconnaissance satellites haven't detected it. So this means it's
> shielded by some kind of cloaking device, yes?
>
> Anyone else reach the same conclusions?
>
Not really. We don't know enough. I mean, the landing is impossible. I
prefer the 'it's all a Westworld set up' myself. I don't see any possible
real world explanation that could cover it, which the producers have
promised us.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78385 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 06:23 |
|
ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
> in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
> at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 3:34 PM:
>
>
>>Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>
>>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>technology.
>>
>>For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
>>of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>>
>>The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner,
>
>
> Do they ever actually say that? The wreckage is an L1011
>
>
>>disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
>>section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
>>with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
>>of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
>>the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
>
>
> Um - none in the front section. Only the pilot survived.
>
> The tail section vanished. The middle of the plane is where our group of
> passengers were - remember they landed with the wings? The front landed in
> the jungle.
>
>
>
>>The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
>>itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
>>to a soft landing.
>
>
> We don't know the tail section made it. We're assuming it did just 'cause
> we saw that girl in the last flashback, but we never saw her actually
> sitting in the tail.
>
>>The island itself is huge--hundreds of square miles.
>
>
> How do we know that? Clearly it's not any bigger than Oahu. :-)
>
> Yet it has
>
>>remained totally undiscovered for thousands of years;
>
>
> Well, except for all the people crawling all over it and under it and
> driving boats around it and research teams that found it and planes full of
> smugglers that crashed on it and big ships full of dynamite washed ashore on
> it.
>
> even today's photo
>
>>reconnaissance satellites haven't detected it. So this means it's
>>shielded by some kind of cloaking device, yes?
>>
>>Anyone else reach the same conclusions?
>>
>
>
> Not really. We don't know enough. I mean, the landing is impossible. I
> prefer the 'it's all a Westworld set up' myself. I don't see any possible
> real world explanation that could cover it, which the producers have
> promised us.
>
Some neat "Lost" websites:
http://www.oceanic-air.com/home.htm
(I recently saw a commercial that looked real for Oceanic Airlines
on ABC, I guess this is sort of like those Easter egg thingies on
DVDs) The plane's flight number was 815--try tracking it and see
what happens! :-) (hint: try view page sources as well)
http://www.tv.com/lost/show/24313/episode_guide.html
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78432 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 18:09 |
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
> Elvis Gump wrote:
>
> > in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
> > at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
> >
> >>Any fans of "Lost" here?
> >>
> >>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
> >>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
> >>technology.
> > I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the
> > end it
> > will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts like
> > this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving them
> > answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting for
> > something mind-blowing.
> > This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The
> > Matrix
> > sequels were going to add up to something.
> >
> >>For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
> >>of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
> >>
> >>The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
> >>section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
> >>with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
> >>of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
> >>the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
> >>The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
> >>itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
> >>to a soft landing.
> > It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of
> > the
> > wreck literally.
>
> There was a scene in which Sayid said to Kate that they shouldn't have
> survived a crash like this one.
The plane was transported to an alternate dimension universe,
and when it got there, the island was right underneath it,
so the plane only fell about 30 feet out of the air.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78439 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 19:06 |
|
in article uzmsqy9fp.fsf [at] news.dtpq.com, Christopher C. Stacy at
cstacy [at] news.dtpq.com wrote on 7/13/05 9:09 AM:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>
>> Elvis Gump wrote:
>>
>>> in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
>>> at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
>>>
>>>> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>
>>>> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>> technology.
>>> I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the
>>> end it
>>> will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts like
>>> this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving them
>>> answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting for
>>> something mind-blowing.
>>> This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The
>>> Matrix
>>> sequels were going to add up to something.
>>>
>>>> For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
>>>> of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>>>>
>>>> The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
>>>> section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
>>>> with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
>>>> of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
>>>> the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
>>>> The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
>>>> itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
>>>> to a soft landing.
>>> It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of
>>> the
>>> wreck literally.
>>
>> There was a scene in which Sayid said to Kate that they shouldn't have
>> survived a crash like this one.
>
> The plane was transported to an alternate dimension universe,
> and when it got there, the island was right underneath it,
> so the plane only fell about 30 feet out of the air.
Yeah, that makes more sense than anything else shy of the 'westworld'
explanation, but the producers promised us a real world explanation, so that
ain't it.
I'd love it if one of the castaways noticed that the wreckage on the beach
wasn't the same kind of plane they were flying on, and it actually became a
plot point! :-)
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78443 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 19:22 |
|
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>
>
>>Elvis Gump wrote:
>>
>>
>>>in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
>>>at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>
>>>>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>>technology.
>>>
>>>I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the
>>>end it
>>>will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts like
>>>this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving them
>>>answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting for
>>>something mind-blowing.
>>>This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The
>>>Matrix
>>>sequels were going to add up to something.
>>>
>>>
>>>>For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
>>>>of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>>>>
>>>>The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
>>>>section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
>>>>with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
>>>>of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
>>>>the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
>>>>The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
>>>>itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
>>>>to a soft landing.
>>>
>>>It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of
>>>the
>>>wreck literally.
>>
>>There was a scene in which Sayid said to Kate that they shouldn't have
>>survived a crash like this one.
>
>
> The plane was transported to an alternate dimension universe,
> and when it got there, the island was right underneath it,
> so the plane only fell about 30 feet out of the air.
For those who haven't seen the show: The island has been broadcasting
these six "magic" numbers with mysterious powers, which were received by
a couple of Navy men not on the island. If the island is in an
alternate universe, its radio signals could not be detected in our own
universe.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78446 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 19:42 |
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:O5cBe.4495$BK1.4267 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
> > "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Elvis Gump wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven
L.
> >>>at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Any fans of "Lost" here?
> >>>>
> >>>>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
> >>>>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
> >>>>technology.
> >>>
> >>>I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the
> >>>end it
> >>>will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts
like
> >>>this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving
them
> >>>answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting
for
> >>>something mind-blowing.
> >>>This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The
> >>>Matrix
> >>>sequels were going to add up to something.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a
bunch
> >>>>of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
> >>>>
> >>>>The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the
tail
> >>>>section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
> >>>>with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail
section
> >>>>of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
> >>>>the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
> >>>>The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
> >>>>itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided
down
> >>>>to a soft landing.
> >>>
> >>>It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of
> >>>the
> >>>wreck literally.
> >>
> >>There was a scene in which Sayid said to Kate that they shouldn't have
> >>survived a crash like this one.
> >
> >
> > The plane was transported to an alternate dimension universe,
> > and when it got there, the island was right underneath it,
> > so the plane only fell about 30 feet out of the air.
>
> For those who haven't seen the show: The island has been broadcasting
> these six "magic" numbers with mysterious powers, which were received by
> a couple of Navy men not on the island. If the island is in an
> alternate universe, its radio signals could not be detected in our own
> universe.
Not that I've watched the show, but I betcha on the series finale, Ricardo
Montalban comes out and tells us the moral as the remaining people board the
floatplane.
--
Qa'pla
Kweeg
Ten of Clubs in the eeeevil Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78455 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 21:08 |
|
"Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:BEF9C786.7874B%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>
>
> If they stick with that as an explanation then it's stupid because I don't
> think polar bears could even stay alive in such a tropical climate for
long,
> though maybe they could adapt. Someone that knows more about polar bears
> than me might know and I would think it would depend on them having a
pretty
> good supply of meat, perhaps the boars on the island are enough If they've
> been there long I'd think they'd be in piss poor shape physically.
>
FWIW, there are polar bears living in zoos in some very warm climates. I
recall seeing a news story a couple of years back about a pair at a zoo in
Asia, and the tropical weather where they were allowed some kind of fungus
to grow in their fur that turned it green. Which made a great photo, and
they were feeding the bears something (antibiotics, I'm guessing) to clear
it up.
So could they survive? Sure, if they were able to eat. They'd have to
learn how to catch feral pigs pretty quickly, though, or there's a lot of
easy fishing.
> The fact they seem surprised to find other planes crashed or boats there
> annoyed me to no end. None of the characters even put together the
slightest
> theories on the strange stuff like the hatch to the underground thing they
> found. What WOULD it be on this island for? Perhaps an abandoned MILITARY
> thing? Clearly someone has been on the island before them, perhaps a LOT
of
> somebodies. Hell for all they know they are on the far side of an
inhabited
> island.
>
The abandoned military base is probably a good guess. They'll find there
was a macguffin left behind, and you know how the radiation from those
things can wreak havoc - with the biggest damage occurring to any sense of
plausability.
> By the end of the season most of the characters strike me as so annoying
or
> stupid I was starting to root for characters to get killed.
I didn't like it much, and only watched it because of a woman I had the hots
for ( to get invited over to her place, I'd have professed to be a big fan
of Barney and old reruns of Lawrence Welk). So you can imagine how much I'm
certain the explanation(s) will utterly suck, and it's the same reason I
only watched the first few episodes of the X-Files.
Bo Raxo
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78457 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 21:23 |
|
in article qEdBe.4538$BK1.2035 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Bo Raxo at
invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com wrote on 7/13/05 2:08 PM:
> "Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
> news:BEF9C786.7874B%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>> If they stick with that as an explanation then it's stupid because I don't
>> think polar bears could even stay alive in such a tropical climate for long,
>> though maybe they could adapt. Someone that knows more about polar bears than
>> me might know and I would think it would depend on them having a pretty good
>> supply of meat, perhaps the boars on the island are enough If they've been
>> there long I'd think they'd be in piss poor shape physically.
> FWIW, there are polar bears living in zoos in some very warm climates. I
> recall seeing a news story a couple of years back about a pair at a zoo in
> Asia, and the tropical weather where they were allowed some kind of fungus to
> grow in their fur that turned it green. Which made a great photo, and they
> were feeding the bears something (antibiotics, I'm guessing) to clear it up.
>
> So could they survive? Sure, if they were able to eat. They'd have to learn
> how to catch feral pigs pretty quickly, though, or there's a lot of easy
> fishing.
I was guessing they probably refrigerate the water in their display areas
for them to cool off in other climates though I don't know that for sure.
The thing annoying about the show is the characters see something like that
and they all freak out about how could the POLAR bears BE THERE and none of
them even stop to THINK maybe they were in the plane with them when it
crashed.
>> The fact they seem surprised to find other planes crashed or boats there
>> annoyed me to no end. None of the characters even put together the slightest
>> theories on the strange stuff like the hatch to the underground thing they
>> found. What WOULD it be on this island for? Perhaps an abandoned MILITARY
>> thing? Clearly someone has been on the island before them, perhaps a LOT of
>> somebodies. Hell for all they know they are on the far side of an inhabited
>> island.
> The abandoned military base is probably a good guess. They'll find there was
> a macguffin left behind, and you know how the radiation from those things can
> wreak havoc - with the biggest damage occurring to any sense of plausability.
Yeah, some VERY strange quarks. And some mesons and leptons at half price. I
hear they make your brain into Swiss cheese. Either that or your ass into
cottage cheese, I can never remember. Must be the first one since I still
have a firm ass.
>> By the end of the season most of the characters strike me as so annoying or
>> stupid I was starting to root for characters to get killed.
> I didn't like it much, and only watched it because of a woman I had the hots
> for ( to get invited over to her place, I'd have professed to be a big fan of
> Barney and old reruns of Lawrence Welk). So you can imagine how much I'm
> certain the explanation(s) will utterly suck, and it's the same reason I only
> watched the first few episodes of the X-Files.
>
> Bo Raxo
Yup. The backlash should be entertaining to watch.
--
"In my opinion anyone interested in improving himself should not rule out
becoming pure energy."
-- Jack Handley
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78463 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 22:35 |
|
in article O5cBe.4495$BK1.4267 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/13/05 10:22 AM:
> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Elvis Gump wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
>>>> at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>>> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>>> technology.
>>>>
>>>> I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the
>>>> end it
>>>> will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts like
>>>> this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving them
>>>> answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting for
>>>> something mind-blowing.
>>>> This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The
>>>> Matrix
>>>> sequels were going to add up to something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
>>>>> of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>>>>>
>>>>> The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
>>>>> section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
>>>>> with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
>>>>> of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
>>>>> the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
>>>>> The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
>>>>> itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
>>>>> to a soft landing.
>>>>
>>>> It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of
>>>> the
>>>> wreck literally.
>>>
>>> There was a scene in which Sayid said to Kate that they shouldn't have
>>> survived a crash like this one.
>>
>>
>> The plane was transported to an alternate dimension universe,
>> and when it got there, the island was right underneath it,
>> so the plane only fell about 30 feet out of the air.
>
> For those who haven't seen the show: The island has been broadcasting
> these six "magic" numbers with mysterious powers, which were received by
> a couple of Navy men not on the island. If the island is in an
> alternate universe, its radio signals could not be detected in our own
> universe.
>
Tell that to Lazarus!
--
The "Upward Foundation" in Phoenix AZ, 623-848-9725, are liars and scam
artists. They make junk phone calls often several times a day to the same
number and refuse to remove you from their calling list (they will give you
a non working number to call to be removed). This has been going on for a
decade. Do not deal with them.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78470 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 23:44 |
|
ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
> in article O5cBe.4495$BK1.4267 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
> at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/13/05 10:22 AM:
>
>
>>Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Elvis Gump wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
>>>>>at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>>>>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>>>>technology.
>>>>>
>>>>>I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the
>>>>>end it
>>>>>will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts like
>>>>>this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving them
>>>>>answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting for
>>>>>something mind-blowing.
>>>>>This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The
>>>>>Matrix
>>>>>sequels were going to add up to something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
>>>>>>of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
>>>>>>section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
>>>>>>with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
>>>>>>of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
>>>>>>the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
>>>>>>The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
>>>>>>itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided down
>>>>>>to a soft landing.
>>>>>
>>>>>It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of
>>>>>the
>>>>>wreck literally.
>>>>
>>>>There was a scene in which Sayid said to Kate that they shouldn't have
>>>>survived a crash like this one.
>>>
>>>
>>>The plane was transported to an alternate dimension universe,
>>>and when it got there, the island was right underneath it,
>>>so the plane only fell about 30 feet out of the air.
>>
>>For those who haven't seen the show: The island has been broadcasting
>>these six "magic" numbers with mysterious powers, which were received by
>>a couple of Navy men not on the island. If the island is in an
>>alternate universe, its radio signals could not be detected in our own
>>universe.
>>
>
>
> Tell that to Lazarus!
Lazarus didn't communicate across universes. He physically traveled
thru a gateway, which was only open for short periods and had to be
closed permanently to prevent mass destruction.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78472 ] |
Mi, 13 Juli 2005 23:57 |
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>
> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
> technology.
>
We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how little they
tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
--
JK Sinrod
Sinrod Stained Glass Studios
www.sinrodstudios.com
Coney Island Memories
www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78473 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 00:06 |
|
Do we have any proof or writers promise that this show is indeed sci-fi
at all? Everything that happened can be logically explained, as well as
being aliens-dream-paramilitary-heaven/hell etc. When was the last sci-fi
show you saw that didn't have one of the typical cliche explanations? All
that being said I like it.... just to look at Kate is enough.
--
JK Sinrod
Sinrod Stained Glass Studios
www.sinrodstudios.com
Coney Island Memories
www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78475 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 02:11 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:O5cBe.4495$BK1.4267 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Elvis Gump wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven
>
> L.
>
>>>>>at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 5:34 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>>>>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>>>>technology.
>>>>>
>>>>>I liked it, but then I don't expect much out of it. I think in the
>>>>>end it
>>>>>will be hated much the way the "X-Files" or other sci-fi-ish efforts
>
> like
>
>>>>>this have been teasing the audience with WTF moments and then giving
>
> them
>
>>>>>answers that let the down and dissatisfy the audience that was waiting
>
> for
>
>>>>>something mind-blowing.
>>>>>This is what most famously happened with the twits that thought The
>>>>>Matrix
>>>>>sequels were going to add up to something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a
>
> bunch
>
>>>>>>of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner, disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the
>
> tail
>
>>>>>>section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
>>>>>>with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail
>
> section
>
>>>>>>of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
>>>>>>the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
>>>>>>The only way I can explain the tail section landing on the island by
>>>>>>itself is if it was grabbed by some kind of tractor beam and guided
>
> down
>
>>>>>>to a soft landing.
>>>>>
>>>>>It depends on whether or not we're supposed to take the condition of
>>>>>the
>>>>>wreck literally.
>>>>
>>>>There was a scene in which Sayid said to Kate that they shouldn't have
>>>>survived a crash like this one.
>>>
>>>
>>>The plane was transported to an alternate dimension universe,
>>>and when it got there, the island was right underneath it,
>>>so the plane only fell about 30 feet out of the air.
>>
>>For those who haven't seen the show: The island has been broadcasting
>>these six "magic" numbers with mysterious powers, which were received by
>>a couple of Navy men not on the island. If the island is in an
>>alternate universe, its radio signals could not be detected in our own
>>universe.
>
>
> Not that I've watched the show, but I betcha on the series finale, Ricardo
> Montalban comes out and tells us the moral as the remaining people board the
> floatplane.
>
Gives "Da plane! Da plane!" a whole new meaning, eh?
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78479 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 03:58 |
|
Glassman wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>
>>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>technology.
>>
>
>
> We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how little they
> tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
Twin Peaks is *exactly* what it is, except it's on an island instead of
in a town.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78480 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 04:04 |
|
"Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:BEFAD41E.78838%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
> in article qEdBe.4538$BK1.2035 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Bo Raxo
> at
> invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com wrote on 7/13/05 2:08 PM:
>
>> "Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
>> news:BEF9C786.7874B%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>
>>> If they stick with that as an explanation then it's stupid because I
>>> don't
>>> think polar bears could even stay alive in such a tropical climate for
>>> long,
>>> though maybe they could adapt. Someone that knows more about polar bears
>>> than
>>> me might know and I would think it would depend on them having a pretty
>>> good
>>> supply of meat, perhaps the boars on the island are enough If they've
>>> been
>>> there long I'd think they'd be in piss poor shape physically.
>
>> FWIW, there are polar bears living in zoos in some very warm climates. I
>> recall seeing a news story a couple of years back about a pair at a zoo
>> in
>> Asia, and the tropical weather where they were allowed some kind of
>> fungus to
>> grow in their fur that turned it green. Which made a great photo, and
>> they
>> were feeding the bears something (antibiotics, I'm guessing) to clear it
>> up.
>>
>> So could they survive? Sure, if they were able to eat. They'd have to
>> learn
>> how to catch feral pigs pretty quickly, though, or there's a lot of easy
>> fishing.
>
> I was guessing they probably refrigerate the water in their display areas
> for them to cool off in other climates though I don't know that for sure.
You nailed it perfectly. They do indeed chill the water down into the 40's
for the polar bears during the high summer (or, as close as they can get on
the hottest of days)
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78486 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 06:04 |
|
in article AFjBe.3111$dU3.2806 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/13/05 6:58 PM:
> Glassman wrote:
>
>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>
>>> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>> technology.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how little they
>> tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
>
> Twin Peaks is *exactly* what it is, except it's on an island instead of
> in a town.
>
Except we don't even know it's an island. Nobody's circumnavigated it.
--
The "Upward Foundation" in Phoenix AZ, 623-848-9725, are liars and scam
artists. They make junk phone calls often several times a day to the same
number and refuse to remove you from their calling list (they will give you
a non working number to call to be removed). This has been going on for a
decade. Do not deal with them.
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78499 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 07:55 |
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
> Glassman wrote:
>
> > "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> > news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Any fans of "Lost" here?
> >>
> >>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
> >>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
> >>technology.
> >>
> > We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how
> > little they
> > tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
>
> Twin Peaks is *exactly* what it is, except it's on an island instead
> of in a town.
The polar bears are not what they seem.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78510 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 14:00 |
|
in article 8LjBe.7607$jh4.5729 [at] trndny09, Snake at
fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com wrote on
7/13/05 9:04 PM:
> "Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
> news:BEFAD41E.78838%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>> in article qEdBe.4538$BK1.2035 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Bo Raxo
>> at
>> invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com wrote on 7/13/05 2:08 PM:
>>
>>> "Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
>>> news:BEF9C786.7874B%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>>
>>>> If they stick with that as an explanation then it's stupid because I don't
>>>> think polar bears could even stay alive in such a tropical climate for
>>>> long, though maybe they could adapt. Someone that knows more about polar
>>>> bears than me might know and I would think it would depend on them having a
>>>> pretty good supply of meat, perhaps the boars on the island are enough If
>>>> they've been there long I'd think they'd be in piss poor shape physically.
>>> FWIW, there are polar bears living in zoos in some very warm climates. I
>>> recall seeing a news story a couple of years back about a pair at a zoo in
>>> Asia, and the tropical weather where they were allowed some kind of fungus
>>> to grow in their fur that turned it green. Which made a great photo, and
>>> they were feeding the bears something (antibiotics, I'm guessing) to clear
>>> it up.
>>>
>>> So could they survive? Sure, if they were able to eat. They'd have to
>>> learn how to catch feral pigs pretty quickly, though, or there's a lot of
>>> easy fishing.
>> I was guessing they probably refrigerate the water in their display areas
>> for them to cool off in other climates though I don't know that for sure.
> You nailed it perfectly. They do indeed chill the water down into the 40's
> for the polar bears during the high summer (or, as close as they can get on
> the hottest of days)
So those polar bears either were on the plane with them as I thought or the
writers don't know any more about polar bears than they do about the
difference between Boeing and Airbus?
I don't like to judge before all the facts are in, but I think that "Lost"
is going to suck major ass come next season.
Or they have a lotta 'splainin' to do.
--
How sharper than a hound's tooth it is to have a thankless serpent.
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78512 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 14:00 |
|
in article BEFB3252.436A2%ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net, ANIM8Rfsk at ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net
wrote on 7/13/05 11:04 PM:
> in article AFjBe.3111$dU3.2806 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
> at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/13/05 6:58 PM:
>
>> Glassman wrote:
>>
>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>> news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>> technology.
>>> We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how little they
>>> tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
>> Twin Peaks is *exactly* what it is, except it's on an island instead of
>> in a town.
> Except we don't even know it's an island. Nobody's circumnavigated it.
My god! We've crashed in Burbank!
--
"The things one feels absolutely certain about are never true.
That is the fatality of faith and the lesson of romance."
-- Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78513 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 14:00 |
|
in article ur7e23p94.fsf [at] news.dtpq.com, Christopher C. Stacy at
cstacy [at] news.dtpq.com wrote on 7/14/05 12:55 AM:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>
>> Glassman wrote:
>>
>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>> news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>
>>>> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>> technology.
>>> We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how
>>> little they
>>> tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
>> Twin Peaks is *exactly* what it is, except it's on an island instead
>> of in a town.
> The polar bears are not what they seem.
Are they like really fem-bots or something? Or have our castaways landed
smack in the middle of some battle between those two Russkies that are
always after moose and squirrel?
Also, when crazy ass Sawyer killed that one polar bear back at the beginning
of the series I forgot to notice if the 50 or so survivors actually ate the
polar bear. Thinking about it now I'd peg Sawyer or at least equally
crazy-ass Locke as guys that could field dress and iguana or field strip
I bet a polar bear would be some damned tasty eatin' - 'specially if ya was
stranded on Gilligan's Island...
--
"We seldom stop to think that we are still creatures of the sea, able to
leave it only because, from birth to death, we wear the water-filled space
suits of our skins."
-- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78518 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 15:35 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78520 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 16:00 |
|
in article db5pn3021v [at] drn.newsguy.com, George Peatty at
pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net wrote on 7/14/05 8:35 AM:
> In article <BEFB7C20.788FC%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us>, Elvis Gump says...
>
> [snip]
>> I bet a polar bear would be some damned tasty eatin' - 'specially if ya was
>> stranded on Gilligan's Island...
> More likely, you'd be the tasty eatin' .. for the bear.
Nope, like Sawyer I got Jebus and Glock on my side.
--
Every time I look at you I am more convinced of Darwin's theory.
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78521 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 16:08 |
|
in article BEFB7C20.788FC%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us, Elvis Gump at
elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us wrote on 7/14/05 5:00 AM:
> in article ur7e23p94.fsf [at] news.dtpq.com, Christopher C. Stacy at
> cstacy [at] news.dtpq.com wrote on 7/14/05 12:55 AM:
>
>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>>
>>> Glassman wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>>> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>>> technology.
>
>>>> We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how
>>>> little they
>>>> tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
>
>>> Twin Peaks is *exactly* what it is, except it's on an island instead
>>> of in a town.
>
>> The polar bears are not what they seem.
>
> Are they like really fem-bots or something? Or have our castaways landed
> smack in the middle of some battle between those two Russkies that are
> always after moose and squirrel?
>
> Also, when crazy ass Sawyer killed that one polar bear back at the beginning
> of the series I forgot to notice if the 50 or so survivors actually ate the
> polar bear.
No, they just wandered away and left it there. They didn't even tell the
camp about it, not at the time anyway.
Thinking about it now I'd peg Sawyer or at least equally
> crazy-ass Locke as guys that could field dress and iguana or field strip
>
> I bet a polar bear would be some damned tasty eatin' - 'specially if ya was
> stranded on Gilligan's Island...
--
The "Upward Foundation" in Phoenix AZ, 623-848-9725, are liars and scam
artists. They make junk phone calls often several times a day to the same
number and refuse to remove you from their calling list (they will give you
a non working number to call to be removed). This has been going on for a
decade. Do not deal with them.
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78528 ] |
Do, 14 Juli 2005 19:13 |
|
in article BEFBC008.4376E%ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net, ANIM8Rfsk at ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net
wrote on 7/14/05 9:08 AM:
> in article BEFB7C20.788FC%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us, Elvis Gump at
> elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us wrote on 7/14/05 5:00 AM:
>
>> in article ur7e23p94.fsf [at] news.dtpq.com, Christopher C. Stacy at
>> cstacy [at] news.dtpq.com wrote on 7/14/05 12:55 AM:
>>
>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Glassman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>>>> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>>>> technology.
>>>>> We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how
>>>>> little they
>>>>> tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
>>>> Twin Peaks is *exactly* what it is, except it's on an island instead
>>>> of in a town.
>>> The polar bears are not what they seem.
>> Are they like really fem-bots or something? Or have our castaways landed
>> smack in the middle of some battle between those two Russkies that are
>> always after moose and squirrel?
>>
>> Also, when crazy ass Sawyer killed that one polar bear back at the beginning
>> of the series I forgot to notice if the 50 or so survivors actually ate the
>> polar bear.
> No, they just wandered away and left it there. They didn't even tell the
> camp about it, not at the time anyway.
They don't deserve to live.
--
Everyone talks about apathy, but no one does anything about it.
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #78542 ] |
Fr, 15 Juli 2005 01:56 |
|
in article BEFC0754.7896C%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us, Elvis Gump at
elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us wrote on 7/14/05 10:13 AM:
> in article BEFBC008.4376E%ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net, ANIM8Rfsk at ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net
> wrote on 7/14/05 9:08 AM:
>
>> in article BEFB7C20.788FC%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us, Elvis Gump at
>> elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us wrote on 7/14/05 5:00 AM:
>>
>>> in article ur7e23p94.fsf [at] news.dtpq.com, Christopher C. Stacy at
>>> cstacy [at] news.dtpq.com wrote on 7/14/05 12:55 AM:
>>>
>>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Glassman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>>>>> mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>>>>> technology.
>
>>>>>> We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how
>>>>>> little they
>>>>>> tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
>
>>>>> Twin Peaks is *exactly* what it is, except it's on an island instead
>>>>> of in a town.
>
>>>> The polar bears are not what they seem.
>
>>> Are they like really fem-bots or something? Or have our castaways landed
>>> smack in the middle of some battle between those two Russkies that are
>>> always after moose and squirrel?
>>>
>>> Also, when crazy ass Sawyer killed that one polar bear back at the beginning
>>> of the series I forgot to notice if the 50 or so survivors actually ate the
>>> polar bear.
>
>> No, they just wandered away and left it there. They didn't even tell the
>> camp about it, not at the time anyway.
>
> They don't deserve to live.
That's true of most of them, isn't it?
--
The "Upward Foundation" in Phoenix AZ, 623-848-9725, are liars and scam
artists. They make junk phone calls often several times a day to the same
number and refuse to remove you from their calling list (they will give you
a non working number to call to be removed). This has been going on for a
decade. Do not deal with them.
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80397 ] |
Fr, 15 Juli 2005 16:15 |
|
ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
> in article BEFB7C20.788FC%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us, Elvis Gump at
> elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us wrote on 7/14/05 5:00 AM:
>
>
>>in article ur7e23p94.fsf [at] news.dtpq.com, Christopher C. Stacy at
>>cstacy [at] news.dtpq.com wrote on 7/14/05 12:55 AM:
>>
>>
>>>"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glassman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any fans of "Lost" here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
>>>>>>mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
>>>>>>technology.
>>
>>>>>We watch every show, and get more and more pissed off at how
>>>>>little they
>>>>>tell you. It's more like Twin Peaks than a sci-fi show.
>>
>>>>Twin Peaks is *exactly* what it is, except it's on an island instead
>>>>of in a town.
>>
>>>The polar bears are not what they seem.
>>
>>Are they like really fem-bots or something? Or have our castaways landed
>>smack in the middle of some battle between those two Russkies that are
>>always after moose and squirrel?
>>
>>Also, when crazy ass Sawyer killed that one polar bear back at the beginning
>>of the series I forgot to notice if the 50 or so survivors actually ate the
>>polar bear.
>
>
> No, they just wandered away and left it there. They didn't even tell the
> camp about it, not at the time anyway.
Hopefully, the rotting carcass will attract some wild boar and they can
have pork for dinner.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80420 ] |
Fr, 15 Juli 2005 23:27 |
|
"George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote in message
news:db5pn3021v [at] drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <BEFB7C20.788FC%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us>, Elvis Gump
says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >I bet a polar bear would be some damned tasty eatin' - 'specially if ya
was
> >stranded on Gilligan's Island...
>
> More likely, you'd be the tasty eatin' .. for the bear.
>
Not me. All the junk I eat, I'd taste terrible.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80421 ] |
Fr, 15 Juli 2005 23:33 |
|
"Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:BEFB41BE.788CE%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>
> So those polar bears either were on the plane with them as I thought or
the
> writers don't know any more about polar bears than they do about the
> difference between Boeing and Airbus?
Or there is a third possibility: think TOS' "Shore Leave"
>
> I don't like to judge before all the facts are in, but I think that "Lost"
> is going to suck major ass come next season.
>
Yes, I can see how much you don't like to judge the season without all (or
any) of it having been shown ;]
> Or they have a lotta 'splainin' to do.
Military experiment. The crazy French woman was version 1.0, they are
version 2.0 Everything else was thrown at the survivors to, um, test
their....oh hell, it will be lots of 'splainin'.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80429 ] |
Sa, 16 Juli 2005 01:35 |
|
in article TYVBe.8443$8f7.4244 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Bo Raxo at
invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com wrote on 7/15/05 4:33 PM:
> "Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
> news:BEFB41BE.788CE%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>> So those polar bears either were on the plane with them as I thought or the
>> writers don't know any more about polar bears than they do about the
>> difference between Boeing and Airbus?
> Or there is a third possibility: think TOS' "Shore Leave"
By WHOM? The US government? Microsoft? Who would the evil genius be that
built the place? Walt Disney's evil nephew Biff?
>> I don't like to judge before all the facts are in, but I think that "Lost"
>> is going to suck major ass come next season.
> Yes, I can see how much you don't like to judge the season without all (or
> any) of it having been shown ;]
That's what I like about you. Your boundless optimism.
>> Or they have a lotta 'splainin' to do.
> Military experiment. The crazy French woman was version 1.0, they are
> version 2.0 Everything else was thrown at the survivors to, um, test
> their....oh hell, it will be lots of 'splainin'.
I would like to watch the drama in the writers room as they implode trying
to come up with the plots. That would be more entertaining.
I'd also like to be a fly on the wall watching what goes on with B&B this
fall now that they've killed Paramount's cash cow.
--
"The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable
lacks."
-- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80497 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 00:57 |
|
"Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:BEFDB255.78AD7%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
> in article TYVBe.8443$8f7.4244 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Bo Raxo
at
> invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com wrote on 7/15/05 4:33 PM:
>
> > "Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
> > news:BEFB41BE.788CE%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>
> >> So those polar bears either were on the plane with them as I thought or
the
> >> writers don't know any more about polar bears than they do about the
> >> difference between Boeing and Airbus?
>
> > Or there is a third possibility: think TOS' "Shore Leave"
>
> By WHOM? The US government? Microsoft? Who would the evil genius be that
> built the place? Walt Disney's evil nephew Biff?
Oh, they'll leave that a mystery.
Why? Because the can.
> >> I don't like to judge before all the facts are in, but I think that
"Lost"
> >> is going to suck major ass come next season.
>
> > Yes, I can see how much you don't like to judge the season without all
(or
> > any) of it having been shown ;]
>
> That's what I like about you. Your boundless optimism.
What can I say, all those years watching Voyager gave me a "nowhere to go
but up" attitude.
>
> I would like to watch the drama in the writers room as they implode trying
> to come up with the plots. That would be more entertaining.
>
I'm guessing the writers figure they'll get it really knotted up for about
three seasons and then jump ship to do a series of their own somewhere else.
Let somebody else sort it out while the current writers revel in basic
cable's tolerance for profanity.
> I'd also like to be a fly on the wall watching what goes on with B&B this
> fall now that they've killed Paramount's cash cow.
And just when sci-fi on tv is suddenly the hot thing: The big three each
have a sci-fi/paranormal show on the schedule (one of 'em even has Brent
Spiner, and I don't think he was cast for his dashing good looks). The Sci
Fi channel and ABC have proven there's an audience out there, so it's pretty
obvious B&B just couldn't find it.
Now somebody needs to give Manny Coto a new show. The guy showed some
serious creative thinking and an understanding of basic drama - sorely
lacking qualities in television producers these days.
Bo Raxo
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80513 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 05:02 |
|
ANIM8Rfsk (ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net) wrote:
: in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L.
: at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 3:34 PM:
: > Any fans of "Lost" here?
: >
: > If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
: > mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
: > technology.
: >
: > For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a bunch
: > of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
: >
: > The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner,
: Do they ever actually say that? The wreckage is an L1011
: > disintegrated at 40,000 feet; the tail
: > section just broke off, carrying the passengers in the rear seats away
: > with it. Despite that, both the front of the plane and the tail section
: > of the plane managed to make reasonably soft landings on the ground of
: > the island, preserving the lives of many passengers in both sections.
: Um - none in the front section. Only the pilot survived.
: The tail section vanished. The middle of the plane is where our group of
: passengers were - remember they landed with the wings? The front landed in
: the jungle.
In one episode, a pair of dead passengers were discovered still in their
seats, submerged in the lagoon (remember when the briefcase was found?).
What section of the plane was that supposed to be?
Brad
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80514 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 05:05 |
|
Kweeg (kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca) wrote:
: Not that I've watched the show, but I betcha on the series finale, Ricardo
: Montalban comes out and tells us the moral as the remaining people board the
: floatplane.
No, this is more like the short lived version of FI starring Malcolm
McDowell. Much more sinister than the Montalban version. :)
Brad
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80518 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 05:16 |
|
"Brad Filippone" <al019 [at] chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:dbcho6$a9q$1 [at] News.Dal.Ca...
> ANIM8Rfsk (ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net) wrote:
> : in article HzXAe.4222$BK1.3416 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven
> L.
> : at sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 7/12/05 3:34 PM:
>
> : > Any fans of "Lost" here?
> : >
> : > If so, I was just curious what some of us Trekkers think of the
> : > mysteries in the ABC TV show "Lost" and how they compare with Trek
> : > technology.
> : >
> : > For those who don't watch the show, it's about the adventures of a
> bunch
> : > of passengers who survived a plane crash onto a mysterious island.
> : >
> : > The plane, a Boeing 777 jetliner,
>
> : Do they ever actually say that? The wreckage is an L1011
Considering how few L1011's were sold, and are still in service, that is an
unusual choice. A DC-10 would be /much/ more...believable! O.O ~_o
"Another one bites the dust. And another one's gone, another one's gone,
Another one bits the dust..."
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80521 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 05:48 |
|
"Brad Filippone" <al019 [at] chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:dbchug$a9q$2 [at] News.Dal.Ca...
> Kweeg (kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca) wrote:
>
> : Not that I've watched the show, but I betcha on the series finale,
Ricardo
> : Montalban comes out and tells us the moral as the remaining people board
the
> : floatplane.
>
> No, this is more like the short lived version of FI starring Malcolm
> McDowell. Much more sinister than the Montalban version. :)
The pain! the pain!
Me little droogies
--
Qa'pla
Kweeg
Ten of Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "Lost" Versus Star Trek [message #80535 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 14:00 |
|
in article ehgCe.8909$8f7.3383 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Bo Raxo at
invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com wrote on 7/16/05 5:57 PM:
> "Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
> news:BEFDB255.78AD7%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>> in article TYVBe.8443$8f7.4244 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Bo Raxo at
>> invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com wrote on 7/15/05 4:33 PM:
>>> "Elvis Gump" <elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
>>> news:BEFB41BE.788CE%elvisgump.NO [at] SPAM.fastmail.us...
>>>> So those polar bears either were on the plane with them as I thought or the
>>>> writers don't know any more about polar bears than they do about the
>>>> difference between Boeing and Airbus?
>>> Or there is a third possibility: think TOS' "Shore Leave"
>> By WHOM? The US government? Microsoft? Who would the evil genius be that
>> built the place? Walt Disney's evil nephew Biff?
> Oh, they'll leave that a mystery.
And they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids
in their Mystery Mobile! [zoiks!]
> Why? Because the can.
Not because they love their audience for sure...
>>>> I don't like to judge before all the facts are in, but I think that "Lost"
>>>> is going to suck major ass come next season.
>>> Yes, I can see how much you don't like to judge the season without all (or
>>> any) of it having been shown ;]
>> That's what I like about you. Your boundless optimism.
> What can I say, all those years watching Voyager gave me a "nowhere to go but
> up" attitude.
I guess that's why I'm such a curmudgeon. I never saw any Voyager.
>> I would like to watch the drama in the writers room as they implode trying
>> to come up with the plots. That would be more entertaining.
> I'm guessing the writers figure they'll get it really knotted up for about
> three seasons and then jump ship to do a series of their own somewhere else.
> Let somebody else sort it out while the current writers revel in basic
> cable's tolerance for profanity.
The Colbert Report needs writers now though.
>> I'd also like to be a fly on the wall watching what goes on with B&B this
>> fall now that they've killed Paramount's cash cow.
> And just when sci-fi on tv is suddenly the hot thing: The big three each
> have a sci-fi/paranormal show on the schedule (one of 'em even has Brent
> Spiner, and I don't think he was cast for his dashing good looks). The Sci
> Fi channel and ABC have proven there's an audience out there, so it's pretty
> obvious B&B just couldn't find it.
Among other things they couldn't find with both hands and a compass.
> Now somebody needs to give Manny Coto a new show. The guy showed some
> serious creative thinking and an understanding of basic drama - sorely
> lacking qualities in television producers these days.
> Bo Raxo
Oh come now, don't you like your drama a little melo?
--
"How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for those who are wise
and of goodwill! In such a place even I would be an ardent patriot."
-- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mi Mai 23 16:13:51 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04795 Sekunden |
