|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » ST.com poll
| ST.com poll [message #279184] |
Sa, 10 Juni 2006 09:00 |
|
For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
included in official Star Trek "canon"?
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/polls/index. html
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279185 ] |
Sa, 10 Juni 2006 13:07 |
|
> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74)
> should be
> included in official Star Trek "canon"?
>
Done and yes it should! I think TAS added a lot to the Star Trek
world. Some things do seem inconsistant such as the personal
forcefield/environment belt but we also get a chance to realize the
universe isn't just humans or near humans with nose ridges.
Personally, I'd love to see another ST:TAS on a real budget.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279186 ] |
Sa, 10 Juni 2006 15:05 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
> included in official Star Trek "canon"?
Is TAS the only mention of Robert April being the first captain of the
Enterprise? If so, that's practically canon already.
--
OSI
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279187 ] |
Sa, 10 Juni 2006 18:30 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
> included in official Star Trek "canon"?
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/polls/index. html
FWIW I voted yes.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279188 ] |
Sa, 10 Juni 2006 18:40 |
|
I voted "yes" earlier this week. I see no reason why it shouldn't be
included. I don't believe it retcons anything.
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Kweeg wrote:
> > For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
> > Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
> > included in official Star Trek "canon"?
> > http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/polls/index. html
>
> FWIW I voted yes.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279189 ] |
Sa, 10 Juni 2006 18:48 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:w86dnd7bCNYXbhfZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> Kweeg wrote:
>> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
>> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
>> included in official Star Trek "canon"?
>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/polls/index. html
>
> FWIW I voted yes.
Same here. My favourite was 'Yesteryear' (the Spock's childhood adventure on
Vulcan one <g>)
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
Website currently down.
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279191 ] |
Sa, 10 Juni 2006 19:59 |
|
Skytech wrote:
>> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
>> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74)
>> should be
>> included in official Star Trek "canon"?
>>
>
> Done and yes it should! I think TAS added a lot to the Star Trek
> world. Some things do seem inconsistant such as the personal
> forcefield/environment belt but we also get a chance to realize the
> universe isn't just humans or near humans with nose ridges.
> Personally, I'd love to see another ST:TAS on a real budget.
I know nothing about TAS, since i wasn't interested in an animation trek
serie. I rather real cast.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279192 ] |
Sa, 10 Juni 2006 22:28 |
|
Marc Chapleau wrote:
> I know nothing about TAS, since i wasn't interested in an animation trek
> serie. I rather real cast.
I refused to watch TAS when it was a new show, cos I had seen what had
happened when the Beatles had an ani show, LOL.
TAS is not that bad. Original voices, etc.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279193 ] |
Sa, 10 Juni 2006 23:54 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Marc Chapleau wrote:
>
> TAS is not that bad. Original voices, etc.
Yes but i've seen the visual animation for a few minutes and it reminded me
cheap kids cartoons, which is not very... appealing.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279196 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 05:54 |
|
Marc Chapleau wrote:
> Yes but i've seen the visual animation for a few minutes and it reminded
> me cheap kids cartoons, which is not very... appealing.
I don't disagree with that.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279198 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 07:57 |
|
TAS was made by Filmation. They were notorious for reusing the same
shots in their shows and having a low budget. But, I still believe they
did a good job with what they had on TAS. Plus, the made He-Man
(another classic toon).
Marc Chapleau wrote:
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
> > Marc Chapleau wrote:
>
> >
> > TAS is not that bad. Original voices, etc.
>
> Yes but i've seen the visual animation for a few minutes and it reminded me
> cheap kids cartoons, which is not very... appealing.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279200 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 14:37 |
|
>>
>> TAS is not that bad. Original voices, etc.
>
> Yes but i've seen the visual animation for a few minutes and it
> reminded me cheap kids cartoons, which is not very... appealing.
Filmation suffered the same as most animation contemporaries, the
market wanted cartoons cheap. Sounds a lot like the legendary Original
Series. We weren't given cutting edge in either case but what both
lacked in eye candy we got back in memorable stories and new ideas
addng to the legend.
Can you imagine a CG ST:TAS?! Don't know how they would do the voices
but bringing back the old cast (plus Arex and M'Ress) would be great!
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279202 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 17:03 |
|
"Marc Chapleau" <ralipsi [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:qcHig.55969
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>> Marc Chapleau wrote:
>
>>
>> TAS is not that bad. Original voices, etc.
>
> Yes but i've seen the visual animation for a few minutes and it reminded
> me cheap kids cartoons, which is not very... appealing.
It *was* made in 1972, though. It's not exactly state of the art.
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
Website currently down.
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279203 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 20:27 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> It *was* made in 1972, though. It's not exactly state of the art.
Considering what Disney and Loony Tunes were capable of decades earlier,
I'd say that's no excuse.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279204 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 20:30 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message news:0NSdnWrKK-
> EvilBill wrote:
>
>> It *was* made in 1972, though. It's not exactly state of the art.
>
> Considering what Disney and Loony Tunes were capable of decades earlier,
> I'd say that's no excuse.
It is when Disney had the best artists of the time and a bigger budget. ;)
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
Website currently down.
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279205 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 21:15 |
|
EvilBill (quake2lives [at] gmail.com) wrote:
: "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message news:0NSdnWrKK-
: > EvilBill wrote:
: >
: >> It *was* made in 1972, though. It's not exactly state of the art.
: >
: > Considering what Disney and Loony Tunes were capable of decades earlier,
: > I'd say that's no excuse.
: It is when Disney had the best artists of the time and a bigger budget. ;)
And loads of time to do the work in, as opposed to having to do several
half hours a year.
Brad
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279207 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 04:15 |
|
>
>> It *was* made in 1972, though. It's not exactly state of the art.
>
> Considering what Disney and Loony Tunes were capable of decades
> earlier, I'd say that's no excuse.
How much animation was Disney or Warner putting on tv during that
decade? Next to nothing, right? Noone wanted to put money into
cartoons. Even theater releases were few and enemic. It would take The
Little Mermaid to revitalize animation in the Eighties.
I'm sure Filmation, as well as other animation studios, would love to
put out better stuff back then but noone wanted to pay for it. For
what Filmation had to work with, I say they did their best.
Just watched a couple episodes of Filmation's Flash Gordon on another
DVD.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279208 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 04:50 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
> included in official Star Trek "canon"?
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/polls/index. html
I vote YES.
In fact, some elements of it were already integrated into popular
spinoff books like "Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology." I regard TAS as
much less of a departure from ST canon than, say, ENT.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279209 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 20:27 |
|
Skytech wrote:
> Personally, I'd love to see another ST:TAS on a real budget.
You know, I could go one of two ways with a new ST:TAS. On one hand,
I'd love to see a straight-up series with serious writing and such (a
la Batman: TAS in the '90s). On the other hand, I think it could be
fun if someone developed a screwball version for [adult swim] (a la
Sealab 2021). I know Paramount would likely balk at that idea; after
all, "Star Trek" is their "We Officially Take It Very Seriously But
Everyone Knows We Really Don't Think Of It Seriously At All" property.
Still, if done properly, I think it could actually help the franchise.
I mean, let's face it: A very large part of the "Trek" fan base
overlaps with a very large part of the [adult swim] viewership, anyway.
I think most of us have enough of a sense of humor to follow along
with a non-serious animated "Trek" and not have it diminish what we
think of and feel about the serious live-action stuff.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279210 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 00:03 |
|
Brad Filippone wrote:
> EvilBill (quake2lives [at] gmail.com) wrote:
> : "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message news:0NSdnWrKK-
> : > EvilBill wrote:
> : >
> : >> It *was* made in 1972, though. It's not exactly state of the art.
> : >
> : > Considering what Disney and Loony Tunes were capable of decades earlier,
> : > I'd say that's no excuse.
>
> : It is when Disney had the best artists of the time and a bigger budget. ;)
>
> And loads of time to do the work in, as opposed to having to do several
> half hours a year.
Granted
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279211 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 00:03 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message news:0NSdnWrKK-
>
>>EvilBill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It *was* made in 1972, though. It's not exactly state of the art.
>>
>>Considering what Disney and Loony Tunes were capable of decades earlier,
>>I'd say that's no excuse.
>
>
> It is when Disney had the best artists of the time and a bigger budget. ;)
>
No argument
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279217 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 06:25 |
|
The first Star Trek I ever saw was the Animated Trek. That is how I fell
in love with Trek.
My local station was not yet showing the live action Trek and did not
until the Animated Trek ended it's run.
There was a certain magic in watching the live show for the first time
and seeing the cartoons come to life in late 1975.
About the animation quality, believe it or not, TAS is one of the better
animated Saturday Morning shows of the early 1970's.
The animation was limited, just like most Saturday Morning fare of the
time but that's the only way it could've been done for Saturday Morning.
If you watch other animated shows of the time it is clear they made more
of an effort with Trek animation wise.
Watching TAS today is fine, I got aclimated to the style of early 1970's
Saturday Morning toons long time ago and just look at it as a style.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279218 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 08:12 |
|
Mike wrote:
> The first Star Trek I ever saw was the Animated Trek. That is how I fell
> in love with Trek.
Wow.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279220 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 15:49 |
|
On 12 Jun 2006 11:27:35 -0700, minlshaw [at] gmail.com wrote:
>Skytech wrote:
>> Personally, I'd love to see another ST:TAS on a real budget.
>
>You know, I could go one of two ways with a new ST:TAS. On one hand,
>I'd love to see a straight-up series with serious writing and such (a
>la Batman: TAS in the '90s). On the other hand, I think it could be
>fun if someone developed a screwball version for [adult swim] (a la
>Sealab 2021). I know Paramount would likely balk at that idea; after
>all, "Star Trek" is their "We Officially Take It Very Seriously But
>Everyone Knows We Really Don't Think Of It Seriously At All" property.
>Still, if done properly, I think it could actually help the franchise.
>I mean, let's face it: A very large part of the "Trek" fan base
>overlaps with a very large part of the [adult swim] viewership, anyway.
> I think most of us have enough of a sense of humor to follow along
>with a non-serious animated "Trek" and not have it diminish what we
>think of and feel about the serious live-action stuff.
If done right, that would rock!
* Robinson
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279223 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 02:45 |
|
The point is moot, IMHO. I think we should trash the whole continuity and
revamp it, so TAS wouldn't exist.
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
> included in official Star Trek "canon"?
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/polls/index. html
>
> --
>
> Qapla'
> Kweeg
> Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
> "Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
> 1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
> "So say we all!"
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279224 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 04:39 |
|
Benjamin Pavsner wrote:
> The point is moot, IMHO. I think we should trash the whole continuity and
> revamp it, so TAS wouldn't exist.
Don't you mean "so ENT wouldn't exist"!? :)
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279225 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 04:50 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:W7adnb_gAK1G6xLZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> Benjamin Pavsner wrote:
>
>> The point is moot, IMHO. I think we should trash the whole continuity and
>> revamp it, so TAS wouldn't exist.
>
> Don't you mean "so ENT wouldn't exist"!? :)
Actually he means "so Voyager won't exist" ;)
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
Website currently down.
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279226 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 05:04 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> news:W7adnb_gAK1G6xLZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
>>Benjamin Pavsner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The point is moot, IMHO. I think we should trash the whole continuity and
>>>revamp it, so TAS wouldn't exist.
>>
>>Don't you mean "so ENT wouldn't exist"!? :)
>
>
> Actually he means "so Voyager won't exist" ;)
LOL we all have our pet peeves, it seems. :)
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279228 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 20:49 |
|
OK, I brought up TAS because TAS was the subject. Of course, we would all be
put out of our collective misery with V'Ger, Enterprise and the rest with a
revamp.
"Benjamin Pavsner" <pavsnerp [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:E_Ijg.6679$y%3.5149 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> The point is moot, IMHO. I think we should trash the whole continuity and
> revamp it, so TAS wouldn't exist.
> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
> > For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
> > Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
> > included in official Star Trek "canon"?
> > http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/polls/index. html
> >
> > --
> >
> > Qapla'
> > Kweeg
> > Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
> > "Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
> > 1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
> > "So say we all!"
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #279234 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 16:47 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> EvilBill wrote:
>> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
>> news:W7adnb_gAK1G6xLZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>>
>>> Benjamin Pavsner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The point is moot, IMHO. I think we should trash the whole
>>>> continuity and revamp it, so TAS wouldn't exist.
>>>
>>> Don't you mean "so ENT wouldn't exist"!? :)
Half of Enterprise.
>>
>>
>> Actually he means "so Voyager won't exist" ;)
Fourseventh of Voyager.
>
> LOL we all have our pet peeves, it seems. :)
Yeah, if you don't have the time to keep regular pets you have to make do
with the peeve ones. Cheaper too I think.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.nksf.scifics.com/survivor2006/
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #292315 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 05:52 |
|
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
> included in official Star Trek "canon"?
Done, I voted yes, I men in comparison to most of ENT season 2 TAS is
Shakespeare compared to a two year old draing on the wall with crayons
cheers
fozzi
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #293696 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 04:11 |
|
"Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:fe1pg.18687$ap3.11120 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
>> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
>> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74) should be
>> included in official Star Trek "canon"?
Is there any reason for it not to be? It is a Trek series featuring the
original actors, made in good faith by Roddenberry himself. It has more
claim to being canon than Voyager does.
Ask the question the other way around. *Specifially*, which episodes of TAS
should not be canon, and why? Are there any that definitely don't belong?
The only one that seems to present any difficulties is The Magiks of
Megas-Tu, where they go to the center of the galaxy and find something
completely different from what Sybok found. Of course if it's a question of
excluding Magiks or excluding Trek V, it might be a difficult choice.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #293697 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 04:57 |
|
Graeme wrote:
> "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:fe1pg.18687$ap3.11120 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
>>> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74)
>>> should be included in official Star Trek "canon"?
>
> Is there any reason for it not to be? It is a Trek series featuring
> the original actors, made in good faith by Roddenberry himself. It
> has more claim to being canon than Voyager does.
>
> Ask the question the other way around. *Specifially*, which episodes
> of TAS should not be canon, and why? Are there any that definitely
> don't belong?
> The only one that seems to present any difficulties is The Magiks of
> Megas-Tu, where they go to the center of the galaxy and find something
> completely different from what Sybok found. Of course if it's a
> question of excluding Magiks or excluding Trek V, it might be a
> difficult choice.
Well, considering that TNG *also* went to the centre of the galaxy and found
something different again ("The Nth Degreee", although one might rationalise
it as Sybok's "God" being a Cytherian in exile...), it can just be added to
the Trek discontinuity list. <g>
--
--
* 404 Error: Weapons of Mass Destruction not found. Please reinstall
regime and reboot.
Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #293710 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 19:10 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> Graeme wrote:
>> "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:fe1pg.18687$ap3.11120 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
>>>> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74)
>>>> should be included in official Star Trek "canon"?
>>
>> Is there any reason for it not to be? It is a Trek series featuring
>> the original actors, made in good faith by Roddenberry himself. It
>> has more claim to being canon than Voyager does.
>>
>> Ask the question the other way around. *Specifially*, which episodes
>> of TAS should not be canon, and why? Are there any that definitely
>> don't belong?
>> The only one that seems to present any difficulties is The Magiks of
>> Megas-Tu, where they go to the center of the galaxy and find
>> something completely different from what Sybok found. Of course if
>> it's a question of excluding Magiks or excluding Trek V, it might be
>> a difficult choice.
Just how small is the center of the Galaxy anyway to present these conflicts
in continuity?
I mean, we could be talking about an area with a diameter of thousands of
light years.
>
> Well, considering that TNG *also* went to the centre of the galaxy
> and found something different again ("The Nth Degreee", although one
> might rationalise it as Sybok's "God" being a Cytherian in exile...),
> it can just be added to the Trek discontinuity list. <g>
>
Well, they both had large heads...
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #293716 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 20:07 |
|
Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> EvilBill wrote:
>
> Just how small is the center of the Galaxy anyway to present these
> conflicts in continuity?
> I mean, we could be talking about an area with a diameter of
> thousands of light years.
>
True. Presumably Trek is talking about the area between the immense star
belts and the central black hole. <g>
>>
>> Well, considering that TNG *also* went to the centre of the galaxy
>> and found something different again ("The Nth Degreee", although one
>> might rationalise it as Sybok's "God" being a Cytherian in exile...),
>> it can just be added to the Trek discontinuity list. <g>
>>
>
> Well, they both had large heads...
And lots of potentially dodgy powers. <g>
--
--
* BBBBBBOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOCCCCCCCKKKKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!
Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #293728 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 23:39 |
|
Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> EvilBill wrote:
>> Graeme wrote:
>>> "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:fe1pg.18687$ap3.11120 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>>> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
>>>>> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74)
>>>>> should be included in official Star Trek "canon"?
>>> Is there any reason for it not to be? It is a Trek series featuring
>>> the original actors, made in good faith by Roddenberry himself. It
>>> has more claim to being canon than Voyager does.
>>>
>>> Ask the question the other way around. *Specifially*, which episodes
>>> of TAS should not be canon, and why? Are there any that definitely
>>> don't belong?
>>> The only one that seems to present any difficulties is The Magiks of
>>> Megas-Tu, where they go to the center of the galaxy and find
>>> something completely different from what Sybok found. Of course if
>>> it's a question of excluding Magiks or excluding Trek V, it might be
>>> a difficult choice.
>
> Just how small is the center of the Galaxy anyway to present these conflicts
> in continuity?
> I mean, we could be talking about an area with a diameter of thousands of
> light years.
>
>> Well, considering that TNG *also* went to the centre of the galaxy
>> and found something different again ("The Nth Degreee", although one
>> might rationalise it as Sybok's "God" being a Cytherian in exile...),
>> it can just be added to the Trek discontinuity list. <g>
>>
>
> Well, they both had large heads...
How could they even know where the center of the galaxy is, assuming
they're being literal? Prior to Voyager's being there, they didn't know
squat about the Delta Quadrant -- how big it was, how far it went, etc.
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #293730 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 00:32 |
|
Eric Newman wrote:
> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>> EvilBill wrote:
>>> Graeme wrote:
>>>> "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:fe1pg.18687$ap3.11120 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>>>> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
>>>>>> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74)
>>>>>> should be included in official Star Trek "canon"?
>>>> Is there any reason for it not to be? It is a Trek series
>>>> featuring the original actors, made in good faith by Roddenberry
>>>> himself. It has more claim to being canon than Voyager does.
>>>>
>>>> Ask the question the other way around. *Specifially*, which
>>>> episodes of TAS should not be canon, and why? Are there any that
>>>> definitely don't belong?
>>>> The only one that seems to present any difficulties is The Magiks
>>>> of Megas-Tu, where they go to the center of the galaxy and find
>>>> something completely different from what Sybok found. Of course if
>>>> it's a question of excluding Magiks or excluding Trek V, it might
>>>> be a difficult choice.
>>
>> Just how small is the center of the Galaxy anyway to present these
>> conflicts in continuity?
>> I mean, we could be talking about an area with a diameter of
>> thousands of light years.
>>
>>> Well, considering that TNG *also* went to the centre of the galaxy
>>> and found something different again ("The Nth Degreee", although one
>>> might rationalise it as Sybok's "God" being a Cytherian in
>>> exile...), it can just be added to the Trek discontinuity list. <g>
>>>
>>
>> Well, they both had large heads...
>
> How could they even know where the center of the galaxy is, assuming
> they're being literal? Prior to Voyager's being there, they didn't
> know squat about the Delta Quadrant -- how big it was, how far it
> went, etc.
That was the *writers* knowing squat about the Delta Quadrant ;)
We know more about the layout of our galaxy *now* than was demonstrated on
Voyager. <g>
--
--
* Justice, as the humans like to say, is blind. I used to believe that.
I'm not sure I can any more.
Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #293742 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 03:58 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> Graeme wrote:
>> "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:fe1pg.18687$ap3.11120 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
>>>> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74)
>>>> should be included in official Star Trek "canon"?
>> Is there any reason for it not to be? It is a Trek series featuring
>> the original actors, made in good faith by Roddenberry himself. It
>> has more claim to being canon than Voyager does.
>>
>> Ask the question the other way around. *Specifially*, which episodes
>> of TAS should not be canon, and why? Are there any that definitely
>> don't belong?
>> The only one that seems to present any difficulties is The Magiks of
>> Megas-Tu, where they go to the center of the galaxy and find something
>> completely different from what Sybok found. Of course if it's a
>> question of excluding Magiks or excluding Trek V, it might be a
>> difficult choice.
>
> Well, considering that TNG *also* went to the centre of the galaxy and found
> something different again ("The Nth Degreee", although one might rationalise
> it as Sybok's "God" being a Cytherian in exile...), it can just be added to
> the Trek discontinuity list. <g>
>
Surely the center of the galaxy can contain more that one thing! There's
no reason to think that the three events went to the same *place* in the
center of the galaxy!
WK
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #293744 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 05:36 |
|
"Wunderkind" <a [at] b.com> wrote in message
news:_6_qg.116343$H71.111514 [at] newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> EvilBill wrote:
>> Graeme wrote:
>>
> Surely the center of the galaxy can contain more that one thing! There's
> no reason to think that the three events went to the same *place* in the
> center of the galaxy!
>
> WK
Our best guess at the moment is that the centre of our galaxy contains a
super massive blackhole whose event horizon covers an area equivalent in
diameter to several thousand solar systems and is growing prodigously, so
that rules out the literal centre (of course the actual black hole itself
would still be a singularity but im refering to the area covered by its
extreme gravitational sheer), extending out to the next ring we have
thousands of stars that may be so dense that there may be as little as a few
light days (or perhaps even light hours, there is one binary pair that is so
close that the two stars are actually touching each other, between them, so
again gravitational sheer would seem to rule this out as a potential star
fleet tourism destination as well.
cheers
fozzi
|
|
|
| Re: ST.com poll [message #296430 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 19:53 |
|
Eric Newman wrote:
> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>> EvilBill wrote:
>>> Graeme wrote:
>>>> "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:fe1pg.18687$ap3.11120 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d6uig.6765$IK3.6394 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>>>> For what it's worth....get yer votes in....
>>>>>> Do you think that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures (1973-74)
>>>>>> should be included in official Star Trek "canon"?
>>>> Is there any reason for it not to be? It is a Trek series
>>>> featuring the original actors, made in good faith by Roddenberry
>>>> himself. It has more claim to being canon than Voyager does.
>>>>
>>>> Ask the question the other way around. *Specifially*, which
>>>> episodes of TAS should not be canon, and why? Are there any that
>>>> definitely don't belong?
>>>> The only one that seems to present any difficulties is The Magiks
>>>> of Megas-Tu, where they go to the center of the galaxy and find
>>>> something completely different from what Sybok found. Of course if
>>>> it's a question of excluding Magiks or excluding Trek V, it might
>>>> be a difficult choice.
>>
>> Just how small is the center of the Galaxy anyway to present these
>> conflicts in continuity?
>> I mean, we could be talking about an area with a diameter of
>> thousands of light years.
>>
>>> Well, considering that TNG *also* went to the centre of the galaxy
>>> and found something different again ("The Nth Degreee", although one
>>> might rationalise it as Sybok's "God" being a Cytherian in
>>> exile...), it can just be added to the Trek discontinuity list. <g>
>>>
>>
>> Well, they both had large heads...
>
> How could they even know where the center of the galaxy is, assuming
> they're being literal? Prior to Voyager's being there, they didn't
> know squat about the Delta Quadrant -- how big it was, how far it
> went, etc.
Quadrants should be well defined as... well being each a quarter of the main
disk of the galaxy.
So, by definition somewhat a 'slice of pie' from that disc portion with an
angle of 90 degrees and some 50,000 light years in diameter.
What's in it exactly in the way of intelligent life etc. that's a different
matter.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mo Sep 6 12:52:07 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04552 Sekunden |
