B&B talk about continuity and cannon

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

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Science Fiction » alt.startrek » B&B talk about continuity and cannon

B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55685]

Mo, 06 Juni 2005 17:44

Eric Nichols

All you haters will love this
http://www.trektoday.com/news/040605_02.shtml

--
Eric Nichols
Psalm 138:8

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55687 ]

Mo, 06 Juni 2005 17:59

Snake

"Eric Nichols" <sugarbearnichols [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Cb_oe.1281$I14.694 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> All you haters will love this
> http://www.trektoday.com/news/040605_02.shtml

Amazing. It's the same old - same old. When Berman or Braga create
something the viewers - the /fans/ - do not like it's the FAN'S fault for
not liking it.

Berman & Braga's JOB is to create work that WE like. What THEY like is
irrelevant - and /that's/ why Enterprise got cancelled. WE are the
consumers of their product, and WE judge whether or not we like the product.
They /still/ think that the Star Trek world revolves around them - "You'll
like what we do or else"

Well, we officially got the "or else".

What would you like to do (wrong) next, you clowns??

STOP thinking of what /you/ like and listen to the people actually *paying*
the money (either directly in movie ticket sales or indirectly with
purchasing your advertiser's products) to support your jobs. We, /as a
whole/, DON'T like your current works. Get a brain and a life!!

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55688 ]

Mo, 06 Juni 2005 18:01

Graham Kennedy

Eric Nichols wrote:

> All you haters will love this
> http://www.trektoday.com/news/040605_02.shtml

The thing with B&B is that they seem to take a very
strict "letter of the law" approach to canon. So for
instance, it's fine to show Romulans using cloaking
devices a century before they were invented, because
if you interpret the Balance of Terror dialogue to
be talking about some new version of cloaking then
the Ent cloaks could be an older version, so that's
not technically a canon violation.

So you can screw all we want with canon, as long as
you find some hair-splitting way to interpret things
to make it fit.

The trouble with this is that it annoys the hell out
of the fans. Some of us have spent upwards of forty
years with the idea that Romulans didn't have cloaking
devices before TOS, and when Ent comes along and tells
us we're all wrong about that, we get a bit irked.

B&B can argue that they're in charge, they're not
violating canon in a strict sense, so we're the ones
with the problem, and they're right about that in a
way. But pissing off your fans is no way to get them
to tune in next week!

--
Graham Kennedy

Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55723 ]

Di, 07 Juni 2005 00:34

George Peatty

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:59:39 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote:

>Berman & Braga's JOB is to create work that WE like. What THEY like is
>irrelevant - and /that's/ why Enterprise got cancelled. WE are the
>consumers of their product, and WE judge whether or not we like the product.
>They /still/ think that the Star Trek world revolves around them - "You'll
>like what we do or else"

Star Trek doesn't belong to us. It belongs to them, and they can do
anything they want with it. They owe us nothing.

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55728 ]

Di, 07 Juni 2005 01:10

nobody

George Peatty wrote:

> Star Trek doesn't belong to us. It belongs to them, and they can do
> anything they want with it. They owe us nothing.

If that's true, we don't owe them a damn thing either and that flushing
sound you hear is their careers going down the toilet.

If you want to sell a product, you have to give your audience what they
want or else you lose.

--
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of
liberty. This much we pledgeand more.

- President John F. Kennedy, Jan. 20, 1961

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55738 ]

Di, 07 Juni 2005 02:10

George Peatty

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:10:19 GMT, Nobody <abuse [at] microsoft.com> wrote:

>> Star Trek doesn't belong to us. It belongs to them, and they can do
>> anything they want with it. They owe us nothing.

>If that's true, we don't owe them a damn thing either and that flushing
>sound you hear is their careers going down the toilet.

>If you want to sell a product, you have to give your audience what they
>want or else you lose.

That is the idea. In other forums, I've complained about TV programming
that I found to be objectionable. Someone has always responded .. sometimes
lots of someones .. "if you don't like it, change the <expletive deleted>
channel" I'd like to see more of the posters here expressing their
displeasure with Berman and Braga using their remotes, rather than their
PC's ..

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55822 ]

Di, 07 Juni 2005 16:36

Snake

"George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote in message
news:upj9a1p8nferee48ogfegoffqchjdu2571 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:59:39 GMT, "Snake"
> <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Berman & Braga's JOB is to create work that WE like. What THEY like is
> >irrelevant - and /that's/ why Enterprise got cancelled. WE are the
> >consumers of their product, and WE judge whether or not we like the
product.
> >They /still/ think that the Star Trek world revolves around them -
"You'll
> >like what we do or else"
>
> Star Trek doesn't belong to us. It belongs to them, and they can do
> anything they want with it. They owe us nothing.

And with that thought they are now all out of work.

Star Trek /does/ belong to us, the consumers of the goods. Without
consumers there is no market, and Paramount just found that out with Star
Trek. For the past 10 years they believed anything they did would be
blindly consumed - as you say, "Trek was theirs". Markets are consumer
driven, not producer driven. Let them believe it belongs to them - without
changes they will find no market. Trek will continue on in the thousands of
other ways it survived between the end of TOS and its rebirth with TMP. The
official Paramount output is simply one aspect of it - something they did
not realize or allow themselves to rationalize.

Until now.

Star Wars survived with new movies. Trek survived with no official output,
movies nor episodes. Babylon 5 survives even though the official plot line
ended. Even ancient, long out-of-press series like the Honeymooners
survive - it's all in the fans.

Always has been.

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55836 ]

Di, 07 Juni 2005 19:54

Wouter Valentijn

Graham Kennedy wrote:
> Eric Nichols wrote:
>
>> All you haters will love this
>> http://www.trektoday.com/news/040605_02.shtml
>
> The thing with B&B is that they seem to take a very
> strict "letter of the law" approach to canon. So for
> instance, it's fine to show Romulans using cloaking
> devices a century before they were invented, because
> if you interpret the Balance of Terror dialogue to
> be talking about some new version of cloaking then
> the Ent cloaks could be an older version, so that's
> not technically a canon violation.
>
> So you can screw all we want with canon, as long as
> you find some hair-splitting way to interpret things
> to make it fit.
>
> The trouble with this is that it annoys the hell out
> of the fans. Some of us have spent upwards of forty
> years with the idea that Romulans didn't have cloaking
> devices before TOS, and when Ent comes along and tells
> us we're all wrong about that, we get a bit irked.
>
> B&B can argue that they're in charge, they're not
> violating canon in a strict sense, so we're the ones
> with the problem, and they're right about that in a
> way. But pissing off your fans is no way to get them
> to tune in next week!

Before 'BoT' the cloak was considered just theory...
That doens't imply knowledge of a working model.

--
www.Wouter.Valentijn.name
www.zeppodunsel.nl
www.scifics.com
www.nksf.nl
liam=mail

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55840 ]

Di, 07 Juni 2005 20:59

Graham Kennedy

Wouter Valentijn wrote:

> Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
>>Eric Nichols wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All you haters will love this
>>>http://www.trektoday.com/news/040605_02.shtml
>>
>>The thing with B&B is that they seem to take a very
>>strict "letter of the law" approach to canon. So for
>>instance, it's fine to show Romulans using cloaking
>>devices a century before they were invented, because
>>if you interpret the Balance of Terror dialogue to
>>be talking about some new version of cloaking then
>>the Ent cloaks could be an older version, so that's
>>not technically a canon violation.
>>
>>So you can screw all we want with canon, as long as
>>you find some hair-splitting way to interpret things
>>to make it fit.
>>
>>The trouble with this is that it annoys the hell out
>>of the fans. Some of us have spent upwards of forty
>>years with the idea that Romulans didn't have cloaking
>>devices before TOS, and when Ent comes along and tells
>>us we're all wrong about that, we get a bit irked.
>>
>>B&B can argue that they're in charge, they're not
>>violating canon in a strict sense, so we're the ones
>>with the problem, and they're right about that in a
>>way. But pissing off your fans is no way to get them
>>to tune in next week!
>
>
> Before 'BoT' the cloak was considered just theory...
> That doens't imply knowledge of a working model.

I know. But B&B seem to think it's okay to violate
that if you can tap-dance around it well.

Look at it this way : suppose that "cloak" covers
virtually any technology designed to hide a ship.
So the F-117 is a "cloaked" attack plane for
instance.

The Ent BoP has some sort of device that hides the
ship, so it is a "cloaking" device; say by projecting
a hologram over the surface like the armour the alien
wears in "Predator" for instance. At some point this
type of cloaking is rendered obsolete - perhaps because
of the quantum beacons Archer built in Shockwave.

So it became accepted that in order to cloak a ship,
you would need to come up with something that actually
bent light around it - theoretically possible, but
prohibited by the power costs.

Hence Spock correctly declares "cloaking is theoretically
possible, blah blah blah."

Now with that interpretation, suddenly there is no
conflict whatever between Ent and TOS.

My point is that while this is *technically* a valid
way to resolve such problems, in reality it's total
BS because a viewer shouldn't have to go around inventing
convoluted reasons why what's on the screen might just
possibly make sense.

--
Graham Kennedy

Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55848 ]

Di, 07 Juni 2005 22:35

Numan

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55850 ]

Di, 07 Juni 2005 22:38

Numan

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #55868 ]

Mi, 08 Juni 2005 01:06

Jaxtraw

"George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote in message
news:jap9a1h6fmlnohqh3q8e6ep5linbf1ljq3 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:10:19 GMT, Nobody <abuse [at] microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >> Star Trek doesn't belong to us. It belongs to them, and they can do
> >> anything they want with it. They owe us nothing.
>
> >If that's true, we don't owe them a damn thing either and that flushing
> >sound you hear is their careers going down the toilet.
>
> >If you want to sell a product, you have to give your audience what they
> >want or else you lose.
>
> That is the idea. In other forums, I've complained about TV programming
> that I found to be objectionable. Someone has always responded ..
sometimes
> lots of someones .. "if you don't like it, change the <expletive deleted>
> channel" I'd like to see more of the posters here expressing their
> displeasure with Berman and Braga using their remotes, rather than their
> PC's ..
>

Hmm, I think the difference here is the difference between choosing
*between* products and a much-loved product which is changed and thus
becomes unavailable in its original form. It's a bit like the new Coke thing
of some years ago (I say this as a person who dislikes cola :) People didn't
object to a new Coca Cola coming out, they objected to it replacing the old
Coke, thus depriving them of choice. So what is annoying people is that
Bermanised Trek has replaced "classic" Trek, thus denying us the product we
like to purchase (view).

So, IMV, when people are advised to use their remotes, it's saying, if you
don't like this new product (e.g. a new show) then don't watch it, watch
something else. But if an old show is changed, you have a right to complain
about it.

Thus, to take one hypothetical example, if a new show came out that was
overtly atheistic, I'd say to a christian complaining about it, "just use
your remote, don't watch it". But if a show they had enjoyed watching for
years suddenly was filled by its writers with overt atheism, I think that vi
ewer can validly object/moan about it.

I think that's a worthwhile distinction.

Ian

--
____________________
A quality online comic strip for the discerning reader.
With shagging in it.
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
Free daily rude toons
http://www.lewdart.com

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #57415 ]

Mi, 08 Juni 2005 16:15

docdude316

Numan wrote:
> "George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote in message
> news:upj9a1p8nferee48ogfegoffqchjdu2571 [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:59:39 GMT, "Snake"
>><fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Berman & Braga's JOB is to create work that WE like. What THEY like is
>>>irrelevant - and /that's/ why Enterprise got cancelled. WE are the
>>>consumers of their product, and WE judge whether or not we like the
>>>product.
>>>They /still/ think that the Star Trek world revolves around them - "You'll
>>>like what we do or else"
>>
>>Star Trek doesn't belong to us. It belongs to them, and they can do
>>anything they want with it. They owe us nothing.
>
>
> Enterprise is THE best example of this being true. They didn't call
> it Star Trek, had a non-Trek opening, had a mind numbing cast
> acting mind numbing scripts. So, you are 100% right, it does belong
> to them and they owe us nothing. Guess they didn't figure we would
> feel the same in DROVES.

There's one point with which I disagree with you. I don't believe the
cast was actually that bad. I don't think it could have been better with
anyone else. The writing of the first three season just wasn't up to
snuff. Take a look at Season 4 (up until TATV anyways) it was
wonderfully written, and overall the cast did a terrific job. I don't
think its fair to shoulder the cast with the responsibility of bringing
a bad show up to standard with their acting. The best actors in the
world couldn't have made the first three seasons of ENT any good.

-Doc

Re: B&B talk about continuity and cannon [message #57420 ]

Mi, 08 Juni 2005 17:12

dobey the elf

docdude316 wrote:
> Numan wrote:
> > "George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote in message
> > news:upj9a1p8nferee48ogfegoffqchjdu2571 [at] 4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:59:39 GMT, "Snake"
> >><fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Berman & Braga's JOB is to create work that WE like. What THEY like is
> >>>irrelevant - and /that's/ why Enterprise got cancelled. WE are the
> >>>consumers of their product, and WE judge whether or not we like the
> >>>product.
> >>>They /still/ think that the Star Trek world revolves around them - "You'll
> >>>like what we do or else"
> >>
> >>Star Trek doesn't belong to us. It belongs to them, and they can do
> >>anything they want with it. They owe us nothing.
> >
> >
> > Enterprise is THE best example of this being true. They didn't call
> > it Star Trek, had a non-Trek opening, had a mind numbing cast
> > acting mind numbing scripts. So, you are 100% right, it does belong
> > to them and they owe us nothing. Guess they didn't figure we would
> > feel the same in DROVES.
>
> There's one point with which I disagree with you. I don't believe the
> cast was actually that bad. I don't think it could have been better with
> anyone else. The writing of the first three season just wasn't up to
> snuff. Take a look at Season 4 (up until TATV anyways) it was
> wonderfully written, and overall the cast did a terrific job. I don't
> think its fair to shoulder the cast with the responsibility of bringing
> a bad show up to standard with their acting. The best actors in the
> world couldn't have made the first three seasons of ENT any good.
>
> -Doc

speaking of ent I quit watching after the time traveller episdoe where
archer and the futuro guy are standing in a city of blasted out
buildings.

What exactly happened after all that? Where a good url that show the
timeline and plot synopsises?

Vorheriges Thema:	Almost Missed It - Soul of Star Trek - Alternative Futures
Nächstes Thema:	New Federation starship with diagram

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 11:10:25 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09512 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.