Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

Crane hersteller, why did Scabbers bite goyle, fuldataler mineralwasser, bikemate fahrradcomputer t52434 anleitung, frank zappa iq 172 liam gallagher 164, "heartbroke kid" "previous episode references", bikemate t52434 anleitung, marietta edgecombe cop out, kaufland autobatterie, nasi goreng in dosen kaufen

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: Guess who is on the cover of TV guide AGAIN!? :)

Posted on 2006-07-22 00:18:50 by ToolPackinMama

Captain Kirk, and Mr. Spock are alllll over the cover of the latest TV
Guide, and there is an interview inside with J.J. Abrams. He is coy
about the new movie, but confirms that he is a fan of TOS and TNG, and
that the new movie will be respectful of classic canon - thank GOD!

Report this message

#2: Re: Guess who is on the cover of TV guide AGAIN!? :)

Posted on 2006-07-22 07:28:27 by mies

ToolPackinMama &lt;<a href="mailto:laura&#64;lauragoodwin.org" target="_blank">laura&#64;lauragoodwin.org</a>&gt; wrote in news:44C152CA.50500
@lauragoodwin.org:

&gt; Captain Kirk, and Mr. Spock are alllll over the cover of the latest TV
&gt; Guide, and there is an interview inside with J.J. Abrams. He is coy
&gt; about the new movie, but confirms that he is a fan of TOS and TNG, and
&gt; that the new movie will be respectful of classic canon - thank GOD!

I hope he stays away from the &quot;Kirk meets Spock&quot; story. The characters
have not been touched in over 40 years... let's just leave it as is.
Why do we need to know how their friendship started?? Let's just accept it
and move on.
There was no explanation in the Lord of Rings movie about the rings and
what they were used for. And why such unusual numbers.
Why do we need to know how and why James Bond became an international super
agent?
How did the Sith come to be?

When you look back at the attempts made by Hollywood to make a TV show into
a movie (using the same characters), a good chunk of them have failed.
Bewitched, Dukes of Hazzard to name a couple.

Report this message

#3: Re: Guess who is on the cover of TV guide AGAIN!? :)

Posted on 2006-07-22 23:06:59 by CaptainPike

&quot;Mies&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:fokov69&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">fokov69&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:Xns9807E4A5E16AFMies&#64;199.185.223.78..." target="_blank">Xns9807E4A5E16AFMies&#64;199.185.223.78...</a>

&gt; I hope he stays away from the &quot;Kirk meets Spock&quot; story. The characters
&gt; have not been touched in over 40 years... let's just leave it as is.
&gt; Why do we need to know how their friendship started?? Let's just accept
it
&gt; and move on.
&gt; There was no explanation in the Lord of Rings movie about the rings and
&gt; what they were used for. And why such unusual numbers.
&gt; Why do we need to know how and why James Bond became an international
super
&gt; agent?
&gt; How did the Sith come to be?

This is one of my biggest complaints about &quot;The Next Generation&quot; and
the others that followed. I can't think of any specific examples right off
the top of my head, but what always annoyed me about the spin-offs is that
they seemed to always feel the need to explain how such-in-such device
worked, in some stupid technobabble. I don't need to know how the thing
works, I've got the jist of it. Just stick to the plotline, damnit.

When a show does such things, it ruins the mystery of it for me.
Like the phaser from the Original Star Trek. The producers never felt the
need to have the characters explain how the phaser operated - 'well, the
beam itself is composed of highly charged argon gases, blah blah blah' - and
I'm glad they didn't. The most we know about the transporter is that it
'scattered your atoms', according to Dr. McCoy, and it was possible to
accidentally &quot;materialize inside solid rock&quot; or a bulkhead. And they left it
at that.

The same goes, I (strongly) feel with any back story regarding how
Kirk Spock and Bones met. I simply DO NOT CARE. Let's move forward. And if
that sadly means no Bones or Scotty, that's fine. Anyway, both actors
thankfully filmed Next Generation episodes before they passed away, so at
least we know they are still alive and well 100 years in the furure. And,
who knows, if computer technology ever allows filmmakers to digitally
recreate their characters in an exact and affectively detailed manner, then
they may still return to the franchise someday.

I wonder sometimes if the original, incredible Star Wars Trilogy
has somehow been diluted with the release of the other three prequels. We
all know they weren't as good as the original three, and did we really need
to know the whole backstory to the thing? Why couldn't Lucas have simply let
his original story stand by itself over the course of time?

Report this message

#4: Re: Guess who is on the cover of TV guide AGAIN!? :)

Posted on 2006-07-23 05:28:05 by mies

&quot;CaptainPike&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:CaptainPike&#64;ev1.net" target="_blank">CaptainPike&#64;ev1.net</a>&gt; wrote in
news:<a href="mailto:12c4to7l6fos211&#64;corp.supernews.com" target="_blank">12c4to7l6fos211&#64;corp.supernews.com</a>:

&gt; &quot;Mies&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:fokov69&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">fokov69&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:Xns9807E4A5E16AFMies&#64;199.185.223.78..." target="_blank">Xns9807E4A5E16AFMies&#64;199.185.223.78...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt; I hope he stays away from the &quot;Kirk meets Spock&quot; story. The
&gt;&gt; characters have not been touched in over 40 years... let's just leave
&gt;&gt; it as is. Why do we need to know how their friendship started??
&gt;&gt; Let's just accept
&gt; it
&gt;&gt; and move on.
&gt;&gt; There was no explanation in the Lord of Rings movie about the rings
&gt;&gt; and what they were used for. And why such unusual numbers.
&gt;&gt; Why do we need to know how and why James Bond became an international
&gt; super
&gt;&gt; agent?
&gt;&gt; How did the Sith come to be?
&gt;
&gt; This is one of my biggest complaints about &quot;The Next
&gt; Generation&quot; and
&gt; the others that followed. I can't think of any specific examples right
&gt; off the top of my head, but what always annoyed me about the spin-offs
&gt; is that they seemed to always feel the need to explain how
&gt; such-in-such device worked, in some stupid technobabble. I don't need
&gt; to know how the thing works, I've got the jist of it. Just stick to
&gt; the plotline, damnit.
&gt;
&gt; When a show does such things, it ruins the mystery of it for
&gt; me.
&gt; Like the phaser from the Original Star Trek. The producers never felt
&gt; the need to have the characters explain how the phaser operated -
&gt; 'well, the beam itself is composed of highly charged argon gases, blah
&gt; blah blah' - and I'm glad they didn't. The most we know about the
&gt; transporter is that it 'scattered your atoms', according to Dr. McCoy,
&gt; and it was possible to accidentally &quot;materialize inside solid rock&quot; or
&gt; a bulkhead. And they left it at that.
&gt;
&gt; The same goes, I (strongly) feel with any back story regarding
&gt; how
&gt; Kirk Spock and Bones met. I simply DO NOT CARE. Let's move forward.
&gt; And if that sadly means no Bones or Scotty, that's fine. Anyway, both
&gt; actors thankfully filmed Next Generation episodes before they passed
&gt; away, so at least we know they are still alive and well 100 years in
&gt; the furure. And, who knows, if computer technology ever allows
&gt; filmmakers to digitally recreate their characters in an exact and
&gt; affectively detailed manner, then they may still return to the
&gt; franchise someday.
&gt;
&gt; I wonder sometimes if the original, incredible Star Wars
&gt; Trilogy
&gt; has somehow been diluted with the release of the other three prequels.
&gt; We all know they weren't as good as the original three, and did we
&gt; really need to know the whole backstory to the thing? Why couldn't
&gt; Lucas have simply let his original story stand by itself over the
&gt; course of time?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;

Well said CaptainPike.

Report this message

#5: Re: Guess who is on the cover of TV guide AGAIN!? :)

Posted on 2006-07-23 06:43:06 by ToolPackinMama

CaptainPike wrote:

&gt; This is one of my biggest complaints about &quot;The Next Generation&quot; and
&gt; the others that followed. I can't think of any specific examples right off
&gt; the top of my head, but what always annoyed me about the spin-offs is that
&gt; they seemed to always feel the need to explain how such-in-such device
&gt; worked, in some stupid technobabble. I don't need to know how the thing
&gt; works, I've got the jist of it. Just stick to the plotline, damnit.

Thank you, I agree.

One classic TOS example is in For The World Is Hollow, and I Have
Touched The Sky: Spock ducks into a backroom, works the miracle du
jour, and voila! Crisis averted, hoorah, hoorah. :)

Report this message

#6: Re: Guess who is on the cover of TV guide AGAIN!? :)

Posted on 2006-07-23 08:14:26 by PW

&quot;CaptainPike&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:CaptainPike&#64;ev1.net" target="_blank">CaptainPike&#64;ev1.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:12c4to7l6fos211&#64;corp.supernews.com..." target="_blank">12c4to7l6fos211&#64;corp.supernews.com...</a>
&gt; &quot;Mies&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:fokov69&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">fokov69&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:Xns9807E4A5E16AFMies&#64;199.185.223.78..." target="_blank">Xns9807E4A5E16AFMies&#64;199.185.223.78...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt; I hope he stays away from the &quot;Kirk meets Spock&quot; story. The characters
&gt;&gt; have not been touched in over 40 years... let's just leave it as is.
&gt;&gt; Why do we need to know how their friendship started?? Let's just accept
&gt; it
&gt;&gt; and move on.
&gt;&gt; There was no explanation in the Lord of Rings movie about the rings and
&gt;&gt; what they were used for. And why such unusual numbers.
&gt;&gt; Why do we need to know how and why James Bond became an international
&gt; super
&gt;&gt; agent?
&gt;&gt; How did the Sith come to be?
&gt;
&gt; This is one of my biggest complaints about &quot;The Next Generation&quot;
&gt; and
&gt; the others that followed. I can't think of any specific examples right off
&gt; the top of my head, but what always annoyed me about the spin-offs is that
&gt; they seemed to always feel the need to explain how such-in-such device
&gt; worked, in some stupid technobabble. I don't need to know how the thing
&gt; works, I've got the jist of it. Just stick to the plotline, damnit.
&gt;
&gt; When a show does such things, it ruins the mystery of it for me.
&gt; Like the phaser from the Original Star Trek. The producers never felt the
&gt; need to have the characters explain how the phaser operated - 'well, the
&gt; beam itself is composed of highly charged argon gases, blah blah blah' -
&gt; and
&gt; I'm glad they didn't. The most we know about the transporter is that it
&gt; 'scattered your atoms', according to Dr. McCoy, and it was possible to
&gt; accidentally &quot;materialize inside solid rock&quot; or a bulkhead. And they left
&gt; it
&gt; at that.
&gt;
&gt; The same goes, I (strongly) feel with any back story regarding how
&gt; Kirk Spock and Bones met. I simply DO NOT CARE. Let's move forward. And if
&gt; that sadly means no Bones or Scotty, that's fine. Anyway, both actors
&gt; thankfully filmed Next Generation episodes before they passed away, so at
&gt; least we know they are still alive and well 100 years in the furure. And,
&gt; who knows, if computer technology ever allows filmmakers to digitally
&gt; recreate their characters in an exact and affectively detailed manner,
&gt; then
&gt; they may still return to the franchise someday.
&gt;
&gt; I wonder sometimes if the original, incredible Star Wars Trilogy
&gt; has somehow been diluted with the release of the other three prequels. We
&gt; all know they weren't as good as the original three, and did we really
&gt; need
&gt; to know the whole backstory to the thing? Why couldn't Lucas have simply
&gt; let
&gt; his original story stand by itself over the course of time?
&gt;
&gt;


HELL YEAH !!! I couldn't agree more. I like the 'suspension of disbelief',
and the minimal explanation of the gadget and the basic principal behind it
(&quot;it scatters you atoms&quot;) so its believeable, and even plausible ... but
then leave it alone! Excellent post Captain! :-)

I wish more trek followers would get off this &quot;the plot must be perfect&quot;
kick, and just enjoy the show. I doubt there are any other shows that are
scrutinised and analysed so closely as the trek series. I mean, jeez,
sometime a TV episode from 39-40 years ago has to coincide perfectly with
the latest movie ! Get a life!!!

Report this message

#7: Re: Guess who is on the cover of TV guide AGAIN!? :)

Posted on 2006-07-23 15:42:40 by ANIM8Rfsk

In article &lt;6tEwg.9406$<a href="mailto:tE5.8806&#64;news-server.bigpond.net.au" target="_blank">tE5.8806&#64;news-server.bigpond.net.au</a>&gt;,
&quot;PW&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:pwaNO&#64;SPAMbigpond.net.au" target="_blank">pwaNO&#64;SPAMbigpond.net.au</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt; I wish more trek followers would get off this &quot;the plot must be perfect&quot;
&gt; kick, and just enjoy the show.

How about 'the plot must be adequate' or 'the plot must be existant'?

Report this message

#8: Re: Guess who is on the cover of TV guide AGAIN!? :)

Posted on 2006-07-23 21:04:46 by mies

ToolPackinMama &lt;<a href="mailto:laura&#64;lauragoodwin.org" target="_blank">laura&#64;lauragoodwin.org</a>&gt; wrote in
news:<a href="mailto:X5adnVlcBOXHY1_ZnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d&#64;comcast.com" target="_blank">X5adnVlcBOXHY1_ZnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d&#64;comcast.com</a>:

&gt; CaptainPike wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; This is one of my biggest complaints about &quot;The Next
&gt;&gt; Generation&quot; and
&gt;&gt; the others that followed. I can't think of any specific examples
&gt;&gt; right off the top of my head, but what always annoyed me about the
&gt;&gt; spin-offs is that they seemed to always feel the need to explain how
&gt;&gt; such-in-such device worked, in some stupid technobabble. I don't need
&gt;&gt; to know how the thing works, I've got the jist of it. Just stick to
&gt;&gt; the plotline, damnit.
&gt;
&gt; Thank you, I agree.
&gt;
&gt; One classic TOS example is in For The World Is Hollow, and I Have
&gt; Touched The Sky: Spock ducks into a backroom, works the miracle du
&gt; jour, and voila! Crisis averted, hoorah, hoorah. :)
&gt;

In TOS, Kirk and SCotty would simply talk back and forth.
&quot;Can you get me more power?&quot;
&quot;I'll see what I can do forrrrrr ya.&quot;

In TNG and subsequent series, the talk would be;
&quot;Can you get me more power?&quot;
&quot;We're having problems trying to isolate the matrix for the (blah, blah,
blah). Maybe if I press a button, touch my nose and spin three times, it
will give us access to the thing-a-ma-giggy and give us more power.&quot;
&quot;Will it work?&quot;
&quot;It's worth a try.&quot;
&quot;Do it.&quot;

Report this message

#9: Re: Guess who is on the cover of TV guide AGAIN!? :)

Posted on 2006-07-24 00:48:58 by PW

&quot;Anim8rFSK&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:ANIM8Rfsk&#64;cox.net" target="_blank">ANIM8Rfsk&#64;cox.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:ANIM8Rfsk-29A32F.06424023072006&#64;news.west.cox.net..." target="_blank">ANIM8Rfsk-29A32F.06424023072006&#64;news.west.cox.net...</a>
&gt; In article &lt;6tEwg.9406$<a href="mailto:tE5.8806&#64;news-server.bigpond.net.au" target="_blank">tE5.8806&#64;news-server.bigpond.net.au</a>&gt;,
&gt; &quot;PW&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:pwaNO&#64;SPAMbigpond.net.au" target="_blank">pwaNO&#64;SPAMbigpond.net.au</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; How about 'the plot must be adequate' or 'the plot must be existant'?

Whenever I watch a show, and I find it doesn't entertainment me to the level
I desire ... I TURN IT OFF !!! I certainly don't get on a newsgroup and
complain about why I don't like it. If you don't like it ... TURN IT OFF
!!! ;-)

Report this message