In case no one's noticed, the new issue of TV Guide with the "Six Feet Under" cover (covers?) has an article on that very topic. They talked to the guy who runs TrekWeb.
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
Krutzler? Boy, that'll be a fun read. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Naysayers rejoice! More articles that read like something Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons would write. These so called "fans" are what's really wrong with Trek.
Posted by Timelord (Member # 717) on :
When this spin-off bites the dust, it will be because of the producers failure to give true Star Trek fans something worthwhile to watch. Being a fan doesn't mean you never criticize mistakes when you see them. I'm a fan of my home baseball team, but when the coaching sucks, I'm gonna complain. I rant as we all do because I want them to be as exciting to watch as I remember they used to be. The same is true for Star Trek.
The real problem is that the producers got to thinking that most "fans" would accept anything they slap a Star Trek title on. They were wrong. The ratings prove it.
Star Trek is definitely worth saving, but it needs to rest and recuperate from the wounds inflicted by its unimaginative producers. Bring it back after a few years with a production team dedicated to making intelligent character-driven drama, avoid the gimicky use of old plots, played-out aliens, and slap-in-your-face errors of continuity, and fans will come back in droves.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Didnt your rants about Enterprise get your thread closed on you?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Yay for double posts!
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:The real problem is that the producers got to thinking that most "fans" would accept anything they slap a Star Trek title on. They were wrong.
And yet Voyager lasted for seven years.
PS -- "Enterprise" doesn't have the "Star Trek" title on it. Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
You want to reclaim a franchise, you have to acknowledge that it's in trouble.
If it is, because ratings alone do not a candidate for cancelation make.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
Seeing as Enterprise isn't Star Trek Enterprise, like you said, does that mean we can say it isn't Star Trek? Would sure solve quite a few continuity problems Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What's going on? Is it 2001 again?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
According to my dad, its still 1977....in which case, anything is possible. Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: According to my dad, its still 1977....in which case, anything is possible.
Oh no! You mean they're going to cancel Star Trek: Phase II? Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
The best and most widely accepted way of saving Star Trek is not to do any more Star Trek series after Enterprise. They can even stop the movies after Nemesis, and wait longer than 2-3 years to put out another movie. Maybe 5 or 6?
B&B need to accept the fact thet they don't know what's good for Star Trek. Maybe it's time for them to actually look for help in that department. From either fans or people who used to work on Star Trek. I know that asking fans might or might not be a good idea. After all you got those who want 40,000 Defiant class ships, with a 5 miles super-ultra-fantastic-super-duper-dreadnought battleship armed with weapons that a single shot willo destroy entire galaxies all at once. Then you got the intelligent ones.
Or they can just wing it.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
My suggestion for the next movie would be a movie in the vein of other greats, such as "Showgirls", called "Dabo Girls: Gone Wild", featuring all of Quarks alien babes from season 1-7!!!
[ February 27, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Futurama Guy ]
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
and Series VI will be called Star Trek: Holodeck Fantasies.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: and Series VI will be called Star Trek: Holodeck Fantasies.
That'd be lame. Voyager was Barclay's Holodeck Fantasy.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
No, no.
Red Shirt Diaries. Posted by Timelord (Member # 717) on :
Matrix, I agree with your comment, largely ignored, that Berman and Braga do not know what is best for Star Trek. It has always seemed to me that they were trying to re-invent Trek, spinning off one version after the other, each one less successful than the last, with the only real goal being the perpetuation of the "francise" at all costs.
Personally, I would enjoy seeing Majel Roddenberry involved in the capacity of executive producer for any further Trek incarnations. She was there from the beginning and has always served as custodian of Gene's vision. She took an undeveloped pilot idea that Gene had back in the 70's and turned it into the highest-rated new series in syndication, Earth Final Conflict.
This is not to say that she alone is worthy to helm a new series, but if anyone can save Star Trek, I think she would be a good first choice.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ever tried to watch Earth Final Conflict? Truly awful after the first season. Everyone expexted anything with Roddenberry's name stamped across the logo to be worth watching and that's why it had good ratings....at first. I know of NO ONE that was not throughly disapointed with that show. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...spinning off one version after the other, each one less successful than the last..."
I don't think two series, one of which is as-yet unproven, make a pattern.
Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
Y'know, I was knocking some ideas around with friends recently, and there's one we all get behind as the future of Trek: miniseries.
The problem is that there's not enough diversity any more - for example, because it seems so much of the writing is done in-house, and focussing on the same characters every week for seven years. DS9 did some very different things, like stories with Martok's crew, or sending characters into totally new settings.
Now, how's this for an idea - that perhaps post-Enterprise, Trek takes a new direction. Four one-to-two hour episodes, on the same story arc, twice a year, with different central casts. Sulu and the Excelsior; Martok and the Rotarran; Robert April; Starfleet Intelligence; even a Romulan crew. Lots of characters, sets/props/costumes and other things to be reused, and also plenty of choice for doing something new - opportunities to explore a variety of places and events in the Trek universe, and to fill in the details we've only alluded to before. That and the fact I always loved stories with arcs. Reset buttons get boring
Because of the longer-than-normal script, lots of chance for character development. Because of the short run, no problems with creating something that won't hold the audience for long (when an all-Klingon series was suggested, producers responded that they didn't think viewers would like the show because they probably couldn't relate to a Klingon central cast every week for seven years). Although of course, there's nothing to stop, say, Captain April or Captain Sulu becoming a smash hit and doing a story every year.
What d'you reckon, folks? A viable future for Trek, with lots of fresh faces in every department, a new kind of writing, and a decent budget? I have high hopes something like this could restore the show to its fomer glory, not to mention doing one or two stories with rebuilt TOS sets, to appease those of us who want more of that kind of thing. And of course, they could always draw on Phase II for more inspiration...
Anyone care to throw his 2c. into the ring?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Too expensive and too risky. People will watch Star Trek, and as long as you can keep those people watching, you'll get paid.
Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
What about a partial use of the concept? That is to say, making three or four miniseries around one good concept (Sulu!)...
That probably won't work out as risky or as expensive - less costly than a series, I'd hope, but with better quality because they can spend six months in writing and possibly as long as a feature in production and post-production work.
Okay, I admit it. I'm just gunning for a Sulu miniseries (or a TOS-era one). But if it doesn't work for TV, it might at least make a neat fanfic concept!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I really like your ideas, and it would be great if they did it, but I think the Big Giant Heads want to be sure the money and merchandise will keep flowing at a steady rate for about 7 years. Plus the fact that they would actually have to be creative...
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
Well then - let the "Big Giant Heads" roll! Who needs them?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I've always been all for a series of Star Trek TV movies or miniseries. IMHO, saying it's too expensive and too risky, while correct, is another way for television execs to say "We can't trouble ourselves to come up with something that has high enough quality to be worth the expense and risk of doing something new."
You've already got a steady fan base of people who will tune in... why not take that and try to make it work? "24" is a very different concept... and look how awesome it is. Execs wanted it to go to a more serialized format this season, but the creators held their ground.
New and creative *can* be done.... it just takes willingness.
Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: New and creative *can* be done.... it just takes willingness.
Case in point: 1964. Eugene W. Roddenberry is commissioned to make a pilot for his proposed new sci-fi show, "Star Trek". It is rejected by the network as "too cerebral". 1966. "Star Trek" first airs on US TV, following an unprecedented second pilot. Roddenberry lobbied to prevent too many changes to the show, including the loss of ethnic minority characters, and of the alien Mr Spock, following the network's admission that they had unfairly chosen the most difficult script for the first pilot rather than the best showcase of potential. 1969. "Star Trek" is cancelled in its third season. 1973. "Star Trek" returns to TV as a half-hour animated series. Almost all of the series regulars reprise their roles, as well as several of the writing and production staff. 1978. "Star Trek: Phase II" TV series announced. Cancelled a few days prior to filming. 1979. "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" theatrical release. 1987. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" airs on TV... it will spawn two spin-offs and four films.
Just a few highlights from the current 35-year timeline. Gene Roddenberry was a man with an idea, and he strived to bring his vision across. Star Trek survived biased execs, tightened budgets, numerous cancellations (attempted and actual), bad scheduling, Saturday mornings, false starts, studio execs playing silly beggars... and then went on to spawn a highly successful movie franchise, sequels, a prequel series, thousands of merchandisable items, conventions...
You're all aware of this, but it goes to show - if the right people got behind the idea of "Anthology Trek", it would work. Just needs the studio to butt out and let the program-makers do their work Posted by Timelord (Member # 717) on :
I would really like to see a "Star Trek - Excelsior" with Captain Sulu and crew. There are a considerable number of fans who are excited at the possibilities, which probably means it will never happen, but one can dream... Perhaps a telemovie could be produced to test the prospects of such a venture.
In my mind, Sulu is the logical heir to the Kirk legacy, anyway. Star Trek VI seemed to pass the baton to Sulu and Excelsior more than to TNG. Maybe Sulu can take over the new E from that wimp Harriman
Each spin-off of the series has tried to distinguish itself from previous ones by drastically changing the settings: space station/galactic war, lost starship, prequel. We are running out of really "different" ideas. Perhaps a return to something more familiar is in order. The classic movie time period was my personal favorite for many reasons (the stories, the uniforms, the music) and it was largely unexplored. There are some great stories left to tell there, and they wouldn't have to rely on old characters or re-used plots. You wouldn't really even need Sulu. Tell the story of the Enterprise-B, just populate it with fascinating, three-dimensional charaters and get rid of Harriman.
Star Trek was created with an underlying humanist philosophy in mind. Of course, you can't have a show were every episode makes some kind of philosophical statement, but Trek at its best explores what it means to be human. To their credit, the three previous series did just that to varying degrees. Ironically, they used non-human characters to do it. TNG's explorer of humanity was of course, Data. DS9's Odo didn't want to be human, but evolved from a gruff, standoffish autocrat into a being with the most noble of human qualities. Voyager's Doctor did much the same. I don't find a similar character in Enterprise.
quote:New and creative *can* be done.... it just takes willingness.
I absolutely agree. Look at Babylon 5. Some people get really PO'ed when anyone mentions this series in a Trek thread, but it is another prime example of how something new and creative can be successful. Before B5, nothing could compete with Trek, but JMS created a brand new universe and completed a very ambitious five-year story arc.
Star Trek can be saved, it just needs a bit of a rest and more insightful custodians.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh christ, Star Trek: Excelsior. I like George Takei, he's a nice guy, but let's face it, the series ain't going to happen. Why not? For the same reason everyone disses "Enterprise" --
a) The most tired arguement: "It's Star Trek -- we should look forward, not back!"
b) The most common arguement: Recycled storylines, and the same familiar aliens of the week.
c) Berman & Braga. Nevermind the common fanboy's ability to ignore their impacts on TNG and DS9, the two will continued to be blamed for absolutely everything wrong with the show, as well as Bush being president, and I'm sure they'll be somehow tied into the cause of the 9/11 attacks, too.
PS -- I find this statement:
quote:There are a considerable number of fans who are excited at the possibilities,
Highly questionable in its accuracy.
quote:Look at Babylon 5. Some people get really PO'ed when anyone mentions this series in a Trek thread, but it is another prime example of how something new and creative can be successful.
No, people get PO'ed because Babylon 5 is utter and complete crap. The dialogue is stunted, the story ideas are unimagined (the writing in general is what you might expect of a fanboy written fan-fic, and possibly explains why so many enjoy the show despite its total lack of creativity), and the characters are about as exciting as watching a tree rot. Some of the sets are nice, and the special effects suck, but we won't hold that against them, except to the degree that the original "Star Trek" had great stories (for the most part), and crappy special effects, but the writing cancels out the special effects, and in the case of B5, they all blow.
Posted by Mara Jade (Member # 985) on :
Personally, I just think they need to give Star Trek a well-deserved break. The world is oversaturated with Star Trek... and the last few years it's all been with crapy shows (Voyager and Enterprise).
And yes, B5 blows. I gave it an honest chance; I watched 5 episodes back to back, and I would rather watch all the Q episodes of Voyager before EVER watching B5 again.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I agree Mara. I think Trek has deserved a break for quite some time. Heck, even postpoing a fourth series until later in DS9's run would most likely have helped.
Posted by Timelord (Member # 717) on :
Yes B5 was utterly crappy enough to win the 1996 and 1997 Hugo for Best Dramatic Presentation.
Anyway...
quote:a) The most tired arguement: "It's Star Trek -- we should look forward, not back!"
I never bought this argument. I was really excited at the prequel prospect but was terribly disappointed by the lack of originality. Point B and C are right on the money, however. B&B gotta go. Did they do some good stuff in the past? Certainly. But they're just churning out pulp SF now. Time for someone with vision beyond the next paycheck to take over.
There are many fans out there who were interested in the Sulu/Excelsior project. A very insightful article regarding the campaign and dissention among Star Trek fans can be read here.
The author makes the point that there are two distinct audiences for Trek. The older viewers who favor the original series, movies, and most of TNG, and the younger, newer viewers who started watching within the last eight years or so. There is definitely a generation gap between Star Trek fans. Each camp wants something different and when they clash, caustic comments like the kind already in evidence in this thread are the result.
Unfortunately,if TPTB continue to alienate the original died-in-the-wool fans of Star Trek, I feel there is little hope for continuation of the series in any form.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I never said you DID bring that arguement. But it was pretty common in Enterprise-bashing, so there's a good bet it'd be pretty common in Excelsior-bashing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: No, people get PO'ed because Babylon 5 is utter and complete crap. The dialogue is stunted, the story ideas are unimagined (the writing in general is what you might expect of a fanboy written fan-fic, and possibly explains why so many enjoy the show despite its total lack of creativity), and the characters are about as exciting as watching a tree rot. Some of the sets are nice, and the special effects suck, but we won't hold that against them, except to the degree that the original "Star Trek" had great stories (for the most part), and crappy special effects, but the writing cancels out the special effects, and in the case of B5, they all blow.
You've got to be kidding. Your little close-minded rant is a prime example of why nobody takes deep Star Trek and Star Wars fans seriously. For some odd reason, these two shows tend to breed some sort of mutant fan where the only bar to measure TV science fiction is either ST or SW, both of which are suddenly taken as some sort of gospel where nothing can possibly go wrong.
It seriously makes no sense, people who actually read science fiction have no difficulty expressing appreciation for more than one SF author. You don't see Clarke fans complaining that Asimov books never feature monoliths, Asimov fans complaining that Dune doesn't have any robots, or etc. Yet an absurd number of ST/SW fans always make the same complaints when confronted with real SF, thats what all of your complaints ultimately boil down to.
Lets dissect your rationalisations shall we?
Stunted dialogue: No, B5 dialogue isn't perfect, but holding up ST as a example of the holy grail of dialogue is frankly, completely laughable. Even the actors make fun of the incomprehensible technobabble. We still get classic lines like..."Maybe one day, there should be some sort of rule, some sort of Prime Directive", "Get that cheese to the sickbay" or the entirety of Nemesis.
Unimagined storylines: Oh really. Lesse, Enterprise has: Hackneyed allegories, check. Derivative time travel, check. Evil Vulcans , check. Bad Ferengi episodes, check. Aliens of the week, check. Well, at least they haven't stooped to using the Borg. Oh wait. B5: Hey, wait....it actually has a storyline. People, places, and history actually change throughout the show! Imagine that!
Characters: Mayweather! Seriously. What about this latest ship-bound cast to you find so compelling that hasn't been covered in the last ...4. At least DS9 had an interesting range of characters. Unfortunately, the most interesting of them (Garak, Dukat, Weyoun, etc.) aren't even on the main cast.
Special effects: Even the producers of ST gave in and admitted their mistake of this one. They hired the same company that did B5's special effects to do DS9 effects sometime after the third season of B5. After slagging B5 for not using physical models and saying that ST would never do the same due to realism....well, we all know how that went. Show me the Akiraprise physical model, will you?
It seems to me, that ultimately the main reason so many ST fans dislike B5, is because it isn't Star Trek, not due to any qualitative, provable analysis. Short attention spans probably account for the rest of it.
Luckily, the rest of us can enjoy the rich (but slowly being cancelled) TV, that lies outside of ST/SW.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Mucus,
I never claimed Trek to be "perfect." All to often, Star Trek falls into many traps itself. Also, I would hardly consider myself a "deep" Trek fan at all. You should attempt to figure out what the person you're replying to is interested in before you attack them.
Good writing? Off the top of my head ... "Sports Night", "Sopranos", "Band of Brothers", "Homicide: Life on the Street", "The Shield."
Babylon 5 is utter dreck. Your counter-attack (as flawed as it was, especially since you have not only misjudged my interest, but did not notice that I rarely compared Trek to B5) does nothing to change my opinion of the absolute lousy quality of EVERYTHING to do with that embarassing television show.
PS -- dude, I'm sorry you don't care for my opinion on B5. I'm embarassed for your sake for your counter-reply, in which all you did was attack Star Trek, in a way which seemed to me "hey, why do I gotta tuck in my shirt? See, Jimmy over there also has his shirt untucked!" In other words, instead of describing why you think B5 is a good show, you had to attack another to show "hey, B5 is at least as good as this crappy show."
And that's fine, if that's what you want to do.
quote:Luckily, the rest of us can enjoy the rich (but slowly being cancelled) TV, that lies outside of ST/SW
I don't know where this comes from. I assume this comes because you're acting rather ignorant at the moment.
quote:It seriously makes no sense, people who actually read science fiction have no difficulty expressing appreciation for more than one SF author.
I see. I should have said, "Well, I think Babylon 5 is shit in every way I judge a work of drama, but it's science-fiction, so instead of judging it subjectively, I'll just decide to classify it as good?"
Bullshit.
I don't give a flying fuck if you're offended by my opinion, but you telling people that they have to give "thumbs up" to television shows or books or whatever simply because they're science-fiction is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard (and I've read most of Omega's posts).
To educate you as to me:
I don't watch much Sci-Fi. I don't READ much sci-fi. The only Sci-Fi shows I care greatly for are Deep Space Nine and Highlander. When I watch TV (rarely, because I go to school and work 60+ hours a week), I usually do not watch science-fiction programs. When I read for recreation, I generally do not read science-fiction books.
I don't dislike B5 because it isn't Star Trek or Star Wars. I dislike B5 as a television show because it fails in every regard: writing, production, acting. If Timelordy had said "oh, why couldn't TNG have been more like Voyager" my response would have looked very fucking similar. He mentioned B5 and that pissed me off -- sorry, B5? Good? Yeah, and so is having your foot sawed off with a rusty spoon. Good stuff, they go together. Add Voyager and you're set to kill yourself with that rusty spoon.
So, now that your rant has been completely taken-the-fuck-apart, feel free to respond. And remember, when you assume, you make an ass out of you. Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Star Trek: Excelsior? As likely as Dustin Diamond's Cold Fusion.
2003 + 5 (End of Enterprise) = 2008 = Takei is long, long dead.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Well, I have to apologise for one thing. Yes I did assume we were talking about science fiction. I submit that, that would be a reasonable assumption based on the fact that the thread is called "Star Trek be Saved" and that no one has even mentioned something outside of the genre other than an off-hand reference to "Showgirls"
I might even note that your own comparison for B5's stories AND special effects was from ST.
quote: Some of the sets are nice, and the special effects suck, but we won't hold that against them, except to the degree that the original "Star Trek" had great stories (for the most part), and crappy special effects, but the writing cancels out the special effects, and in the case of B5, they all blow
If your response is correct, you're as guilty of "Jimmy has his shirt untucked" as I am.
As for educating you on B5s strengths, well no. I'm not going to write multiple paragraphs on why I think its enjoyable. Thats not really my job. However, I have gone on the record in other threads on why I enjoy B5, Stargate SG-1, or other science fiction shows. Mostly owing to the nature of the BB, and its main focus. Quickly searching, I refer you to B5: A minor question
quote: ...telling people that they have to give "thumbs up" to television shows or books or whatever simply because they're science-fiction ...
When did I say that? If you're going to quote me, at least have the quote have something to do with what you're saying. You're right, I did compare ST with B5 (and so did you). Unfortunately, thats also ALL I did. If I had my way, yes there would be a lot more SF competition for ST, SW, and yes B5. In fact, the only science fiction I can watch recently is Stargate SG1 (or Futurama, if you can count that). Unfortunately, much of that has been cancelled (Farscape), sabotaged by ego (Andromeda) , or just outright pushed out of the market due to the cheaper production nature of many other genres. Thats what I was really refering to in my last line. However, even with the lack of competition, I would hardly say that B5 is "shit" for drama. As TimeLord pointed out, at least some portion of the TV community doesn't think so. You can see the link for some of my (and other, more eloquent posts) reasons. However, if you really wanted drama...why not watch...well, drama? B5 was mostly about the presentation of SF ideas (and certain historical ones) Thats like watching your cop shows for romantic comedies....possible, but not really the point.
However, this is mostly an aside. I don't know how you read my first two paragraphs, or how you misconstrued that I have to randomly rubber stamp science fiction "good", simply because its science fiction. Now you're just making an assumption that I'm making an assumption, making in your words...a "an ass out of you"? What I did say was that fans of ST and SW often have extreme tunnel vision, limiting their enjoyment of any other TV science fiction. Point out that you don't enjoy ST, and that you really enjoy DS9...thats just splitting hairs now.
As for giving offence. Don't worry about that, opinions are opinions. About the most offensive things in your posts are your excessive use of expletives.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This thread is all meta, and that is cool, but, I skipped most of it so I could post this:
Star Trek miniseries? Has anyone watched a TV miniseries lately? The answer is no. HAW HAW!
But seriously, good TV miniseries? You are thirty years too late for that. We want leprechauns and the guy from Cheers in a poofy wig today. Maybe this is just a personal peeve of mine, but, come on, they are unrelentingly awful. A TV event! No. Painful. Their era has passed. You might as well pitch Star Trek: Vaudeville.
Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Star Trek miniseries? Has anyone watched a TV miniseries lately? The answer is no. HAW HAW!
But seriously, good TV miniseries? You are thirty years too late for that.
Ahem. Sci-Fi Channel's "Dune" miniseries, anyone? The UK vampire drama "Ultraviolet"? Those were most excellent miniseries, and I'm sure there are more.
As for B5... well, it had its good points and its bad ones. But at least it wasn't the same bland mush that some shows force-feed the viewer... and they had all kinds of shades of grey, characters who weren't squeaky-clean, and story arcs! Look at Voyager. The ship went back to Earth in factory-new condition, and aside from minor things (Paris/Torres baby, addition of Seven, the Delta Flyer)... what had changed since the first episode? Barely a thing, as far as I could see. A definite case of lost potential - you don't spend seven years in a duranium-hulled sardine tin without developing as a person, but I didn't care one whit more about these people at the close of "Endgame" than I did at the beginning of "Caretaker". They were just cardboard cutouts to me.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Mucus,
quote:I might even note that your own comparison for B5's stories AND special effects was from ST.
I never said that I didn't compare Trek to B5, but it should be noted that I compared TOS, which had crappy special effects but generally good stories. B5 has crappy special effects combined with crappy stories. That makes for a loser in my eyes.
quote:If your response is correct, you're as guilty of "Jimmy has his shirt untucked" as I am.
I attacked B5 because I think if you hold it up as all thats good with television (sci-fi or otherwise) you're completely off your rocker. I usually bash B5 whenever I see it mentioned in a thread, and I think if you examined my posts on the subject, you'd see that very rarely is Trek involved in my response, or my reason in posting.
You, on the other hand, bashed Trek deliberately because of my bash of B5. So, no, I don't think its the same (I bash B5 because it sucks and I do so at every given opportunity).
quote:When did I say that? If you're going to quote me, at least have the quote have something to do with what you're saying. You're right, I did compare ST with B5 (and so did you). Unfortunately, thats also ALL I did.
No, what you did was more akin to "so what if B5 is unoriginal, so is Star Trek, so B5 is less unoriginal than Star Trek so there."
And what you said was:
quote:It seriously makes no sense, people who actually read science fiction have no difficulty expressing appreciation for more than one SF author. You don't see Clarke fans complaining that Asimov books never feature monoliths, Asimov fans complaining that Dune doesn't have any robots, or etc. Yet an absurd number of ST/SW fans always make the same complaints when confronted with real SF, thats what all of your complaints ultimately boil down to.
And to me, this reads alot like, "Snay you fool it's science-fiction, and if you like Trek, you probably like sci-fi, so you should like B5 by default, or at the very least you shouldn't bash science-fiction shows because 'people who actually read science fiction have no difficulty expressing appreciation for more than one SF author.'" The problem, of course, is that you assume the reason I dislike B5 is because it is not Star Trek. This is an assumption that is in error. I do not like Babylon 5 because its a horrible television show for the reasons I've listed above. No where in the reasons is "because it is not Star Trek."
quote:However, even with the lack of competition, I would hardly say that B5 is "shit" for drama. As TimeLord pointed out, at least some portion of the TV community doesn't think so. You can see the link for some of my (and other, more eloquent posts) reasons.
Hey, you wanna know something? My opinions are not objective, they're subjective. I don't like Babylon 5 because I think it fucking sucks. I don't care how many awards it gets, it's totally lame in my opinion. I'm not going to change my opinion because a bunch of people with apparently no taste for character depth and no appreciation for good writing enjoy the CGI or what-have-you (I dunno, maybe they just turn it off when B5 comes on). If a show can't make you believe the characters are real, it has failed.
quote:What I did say was that fans of ST and SW often have extreme tunnel vision, limiting their enjoyment of any other TV science fiction. Point out that you don't enjoy ST, and that you really enjoy DS9...thats just splitting hairs now.
Not really. You accused me of being a "deep" Trek fan. I'm not. I enjoy one Trek show: Deep Space Nine. For a variety of reasons (mostly relating to school and work) I've missed most of Enterprise's run, so its a bit late for me to get involved in that show. I hated Voyager. I liked TNG, but DS9 -- now that was a drama, regardless of the genre.
Back to something you posted earlier -- "However, if you really wanted drama...why not watch...well, drama?" Serious fiction is always going to be a drama. You're paying too much attention to genre types -- sci-fi, cop show, lawyer show, etc. If you're watching a television show that takes itself seriously (ala "Homicide" over a show that doesn't, "Friends") then you're watching a drama. Sci-fi drama, cop-show drama ... as much as I detest those little Superstation "We Know Drama" (or is it TBS?) bits, they're right. Most people don't watch "Star Trek" for the sets, they don't watch "Babylon 5" for the special effects, they watch the show because they find (even if I disagree with them and think they have holes in their head) believable characters, and the interaction between the believable characters and in response to the fictional world they live in and the fictionalized situations they find themselves in.
Personally, I don't believe Babylon 5 has those elements. But I do believe Babylon 5, and most Sci-Fi series, are dramas.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I don't get how so many people would want a "Star Trek: Sulurama". The period had the ugliest clothing in all Trek (those black silk bellbottom pants not forgotten), the Khitomer conference has just made everything dandy in the local arena and the next big event is Enterprise-C being blown to bits decades from then.
And aren't the romulans at their weakest at this point, just biding their time until the big D'Deridex class commissioning?
The cast... George Takei, Jeremy Roberts, Christian Slater. Woo hoo. And if we're lucky, an unexperienced, even more tightassed, boring Tuvok who "just don't get humans".
I'm sure they'll figure out a way to throw in the Borg too.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
All this clamor for a Sulu series confuses me. Was I the only one who saw "Flashback"?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Snay,
Oh you're involved alright. I stand by my asssertion that you're a "deep" ST (or more specifically DS9) fan. Your most recent posts on ST before "Can ST be saved" and "ST: Missed Opportunities" involve collecting ST models and Bajoran uniforms. A bit further down we have a whole whack of posts on "How the Federation operates." These to me are not the actions of a casual ST fan. In fact, I would argue that pretty much anyone who posts on an online forum about ST is not a casual fan.
Your comments about SF reveal a much bigger difference between us:
quote:...they watch the show because they find ...believable characters and in response to the fictional world they live in and the fictionalized situations they find themselves in
I would work from a completely different angle. Science fiction shows should focus on the fictionalized world and situation. The characters are usually just the "hook", something that gives us some personal stake in the story, some reason to care. However, this is not always the case. Since I'm going to bring up the Hugos later, I might as well link to a list of them
Let's start with example from written novels. I'm unfamiliar with their first choice under "novels", but I am familiar with "A Canticle for Lebowitz." A post-nuclear warfare book focusing on a monastary, consisting of four mini-stories involving completely different characters. Tts rather obvious that the main focus is how society reacts to complete devastation. The characters are less important, in fact the last story doesn't even really have characters. You could probably make the same argument about their "all-time" pick of Foundation, a series where the characters are secondary to the main concept.
Moving back to the dramatic category, a good example would be Blade Runner. Nobody really cares about the characters that much, the main focus of the story is the conflict between replicants and the rest of society. Deckard's reactions to the events around him are just a bonus.
This to me, is a more useful definition of what SF really is. Using your definition, a concept such as "Sally and Bob have a huge dramatic love affair....oh and they happen to be on a starship" would be sci-fi drama. This is a bad thing.
As Timelord pointed out, yes there are two episodes of B5 on the list, and two from TNG and TOS each. Your unexplanable inate hostility towards
quote: a bunch of people with apparently no taste for character depth and no appreciation for good writing
is most puzzling. Most of the awards aren't even for TV, most of them are for literature. i.e. writing
This bring us to my observation of "tunnel vision." The fact is, it wouldn't be tunnel vision if it was something most fans were easily aware of. Thats kind of the definition of tunnel vision. I'm not too familiar with your examples of good TV writing, I too haven't been able to watch much TV ever since starting my university studies. However, they do not conflict with my assertion that using ST/SW as an entry point into affects people's ability to judge other SF. This effect ranges from the casual fan that thinks ST/SW IS the entirety of science fiction, or the other extreme is the aforementioned Simpsons "comic-book-guy" that is so involved that he can't see anything else. I don't know where you would fit, or even if you really do fit the pattern. I don't personally know you. However, your straight protests aside, your statement that you only particularly like (in SF) DS9 and Highlander (more nominally classified as fantasy) only strengthens this theory. It really is something worth considering.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Maybe its worth considering that I'm a fan of well-written TV shows, and that's why I'm not a fan of Babylon 5.
quote:Science fiction shows should focus on the fictionalized world and situation.
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Sure the world should be explored, but if you spend the whole episode with the characters debating the specs of the Galaxy-Class Super Dreadnaught Command Ship, the fan-boys will cream themselves, but everyone else will say "utter and total crap."
PS -- when you said "deep fan", I thought you meant someone who maintains a complete list of Starfleet starships or examines frame-by-frame the scenes of Wolf 359 for new starships.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Its worth considering that you're a fan of well-written TV shows, but the observation that you can't name a single SF show aside from DS9, tends to discount that fact. While we can agree to disagree on B5 (In fact, I've gone off the idea of just defending B5. Its more obvious that you have bigger beefs with SF as a whole)
Saying that all science fiction shows have bad writing aside from DS9 and TOS is just a cop-out, if only due to the realities of writing. The writers of those shows didn't write DS9/TOS and just stop. They went on to other jobs, if only to pay the rent. (Jobs after TOS that included *gasp* B5. Yes, TOS writers wrote B5 episodes too)
Now I'm going out on a limb here, but name me a single real SF show you enjoy aside from DS9 and TOS.
quote:...if you spend the whole episode with the characters debating the specs of the Galaxy-Class Super Dreadnaught Command Ship, the fan-boys will cream themselves, but everyone else will say "utter and total crap."
Well duh. Like everything else, SF has good implementations and bad implementations. I've listed some of the good implementations of SF in my previous post, many of which don't have memorable characters. Blade Runner, Foundation, A Canticle for Leibowitz, Dune, etc.
Your assertion is like discounting a definition of drama involving characters because drama "can" include shows where characters can spend an entire episode exploring teenage angst (*cough* Dawson's Creek) and *actually* creaming themselves Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
Can Star Trek be saved? To paraphrase a Vulcan scientist, "It's been dead before."
I just think that perhaps Berman and Braga might need to move on beyond Star Trek and let others come in to take it into new directions. Not because they are evil and such, but rather because they've been at it for a long while. I'm sure that Berman is now feeling that Trek is a creative albatross. He may need a new challange to get his creativity brewing again.
That said, I'm interested in seeing the so-called new direction that the producers/writers will take in the upcoming season of Enterprise, as stated in TV Guide. I think that they should let this season play out with a cliffhanger that makes us want to come back next season.
Here's what they should be thinking about for next season, IMHO:
1. Figure out the direction/theme for season 3. If you're gonna start doing continuing storylines over the course of several episodes, pick a climax and write towards that climax.
2. Along those lines, figure out the direction/climax to the TCW, if that is going to be a continued feature of the series. Then, logically build over the course of the series towards it. It does not have to be plotted out to every minute like Babylon 5. Just some kind of notion of where it is going will enhance the writing, much like knowing the ending to the Smallville saga has given the writers some intereting twists and turns.
3. Show us strange new worlds. Enlist the help of JPL or the Rand Corporation to advise on how to make different worlds with different atmospheres. Enterprise has a budget of nearly 2 million, why not use it and those wonderful effects people to full use. Crusade on it's meesly budget showed us more interesting, varied worlds.
4. Stay true to the century and its people. Berman stated that Enterprise's era would allow us a chance to see characters that were much like ourselves trying to overcome their differences, conflicts and demons. We have, however, seen very little in the terms of that. The characters in Enterprise act like school children of the 24th century with little demons or conflicts. By conflicts, I don't mean just arguing among each other but being in conflict with contridictory beliefs and ideals, with those conflicts coming into contact with other character conflicts. As Faulkner wrote, "the human heart in conflict with itself."
Make these people real, especially Archer. They are too morally upstanding. Too 24th century. Hell, Sisko was a much more interesting, conflicted character. Archer is not. I get no sense of the burden of command and the burden of being one of the first pioneers into deep space. The only person who seems like a person is Tucker, but just barely.
5. The Onion Theory. Drama should be like an onion; peel back one layer and see another one just beneath it. Enterprise sets us up for things and, much like modern Trek, doesn't pay off. Pay off! Give us enough, slowly build layer upon layer and peel those layers off one at a time to keep us coming back week after week.
6. Establish the show's identity and stick with it. Enterprise has no identity of its own. It's a prequel, it's before Kirk, it's before the Federation. Stick with that or establish another one and stick with. Don't borrow anymore from modern Trek, a la Ferangi, the Borg, etc. Create new challanges within the context of the series and don't get to hung up on establishing every little Trek-thing just because it's a prequel. Remember, it's not so much the end as it is the journey. Knowing the eventual outcome, i.e. the Federation, can only inform your stories not hinder it.
7. New Civilizations and Lifeforms. The effects on Enterprise are some of the best on SF television. Use it to its full potential and show us some daring, CGI lifeforms that would blow B5 out of the water. Raise the bar, as B5 did.
As for the B5 v. Trek arguement, as JMS has said in the DVD commentary, why compare(despite the fact that I did, myself, use it as counterpoint for an arguement in my TNG post). Enjoy them for what they are and enjoy what makes them different. One last thing, it has been said by JMS that he was approached by Paramount at one point after B5 to come in and pitch a Trek show /or idea.
While I would also love to see a Star Trek series set in the timeframe between the TOS movies and TNG, I don't think a Sulu series is the prime choice. I think George Takei is a marvelous person and actor, but I don't think he can carry a series as a lead. As an Asian-American, I would love to see an Asian lead to an SF series. Takei, however, is not that man.
That's all.
[ March 01, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Middy Seafort ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Holding up A Canticle for Leibowitz (or Dune for that matter) as a prime example of nuts-and-bolts Campbellian sf seems like a huge, huge mistake of catagorization to me. Huge.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I guess I now know why I didn't like Foundation, Dune, or Blade Runner. I'll have to remember now not to read this A Canticle for Liebowitz. I'd also planned to read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", figuring maybe it was just the movie that ruined it. But maybe not.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:To paraphrase a Vulcan scientist, "It's been died before."
I think those Vulcans need to take some grammar lessons Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: ala the Ferangi
I'm sorry, but when people do this I see red. Never ever ever say "� la the" again or I will have to hurt you.
The proper way to say it would be � la Ferengi. Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher:
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: ala the Ferangi
I'm sorry, but when people do this I see red. Never ever ever say "� la the" again or I will have to hurt you.
The proper way to say it would be � la Ferengi.
Indeed. Noted, I merely was not thinking. Of course, "la" already means "the" and is redundant. I did not carefully edit.
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
quote:To paraphrase a Vulcan scientist, "It's been died before."
I think those Vulcans need to take some grammar lessons
Once again, that was due to my lack of carefully re-reading what I had written and editing properly. Then again, it could've been the damn universial translator. Hoshi promised me she'd have it fixed!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Sol System: Hmmm, you've lost me. I vaguely recall a high school teacher talking about coming of age stories and that there was some often used forumla to generate them...I might have heard the word Campbell there. I also have a vague recollection of the name in connection with Star Wars. Elaborate, you!
TSN: I'm sorry for you. But yeah, if you didn't like Foundation, its probably agiven you won't like Canticle. Electric Sheep is a good book though, although the vaguely related sequels (via the movie) are to be avoided.
Posted by Timelord (Member # 717) on :
Nim, I would say the reason why many people (old-school fans) thought favorably about a Sulu series initially was because it would allow Takei to finally fully realise the very under-developed character of Sulu. Most fans of TOS and the movies would love the chance to know the characters of Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov in the way thet got to know the characters of TNG, DS9, and Voyager. A lot of us regard the constant focus on Kirk/Spock/McCoy to be the biggest missed opportunity in TOS. Of course, back then, the networks didn't have a lot of faith in the attention span of the average viewer. They didn't think we could handle too many sub-plots.
quote:All this clamor for a Sulu series confuses me. Was I the only one who saw "Flashback"?
It was the STVI Sulu we wanted to see more of, not the Sulu in "Flashback." Yes, it was the same character, but Sulu was only window-dressing in that episode, another gimmick to get the ratings. Consequently, his character wasn't given much consideration. The STVI Sulu was commanding, daring, and a key character, something we hadn't seen before, and we wanted to see more.
quote:While I would also love to see a Star Trek series set in the timeframe between the TOS movies and TNG, I don't think a Sulu series is the prime choice. I think George Takei is a marvelous person and actor, but I don't think he can carry a series as a lead.
Middy, your comments on the new direction of Enterprise are very insightful. I couldn't agree more. I disagree, however, with your opinion that Takei couldn't successfully lead a series. What specifically in your opinion disqualifies him?
Really, I know that a Sulu-based series will never happen and truthfully, Middy is right in pointing out that it probably isn't the best thing for Star Trek right now. A new series should make it on its own and should not need "validation" by cameos, name-dropping, or carbon-copy characters. We've had too much of that for any more to be palatable.
Modern Trek seems to be aimed at Generation Xers and because of this, the original fans are tuning out. Lets give it a rest and then have a new series that brings old and new fans back into the fold.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, John Campbell, longtime editor of Analog and the father of the sort of techno-gimmick before characters science fiction story you're talking about. (To a certain degree.) You know, the guy who literally charted the course for science fiction as a genre for nearly half a century.
quote: But yeah, if you didn't like Foundation, its probably agiven you won't like Canticle.
I'm having a hard time imagining two books more different than these. I suppose one could make the argument that they share a similar structure (episodic) and a vague resemblance in plot (reclusive order seeks to preserve knowledge after a collapse of civilization), but they are very, very dissimilar.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Ah, I'd been reading this thread and thinking that Campbell was Joseph Campbell (author of The Hero with a Thousand Faces) and hence the style in question was the heroic quest/self discovery one. His theory was that all heroic stories, from ancient myths to today, across all cultures, follow a similar pattern and that this pattern speaks to something deep in the human psyche.
Star Wars and Babylon 5 are both stories in the tradition that Joseph Campbell identified. Lucas and JMS have both stated that they have been influenced by Campbell's writing.
Star Trek is not in this mould - well actually DS9 is, but generally the other's are not. TOS and TNG have moments when they come close (Spock's arc in II - IV; Inner Light; Data's arc prior to the movies s crewing it up), VOY never did and ENT has the potential to go either way.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Identity Crisis: Lucas and JMS have both stated that they have been influenced by Campbell's writing.
Have they ever. Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
In Lucas's case it's blatantly obvious that he was trying to write a Campbell style hero-myth. It's also obvious that he didn't quite understand it...
JMS has stated that in his opinion it's pointless to try and write a story that deliberatly conforms to the Campbell style hero-myth (a dig at Lucas perhaps?). But if once you've written the story you look at it and can spot the pattern then you know you've written a classic myth. And indeed most of the elements are there in B5 as they are in most hero myths.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
If by mould you mean "ordinary (farm?)boy discovers powers, is found to be chosen one, ascends and topples the bad guy or wins the day", which is the same for "The Matrix" and all superhero-movies.
I'd like to add that I think "The Matrix" did a good job at that.
If that's not what you mean, what exactly is the mould you say Campbell has dictated? What are the key ingredients?
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
That's more or less the pattern. The hero can be a prince just as much as a farmboy he just has to come from the ordinary world before he starts the quest - and he must return to that world at the end, even if discovers that the world has changed as a result of his quest.
There are a few more details beside. e.g. the wise and learned old man who helps the hero out at the start of his quest but who can not travel the whole way (Obi Wan, Gandalf, Kosh) and the key part of the quest is the journey into the Underworld (Death Star, Moria, Z'ha'dum) and the return with a 'boon' (um, yeah, whatever).
It's the basis for any heroic myth, and the Matrix does fit the pattern quite well.
The difference between this mould and other sorts of story telling can be illustrated by looking at police/detective stories. A lone detective on a "quest" to track down a killer (obviously Dixon Hill type stories; Silence of the Lambs - the 'Underworld' here is of course Lector's mind and the boon is the information needed to catch the killer) fits the Campbell template for a heroic quest. On the other hand 'procedural' type police stories (e.g Law & Order; Homicide; Boomtown) are something different.
DS9 was a classic quest, Voyager was not. Despite the fact that the initial settings would suggest the opposite. If Janeway's character had undergone any sort of development, and if she had had to make any sort of sacrifice to get the crew home then VOY would have fitted the template perfectly.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So...this Babylon 5 show then? This one that Star Trek should be copying? This show that should be the benchmark...this isn't the same show that was constantly in danger of being cancelled, is it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Sol System: Hmm, I must admit, both of my memory references were to the coming of age concept, explaining my confusion. You're right, both those novels wouldn't fit the techno-gimmick mold. However I was talking on a more general level and I would still be hard pressed to consider either Dune or Canticle as having a major focus on their characters. Possibly Dune, but I would say that Paul's character development is largely overshadowed .
Well, as you've pointed out they share a similar structure, vague plot similarity, they both use characters in a similar way, they both don't depict much direct conflict, and they both have as a major theme that historical/social forces will eventually override anything that individual people may want. (And yes, I realise that this changes a lot in Foundation, but till the halfway point) That adds up to enough similarity in my eyes to safely say that if someone really didn't like one book, they probably won't like the other. At the very least, they're more similar to each other than say....well Blade Runner and Dune for lack of a better example.
Psyliam: Popularity != good quality Heck, even TOS (without which, we wouldn't be here) was in constant threat of being cancelled...and then it was.
You imply an excellent point however, since the original post didn't really make it specific, better questions would be.
*Does* Star Trek need saving? Assuming it does... *Should* Star Trek be saved?
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Middy, your comments on the new direction of Enterprise are very insightful. I couldn't agree more. I disagree, however, with your opinion that Takei couldn't successfully lead a series. What specifically in your opinion disqualifies him?
I'm not necessarily disqualifying Takei from being a series lead. I just don't think that Takei or the character of Sulu can bare the brunt of carrying a series, IMHO. While Takei is an ecclectic actor, he doesn't strike me as the leading actor. There are those who are great character actors and there are those that a lead actors, and visa versa.
I may, however, be grossly mistaken. It is all in the writing of such a series, and Takei, if allowed, could prove me wrong. I'd be delighted to see him do just that.
Middy Seafort
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Psyliam: Popularity != good quality Heck, even TOS (without which, we wouldn't be here) was in constant threat of being cancelled...and then it was.
No, popularity does not equal good quality. However, in this day and age, popularity DOES = advertising revenue = budget = continuance of show. Producing Trek on a similar budget to B5 would involve massive scalling back of almost all aspects of production, and require hiring people who used to be in Grease. Do we want that? Really?
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Psyliam: Popularity != good quality Heck, even TOS (without which, we wouldn't be here) was in constant threat of being cancelled...and then it was.
No, popularity does not equal good quality. However, in this day and age, popularity DOES = advertising revenue = budget = continuance of show. Producing Trek on a similar budget to B5 would involve massive scalling back of almost all aspects of production, and require hiring people who used to be in Grease. Do we want that? Really?
Oh, no.. I can see the next sweeps period. Coming next week on Enterprise, Oliva Newton John guest stars as T'Pol's estranged mother! The horror!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher:
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: ala the Ferangi
I'm sorry, but when people do this I see red. Never ever ever say "� la the" again or I will have to hurt you.
The proper way to say it would be � la Ferengi.
Allah the Ferengi. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
do we take off points for misspelling Ferengi too?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Don't make the Ferengi go all Jihad on you. ...think of the contracts that'd involve!
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: do we take off points for misspelling Ferengi too?
Perhaps, because, Lord knows, that I must be the only person here to make a typo or two or three in a post.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He's the one making all teh typos?!? Get him!!! Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
as a newbie, you do make most of the typos and wierd posts around here middy.. don't worry though, the level of whipping you are getting is nowhere near what we used to do to n00bz
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I dunno, I got it pretty bad and I wasnt...or isnt or currently aint...that bad, I can keep up with the "big boys" ...and even I think Middys posts are pretty...superfluous. Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
"Weird." "Superfluous."
Indeed. Well, I will attempt to keep my thought out posts to a minimum length as not to bore the audience. I will also try to contain my sense of humor.
I try with my "superfluous" post to add fuel and fire to the raging debate on topics, such as this and the thread I started about TNG. They were not thought of cavalierly or without reason.
But I am not above any ribbing, or constructive criticism.
Middy Seafort
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
On that note.. I seem to have made a double post. Moderator, could you please delete at your earliest convenience.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Nope.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
posts aren't deleted on Flare.
btw, here's an LOL for ya.. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You sadly overestimate what it takes to get me to laugh in an out-loud style manner.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Now I'm left wondering exactly what part of the board that screencap came from. Nothing looks quite like that on my screen...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
today's active posts.. youre the second person to ask that, too.. wierd, since the daily posts page is usually the only way i enter the board
oh, and i simply meant i laughed out loud. i wouldnt dare presume that the likewise would be possible from one such as you, Liam
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Interesting. I don't think I ever really noticed that link before...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
