Paramount is a studio that seems to be scrambling to figure out just what its identity is. For the last five years, it seems like they�ve been the home of stalled, desperately un-hip franchises, Ashley-Judd-in-peril movies, and weak Billy Friedkin pity gigs. They seem to be working to change that, though, with films like SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW and A PRINCESS OF MARS in the pipeline. I want to believe that Paramount can turn it around.
But when I hear about their plans for STAR TREK, I have to wonder. Are they unable to tell a good idea from a bad one where this particular franchise is concerned? I�m not the world�s biggest fan of TREK in any flavor, but I sympathize with TREK fans. You guys have it rough. And it�s about to get rougher.
First, the good news. No Berman. No Braga. Instead, Jordan Kerner (SNOW DOGS, INSPECTOR GADGET, THE MIGHTY DUCKS and D2 and D3) is being brought in to produce. Right now, he�s in the early stages of developing a prequel trilogy. First question, obviously, is �a prequel to what?� After all, the various TV shows have played all sorts of tricks with the timeline. When I hear �prequel trilogy,� it sounds to me like we�re going to see young Kirk and young Spock and young McCoy. It sounds to me like we�re talking about Starfleet Academy.
Instead, we�re looking at films that sound like they�re all about big intergalactic events, but which don�t appear to be about any characters, which is what Gene Roddenberry�s original vision was ALWAYS about. Characters. Don�t just try to tell some big budget spectacle story. I hear the first film�s about a civil war, the second film�s devoted largely to the galactic switch-over from a fission standard to fusion, and then there�s a third film where we�ll finally see an Ensign Kirk show up for all of about the last 20 minutes. Just Kirk. Nobody else. And no ENTERPRISE.
And that notion they�re discussing in hushed and excited tones about putting William Shatner�s head on a younger actor�s body? Easily the goofiest bad idea I�ve heard since Lex Luthor, flying Kryptonian. It almost makes me want to see them do it, just for the laugh value.
You�re still really early in this process, Paramount, so please... allow me to offer a little bit of constructive criticism. You need to listen to your fans. And I�m not saying listen to me. Read the message boards that are out there. Cast as wide a net as you can across fandom and let the fans remind you just what it is that made TREK so important to them in the first place. Reach out and take the time to get it right. Don�t just chase STAR WARS and LORD OF THE RINGS, and don�t throw money at it just to make STAR TREK into something it never was.
I�m going to try to bring you more details about this proposed trilogy as they continue working on it, and in the meantime, I�ll hand it over to the real TREK fans, you guys. What do you think of Paramount�s plans?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well...at last they've been wrong before, and Paramount has nixed stupid ideas in the concept stage many times.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote: the second film�s devoted largely to the galactic switch-over from a fission standard to fusion
Sounds like good watchin!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Okay, I'm kinda cool with the idea of doing event-driven Trek, but WTF are these events???
Why do people feel the need to pull shit out of their ass, when there's so much extraordinary history to draw from already? A civil war? The hell? Give me the Romulan War sans screwy timeline BS and Braga-wanking, and make sure it doesn't suck my balls.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Agreed...
I'm really hoping that somehow, they're not talking about nuclear fission and fusion...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I really hate to lend this any credence even by discussing it, but...
Star Trek has always used the premise that the galaxy is filled with different species evolving separately and at different rates. It makes no sense, in that context, to talk about a "galactic switch-over from a fission standard to fusion". That sort of thing only works in a situation where one species (humans, typically) dominates (or is alone in) the galaxy.
Not to mention that Trek has never had galaxy-wide events. It uses to low of a standard travel velocity.
Anyway, since this guy doesn't even hint at where he heard any of this, I suspect that either he's making it up, or someone else made it all up and he just believes anything anyone tells him.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Either way it sounds nasty.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
You know, its kinda funny. I was thinking the other day, that the rise and fall of Star Trek is somewhat amusing when compared to the same trend of Star Wars. I mean, obviously Star Trek predates Star Wars, but it can be argued that there would never have been Star Trek movies without Star Wars movies. Star Trek owes its second coming to Star Wars. Which in the end is kind of amusing because as Star Wars is nearing its death throes, Star Trek seems to be headed for the same in sympathy. Kind of like sympathy pains in a pregnancy.
I only bring it up because like Star Wars, thats the one big thing that separates Star Trek from the newer science fiction shows with new ideas, an established fanbase with a large investment.
If you think about it, its kind of daunting. Four series of tv shows, 10 or so movies, books, potentially computer games. Heck, some of us maintain websites and make models. Thats a heck of a lot of investment for any new show to come up against.
The real litmus test: pretend that you've never heard of Star Trek, a scary thought for some of us. Now, compare Nemesis with just movies that you've seen recently or compare Enterprise with other tv shows. Ask yourself if you'd really give it so much time, if you didn't have a prior time investment.
So back on topic. This rumour sounds completely silly, but it highlights an interesting point. Getting rid of the current ST administration, probably a good idea. But replace it with who exactly?
Some random new guy with no connection to science fiction? Goodbye time investment and that was the general idea behind the script for Nemesis.
Some new guy with a connection to the franchise? Fans don't seem particularly enamoured of any current figure, Ron Moore is probably busy with BSG, RHW didn't have that great a showing with Andromeda....
Some established science fiction talent with no connection to the franchise? Well, they probably have their own creations to manage and don't want to play clean-up.
So put yourself in the big Paramount/Viacom/UPN/whatever chair. Try to think of yourself as a business man who actually has to please shareholders, make money, and somehow produce entertainment. What do you do?
Its a tough call.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Easy call - keep Enterprise going
I can't believe I said that, but it is true! Season 3 has been fantastic!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...RHW didn't have that great a showing with Andromeda...."
I don't know about that. The show wouldn't have been so bad if Sorbo hadn't crushed the life out of it.
"I mean, obviously Star Trek predates Star Wars, but it can be argued that there would never have been Star Trek movies without Star Wars movies. Star Trek owes its second coming to Star Wars."
I could be wrong about this, but wasn't "Phase II" already in the works when Star Wars happened? Didn't SW simply cause them to make it into a movie, rather than a TV show?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I could be wrong about this, but wasn't "Phase II" already in the works when Star Wars happened? Didn't SW simply cause them to make it into a movie, rather than a TV show?
Phase II appears to have died because Paramount couldn't sign up enough stations to make it's 4th network work. Star Wars just proved that science fiction movies could make a boatload of money. That being the case, given the money spent on Star Trek up to that point, it's no surprise Eisner decided to take "In Thy Image" and make it into ST:TMP. It was really the only possible chance they had to recoup their investment. (And despite its budget overruns and Paramount counting all the previous failed attempts to bring Trek back as part of the budget, TMP still made money...making over 2.5 times is official budget.)
I don't buy this "prequels" nonsense. It would be a really stupid move to make films about big events that would lead up to Star Trek, as only hardcore Trekkies would give rats ass. Yeah, maybe if they were great movies on their own, but in that case it seems the Star Trek name seems more like baggage than an asset.
Posted by E. Keeler (Member # 1272) on :
Prequels! Has nobody learned that prequals often turn out so bad that in the minds of the fans they become a separtate entity entirely and will never become part of the story/series etc...
notable crappy prequels being the new star wars movies and the numerous Dune prequals......
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Nope. Nobody.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The real litmus test: pretend that you've never heard of Star Trek, a scary thought for some of us. Now, compare Nemesis with just movies that you've seen recently or compare Enterprise with other tv shows. Ask yourself if you'd really give it so much time, if you didn't have a prior time investment.
I'd still favor Nemesis to crap movies with great production values like The Fifth Element. Even without the Trek investment, I'd love Enterprise: it far outshines any other sci-fi out there (now that Firefly and farscape are history).
God knows Andromeda is nigh-unwatchable.
Posted by E. Keeler (Member # 1272) on :
Andromeda, I just plain dont get it, bring back Buck Rogers I say Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Going from "Enterprise's third season has been OK" to "it far outshines any other sci-fi out there" is so high a flight of logic the mind starves for oxygen.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Find me another show (currently produced) that's near as good.
Okay, except Stargate,which while good, has a lame-ass premise, IMHO.
Posted by E. Keeler (Member # 1272) on :
Therein lies the problem, they dont make 'em like they used to..
Back in the day and all that......
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I *love* The Fifth Element. So, so, so much better than Nemsis.
As for this idea of a prequel trilogy for Trek: A) There's no way the studio would greenlight 3 movies in a row without seeing how the first one goes. Only New Line has enough balls to do that. But Peter Jackson exists ina different universe from the rest of us...
B) If they indeed go forward with the idea, it'll be as good as they make it. The premise certainly has possibility, especially for fans of the franchise. It also has the potential to suck hard. Just like every other installation that has come out, it'll be whatever they make out of it. Blanket statements like "It's a prequel, it must blow as that is the nature of all things such" are just as crap statements that it'll be good just because it's Trek. Though I haven't heard anyone say that yet...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Keeler: Therein lies the problem, they dont make 'em like they used to..
Back in the day and all that......
Sure: Do you have any concept of the hundreds of absolute ship movies and TV pilots for sci-fi shows from the 1980's?
As a modeler, I've seen many of these horrors while researching some model for someone and....well, be thankful for anything today that learned from those bad ideas. Sci-Fi Channel still produces such shit on a regualr basis.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Stargate,which while good, has a lame-ass premise..."
Lamer than Enterprise's "hunt for the terrorists" premise?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The day we get a Xindi leader named B'n L'ad'n, I'll stop watching.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Aah, but there's methods to his madness. They're inflicting considerable damage on the klingon vessels!
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by E. Keeler: Therein lies the problem, they dont make 'em like they used to..
Back in the day and all that......
Sure: Do you have any concept of the hundreds of absolute ship movies and TV pilots for sci-fi shows from the 1980's?
As a modeler, I've seen many of these horrors while researching some model for someone and....well, be thankful for anything today that learned from those bad ideas. Sci-Fi Channel still produces such shit on a regualr basis.
Well there is a market for B movies, sci-fi or otherwise. Blame Blockbuster and other forgetable Rental chains for that genre's continued existance...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
There's strong reason why The West Wing is the only show I currently watch. The last absorbing s/f show I watched was Babylon 5. I've given everything else a try, and some have held me through more than one whole episode -- but not many.
Voyager and Andromeda fall somewhat in the same category in my mind -- decent episodes when I happen to catch it, but nothing in the concept or execution that drew me in. FarScape I liked, but it got way too wierd way too quickly. The Dune miniseries and BSG both stunk to high heaven. The sound heard from my couch while attempting to view them was a wail of contiuing anguish. Those are properties I love so much, it took a lot of effort on the part of the Sci-Fi Channel to make me turn them off unfinished.
Ditto Star Trek and Enterprise. I still try to watch from time to time, and I've followed the evolution of the series on these boards, but I can't help it -- I hate the premise and the execution and can't make it all the way through a single episode without squirming. I just re-read "Final Frontier" a couple weeks ago, and was hit afresh by the deep bitter feeling that the show would have been much, much better for making it the maiden voyage of NCC-1701 under Captain April.
*sigh* And I know of no shows in development that show even a degree of the promise of Babylon 5 or FarScape.
--Jonah
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: [QB]
"...RHW didn't have that great a showing with Andromeda...."
I don't know about that. The show wouldn't have been so bad if Sorbo hadn't crushed the life out of it.
Possibly, I'll grant you that. But, even in the pilot when the Sorbo influence wasn't as strong, there were still some pretty childish elements. I gave it a chance up till pretty much of the end of the second season, but I really didn't ever see anything that made me go "Wow, thats good science fiction. That really makes me think." Let's just say I'm doubtful, and leave it at that.
Jason:
Missing the point. With a couple of drinks, you *may* be able to convince me that Enterprise *might* the shinest piece of crap in the big pile of science fiction crap on TV right now....but...you know how it goes. Also, I'll gladly agree to the fact that there was a lot of crap produced in the 80s, but so what? Also, Fifth Element? Who mentioned Fifth Element?
Long live the strawman.
None of this remotely touches on the quality of Star Trek, and the assertion that we wouldn't watch it if we weren't previously committed. Especially because you know....there's more to life than watching science fiction on TV.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Okay, except Stargate,which while good, has a lame-ass premise, IMHO."
How so? The premise is that humans find an alien device that allows them to explore the galaxy. They attract the attention of the device's previous owners, and now they have to stop those aliens from taking over the Earth.
And of course, most of the episodes actually center on their own individual plots and the characters. So, what's "lame-ass" about that?
"I gave it a chance up till pretty much of the end of the second season..."
You held out hope longer than I did, then.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's a lame premise that all those culture's gods were silly aliens (except, of course Judeo/Christianity: that would be offensive!).
It's 1970's new age nonsense right out of Chariots of the Gods.
Ra (from the movies) was depicted as a last survivor of his dying race and he was a creepy grey alien thing: not a trill. If they'd done the show without the Gu'uld being Ra's race, it would sit better with me. Those Snake-Head costumes are pitifuly silly as well.
I DO like the show a lot though, mainly when they meet new races and for the actor/charcater interaction wich is often on par with DS9's chemestry.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: It's 1970's new age nonsense right out of Chariots of the Gods.
Well, even 60's perhaps. There WAS a TOS episode (or two, depending on what you count) based on this very idea.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes, the whole "Apollo thing" but in the 70's a quack writer named Kurt Von Danigut(sp?) wrote a silly book basically claiming that all of aincent man's great achievments (pyrimids in particular) were the result of their being taught how my aliens. The notion became a craze and we got In Search Of (bringing it back to trek sorta) and the premise for Stargate.
TLC ran a miniseries on this guy's "theories" (more like wild specualtion) a few years back ...and that's when I realised that "The Learning Channel" had become the idiot channel.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...a quack writer named Kurt Von Danigut(sp?)..."
Erich von Däniken. I think you're thinking of Kurt Vonnegut there.
"It's a lame premise that all those culture's gods were silly aliens (except, of course Judeo/Christianity: that would be offensive!)."
Well, they've had a Goa'uld Satan. And, of course, if they offend nine-tenths of their audience, the show's not going to last very long, is it?
Besides, they've never suggested that all religions, outside of Judaism and its offspring, were influenced by aliens. Not to mention that I don't think they've ever really said that aliens started the religions. The religions may already have existed, and the Goa'uld just took advantage of that fact.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Not to mention that I don't think they've ever really said that aliens started the religions. The religions may already have existed, and the Goa'uld just took advantage of that fact.
They have said as much. The religions were pre-existing, and the Goa'ulds just took the names for themselves.
B.J.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Also, it's worth noting that I don't think they've used ANY extant religion, except for Nirrti a brief mention of Kali.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
...Although I'd wager that as a result of these ancient religions being described in SG-1, they have all been re-founded now... There's a social demand for such things. Even within the scifi audiences. Or perhaps especially within the scifi audiences.
Interestingly, SG-1 is about the most premise-faithful and continuity-minded scifi show there is. One new main character in seven years, and he turns out to be an addition instead of a replacement. No major departures. One main villain who cannot really die, and who for once has a perfect excuse to come back from the dead (it's what his species does as a matter of routine) and continue to be as evil and stupid as ever (ditto). Great tech continuity - every little gadget or phenomenon gets a re-mention when the situation warrants. And the "Gilligan's Island" premise of the heroes never scoring a decisive victory is pretty well sustained and rationalized, too.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"One main villain who cannot really die, and who for once has a perfect excuse to come back from the dead..."
Well, except that he only came back once. The second time they killed him, he stayed dead.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"the show would have been much, much better for making it the maiden voyage of NCC-1701 under Captain April"
Why on earth would you think this?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Kurt Von Danigut.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes, it's all his fault. That bastard.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Indeed. Afterall, aincent man was FAR too stupid to ever build pyrimids and anything except cower in the greatness of our great space god overlords!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Sol~
Because the background fits that era much better. The Federation exists, but is not quite to the point of cooperation and intermingling we see in TFS. Spock being the first Vulcan on an otherwise all-human Starfleet ship was one of the way-pavers that allowed for M'Ress and Arex to jump in, and so on from there. But at this point (224x), there's still a lot of clique-ism among members.
Interwoven with that, the technology fits a closer pre-TOS period much better than the Romulan Wars era. The recent duotronics breakthrough, the miniaturization of phasers and transporters to the point that they can be mounted aboard ships, and warp 5+ ftl drives were all evidently recent things during Pike's command.
And on a cosmetic level, I wouldn't have minded seeing versions of the pre-TOS uniforms, the blue-grey bridge, and such like with modern budgets and production values. Plus, Scott Bakula looks enough like a younger Gene Roddenberry that I can see him as April. No worries about Our Heroes being needed for stories. Kirk is about ten years old at this point.
All in all, it would be more instinctively appropriate to that era for me to watch than what we have now. How many people in here have actually read Final Frontier? Aside from the usual technical mess Diane Carey makes, she's a hell of a storyteller, and the characters and situation therein are much more compelling to me than the pilot episode of Enterprise.
--Jonah
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
But any sort of prequel is going to face the same issue the Ent has - the writers in wanting to "pump it up" are going to have to step on the technological toes of the "later" series.
If they actually want to do post-Ent trek (which is the most unlikely part of this to my mind) they'd be best served going forward in time from where we left of - and forgetting 1/2 of Voyager.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
ll thry need do is loot to Star Wars for all the reasons needed NOT to do any more "Prequel".
Besides, why would they remove Enterprise (just as it's really getting good) to risk everything on this supposed "fresh" idea?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The concepts and stories (Lucas is an excellent cinematic writer) behind the SW Prequels are sound, it is merely the execution (primarily due to his immature directing style IMO) with which one might have qualms.
And yes, these rumors smack of bullshit to me as well...
-MMoM Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: The concepts and stories (Lucas is an excellent cinematic writer) behind the SW Prequels are sound, it is merely the execution (primarily due to his immature directing style IMO) with which one might have qualms.
Not to mention his hack storytelling, crap dialogue, and complete failure to understand dramatic structure....
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
So did you not like the original trilogy either?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: So did you not like the original trilogy either?
I like Star Wars and I really like Empire. Jedi sucks. You can tell that Gary Kurtz had left by Jedi...because the tone changes a lot. Suddenly the script becomes a mess and the humor becomes more slapstick and muppets pop up everywhere. Ugh. I suspect Kurtz put the breaks on George's excesses in the first two films.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
What'cha got against muppets? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dumped by Ms. Piggy is my guess. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Peregrinus, I don't think any of your points have anything to do with how good (or not so good) a TV show would be. They're all incidental. Your ideas about what the Federation was "really" like prior to TOS isn't any more worthy of consideration than any other. And yes, I have read Final Frontier. Minor irony: Guess who wrote the novelization of "Broken Bow?"
If the goal is to go easy on the nerdiest sensabilities, it seems to me a "pre-TOS" show would be doomed from the beginning. The people unhappiest with the look of Enterprise would be likely to have strokes when they saw a redesigned 1701 bridge.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Granted. I think I find it hard to believe that we made so many advances in the first century after breaking the light barrier, and so little in the two since.
--Jonah
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
One possible counter-argument might be: "What about 'Trials And Tribble-ations?' It looked great!" And it did. But, I'd counter, that was within a thoroughly self-aware context. I can't see seven years of retro-60s kitsch making for good sf drama.
(Though the reason I mention this is because I thought it worked well enough to make an Enterprise/TOS era crossover doable.)
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Contrariwise, the 60s kitsch worked its way in on the series. The pilot was much more unformed. We saw a grand total of four rooms aboard the Enterprise, two of which were well-thought-out and full of visual excitement without being garish (the bridge and transporter room), and they remained much the same into the series. The other two were Pike's quaters and the briefing room, which were very sparse and bare and were thankfully never seen again. We didn't see any corridors, so the lighting wouldn't have to be "60s disco". There weren't any minidresses. The women wore pants. The landing party had jackets. And I don't think anyone would complain if those gawdawful proto-communicators got a facelift.
And since I hate people who just complain emptily without attempting to offer anything in place of what they're complaining about (let's face it, a 2240s Pre-TOS series may or may not be likely, but it isn't what they are currently in the third season of). I dusted off how I thought the basic series premise of Enterprise oughtto have been executed...
Knock it forward a couple more years from where it actually started. The push to develop faster ships and more subspace-based technology is getting tense because the centennial of Cochrane's first flight is coming up and we don't have that much to show for it. Vulcan warp technology is only a few centuries more advanced than ours, and being a more conservative race, they didn't develop it as quickly as we have in collaboration with them. They (and we) are starting to see the advantages of something more formal than mere diplomatic relations, but all thoughts of Federation-building get sidetracked when a series of pirate raids on a couple outlying Terran trade/supply routes starts up out of nowhere. A nearby task force is sent to investigate, but in the meantime, Earth sends out its newest prototype warp three ship, biggest and baddest in the neighbourhood, which isn't saying much by the standards we're used to, but...
And so we get a sort of Space Battleship Yamato story where the threat for the first season or so is sort of vague, and we get a lot of exploring and diplomacy done en route. There's no subspace radio yet, so even with signal boosters we're eventually cut off from Earth itself, and our only other contact with humans is on colony worlds. When we finally get out there, we find a couple pieces of wreckage, but no other trace of the task force. The attacks have stepped up, but there have as yet been no survivors to tell us anything about the attackers. And we go from there into the first Romulan War.
If all goes well, it'll be over within a year and a half, and we get some rebuilding, and some more exploration and diplomacy done. But then the Romulans come back in force and start attacking Terran colonies, and we get into the second Romulan War. This spreads to include other races in the area, and that come to help from closer to home, and is the final impetus to form the Federation after a treaty is reached. And thus we can end the series on a high note.
I think that would make a very topical backdrop for stories about terrorism and how to respond to it, and exploration and why to do it, even when you've got domestic concerns that some say should be tended to before "wasting" time and money on such frivolities as this, and the argument over jurisdiction -- military or civilian -- of Starfleet, which could very well become quite relevent in the coming decades as more nations get more stuff off Earth.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Prequels! Has nobody learned that prequals often turn out so bad that in the minds of the fans they become a separtate entity entirely and will never become part of the story/series etc...![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Andromeda, I just plain dont get it, bring back Buck Rogers I say ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)