posted
Gotta love Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon, Top Gun ...
Can't wait to see Pearl Harbor.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 *** Card-Carrying Member of the FlareAPAO *** "I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.
posted
SW1 would have bombed w/o special effects because the rest of the movie wasn't very good. That's the problem w/ sci-fi these days. It's almost all made by people who want to appeal to the masses that are easily distracted by shiny objects...
Just because that's they way most sci-fi is today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. Today's popular music is mostly shite, but that doesn't mean we should all just say "Well, that's the way music is these days. May as well just listen to it."
------------------ Lister: "Cat, what are you doing?" Cat: "I'm courting." Lister: "Courting who?" Cat: "Whoever shows up!" -Red Dwarf, "Me�"
posted
Has anyone wondered what it's going to be like having the movies set in the 24th century and the new series back in the past?
Personally I think Star trek is about the future and what humans will be able to achieve. I think going back into the past like this goes against everything that star trek is.
I think it will also be too hard to keep up with continuity. Too much about the past has already been said in the other four series'. There are bound to be errors. And if it's one thing I can't stand it's huge continuity errors!
I say we should be going boldly forward not backwards! Down with series V!
posted
TOS was a smash hit during the time when sci fi was still new----seeing cylinders with nacelles glued on just inflames one's imagination....but the point is, is that hurdle has been crossed already we are done with the TOS and moved way past it...to jump back into it seems like a very risky idea.
only a small part of the trek audience will actualy care what a ship looked like before starfleet was even invented...i imagine they look like babylon 5 sets and tech...ships get hit and blows up-no shields..
though personaly i do want to see the Romulan Earth war but alot of trek people now don't even know about it nor do they care---i mean-romulans-ooooh---scary---wait till they see the borg!
my assumptions that Series V will bomb is based on the my expierence on how i got involved with trek. ------ ------- ---------- -------- -------- the first episold i ever saw was "Best of Both Worlds" wow-that action and music
that episold hooked me onto trek-i remembered the channel and the time and ended up watching every TNG episold....then DS9 came out-got hooked on the borg's re-appearence...i watched the whole series and enjoyed it...then voyager came out--somewhat a dissapointment but stuck with it cause we see borg, and occasionaly some good story lines and get a glimps of what star fleet is like after the dominion war....
of all the series, i have not watched almost a single episold of what is rumored the best series---the TOS series. why? crappy tech...[ignoring the special effects at the time]just the tech. then can't get use to Jim's acting and some of the dated story lines--him fighting bare nuckles,geting his shirt torn and scoring with the babe every week...
the whole series just seemed like a less developed barbaric version of TNG but thats becuase i fell in love with TNG first. there are people who fell in love with VOY and had no prior trek influence and won't look at an episold of TNG--so on that note series V might work if they bring in a whole new audience.
[This message has been edited by TheF0rce (edited May 08, 2001).]
posted
"Episold"... Perhaps an appropriate misspelling, given the fact that they're all about making money these days, anyway...
BTW, the new series isn't set in the past. It's in the mid-twenty-second century. This is the beginning of the twenty-first. They're still a century-and-a-half in the future.
------------------ Lister: "Cat, what are you doing?" Cat: "I'm courting." Lister: "Courting who?" Cat: "Whoever shows up!" -Red Dwarf, "Me�"
posted
------------------------------------------------------- BTW, the new series isn't set in the past. It's in the mid-twenty-second century. This is the beginning of the twenty-first. They're still a century-and-a-half in the future. -------------------------------------------------------
yes yes but theres no point in comparing it to our present time set in reality the point is the time frame in trek have already been traveled past--it makes good movies but not an entire series--they may as well by that arguement go back and let us look at World Wars III on earth and call it star trek...its still in our future.
[This message has been edited by TheF0rce (edited May 08, 2001).]
posted
Why? Everyone keeps saying "Oh, no, we can't go back to Trek's past! We have to keep going forward!" But why? The beginning of the Federation isn't something we've seen before. The nearest things we've seen are Cochrane's flight (a century before) and TOS (a century after). There's a lot of space in there that hasn't been filled in.
Besides, it's more original than the "Sulu on the Excelsior" idea people kept wanting. And that was in the "past", too!
------------------ Lister: "Cat, what are you doing?" Cat: "I'm courting." Lister: "Courting who?" Cat: "Whoever shows up!" -Red Dwarf, "Me�"
posted
Personally I was hoping the new series would continue on in the present time frame.
If that wasn't possible then perhaps even going further into the future. If that was the case there would be endless possibilities for storylines. There could be new technologies, new aliens, new abilities. Maybe it could have even involved another galaxy to a certain extent. I just think there was no limit to what they could do with a series set in the [shows] future.
While you're right in saying we really haven't seen too much about pre TOS times, in my opinion there is a certain limit to what they can do with that time frame and if they push it too far we will be left with huge continuity errors which will just ruin everything.
Well that's only my opinion of course. I don't expect everyone out there to agree. Undoubtedly there are some people who are happy with the idea of going pre-TOS.
posted
I say make a show in the future and make a episode in that future go back in time to the past. That way it makes most people happy even though it would be a time travel episode. I think setting the future at 25th century is the best option. Unless they plan on throwing every episode out made before and destroy every single Trek fact to suit there needs then go ahead. I will still watch and I won't be surprised when the ratings go down. I won't be surprised if I'm the only person watching it. Its still Star Trek though if gets out of hand then I'll stop wtaching it.
------------------ The whole concept of Survivor is that nameless adults go at each other and try to outwit each other. In reality after the first episode of the show, each one will make a least over a thousand dollars for making appearences on some talk show. The first survivor, the Gay Guy now works at E.T. as a Survivor Consultent, where he gives advice to the new survivors. Not only did he win a million dollars that he now makes twice as much as what most of us make in 5 years.
I highly doubt that hes gay, made his own son run, and walk naked around the site. It was all tactics to get him win a million dollars. Right now I bet hes fucking some girl. Jerry from the second Survivro is something because everyone talks alot about her. The whole concept of Surivivor sucks, and it should end with the second one.
quote:If that wasn't possible then perhaps even going further into the future. If that was the case there would be endless possibilities for storylines. There could be new technologies, new aliens, new abilities. Maybe it could have even involved another galaxy to a certain extent. I just think there was no limit to what they could do with a series set in the [shows] future.
No disrespect, but that's, um, horseshit.
You can make the propulsion system transwarp, warp, slipstream, infinite-improbability drive, whatever, but at the end of every episode, the starship will fly away and arrive at a new planet. Sometimes they will outrun hostile ships, and sometimes they won't.
You can give the starship photon torpedoes, quantum torpedoes, triple-fusion-megatorpedo-blasters, explosive sheep, whatever, but whenever the ship meets a hostile ship, they'll fire and damage it to the extent the story requires, and the bag guys'll fire back and the ship will shake and consoles will explode to the extent the story requires.
If the starship needs to be in a faraway space, it can be there, and whether the writers refer to this area as "beyond sector 211" or "The Delta Quadrant" or "The Andromeda Galaxy" is irrelevant. If we need to see new aliens, we will.
Name one new technology that will actually benefit storytelling and not lead to more technobabble or, worse still, technobabble-induced plot conclusions. Just One.
Up until the TNG era, new technology may indeed have opened a few new storytelling possibilites over TOS. But don't let that convince anyone that the further along the timeline we go, the more possibilities we get. Moving further into the future will, IMHO, bring absolutely no new benefits, and indeed could set a new series at a disadvantage.
------------------ "And as it is, it is cheaper than drinking." -DT on arguing with Omega, April 30
posted
I still keep hoping they'll wise up - and do a series based ACROSS the timelines. Ghu knows they have the wardrobe. There would be something for everybody.
------------------ Faster than light - no left or right.
While you made a lot of points against what I said I don't think once did you come up with a reason why a show set in the 22nd century would be a good idea.
I'm not going to go on again about my ideas for a 'future series' I think I already did that to a certain extent. Instead why don't you tell me some of your brilliant ideas?
Just like everybody I have a different idea on what the next series should be about. I don't think anyone is right or wrong but everyone has an opinion. Star Trek means different things to different people.You don't like my ideas and I don't agree with your point of view either.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
