posted
http://www.itaproductions.com/html/john.html - John Billingsley? Two John Billingsley's are listed at imdb.com. This is the same guy shown at TrekToday. He looks like comic relief
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
I certainly hope so. But look at TNG, they grew into their roles admirably over the years, now didn't they?
------------------ Kryten: Pub? - Ah yes. A meeting place where people attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks. - Red Dwarf "Timeslides"
posted
It'll be a series with bland characters. Agreed, this is what TNG was too in the beginning, but already the characters' names seem to be taken from the book "How to pick a successful stage name" - not to mention that four of the five humans (sorry to all the Brits that I simply include them) are American. Well, at least this is consistent with a humanity that has not yet that far evolved and still adheres to national states - This may be actually the only consistent thing of the show.
The continuity, and this is safe to predict, will be impaired to a degree that all the 600 episodes that will play after "Enterprise" will be rendered questionable. Maybe they try to maintain consistency at the beginning (the Klingon problem can't be solved anyway), but soon they will have a new race, anomaly, or technology every week, all nifty people and things that won't even exist in the 23rd and 24th century.
They will run out of typical 22nd century topics very soon. What should be so interesting about the Klingons once first contact is made? We know what direction interstellar relations must take - unless they let Braga run wild and completely alter history. What else could be so exciting about the 22nd century but not exciting enough to be remembered in the 23rd and 24th century? They didn't even have the new old Enterprise on the E-D ship wall (maybe it was just too ugly?).
The new series will in every case make every mistake that can be made. If they want "Voyager in the 22nd century", why don't they simply continue chronologically in the 24th century where they can show all these nifty new things? If they want something different than Star Trek, they should drop all references to it instead of ruining Star Trek. If they want to show the past history, they *have to adhere to established facts* and this is basically possible only in a single episode or feature film. Even "First Contact", as good as it was as a movie, messed up a lot of things, not to mention "Friendship One". This is only a little taste of what the new series can and will screw up in seven seasons.
I'm so disenchanted about all this. I said I would give the new series a chance, but all its prerequisites are just too bad. Wrong time, bland characters, short-sighted premise, plus Berman & Braga at the helm - it couldn't be worse. The really only thing I'm looking forward to is seeing all the old new tech - I'm confident that at least the regular technology will look reasonable even though I will never accept the early transporter.
------------------ "Species 5618, human. Warp-capable, origin grid 325, physiology inefficient, below average cranium capacity, minimum redundant systems, limited regenerative abilities." Ex Astris Scientia
posted
BTW, I just remembered the old discussion back in 1999 when I was upset about some people who didn't want a 5th series. Seeing what it's going to be, I now have to admit that there would be better no new series than such an ill considered premise, made to appeal to occasional viewers as opposed to fans who see the Star Trek Universe, its consistency and its spirit, as a whole.
------------------ "Species 5618, human. Warp-capable, origin grid 325, physiology inefficient, below average cranium capacity, minimum redundant systems, limited regenerative abilities." Ex Astris Scientia
Printer-friendly view of this topic
