Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Sci-Fi/Fantasy » Star Trek » Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394091 is a reply to message #394071] Mon, 26 June 2017 22:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jim G. is currently offline  Jim G.
Messages: 52
Registered: August 2011
Karma: 0
Member
Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the older
>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>
>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>
>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which ship
>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design won't
>> be present on Discovery.
>
> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.

Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
the TMP one way back when?

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394092 is a reply to message #394085] Mon, 26 June 2017 22:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Obveeus is currently offline  Obveeus
Messages: 31
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/26/2017 8:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <ois6q5$ttv$1@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2017 7:47 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 7:01 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> > In article <ois270$hrv$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> > Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 3:04 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> >>> In article <oiruio$53s$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> >>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 6/26/2017 2:03 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>>> >>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>> >>>>> Wouter Valentijn <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Another Reboot. That much is certain.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Just the opposite. They announced that Discovery is supposed to be
>>>> >>>>> set in the classic 槼�Prime槼•�1�2� timeline. That槼綼 why
>>>> >>>>> doing what
>>>> >>>>> they槼綖e
>>>> >>>>> doing is problematic well beyond any cries of racism or other
>>>> >>>>> intolerance. It was problematic when they did the same thing with
>>>> >>>>> Enterprise. It槼綼 just dumb to depict things 10 or 100 years
>>>> >>>>> prior to
>>>> >>>>> Kirk as being more advanced than what even Picard had just
>>>> >>>>> because our
>>>> >>>>> tech has taken off in the present. It certainly *should* have
>>>> >>>>> been a
>>>> >>>>> reboot.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Either that or, like I槼緆 sure I槼綮e said before, someone
>>>> >>>>> needs to sit
>>>> >>>>> down with all the property in the franchise and work out a fully
>>>> >>>>> coherent continuity. One that they can stick to for all *future*
>>>> >>>>> production as well, of course. All this piecemeal shit has become a
>>>> >>>>> real anchor around the neck of the Trek universe.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> The "creative" types would hate that. They want to be able to put
>>>> >>>> their
>>>> >>>> own stamp on it without being "hampered" by being consistent with
>>>> >>>> what
>>>> >>>> others have done. Why do you think Abrams burned the whole thing
>>>> >>>> to the
>>>> >>>> ground and started over from scratch? Why do you think every other
>>>> >>>> Superman or Spiderman movie is a reboot, origin story? Because the
>>>> >>>> "creatives" want it to be _their_ vision that controls.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That's partly it. You've also got the part where the "creatives"
>>>> >>> won't
>>>> >>> (some say can't) read the source material, and nowadays won't watch
>>>> >>> source material. Brannon Braga was apparently proud of having never
>>>> >>> seen an episode of real Trek, which is how he ended up writing Zephram
>>>> >>> Cochrane as a black woman.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> I think the "won't read/view source material" is part of their
>>>> >> egotistic
>>>> >> "I can do it better! if you just don't bother me with the truth"
>>>> >> problem. So the two are sides of the same metaphorical coin.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Plus there's the whole "I'll sue you if you ever read or watch
>>>> >> something
>>>> >> of mine and then ever in your life make something I can claim was
>>>> >> unconsciously influenced by my work!" thing.
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, yeah, but refusing to watch an ep of Trek when you're making
>>>> > eps of Trek ...
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, Simon Pegg is a huge TREK fan and he put all kinds of
>>>> stuff into the film to make TREK fans happy and they still complained.
>>>
>>> He didn't get rid of the Abrams stink....
>>
>> The third entry in the series was much better than the second. The only
>> real stink in it was a bunch of stupid motorcycle stuff. Of course, I'm
>> dreading the fourth film somewhat because I'm not looking forward to
>> Chekov getting run over by the ship and written off.
>
> You're honestly the first person I've heard rate BEYOND any better than
> 'worst of series, crime against humanity'
>
> Even the people that actually watched it felt that way.

Nope. The second film (where Khan was featured) was the worst of the
new trilogy. The third film, BEYOND, brought a good dose of humor that
STAR TREK desperately needed to see again. Plus, they added Sofia
Boutella...who I hope makes it back for film #4.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394096 is a reply to message #394091] Mon, 26 June 2017 22:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Obveeus is currently offline  Obveeus
Messages: 31
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> > came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> > older
>>>> > ship or the newer one.
>>>>
>>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>
>>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which ship
>>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design won't
>>> be present on Discovery.
>>
>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>
> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
> the TMP one way back when?

STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
dangerous contraptions.
>
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394097 is a reply to message #394088] Mon, 26 June 2017 22:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oisc6k$asq$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/26/2017 5:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <ois6q5$ttv$1@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/26/2017 7:47 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 6/26/2017 7:01 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> >> In article <ois270$hrv$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 6/26/2017 3:04 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> >>>> In article <oiruio$53s$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> >>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On 6/26/2017 2:03 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>> >>>>>> Wouter Valentijn <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Another Reboot. That much is certain.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Just the opposite. They announced that Discovery is supposed to be
>>>> >>>>>> set in the classic 黎1�4�•�1�2Prime黎1�4憟•�1�21•�1�2 2•�1�2�
>>>> >>>>>> timeline. That黎1�4���1�4 why
>>>> >>>>>> doing what
>>>> >>>>>> they黎1�4��羽e
>>>> >>>>>> doing is problematic well beyond any cries of racism or other
>>>> >>>>>> intolerance. It was problematic when they did the same thing with
>>>> >>>>>> Enterprise. It黎1�4���1�4 just dumb to depict things 10 or 100
>>>> >>>>>> years
>>>> >>>>>> prior to
>>>> >>>>>> Kirk as being more advanced than what even Picard had just
>>>> >>>>>> because our
>>>> >>>>>> tech has taken off in the present. It certainly *should* have
>>>> >>>>>> been a
>>>> >>>>>> reboot.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Either that or, like I黎1�4���  sure I黎1�4��成e said before,
>>>> >>>>>> someone
>>>> >>>>>> needs to sit
>>>> >>>>>> down with all the property in the franchise and work out a fully
>>>> >>>>>> coherent continuity. One that they can stick to for all *future*
>>>> >>>>>> production as well, of course. All this piecemeal shit has become
>>>> >>>>>> a
>>>> >>>>>> real anchor around the neck of the Trek universe.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>> The "creative" types would hate that. They want to be able to put
>>>> >>>>> their
>>>> >>>>> own stamp on it without being "hampered" by being consistent with
>>>> >>>>> what
>>>> >>>>> others have done. Why do you think Abrams burned the whole thing
>>>> >>>>> to the
>>>> >>>>> ground and started over from scratch? Why do you think every other
>>>> >>>>> Superman or Spiderman movie is a reboot, origin story? Because the
>>>> >>>>> "creatives" want it to be _their_ vision that controls.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> That's partly it. You've also got the part where the "creatives"
>>>> >>>> won't
>>>> >>>> (some say can't) read the source material, and nowadays won't watch
>>>> >>>> source material. Brannon Braga was apparently proud of having never
>>>> >>>> seen an episode of real Trek, which is how he ended up writing
>>>> >>>> Zephram
>>>> >>>> Cochrane as a black woman.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> I think the "won't read/view source material" is part of their
>>>> >>> egotistic
>>>> >>> "I can do it better! if you just don't bother me with the truth"
>>>> >>> problem. So the two are sides of the same metaphorical coin.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Plus there's the whole "I'll sue you if you ever read or watch
>>>> >>> something
>>>> >>> of mine and then ever in your life make something I can claim was
>>>> >>> unconsciously influenced by my work!" thing.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Well, yeah, but refusing to watch an ep of Trek when you're making
>>>> >> eps of Trek ...
>>>> >
>>>> > Alternatively, Simon Pegg is a huge TREK fan and he put all kinds of
>>>> > stuff into the film to make TREK fans happy and they still complained.
>>>>
>>>> He didn't get rid of the Abrams stink....
>>>
>>> The third entry in the series was much better than the second. The only
>>> real stink in it was a bunch of stupid motorcycle stuff. Of course, I'm
>>> dreading the fourth film somewhat because I'm not looking forward to
>>> Chekov getting run over by the ship and written off.
>>
>> You're honestly the first person I've heard rate BEYOND any better than
>> 'worst of series, crime against humanity'
>>
>> Even the people that actually watched it felt that way.
>>
> I am proud to say that I have successfully avoided seeing any of #3
> beyond the few frames of TV ads before I could skip ahead on the DVR. I
> think I got away with only minor mental damage.

+1

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394098 is a reply to message #394096] Mon, 26 June 2017 22:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jim G. is currently offline  Jim G.
Messages: 52
Registered: August 2011
Karma: 0
Member
Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> > On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >> older
>>>> >> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which ship
>>>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design won't
>>>> be present on Discovery.
>>>
>>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>
>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>> the TMP one way back when?
>
> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
> dangerous contraptions.

I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394099 is a reply to message #394098] Mon, 26 June 2017 22:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Obveeus is currently offline  Obveeus
Messages: 31
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>> older
>>>> >>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> > ship
>>>> > we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> > won't
>>>> > be present on Discovery.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>
>>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>> the TMP one way back when?
>>
>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>> dangerous contraptions.
>
> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...

The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
in the adjacent transporter spot.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394100 is a reply to message #394085] Mon, 26 June 2017 22:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <anim8rfsk-858DD3.17244026062017@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk@cox.net says...
>
> In article <ois6q5$ttv$1@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2017 7:47 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 7:01 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> > In article <ois270$hrv$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> > Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 3:04 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> >>> In article <oiruio$53s$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> >>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 6/26/2017 2:03 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>>> >>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>> >>>>> Wouter Valentijn <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Another Reboot. That much is certain.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Just the opposite. They announced that Discovery is supposed to be
>>>> >>>>> set in the classic ��Prime���1�2� timeline. That�� why
>>>> >>>>> doing what
>>>> >>>>> they��e
>>>> >>>>> doing is problematic well beyond any cries of racism or other
>>>> >>>>> intolerance. It was problematic when they did the same thing with
>>>> >>>>> Enterprise. It�� just dumb to depict things 10 or 100 years
>>>> >>>>> prior to
>>>> >>>>> Kirk as being more advanced than what even Picard had just
>>>> >>>>> because our
>>>> >>>>> tech has taken off in the present. It certainly *should* have
>>>> >>>>> been a
>>>> >>>>> reboot.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Either that or, like I�� sure I�綮e said before, someone
>>>> >>>>> needs to sit
>>>> >>>>> down with all the property in the franchise and work out a fully
>>>> >>>>> coherent continuity. One that they can stick to for all *future*
>>>> >>>>> production as well, of course. All this piecemeal shit has become a
>>>> >>>>> real anchor around the neck of the Trek universe.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> The "creative" types would hate that. They want to be able to put
>>>> >>>> their
>>>> >>>> own stamp on it without being "hampered" by being consistent with
>>>> >>>> what
>>>> >>>> others have done. Why do you think Abrams burned the whole thing
>>>> >>>> to the
>>>> >>>> ground and started over from scratch? Why do you think every other
>>>> >>>> Superman or Spiderman movie is a reboot, origin story? Because the
>>>> >>>> "creatives" want it to be _their_ vision that controls.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That's partly it. You've also got the part where the "creatives"
>>>> >>> won't
>>>> >>> (some say can't) read the source material, and nowadays won't watch
>>>> >>> source material. Brannon Braga was apparently proud of having never
>>>> >>> seen an episode of real Trek, which is how he ended up writing Zephram
>>>> >>> Cochrane as a black woman.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> I think the "won't read/view source material" is part of their
>>>> >> egotistic
>>>> >> "I can do it better! if you just don't bother me with the truth"
>>>> >> problem. So the two are sides of the same metaphorical coin.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Plus there's the whole "I'll sue you if you ever read or watch
>>>> >> something
>>>> >> of mine and then ever in your life make something I can claim was
>>>> >> unconsciously influenced by my work!" thing.
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, yeah, but refusing to watch an ep of Trek when you're making
>>>> > eps of Trek ...
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, Simon Pegg is a huge TREK fan and he put all kinds of
>>>> stuff into the film to make TREK fans happy and they still complained.
>>>
>>> He didn't get rid of the Abrams stink....
>>
>> The third entry in the series was much better than the second. The only
>> real stink in it was a bunch of stupid motorcycle stuff. Of course, I'm
>> dreading the fourth film somewhat because I'm not looking forward to
>> Chekov getting run over by the ship and written off.
>
> You're honestly the first person I've heard rate BEYOND any better than
> 'worst of series, crime against humanity'
>
> Even the people that actually watched it felt that way.

I gave up on it after they destroyed yet another Enterprise. You'd think
that having lost so many ships with that name, the Federation would take
the hint.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394101 is a reply to message #394098] Mon, 26 June 2017 22:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oisgh3$k9c$2@dont-email.me>,
"Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>> older
>>>> >>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which ship
>>>> > we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design won't
>>>> > be present on Discovery.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>
>>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>> the TMP one way back when?
>>
>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>> dangerous contraptions.
>
> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...

https://youtu.be/Ro_QpDJX-Sk

Anybody who thinks Robert Wise was a good director should listen to
*any* line read in this. I got them to drop 'oh my God' from the
Director's Edition.

The woman in the transporter is Vicd Admiral Lori Ciana, Admiral
Nogura's staff whore, that he had enter a standard one year marriage
contract with Kirk to distract him from regaining the Enterprise.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394102 is a reply to message #394067] Mon, 26 June 2017 22:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <1gvjcetu3aq2w$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni>, starfist@gmail.invalid
says...
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:23:18 -0400, Obveeus wrote:
>
>> Using a phaser that looks closer to STAR TREK (The Original Series)
>> rather than the phaser from the scrapped pilot stuff in The Cage episode
>> isn't likely to offend many people beyond the few here who are just
>> going to insist on being offended by anything/everything with the new
>> series. The new show may suck royally and it may be entirely irrelevant
>> since few people will be watching anyway, but people need to find better
>> things to gripe about.
>
> Personally, I couldn't care less that the visual effects are
> different. I am perfectly fine with that. It doesn't bother me at
> all if the bridge looks more advanced or the Klingons look a little
> different. Don't care.
>
> My complaint (probably too strong a word, it's just a show) is that
> the people making the show have made a concerted effort to make big
> social justice BS a huge issue for it, to the point of re-writing
> canonical history of the Trek universe to do it, and to make this
> totally unrealistic view of no straight white males in sight 10 years
> before Kirk. That's a nonstarter for good fiction especially in an
> established universe. They have an agenda to push. There were some
> horrible agenda EPISODES of other Trek, like The Outcast, where they
> basically tell us that Riker was attracted to someone with an
> underdeveloped penis and you should be happy about that, but that was
> one (awful) episode. These guys are going all in on in-your-face
> snowflake-revolution-in-space, and screw your Trek timeline, we are
> going to shove all of our SJW wet dreams into this show because it's
> better than what was already there.

I don't know if you've noticed but Abrams et al are _mocking_ Trek. And
apparently one of the things they're mocking is the social justice aspects.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394103 is a reply to message #394039] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <oirnp9$dbh$1@dont-email.me>, Obveeus@aol.com says...
>
> On 6/26/2017 3:13 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> You know, one of the differences in feel between TOS and both TNG and
>> the 2009 re-boot is in how they address discipline and chain of command.
>> TOS was written by people who had some idea of what the military was
>> really like, many of them having served themselves. Yes, they bend
>> things a bit for story purposes and the limits of filming a TV show, but
>> their starting point was a working military. Characters stay at their
>> posts.
>
> This is simply not true. The show illogically (for any real military)
> had the leader, Kirk, always beaming down into unknown conditions. Many
> of the rest of the bridge crew illogically beamed down frequently as
> well. Outside of Spock and Uhura, none of those people should/would
> have ever had a reason to have been bopping down to new planets on a
> whim in any realistic 'military' show.

He's the Captain. He gets to do stupid things if he wants to--nobody on the
ship has the authority to stop him unless they want to go _way_ out on a
limb and claim that he's disabled in some way.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394104 is a reply to message #394100] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BTR1701 is currently offline  BTR1701
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
In article <MPG.33bb92b98924412d98adc4@news.eternal-september.org>,
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> I gave up on it after they destroyed yet another Enterprise. You'd think
> that having lost so many ships with that name, the Federation would take
> the hint.

I've always thought that by the TNG era, naming a Starfleet ship
Enterprise would be like naming a cruise ship Titanic.

It's just not done.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394105 is a reply to message #394099] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BTR1701 is currently offline  BTR1701
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
In article <oish21$lfc$2@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
wrote:

> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> > On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>> older
>>>> >>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >> ship
>>>> >> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >> won't
>>>> >> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >
>>>> > As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> > The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> the TMP one way back when?
>>>
>>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>> dangerous contraptions.
>>
>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>
> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
> in the adjacent transporter spot.

I thought Carol Marcus was the love of Kirk's life.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394109 is a reply to message #394092] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BTR1701 is currently offline  BTR1701
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
In article <oisfbl$h3g$1@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
wrote:

> On 6/26/2017 8:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

>> You're honestly the first person I've heard rate BEYOND any better than
>> 'worst of series, crime against humanity'
>>
>> Even the people that actually watched it felt that way.
>
> Nope. The second film (where Khan was featured) was the worst of the
> new trilogy. The third film, BEYOND, brought a good dose of humor that
> STAR TREK desperately needed to see again. Plus, they added Sofia
> Boutella...who I hope makes it back for film #4.

She might be too wrapped up to do it...
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394110 is a reply to message #394099] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jim G. is currently offline  Jim G.
Messages: 52
Registered: August 2011
Karma: 0
Member
Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:52 PM:>
> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> > On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>> older
>>>> >>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >> ship
>>>> >> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >> won't
>>>> >> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >
>>>> > As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> > The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> the TMP one way back when?
>>>
>>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>> dangerous contraptions.
>>
>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>
> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.

Seriously? I never knew that, and I've seen the movie many times.

> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
> in the adjacent transporter spot.

I knew that the young Vulcan destined to never take Spock's place was
one of the victims (since Decker had to pull double-duty until Spock
showed up), but when did they tell us that the other victim was the love
of Kirk's life? And why didn't he react more strongly if that was the
case? All this time I've just assumed that it was some generic person
who was also destined to never serve on the Enterprise...

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394111 is a reply to message #394101] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jim G. is currently offline  Jim G.
Messages: 52
Registered: August 2011
Karma: 0
Member
anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:55 PM:
> In article <oisgh3$k9c$2@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> > On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>> older
>>>> >>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which ship
>>>> >> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design won't
>>>> >> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >
>>>> > As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> > The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> the TMP one way back when?
>>>
>>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>> dangerous contraptions.
>>
>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>
> https://youtu.be/Ro_QpDJX-Sk
>
> Anybody who thinks Robert Wise was a good director should listen to
> *any* line read in this. I got them to drop 'oh my God' from the
> Director's Edition.
>
> The woman in the transporter is Vicd Admiral Lori Ciana, Admiral
> Nogura's staff whore, that he had enter a standard one year marriage
> contract with Kirk to distract him from regaining the Enterprise.

Okay, now I'm thinking that you and Obveeus are both just messing with
my head.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394112 is a reply to message #394099] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oish21$lfc$2@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
wrote:

> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> > On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>> older
>>>> >>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >> ship
>>>> >> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >> won't
>>>> >> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >
>>>> > As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> > The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> the TMP one way back when?
>>>
>>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>> dangerous contraptions.
>>
>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>
> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
> in the adjacent transporter spot.

ICE CREEEEEEAAAAMMMMMMMM!!

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394113 is a reply to message #394104] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <atropos-842319.20235626062017@news.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <MPG.33bb92b98924412d98adc4@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I gave up on it after they destroyed yet another Enterprise. You'd think
>> that having lost so many ships with that name, the Federation would take
>> the hint.
>
> I've always thought that by the TNG era, naming a Starfleet ship
> Enterprise would be like naming a cruise ship Titanic.
>
> It's just not done.

Yeah, the B and C are sorta problematic, aren't they?

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394114 is a reply to message #394105] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <atropos-8CFE78.20252026062017@news.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <oish21$lfc$2@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>> older
>>>> >>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>> ship
>>>> >>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>> won't
>>>> >>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> >> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >
>>>> > Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> > that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> > the TMP one way back when?
>>>>
>>>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>>> dangerous contraptions.
>>>
>>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>
>> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
>> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
>> in the adjacent transporter spot.
>
> I thought Carol Marcus was the love of Kirk's life.

Retcon

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394115 is a reply to message #394110] Mon, 26 June 2017 23:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oisj1b$q0a$1@dont-email.me>,
"Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:52 PM:>
>> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>> older
>>>> >>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>> ship
>>>> >>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>> won't
>>>> >>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> >> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >
>>>> > Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> > that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> > the TMP one way back when?
>>>>
>>>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>>> dangerous contraptions.
>>>
>>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>
>> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
>
> Seriously? I never knew that, and I've seen the movie many times.

It ain't in the movie (they built the sets but never shot her scenes,
although the actress is credited) but it made it to the novelization.
>
>> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
>> in the adjacent transporter spot.
>
> I knew that the young Vulcan destined to never take Spock's place was
> one of the victims (since Decker had to pull double-duty until Spock
> showed up), but when did they tell us that the other victim was the love
> of Kirk's life? And why didn't he react more strongly if that was the
> case? All this time I've just assumed that it was some generic person
> who was also destined to never serve on the Enterprise...

See above

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394116 is a reply to message #394111] Tue, 27 June 2017 00:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oisj1o$q0a$2@dont-email.me>,
"Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:55 PM:
>> In article <oisgh3$k9c$2@dont-email.me>,
>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>> older
>>>> >>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>> ship
>>>> >>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>> won't
>>>> >>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> >> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >
>>>> > Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> > that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> > the TMP one way back when?
>>>>
>>>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>>> dangerous contraptions.
>>>
>>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>
>> https://youtu.be/Ro_QpDJX-Sk
>>
>> Anybody who thinks Robert Wise was a good director should listen to
>> *any* line read in this. I got them to drop 'oh my God' from the
>> Director's Edition.
>>
>> The woman in the transporter is Vicd Admiral Lori Ciana, Admiral
>> Nogura's staff whore, that he had enter a standard one year marriage
>> contract with Kirk to distract him from regaining the Enterprise.
>
> Okay, now I'm thinking that you and Obveeus are both just messing with
> my head.

LOL, no, seriously. It's all in the book. They cast Lori*, she's
credited, they built the sets, AFAIK they never cast Nogura (which makes
no sense as his scenes are supposed to have been decimated literally the
night before). Basically it goes like this:

Kirk and Sonak on the escalator, Kirk says he's headed for a meeting
with Nogura

Kirk meets Nogura, stands up to him, gets the Enterprise back (cut)

Lori tries to waylay Kirk outside Nogura's office, brings up the year
they spent together, Kirk calls her Nogura's staff whore (cut)

Kirk beams to the space office complex. The next time we see Lori
she's in the transporter, beaming aboard the Enterprise for reasons
unknown.


*Susan O'Sullivan ... Woman (as Susan J. Sullivan)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0642817

(No, it's not the Susan Sullivan from Falcon Crest or Castle, but she'd
have been excellent)

Susan O'Sullivan is an actress, known for Star Trek: The Motion Picture
(1979), Our Man Flint: Dead on Target (1976) and Desperate Rescue: The
Cathy Mahone Story (1993).

I've never been able to find a good face photo that's supposed to be her
that's absolutely certainly her.

Maybe I'll see if can't pull up COVER UP or something and do a screen
grab.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394117 is a reply to message #394113] Tue, 27 June 2017 00:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dimensional Traveler is currently offline  Dimensional Traveler
Messages: 59
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/26/2017 8:51 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <atropos-842319.20235626062017@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.33bb92b98924412d98adc4@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I gave up on it after they destroyed yet another Enterprise. You'd think
>>> that having lost so many ships with that name, the Federation would take
>>> the hint.
>>
>> I've always thought that by the TNG era, naming a Starfleet ship
>> Enterprise would be like naming a cruise ship Titanic.
>>
>> It's just not done.
>
> Yeah, the B and C are sorta problematic, aren't they?
>
Have you looked up the real world history of ships named 'Enterprise'?

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394118 is a reply to message #394116] Tue, 27 June 2017 01:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dimensional Traveler is currently offline  Dimensional Traveler
Messages: 59
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/26/2017 9:29 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oisj1o$q0a$2@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:55 PM:
>>> In article <oisgh3$k9c$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> > On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>>> older
>>>> >>>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>>> ship
>>>> >>>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>>> won't
>>>> >>>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> >>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> >> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> >> the TMP one way back when?
>>>> >
>>>> > STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> > when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>>> > dangerous contraptions.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/Ro_QpDJX-Sk
>>>
>>> Anybody who thinks Robert Wise was a good director should listen to
>>> *any* line read in this. I got them to drop 'oh my God' from the
>>> Director's Edition.
>>>
>>> The woman in the transporter is Vicd Admiral Lori Ciana, Admiral
>>> Nogura's staff whore, that he had enter a standard one year marriage
>>> contract with Kirk to distract him from regaining the Enterprise.
>>
>> Okay, now I'm thinking that you and Obveeus are both just messing with
>> my head.
>
> LOL, no, seriously. It's all in the book. They cast Lori*, she's
> credited, they built the sets, AFAIK they never cast Nogura (which makes
> no sense as his scenes are supposed to have been decimated literally the
> night before). Basically it goes like this:
>
> Kirk and Sonak on the escalator, Kirk says he's headed for a meeting
> with Nogura
>
> Kirk meets Nogura, stands up to him, gets the Enterprise back (cut)
>
> Lori tries to waylay Kirk outside Nogura's office, brings up the year
> they spent together, Kirk calls her Nogura's staff whore (cut)
>
Well that hardly sounds like someone talking to the "love of their life".


--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394121 is a reply to message #394118] Tue, 27 June 2017 01:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oisor7$7qu$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/26/2017 9:29 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <oisj1o$q0a$2@dont-email.me>,
>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:55 PM:
>>>> In article <oisgh3$k9c$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >>>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when
>>>> >>>>>>> this
>>>> >>>>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>>>> older
>>>> >>>>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>>>> ship
>>>> >>>>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>>>> won't
>>>> >>>>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as
>>>> >>>> well.
>>>> >>>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> >>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie
>>>> >>> or
>>>> >>> the TMP one way back when?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> >> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid
>>>> >> those
>>>> >> dangerous contraptions.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/Ro_QpDJX-Sk
>>>>
>>>> Anybody who thinks Robert Wise was a good director should listen to
>>>> *any* line read in this. I got them to drop 'oh my God' from the
>>>> Director's Edition.
>>>>
>>>> The woman in the transporter is Vicd Admiral Lori Ciana, Admiral
>>>> Nogura's staff whore, that he had enter a standard one year marriage
>>>> contract with Kirk to distract him from regaining the Enterprise.
>>>
>>> Okay, now I'm thinking that you and Obveeus are both just messing with
>>> my head.
>>
>> LOL, no, seriously. It's all in the book. They cast Lori*, she's
>> credited, they built the sets, AFAIK they never cast Nogura (which makes
>> no sense as his scenes are supposed to have been decimated literally the
>> night before). Basically it goes like this:
>>
>> Kirk and Sonak on the escalator, Kirk says he's headed for a meeting
>> with Nogura
>>
>> Kirk meets Nogura, stands up to him, gets the Enterprise back (cut)
>>
>> Lori tries to waylay Kirk outside Nogura's office, brings up the year
>> they spent together, Kirk calls her Nogura's staff whore (cut)
>>
> Well that hardly sounds like someone talking to the "love of their life".

Did somebody refer to her that way?

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394122 is a reply to message #394054] Tue, 27 June 2017 06:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ubiquitous is currently offline  Ubiquitous
Messages: 64
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Member
jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid wrote:
> Ubiquitous sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:28 PM:
>> jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 12:22 PM:
>>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/24/2017 at 04:44 PM:
>>>> >> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>>>> >>> Heh. No, Abrams did his damage in the discipline and dumbing-down
>>>> >>> departments. This latest fustercluck seems committed to doing its damage
>>>> >>> in the "diversity" and "passion" departments. Honestly, I wonder if J.J.
>>>> >>> is paying these idiots to provide a new target for the anger and
>>>> >>> hostility of Trek purists. All I know is that each time someone new
>>>> >>> comes along to "improve" Trek for a more "inclusive" audience, the worse
>>>> >>> the show gets.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But don't you think this whole thing is staging, so that they can cry
>>>> >> 'racist' to *any* complaint about Star Trek STD?
>>>> >
>>>> > Are the people behind this thing competent or clever enough to pull off
>>>> > something like that? Because they're clearly not competent or clever
>>>> > enough to pull off a good Trek prequel. (I just saw a photo of a
>>>> > transporter room, and these people are consistent, if nothing else.)
>>>>
>>>> I saw that that was out there and didn't even bother to look at it. How
>>>> badly does *that* bode?
>>>>
>>>> Bear in mind that this is set in exactly the same year as THE CAGE, so
>>>> we *know* what stuff should look like.
>>>
>>> The entire mindset of people who do this sort of "reimagining" seems to
>>> be something along the lines of: "We know that ours will be better
>>> because we're making it all different!"
>>
>> I thought it was merely their attempt to mark their own territory.
>
> They will accept that analogy as long as you acknowledge that their
> method of urinating is both different and extremely clever and artistic
> and creative.

Bwah!


--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394123 is a reply to message #394055] Tue, 27 June 2017 06:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ubiquitous is currently offline  Ubiquitous
Messages: 64
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Member
jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid wrote:
> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:31 PM:
>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 12:22 PM:
>>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/24/2017 at 04:44 PM:
>>>> >> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>>>> >>> Heh. No, Abrams did his damage in the discipline and dumbing-down
>>>> >>> departments. This latest fustercluck seems committed to doing its
>>>> >>> damage in the "diversity" and "passion" departments. Honestly, I
>>>> >>> wonder if J.J. is paying these idiots to provide a new target for
>>>> >>> the anger and hostility of Trek purists. All I know is that each
>>>> >>> time someone new comes along to "improve" Trek for a more "inclusive"
>>>> >>> audience, the worse the show gets.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But don't you think this whole thing is staging, so that they can cry
>>>> >> 'racist' to *any* complaint about Star Trek STD?
>>>> >
>>>> > Are the people behind this thing competent or clever enough to pull off
>>>> > something like that? Because they're clearly not competent or clever
>>>> > enough to pull off a good Trek prequel. (I just saw a photo of a
>>>> > transporter room, and these people are consistent, if nothing else.)
>>>>
>>>> I saw that that was out there and didn't even bother to look at it. How
>>>> badly does *that* bode?
>>>>
>>>> Bear in mind that this is set in exactly the same year as THE CAGE, so
>>>> we *know* what stuff should look like.
>>>
>>> The entire mindset of people who do this sort of "reimagining" seems to
>>> be something along the lines of: "We know that ours will be better
>>> because we're making it all different!"
>>
>> Racist
>
> I'm trying to "reimagine" the concept of racism. How am I doing so far?

Other than "blame whitey"?

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394124 is a reply to message #394110] Tue, 27 June 2017 07:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Obveeus is currently offline  Obveeus
Messages: 31
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/26/2017 11:26 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:52 PM:>
>> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when
>>>> >>>>> this
>>>> >>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>> older
>>>> >>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>> ship
>>>> >>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>> won't
>>>> >>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as
>>>> >> well.
>>>> >> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >
>>>> > Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> > that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J.
>>>> > movie or
>>>> > the TMP one way back when?
>>>>
>>>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid
>>>> those
>>>> dangerous contraptions.
>>>
>>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>
>> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
>
> Seriously? I never knew that, and I've seen the movie many times.

For whatever reason, the plot point never made it into the film.

>> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
>> in the adjacent transporter spot.
>
> I knew that the young Vulcan destined to never take Spock's place was
> one of the victims (since Decker had to pull double-duty until Spock
> showed up), but when did they tell us that the other victim was the love
> of Kirk's life? And why didn't he react more strongly if that was the
> case?

The extended scene of Kirk walking around the ship in a daze after the
transporter accident was supposed to be all about him processing the
loss of his love. Maybe the director decided that it still had that
dramatic effect (showing that Kirk felt intense loss at the death of a
crew member) without identifying the loss as something personal to Kirk
(which could diminish the idea that he feels for every member of the
crew or could make him look callous for recovering in just a few minutes
and getting back to work after the loss of his significant other)?


> All this time I've just assumed that it was some generic person
> who was also destined to never serve on the Enterprise...

The final cut of the film dropped the ball in that regard.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394125 is a reply to message #394114] Tue, 27 June 2017 08:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Obveeus is currently offline  Obveeus
Messages: 31
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/26/2017 11:51 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <atropos-8CFE78.20252026062017@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <oish21$lfc$2@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> > On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>>> older
>>>> >>>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>>> ship
>>>> >>>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>>> won't
>>>> >>>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> >>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> >> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> >> the TMP one way back when?
>>>> >
>>>> > STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> > when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>>> > dangerous contraptions.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>>
>>> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
>>> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
>>> in the adjacent transporter spot.
>>
>> I thought Carol Marcus was the love of Kirk's life.
>
> Retcon

She wasn't the love of his life, though. She was just a baby momma from
a long time prior...a woman who with whom the relationship was willingly
given up (mutual decision).
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394126 is a reply to message #394068] Tue, 27 June 2017 09:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ubiquitous is currently offline  Ubiquitous
Messages: 64
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Member
starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:21:41 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> liam@valentijn.nu wrote:
>>> Op 26-6-2017 om 19:46 schreef Ubiquitous:
>>>> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:

>>>> > I wonder if the reason women are forbidden to command a starship in
>>>> > Krik's era has anything to do with the disaster that is brewing for
>>>> > this series.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't we learn anything from Voyager?
>>>
>>> Voyager had issues orbiting issues. The gender of Janeway was not part
>>> of that. It was the writers. They failed.
>>
>> If memory serves, they made a big deal about having a female captain
>
> The PR push was annoying, but they didn't have to upend anything to
> write the character. At least the timeline worked. Kirk says that
> women are forbidden to captain a sharship 10 years after Discover
> takes place. Not a problem for Voyager.

But that wasn't the point. the point is they made a big deal about finally
having a female Captain and she was a miserable failure, proving the point of
them not allowing female captains.

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394127 is a reply to message #394126] Tue, 27 June 2017 09:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: The Last Doctor

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:21:41 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> liam@valentijn.nu wrote:
>>>> Op 26-6-2017 om 19:46 schreef Ubiquitous:
>>>> > starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>
>>>> >> I wonder if the reason women are forbidden to command a starship in
>>>> >> Krik's era has anything to do with the disaster that is brewing for
>>>> >> this series.
>>>> >
>>>> > Didn't we learn anything from Voyager?
>>>>
>>>> Voyager had issues orbiting issues. The gender of Janeway was not part
>>>> of that. It was the writers. They failed.
>>>
>>> If memory serves, they made a big deal about having a female captain
>>
>> The PR push was annoying, but they didn't have to upend anything to
>> write the character. At least the timeline worked. Kirk says that
>> women are forbidden to captain a sharship 10 years after Discover
>> takes place. Not a problem for Voyager.
>
> But that wasn't the point. the point is they made a big deal about finally
> having a female Captain and she was a miserable failure, proving the point of
> them not allowing female captains.
>

They'd had female captains before though - Uhura even had the conn of the
Enterprise in a TAS episode. The captain of the Saratoga in STIV, the
captain of the Enterprise C - even Troi managed not to make a total pigs
ear of it the one time she got command. Alongside Voyager, Dax was known to
command the Defiant...

....and of course, Janice Lester's outburst was then retconned away in
Enterprise. If Earth ships in Archer's time could have female captains,
surely the touchy-feely Federation
that followed it wouldn't go backwards in this regard. We just didn't
happen to see one onscreen in TOS, Lester was 17 bananas short of a bunch
and Kirk was just humouring her.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394128 is a reply to message #394116] Tue, 27 June 2017 10:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BTR1701 is currently offline  BTR1701
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
In article <anim8rfsk-BA53EA.21290826062017@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Kirk and Sonak on the escalator, Kirk says he's headed for a meeting
> with Nogura
>
> Kirk meets Nogura, stands up to him, gets the Enterprise back (cut)
>
> Lori tries to waylay Kirk outside Nogura's office, brings up the year
> they spent together, Kirk calls her Nogura's staff whore (cut)

Which is ridiculous on its face if she's a vice admiral. A vice admiral
would have a helluva lot more responsibility than being a scheduler for
another admiral.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394129 is a reply to message #394127] Tue, 27 June 2017 11:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: A Friend

In article <erf5s9FssumU1@mid.individual.net>, The Last Doctor
<mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:21:41 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> liam@valentijn.nu wrote:
>>>> > Op 26-6-2017 om 19:46 schreef Ubiquitous:
>>>> >> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>>
>>>> >>> I wonder if the reason women are forbidden to command a starship in
>>>> >>> Krik's era has anything to do with the disaster that is brewing for
>>>> >>> this series.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Didn't we learn anything from Voyager?
>>>> >
>>>> > Voyager had issues orbiting issues. The gender of Janeway was not part
>>>> > of that. It was the writers. They failed.
>>>>
>>>> If memory serves, they made a big deal about having a female captain
>>>
>>> The PR push was annoying, but they didn't have to upend anything to
>>> write the character. At least the timeline worked. Kirk says that
>>> women are forbidden to captain a sharship 10 years after Discover
>>> takes place. Not a problem for Voyager.
>>
>> But that wasn't the point. the point is they made a big deal about finally
>> having a female Captain and she was a miserable failure, proving the point
>> of
>> them not allowing female captains.
>>
>
> They'd had female captains before though - Uhura even had the conn of the
> Enterprise in a TAS episode. The captain of the Saratoga in STIV, the
> captain of the Enterprise C - even Troi managed not to make a total pigs
> ear of it the one time she got command. Alongside Voyager, Dax was known to
> command the Defiant...
>
> ...and of course, Janice Lester's outburst was then retconned away in
> Enterprise. If Earth ships in Archer's time could have female
> captains, surely the touchy-feely Federation that followed it
> wouldn't go backwards in this regard.


Why not? Archer's Enterprise (and Hernandez's Columbia) were Earth
ships under Earth authority. Kirk's Enterprise was a Federation ship.
Maybe the Federation had a bunch of dimwitted member planets that
forbade females being captains, and more progressive worlds had to
abide by that until the rules were finally changed by the time of
Enterprise-C. There are ways to make this work besides pretending it
never happened.


> We just didn't happen to see one onscreen in TOS,


Because there weren't any.


> Lester was 17 bananas short of a bunch and Kirk was just humouring
> her.


That's mere handwaving, an attempt to account for a stupid plot point
in a script written and produced by men in the 1960s. Further, Kirk
not only had no reason to humor her, he was rather condescending (and
even a little bitter) in that exchange.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394130 is a reply to message #394128] Tue, 27 June 2017 11:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <atropos-B01635.07215527062017@news.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-BA53EA.21290826062017@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Kirk and Sonak on the escalator, Kirk says he's headed for a meeting
>> with Nogura
>>
>> Kirk meets Nogura, stands up to him, gets the Enterprise back (cut)
>>
>> Lori tries to waylay Kirk outside Nogura's office, brings up the year
>> they spent together, Kirk calls her Nogura's staff whore (cut)
>
> Which is ridiculous on its face if she's a vice admiral. A vice admiral
> would have a helluva lot more responsibility than being a scheduler for
> another admiral.

Well, 'staff whore' has it's own responsibilities.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394137 is a reply to message #394125] Tue, 27 June 2017 11:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oithbv$f9r$2@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
wrote:

> On 6/26/2017 11:51 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <atropos-8CFE78.20252026062017@news.giganews.com>,
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <oish21$lfc$2@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >>>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when
>>>> >>>>>>> this
>>>> >>>>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>>>> older
>>>> >>>>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>>>> ship
>>>> >>>>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>>>> won't
>>>> >>>>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as
>>>> >>>> well.
>>>> >>>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> >>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie
>>>> >>> or
>>>> >>> the TMP one way back when?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> >> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid
>>>> >> those
>>>> >> dangerous contraptions.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>>>
>>>> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
>>>> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
>>>> in the adjacent transporter spot.
>>>
>>> I thought Carol Marcus was the love of Kirk's life.
>>
>> Retcon
>
> She wasn't the love of his life, though. She was just a baby momma from
> a long time prior...a woman who with whom the relationship was willingly
> given up (mutual decision).

It wasn't mutual, she was just a bitch.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394138 is a reply to message #394124] Tue, 27 June 2017 11:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oith2v$f9r$1@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 6/26/2017 11:26 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:52 PM:>
>>> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> > On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when
>>>> >>>>>> this
>>>> >>>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>>> older
>>>> >>>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>>> ship
>>>> >>>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>>> won't
>>>> >>>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as
>>>> >>> well.
>>>> >>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> >> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J.
>>>> >> movie or
>>>> >> the TMP one way back when?
>>>> >
>>>> > STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> > when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid
>>>> > those
>>>> > dangerous contraptions.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>>
>>> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
>>
>> Seriously? I never knew that, and I've seen the movie many times.
>
> For whatever reason, the plot point never made it into the film.
>
>>> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
>>> in the adjacent transporter spot.
>>
>> I knew that the young Vulcan destined to never take Spock's place was
>> one of the victims (since Decker had to pull double-duty until Spock
>> showed up), but when did they tell us that the other victim was the love
>> of Kirk's life? And why didn't he react more strongly if that was the
>> case?
>
> The extended scene of Kirk walking around the ship in a daze after the
> transporter accident was supposed to be all about him processing the
> loss of his love. Maybe the director decided that it still had that
> dramatic effect (showing that Kirk felt intense loss at the death of a
> crew member) without identifying the loss as something personal to Kirk
> (which could diminish the idea that he feels for every member of the
> crew or could make him look callous for recovering in just a few minutes
> and getting back to work after the loss of his significant other)?

Yeah, the cut as it stands just makes it look like Kirk is confusified
by the shiny new corridors.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394139 is a reply to message #394121] Tue, 27 June 2017 11:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dimensional Traveler is currently offline  Dimensional Traveler
Messages: 59
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/26/2017 10:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oisor7$7qu$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2017 9:29 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> In article <oisj1o$q0a$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:55 PM:
>>>> > In article <oisgh3$k9c$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>> > "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> >>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >>>>> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when
>>>> >>>>>>>> this
>>>> >>>>>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>>>>> older
>>>> >>>>>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>>>>> ship
>>>> >>>>>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>>>>> won't
>>>> >>>>>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as
>>>> >>>>> well.
>>>> >>>>> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> >>>> that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie
>>>> >>>> or
>>>> >>>> the TMP one way back when?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> >>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid
>>>> >>> those
>>>> >>> dangerous contraptions.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>>> >
>>>> > https://youtu.be/Ro_QpDJX-Sk
>>>> >
>>>> > Anybody who thinks Robert Wise was a good director should listen to
>>>> > *any* line read in this. I got them to drop 'oh my God' from the
>>>> > Director's Edition.
>>>> >
>>>> > The woman in the transporter is Vicd Admiral Lori Ciana, Admiral
>>>> > Nogura's staff whore, that he had enter a standard one year marriage
>>>> > contract with Kirk to distract him from regaining the Enterprise.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, now I'm thinking that you and Obveeus are both just messing with
>>>> my head.
>>>
>>> LOL, no, seriously. It's all in the book. They cast Lori*, she's
>>> credited, they built the sets, AFAIK they never cast Nogura (which makes
>>> no sense as his scenes are supposed to have been decimated literally the
>>> night before). Basically it goes like this:
>>>
>>> Kirk and Sonak on the escalator, Kirk says he's headed for a meeting
>>> with Nogura
>>>
>>> Kirk meets Nogura, stands up to him, gets the Enterprise back (cut)
>>>
>>> Lori tries to waylay Kirk outside Nogura's office, brings up the year
>>> they spent together, Kirk calls her Nogura's staff whore (cut)
>>>
>> Well that hardly sounds like someone talking to the "love of their life".
>
> Did somebody refer to her that way?
>
Yes.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394140 is a reply to message #394127] Tue, 27 June 2017 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dimensional Traveler is currently offline  Dimensional Traveler
Messages: 59
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/27/2017 6:45 AM, The Last Doctor wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:21:41 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> liam@valentijn.nu wrote:
>>>> > Op 26-6-2017 om 19:46 schreef Ubiquitous:
>>>> >> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>>
>>>> >>> I wonder if the reason women are forbidden to command a starship in
>>>> >>> Krik's era has anything to do with the disaster that is brewing for
>>>> >>> this series.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Didn't we learn anything from Voyager?
>>>> >
>>>> > Voyager had issues orbiting issues. The gender of Janeway was not part
>>>> > of that. It was the writers. They failed.
>>>>
>>>> If memory serves, they made a big deal about having a female captain
>>>
>>> The PR push was annoying, but they didn't have to upend anything to
>>> write the character. At least the timeline worked. Kirk says that
>>> women are forbidden to captain a sharship 10 years after Discover
>>> takes place. Not a problem for Voyager.
>>
>> But that wasn't the point. the point is they made a big deal about finally
>> having a female Captain and she was a miserable failure, proving the point of
>> them not allowing female captains.
>>
>
> They'd had female captains before though - Uhura even had the conn of the
> Enterprise in a TAS episode. The captain of the Saratoga in STIV, the
> captain of the Enterprise C - even Troi managed not to make a total pigs
> ear of it the one time she got command. Alongside Voyager, Dax was known to
> command the Defiant...
>
There is a significant difference between being the Captain (commanding
officer) of a ship and having the conn (standing a watch as the senior
on-duty bridge officer or temporarily filling in for said).

> ...and of course, Janice Lester's outburst was then retconned away in
> Enterprise. If Earth ships in Archer's time could have female captains,
> surely the touchy-feely Federation
> that followed it wouldn't go backwards in this regard. We just didn't
> happen to see one onscreen in TOS, Lester was 17 bananas short of a bunch
> and Kirk was just humouring her.
>
To quote Anim, "'Enterprise' was a holo-novel!" :)

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394141 is a reply to message #394129] Tue, 27 June 2017 12:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <270620171119107365%nope@noway.com>,
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <erf5s9FssumU1@mid.individual.net>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:21:41 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> > liam@valentijn.nu wrote:
>>>> >> Op 26-6-2017 om 19:46 schreef Ubiquitous:
>>>> >>> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>>> I wonder if the reason women are forbidden to command a starship in
>>>> >>>> Krik's era has anything to do with the disaster that is brewing for
>>>> >>>> this series.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Didn't we learn anything from Voyager?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Voyager had issues orbiting issues. The gender of Janeway was not part
>>>> >> of that. It was the writers. They failed.
>>>> >
>>>> > If memory serves, they made a big deal about having a female captain
>>>>
>>>> The PR push was annoying, but they didn't have to upend anything to
>>>> write the character. At least the timeline worked. Kirk says that
>>>> women are forbidden to captain a sharship 10 years after Discover
>>>> takes place. Not a problem for Voyager.
>>>
>>> But that wasn't the point. the point is they made a big deal about
>>> finally
>>> having a female Captain and she was a miserable failure, proving the
>>> point
>>> of
>>> them not allowing female captains.
>>>
>>
>> They'd had female captains before though - Uhura even had the conn of the
>> Enterprise in a TAS episode. The captain of the Saratoga in STIV, the
>> captain of the Enterprise C - even Troi managed not to make a total pigs
>> ear of it the one time she got command. Alongside Voyager, Dax was known to
>> command the Defiant...
>>
>> ...and of course, Janice Lester's outburst was then retconned away in
>> Enterprise. If Earth ships in Archer's time could have female
>> captains, surely the touchy-feely Federation that followed it
>> wouldn't go backwards in this regard.
>
>
> Why not? Archer's Enterprise (and Hernandez's Columbia) were

constructs in a badly plotted and researched holonovel.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394142 is a reply to message #394140] Tue, 27 June 2017 12:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oitv84$gq$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 6:45 AM, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:21:41 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> > liam@valentijn.nu wrote:
>>>> >> Op 26-6-2017 om 19:46 schreef Ubiquitous:
>>>> >>> starfist@gmail.invalid wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>>> I wonder if the reason women are forbidden to command a starship in
>>>> >>>> Krik's era has anything to do with the disaster that is brewing for
>>>> >>>> this series.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Didn't we learn anything from Voyager?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Voyager had issues orbiting issues. The gender of Janeway was not part
>>>> >> of that. It was the writers. They failed.
>>>> >
>>>> > If memory serves, they made a big deal about having a female captain
>>>>
>>>> The PR push was annoying, but they didn't have to upend anything to
>>>> write the character. At least the timeline worked. Kirk says that
>>>> women are forbidden to captain a sharship 10 years after Discover
>>>> takes place. Not a problem for Voyager.
>>>
>>> But that wasn't the point. the point is they made a big deal about finally
>>> having a female Captain and she was a miserable failure, proving the point
>>> of
>>> them not allowing female captains.
>>>
>>
>> They'd had female captains before though - Uhura even had the conn of the
>> Enterprise in a TAS episode. The captain of the Saratoga in STIV, the
>> captain of the Enterprise C - even Troi managed not to make a total pigs
>> ear of it the one time she got command. Alongside Voyager, Dax was known to
>> command the Defiant...
>>
> There is a significant difference between being the Captain (commanding
> officer) of a ship and having the conn (standing a watch as the senior
> on-duty bridge officer or temporarily filling in for said).
>
>> ...and of course, Janice Lester's outburst was then retconned away in
>> Enterprise. If Earth ships in Archer's time could have female captains,
>> surely the touchy-feely Federation
>> that followed it wouldn't go backwards in this regard. We just didn't
>> happen to see one onscreen in TOS, Lester was 17 bananas short of a bunch
>> and Kirk was just humouring her.
>>
> To quote Anim, "'Enterprise' was a holo-novel!" :)

a badly plotted and researched holonovel.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394143 is a reply to message #394109] Tue, 27 June 2017 13:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wouter Valentijn is currently offline  Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 207
Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Op 27-6-2017 om 05:26 schreef BTR1701:
> In article <oisfbl$h3g$1@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2017 8:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>>> You're honestly the first person I've heard rate BEYOND any better than
>>> 'worst of series, crime against humanity'
>>>
>>> Even the people that actually watched it felt that way.
>>
>> Nope. The second film (where Khan was featured) was the worst of the
>> new trilogy. The third film, BEYOND, brought a good dose of humor that
>> STAR TREK desperately needed to see again. Plus, they added Sofia
>> Boutella...who I hope makes it back for film #4.
>
> She might be too wrapped up to do it...
>

Would all that binding really stop her?

--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

"Be yourself no matter what they say"

Sting ("Englishman in New York")

liam=mail
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394144 is a reply to message #394105] Tue, 27 June 2017 13:45 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Wouter Valentijn is currently offline  Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 207
Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Op 27-6-2017 om 05:25 schreef BTR1701:
> In article <oish21$lfc$2@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:25 PM:>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 10:08 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 06:25 PM:>
>>>> >> On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:35 PM:>
>>>> >>>> On 6/26/2017 3:12 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Do you have a cite for that? Because everything that I saw when this
>>>> >>>>> came out made it clear that it was unknown if the image was of the
>>>> >>>>> older
>>>> >>>>> ship or the newer one.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/22/star-trek-discovery-transporter- room/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks. My usual stops weren't committing in terms of saying which
>>>> >>> ship
>>>> >>> we were seeing. One can only hope that the crash test dummy design
>>>> >>> won't
>>>> >>> be present on Discovery.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As I recall, they used that model for the first STAR TREK film as well.
>>>> >> The thing turned Kirk's girlfriend into THE FLY.
>>>> >
>>>> > Apparently I've done a really good job of blocking out whatever it is
>>>> > that you're referring to. Are you talking about the first J.J. movie or
>>>> > the TMP one way back when?
>>>>
>>>> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE...way back when, very early in the film
>>>> when the transporter is frying people and Bones is trying to avoid those
>>>> dangerous contraptions.
>>>
>>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...
>>
>> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.
>> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person
>> in the adjacent transporter spot.

Only in the novel we really got to know who they were.

>
> I thought Carol Marcus was the love of Kirk's life.
>


Never got that impression. Maybe /one/ of those. The greatest love of
his life was his ship. The original.


--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

"Be yourself no matter what they say"

Sting ("Englishman in New York")

liam=mail
Pages (8): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: wevs cest o kdlr ubolhmlpc ztmtlfphk pblfez emffp
Next Topic: الدورة التدريبية العلاقات الخارجية والتعاون الدولى القاهرة – تونس للفترة من 13 الى 17 اغسطس 2017 م
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sat Jul 04 13:25:11 EDT 2020

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03068 seconds