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 #394199 is a reply to message #394164] Tue, 27 June 2017 21:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BTR1701 is currently offline  BTR1701
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
In article <oiudpt$kev$3@dont-email.me>,
"Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:
>>
>>
>> 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:
>>>> >
>>>> > 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.
>
> Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
> admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
> issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty CGI
> overkill (and pace-killing) stuff that bogged down the whole movie.

Did they even have CGI back then?
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394200 is a reply to message #394195] Tue, 27 June 2017 21:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oiuug6$5i0$3@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 11:37 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Fair enough...but she certainly wasn't the love of his life.

Just to clarify - we're talking Carol Marcus still? And, agreed.

You do
> have to wonder why the writing was ever set up in those early films to
> shoehorn in a long term love interest for him...rather than just letting
> him screw his way across the galaxy like he did in the TV series.

Yes, seems like it should have been the other way around.

The writer's guide for TOS defined the three great loves of Kirk's past.
One presumably is Ruth from Shore Leave. It's possible Carol Marcus is
that 'little blonde lab technician' that Gary Mitchell aimed at Kirk as
a distraction so Mitchell would get better grades. Kirk: "I almost
married her!!"

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394203 is a reply to message #394178] Tue, 27 June 2017 21:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BTR1701 is currently offline  BTR1701
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
In article <oiujl6$7gb$3@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 1:31 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

>> In article <oiudpt$kev$3@dont-email.me>,
>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:

>>>> 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:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 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.
>>>
>>> Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
>>> admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
>>> issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty CGI
>>> overkill (and pace-killing) stuff that bogged down the whole movie.
>>
>> CGI? In TMP?? "Sorry, neither"
>>
> What? Synthesizer music doesn't count as CGI?

Synth music? Goldsmith's score used a massive symphony orchestra, and
was the one thing about that film that was superlative.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394204 is a reply to message #394196] Tue, 27 June 2017 21:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oiuui1$5i0$4@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 11:50 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> They were together romantically in a long term ongoing relationship when
> she got FLY-ed.

A standard one year marriage contract that was part of her duties as
Nogura's staff whore. It was over before she got FLY-ed IIRC.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394205 is a reply to message #394203] Tue, 27 June 2017 21:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <atropos-C371FC.18113027062017@news.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <oiujl6$7gb$3@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/2017 1:31 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>>> In article <oiudpt$kev$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:
>
>>>> > 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:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
>>>> admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
>>>> issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty CGI
>>>> overkill (and pace-killing) stuff that bogged down the whole movie.
>>>
>>> CGI? In TMP?? "Sorry, neither"
>>>
>> What? Synthesizer music doesn't count as CGI?
>
> Synth music? Goldsmith's score used a massive symphony orchestra, and
> was the one thing about that film that was superlative.

Ahem. Persis Khambatta, and her artificial nipples.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394206 is a reply to message #394140] Tue, 27 June 2017 21:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BTR1701 is currently offline  BTR1701
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
Junior 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).

Dax commanded the Defiant on missions. She *was* the skipper for the
duration of those missions.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394207 is a reply to message #394164] Tue, 27 June 2017 22:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Obveeus is currently offline  Obveeus
Messages: 31
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/27/2017 4:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:

>> For whatever reason, the plot point never made it into the film.
>
> Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
> admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
> issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty CGI
> overkill

Are you talking about the universe's largest lice infestation? (the
bazillion glowing white 'dots')

> All I know is that I was very disappointed with that first effort. Very
> disappointed. Lots of things and people to point fingers at, including a
> rusty cast that was years removed from working together as actors. And
> it showed. In the end, it's why I've always been such a fan of Nicholas
> Meyer for his work as director and uncredited screenwriter on II. For my
> money, and despite II's own flaws, he saved Trek.

I agree that WRATH OF KHAN was a much better film...and, for that
matter, the best TREK film made.
Re: Trek Fashion (Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics) [message #394208 is a reply to message #394171] Tue, 27 June 2017 22:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Obveeus is currently offline  Obveeus
Messages: 31
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/27/2017 4:48 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <oiuf5l$5t2$4@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary
> <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>> For your reference, records indicate that
>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I read that this particular batch of idiots even sent someone to
>>> Sweden or some such place to research fabric materials for the uniforms.
>>> You can't make this stuff up.
>>
>> The issue I would take with that is that, despite there being a *lot*
>> of wardrobe changes over the years (and even just in TOS if you look
>> at how Shatner’s vanity had him in at least half a dozen different
>> shirts), I have never heard of any reasonable in-universe explanation
>> why Star Fleet keeps deciding to re-tailor their standard uniforms so
>> often. If there were ever a topic in the Star Trek universe to bring
>> in . . . . stereotypical token “diversity”, that would be it. Tell
>> *that* story; it’d be a fun watch!
>
>
> My own handwaving about that revolves around some psychologist at
> Starfleet believing that changing the outfits as often as they did kept
> morale up on long voyages. Since Trek people can produce whatever they
> want in any quantity, coming up with new uniforms every so often
> wouldn't be much of a problem. Maybe they even had Uniform of the
> Month contests.

Maybe the early uniforms turned out to have been made by American Airlines?
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394209 is a reply to message #394206] Tue, 27 June 2017 22:30 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 6:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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).
>
> Dax commanded the Defiant on missions. She *was* the skipper for the
> duration of those missions.
>
My comment was aimed more at some of the other examples (Uhura, Troi).

--
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 #394210 is a reply to message #394191] Tue, 27 June 2017 22:35 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 4:45 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oiujl6$7gb$3@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/2017 1:31 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> In article <oiudpt$kev$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > 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:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
>>>> admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
>>>> issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty CGI
>>>> overkill (and pace-killing) stuff that bogged down the whole movie.
>>>
>>> CGI? In TMP?? "Sorry, neither"
>>>
>> What? Synthesizer music doesn't count as CGI?
>
> hee hee
>
Oh, I guess that means the end of '2001' doesn't qualify as CGI either!

--
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 #394211 is a reply to message #394192] Tue, 27 June 2017 22:36 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 4:46 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oiujtl$7gb$5@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/2017 1:07 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 11:29 PM:
>>>> In article <oisj1o$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:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> 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.
>>>
>>> Interesting stuff. And, as someone who's read none of the books, all new
>>> to me. Thanks!
>>>
>> Star Trek novelizations have a history of authors adding shit from nowhere.
>
> Well, um, this is from the script, and by Roddenberry.
>
Hmmm, I still think Kirk calling someone he was married to, even
temporarily, someone's whore seems way out of character.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Re: Trek Fashion (Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics) [message #394212 is a reply to message #394193] Tue, 27 June 2017 22:37 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 5:22 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> Doc O'Leary sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 03:28 PM:
>> For your reference, records indicate that
>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I read that this particular batch of idiots even sent someone to
>>> Sweden or some such place to research fabric materials for the uniforms.
>>> You can't make this stuff up.
>>
>> The issue I would take with that is that, despite there being a *lot*
>> of wardrobe changes over the years (and even just in TOS if you look
>> at how Shatner’s vanity had him in at least half a dozen different
>> shirts), I have never heard of any reasonable in-universe explanation
>> why Star Fleet keeps deciding to re-tailor their standard uniforms so
>> often. If there were ever a topic in the Star Trek universe to bring
>> in . . . . stereotypical token “diversity”, that would be it. Tell
>> *that* story; it’d be a fun watch!
>
> If our military today was swarming with costume designers, we'd probably
> be seeing new Navy and Army looks every other week.
>
> The Air Farce would be switching things up every three to five days.
>
> And the Marines would look at the costume designers and say, "Get the
> f%#$ away from us."
>
Bah! If they have to actually _say_ it, they're not real Marines! :D

--
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 #394214 is a reply to message #394195] Tue, 27 June 2017 22:39 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 5:54 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>
>
> On 6/27/2017 11:37 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Fair enough...but she certainly wasn't the love of his life. You do
> have to wonder why the writing was ever set up in those early films to
> shoehorn in a long term love interest for him...rather than just letting
> him screw his way across the galaxy like he did in the TV series.
>
It wasn't the '60s anymore. :)

--
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 #394215 is a reply to message #394197] Tue, 27 June 2017 22:42 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 5:56 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>
>
> On 6/27/2017 1:39 PM, Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>> 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?
>
> She is also in ATOMIC BLONDE...coming out in a couple weeks.

Oh Oh! The promos for that look so _cooooool_! I'm sure the plot will
be stupid as shit but that's not why I'm going to see it. :D

--
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 #394216 is a reply to message #394192] Tue, 27 June 2017 22:47 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 4:46 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oiujtl$7gb$5@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/2017 1:07 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 11:29 PM:
>>>> In article <oisj1o$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:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> 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.
>>>
>>> Interesting stuff. And, as someone who's read none of the books, all new
>>> to me. Thanks!
>>>
>> Star Trek novelizations have a history of authors adding shit from nowhere.
>
> Well, um, this is from the script, and by Roddenberry.
>
You sure it wasn't by Freddy? :P

--
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 #394217 is a reply to message #394210] Tue, 27 June 2017 23:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oiv4dp$h8v$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 4:45 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <oiujl6$7gb$3@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/27/2017 1:31 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> In article <oiudpt$kev$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 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.
>>>> >
>>>> > Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
>>>> > admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
>>>> > issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty CGI
>>>> > overkill (and pace-killing) stuff that bogged down the whole movie.
>>>>
>>>> CGI? In TMP?? "Sorry, neither"
>>>>
>>> What? Synthesizer music doesn't count as CGI?
>>
>> hee hee
>>
> Oh, I guess that means the end of '2001' doesn't qualify as CGI either!

LOL!

A claim like that would be "Ian wrong"

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394218 is a reply to message #394209] Tue, 27 June 2017 23:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oiv44p$h8v$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 6:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> 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).
>>
>> Dax commanded the Defiant on missions. She *was* the skipper for the
>> duration of those missions.
>>
> My comment was aimed more at some of the other examples (Uhura, Troi).

They let Troi fly the damn ship *one time* and she flew it into a planet
- over and over and over again.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394219 is a reply to message #394211] Tue, 27 June 2017 23:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oiv4gs$h8v$3@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 4:46 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <oiujtl$7gb$5@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/27/2017 1:07 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 11:29 PM:
>>>> > In article <oisj1o$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:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting stuff. And, as someone who's read none of the books, all new
>>>> to me. Thanks!
>>>>
>>> Star Trek novelizations have a history of authors adding shit from nowhere.
>>
>> Well, um, this is from the script, and by Roddenberry.
>>
> Hmmm, I still think Kirk calling someone he was married to, even
> temporarily, someone's whore seems way out of character.

Not considering he'd just found out that that's exactly what she was.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394220 is a reply to message #394216] Tue, 27 June 2017 23:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oiv55p$h8v$7@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 4:46 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <oiujtl$7gb$5@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/27/2017 1:07 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 11:29 PM:
>>>> > In article <oisj1o$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:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting stuff. And, as someone who's read none of the books, all new
>>>> to me. Thanks!
>>>>
>>> Star Trek novelizations have a history of authors adding shit from nowhere.
>>
>> Well, um, this is from the script, and by Roddenberry.
>>
> You sure it wasn't by Freddy? :P

He was busy writing the bad episode of Dukes of Hazzard that year.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394221 is a reply to message #394215] Tue, 27 June 2017 23:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Obveeus is currently offline  Obveeus
Messages: 31
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/27/2017 10:42 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 6/27/2017 5:56 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/2017 1:39 PM, Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> She is also in ATOMIC BLONDE...coming out in a couple weeks.
>
> Oh Oh! The promos for that look so _cooooool_! I'm sure the plot will
> be stupid as shit but that's not why I'm going to see it. :D

+1
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394222 is a reply to message #394215] Wed, 28 June 2017 00:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BTR1701 is currently offline  BTR1701
Messages: 20
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
In article <oiv4r0$h8v$6@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 5:56 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/2017 1:39 PM, Wouter Valentijn wrote:

>>> 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?
>>
>> She is also in ATOMIC BLONDE...coming out in a couple weeks.
>
> Oh Oh! The promos for that look so _cooooool_! I'm sure the plot will
> be stupid as shit but that's not why I'm going to see it. :D

It's basically JOHN WICK with a chick.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394223 is a reply to message #394222] Wed, 28 June 2017 01:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <atropos-5A852E.21322627062017@news.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <oiv4r0$h8v$6@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/2017 5:56 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/27/2017 1:39 PM, Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>
>>>> Op 27-6-2017 om 05:26 schreef BTR1701:
>
>>>> > In article <oisfbl$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?
>>>
>>> She is also in ATOMIC BLONDE...coming out in a couple weeks.
>>
>> Oh Oh! The promos for that look so _cooooool_! I'm sure the plot will
>> be stupid as shit but that's not why I'm going to see it. :D
>
> It's basically JOHN WICK with a chick.

No matter how many acid baths she takes, she'll never get rid of the
Sean Penn stench.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Trek Fashion (Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics) [message #394226 is a reply to message #394208] Wed, 28 June 2017 06:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: A Friend

In article <oiv2sm$ek1$2@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
wrote:

> On 6/27/2017 4:48 PM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <oiuf5l$5t2$4@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary
>> <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read that this particular batch of idiots even sent someone to
>>>> Sweden or some such place to research fabric materials for the uniforms.
>>>> You can't make this stuff up.
>>>
>>> The issue I would take with that is that, despite there being a *lot*
>>> of wardrobe changes over the years (and even just in TOS if you look
>>> at how Shatner’s vanity had him in at least half a dozen different
>>> shirts), I have never heard of any reasonable in-universe explanation
>>> why Star Fleet keeps deciding to re-tailor their standard uniforms so
>>> often. If there were ever a topic in the Star Trek universe to bring
>>> in . . . . stereotypical token “diversity”, that would be it. Tell
>>> *that* story; it’d be a fun watch!
>>
>>
>> My own handwaving about that revolves around some psychologist at
>> Starfleet believing that changing the outfits as often as they did kept
>> morale up on long voyages. Since Trek people can produce whatever they
>> want in any quantity, coming up with new uniforms every so often
>> wouldn't be much of a problem. Maybe they even had Uniform of the
>> Month contests.
>
> Maybe the early uniforms turned out to have been made by American Airlines?


One of the first reviews of ENTERPRISE said that the uniforms looked
like what they wear down at the Jiffy Lube.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394227 is a reply to message #394199] Wed, 28 June 2017 07:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
trotsky is currently offline  trotsky
Messages: 36
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/27/2017 8:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <oiudpt$kev$3@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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.
>>
>> Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
>> admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
>> issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty CGI
>> overkill (and pace-killing) stuff that bogged down the whole movie.
>
> Did they even have CGI back then?
>


No.
Re: Trek Fashion (Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics) [message #394228 is a reply to message #394226] Wed, 28 June 2017 08:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Obveeus is currently offline  Obveeus
Messages: 31
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/28/2017 6:12 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <oiv2sm$ek1$2@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/2017 4:48 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article <oiuf5l$5t2$4@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary
>>> <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>> "Jim G." <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I read that this particular batch of idiots even sent someone to
>>>> > Sweden or some such place to research fabric materials for the uniforms.
>>>> > You can't make this stuff up.
>>>>
>>>> The issue I would take with that is that, despite there being a *lot*
>>>> of wardrobe changes over the years (and even just in TOS if you look
>>>> at how Shatner’s vanity had him in at least half a dozen different
>>>> shirts), I have never heard of any reasonable in-universe explanation
>>>> why Star Fleet keeps deciding to re-tailor their standard uniforms so
>>>> often. If there were ever a topic in the Star Trek universe to bring
>>>> in . . . . stereotypical token “diversity”, that would be it. Tell
>>>> *that* story; it’d be a fun watch!
>>>
>>>
>>> My own handwaving about that revolves around some psychologist at
>>> Starfleet believing that changing the outfits as often as they did kept
>>> morale up on long voyages. Since Trek people can produce whatever they
>>> want in any quantity, coming up with new uniforms every so often
>>> wouldn't be much of a problem. Maybe they even had Uniform of the
>>> Month contests.
>>
>> Maybe the early uniforms turned out to have been made by American Airlines?
>
>
> One of the first reviews of ENTERPRISE said that the uniforms looked
> like what they wear down at the Jiffy Lube.

....but do they need to be replaced because they make the wearers itchy
and hive-y and protest-y?
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394229 is a reply to message #394124] Wed, 28 June 2017 12:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Brown is currently offline  Jerry Brown
Messages: 5
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:58:57 -0400, 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)?

Similarly STWoK removed references to Ensign Preston being Scotty's
nephew, possibly for the same reason. IIRC these scenes are available
as extras on recent releases.

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394230 is a reply to message #394229] Wed, 28 June 2017 12:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <ndn7lctf8t1983hieecmpsrsr3adinfpf1@jwbrown.co.uk>,
Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:58:57 -0400, 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)?
>
> Similarly STWoK removed references to Ensign Preston being Scotty's
> nephew, possibly for the same reason. IIRC these scenes are available
> as extras on recent releases.

And that was just stupid. They saved about 10 seconds of screen time,
and made you wonder why the Hell Scotty was wandering around carrying
his body.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394231 is a reply to message #394156] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:29 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 21:19 schreef Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 09:15:28 -0400, Ubiquitous 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.
>
> It was a fun bit of irony. And they made her an Admiral for it.
>

Hmmm.... Remember what Kirk advised Picard? :-)

--
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 #394232 is a reply to message #394155] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:29 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 20:30 schreef anim8rfsk:
> In article <59529e91$0$783$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Wouter Valentijn <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>
>> Op 27-6-2017 om 15:45 schreef 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.
>>>
>>
>> Totally outside of official canon the web series Star Trek Continues had
>> an episode about this, guest starring Clare Kramer.
>
> As Glory!!!
>

Now that would make one fine story! :-P

--
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 #394233 is a reply to message #394170] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:31 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 22:40 schreef A Friend:
> In article <anim8rfsk-D5F3B7.09110427062017@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> "Never give up! Never surrender!"
>

LOL

One of the best non-Trek Treks.

--
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 #394234 is a reply to message #394187] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wouter Valentijn is currently offline  Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 207
Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Op 28-6-2017 om 01:45 schreef anim8rfsk:
> In article <oiugif$5t2$5@dont-email.me>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>> For your reference, records indicate that
>> Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/26/2017 3:30 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> In article <oiriqi$qk0$1@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > If you are going to rag on the show as being incompetent for changing
>>>> > the look of 'known things', how do you resolve the changes within the
>>>> > original cast era (such as the Klingon's face/head)?
>>>>
>>>> They explained that.
>>>
>>> Yep...with hand-wavium silliness that negated the simple reality that
>>> the Trek film modified the look of the Klingons because the original
>>> look was too simplistic and lame for a film.
>>
>> And yet the Vulcans got a pass. Aren’t all of us humanoids supposed to
>> be closely related in Trek anyway? Seems kind of racist that there
>> hasn't been a lot more interbreeding . . .
>
> But the Romulans got bumpy foreheads, even though nobody can tell them
> from the Vulcans ...
>

Never liked that new Romulan look.


--
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 #394235 is a reply to message #394165] Wed, 28 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 22:10 schreef Jim G.:
> Wouter Valentijn sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 12:48 PM:
>> Op 27-6-2017 om 05:26 schreef Jim G.:
>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> > 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.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. It's really like that.
>
> So I've learned. Frankly, it's probably a good thing since the
> alternative would have been a bit much on the Kirk-as-Romeo front. In
> any case, I now know that Ruth wasn't the love of Kirk's life after all.
> Unless the love of his life changed from year to year. :)
>

Or Areel Shaw, or Janet Wallace also from the past and during TOS Edith
Keeler, Miramanee, Rayna Kapec.

--
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 #394239 is a reply to message #394207] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wouter Valentijn is currently offline  Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 207
Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Op 28-6-2017 om 04:07 schreef Obveeus:
>
>
> On 6/27/2017 4:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:
>
>>> For whatever reason, the plot point never made it into the film.
>>
>> Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
>> admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
>> issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty
>> CGI overkill
>
> Are you talking about the universe's largest lice infestation? (the
> bazillion glowing white 'dots')
>
>> All I know is that I was very disappointed with that first effort.
>> Very disappointed. Lots of things and people to point fingers at,
>> including a rusty cast that was years removed from working together as
>> actors. And it showed. In the end, it's why I've always been such a
>> fan of Nicholas Meyer for his work as director and uncredited
>> screenwriter on II. For my money, and despite II's own flaws, he saved
>> Trek.
>
> I agree that WRATH OF KHAN was a much better film...and, for that
> matter, the best TREK film made.
>

I'm partial to Star Trek III myself. :-)

--
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 #394240 is a reply to message #394173] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:51 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 23:46 schreef Dimensional Traveler:
> On 6/27/2017 12:51 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>> For your reference, records indicate that
>> Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Using a phaser that looks closer to STAR TREK (The Original Series)
>>> The complaints about the Klingon looks or the look of the transporters
>>> or the look of the phasers is right on par with the complaints about
>>> SUPERMAN's outfit being the wrong shade of blue or WONDER WOMAN's outfit
>>> not being flaggy enough.
>>
>> I would disagree a bit with that, and even then only from a continuity
>> perspective. It *would* be fair comment if a *single* representation
>> of S or WW had their costume change without explanation. And it would
>> be *very* wrong to suddenly replace the person themselves with a
>> blonde (or give them head ridges :-). Unless it’s a reboot, you do
>> *not* get to exercise your “creativity” in those sorts of aspects of
>> the universe.
>>
>>> Were you guys sitting around the water cooler back in the 80s griping
>>> about how much the new BUCK ROGERS TV series sucked because the ships no
>>> longer swung back and forth on pieces of fishing line like they were
>>> supposed too? ...and they failed to have cigarette smoke wafting
>>> randomly out of the back like was coda?
>>
>> Well we’re sure as hell not going to complain about Wilma Deering’s
>> outfits! :-) But seriously, you have to make a distinction between
>> what is a surface difference and what is being changed in an
>> established story line for the wrong reasons. If they didn’t want to
>> do “Prime” Trek, they should have created yet another timeline, or not
>> made it a Trek property at all. Simple as that.
>>
> The problem is they DID start a new timeline. And in the process said
> "this is the only Trek now, we have destroyed the timeline of the prior
> serieses and movies."
>

That was basically what JJ wanted. He was not amused that the CBS half
of the franchise refused to give up their goodies in favor of 'only
Kelvin timeline stuff'.

And as far as I'm concerned Discovery is yet /another/ timeline.

--
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 #394241 is a reply to message #394235] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <5953e9cf$0$721$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Wouter Valentijn <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Op 27-6-2017 om 22:10 schreef Jim G.:
>> Wouter Valentijn sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 12:48 PM:
>>> Op 27-6-2017 om 05:26 schreef Jim G.:
>>>> 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:
>>>> >
>>>> >> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. It's really like that.
>>
>> So I've learned. Frankly, it's probably a good thing since the
>> alternative would have been a bit much on the Kirk-as-Romeo front. In
>> any case, I now know that Ruth wasn't the love of Kirk's life after all.
>> Unless the love of his life changed from year to year. :)
>>
>
> Or Areel Shaw, or Janet Wallace also from the past and during TOS Edith
> Keeler, Miramanee, Rayna Kapec.

Flag on Rayna, as she's just a sex doll, and her builder has plenty of
spares!

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394242 is a reply to message #394239] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <5953eb74$0$819$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Wouter Valentijn <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Op 28-6-2017 om 04:07 schreef Obveeus:
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/2017 4:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:
>>
>>>> For whatever reason, the plot point never made it into the film.
>>>
>>> Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
>>> admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
>>> issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty
>>> CGI overkill
>>
>> Are you talking about the universe's largest lice infestation? (the
>> bazillion glowing white 'dots')
>>
>>> All I know is that I was very disappointed with that first effort.
>>> Very disappointed. Lots of things and people to point fingers at,
>>> including a rusty cast that was years removed from working together as
>>> actors. And it showed. In the end, it's why I've always been such a
>>> fan of Nicholas Meyer for his work as director and uncredited
>>> screenwriter on II. For my money, and despite II's own flaws, he saved
>>> Trek.
>>
>> I agree that WRATH OF KHAN was a much better film...and, for that
>> matter, the best TREK film made.
>>
>
> I'm partial to Star Trek III myself. :-)

Only because they kill David, but not nearly slowly or horribly enough.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394243 is a reply to message #394220] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:53 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 8:34 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oiv55p$h8v$7@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/2017 4:46 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> In article <oiujtl$7gb$5@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/27/2017 1:07 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> > anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 11:29 PM:
>>>> >> In article <oisj1o$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:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> 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.
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting stuff. And, as someone who's read none of the books, all new
>>>> > to me. Thanks!
>>>> >
>>>> Star Trek novelizations have a history of authors adding shit from nowhere.
>>>
>>> Well, um, this is from the script, and by Roddenberry.
>>>
>> You sure it wasn't by Freddy? :P
>
> He was busy writing the bad episode of Dukes of Hazzard that year.
>
You're going to need to narrow that down more....

--
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 #394244 is a reply to message #394234] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <5953e8b4$0$737$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Wouter Valentijn <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Op 28-6-2017 om 01:45 schreef anim8rfsk:
>> In article <oiugif$5t2$5@dont-email.me>,
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/26/2017 3:30 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> > In article <oiriqi$qk0$1@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> If you are going to rag on the show as being incompetent for changing
>>>> >> the look of 'known things', how do you resolve the changes within the
>>>> >> original cast era (such as the Klingon's face/head)?
>>>> >
>>>> > They explained that.
>>>>
>>>> Yep...with hand-wavium silliness that negated the simple reality that
>>>> the Trek film modified the look of the Klingons because the original
>>>> look was too simplistic and lame for a film.
>>>
>>> And yet the Vulcans got a pass. Aren⤁t all of us humanoids supposed to
>>> be closely related in Trek anyway? Seems kind of racist that there
>>> hasn't been a lot more interbreeding . . .
>>
>> But the Romulans got bumpy foreheads, even though nobody can tell them
>> from the Vulcans ...
>>
>
> Never liked that new Romulan look.

It was just stupid. How the Hell is Spock undercover on Romulus
pretending to be a Romulan?

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394245 is a reply to message #394232] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 210
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <5953e79b$0$727$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Wouter Valentijn <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Op 27-6-2017 om 20:30 schreef anim8rfsk:
>> In article <59529e91$0$783$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> Wouter Valentijn <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>
>>> Op 27-6-2017 om 15:45 schreef 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Totally outside of official canon the web series Star Trek Continues had
>>> an episode about this, guest starring Clare Kramer.
>>
>> As Glory!!!
>>
>
> Now that would make one fine story! :-P

:D

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to show's racist critics [message #394246 is a reply to message #394240] Wed, 28 June 2017 13:56 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Dimensional Traveler is currently offline  Dimensional Traveler
Messages: 59
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 6/28/2017 10:51 AM, Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> Op 27-6-2017 om 23:46 schreef Dimensional Traveler:
>> On 6/27/2017 12:51 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Using a phaser that looks closer to STAR TREK (The Original Series)
>>>> The complaints about the Klingon looks or the look of the transporters
>>>> or the look of the phasers is right on par with the complaints about
>>>> SUPERMAN's outfit being the wrong shade of blue or WONDER WOMAN's
>>>> outfit
>>>> not being flaggy enough.
>>>
>>> I would disagree a bit with that, and even then only from a continuity
>>> perspective. It *would* be fair comment if a *single* representation
>>> of S or WW had their costume change without explanation. And it would
>>> be *very* wrong to suddenly replace the person themselves with a
>>> blonde (or give them head ridges :-). Unless it’s a reboot, you do
>>> *not* get to exercise your “creativity” in those sorts of aspects of
>>> the universe.
>>>
>>>> Were you guys sitting around the water cooler back in the 80s griping
>>>> about how much the new BUCK ROGERS TV series sucked because the
>>>> ships no
>>>> longer swung back and forth on pieces of fishing line like they were
>>>> supposed too? ...and they failed to have cigarette smoke wafting
>>>> randomly out of the back like was coda?
>>>
>>> Well we’re sure as hell not going to complain about Wilma Deering’s
>>> outfits! :-) But seriously, you have to make a distinction between
>>> what is a surface difference and what is being changed in an
>>> established story line for the wrong reasons. If they didn’t want to
>>> do “Prime” Trek, they should have created yet another timeline, or not
>>> made it a Trek property at all. Simple as that.
>>>
>> The problem is they DID start a new timeline. And in the process said
>> "this is the only Trek now, we have destroyed the timeline of the prior
>> serieses and movies."
>>
>
> That was basically what JJ wanted. He was not amused that the CBS half
> of the franchise refused to give up their goodies in favor of 'only
> Kelvin timeline stuff'.
>
Which just shows how over-inflated Abrams' ego is.

> And as far as I'm concerned Discovery is yet /another/ timeline.
>
I think that's official.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
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: Tue Jul 07 02:42:48 EDT 2020

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03920 seconds