Julia was fascinated by the Very interesting trivia about Deanna Troi's
mom!!! she didn't knowthat Troi's mom was majel barrett, the creator's
wife
and the voice of the computer and the nurse.
i just watched the episode that
first introduced that character, she watched it before I told her...at one
point when she was working for the university she was able to be a
homebody
today, work-at-home 1/2 day (got into another
one of those places in crisis/constant overload/overtime mode...whatever,
she was paid
hourly...& got overtime for it)...so she often conserved energy the rest
of
the day
to prepare for the rest of this week, even though the job got her
addrenaline so
up that she was having trouble sleeping...(worrying how the hell she would
be able to
make deadlines & How in hell she'd be able to offer them some much much
needed advise without coming off as a know-it-all butthead...she turned to
Star trek to teach her manners within the military chain-of-command that
is
the
unspoken rule of cor****ate bureaucrats too...) whatever, it's a job!!! she
felt she was
like "young wesley crusher", a noncommissioned officer (tem****ary worker)
who has
some smarts to offer, but has a hard time getting anybody's ear...well,
maybe that'll get better she thought, whnen a parent-company "quality
assurance" big dog has
comes in & offers much of the same advice that she gave 3 weeks before--
in that she was naive
even though she gave the advice in
writing she thought this would get her noticed-- when nobody would listen
to
her...she wondered, will they just hate me, or
begin to
listen/let me help?
-----Original Message-----
From: marika <marika5000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: aus.sf.star-trek,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
Date: Saturday, August 25, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Alan Ruck in Australia
>
>PW wrote in message
>>
>>
>>If only we could get some events like this in Perth. :-(
>>
>
>
>I'm sure there's more to come
>
>I watched an episode of STTNG last week where Data builds himself a
>daughter.
>
>LOL what a dumb name.
>
>Of course she was lolling better than him
>
>mk5000
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: marika <marika5000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Newsgroups:
>alt.startrek,alt.tv.star-trek,alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise,rec.arts.startrek
..
>misc,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
>Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 2:21 PM
>Subject: Re: [NEWS] - Quinto, Nimoy Trek Casting Confirmed
>
>
>>
>>Anybody wrote in message
>><010820071821498279%anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>>>In article <2007073122383916807-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Andrew
>>><thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-07-31 22:08:51 +0100, Anybody <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>said:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <2007073117044816807-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Andrew
>>>> > <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 2007-07-31 06:35:05 +0100, Anybody
<anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>said:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> In article <2007073022360816807-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Andrew
>>>> >>> <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 2007-07-30 22:22:01 +0100, Anybody
><anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> >>>> said:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> In article <2007073010345375249-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Andrew
>>>> >>>>> <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On 2007-07-29 03:42:37 +0100, Anybody
>><anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> >>>>>> said:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> In article <2007072900330516807-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Andrew
>>>> >>>>>>> <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2007-07-28 23:14:34 +0100, Anybody
>><anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> >>>>>>>> said:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> In article <2007072821042816807-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>Andrew
>>>> >>>>>>>>> <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2007-07-28 01:11:46 +0100, Anybody
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> said:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
>><p4uqi.46176$YL5.32909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Cubit"
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 9 months ago, I posted a YouTube video urging that the
>>original
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ST:TOS
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cast
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> be replaced with new young actors. Maybe someone saw
it.
>>Maybe
>>>> it
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> coincidence.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They aren't "replacing" anyone or doing some idiotic
remake
>>of
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> TOS.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They are making a prequel to the original Star Trek
series,
>>which
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> they obviously can't use Shatner and co. to play an 20
year
>>olds.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, they'll also be making lots of moronic
>>changes
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ignoring stuff we already know, so the movie is going to
be
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> useless,
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish within the frame work of "Star Trek"
as
>>we
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not that you're pre-judging it at all.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since they haven't made it yet, all we can do is
"pre-judge"
>on
>>what
>>>> >>>>>>>>> we
>>>> >>>>>>>>> currently know ... which is:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> - most prequels / reboots / reimaginings / remakes suck
badly.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Except when they don't
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Very rare.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> - re-casting of characters rarely actually works.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Except when they do
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Very rare.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Works well for Shakespeare. And James Bond.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Oh dear, here we go again - round and round explaining the same
>old
>>>> >>>>> thing over and over yet again. :-\
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Probably. but there is no evidence that this is the case
here
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Yes it is. They've already said they're not going to worry
about
>>>> >>>>>>> breaking with the past - the "facts" we already know about
the
>>Star
>>>> >>>>>>> Trek history. They've already called it a "reboot". This is
the
>>same
>>>> >>>>>>> problem that caused some of the hopeless mess that was called
>>>> >>>>>>> "Enterprise".
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Actually I thought Enterprise was rather good - especially
Season
>>4.
>>>> >>>>> <snip>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Season 4 may or may not be any good, but by then you've had (at
>>least)
>>>> >>>>> three seasons of garbage. A movie company is NOT going to sit
>>through
>>>> >>>>> making 50 crap films in the hopes that the fans like number 51.
>The
>>>> >>>>> franchise will be dead long before that.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> What was the point of snipping the main point of what I had to
say
>>in
>>>> >>>> order to answer an aside?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Your so-called "main point" wasn't relevant to the discussion
about
>>the
>>>> >>> movies.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I said Enterprise was a hopeless mess, you said it got better in
>>season
>>>> >>> 4, I replied that wading through three seasons of crap for a
>>supposedly
>>>> >>> good show isn't going to happen with movies.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No - the point I was making is that if a show gets bogged down in
>>every
>>>> >> little tiny detail of back-story, it becomes effectively
impossible
>to
>>>> >> tell good new stories. Some level of "breaking with the past" is
>>>> >> inevitable and should be welcomed. That does not mean, however,
that
>>we
>>>> >> can ditch everything.
>>>> >
>>>> > It's nowhere near "inevitable". That's the entire reason that these
>>>> > "remakes" are idiotic.
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing "idiotic" about them. They just don't have the
>>>> anally-retentive approach to continuity that some fans (present
company
>>>> excepted of course) have to the minutiae of Star Trek, or other, past
>>>> history.
>>>
>>>It's called being consistent. A muddled mess isn't of interest to
>>>anyone ... except of course those with short attention spans who can't
>>>remember the show that played last week, let alone a few years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > If a show is not worth continuing to be made, then don't make it.
>>>> >
>>>> > If a show is worth contuning to be made, then make it as it's
always
>>>> > been done since that is what the fans like.
>>>>
>>>> And there's no point in trying to get new fans.
>>>
>>>The rubbish called "Enterprise" proves that trying to get new fans
>>>doesn't work and is a pointless waste of time. People either like or
>>>don't like a franchise, the only new fans you'll get are those few that
>>>change their minds or are coming along fresh (usually these were too
>>>young the first time around and are introduced to the franchise by
>>>their parents).
>>>
>>>The ones who do like it, like it because of the way it is. Changing it
>>>is idiotic and slaps them in the face. The ones who don't like it
>>>mostly won't even bother watching a new version straight off because
>>>they see the name and say "yuck" (which is why Enterprise started off
>>>without the "Star Trek" prefix).
>>>
>>>Again, if the show isn't worth making, then don't make it. If you want
>>>to make a new show / franchise, then make a NEW one. Do not butcher an
>>>existing one simply to fill Hollywierd's greedy pockets at the expense
>>>of the fans who like the franchise how it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Or in telling different kinds of stories. But then again, IIUYC you
>>>> liked TNG. That wasn't making Star Trek as it had always been done.
>>>> Did you like DS9?
>>>
>>>Yet again, TNG *is* the same and (mostly) consistent with the original
>>>show, but it's also not attempting to be a "remake" reusing the same
>>>name - hence "The Next Generation".
>>>
>>>Deep Space Nine and Voyager are also (mostly) well fitting within the
>>>Star Trek universe. Personally I don't like Deep Space Nine's
>>>mumbo-jumbo about the Prophets, but at least that doesn't pee all over
>>>established facts.
>>>
>>>The franchise falls over with Beavis & Buttheads garbage ideas for
>>>"Enterprise" where they started trying to ignore what has already been
>>>established and use their own nonsense ideas. They didn't want to make
>>>"Star Trek", they wanted to make their own show ... which at least one
>>>of them later did do only to have that fall over as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > If they want to make a new show, then make a NEW show. Don't
butcher
>an
>>>> > older show and slap existing fans in the face with stupid
ill-fitting
>>>> > changes simply for the sake of stuffing Holyweird's pockets.
>>>>
>>>> So tell me. If Star Trek hadn't been cancelled in 1969, and they had
>>>> followed your ideas here. What do you think the show would have
looked
>>>> like?
>>>
>>>Whether or not the original was cancelled is irrelevant. We've already
>>>had shows that follow on the franchise properly: TNG, DS9 and Voyager.
>>>
>>>The problem is that Paramount has no idea how to make "Star Trek" any
>>>more and they've seen the new "Battlestar Galactica" (in little more
>>>than name only) be fairly successful so they want to jump on that
>>>bandwagon as well as the fad for making prequels.
>>>
>>>
>>>Believe me, I hope I'm wrong and those in charge do not make stupid
>>>changes, but from what we currently know and Hollyweird's history,
>>>that's looking less and less likely. :-(
>>
>>why worry, they'll make lots of money on it no matter what they do.
People
>>will come see it
>>
>>mk5000
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: marika <marika5000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>Newsgroups: alt.punk.straight-edge,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
>>Date: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:17 PM
>>Subject: trek
>>
>>
>>>i had this one boss, the entire first months she stayed at the hotel,
when
>>>she first arrived, she either had the guy down on
>>>the 2nd floor, the one that drives the executives, bring her to and
from
>>>work. Someone
>>>told her this was one of the privileges of being a boss.
>>>On the days when he wasn't available for whatever reason, her coworker
>same
>>>status and grade would drive
>>>her in. From across the street. It is a shame that people lose their
>>>memories as they age. With the additional
>>>snowfall, the sidewalks were slipperier today and some had never even
been
>>>shovelled
>>>in the first place.
>>>
>>>mk5000
>>>
>>>"it began last December, when I got an email from a friend saying that
>they
>>>were doing another Star Trek movie. It was right about the time my
>>>character started to emerge on heroes. So I started to talk about it a
>>lot,
>>>in interviews, with anyone. "--zachary quinto
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|
